Yesterday Dave Winer announced the release of FlickerFan. FlickrFan (see FlickrFan.org for product details) enables Flickr users with a MacMini connected to their TV to display photography from their Flickr Contacts. This automatic feed is actually very cool and the type of use is a really nice way of displaying some great photography in a larger format. Robert Scoble ran a quick demo and fielded questions about FlickrFan yesterday evening see the two parts of this demo on Robert’s Qik page.
There is one catch that concerns me though… one of the key behaviors of the software that Dave has produced is that photos from one’s Flickr friends are downloaded from Flickr without sensitivity to the copyright license chosen by the photographer. The last thing I want is to rain on the parade of this cool application after all the program functions only for those specified as your friends on Flickr. Even still friends also have to abide by copyright license restrictions also and the lack of logic to address this is troubling. I suppose if the images were displayed directly from Flickr it could potentially be a non-issue, but since the files are actually being copied and stored outside of Flickr on to another persons computer this becomes a problem. This also is not the only application that does this. I’ve discussed this very issue with other fans of my work on Flickr before and its an on going topic of discussion.
FlickrFan is just getting off the ground so I’m eager that Dave will be able to address the questions relating to this that I’ve sent him via Twitter. He did hear my question during the Scoble demo last night, but opted to end his call before answering. All in all I’d like to see this application get some traction as I think its very cool and would like to see it expand to other types of hardware platforms, but would like to see the licensing issue addressed first.
Dave if you’re out there I’m available to talk about this to help you out. For photographers just catching wind of this, this is a perfect example of how new delivery mechanisms tied to photo sharing sites make it a critical step to pay attention to your licensing preferences whether you’re sticking with an “All Rights Reserved” license or using a Creative Commons license.
More reviews on FlickrFan can be seen here on Dave’s web site.
[tags]Flickr, photography, Dave Winer, FlickrFan, copyright, license, photos, MacMini[/tags]
First please understand that I don’t wish you any harm, and I wish you luck in pursuing your goals, but I think we’re on opposite sides of this issue.
When you publish an RSS feed with enclosures you’re inviting people to download your content and store it locally.
If you don’t want people to download it, why are you publishing an RSS feed containing your content?
Dave I’ll admit I don’t understand exactly how the application works and what size images are downloaded. Hence my effort to seek clarification. As described from last night “images are downloaded to your MacMini for display on your TV”. That’s pretty broad description. As I understand it with Flickr there is a security preference to restrict image downloads. My assumption was that at a minimum that setting was in play for this type application. Perhaps not… another question.
My understanding of an RSS feed with enclosures was that the file wasn’t being downloaded as much as a link to the file was being referenced. A referenced file is likely a non-issue for those looking to restrict use of their image with an “All Rights Restricted” license. Regardless being able to factor in image display by license type whether a friend or not would be a great enhancement to add… at least from what I’m seeing with recent copyright concerns that have surfaced in the news as of late.
I have a lot of things on my plate right now, so if you could explore this with some users of the software, or become one yourself and then let me know what problems arise with the software, that would work much better for me.
Dave,
I’ve heard AP and AP Photographers mentioned several times in relation to this, do you have AP’s blessing to use their photos? Just curious.
Personally, if I have my images marked ALL RIGHTS RESERVED I mean just that…no reproduction in any form without my consent.
Will the photographers included in your application get the benefit of prominent credit and links? Or are you just throwing up photos?
What a poor demo for something that’s got potential:
http://mike-mcgrath.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/demo-or-die/
Dave unfortunately at the moment I don’t have a MacMini to test out the application. I understand you’ve got a lot on your plate but none of your responses have addressed any of my questions. Here are my questions:
1. Does the application copy files from Flickr to a local machine (in this case your MacMini)?
2. If yes to Q1… are these files copied with any sensitivity to the users photo license settings (all rights reserved or creative commons)?
3. If yes to Q1… What size images are pulled down
4. If yes to Q1… Is realistic to expect that functionality will be added to filter image downloads based on the photographers photo license settings?
