Flickr woes

[kathytoth.ca]

Surfing over a few message boards, I have come to the conclusion that many are the victims of theft on flickr.

Now, I have gotten into making certain folders *private* and have clearly stated that all my photos are copyright and they can and are available for commercial use. ALthough this won't deter many people, I'm basically sick and tired of scumbags coming along and stealing photos for their own uses, particulary when they have the resources to compensate you for your work.

Over the past 3 months I have been spending more time blocking trolls ( 3-4 a day), who don't have icons, don't have profiles or even photos who semely go along and favorite all the photos that are in interestingness. Anyone know what this is all about? If you ever look at what they are favoriting, you'll be suprised to see that its all top-quality photography.

I feel as if this is some sort of scam. Its far too consistent to be random. Perhaps companies and media people are doing this, or maybe its just individual asshats.

I know people can display other people's photos as slideshows, and intregrate them into blogs, websites and so-forth, so I'm quite worried that this is an ongoing and serious issue. If of course u allow them (or anyone access) to see the full size image they could printing and selling your images without you knowing.

I now have very small images on my flickr and have blogging, and different size views turned off. Many of my folders are not viewable and I'm considering moving to another site, as well as having my own.

From what I've heard I know Rannie (photojunkie) has had problems with people selling his photos online too.

Anyone expereincing the same issues?

Death to trolls.

[Uncle Bill]

So far, touch wood, I have not been touched by the scammers on Flickr. I am carefull only to scan low res web friendly files. The scammers will have a hard time printing them at 100 dpi.

Trolls regardless their form should be taken to a public gathering place pistol whipped and socially ridiculed.

Bill Smith

PS Have our pathes crossed? I know Rannie through Toronto Photobloggers/TPMG/Flickr.

[Flyfisher Tom]

have you tried digital watermarking your photos ?

[Toby]

With anything I think I may be of commercial value I put a text layer at 50% opacity with two copies of my name and copyright notice like this.......

[blakley]

There's an extensive discussion of exactly this issue in this thread in the UTATA group right now. Apparently flickr is working on tools to make enforcement of copyright somewhat easier.

[Jamie123]

I usually upload very large original files on my flickr site so I guess it would be no problem for anyone to print them.

Having said that, I'm not too worried about someone stealing my photos. Frankly, I'd be surprised (and even flattered) if anyone was actually able to make money off of them.

[furcafe]

I also do not know of anyone ripping off my photos from flickr. Granted, most of mine have little commercial appeal (perhaps reflected by the recent thread by someone who doesn't "get" street photography), there are so many that I don't bother to keep track, & none of them are big enough to make prints from (@ least nothing bigger than a postage stamp or business card).

[PlantedTao]

No Jamie's attitude is not horrible...just that of a hobbyist.
Your pissed, Patrick, because you do photography for money, so of course you can't fathom somebody selling a pic for a buck...but to them it is worth it because it provides that 15 minutes of that somepeople crave...nothing wrong with that. To each there own...

Art should never have a big price tag on it anyway IMHO...and I love to see people out slang'n CD's for a couple bucks...f' the big corps...I'm tired of people trying to come up with a value for art...it is based on the individual and what they are trying to get out of it...art is not an industry.

jason

[Uncle Bill]

Speaking as a hobbiest, I would be very sharp in negotiating if a Fortune 500 came a calling for stock photography for their annual report. I do this for fun but, if I can make my hobby pay for itself, even better.

Any photos I post online are not print ready and if someone wants it, they have tc contact me first and then negotiate a price. I may be an amateur, I am not dumb.

Bill

[40oz]

Originally Posted by patrickjames

This attitude is amazing to me, especially since I know the true value of images. The problem is growing exponentially recently. Younger people (such as yourself, not that I am picking only on you) just don't get it. They think that everything should be free and cheap- i.e. music, movies, pictures. People put a lot of time and effort into learning and developing their craft and art, and the laws that are currently on the books protect this. Designers and art directors are preying on the people who post images to sites such as Flickr. The new stock sites such as iphotostock et al are undermining photography. IBM recently paid $1 for an image to use on the front page of their website. This person was happy that IBM was using said image. They probably have no idea that that usage was worth thousands of dollars! And IBM would have gladly paid it! Instead they pay $1 and laugh about it.

