Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by limiteD*, Oct 2, 2007.
I'd try to get some money out of them.
lowlike working for virgin mobile?
I think you can choose in your settings to put them under creative common or not. But I think in order to share it on other website, like your blog or other, then you ned to put them under creative commons...
Disgusting. I hope Virgin get absolutely pwnt in court. "fair use" my fucking ass.
Absolutely wrong. In order to post on another website you don't have to use a Creative Commons license, you just have to set your privacy settings appropriately.
You're confusing the privacy settings with the copyright settings. The default copyright is All Rights Reserved, meaning that absolutely no redistribution or publication is permitted on the photo.
However, if you select a Creative Commons copyright option it will override some of the privacy settings, allowing other people to download the original photo file. If you put your Flickr images under Creative Commons you are signing away some of your rights as the photographer, and that is always a bad idea.
that's how I was able to use images from flickr for the PS contest.... and if I remember this case, most of the big stink is over the fact that no model releases were obtained for any of the people in the ads.
thanks for the info, I did mix up,
but how can you use your pictures on your blog or personal website without putting the settings so you can download them outside of flicker and still remain copyrighted?
There are separate settings for linking the low-res images and downloading the original full-res images. You can still download the low-res stuff to your computer, but the full size files can't be linked or downloaded.
I would say more of it has to do with the model release, as in they're directly profiting off of the picture of her. Not merely that it was her picture, which it wasn't. If you listen, it says that the picture was taken by a friend, who the attorney doesn't represent. It's the fact that the picture was of her, without a release signed by her or her parents for the company to use the picture of her. Now if virgin took the picture, and she was in a public place, that becomes debateable. But they didn't. They need the authorization of the person in the picture before they can publish them.
Since it's actually in a different country, and under a company that isn't tied to the U.S. in any way, it will be difficult for them to win anything, and interesting to see what happens.
That's pretty much my opinion too.
So if I'm thinking right, if you post a picture you took of, say, a sunset, and a company used it after finding it on Flickr, you can't say shit, but if YOU were in that picture, you can say something. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that would be the debate for fair use, versus copyrighted info. Probably mostly dependent on the website you post it on. don't know about flickr
There is no debate about "fair use versus copyrighted info." The original creator of a work (written, photographed, recorded, etc.) by law has full ownership of the copyright on that work unless explicitly specified otherwise. That's the point I made earlier about the Creative Commons thing.
What you are talking about with fair use is entirely different. A copyright is a copyright and there's no debate about it. The debate in fair use cases is only is about the "intent" of a potential infringement.
Specifically, did the infringement defraud the copyright holder of capital gains for example.
Here's the specific subsection which governs fair use:
Link to full text: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Subsection 106 is worth mentioning too:
Now considering the use (advertising campaign), the company involved (major corporation) and that the image is readily identifiable and not a heavily modified/altered image that can't be attributed to a single author, it's VERY clearly not fair use under US law.
As for how this plays out with the abuse occurring in Austrailia, well that's anyone's guess. That would be the interesting thing to watch if this were actually a copyright case, but it's a privacy case.
I suspect the person that took the photo put it under a Creative Commons license, and even if commercial use wasn't authorized it would still be a ridiculously difficult case to win internationally.
Oh, and for what it's worth, it doesn't matter where you post a photo, the copyright coverage is the same UNLESS you specifically use a Creative Commons (or similar) licensing arrangement. Anyone that posts photos online without reserving all rights is just asking for trouble.
The web is not a giant free clip art gallery.
old news but interesteing nonetheless