If Flickr worries you, I wonder, have you ever used Wikipedia?
I think the disregard for copyright is something you'll find most "normal"/"averagejoe" people disregard too. It's like copying tapes or tracks to give to your friends or showing cutout magazine articles to a friend. The average joe doesn't see putting stuff on the web as publishing, as such, and have never given a toss about citation. It happens. A lot. Sorry to pop your bubble.
First of all, I haven't got a bubble (should I have? Are they all the rage this year?) and secondly, there is just a slight difference between giving copies of tapes to friends and running a highly public web forum which you are charging money to use and which depends in part on the attraction of pirated copyright material. You are right to say the average joe couldn't care less, but if I were running flickr, I'd be in fear of my life - specifically, I'd be afraid of this scenario - just think, 2.1 trillion images, maybe 1% are pirated, so that's 21 million images, and assuming damages awarded of £10 per image - this means PC Plod on your doorstep asking nicely for £210 million!
Rather you than me!
Regards,
Davcid
In reality, all you do is say "didn't know" and delete the images and ban the user and you don't lose any money.
And the reason why flickr doesn't have 2million eyes is that there's a link on every image page that allows a user to report the image for whatever reason.
Just the same, if I was involved with flickr, which I'm not, I'd try a bit harder to keep my nose clean: In my humble opinion, the following extract from the user guidelines:
<< Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photographs and/or stuff that you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time. >>
is the kind of thing that gets lawyers on the phone ordering a new Porsche.
On the other hand, I work with lawyers specialising in Internet law as part of the day job. Now, ask 5 lawyers what they think and you'll get 5 different opinions, but as a general rule the consensus over the many years I've been involved in the Internet business is this:
If you actively manage the content - i.e. say 'we will search for and remove copyright images' - then you are taking responsibility for that content, and if someone finds an image you missed you may be held liable in court for not removing it.
If you do not actively manage the content, but provide a mechanism to remove images which are reported, then you have a defence in court that you did not, and in practice cannot, claim to take responsibility for that content, and the liability rests with the person who uploaded the content, not yourself.
In practice, if you go the fully moderated "I'll make sure only legit images are uploaded" route then trust me on this - no insurer will touch you for insuring your legal liability. This fact alone tends to mandate the latter approach.
I think you're overstating the amount of pirated content on Flickr anyway. QUOTE]
I'm sure you're right, which is why I am still surprised flickr does not cover itself by saying "It is absolutely forbidden to upload material which is someone else's copyright, and if we become aware of any such material, we'll remove it immediately". To my mind, this would place the onus to respect copyright on the clients rather than the owners in the way you suggest but would not imply (as I think the present wording does) that flickr will tolerate pirated material up to a certain degree. And just to be clear - I'm not stating the amount of pirated content on flickr, I'm taking a wild guess, simply to illustrate the point that, even if the amount was very small indeed, potential damages could be ruinous. If I saw one of my images on flickr and no one seemed to be making money out of it, I probably wouldn't get too excited, but if images were pirated to which the rights are held by the likes of Corbis or another big picture library, I think the organic fertiliser could easily interface with the rotary cooling system!
Regards.
David
David, copyright on the internet appears to be nearly always 'self-policed' by website users as part of the terms and conditions of those sites. One glaring case would be Youtube, just type in the name of any music track you like, 99% chance it'll be there, I'm pretty sure copyright was not sought by the person posting the music.
If copyright was enforced as rigidly as you seem to suggest it should be, then Google Image Search could not exist. In fact I doubt you would see many images at all anywhere on the web except at image libraries.
As I say, that's the way the law works. A certain way to poverty is to claim legal responsibility for things which in practice you don't have any control over. Proactively monitoring or controlling things implies you are taking responsibility; any sensible operator who doesn't want to spend their life in court relies on a "we don't accept responsibility, but will cooperate fully with relevant parties when an infringement is brought to our attention" policy.You are quite correct - in practice, it does seem to be the way you describe. I'm surprised, but there it is!
Regards,
David
Apug group anyone?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/
Thats mine...
Currently my only real output source, as prints continue to stack up in my apartment...
Some really nice work...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?