Chicago Tribune treats flickr as its free stock photo service

[theorris]

Any one else have the Chicago Tribune treat their flick photos as free stock photos, despite specific copyright/create commons licenses?

I as because today I was informed that a photo I posted on flickr suddenly appeared on the web version of a Chicago Tribune wire feed story from the NY Times. My image has a creative commons license for non-commercial full credit usage only. The Chicago Tribune never contacted me about the image and they only credited it with "flicker.com". This suggests to me that someone there (without proper editorial supervision) thinks that flickr is some sort of stock photo service that the Chicago Tribune can make use of without proper credit.

Thoughts? Action?

[Frog]

Welcome to the forums and sorry your first post is a negative for you.
There have been many discussions on copyright of photos.
Have you contacted the Chicago paper and/or flikr? or a lawyer?

[Photo-John]

Welcome to the site and thanks for posting, theorris. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about Fair Use. You'd think a publication like the Chicago Tribune would know better, though.

How long ago did this happen? Have you taken any action yet? The first thing I would do is register the image with the US sopywrite office. It doesn't hurt to have it registered and it will give you better legal standing if and when you do take action.

[drg]

Any one else have the Chicago Tribune treat their flick photos as free stock photos, despite specific copyright/create commons licenses?

I as because today I was informed that a photo I posted on flickr suddenly appeared on the web version of a Chicago Tribune wire feed story from the NY Times. My image has a creative commons license for non-commercial full credit usage only. The Chicago Tribune never contacted me about the image and they only credited it with "flicker.com". This suggests to me that someone there (without proper editorial supervision) thinks that flickr is some sort of stock photo service that the Chicago Tribune can make use of without proper credit.

Thoughts? Action?

Welcome to Photography Review.

I looked at your images on Flickr and if you are the same 'theorris' here at PR as there, Flickr, I know what the problem is regarding this issue.

Your images are not marked properly. There is a selection for each photo once posted that lets you look and see what the hyperlink for the Creative Commons Credit is and how it will be posted automatically. Yours on the half a dozen or so photos I looked at are the 'default' entry for flickr.

When you enter a photo there's a link URL box that lets you update and change for each photo. There's a setting in your account that marks 'all' photos the same way for the URL box unless you change individual images. If you don't set this up it defaults to 'flickr' as the source. This default lists the image number and a reference but it will not show your user name or personal name for copyright unless it is set up correctly.

There has been some problem with users at different time of signing up for many of these photo sharing sights getting a different default setting and not knowing it.

Look at several other users images and click on the Some Rights Reserved and see what how their URL is set for comparison.

Note: If you apply a standard All Rights Reserved © statement then there is nothing to click on as the 'legal standard' behavior applies.

This particular issue brings up allowable use doctrine which isn't really settled and doesn't truly protect an owner. That's regardless of their intent. They, the user must specifically mark the photos or the image is effectively Public Domain. In this case you have several hundred good photos (and some are very good) that are unprotected if they all are marked as the half dozen I looked at in the past hour.

[theorris]

I have no problem with people using my photos for non-commericial purposes. My images are clearly posted with a Creative Commons non-commercial license. I am not insisting on complete copyright here, but I am insisting that the Chicago Tribune adhere to the license I have put them under and the license that Yahoo (flickr) supports. I don't mind others using my images as long as they are not profiting from them, thus the license that I purposefully chose.

This is not a matter of ignorance. I am very familiar with copyright law and with Creative Commons and don't need a lecture on my negligence. This is a matter of the Chicago Tribune ignoring a license. The New Media Editor of the Tribune (Bill Adee) admitted as much in a tweet---well he admitted they didn't properly credit them.

With that, my image has been removed from the Chicago Tribune web site and I am waiting to hear from them on remuneration.

This all happened last week. I will keep you all posted.

[drg]

I have no problem with people using my photos for non-commericial purposes. My images are clearly posted with a Creative Commons non-commercial license. I am not insisting on complete copyright here, but I am insisting that the Chicago Tribune adhere to the license I have put them under and the license that Yahoo (flickr) supports. I don't mind others using my images as long as they are not profiting from them, thus the license that I purposefully chose.

This is not a matter of ignorance. I am very familiar with copyright law and with Creative Commons and don't need a lecture on my negligence. This is a matter of the Chicago Tribune ignoring a license. The New Media Editor of the Tribune (Bill Adee) admitted as much in a tweet---well he admitted they didn't properly credit them.

With that, my image has been removed from the Chicago Tribune web site and I am waiting to hear from them on remuneration.

This all happened last week. I will keep you all posted.

Clint,

Glad to know that the Vice President of Digital Development and Operations took the time to respond to this issue. It could restore some faith for all in some media outlets ability to be responsive.

Some of your pictures are still labeled via the Creative Commons (CC) as being partially from your 'website' and not from you! The statement you append in your flickr profile is not what a user is going to look at in the context of the cut and paste usage. The info embedded or appended as the html link is what they, per DMCA, need to respect. Your Creative Commons restrictions are linked to the 'signifying' Photostream at flickr and not to your name. The CC link merely drops one back to the licensing page and not to your usage statement.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/signifying/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

You might want to edit the link so that it takes potential users to your profile page so they can specifically read how you wish to be credited as these Creative Commons 'licenses' are open to negotiation and interpretation even when specific.