Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk
Thread started 26 Jul 2012 (Thursday) 09:35
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Flickr ? - Are we just giving our photos away for free?

 
magoosmc
Senior Member
magoosmc's Avatar
810 posts

Joined Jan 2012

Keuka Lake NY
MORE INFO

Might be a dumb question but I'll ask anyhow. I recently opened a Flickr account in order to post images to the forum. I was admiring some of the landscapes that are posted here and followed the links to several members' Flickr pages. I noticed that most of the images that I looked at have a download option: "License All rights reserved by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Download the Large 2048 size of this photo" What prevents someone from filling their harddrive with free high res images and doing whatever they want with them?

Jul 26, 2012 09:35

flickrexternal linkhttps://www.flickr.com​/photos/22055591@N05/

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Joined Jan 2010

Toronto, Canada
MORE INFO

magoosmc wrote in post #14772274external link
Might be a dumb question but I'll ask anyhow. I recently opened a Flickr account in order to post images to the forum. I was admiring some of the landscapes that are posted here and followed the links to several members' Flickr pages. I noticed that most of the images that I looked at have a download option: "License All rights reserved by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Download the Large 2048 size of this photo" What prevents someone from filling their harddrive with free high res images and doing whatever they want with them?

Upload low resolution, watermarked images (I do max 1024px), which is enough to make a 4 inch print.

Honestly, if you put your images on the web, they can be downloaded. Full stop. So the best defence against image theft is to just put low resolution versions on the web. 1024 is sufficient to show off the images, but not large enough to do anything nefarious with, especially when watermarked.

Jul 26, 2012 09:42

Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canadaexternal link
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scansexternal link

Digitizing film with a digital cameraexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
magoosmc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
magoosmc's Avatar
810 posts

Joined Jan 2012

Keuka Lake NY
MORE INFO

In addition to those suggestions is there an account manangement section where you can opt to diasable the download feature? It's presence seems to be an open invitation to steal images.

Jul 26, 2012 11:07

flickrexternal linkhttps://www.flickr.com​/photos/22055591@N05/

LOG IN TO REPLY
mrbubbles
Goldmember
mrbubbles's Avatar
1,090 posts

Joined Oct 2010

NJ, USA
MORE INFO

If you go into the "Access to your original image files and other sizes" of your privacy settings you can set it to "Only You". This disables the download feature. You can then set the default viewing size for visitors to a size you only want them to see. Example: 1024. This will force users to see a certain resolution.

Other than that...anyone can steal the image you do allow to be viewed without a problem regardless of privacy settings.

Jul 26, 2012 11:16

Gear List
Zenfolioexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
howesit
Member
37 posts
Joined Nov 2011
MORE INFO

I'm with everyone else. Smaller resolution and watermark. Even with the "copy protection" and disabling the right click > save options on a web page, an image can be saved. If an image displays on the screen it's possible to save it.

Jul 26, 2012 11:20

Black box thingy with lots of buttons and a round tube sticking out with some glass on the ends and it keeps making this "click" sound over and over and over and over and over.
HowesItLook.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
7,058 posts
GALLERY: 27 photos

Joined Jan 2010

Suffolk, Va
MORE INFO

magoosmc wrote in post #14772274external link
Might be a dumb question but I'll ask anyhow. I recently opened a Flickr account in order to post images to the forum. I was admiring some of the landscapes that are posted here and followed the links to several members' Flickr pages. I noticed that most of the images that I looked at have a download option: "License All rights reserved by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Download the Large 2048 size of this photo" What prevents someone from filling their harddrive with free high res images and doing whatever they want with them?

Considering how easy it is to do a screen grab. . . .

Jul 26, 2012 11:23

VanillaImaging.comexternal link"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500pxexternal link
flickrexternal link
1xexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
8,617 posts
Joined Apr 2006

North Carolina
MORE INFO

1X...
500px...

You're giving your images away no matter where you post when you post online. Only way you can slow it down is to make them taste bad. Watermarking does that.

Jul 27, 2012 07:57 as a reply to Scatterbrained's post 20 hours earlier.

Websiteexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Pinterestexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
1,759 posts
GALLERY: 7 photos

Joined Nov 2008

South Wales, UK
MORE INFO

1024px for me

Jul 27, 2012 18:51

Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickrexternal link
My Gear - 7d, / 17-55mm / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 18/35

LOG IN TO REPLY
phantelope
Goldmember
phantelope's Avatar
1,845 posts
GALLERY: 3 photos

Joined Sep 2008

NorCal
MORE INFO

yep, show a low res image that's not worth printing or just don't give a damn. Or don't post online. Anything anywhere online can and will be copied and shared, no matter what you do. Sure, you can put some big watermark right through, basically ruining your image, or you can put a little on on the bottom, easy to crop out. But what you can see on your screen can be stolen and you can't do anything about it. If you want to show large, go for it. Unless you expect to sell large prints, does it really matter? Sure, it's irritating that some scumbag might copy/paste your image on their blog and pretend they took it, but really, so what. Nothing you can do about it, not even with a boatload of attorneys. As the music and movie industry had to learn.

