Ignorance, stupidity, or abuse?
Let me warn you that this post contains a link to some “adult”-type content; however, I’m posting it because I think it’s interesting how good social software systems can be used improperly.
A couple of days ago I stopped by ohishii, a site that scrapes recent, popular tags from del.icio.us. One of the sites listed there was flickrlicio.us so I thought, “hey, cool combo of flickr and del.icio.us, but what could it be?” It turns out to be a site that pulls images of females–dubbed “flickr babes”–from flickr. This particular site contains only clothed women, even though all photos contain the technorati tag “sexy” for what appears as “naked” and “nude” on the page (in other words, “naked” and “nude” point to the technorati tag “sexy”). A partner site does display nude pictures culled from flickr.
The interesting thing is the way the site operator has justified what he is doing. Here’s the entire legal page, which provides his rationalization:
This comes straight from Flickr.com’s Terms of Service:
The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!). However, pages on other websites which display images hosted on flickr.com must provide a link back to Flickr from each photo to its photo page on Flickr.
In the TOS the Flickr user agrees to: “…may not use the Flickr.com service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.” AND “You must not, in the use of Flickr, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright laws). ” AND “You are solely responsible for your conduct and any data, text, information, screen names, graphics, photos, profiles, audio and video clips, links (“Content”)that you submit, post, and display on the Flickr.com service.”
On the basis that these pictures are all hosted on Flickr and the publishers of these pictures, this site assumes no liability in any violation of laws in your jurisdiction. These pictures are the publishers and never become property of FlickrLicio.us nor any of it’s subsidiaries. AKA if your picture is in violation of the law, we are not to be held responsibile.
Also from the Privacy Policy:
If you post personal information online that is accessible to the public, you may receive unsolicited messages from other parties in return.Flickr does not rent or sell your personal information.What does this all mean?
It means that if you do not want your pictures to be reproduced or published, to make them private.
So obviously if you put something on the Web in a public space then it can be copied and used on another site, as long as the site provides a link to the original, right? Well, I know this is not true from my general experience, but I am not a lawyer. My guess is that the webmaster thinks the part “The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!).” means it is accepted/encouraged for anybody to post flickr-hosted images to outside websites, whether the images belong to the site owner or not. Where did I leave my clue stick?
It is not difficult to see that flickricio.us’s use of some images is a blatant violation of some photographers’ terms of use. Using the Creative Commons license, many users default their images to an attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license. Of the first ten images contained on the flickricio.us page, however, only one image allowed any commercial use. Eight had all rights reserved, and one was Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs. I wonder how those nine photographers like their images being used on a site that derives income from advertising?
If you doubt the webmaster has any serious money-making motivation, one only has to look at this post from his blog:
This stat came in today: Average successful requests per day: 206,266.
Holy smokes. Now on the site right now I have Google ads that are doing okay, but I am looking for more targeted advertising for the (FlickrLicio.us) site. If you have a product that you think would be geared to the crowd visiting FlickrLicio.us, I would love to talk with you.
And if you think that people are asked whether they want to be a “flickr babe” or not, just read this comment left by Samantha on the webmaster’s blog:
I think it is interesting that my image is on your SFW Offical Flickrlicio.us babe site, that the tags you added to it include the words naked and nude, and that I am fully clothed in my image. I also find it interesting that you did not ask me before making me a ‘babe’. I do not wish to be so on your site.
I suspect it’s only a matter of time until flickricio.us is shut down. Orrin Hatch and others in congress might be prompted to shut down flickr on the grounds that it is being used to thwart copyright. I think this case illustrates just how stupid it is to condemn a technology because some <expletive deleted> chooses to use it for illegal gain.
September 2nd, 2005 - 7:41 am
I created the site FlickrLicio.us. I found this post thru Technorati and have a few comments to make.
You said,”So obviously if you put something on the Web in a public space then it can be copied and used on another site, as long as the site provides a link to the original, right? ”
This is NOT true…I never once copy the image. I simply (using Flickr’s own system) create a hyperlink and img tag back to the original picture hosted on Flickr. I NEVER claim ownership of the picture, in any form. Heck I even post who DID create the picture on the site.
You said that the site contains similar tags, which is in part true. The posts that are created come thru extensive combing thru over 200 RSS feeds with specific Flickr tags. They do not all contain the same tags on Flickr.
The site has never and certainly will not make a single dollar. The cost of hosting a site, which the number of 200,000 visitors now has more than doubled, is costly. The purpose for google ads, etc on the site is to possibly recoup some of the hosting fees. As the creator of the site, I refuse to make any profit from it, and SERIOUSLY doubt it would even be possible to turn a profit.
You said, “And if you think that people are asked whether they want to be a “flickr babe” or not”
That’s true, it would be nearly impossible to post as many pictures a day as the site does if it had to contact the photographer each time. This is one of the wonderful things about Flickr. By accepting the Terms of Service, and publishing a PUBLIC image, you are giving authorization for the picture to be linked to in a blog entry. There is NO NEED, and Flickr representatives (and PRESIDENT) have confirmed this to me, to ask for permission. It is given the moment you post a picture publicly.
I will say that at anytime, for any reason, if asked to remove a picture..I remove it. Granted a picture might not be removed immediately, as that most people requesting their picture to be removed, never list any information that would allow me to find the picture (Flickr name, picture name, permalink, etc). That being said, I send out a form letter with detailed directions on how to get this information to me, so I can remove the picture.
All in all, I think that there are some factual inaccuracies in your argument about the site, and like I said, I don’t have to ask permission, but if asked to remove, I do.
September 2nd, 2005 - 9:56 am
Nick, thanks for the comment. I left a comment on the flicklicio.us “legal” page, but it never made it through moderation…
On your legal page, you say: “It means that if you do not want your pictures to be reproduced or published, to make them private.” I don’t think this makes any sense. There is all sorts of content on the Web that is copyrighted and can’t be reproduced or published. Just because it is available in a public space does not mean you can reproduce or publish it. That’s what I was getting at when I said , “if you put something on the Web in a public space then it can be copied and used on another site, as long as the site provides a link to the original.”
The majority of the photos you’re publishing do not allow commercial use. Whether you copy them or leech them is irrelevant–you’re still using them for a commercial purpose. Also, whether you recoup your investment/hosting costs is irrelevant. If I have a site that doesn’t turn a profit, does that mean that I can claim non-commercial status even though I might sell ads and try to either recoup my costs or make a small profit? I don’t think so.
Whether you claim ownership of the photos you publish is also irrelevant; it’s the use that counts.
You said: “As the creator of the site, I refuse to make any profit from it, and SERIOUSLY doubt it would even be possible to turn a profit.” Then remove the ads. Is this some new business model I’m not aware of? Hey, I’m only in this to break even, so the normal rules don’t apply to me!
You also said: “it would be nearly impossible to post as many pictures a day as the site does if it had to contact the photographer each time.” Yes, isn’t following the rules inconvenient?
All in all, I’d say it comes down to interpretation of the flickr TOS: “The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!).” You take that to mean anything is fair game; I take it to mean that one can post flickr-hosted images to outside websites but one must still respect the terms of use of the photographer.
It’s nice to know that at least you remove photos when asked. But you’ll also forgive me for not trusting your interpretation of the flickr rules when you yourself post copyrighted material to your own flickr account–your images tagged “flickrlicious”.
You can also follow a forum about this topic of flickr.
Thanks for bringing up the factual inaccuracies; this can lead to a good discussion.