Regardless of license type, unless explicitly stated, abiding by the photo license settings of the photographer is critical not just for the photographer but for any liability you may carry as the application developer. I think the application has potential and its something I’m eager to experiment with, but at the same time I wouldn’t want to read later that you’re running into copyright infringement issues.
Since two of my favorite bloggers are making an appearance here, I’ll chime in. (I used Dave’s Frontier/Manila apps since the 1990’s and I was an early blogger.)
I sympathize with both sides here. I do think that there are issues to be resolved regarding the IP rights of photographers and the manner in which the images might be used by those leveraging this product of Dave’s.
Clearly it would not be wise for photographers who want to protect their IP rights to upload photographs that are very large or that do not include embedded graphic copyright and identity information. It is possible that sharing such small, low-quality versions of the photographs might even provide advertising value to the photographer.
A potential problem comes up at the point at which someone monetizes a stream of creative work without sharing the profit with those who create the work. At that point, either a mechanism for differentiating between uncontrolled material and that subject to rights control must be put in place or else a system analogous to that used to compensate musical artists for recordings needs to exist.
Dave, I urge you to not dismiss the concerns of photographers – though I also urge you to find a way to move your latest innovation forward.
Take care,
Dan
Dan, I don’t think these people should be publshing feeds with enclosures of photos they don’t want people to download.
I’m not dismissing anything. But bring the problem to the right person or company. Just because I respond to email isn’t a reason to bring the problem to me. I’ve got a pretty full plate, as I said before.
Dave Winer said:
“I’m not dismissing anything. But bring the problem to the right person or company. Just because I respond to email isn’t a reason to bring the problem to me. I’ve got a pretty full plate, as I said before.”
But aren’t you the one developing the app? Who else would we bring our concerns to?
I haven’t used the software either, but I’d say Dave’s software probably grabs the small image that you see when you subscribe to any of the feeds on Flickr.
Filenames of original images are now protected with a random filename anyway and AFAIK they’re not listed in the RSS feeds. Given the reduced resolution of a tv set maybe all it needs is the small image.
It’s not as bad as it could be, but yes, I agree that the application should respect a photographer’s rights, but on the other hand, photographers must learn about Flickr’s RSS feeds.
It does seem a bit contrary to offer a feed of “all rights reserved” images while protecting the images from right-clicks.
Dave the issue isn’t the RSS feed. I post photos to my blog and Flickr all the time. I opt into that essentially giving myself and or my contacts permission to receive updates and access my photos for basic viewing through a web browser. My Google RSS reader isn’t downloading the images to my computer… its referencing the source location. A location I’ve designated as acceptable to house my images so that I can specify & track use and even make central edits.
When photos are copied away from a specified and photographer approved source (my web site, blog, flickr or photoshelter account) for another use it becomes a copyright issue. My intention has never been to bash RSS. I think RSS is great and I use it every day for my photography. The issue at hand is the duplication of the files and employment of these files in a new use. As mentioned before the concerns and questions are around the file download. I don’t want to assume this is happening hence my constant questioning about how the application works in this regard. That being said certain Creative Commons licenses are perfect for this application if the files are indeed downloaded, but those with more restrictive licenses should be culled from the stream your application is displaying.
In the past there have been products marketed that hooked up to stereos so serve MP3s and display images on a TV. The model then was that “image packs” were purchased. There are still photographers who are exploring this sales channel. Although Flickr makes it easy to share photos not all photos should be lumped into the category of free for distribution and the preferences of photographers, as specified by their licensing settings, should be factored in. Consent or permission based on copyright license type is key and something you should seriously consider building in. A single copyright infringement if enforced can yield a $150,000 fine (not including legal costs). That’s enough to ruin anyones day. I’d think you’d want to avoid that kind of headache at any cost.
Here’s the test of the potential for a breach of license:
Enter the feed URL of your Flickr account (example of a random users ID):
http://api.flickr.com/services/feeds/photos_public.gne?id=99026274@N00&format=rss_200
If a restricted photo appears then Flickr needs to know they are sending jpg’s of restricted photos and need to fix the hole in their security.
