|
[Closed] Commercial Use of Photos on Flickr
|
Hello Flickr Community,
I'm trying to wrap my head around the "commercial use" rule, and I'm hoping that either you or Flickr staff can help.
I understand that I can't use Flickr to sell my prints.
But can I upload photos on behalf of my clients?
These photos would be available for all, and I would simply be adding content to Flickr.
Thanks!
Posted at 1:09PM, 23 July 2008 PDT
(
permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
You cannot use Flickr for commercial purposes.
If the reason for uploading them is so that clients can come look at them and order copies, you are using Flickr so you can earn money. That's commercial.
You should also read the community guidelines about hosting web banners and other graphics here. That's not allowed either.
And, be sure you don't have anything in your account that you didn't create yourself. Thats covered in the rules as well.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Can you use Flicker for educational purposes?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
charmings
You asked that 2 hours ago in another thread. Please read the answers you were given there.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry, I couldnt find the thread at first.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
If someone has uploaded a picture that is not theirs but links it back to the author, is that illegal usage here on Flickr?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes.
If it is your photo, you will need to use the link at the bottom of the page, "Copyright/IP policy" and file a takedown notice with Yahoo!
If it is not your photo, then you cannot file the takedown notice.
In that case, I'd send a polite email to the original photographer, giving them a heads up about the use.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
sylkyred1 Legality aside, it is against Flickr's rules to post someone else's work to your photostream, even if you do credit them.
In other words, no, the Flickr rules don't allow it.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I do it all the time with photos of me.
It is called transfer of ownership. I might not have taken the photo and it might not be my work, but the original content creator has transferred distribution and copy rights to me.
It is against Flickr's rules to post someone else's work to your photostream, even if you do credit them.
It is true. But not all the time. ;)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Jayel Aheram There is a difference between what is allowed and what is lawful.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Photos of oneself / one's family are generally held to be an exception...
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
flickr seem to just about tolerate pictures of yourself in your stream. All other transferal of rights to publish will get your account deleted, and it makes no difference if the photog has commented on the photo saying they have given permission.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The politicians that have Flickr accounts seemed to be exempted from this rule. I am pretty sure a lot of their shit are not only not taken by them, but includes photos not of them. By various photographers.
If they can do it, I better can too.
But anyway, I usually just mark the ones I did not take Friends and Family only. I do hope Flickr allows that. I mean, being one of the few guys in my unit that has a Flickr account, Flickr is my sole means of disseminating photographs quickly and efficiently to all the wifies and children that are left in the rear when we are deployed.
I do hope the Flickr staff can clarify this.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"The politicians that have Flickr accounts seemed to be exempted from this rule".
Try reporting them! I'd just love to see a politician given the boot for breaking the rules...
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But anyway, I usually just mark the ones I did not take Friends and Family only.
Makes no difference, they can be just as easily reported as any others. people are getting deleted off flickr all the time for it.
If they can do it, I better can too.
Perhaps they have a special arrangement with flickr. A number of accounts do. Unfortunately that arrangement is probably not available to you or me.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually I won't be uploading the pictures on behalf of clients so that they can ORDER prints.
I will be uploading them simply so that they are available online.
Is this still against the terms of use?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
if you uploaded photos for your clients to see, how would anyone else know what they are for? ;)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I do hope the Flickr staff can clarify this.
They have:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/68884/417993/
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Try reporting them! I'd just love to see a politician given the boot for breaking the rules...
Well, multiple NOIs against any individual (politicians included) would result in the termination of a Flickr account. And, we have done NOIs on politicians who are uploading stuff that isn't theirs.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"If they can do it, I better can too."
There's lots of stuff people get permission from Flickr to do, that you or I cannot. Commercial use of the site, for an example.
So if you don't have permission, then you aren't one of those people.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
What's an NOI here? Help the non-native English speaker community, please :)
Back to this issue... There are countless pro artists/photographers who showcase their work here, using Flickr as one of the tools they can rely upon to promote their art. And I think their contributions here enrich the overall content so much...
