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

[lensfreak]

500px

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by DisrupTer911

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?

Nope, that would be a copyright violation, nothing like that in the ToS.

For that to happen you would have to opt for a creative commons license with permission for use in a commercial work.

[ChrisSearle]

I've been giving this some thought. Personally I view my photography as the very antithesis of 'hard work', its what I do to please myself and to relax and have some fun with friends. As I stated earlier if people want to use my images then my view is that they are completely welcome, far better if someone else can get something from them ( yes, even money) than they just languish on hard disks.
However, the point has been made, to some people this is indeed 'work' ( poor them) and so I have to ask myself if my freely sharing high def images is taking away the opportunity for someone to earn their living... having considered it, and looked at my Flickr stream I conclude the answer is most definitely 'No'. Why is this? Well firstly my stuff is pretty crap compared to a professional and secondly it only gets looked at by friends and family except in the case of some of my natural history work and then I do get asked occasionally if pics can be used, usually for academic reasons as the subjects are fairly esoteric, I dont see anybody grossly profiting from macro's of horse flies for example....
Nevertheless, I am reducing the image size to under 2mb from the previous 50mb and hoping that this is of overall benefit to the photography community at large.

[h14nha]

Thats very noble of you Chris. I recently gave an image away for free to someone who contacted me through Flickr. They wanted to use the image in a book. The usual story, no money but an accreditation in the book for my image.
When the book came out, low and behold, they had missed the credit for my picture. Not the fault of the person who had written the book, and researched Flickr for pictures to illustrate it, but all the same I wasn't too happy. I expressed my disappointment and was told the error would be corrected in subsequent publication runs.
I too am considering watermarking my images from here on in. I do save low res copies of my images anyway but was told the other day of a program that can up-size our low res pictures. I am thinking of closing my Flickr page now too. I don't want to take money from people who want to make a living from photography ( although maybe they should make sure their shots are better than us amateurs ) I sure don't want someone to steal my shots to profit from them by selling them on. perhaps an ugly watermark is the way to go even though it spoils the image somewhat

[SuffolkGal]

Originally Posted by ChrisSearle

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.

With respect, that's great if you don't need to make a living from your photos.

I'm using Flickr until I get to the standard I want/need to be at, at which point the account will get shut down or used for freebies/fun stuff.

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by SuffolkGal

With respect, that's great if you don't need to make a living from your photos.

I'm using Flickr until I get to the standard I want/need to be at, at which point the account will get shut down or used for freebies/fun stuff.

Why not just upload your images in a low resolution and use it for promotion? Ultimately anything you put online has the potential to be stolen, but if you upload relatively small files that are branded/watermarked, most agree that the risk of theft is outweighed by the advantage of promotion.

[jakefreese]

Originally Posted by mrbubbles

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.

This is what i do. No matter what if its on the Web someone can grab it. Download disable, right click disable, easy to get around. If i can see it i can get it. Low res and water mark is your only deterrent. Since i use Flickr to backup my images i just have the download restriction and max viewable file size and watermark.

[SuffolkGal]

Originally Posted by ceremus

Why not just upload your images in a low resolution and use it for promotion? Ultimately anything you put online has the potential to be stolen, but if you upload relatively small files that are branded/watermarked, most agree that the risk of theft is outweighed by the advantage of promotion.

Yes, I may well do that

[julianhj]

I read this thread with interest, then went and changed all my Flickr settings. Thank you!

500px seems to be a much higher standard (though that may be because I just look through the top rated stuff I guess!).

[lucasstahl]

I recommend 500px.

But no matter what(as others have said in this thread). When you upload a photo to the internet, it has the potential to be re-use and printed without your consent. I suggest throwing a watermark on the image that cannot be cropped out and doesn't distract the composition.

[Geonerd]

Originally Posted by DisrupTer911

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?

Look at the 9th section in the terms of service
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
This seem to preclude the typical 'image grab' that may companies try to sneak past users.

[David Arbogast]

This thread, discussing image theft, more appropriately belongs in the General Photography Talk forum where the issue of image theft and theft-deterence has been discussed repeatedly. This is just one of those subjects where you're better off doing what is most comfortable to you; everyone has different levels of comfort/concern.

[socalrailfan]

Most of my sales and non-profit uses of my photos come through Flickr. Also i got connected with Getty Images thanks to Flickr and now have right at 200 images for sale and I'm starting to make money monthly after 7 months. I like sharing my work and all the sales are bonuses. Thanks to Flickr I just got asked by the Sierra Club to use several of my images for a website upgrade they're. I personmally dig something like that. If people like my photo and use it for personal use I see it as a compliment.

[Jedi5150]

Originally Posted by lilredss

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

I have a Flickr account with just a few photos on it, since my mom and sister talked me into starting one.

But to answer your question, I greatly prefer smugmug.com. I believe it is owned by some folks at advrider (an adventure motorcycle forum...with incredible photography threads for those interested...check out the ride reports). Smugmug is very user friendly for hosting and sharing photos...much easier IMHO than flickr. You can also do a great deal of customization for your particular site, which unless I'm mistaken is better than flickr. I know of several pro/ amature photographers who use smugmug as their website. I use smugmug almost exclusively.

[Archbob]

The licensing thing helps a bit but most people just take pictures from Flikr without looking at the license. If I'm looking for a certain photo, I generally look only for photos that are CC1(creative commons, attribution only) photos to use. But there are so many Public domain photo repositories, i really don't need to use flikr anymore. I usually use a combination of my own photos and public domain ones for my projects.