Dave’s software gets jpgs that are referenced if feeds that the site is willing to transfer.
There MAY be extra Metadata about licensing and Dave could code accordingly but it’s not clear that this is what is needed yet.
This is just like an automated browser app that saves images. “Wget” does this too and Google Screensaver and a dozen others. To secure your work you just need to be sure it’s not downloadable. The rights holder must be diligent.
If wired.com has jpegs and an RSS feed then the photos will be transferred as they would be to a browser or aggregator. These would tend to be reduced quality and not “raw” images.
Controlling and marketing jpegs is like the sale and control of mp3 files. You have to expect to make money but never be paid for every potential copy that is made. Some call it piracy but it’s often one user making backups or putting it on multiple systems, etc.
There are no simple solutions to assure the content creator that will ever work as well as serialized prints but they are the finest example of your trade. jpegs are an internet convinience.
Dave’s software is just another indicator of how media is becoming a file transfer (one-to-one) relationship. Building and respecyting audience is everthing in this new world. Getting paid requires new ways of thinking about those relationships. The old rules of license make the audience crimnals when they are just people using technology to educate, entertain and communicate.
I think that Dave’s point is that since I upload my images to Flickr, I’m permitting the syndication of my photos, via Flickr’s built in RSS feed of my photostream.
Hence, Flickr is where the questions should go…
“Hey! Why are you syndicating my photos?”
It looks liked Wired does NOT put images in their feeds (example):
http://feeds.wired.com/wiredbusinessblog
That blog contains many of Lane’s licensed photos so Dave’s software would NOT download those images.
Wget would just as the browser does (temporarily) but that’s another issue. The extra step to get a copy is trivial (right-click download image). So, it’s hard to control access and potential reuse.
It’s really not a good idea to fixate on marginal reuse. It’s a no win strategy. Build audience and seek patronage from commercial entities.
Dave’s “product” is free and intends no harm. It’s just his way of enabling people to control media. It’s democritizing and not a market generating activity. n the market you might see artists sketching the latest “pop icon” and that’s technically an unlicensed use of someone but really… art should also have some protections from overactive commercial regulation. It’s getting harder and harder (as you well know) for an artist to get paid in a world of no-barrier-to-entry digital media.
It’s a “power-on, login, and re-mix” culture: the medium is the network.
Trevor,
Yes. Flickr could restrict ARR photos from feeds. They should since automation doesn’t even see the ARR in the feed… I think. Must check for examples.
I did see an ARR photo in a public Flickr feed. Is there any metadata re: license?
It doesn’t look like the feed has any info re: license. The user’s page does but not the public feed of images.
Flickr should change the software if you reserve all rights and not show or put the image in a feed. Just keep a copy that could be displayed to someone or group you enable to view the image or download it.
Focus on Flickr and not an RSS-based tool. The tool assumes the same privilege that a browser application does… it follows links to files and the file. Control the file.
The issue, really, isn’t the distribution – when you offer an RSS feed, with enclosures, you’re in effect offering the ability to download and store images.
What matters, though, is what happens next. Because, to my mind, what’s happening is that Dave’s software is creating what amounts to an original piece of work – a screen saver – using the photographs. That’s a violation of the photographer’s copyright, unless you’ve specifically authorised that use.
Just because I choose to distribute work via RSS does not give you a license to use it in any way you want. It doesn’t mean you can use it in a product, commercial or otherwise.
First off — great discussion on some very important topics going on here. As always Jim, you’ve presented a great controversial post that gets people talking things out. Now for my own comments…
Since when is viewing copyright images on an RSS feed an infringement of that copyright? If the content of the feed is explicitly being monetized, then it certainly is. But just viewing images on a feed isn’t breaking any laws, is it?
And what difference does it make where that image is being stored? Some feed readers store content locally so it can be viewed off-line. In fact, Google Reader has this option. Not only that, but how about when my computer caches images? Am I now breaking copyright law because my computer “stole” an image.