Your attitude Jamie is horrible. What if someone wanted to use your car without your permission? Or better yet if they stole your car? Would you be flattered then? After all we are talking about around the same amount of money here.

We are most certianly NOT talking about "around the same amount of money." So what if IBM paid $1 for an image? Why the hell do you care? Do you have a horse in this race? Is it even remotely possible that the folks at IBM would not have paid any substantial amount of money, or the photog was afraid any substantial amount would have spurred legal action from someone involved in the shoot?

This idea that EVERYTHING we do is somehow incredibly valuable, and anyone who fails to acknowledge that is de facto stealing from our pockets is an example of a horrible attitude. Yes, if you use my images to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, you probably should be paying me for them. But you'd have to point to many more than a single example of such before I'd believe it is a commonplace occurrance.

[ikiru]

Patrick et al,

A) There will always be a market for GOOD pro photographers. What there might not be market for is mediocre "pro" photographers. Why pay a bunch of money for a beach sunset stock photo when you can get a good one from istockphoto for $1?


B) Most people do art for pleasure.
Part of the fun is sharing--Humans like to interact. And one of the best things we
can get is respect and attention. Money (or a $5000 m8) can't make you take
photos that others enjoy.

C) Your car argument is bad. Someone using one of my photos in a presentation in texas(something That I'd never know), is not the same as taking my car. I only have ONE car, I can't make lossless copies at no cost. If I could do this, you would be welcome to have a copy of my car.

D) Maybe I gave you a copy of my car, and you turn around and start selling it...Now that would piss me off. That is what creative commons is for. You can copy my car as long as you share alike.

E) I think the REAL issue is that OLD people don't get it. You are not used to the new world yet.

F)If you don't like it, don't participate. Let the rest of us have fun, Keep your DRM on your ART!

G) Free exchange of the intangible has a long history. Ideas have been reused (with a citation) in academic papers since the dawn of time.


H) The selling prices of original art is at an all time high...why is this true when it is also really easy to make a copy these days?


ughhh
Don't get me started.................

[JoeFriday]

to the best of my knowledge, flickr downsizes images to a level where it's not commercial-worthy.. unless the images are used in webdesign.. I'll admit that's a possible abuse

there is also an option in flickr to make your photos 'unavailable for download'.. it uses a simple trick to disallow people from "click-download'ing them.. it's still possible to get the highest allowed resolution by going into the source code and bypassing flickr's UI.. but is it worth it to most people? I personally doubt it

but I just can't understand why people would favorite only top-quality photos.. that just doesn't make sense! [/sarcasm]

[vodid]

Brett, (Joe Friday) flickr doesn't downsize images, and I put all my images up at their highest resolution...perfect for "stealing". Okay, here's my take on it...although I fancy myself a worthy photographer, and get hired every now and then, the reality is that I don't make money from photography...I spend far more than I earn, and I'm not some youngster looking at the future...I'm 58. So what becomes of all my old photographs? They sit in a box until I die and then get thrown away? What a waste. I'd like them to be available to the folks who are in them, but I haven't seen some of these people for 20 or 30 years. I joined flickr less than six months ago, and MANY folks from my past have found the photos of them and their friends, and contacted me. I've received emails telling me who from the past has died, updates on a lot of folks I used to hang out with and party with. I've been contacted by a lot of people I haven't seen for decades. Pretty cool. I'm glad they can download large size photos suitable for printing. People with no connection to me whatsoever selling them...that thought is a bit troubling, but given the content of my photos, it's probably unlikely. On the other side of the argument...maybe I'm just naive, and that's why I've never made money from photography in the first place. Who knows...you can't escape yourself.

