Usage inquiry from a blogger

I received this today via Flickr ... has anyone else gotten anything similar?

I'm inclined to believe this is as it seems and give him the permission he seeks. Am I missing something?

Dear Jeremy,

I'm XXXXXX, a member of Flickr using the nickname

«xxxxxxx». I'm a divemaster and a deep lover of the

sea, living in XXXXXX (Spain). Congratulations for your

excellent and interesting work at Flickr!

I began to build a personal blog about the sea world. It's

URL is: xxxxxxxxxxx, I'm trying to make a

reference to all the seas over the world there, linking

great photographer’s albums inside the Flickr’s

community, related to the sea and its topics: diving,

biology, history, environment, or underwater archaeology.

I'm building a sort of 'Universal Underwater Atlas',

including references to remotes places I'll never be able to

go.

It would be a pleasure for me to create a direct link to

your albums for people to rejoice and

admire your work. I would like to access to the html code.

In this way, I'll be able to make a nicer introduction to

your album than using a simple link inside the text, just as

you can see for the other underwater photographers. In order

to this you could add me as a contact at Flickr, if you

don't mind. By this way, and introducing, if necessary, some

changes into your Flickr profile I’ll get what pretended:

You (then, go to the bottom of the page)>Your

account>Privacy and Permits>Who can blog your stuff>edit:

'You and any or your contacts', or (if you add me as a

‘friend’) ‘You and your friends’.

The post concerning your work at the blog will include a

reference to your copyright. There's also a generic legal

notice about copyright in the body of the blog. In the other

hand, there’s no commercial interest on the site.

I would like to get your permit for this, and I would be

very pleasant if you let me this links. I’ll make a credit

to your work, including, if you want, the information you

wish to publish in order to illustrate what you consider

relevant in the photo showings.

Posts use to be published in Spanish language. However,

considering the bad quality of the ‘computer

translation’ included as a tool in the blog, I’ll be

very pleasant sending to you a translation into English

–my rusty English- if you like.

Thank you so much for your attention. I hope the blog will

be of your liking.

My best regards for you, and congratulations again for the

quality of your works.

sounds to me like he is wanting to use flickr in the way it is designed to be used according to it's ToS .. and has set about it by asking you if you would like to give him permission to do so.

Choice would then be if his product is tacky do you want to let him use your images, if it is a great site then maybe could bring you some attention

Does he need permission to blog the images though?

Or could he maybe just use the share function?

There is also the new galleries function .. which may work too .. either way if he just wanted to use your flickr images he could .. it is well protected, but it is also easy if you want to to steal others images.

G

Does he need permission to blog the images though?

Or could he maybe just use the share function?

There is also the new galleries function .. which may work too .. either way if he just wanted to use your flickr images he could .. it is well protected, but it is also easy if you want to to steal others images.

 

G

Yes, he does need permission. Its good to see he's asked - he may well understand copyright and the need to seek permission and (where necessary) agree fees.

Its your image and you alone can decide if its worthy of free use. Have a look at the blog and see if there are any paid-for adverts, or if the content is intended to promote his services. If "yes" to either/both then its a commercial venture and your image is part of the advert.

If you decide to allow use, make sure the image carries a copyright notice.

Remember, to you the image may have little or sentimental value but the value to the client/user could be priceless. And so might the fee.

If you have not opted out of the Flickr API, people can (as in "nothing technically prevents them") get your images in searches and place at least thumbnails on their own sites without you even knowing, unless you check your stats. However, if you are marking your photos All Rights Reserved, the TOS specifically states that they are still required to ask your permission and obtain appropriate rights as necessary before doing so - simply having access does not equate to priviledge.

Not everyone respects this, as I've posted before, but this individual appears to want to. I'd say the request was in good taste, and gave all appropriate comments about you reserving full rights, they just wanted to 'link' to the original. Make sure the Flickr photos are linked the way we are supposed to do so here (see the sticky by Eric in the Photo and Album gallery forum, or on one of your own photo pages where it says how to use a link-back URL vs. just a 'direct link' to the static farm alone...so clicking on the photo in his site takes them directly to your photo page on Flickr) and I'd be willing to give a positive answer to a message like this.

It is very refershing to see that there are people who are politely asking for permission and explaining the intended use!

why dont you do your own independant site J? whats the advantage of flickr apart from the obvious?

