Using Creative Commons licence for pictures...

[NordEco]

If one is using pictures off flikr that people have listed as Attribution and Share alike:

http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

Then all that is required in using them on a commercial aspect (all pictures checked so they are allowed for commercial use) is to give the author credit.

I have been told that this can be in the code alone (no visible naming etc on website), is this correct?

So instead of using:

1) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/<link>/<link2>/">Author</a><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">cc</a>

which appears as:

Author cc

on the webpage underneath each picture, It can be wrote:

2) <!--a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/<link>/<link2>/">Author</a><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">cc</a-->

Which is still giving the author credit, it just means nothing appearing on the screen unless you right click and view the source.

Reason why I want to do this is that some of the authors names are swear words and I dont want that appearing on the screen, also its a lot neater than having attributions all over certain pages.

I have been told either method is completely fine to do, I would just like to check on here? All the attributed pictures will be changed once we have our own, its just difficult getting a picture of something like a Siberian Larch when not in russia at the moment.

Also how does one protect from the original creator of the picture suddenly asking us for money as their picture was 'never' allowed for commercial use without paying (whole point we are looking up CC only pictures), but only changed it after we started using the picture?

 

[FIZIX Agency]

Firstly, you have to attribute and if your site or the image is being used for commercial purposes then the image has to be allowed for commercial use. That's the most important thing to keep in mind. So make sure the licenses are correct before using them and if possible use sources that are trustworthy.


With the attribution, I have not heard nor read that you can source attribute (hide attribution in code). Where did you get that from?

The creative commons website states: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users

Particularly:

Ask yourself whether an interested viewer/reader/listener/other user is able to easily discern who gets credit (attribution) for the original work, and the freedoms associated with that work (license notice). If they can, great! If not, consider whether you are making a good faith effort to use the licensed work according to its terms.

My answer to that would be a resounding no because it assumes:
A: The user knows you can view the source of a web page
B: The user is using a device that can view the source of a web page or that it is easy to view the source (try it on an iPhone)
C: The user is aware that you have a hidden attribution. It also assumes the user knows the work is not your own.
D: That your code is easily discernible.

Importantly, the end user will not know that this is a licensed image and therefore would not have any compulsion to look for the attribution. Which defeats the whole object of the attribution.

With that in mind, I suspect you are very much misinformed about whether you can hide attribution in HTML comments.

If you are concerned about the authors screen name, because it's offensive and you cannot find a viable alternative then I would recommend contacting the author for their real name or just providing a nofollow profile link.

"Because it is untidy to attribute" is no an acceptable reason to hide attribution.

The author cannot retrospectively change their mind. Once the image is out there with the CC license then it's done. If they tried, then you'd be well within your rights to tell them to hop it.

 

[NordEco]

Thats why I came on here for a definitive answer on the subject... I shall keep the messy looking names and just endeavour to get our own photos up asap, we only have 10 or so photos that need to be attributed, so its not a massive amount of work to find the equivalent pictures to take to tidy up the website.

For example we have a B&W larch shot, pretty certain I can take a better one, just my walking days at the moment are few and far between due to injury for another month or two, otherwise I would have done it already.

 

[Nuno]

Why don't you just buy some?
(Or buy the usage of some from a picture library).

 

[HFServices]

Have a seperate page on your site for 'credits'.

Just plain black on white text should do.

Simply put 'Images by ' then list the names of the people whos images you are using.

 

[Nuno]

Isn't having another page is just another way of getting round giving a credit? Nobody is going to go and check out another page, so it's not " easy (to) discern who gets credit (attribution) for the original work"

When something is free in return for a credit it strikes me as bad form to try and get around it, especially when picture libraries are not expensive.

 

[NordEco]

Why don't you just buy some?
(Or buy the usage of some from a picture library).

The picture libraries that have been found are quite frankly... rubbish.

Then there is the charging per picture from £10-20, to be honest charging for a picture of a tree... Non artistic, non fantastic, etc, etc... just a library picture of a tree is a bit much to take in as the whole website has cost nothing but time and now I would need to pay out £120-240.

Hence the free ones until I see some better option.

 

[Nuno]

Try Bigstock.com
Small pictures are usually about 900x600 px and are 1 credit or about £1.56
They have (for instance) 12,000 photos of Birches. I'd imagine those can't all be bad. 900,000 trees altogether. (Their search narrowing facility is reasonably good).

I have used them for two sites recently and have been happy.
HTH

 

[Alan]

http://en.fotolia.com/ 21 million pictures about a quid each

 

[Nuno]

It's the 900x600 minimum size I like at Bigstock. I use the others too, although iStock are getting pricey. (shouldn't complain, Getty (iStock) sell my pics too..)

 

[Alan]

Yes that makes bigstock good value if you need bigger images. Definitely one to bookmark too,

 

[Deleted member 59730]

A word of warning. There are images on Flickr that are listed as Creative Commons which are not. I am about to take someone to the Patent Court who lifted one of my images from Flickr and used it on their website. I didn't put it there. It was scanned and uploaded by a pirate.

 

[AlexJeffers]

A word of warning. There are images on Flickr that are listed as Creative Commons which are not. I am about to take someone to the Patent Court who lifted one of my images from Flickr and used it on their website. I didn't put it there. It was scanned and uploaded by a pirate.

Thats a very good point actually, I had never thought of that before, although it can be quite difficult to pick up on something like this, generally as a rule using photo's from Flickr should be fine and if there is a problem like this you could just take it down?

 

[Nuno]

It's worth looking at the exif data and using TinEye for anything that might be dodgy, although both are far from foolproof.

@atmosbob: why did a pirate do that? What did they stand to gain? Was it to look like a decent 'tog or something else?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

@atmosbob: why did a pirate do that? What did they stand to gain? Was it to look like a decent 'tog or something else?

As my current case is still not resolved I'll give you a clue of another type. Try searching Book Cover and wonder whether all those flickr users got copyright clearance.

 

[Nuno]

As my current case is still not resolved I'll give you a clue of another type. Try searching Book Cover and wonder whether all those flickr users got copyright clearance.

Search Book Cover in Google? In Flickr? Neither seem to flag up flagrant copyright abuse to me.

The few publishers I have worked with have all been fastidious about the copyright of the cover, (although they often use it for PR and publicity too, without buying usage, hello BBC...)

Anyway off thread, just wondered cui bono.

(Do you shoot covers? I have a friend who only shoots for Getty and about half goes into covers he reckons.)

 

[FIZIX Agency]

To be fair, any resource that allows creatives to publish, sell or distribute their work comes with that risk. Unless those who moderate what's being uploaded recognise that something is ripped off or unless it's blatantly obvious then there carries a burden of risk.

Of course, some sources carry a lower risk than others; but they all carry at least some level of risk in that respect.

 

[Nuno]

Just found the Google similar images function. Looks brilliant, much better than TinEye.