Also, all my pics are Creative Commons (or almost), but it now sometimes happens I'm asked for my images to be used beyond this licence. Never charged anything so far, but well... It the use were to go too much beyond, I would charge, I guess. So, would I have then broken the rule? Should I take the picture down? Even then, I would have broken the rule as per the moment those people got interested in using one pic, so... Taking it down would be useless. Should then I say, "No sorry, since you found this picture on Flickr and you want to use it in such a way, I can't allow that"?
Come on... So many people to ban all of a sudden. Real pros... So, not "Flickr Pro Member". Which is, btw, use of a term that Flickr may get into legal issues with, someday. As misleading and falsely flattering. Especially if the only people who can get a "Pro" account are precisely... not pro (since following the above interpretation of the "no commercial purpose rule", it follows that pros are automatically banned, unless posting stuff having nothing to do with their work).
Isn't Flickr itself breaking the rule showcasing a picture of a "real pro" on Explore/front page? Adding to the infringment, because that person didn't specifically ask to be picked up for Explore (I know they can block that, ok).
So, I think the "no commercial" rule is to be taken more strictly as forbidding people to direcly sell through Flickr. Yet this is really hazy. Can it be clarified?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Tangent~A (away) edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
|
An NOI is a Notice of Infringement. If you click the copyrght/IP link at the bottom of the page, it explains more. You would use it if you found your work in someone else's Flickr stream.
What Flickr means by not using your stream for commercial purposes is not selling directly out of your stream -- no prices or links to a sales site in your photo's description. No watermarks that contain your sales site's web address.
If someone buys a print of a photo you happen to have hosted on Flickr, but the sale was conducted off-stream (maybe they Flickmailed you or they happen to know you and emailed you) that's generally not a problem.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 Not a Latin speaker either? Pro means "in favour of", "favouring or supporting". So how would Flickr get into trouble for having members who support Flickr?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks zyrcster (for NOI, first :) and for your explanation. Is seems sound and reasonable to me, actually. I'd share your view, but is there an official source/confirmation about that?
Patrick Costello: Hehe, it seems you never encountered a judge in a civil case that didn't share your sense of humor :-) Some actually don't like when people play on words... We all know what Pro means and latin, though widely used in the legal jargon, is then very precisely employed indeed. Pro more or less means "for", like in Pro Bono. It needs to be explained what "for" it is. So, ok, let's replace "Pro Member" by "Pro Flickr Member". Though this should be Pro Flickr Ascripticius, I guess, lol :-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) We don't generally pull things out of thin air when we post to this forum, but state things based on months of observation as to why accounts get deleted.
Regardless, there are many staff statements, and this one from Stewart is probably the best of the lot: when we say "commercial use", we are typically thinking of business use of Flickr (imagine an online seller using Flickr to host all their product catalog shots). We also don't want people *abusing* Flickr's features in order to sell stuff (e.g., tag or group spamming).
We usually look at the primary use: if you're a normal user of Flickr and happen to have links from your photos to a place where people can order prints, that's fine. If you're *just* here to sell prints, that's probably not.
Also, this from Heather: 1. links and salesy verbiage beneath individual photos is a no no. Sets of stuff "for sale" or "sold" is also a no no. You may include a link in your profile to your etsy store, etc.
2. Links from group descriptions to commercial sites have resulted in groups being terminated.
3. I can't speak to the actual case as I don't know the specifics, but what your describing is an inappropriate use that could result in account termination.
IOW are you using flickr to drive business to your commercial site, is your participation here primarily concerned with promoting your jewelry business or are you here for the photography?
Here's the deal. Flickr accounts are intended for people to share photos they've taken. If 100% of what's in your photostream is focused on your commercial interest then it's likely that at some point, you're going to run afoul of the Community Guidelines.
[edit: "You may link to your profile page." --> "You may include a link in your profile to your etsy store, etc."]
and also:
But I can link out from my profile?
Gah! Please see my edit above. Apologies. Insomnia in action.
There are groups that have commercial sponsorships. I have seen them. Moo, for example, is a very awesome company that runs a group in Flickr.
They have permission from FlickrHQ.
How do we go about getting permission to run a group (or profile) in Flickr for explicit commercial gain?
Write to us via Help by Email using the following menu item:
"I have a business proposal that I'd like to share."
