"artist" using other peoples flickr photos for an installation

http://news.yahoo.com …ckr-photos-114345507.html

This artist took every single photo uploaded to flickr in a 24 hour period and put up in an installation.

thoughts?


My thoughts, when I upload a photo to my sites they're mine, you cannot print them to make a statement for yourself as an "artist." It's my right to publicly my work, not his right. This may not be what others think. Am I the only one that thinks that this is my property and he cannot use it without my consent?

Then change the copyright settings on your flickr. It defaults to all rights reserved, the article didn't specify if he only took Creative Commons photos, which he very well may have.

If you're really that sensitive about ownership, you should also put up huge hedges in front of your house, what if another photographer takes a picture of your house and uses it?

Don't show it to others if you don't want them to use it.

It's hypothetical, I do not have a flickr acct. he didn't use any of my photos. I do hold copyrights (through the copyright office) on all my photos.

"ARTIST" ?

As long as the photos were, indeed Creative Commons licensed, I don't see a problem.

Kinda makes it sound like he used copyrighted photos...the way they say "literally" every photo. In which case he's going to have lots of copyright related fun.

Sooooo, you're happy with uploading to Flickr and sharing with millions in digital format, but not with being shared with a handful of people who might walk through a gallery space? Anyone using Flickr's API can exploit your imagery legally. Google image search exploits your Flickr images. Facebook targets advertising at you depending on what you tag your images with.

Another newsflash here - the work is about over saturation of photographic images. It demonstrates the complete lack of value that individual photos have these days. And yet you can make lots of dosh if you can convince millions of people to upload to paid for accounts.

To be honest, the value in photographic images is already beginning to shift from their visual content to the data that they store in EXIF. Geo-locational data has some incredible potential and I've already seen research being done into migratory patterns of bird species using geo-tag data from Flickr shots. The ultimate in crowd-sourced info. How long until we get object recognition in-camera? It's coming....

I'd be chuffed if any of my pics had been used in this piece

How is that art? These days anything is considered art

I'm curious... Doesn't it bother photographers that everything they post on Flickr gives Yahoo the right to use that material as they see fit without infringing your copyright or being obligated to acquire your permission to re-use it or even paying a royaly fee? Seems like everyone here uses Flickr, and my question, for any Lawyers here, if someone posts a picture on Flickr, knowingly waiving thier copyright(s) publically does that constitute failure to preserve their copyrights in which case they could lose them?

Reposting here a section of their EULA for educational purposes:

"9. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:
a. With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

b. With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

c. With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Yahoo! Services are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services would include Yahoo! Message Boards and portions of Yahoo! Groups and Flickr that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services would not include portions of Yahoo! Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo! services intended for private communication such as Yahoo! Mail or Yahoo! Messenger, or areas off of the Yahoo! network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Yahoo!.
"

Well, for photos and other such "creative content" they specify that they can use it either "solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available" if it was posted in a Group or "solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available" if it was posted outside of a Group.

I guess that they consider it an extension of "fair use", it's up to you whether you want to use the service!

this happens all the time, i haven't seen a good solution for it yet.

On sites like Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, etc. you are not the customer, you are the product. Keep that in mind whenever you join a site that's free of charge that allows you to do stuff that costs the site owners money. They need to recoop that somehow so, if they can't sell something to you then they will sell you to their real customers...

Did you see the installation? http://4.mshcdn.com …ads/2011/11/630​stairs.jpg (There's a small corner of it lol)

Photographers get away with taking pictures of people without their permission so long as they "aren't recognizable" all the time. If you can find one of your images in that heap and feel it's an integral part of the piece then feel free to sue I suppose?

To me, this is very different from snagging a single photo off Flickr and using it as a "stock image" for your own art, or just snagging pictures off Flickr and displaying a few traditionally in a gallery.

Plus, I doubt he's making big bucks off of this.

baj2k wrote in post #13726587
On sites like Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, etc. you are not the customer, you are the product. Keep that in mind whenever you join a site that's free of charge that allows you to do stuff that costs the site owners money. They need to recoop that somehow so, if they can't sell something to you then they will sell you to their real customers...

Excellent point.

Besides, there is no such thing as a practical enforcement action outside of the USA.

I think it's a great idea, and shows how much crap the digital age has brought us.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13400248
How is that art? These days anything is considered art

It's much more art than most of the pictures printed, or many event/sport aka documentary photographs. Not to say those don't have any creativity, many have tons— but art, at it's core, is about a message.

It's a bit disheartening to see photographers miss that and complain about potential copyright issues.