Keep the resolution so that you can only make a small print (though even that can be up-rezzed to some extent) and let it go. Or don't post it.

Also note that places like Facebook basically can do what they want with your images until you AND everybody else that shared it removes it. Which is why I only post very small res images there, or samples but not the good ones I'll develop further.

It's the wild west online, and there's really nothing you can do, at all.

Jul 28, 2012 18:31

40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
milad93
Mostly Lurking
13 posts
Joined Jul 2012
MORE INFO
banned
SPAM PUT AWAY
This post is marked as spam.
ChrisSearle
Senior Member
ChrisSearle's Avatar
352 posts

Joined Nov 2007

My time is divided between Totnes, UK, Mumbai, India and The Ardeche region of Southern France..
MORE INFO

Personally I'm extremely happy for people to download and use my images in any way they choose, I take it as a compliment, I create them for the enjoyment and satisfaction they give me and if other people enjoy them as well thats a bonus.

Aug 02, 2012 02:46

Chris:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jeaunse23/external link
5D Mk iii, 1D MkiiN, 1Ds Mkii. Zeiss 21 mm Distagon, Canon 24-105 L. Sigma 150 Macro. Canon 400 L. Sigma 50 Nikkor 24 mm 1.4 Ricoh GRD3 Canon G1X Fuji X100,Sigma DP2M and a bunch of other stuff.

My Sigma DP2M blog at:http://chrissearlesdp2​m.blogspot.in/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
DisrupTer911
Goldmember
DisrupTer911's Avatar
2,318 posts

Joined Jul 2008

NJ, USA
MORE INFO

If I'm not mistaken doesn't Reuters or Getty have free reign on Flickrs pool of photos to use as they see fit w/o compensating the photog?

Aug 09, 2012 12:18

www.vividemotionphotograph​y.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
lensfreak
Senior Member
484 posts
Joined May 2012
MORE INFO

A BIG FAT YES!!!!!!!

Flickr is one of the worst places to post images, which is why I dont.


I had heaps on there and one day found my image on a generic travel website. Didn't bother going through the courts, just purged my flickr account and never went back.

I now water mark my images for this reason and in the past forum members flame for doing that, so you are damned if you do and damned if you dont.


Den

Aug 10, 2012 10:22



LOG IN TO REPLY
lensfreak
Senior Member
484 posts
Joined May 2012
MORE INFO

ChrisSearle wrote in post #14803392external link
Personally I'm extremely happy for people to download and use my images in any way they choose, I take it as a compliment, I create them for the enjoyment and satisfaction they give me and if other people enjoy them as well thats a bonus.

Chris, yes we create images for enjoyment. The thing is that I too would be flattered by those who use my images as their wallpaper etc. But there are those who lurk the net obtaining our photos which in turn onsell them to other people. They profit bigtime from your work and you weren't even paid for it. Its the same as you doing a photoshoot for photo resellers from now on for FREE!

I have had people ask me about some images on my site and I agreed that of course I dont mind them taking a copy for their personal use, its the bast#ards that profit from your hard work that annoys me.

Just to add another thing. Some users suggest lowering quality and size of the image to minimise theft. The funny thing is I tried that and had a client comment politely on how poor quality the image was and that it should be removed from my site. Lol, I explained the quality was dropped for a reason but in the grand scheme of things there is a potential to lose a sale if you downscale your images for protection. I look at people like Joey L and Joel Grimes, all their images are large and unwatermarked. I think for me when an image isnt paid for such as personal work, I like to protect it. I do put paid work on my site and dont worry too much as I know it has been paid for.

Aug 10, 2012 10:26



LOG IN TO REPLY
lilredss
Member
73 posts
Joined Jul 2009

Cary, NC
MORE INFO

Are any of the other sites for posting pictures any better than Flickr?

Aug 10, 2012 18:47 as a reply to lensfreak's post 8 hours earlier.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

7,510 views & 0 likes for this thread
Flickr ? - Are we just giving our photos away for free?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.33version 1.33
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00244 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is jeweltheG
802 guests, 785 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5175, that happened on Jun 16, 2015