Flickr Censors A Photographer's Plea

Bananatree3 writes "Popular Icelandic photographer and art-student Rebekka Guoleifsdottir has been targeted by Flickr for posting a plea for help in a theft case involving an online retailer selling copycat art. She requested that people send the retailer letters concerning the issue, and in response her original post was promptly deleted. It is still ironically available on Yahoo cache. In the end it appears that the retailer had been duped by a rogue art dealer under the title "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD". However, Flickr seems to have overstepped its bounds in deleting this post." This whole case brings back up the messy issues surrounding content ownership in this strange new world of a services based internet.

Overstepped??!!

However, Flickr seems to have overstepped its bounds in deleting this post."

Isn't it Flickr's site? They can do whatever they want. This isn't involving your rights online or anybody else's "right".

Re:Overstepped??!!

Yes, it is their site, and they can censor as they wish. They could impose draconian laws if they wanted. However, that is unlikely as it would drive away people from their site. The kind of censorship of the kind described by this photographer is stepping outside of a rational bounds, not necessarily a legal one.

Re:Overstepped??!!

Flickr HQ has since issued an apology [flickr.com] for the removal of her post.

Re:Overstepped??!!

This doesn't happen often, but I think this /. article is now officially dead in the first 3 comments. :)

Everything below is just fluff.

Re:Overstepped??!!

This doesn't happen often, but I think this /. article is now officially dead in the first 3 comments. :)

Well, if you want to end the conversation, at least do it right: mumble mumble mumble Nazi mumble mumble....

Re:Overstepped??!!

However, Flickr seems to have overstepped its bounds in deleting this post."

Isn't it Flickr's site? They can do whatever they want. This isn't involving your rights online or anybody else's "right".

It is Flickr's site. And yes, they can do what they want. However, market forces can also force them to do what is right.

So, do you sympathize with the photographer? If we go by the anti-copyright crowd, she doesn't have a case. It is "copycat" art. Or, are we going to protect her intellectual property?

Re:Overstepped??!!

She doesn't pay Flickr anything so far as I can assume

If you hadn't assumed and you'd gone and looked, you'd have found out that she pays them $24.95 a year.

If you've got a problem with that go pay $5 / month for some cheap web hosting or sign up for a free blogger account

And they couldn't do something similar because... ?

Re:Overstepped??!!

As part of the "anti-copyright" crowd, we do not support giving creator no right at all, simply reasonable rights.

Pretty much everyone supports her right to be identified as the creator of the photograph. Was that done in this case? Obviously not.

Most of us would support a reasonable copyright law, for example, with exceptions for non-commercial or private use, lasting for a reasonable time etc. In this case it was public commercial use, so she should be paid.

Another subtlety that you miss is that the issues around copyright of software (obviously a major concern on /.), are very different from those around photography so we may take different view on the two.

Re:Overstepped??!!

So you wouldn't feel wronged if Slashdot deleted your comment, right?

Is it in there power to do so? Sure. Would that make it right? No. Her posting on Flickr wasn't inappropriate -- in fact, it should be important to Flickr. She's one of the most popular photographer's Flickr has. I fell in love with her work back with this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/47807949/in/set -72057594112345061/

More importantly, this very popular photographer is having her work RIPPED OFF by some print shop in England. It's in Flickr's best interest for her to get the word out since this kind of criminal behavior scares people away from posting good stuff on Flickr.

The deletion was just plain stupid.

The Conflict

From Flickr's Terms of Use [flickr.com], there are several reasons why this post was taken down. The ToS states:

Flickr is intended for personal use and is not a generic image hosting service. Professional or corporate uses of Flickr are prohibited.

How did they know that this isn't a PR stunt? Set up a facade company, sell your work through it with no traces back to you then post on Flickr about the problem. Bam! Instant exposure to thousands of people.

We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Use.

And, as a result of Rebekka's plea for people to send letters to OnlyDreemin, the blog entitled "Jumping to conclusions" states:

Today I have been in contact with OnlyDreemin and asked for clarification on this issue. I was saddened to learn they have received death threats over this matter, proving once again just how passionate people are, no matter how misguided, when it comes to this type of theft.

So while Rebekka's post wasn't necessarily threatening, it sure resulted in threatening actions which, if I'm not mistaken, death threats are illegal in the United States and most likely in Iceland as well. If you read the rest of Flickr's ToS, they are very stringent about targeting other Flickr users with any kind of content/e-mail/threats whatsoever.

Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin? They are legally liable for what they sell. If they can't produce the people who sold them the prints, that's their fault for doing business with shady people. Did they bother to ask the people for licensing information? I find it hard to believe that the art world doesn't have a way to catalog and look up sellers of art with licenses or anything like that. You don't just transfer (£3000.00) in cash or to an anonymous Paypal account. Come on, hold someone responsible, don't get on Flickr and start a smear campaign toward them!

I honestly think Flickr did the right thing. They shouldn't be involved in this, they aren't a legal site or a petition site or anything like that at all. They are a general photo content site. Don't run your business from it, don't use it for your political or legal battles. That's it, plain and simple.

There is a better place for this conflict, in the courts not on Flickr.

Re:The Conflict

Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin?

That's a good question and the thing that makes this story interesting to me.

On Rebekka's original page (Yahoo cache), she mentions having an Icelanding lawyer send letters to OnlyDreemin. The response, it seems, was less than satisfying:

The letters did nothing other than make them take the images down from their site. Further letters got no response from them.

She then says:

My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else

Presumably this is because an Icelandic lawyer is only certified to practice law in Iceland and OnlyDreemin is based in the UK. So, Rebekka's only other option is to hire a UK attorney. But, as she mentions in her comments, she doesn't feel that she can risk all of her money (literally) to hire a lawyer for a case that might drag on for a long time and which she might not even win (or might not win enough to make it worth it).

So I'm curious if anyone on /. has had similar experiences (where an individual pursues legal action against a company in another country).

Craven cowards

That's what most businesses are run by. Craven cowards will crumble at the first sign of organized attack on them. It's ironic that they do things like that because it puts blood in the water for the other predators. In this case, that seems to be what Flickr did. They just folded and told their user to go to hell, until the outcry got big enough that they couldn't ignore it.

Personally, I think what we need is a push for a counter to this complaint culture by creating a culture where people who complain to get good things shut down without VERY good reason are subjected to no end of humiliation, emotional torment, destruction of their professional life, etc.

Rebekka's post

Here's the text of the post, because I wouldn't expect it to stay in Yahoo's cache forever..

I have a LOT on my mind right now.. to be honest, i've rarely been so royally pissed off as i am today.
The photos shown above all have one thing in common (besides being rather lovely landscape photos):

They were all taken , without my permission, by the London based print-selling company Only-Dreemin [only-dreemin.com]. This company prides itself on offering its customers only the best quality canvas prints of the finest photos , by top artists.

What they fail to mention is that some of the photos they're selling prints of have been illegally obtained, and are being sold without the artists consent or knowledge.

In my case, a friend of mine came across their store on ebay [ebay.co.uk] and recognized one of my prints. (this was way back in january i think)
I looked into the matter and discovered 7 more of my photos being sold there. In the case of pictures 1, 2, 6 and 7, the image had been divided up into 3 vertical panels. ( Something i would never DREAM of doing myself. ) Furthermore, the images had been given new and exciting titles, like "Seraque II" and "Attica", "Dawn expander II" and " Joga" (barf)
I spent a good many days researching, going back thru their customer feedback, and was able to track back the sales of at LEAST 60 prints made from my images.
These prints sold for a total sum of 2450 british pounds (around 4840 US$ )

I gathered all the evidence , saved each webpage displaying my work , saved the list of customer feedback, printed all this stuff out and took it to a lawyer here in iceland.
She was confident that by sending them some well-phrased letters i'd be sure to get some damages out of them. After all, i had tons of incriminating evidence.
The letters did nothing other than make them take the images down from their site. Further letters got no response from them. My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill and the infuriating fact that I, being only a non-wealthy art stutdent/ single mom in iceland, will have to accept that these people stole my work and made lots of money off it, and apparently are going to get away with it.

This is NOT OK BY ME.
I could think of little else to do than to at least tell people about this.
I have reason to believe that they've stolen images from other people, maybe other flickr users.
The reason i suspect this is quite simple. My photos were being sold under the bogus name of "Rebekka Sigrún" (the nerve of keeping the first name the same is somewhat amazing).
I saw a number of other photos being sold under that same artist name, and they werent mine. And obviously this Rebekka Sigrún doesnt exist.
Looking over the pictures i remember being sold under that name, it appears they've changed the artist name to "marco van eych". If anyone knows a landscape photographer by that name, let me know. i very much doubt he exists.

So i encourage everyone that has been displaying similar landscape photos on flickr to look at their site and see if they see something suspicious.
It would also be pretty cool if as many people as possible would send them angry letters, (address them to [e-mail] ) but that's just if you feel like it;)


ok. i've said my piece. Quite a load off my back.

