Hot answers tagged flickr
17
I'd suggest contacting the photographer to see what their "specified manner" might be, as a matter of courtesy. But the actual legal requirements are (by design) quite reasonable for reuse.
If you read the actual license terms in their full, legal-language form, the key relevant point appears to be:
Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; ...
12
If you upload a JPEG, Flickr does not modify the Original-size image in any way (apart from changing the filename), at least not on a Pro account.
I tested it out by uploading a full-size, 100% quality JPEG to Flickr then re-downloading the Original size image and comparing it with the original (using a comparison tool called Beyond Compare). The two files ...
12
I did some investigation on my own, using my own flickr account and a non-logged in browser.
Here's the All Sizes page for one of my photos.
Prior to me changing the "Who can access your original image files?" setting in Privacy & Permissions, a generic Internet user could see the "Original" link in addition to the other sizes. That page had an ...
9
For a photobook, I'd consider the best solution would be to add a credits section on the last page, or on the book flap. Morally, that respects the spirit of the licence, and since it's a private use, I wouldn't be too concerned about the legal side of things.
Something along the lines of "Thanks to So and So, who provided the original photograph on which ...
8
What should I do to avoid it?
Host the images yourself - that's ultimately the only way to retain control over what is done to them.
Of course, it'll cost money too, but not too much. Find a host providing PHP* and MySQL and you'll have plenty of choices for Open Source image gallery software, and be able to have it exactly as you want.
(Menalto ...
8
Your images are too large, which is not exclusively related to being RAW, JPEGs can be too large as well. The solution is to send a down-scaled version to Flikr.
Here's how:
Right-click on the Flickr 'bar' under Publishing service. From the menu that appears, select 'Edit Settings', that is the first option. The 'Lightroom Publishing Manager' will appear. ...
7
Smugmug has an optional feature called SmugVault (see also here) which allows storage of RAW and other file types. I have not used SmugVault so I can't review it for you, but I am a longtime customer and I love their other services.
The files are stored on Amazon S3 servers. As I understand it your RAW files are linked to your jpg files of the same name. ...
7
Well, Getty isn't really microstock, they're probably the king of stock photography in general. The only thing I would be reluctant about with Getty is some recent behavior around their treatment of longtime artistic photographers under contract.
So, I think Getty is counting on good amateur photographers being excited about possibly getting published, ...
6
I think the point is to have the copyright and CC-licence note in such place so that a viewer a) wouldn't mistake the image as yours, and b) would find the author if they look for it.
So just ask yourself:
a) Are there places that might make someone think you've authored the images?
b) Where would someone go look to see who created the work?
Put the ...
6
I use LR3's Publish To Flickr as well. My RAW files are 21MP, therefore to avoid the problem you mention I make sure the files are down-scaled to at most 2048 pixels vertically (my preference). Note that I first export my RAW files to JPEG, then publish my JPEG files. The reason I do this is because I want to keep a copy of my JPEG files on disk to share ...
6
Several things:
The exif "Color Element" tag is not directly related to ICC profile. Your image can have an Adobe RGB profile, yet still say "sRGB." Applications should use the attached profile, not the exif tag, when determining how to render colors. Ideally the EXIF color element tag should match the attached color profile, but there is nothing that will ...
5
Flickr changed their behavior regarding originals for non-Pro users a few months ago. Before, if your original upload was smaller than 1280 px on the wide side, they would not generate a large (1024 px) version and show the unedited original as the large version instead. Now, they don't do that anymore.
See this thread on the Help Forum for reference.
5
These days, the metdata (EXIF, IPTC, XMP) inside of an image, particularly one that's resized for web display, can easily exceed the size of the photo itself.
It's not uncommon for photo services to strip some or all of the metadata out so the photos continue to load fast when they're embedded on a blog or something, but the good services typically leave ...
5
I suspect most photographers will be twitching uncomfortably at your request for "free" photos: everyone seems to want to use other people's work for free these days. :-\
However, without trying to second-guess your motives it's a valid enough question. Most high-quality photos you find online will be under copyright, meaning you can't re-use them for any ...
5
Flickr is dying in the Yogi Berra sense: "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded." That is, it's lost some of its social media impact because it has become so dilute. Earlier on, a good photograph could get a bit of traffic, sharing and commentary (and a good stream could get a significant following) just by virtue of being among the few good photos on ...
