Wed, December 12th, 2007 by Brandon Stone
This morning I was reading Robert Scoble's blog where he made some comments about Lane Hartwell, an active Flickr user and contributor to several publications. She decided to remove a large number of her photos from Flickr for copyright reasons. Here's an excerpt from Lane's explanation of her decision:
I’ve been a very loyal flickr user for almost 3 years. I had just under 5,000 photos here with almost a half million views. Most of my friends are fellow flickr users. I love sharing my images here and have really appreciated all the support and comments that I have received. This was not a happy decision I made and my heart was sinking as I watched 4000+ images disappear.
I don’t want to disparage flickr in any way over this. It’s not their fault that some people are dishonest scumbags who consider flickr a source for free photos. Flickr is clearly not a pro photo storage/gallery site. I get that. I *do* wish, though, that flickr would innovate a little more to keep up with the growing talents of the photographers here, who are producing higher quality images every day and are at risk of being ripped off. Did you know that someone can embed one of your sets as a slide show into their website, even if you disable downloading? That happened to me 2 weeks ago. My recourse was to remove the photos so the thieves would not have access. So I hope that flickr becomes aware of things like this and works harder to protect their photographers.
Robert's response is to say, "Steal my content, please!":
I’ve found that the more I give away my content, the more magical stuff happens to me anyway and if that means my photos or writings or videos get used in some way that I don’t really like, well, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. Lane obviously is not.
These are two very different approaches to internet distribution and copyright:
The first option appears to place more value on the content itself, whereas the second option makes the assumption that there's something of value beyond the content. Maybe there isn't a single "right" choice. Maybe these are just two different approaches/tools that creative-types can use to their advantage under different circumstances.
On a semi-related note, I wonder if Radiohead will continue to give away free digital downloads of their future albums the same as they did with In Rainbows.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Seems like a pretty bizarre choice to me to remove all your photos from flickr because someone chose to embed a feed on their site. I would assume the feed would redirect the clicker to flickr and then the user would see who the author is.
I have absolutely no idea who Lane is or what the quality of her work is, but downloading content to view is a pretty fundamental concept that the web entirely relies on. This is how caching in a browser even occurs in the first place. Maybe she needs to watermark before uploading if she is worried about being ripped off. It sounds like she made a fairly emotional decision based more on her lack of recourse rather than making a decision based on what the reality of posting on the internet means.
Personally I limit the size and quality of my uploads and people are notified of the copyright on my website on every page. I do acknowledge that people could easily right click and save my photos, but having photos online has lead to real paying gigs which I quite enjoy. Big time exploitation (like that flickr girl on a bus stop in Australia) requires hi-resolution, which I do not provide.
Interesting discussion.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Hmmm this is interesting. I had a Flickr account that for a very long time went unused. Then I went through a spell where I uploaded regularly, I joined a few groups and that was sort of fun. But I quickly got bored with it because I was uploading the same photos to Flickr as I was to my photoblog. I didn't see the point of having both. No matter where you upload your photos, whether its to Flickr or to a photoblog, or even a professional portfolio, you run the risk of someone stealing your stuff, I get that. But in the end, I realized that Flickr just wasn't for me, and I deleted my account. No regrets.
December 15th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Lane is a professional photographer. That's what she does to put food on the table. Scoble, on the other hand, has other income that puts food on his table. It's easy to say "steal my content" when it's not feeding your children. I wonder if his tune would change if the circumstances were reversed.
I use flickr because it's easier for my family to view a lot of photographs on. Yeah, it's usually the same content that's on my blog but they are two very different audiences and I'm ok with that.
I use full copyright on my photos and I think about that a lot. I would love to share. I just want no derivs and attribution. What I find, though, is that people don't always give that. They don't look at the fine print of a CC license. Also, unlike Scoble, I care about the end-product that my photographs go to represent. I don't want my photographs being used for items, companies, or philosophies that I don't support.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I'm with Scoble on this - I think that anyway I can possibly get my photos out there and in the public eye - the better. If they are awesome and someone wants to buy one to use for some reason - great! Buyers must SEE the photos first. Better if they're passed around all over the web too - since more will see. I don't have a photo blog but I have a couple pages of photos in a nice index that I showcase some of my best. At the AimforAwesome home page in the top left are links. Go see! Steal them! Pass them around!
December 19th, 2007 at 8:14 am
I think the thing to remember here is that both Hartwell and Scoble are correct here. You do with your images what makes you comfortable, and you accept that others do the same with theirs.
A lot of people get to the point where they have to make a choice between the paths Hartwell and Scoble have chosen. For some it's an easy choice, for others not so much. But either way, I wish people would respect others decisions instead of arguing over which was the right path, and which was the wrong one. It's a moot point.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Davin, just to clarify something in your comment #1...
Lane did not remove her photos from Flickr because someone embedded a feed on their website. I'm not sure where you go that from. Her problem was that many people downloaded individual images of hers and then used them in their publications and websites without permission and without even crediting her. The recent YouTube video by the Richter Scales was just one example.
Having said that, I'm not taking sides with either party in this discussion. I agree with Catherine Buca, here, that the correct decision may be different for each of us.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:32 am
maybe they don't know they can't use as they like.