[celluloidprop]

Your pissed, Patrick, because you do photography for money, so of course you can't fathom somebody selling a pic for a buck...but to them it is worth it because it provides that 15 minutes of that somepeople crave...nothing wrong with that. To each there own...

But it's not really 'to each their own.' There is a valid question of whether or not an individual should sell stock photos cheaply because they can, because it directly impacts - and hurts - another group of people. And there's certainly a question of whether stock agencies and stock purchasers should purchase cheap images.

There is a moral and ethical dimension to the question that you're ignoring by saying 'nothing wrong with that.'

The $1 situation raises the same question as that raised by immigration and NAFTA/free trade. Immigrants (or individuals in developing nations) need and want work, for whatever wage is available, and there are always companies willing to exploit this to their benefit (legally or illegally) - and the process winds up hurting individuals who would otherwise take those jobs (factory work, janitorial, field work) for a decent living wage.

[PlantedTao]

I dont think you can place a price on that experience and are richer for it
Your experience is what I hope I get out of this hobby...not really look'n at the money side.
Cheers.
Jason

Originally Posted by vodid

Brett, (Joe Friday) flickr doesn't downsize images, and I put all my images up at their highest resolution...perfect for "stealing". Okay, here's my take on it...although I fancy myself a worthy photographer, and get hired every now and then, the reality is that I don't make money from photography...I spend far more than I earn, and I'm not some youngster looking at the future...I'm 58. So what becomes of all my old photographs? They sit in a box until I die and then get thrown away? What a waste. I'd like them to be available to the folks who are in them, but I haven't seen some of these people for 20 or 30 years. I joined flickr less than six months ago, and MANY folks from my past have found the photos of them and their friends, and contacted me. I've received emails telling me who from the past has died, updates on a lot of folks I used to hang out with and party with. I've been contacted by a lot of people I haven't seen for decades. Pretty cool. I'm glad they can download large size photos suitable for printing. People with no connection to me whatsoever selling them...that thought is a bit troubling, but given the content of my photos, it's probably unlikely. On the other side of the argument...maybe I'm just naive, and that's why I've never made money from photography in the first place. Who knows...you can't escape yourself.

[PlantedTao]

it does effect those who do it for a living...but that does not mean someone should sell there photos for more. The person that sold their photo for a buck got a lot out of it (I guess)...can't place money on everything.
And art and labor are two different things in my book...corporations are making mega bucks off cheap labor...IBM didn't make money off that photo really...they saved a couple thousand. woopie.

Art is becoming more of a shared experience that is allowing a lot of people to be able to obtain it for cheap...I think that is great. I love trading my art for other art or picking up a cheap print...I have paid good money for some art because I can't paint and create that work...every joe, brett and harry can do photography now...so down the price goes.

Being a mega corp and going to find cheap labor and putting people in horrible working, living conditions is just wrong. I don't see how this can be compared to this discussion.
I haven't seen to many artist suffering like those in the third world...I don't feel sorry for a pro photog who cant get a job and has a $5,000 camera strapped around their neck.

Originally Posted by celluloidprop

But it's not really 'to each their own.' There is a valid question of whether or not an individual should sell stock photos cheaply because they can, because it directly impacts - and hurts - another group of people. And there's certainly a question of whether stock agencies and stock purchasers should purchase cheap images.

There is a moral and ethical dimension to the question that you're ignoring by saying 'nothing wrong with that.'

The $1 situation raises the same question as that raised by immigration and NAFTA/free trade. Immigrants (or individuals in developing nations) need and want work, for whatever wage is available, and there are always companies willing to exploit this to their benefit (legally or illegally) - and the process winds up hurting individuals who would otherwise take those jobs (factory work, janitorial, field work) for a decent living wage.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by patrickjames

This attitude is amazing to me, especially since I know the true value of images.