4
The Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (version 2.5) states quite clearly:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
So to comply to the letter of the license you must contact the author (if they have not ...
4
If you want to really avoid issues, be they moral or legal; your best bet is to seek advice from the rights holder (i.e. the person who took the photograph) - They may be willing to licence it to you with different terms, or advise what options they'd see as acceptable for the attribution (If it were me, and I'd released a photo under those terms, I'd accept ...
4
You do need to give attribution any time you create a copy of it (even if you have modified it yourself).
What if you write an attribution on the back (and give attribution verbally)? That way, if your friend forgets where you said you found it, he/she can look on the back of the photo to find out.
As others have suggested, your best bet is to contact the ...
4
I only shoot raw and I use LR3's Publish To Flickr service to export images as jpeg to Flickr with no problems, and with no requirement to do anything special just because they're raw. The publishing service takes care of resizing the output jpegs for me automatically.
When you say "falls short", what exactly is the problem you're experiencing?
4
From the flickr FAQ:
"We resize your photos to more web-friendly dimensions. Each image has a 75x75 pixel thumbnail and 100-, 240-, 500-, 640- and 1024-pixel versions (that's the length of the longest side), as well as your original file. ... If you have a free account, no one (including you) can access your original file. ..."
...
3
I'm pretty sure that Jeffrey Friedl's updated flickr plug-in for lightroom 3 does most (or all) of what you want, but I haven't really experimented with it yet. It's something I want, also, but there's enough complexity here I'm taking my time...
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish
3
http://www.flickr.com/services/apps/72157622874451890/
I can't vouch for it personally, it's just the best-seeming result for a search for "download" on the Flickr App Garden. It seems to hit all the right points:
adds tags to EXIF
folders for sets
respects privacy settings (which you didn't ask for, but is worth mentioning)
This seems like enough to ...
3
As Alan pointed out, this is most likely a color management issue. Definitely try to download the image from Flickr, re-import it in LR3 and I'm pretty confident it will look just fine.
There is catch though. I went back & forth for a while reporting this issue in the Firefox bug tracker last year (issue 497363 and 509710) but unfortunately it isn't as ...
3
Unfortunately, I don't think you can. The association between the Flickr Publish service in LR3 and the Flickr photo itself is maintained in Lightroom's Catalog. It doesn't seem to be exposed in the interface. You would need to hack in the LR3's SQLite database to change this bit of info, or create a plugin.
But wait. One way to associate your Flickr photos ...
3
If you don't have the pro account you will only have access to the following size:
Square (75 x 75)
Thumbnail (100 x 66)
Small (240 x 159)
Medium 500 (500 x 332)
Medium 640 (640 x 425)
Large (1024 x 680)
You don't have access to the original size - in your case the 1000px file - unless you upgrade to the pro account.
...
3
This page (linked to from the Firefox plugin that bill weaver posted) does a good job of summarising the situation, including the "random component" in the image URL that I mentioned in the question.
The author notes:
This means that even if you go to the trouble of getting the file name for one of the smaller sizes, you cannot guess the file name of ...
3
Flickr uses non-secure web protocol (HTTP) by default, so any images can be accessed after performing session hijacking from a person who can access them. For session hijacking, the attacker needs to be able to eavesdrop on victim's network traffic, e.g. by accessing same wireless access point or some intermediate network node. The risk has become quite ...
3
The restriction to see only 200 pictures in your photostream is indeed a pro-only feature that you can properly work around only with some dough.
@Flimzy commented:
If you download 200, then delete them, do a new 200 become visible?
From an answer to another question, this isn't impossible:
[…] Flickr will also only list the last 200 of your ...
2
You do not need to contact the rights holder to exercise the CC licence terms. The author might specify how they want their credit worded, and what URL they would like referencing, but in the absence of that you can use your judgement - use their Flickr username and the URL of the photo page.
You simply need to provide attribution in a manner appropriate to ...
2
I think it needs to be visible to the viewer. So... putting it in the source is not really enough, since that's not really intended to be seen. You could put a small caption beneath the photo, or perhaps include it in the "alt" tag for the image, so it would display if you hover over the image.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