It will be routed to the approval peeps for their review.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>Pro Flickr Ascripticius
I like that. It sounds very professional. I'd like that next to my screen name. But maybe it's a bit long, so we could shorten it to, I don't know, maybe just "Pro"?
:-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks again, zyrcster. Yes, it really seems sound and fair, to me. And common sense. It also seems some of you guys know quite a lot :-) It's a bit embarrassing, though, that such quotes are 1) the voice of only members of the staff, 2) to be found here and there in the forum, not in a centralized, official place. I take good note of the "months of observation" phrase, which speaks volumes. Don't take it bad, on the contrary. I find it actually very nice, a real dedication to a community to share as such. No irony at all. But I'm surprised. Isn't it staff duties? Especially when we deal with issues that can lead to account termination? There's something wrong, here, IMHO.
Anyhow... I think your answer better addresses blogcampaigning initial question. And mine. Thanks again!
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
LOL Patrick :) Then I need to figure out a decent latin translation for "back to square one" :-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The wording in the Community Guidelines is fine, I think, as far as "official" guidelines:
www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne
If that wording were any longer, even less people would bother reading it than already do.
If the wording were any more specific, it would not give staff the leeway to handle the various situations that can arise.
It's common sense to read: Don’t use Flickr for commercial purposes.
Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account. and then realize that you cannot sell things through your stream. Most of the time when people question that, they are trying to find some loophole. When I say "most of the time" I refer to people who come into the Forum and want to use their stream to sell things and then spend countless hours trying to justify what they want to do.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh I see what you mean in the latest part of your comment.
However, I respectfully disagree on your point about the guidelines (I understand what you mean, but... wait...) In no company it is to employees to have "leeway" on legal issues. Not one. Even when they're part of the Legal dept. Then, so be it, if the guidelines are longer, the better. And it doesn't apply to this issue only. Either the reader is not interested in one particular point and skips, or is and read carefully. And dynamic HTML allows for nice functionalities in that regards.
No, frankly I disagree on this particular point. Again, what is said by an employee has very little legal value, and only in defense "against Flickr" in that case, ironically, until it is endorsed officially. Maybe you have no idea of the implications here, even for the staff member in question who can get into serious troubles if a challenge arises. Even for their own safety, I don't think this is right. They could find themselves disavowed. I don't find it very... PROfessionnal :-)
I keep going on that thread because, since I joined Flickr (which I find great, including staff dedication, btw, don't take me wrong :) I always found guidelines quite... hazy at best. IMO, this is a good thing to go past one particular point and raise a more global question.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart is (well, soon will be was, he's leaving) the General Manager of Flickr (the top dog).
Heather is the Community Manager at Flickr.
Neither are simply staff members. Their word has weight, which is why I quoted them.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What "legal" issues? These are internal rules that Flickr has devised to keep the site from turning into an Etsy/eBay wasteland. They made the rules, they should be able to interpret them and massage them, any way they want. No "legal value" is required, from what I can see. These aren't laws, requiring lawyers, they're rules, requiring compliance.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :)
If you'll notice, there are often days after a staff member says "we'll get back to you about this" and the time they post a policy statement.
You can be sure that if Stewart, Heather, or Kevin are quoted that you are hearing official Flickr policy. Not what some "staff member' makes up on their own.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh, yea, about "legal issue" -- in the Y! Terms of Service, they actually reserve the right to terminate an account at any time:
5. FLICKR'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Flickr expressly reserves the right to immediately modify, delete content from, suspend or terminate your account and refuse current or future use of any Yahoo! service, including Flickr pro, if Flickr, in its sole discretion believes you have: (i) violated or tried to violate the rights of others; or (ii) acted inconsistently with the spirit or letter of the TOS, the Community Guidelines or these Additional Terms. In such event, your Flickr pro account may be suspended or cancelled immediately in our discretion, all the information and content contained within it deleted permanently and you will not be entitled to any refund of any of the amounts you’ve paid for such account. Flickr accepts no liability for information or content that is deleted.