What's the "true" value of my images? I, personally, don't value them that much. If you think there's money to be made with my pictures I'd be happy to share 20% of the profits with you

Originally Posted by patrickjames

The problem is growing exponentially recently. Younger people (such as yourself, not that I am picking only on you) just don't get it. They think that everything should be free and cheap- i.e. music, movies, pictures.

I don't think everything should be free but I do think some things should be cheap(er). But I'll save that for a different discussion.

Originally Posted by patrickjames

People put a lot of time and effort into learning and developing their craft and art, and the laws that are currently on the books protect this. Designers and art directors are preying on the people who post images to sites such as Flickr. The new stock sites such as iphotostock et al are undermining photography. IBM recently paid $1 for an image to use on the front page of their website. This person was happy that IBM was using said image. They probably have no idea that that usage was worth thousands of dollars! And IBM would have gladly paid it! Instead they pay $1 and laugh about it.

It's called a free market. If you can't sell your pictures because someone elses are cheaper than you might have to rethink what your pictures are actually worth. As far as price value goes they're not worth anything if no one buys them.

Originally Posted by patrickjames

Your attitude Jamie is horrible. What if someone wanted to use your car without your permission? Or better yet if they stole your car? Would you be flattered then? After all we are talking about around the same amount of money here.

I don't have a car. I use public transportation.

[celluloidprop]

it does effect those who do it for a living...but that does not mean someone should sell there photos for more.

Why? If IBM is using something that amounts to thousands of dollars in advertising for a dollar, why shouldn't they pay a legitimate portion of that to the photographer?

What micro-stock does is hurt people who make a living off photography, period. And eventually, it will mean that few, if any, people can make a living shooting stock and commercial, perhaps even editorial someday. Why bother hiring a trained photojournalist for your smallish regional daily when everyone at the scene can whip out their cell phone?

.IBM didn't make money off that photo really...they saved a couple thousand.

Two problems here:
1. Money saved is money 'made.'
2. That 'woopie' few thousand is a great deal of money to a struggling photographer who's being put out of the market by micro-stock.

Art is becoming more of a shared experience that is allowing a lot of people to be able to obtain it for cheap...I think that is great. I love trading my art for other art or picking up a cheap print...I have paid good money for some art because I can't paint and create that work...every joe, brett and harry can do photography now...so down the price goes.

I've been a long-time advocate of the 'cheap art' phenomenon. My interest in photography (and 'the paper arts' - printmaking, drawing, etc.) is an extension of ideology. Populism (relatively cheap prints, book reproductions) and social activism (a current running constantly through photography in the 20th century), don't exist in painting or sculpture in any relevant way.

But cheap art is irrelevant to a discussion of stock photography practices and commercial pirating of Flickr images.

I don't see how this can be compared to this discussion.

Because it's the same basic economic issue. Corp. A takes two groups of people (Factory Workers A v. Factory Workers B or Natives v. Immigrants) and faces them off in order to drive labor costs down - depriving both of an equitable share and at least one group of a living entirely.

That the people being screwed are photographers rather car makers or roofers only changes the terms of the issue, not the core.

[Russ]

Please excuse my ignorance, but how does someone know when one of their photos has been "lifted" from their Flickr site?

Russ

[PlantedTao]

all very true and I see your point celluloidprop
but my opinion remains the same - that every tom, dick and harry can take a photograph nowadays...so down goes the price, that is the market...some people value their photo only as a dollar and some don't, I don't think that is unethical or wrong.
If you value your stuff protect it...simple as that...apple did it with their mp3 downloads.

That the people being screwed are photographers rather car makers or roofers only changes the terms of the issue, not the core.

yeah, but a car maker and roofer provide something useful, I have a little more respect for them.

[gareth]

Well one solution is to use creative commons. Most of my pictures on my web site and on flickr are posted under a creative commons license.

That way people can use them non-commercially as they please, but it makes it quite clear that commercial use is not allowed. You have to contact the photographer for that.

Ikiru says,

There will always be a market for GOOD pro photographers. What there might not be market for is mediocre "pro" photographers.

