Become a Fan

My Photo

Designed by

« Bags of choice | Main | Fa fa fa fa fashion (dahlings. Mwaaa!) »

July 02, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Hmmm, I completly agree with you about giving images for free.
But I have a flick gallery 'cos my site is curently down, no creative commons or anything, but I should realy check the fine print again, you brougt up some good points.

Greets Peter Perunovic

Seb Rogers

Hi Peter,

It's always a good idea to check the small print :) But even the lack of creative commons licenses hasn't stopped several high-profile cases of Flickr users' work being ripped off.

In many ways, it's a victim of its own success.


There's about six different Creative Commons licenses that let people do different things. I can't actually remember what the default is - anything I add to Flickr defaults to "All Rights Reserved" but I forget if that's the standard default or if I chose it :-) If it's not the standard default, I think it probably ought to be, or at least one of the "non-commercial/no derivatives" CC licenses.

Seb Rogers

I think there are, broadly, two problems. First, the Schmap case shows that even a 'non-commercial' clause can be legally wriggled around. For all that I disagree with Schmap's methods, they were at least thorough and scrupulous in sticking to the letter of the law.

Second, there have been plenty of cases where the license is just plain ignored. For every Schmap there are 10 unscrupulous chancers who will just help themselves.

The only way to prevent people like this from nicking Flickr users' pics is either not to post the pics in the first place, or make them not worth stealing by posting lower res, thoroughly watermarked versions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this blog

  • Google

free counters