This FlickrFan deal seems like Tivo to me. Last I checked, Tivo was still around. In that case, you’re storing publicly viewable creative works on a local drive for the purpose of viewing at a later time. It’s not Tivo’s responsibility to ensure that people don’t break the law with their service. Same thing with FlickrFan — you’re taking something that’s already available for your viewing pleasure and moving it to a TV to be viewed at your convenience. It’s not Dave’s responsibility to ensure that people can’t do bad things with already available content. Now, if you’re using FlickrFan and charging admission to view the images, you’re probably infringing on the rights of the photographers.
Maybe I just haven’t dug into all the details of FlickrFan, but I don’t see what the big deal is. Same thing with the Flickr feeds — who cares? You’re already putting your image out there for people to look at. If I really wanted to save a copyrighted flickr photo to my hard drive, I’ll take a screenshot. If a photographer really doesn’t want people to have a 500 pixel image in their hands, they shouldn’t post it to the internet — it’s a network; it’s going to be copied and distributed one way or another.
I tried the software briefly, and saw high definition full screen (24″ iMac in my case) current photo journalism images.
I did not go as far as activating the connection to my Flickr account – the indication that all of my images including private ones would become available concerned me. I assume that they only become available to _me_ but that wasn’t clear enough to me that I was ready to go forward with this.
The notion that you shouldn’t offer stuff on the web if you are concerned about IP issues doesn’t make sense. ANY content on ANY web site is “downloaded” to the users computer – including the text on this page – before it can be “viewed.” Heck, the text on Dave’s scripting news web site is downloaded to my computer when I read it (and I do read it), but I’m not free to reposition the content in any way I choose. That’s why he puts a copyright notice at the bottom of his pages.
These are interesting and complex questions. I know that Dave is aware of much of this stuff – heck, he arguably started blogging and podcasting. There are some very exciting and interesting aspects to this software, but there are also some aspects that could deeply trouble even a net-aware photographer.
Dan
Ian I could not have said it better myself, but I would add to the end of your last sentence… “Just because I choose to distribute work via RSS does not give you a license to use it in any way you want. It doesn’t mean you can use it in a product, commercial or otherwise” without the photographer first granting permission.
This is the one thing about copyright that is often looked past… its just about giving the photographer the ability to grant permission first. Creative Commons licenses do a great job of allowing a photographer to do that up front while those with an All Rights Reserved license are merely asking to be contacted first before permission is granted.
RSS is not the issue. Photographers uploading photos to Flickr have accepted the functionality in place, including RSS feeds, regardless of the copyright license chosen. It is the extension of functionality layered on top of the RSS feed that is the area of concern as it creates a new copy of the work and displays it in a new fashion not previously reviewed or accepted by the photographer (unless specified with the appropriate Creative Commons license).
@G Dan Mitchell thanks for the update. I’ll have to experiment further with the software myself.
Its great to see the dialog up front about these questions rather than a full blow copyright violation scandal blanketing the blogosphere. I think we all benefit from avoiding that.
Pingback: Link Roundup 12-29-2007
Thanks Jim,
Our photo group had a discussion about FlickerFan when it first came out…
now you give even MORE pause… for it’s use…. Until this is resolved….
I know MANY that will NOT be posting on Flicker/Yahoo/whatever…..
Kudos for staying with this to it’s end…
Will look forward to your results.
….and YES, even small images can be monetized….
..a lazy “full-plate attitude” does NOT sit right with me!…sounds like a person willing to abuse..
Pingback: ..::timeshifted.org::.. » Flickrfan and appleTV
Dave Winer writes: “I don’t think these people should be publshing feeds with enclosures of photos they don’t want people to download.”
It always amazes me how copyright infringers and those who act as enablers for them fail to see that they are responsible for the infringements. They almost always try to point to the person publishing a content item, saying: “You should not be publishing this or that on the Internet if you don’t want people to use it.”
One of the biggest enablers for copyright infringement is certainly Flickr (protected by DMCA) and the countless sites using the Flickr API.
As Jim and others have pointed out, the problem is certainly NOT with the publishers of a content object. The problem is with those thinking that “if it can be seen, it’s OK to use regardless of the copyright”. This is not how the copyright has been designed.