I'm a part time photographer. Through my hobby people have begun to ask me for pictures for commercial use, and sometimes I pick up the odd commission. So many people ask me, when are you going to turn full time pro?

The answer is probably never. While there are some areas of photography that are still well paid, corporate and weddings for example, the area that I am interested in and work in, documentary, is not. Rates in documentary and news haven't changed in years, and more and more copyright grab is becoming part of getting paid.

So what is happening is that the good photographers are getting out. They either switch to doing weddings, editorial, corporate or they give up photography all together and find another career.

In this digital age there is no shortage of would be photographers to fill the gap, and as this happens and these people accept crap pay and copyright grabs they push the good guys further out.

For me it's much easier to make a living as a power station mechanic.

Perhaps Ikiru will be proven right in the long term. Either the standards in documentary will fall so low, that eventually the clients realise that they have to pay good money for good photographs, or perhaps this genre of photography in a professional sense will just quietly die.

[Terao]

The way I see flickr is as a means of advertising, the cost of which to me is that people can nick my photos if they want to. There are photogs out there who have gone from nothing to being high value commercial photogs just through flickr (and of course having talent). I like people commenting on my photos, and its a wonderfully valuable resource for research, history, etc. I just put a creative commons no commercial use license on my shots so should I happen to notice one of mine being ripped off I can sue the people using it. Big corporates are very hot on IP theft and it doesn't look good on their Corporate Responsibility scorecard if they get caught. If you think its difficult to take them on thing again - look what happened to Sony last year.
I also use flickr as an offsite backup for my shots so always upload fullsize high quality jpgs...

[Andrew Sowerby]

This is an interesting discussion. I like reading opposing viewpoints about something other than the M8!

Last weekend I met a fellow from NYC at a party. He was a full-time photographer, having worked for some big, hip clothing companies and magazines. He was talking with my girlfriend (a graphic designer) about fees. In his experience, a lot of clients wanted him to do a shoot for a few hundred bucks, which he felt was unacceptable. At first, I agreed with him but then I thought "they couldn't get away with that if there weren't a dozen other photographers of similar quality lined up to do the same job, maybe even cheaper." That's the problem with working in a creative field: there are plenty of people who will do for fun what you want to get paid for.

[40oz]

Originally Posted by Andrew Sowerby

This is an interesting discussion. I like reading opposing viewpoints about something other than the M8!

Last weekend I met a fellow from NYC at a party. He was a full-time photographer, having worked for some big, hip clothing companies and magazines. He was talking with my girlfriend (a graphic designer) about fees. In his experience, a lot of clients wanted him to do a shoot for a few hundred bucks, which he felt was unacceptable. At first, I agreed with him but then I thought "they couldn't get away with that if there weren't a dozen other photographers of similar quality lined up to do the same job, maybe even cheaper." That's the problem with working in a creative field: there are plenty of people who will do for fun what you want to get paid for.

Well, if you have $10-20K in gear, I can't see how you could make a living working for a couple hundred bucks a day. And once you start doing that, why would anyone be willing to pay you more? Quite often, people ask me to do a site for their business. When I give them a quote, they act like it is outrageous. They can't seem to grasp that my price isn't arbitrary any more than the price of their goods.

I can go to a car dealer and ask to buy a new car for $500, but they will say no. There may be used cars out there for that price, but it is hardly the same thing, and I can certainly not expect that all cars are worth no more than the cheapest I could buy one.

Just because someone is lowballing doesn't mean they know something you don't. Much more likely, it's the other way.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom

have you tried digital watermarking your photos ?

I do this, as well as tagging EXIF data, and doing two types of image watermarking (one immediately visible, the other only shows when I do some other processing). People complain about the watermarks, but that's exactly what the watermarks are there for.

In the beginning I made these very prominent, but they really were too distracting. Then I went ahead and started doing the other "stuff".

Another thing you could do on flickr is just post small 800x600 (this could be too big for many people's taste, too small for others'; it's the Internet, you'll never please everybody).