Re:Rebekka's post

Regarding the claims of the seller having been the victim of a dubious third-party/picture libary/whatever, it is not entirely clear that this is true. Note one of the later comments from Rebekka states (my emphasis):-

Their claims of a third party selling them the images are not new. This is something they told to my lawyer back in february, claiming "someone" presented them with the high-res files and "official looking documents". When asked by my lawyer to show us evidence of this transaction, they simply stopped replying.

Yesterday they openly admitted to having sold my images, albeit without the knowlege of them belonging to me. Suddenly they have a name for the mysterious seller, "wild aspects and panoramics LTD" which, as someone already mentioned above, does not exist, and does not appear to have ever existed. If they are telling the truth, explain this to me: why did they refuse to put forth evidence that this party exists when my laywer requested it? If anything, it would help their argument, and if this party conned them, why on earth would they want to protect them? Afer all, they claim to have payed them 3000 pounds, there must exist some sortof bill or something?

Furthermore, if you realize you've inadvertantly sold something that was stolen, you've still committed a crime. In their case, they seem to feel its perfectly OK for them to keep the money they illegally made from my stolen work. Saying their sorry isnt enough. If they were conned, that's their problem, and they are free to go after that mysterious seller and sue THEM. Its not my problem. I still deserve to get paid damages from them for the profit they made from my copyrighted work.

There is nothing complicated about this matter. They did wrong. Theyve admitted it. Its not fair that they just get away with it by putting forth some very dubious excuse and saying their sorry.

I'd advise people to read the whole thread on the rustylime.com website (which I haven't done myself yet). There are two dozen sides to every story, and this appears to be one, but it's misleading to imply that the company was definitely a victim here; their explanation seems dubious, and is not yet accepted by Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir herself.

This is why...

You should host your own stuff, instead of using using 'free' web-services, if it's important.

Ridiculous sense of entitlement

Just because you post (submit) something on a web site owned and operated by someone else, that doesn't give you the "right" to force them to publish it or keep serving it up. You're not entitled to that.

If I submit a "letter to the editor" to my local newspaper, I don't have the "right" to force the newspaper to publish my letter. Whether they publish it or not is up to them, not me, because they own the publication. They are not violating my free speech rights if they refuse to publish my letter, because I am free to publish it myself or to utilize some other forum.

It's no different with the web. Really. If I post something on Slashdot or Digg or whatever, and they decide to take it down, that's their right as "publishers". I'm free to go post my speech somewhere else, or to set up and operate my own web server and publish it myself, so they're not violating my free speech rights.

Ironically?

No, seriously. How is it ironic that a cache retained information was deleted? Is there some new definition of the word "ironic" that means "worked as intended"?

Re:Ironically?

The irony lies in the fact that flickr, owned by yahoo, removed the post, whereas another yahoo service retains it. flickr made its best effort to completely remove the post, while yahoo cache put a bee in that bonnet.

TOS problems with Flickr, Blogger, etc

The downside to Flickr, Blogger and other providers of services to the masses are the Terms of Service which generally give them the right to re-appropriate your content for their own uses.

So if you were, say traveling around the world and want to document it, best to use a combination like MovableType and Gallery so you retain complete control. If you are concerned about copyright I can't imagine why ANYONE would use a service provider like Google, Yahoo, etc.

Or at least use it enough to "see more here"... and refer them to your real site.

It's only a matter of scale, folks.

It will be interesting to see how the /. groupthink tackles this. Photographer (and hence, at least partially-nerd) from the imagined-to-be-always-hip Iceland strives to make some money doing something creative and leveraging the internet to become visible and reach customers. Someone rips off her creative work. Slashdot: "Man, she sure got screwed. But let's argue about whether and how to use the word "censorship" when Flickr removes a contentions and legally risky post from their system."

Or, she's a filmaker who puts, porportionately, the same amount of her money and reputation on the line (along with that of usually many other people), and works with a distributor as a way to make money from her work and fund her next project. Someone rips off her creative work. Slashdot: "That's cool. I shouldn't have to pay for bits."

Is it still stealing?

When the victim is an RIAA or MPAA member company?

Or is that mere copyright infringement?

There's this interesting cognitive dissonance when it comes to copyright infringement. When the little guy (or gal) gets ripped off, it's called stealing; but when a large company gets ripped off, it's called sharing.

Maybe, just maybe, we need a better model for understanding the interests of consumers and artists alike. It seems that in the digital age, the copyright model doesn't do a very good job of protecting the interests of either the artist or the consumer.

Value and Scarcity.

All value is based on scarcity. When you digitize something, it becomes instantly, perfectly reproducable across teh internets at practically zero cost.

Hence it no longer has any value.