Thus, I agree that the issue is serious, both the RSS feeds (as well as the Flickr API), and should be resolved soon. Thanks for the good discussion.
There will be a public demo of FlickrFan at Yahoo (owner of Flickr):
Thursday, January 17, 2008
5:00 PM
Yahoo Brickhouse
500 3rd St
San Francisco, California 94107
I suggest photographers request Flickr change the behavior of the public RSS feeds for images that are marked “All Rights Reserved”… or they include metadata in the RSS feed to allow a programmer to detect the request for protections and they can NOT download those images to a hard drive.
Do jpg images carry any explicit metadata to indicate the license on the the image? or is that metatdata always something documented on a web page?
It’s better for photographers to avoid allow their images to be captured via RSS if they want explicit license data to be shared with the image.
Pingback: Landscape Photography and Nature Photography by Jim M. Goldstein - JMG-Galleries - MacWorld Expo 2008 Recap & Photos
Interesting. I went through a similar round of discussions with Dave Winer a few years ago over the fact that his Weblogs RSS page encouraged similar behavior that bordered on copyright infringement because so many people are completely unaware of the ramifications of RSS.
Interesting to see it come back around years later, and still with no real resolution.
Seems to me that there is a chance these issues will not be solved until an actual copyright infringement case comes up.
Since it is even easier now to register one’s pictures with the U.S. Copyright office everyone with a flickr account should be encouraged to do so.
It’s 35 dollars (u.s.), nearly the same amount for a “pro” flickr account, and can be done online now:
http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html
Once that is done, everyone who discovers their ARR pictures being reproduced and used by this software as well as being distributed by Flickr should get together in a class action copyright infringement suit against the companies involved.
While I am not an attorney I believe one of the requirements for a successful infringement suit is the willful violation of a copyright. With these documented emails and conversations with both Flickr as well as this developer they would be hard pressed to say they were not “aware” of the situation and did not take steps to stop it.
Imagine a computer with a screensaver connected to a TV screen.
Browsers do store images on the computer’s disk.
A screensaver could easily just display photos found in that place on the user’s disk.
This would put you in the same situation, surely.
So perhaps you think there’s something magic about a disk? Somehow you think this makes it “reproduction” whereas if the image data didn’t get copied to disk in the first place, there would be no reproduction?
Well it’s not just a browser which stores the image on disk, so do all the many systems on the network between Flickr and each user’s browser.
Now, what about a browser plugin that shows the full size image full screen in a slide show, say, when the computer is idle. If this doesn’t currently exist, it could be written in an afternoon. It’s just a screensaver constructed as a browser plugin that doesn’t even rely on an RSS feed. It’s just a different display mode for a web browser.
Is this reproduction?
Your position is one I’m sympathetic to, but the technical and legal definitions are way too loose to work. Everything is going to have to change and technical ignorance is no defense.
@Christo all good points. As it stands the law is written as such so that if a copy is made in any form… its well a copy and subject to copyright law. My concern is merely that developers be educated and work with content that is authorized to be use. Whats funny is that your last sentence “Everything is going to have to change and technical ignorance is no defense.” goes both ways. Developers can’t feign that they have no culpability because they’re uninformed about copyright law just as content creators can’t feign ignorance about how things work technically. Thanks for the thought provoking comment.
–
@Christine Things always circle back. I’m not too surprised. I expect that this will resurface again and again.
–
@Don I agree. Thanks for the comment.
But the question of when a copy is made is not clear. As I said the image is duplicated on disks several times just in order to see a picture in a web browser.
What is copying?
Is it a copy when two people view the flickr page at once? Why not?
What about if software (i.e. “the web browser”) strips off the flickr web site surrounds and shows only the photo? It might look like the photo is not on the flickr site and is therefore equivalent to the copyright owner as being copied, but the image itself it not duplicated any more than when looking at the standard flickr site.
What if this happens automatically, regardless of the content? On a screen big enough to be called a TV?
Whatever definition of copy you choose, it will not be precise enough for all future technology.