[Colbyt]

Will some of you who use Flickr please tell me if I have this right and correct me where I am wrong. I spent a lot of time there today trying to determine exactly what the rules are but I want to be sure. Here is what I think I understand.

Not all images there can be used on a web site to display on my pages. All Rights Reserved basically means no use for free.
The ones with the creative commons license can be used subject to the restrictions posted by the owner with attribution only being the least restrictive.
Copying and using the HTML is all the attribution that is required. I think I will provide a visible photo credit line in addition to that; just seems more fair.
I could choose to download the image and serve it myself as long as I attribute per above.
If modifications and derivative works are allowed with attribution, I can crop the photo and use the crop.


Did I get any of that right?

What happens when a person takes an image down?
Obviously they can no longer serve it; but if I have downloaded it, can I continue to use it? The links point to the owner not a specific photo.


Anything else I should know?

[vonBaloney]

What happens when a person takes an image down?
Obviously they can no longer serve it; but if I have downloaded it, can I continue to use it? The links point to the owner not a specific photo.

That's always an interesting point, but once a license is granted and you are using it under that license it can't be taken away. In other words, you can't release something to the public domain, and then try to reclaim ownership and make someone take something down you don't like. So if they change their license terms how can you prove that it once was offered under a free license? Not sure you can -- screen shots of Flickr are hardly conclusive, although I'd save them anyway...

[Karl Stevens]

Copying and using the HTML is all the attribution that is required

No. CC licenses say that you must attribute the author in the manner they specify. If they specify their name in 100point text at the top of your page, then you must do that to be in compliance. If they don't specify, then linking to their Flickr page somewhere on your site would probably be OK, but I don't think that's what you mean.

If you hotlink directly to the image (so it's being served by Flickr, and not hosted by you), you must still provide attribution. Hotlinking is not attribution. Attribution is telling your viewer who took the photo, or who owns the copyright.

I think I will provide a visible photo credit line in addition to that; just seems more fair.

A credit line is attribution, but (again) if they specify a specific method, then you must use that method.

I could choose to download the image and serve it myself as long as I attribute per above.

Yes, and this is the preferred way to do it, because it will keep your site from breaking if they change or move the photo.

What happens when a person takes an image down? Obviously they can no longer serve it; but if I have downloaded it, can I continue to use it?

If they take the image down, and you're hotlinking to it, it will break your site. CC licenses are not revokable. If they take the image down, they can't prevent you from using it. See here:What_if_I_change_my_mind

You should probably read the entire CC FAQ (in my link above) it applies not only to Flickr, but to any other sites that provide CC-licensed material.

[Colbyt]

Karl,

I really appreciate your reply but hot linking is not what I had in mind. I abhor the practice of stealing bandwidth from others. Flickr provides the HTML code for you to include the image on your site or in forums. So the image is remotely served and the practical result is the same as hot-linking with permission. I am including an example below and I may need to break a URL so that it is not live.

PHP Code:

			
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thelebers/52823346/" title="Joist Floor by VeloBusDriver, on Flickr">
<img src="http://farm1.staticflickr.com/28/52823346_62f95ec763.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Joist Floor"></a> 




		

As you can plainly see it is a linked image served by Flickr.

Most of the files I looked at had no specific attribution specified so I assume that are agreeing to accept a link to their profile page.

The 'All Rights Reserved' images did not provide any HTML.

[Mike Cash]

Even for a CC image, it is a matter of simple courtesy to contact the person and ask.

[Karl Stevens]

Hotlinking has nothing to do with permission. Take a look at the definitions here: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hotlinking - hotlinking is a technical act, and can be done with or without permission of the target host.

Flickr provides the HTML code for you to include the image on your site or in forums. So the image is remotely served and the practical result is the same as hot-linking with permission.

There is no technical difference between hotlinking with permission and hotlinking without permission. The image is served by Flickr, so you're using Flickr's bandwidth. Just because you're doing it with permission, doesn't make it not hotlinking, and just because Flickr provides you with HTML code to embed the image doesn't mean you still don't have to provide attribution.

If someone sees your page, and all you have is images hotlinked to Flickr with no other identifying text, they're not going to know where the image is served from, or who the photographer is, without examining the HTML of your page. Seeing as most people have no idea that HTML is human-readable, they'll never see where the image comes from, or be able to follow it back.

As you can plainly see it is a linked image served by Flickr.

Yes, which is hotlinking. (As I said, just because you're doing it with permission doesn't mean it's not hotlinking.) The example above may or may not be what the photographer considers "attribution", as there's no explicit text (mouseover may or may not be shown in some browsers), but you do have a hyperlink to the image, which the user may or may not notice.

Just because Flickr provides embed code doesn't mean you're providing attribution - note that if you go to a Flickr photo that is *not* CC licensed, and is "all rights reserved", the link code still shows up. The link code is independent of the CC license.

Most of the files I looked at had no specific attribution specified so I assume that are agreeing to accept a link to their profile page.

Which is what I said - an actual, visible HTML link to their page, not just a hotlink to the image. You mentioned that you were going to do that anyway, ("photo credit line"), which (IMHO) would be attribution.

Even for a CC image, it is a matter of simple courtesy to contact the person and ask.

The purpose of the Creative Commons is so that people don't have *have* to ask. By placing the image under a CC license, the copyright holder has already given permission. I know people (Nina Paley and Trey Ratcliff) who put work under a CC license and get annoyed when people still ask permission. It's likely something to do with popularity - I can understand answering so many questions when you've already explicitly said "yes" could get under your skin.

[Colbyt]

If someone sees your page, and all you have is images hotlinked to Flickr with no other identifying text, they're not going to know where the image is served from, or who the photographer is, without examining the HTML of your page. Seeing as most people have no idea that HTML is human-readable, they'll never see where the image comes from, or be able to follow it back.

Which is what I said - an actual, visible HTML link to their page, not just a hotlink to the image. You mentioned that you were going to do that anyway, ("photo credit line"), which (IMHO) would be attribution.


The purpose of the Creative Commons is so that people don't have *have* to ask. By placing the image under a CC license, the copyright holder has already given permission. I know people (Nina Paley and Trey Ratcliff) who put work under a CC license and get annoyed when people still ask permission. It's likely something to do with popularity - I can understand answering so many questions when you've already explicitly said "yes" could get under your skin.

The code they provide does create a hover value showing the image source. I happen to agree that a visible photo credit for some one who is willing to share is a nice touch and one I am happy to provide and that is the policy I intend to use. It will either say photo courtesy of, or base photo courtesy of and link to their profile page. I would file a DCMA if someone copied my site images without permission so I need to make it clear when it is not my image. I would allow the use of just about any image I own in exchange for a back link so I think it it a good deal for all concerned.

I have used one image after a reply that it was fine. I have sent two additional requests as a courtesy thing. In each of those I mentioned that I wasn't sure if people wanted to be bothered with such requests or not. After following an additional link to the CC license page I do believe you are correct and that such an action is not required. I imagine some one will reply in that manner sooner or later.