Scuby:

I too have considered building my own gallery (although as a 'vacation diver' right now my photography is infrequently taken, rarely updated and not really good enough to warrant the effort). I don't like that Flickr uses white backgrounds, I much prefer viewing photos on black as in Smugmug etc....although the Flickr slideshow does it right at least.

In one sense I'd say the 'advantage' of Flickr beyond the obvious (laziness - all the formatting is done for you) is its central location so others looking for photos will often try a site like that first. I just recently got emailed by someone from Bonnier about possibly using some of my Mona and Monito photos for an upcoming article in Scuba Diving, as their usual contributors didn't have Mona/Monito pics.

Needless to say I was very excited - potentially my first "real" pictures in a scuba publication!! I don't think it's panning out (there was no promise implied or expected - they were going to consider some of them as they did their layout, and the photo editor may indeed have decided that they had better photos to use from other similar contacts) but the chance wouldn't have even happened for a newbie like me (don't let the post count fool you) likely without the Flickr 'visibility'.

I guess Google search et al might have found my photos if well tagged even on their "own" site - but I sorta doubt they'd have floated to the top as easily.

It is very refershing to see that there are people who are politely asking for permission and explaining the intended use!

Sorry to be a skeptic but something smells a little fishy here. If he wants to use your images that's fine but the modifications to your account is also a method used to build up credibility for later scams against somebody else.

The best thing to do is give permission to use your content (if you want), then look to see what he does with it, but do not modify your profile or comments in any way.

why dont you do your own independant site J? whats the advantage of flickr apart from the obvious?

I use flickr for a variety of reasons ... Online backup of JPEGs and Video files + sharing full-rez images with friends and family primarily. It is also a good place to host images for forums and whatnot.

I'm working on a website ... taking forever ...

why dont you do your own independant site J? whats the advantage of flickr apart from the obvious?

I use flickr for a variety of reasons ... Online backup of JPEGs and Video files + sharing full-rez images with friends and family primarily. It is also a good place to host images for forums and whatnot.

 

I'm working on a website ... taking forever ...

As a website developer I can tell you setting up a Flickr site is much better than a personal website because of the residual traffic. For a small fee you can modify your Flickr site to be pretty attractive. I have seen some real nice sites with black backgrounds, fading slideshows, etc.

If you are looking to sell photos a lot of people prefer the commission sites, again because of the exposure.

I am not against personal sites, they have their purposes, but in terms of traffic and exposure it is not even close.

Obviously if you are a well established photographer then your own site is "more professional", but by then you have enough residual interest.

For someone starting out you have three basic website options for exposure:

1- public sites like Flickr and Photobucket.

2- commission sites like seapics.com.

3- personal website.

I would do all three for different reasons, but the personal website would be my lowest priority.

I'm working on a website ... taking forever ...

Keep your website very simple and clean. It allows visitors to find what they are looking for quickly and easily, and it allows you to update quickly and easily. Too many websites throw in all the bells and whistles then rarely get updated.

There is no need for fancy designs, blogs or lengthy bios about your adventures or philosophical take on the world. A simple bio listing your experience or references and well organized galleries is more than enough.

To the guy who said that he MUST get permission, this isn't necessarily true. On flickr all my pictures have a non-commercial, non-derivative, attribution Creative Commons license. So a blog can link whatever they want, as long as they don't make any derivative works, is non commercial and they attribute me (name/link).

I think CC licenses like this are a wonderful thing

To the guy who said that he MUST get permission, this isn't necessarily true. On flickr all my pictures have a non-commercial, non-derivative, attribution Creative Commons license. So a blog can link whatever they want, as long as they don't make any derivative works, is non commercial and they attribute me (name/link).

 

I think CC licenses like this are a wonderful thing

If you're referring to me, I said IF you were marking your photos as ARR, then the Terms of Service state that wanabe users are required to get permission. Nothing 'forces' them to in the technology of the API (if you are not opted out of the API, they can still scrape your photos if they want to violate TOS), but they are indeed required to do so.

If you have your default settings on CC vs. ARR, then my statement has no bearing of course, which is why I included that caveat:

If you have not opted out of the Flickr API, people can (as in "nothing technically prevents them") get your images in searches and place at least thumbnails on their own sites without you even knowing, unless you check your stats. However, if you are marking your photos All Rights Reserved, the TOS specifically states that they are still required to ask your permission and obtain appropriate rights as necessary before doing so - simply having access does not equate to priviledge.

 

{emphasis added}

Haha always be specific on forums

I meant decosnapper in response to Giles. No need to go into indepth discussion about it though.