Stop whining about how your intellectual property has been stolen, realise that it isn't actually worth anything.

Gotta love the Vigalantism

Today I have been in contact with OnlyDreemin and asked for clarification on this issue. I was saddened to learn they have received death threats over this matter, proving once again just how passionate people are, no matter how misguided, when it comes to this type of theft.

Calm down people it's just some pictures. If a post on my site was generating death threats, I'd delete the damn thing too.

Nothing to see here.

This really is a non story now. I was aware of it a few days ago (when it was fresh, not limited by /.'s usual slow processes) when various 'fine art' types on CIX were discussing it. Since then, Flickr have apologised, reinstated the post and the other party has put forward their own perfectly reasonable side of the story. It's all over. Move on.

Just a guess?

Was it todd?

Speak for yourself

You have a services-based internet? Mines based on tubes.

On an off-topic note: still ironically available? So they're still available for ironic purposes? The comma is your friend, editors. I've even seen "there" instead of "their" in an earlier story, and the trend seems to be deepening.

If the editors are going to keep submissions in limbo for hours before they post them, they could at least do us the common courtesy of proof-reading them for mistakes of grammar, spelling, punctuation and such. If it's "stuff that matters", don't make it difficult to read by buggering with the conventions of written English. Thanks.

Well...

...I guess she should find another business model like selling t-shirts or something since information wants to be free. Screw her if she thinks I'm going to pay for photographs that I could go take myself. </sarcasm>

simple solution...

I understand this all got out of hand really quick with censorship and what not... But i never understand why these big sites fail to make simple solutions to help and promote a safe site for its users. This is may be pure shameless advertising... but our lil site yuniti.com allows users to watermark their pictures. Yeah... you dont get to see the full image, but isnt the whole point of these picture sites a place to have users share their images?? and not to sell their photos online?? Anyway, programming wise its a one day featuere... seems so simple.. and would avoid so many problems...

it's not that simple

The photographer accused a company of "theft" without any kind of evidence. Yahoo not only did the right thing to take down those comments, they may well be legally obligated to do so, since the photographer's comments may well be libelous.

I hope the guy who stole her photos will get found and published. But I also think the company she accused should consider suing her for libel--it sounds like they might have a good case.

And a piece of advice to photographers: if you don't want this to happen to you, put up your images in 1024x768 or lower resolution and put a couple of small watermarks somewhere in the image. You aren't legally obligated to do that, but it's foolish not to. Or, alternatively, just stop worrying about it and allow the images to be freely used with attribution. That way, people will make money off them (mostly just for the physical production), but you will usually get the credit as an artist.

dreemin commerce page gone

If you go to only-dreemin's website and click "Shop" you get 404'd. Hopefully they are taking an inventory of their wares to make sure they aren't "warez". flickr is just being typically reactionary to a situation that they think might get them sued. Better to censor the individual than get sued by the company.

Oops, sorry about that. -Yahoo

Well, it's back up (Rebecca's blog post) and Yahoo/flickr has apologized for taking it down so all is well on the utopian internets again.. And the people rejoiced and drank grape juice. Now back to our regularly scheduled nonsense.

Happens all the time...

I know a gal who's got one of her images selling on a very popular shirt in Austrailia and (I think) China or Taiwan as well. She's not getting a dime for it of course, the T-Shirt company just ripped off the print. She's a poor starving artist so she can't afford to sue a foreign company, which has probably made a rather large amount of money, after all, the shirt was very popular two years ago (she saw it on a tourist here in the states I believe).

Heck there is even a 'famous' T-Shirt company/artist in LA that's been ripping off all his material from other people on the net. This is the result of all those people who steal art and cross post it everywhere, the original authors (who are often poor) get screwed.

Hall of Shame

Philip Greenspun has been dealing with this since there were only a few dozen web sites total. His solution is a Hall of Shame [greenspun.com] which he has vowed to keep up forever. Of course it helps that he hosts his images himself, and that he never caves to take down and cease-and-desist letters regarding his Hall of Shame. He explains the genesis of his approach here [greenspun.com] (search for "Personal Approach to Copywright"). As Philip puts it "it has to be muchmore efficient for society than a bunch of corporations hiring lawyers to sling mud at each other in court. Under my system, we can enjoy seeing our work (with credit) on other folks' sites, vent our spleens at midnight by adding to a Web page of transgressors, and then move on to new productive activities."

Flickr own the service...

...Flickr own the hardware, Flickr make it clear they own you virtual ass in regard to using the service. It's unseemly, but frankly, it's Flickr's bat and ball, they can take it home if they want.