Believe me, they have their legalese covered. That's what all those corporate attorneys at Yahoo are for.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You see, how much you know and I don't... :)
Again, thanks for sharing all this. But don't you think there's a point, here. Even the word of a CEO has no strict legal value unless clearly stated otherwise, which is never the case because the poor CEO would hesitate to utter a single phrase (and yet again, it would be in defense "against", most probably). Understand, the words of "people" is something, but... do not represent a company's legal standards. Also, any legal disposition not reasonably easily found by any reasonably capable user of a service can be challenged.
My poor zyrcster, you'll think I'm harassing you... :) Which is not the case, at all. I really appreciate your hints and help. This is a very interesting, important point that bothers me with Flickr, since quite some time. In many cases, we don't know where to stand. In a way, this discussion may make things move forward, to a more healthy state of things. Yes, really a community thing, contribution, I think.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :)
You don't seem to get the main point here.
Flickr has rules. One of the rules is they can enforce the rules. They can enforce the rules by deleting your account. If they delete your account, they "accept no liability for information or content that is deleted".
You sound like you think there are hundreds of lawsuits being filed against Flickr for enforcing their rules. I've heard a lot of wailing and moaning about deleted accounts, but so far, there hasn't been a lawsuit.
If there isn't a lawsuit, then all your legalese is meaningless. All that happens is that another account goes away because they broke the rules.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you mean by words having "legal value". None of these issues are decided in court -- they're decided by staff, so staff's word is all the weight they need to have.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sorry, a browser/connection bug made me post the above twice...
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Tangent~A (away) edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
|
I respectfully dismiss the searcher answer. Sorry.
Interesting point, ColleenM.
"You can be sure that if Stewart, Heather, or Kevin are quoted that you are hearing official Flickr policy."
Where do you take this from? This assurance? Will this stand in court? This is the whole point.
Please guys, understand. Not picking a fight, trying to really shed light on this. I think there are loopholes, big ones, and quite frankly they could be dangerous. And as a user some of them makes me feel uncomfortable. Again, I'm trying to move on. Honestly... Don't you think there's a problem when people can see their account terminated based on a true misunderstanding? Or not a misunderstanding at all but a loophole they might want to take advantage of?
This is not so funny. Serious questions arise. For exemple. I'm sure that, as I already did often, you encountered rather psychologically fragile people here. So this is not a light point to me. What if one of them commited suicide and left a note? Pointing at their Flickr account deletion? What if the family, for good or bad reasons this is not for us to say, but what if their family chose to turn against Flickr, based on such and such "statement" from the "staff". I find it incredibly, surprisingly irresponsible from the Legal dept. here. And frankly, I think I'm rather stating things "pro" Flickr here. IMO, about time they compile and refine the rules, for their own good and ours.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) I hardly feel harassed! This discussion is at least not filled with condescending innuendos from people who suffer from narcissism.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's actually another one of the reasons Flickr doesn't want you relying on their service for commercial interests: It's terribly unprofessional and unreliable. They don't want to have any responsibility with the success or failure of any moneymaking endeavor you may dream up. That's why hearing things like "I rely on Flickr to show images and mockups to my clients" is so scary.
So a user can't claim lost revenue or anything for a deleted account, or a slow server, or an abusive comment defacing an image page, because there's no implied or explicit allowance for such a use.
Why did you dismiss my answer? because it was correct? What was wrong about it, or what parts are you deciding do not apply to you?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies!! I have seen a few pictures that I know did not belong to the poster here on flickr and was told that because they gave attribution to the photo is was okay. I told them that I didn't believe they were correct and that they should check it out.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster... I agree :) Also, thanks for bringing a smile in between :-) This should not be a heated debate, on the contrary. I like it you saw that! Look, I like Flickr a lot, as a community. I never really participated as a member of it in the forum. I think our discussion can make a contribution. It's the appropriate things to do, to me, now that I've enjoyed Flickr services for some months, to raise this point. But yes, no bitter or egocentric view here. Actually, I'm thinking of people I really like here and might get hurt someday. Smiling, but I'm serious, there, though...
The Searcher: Yes OK, I owe you an explanation. Sorry for my abruptness. And the second point you raise is so different. Coming right up :)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :)
All your "but what if ......" cases are highly unlikely. Flickr (and most large companies) don't write rules that cover every possible outcome. They write rules for emotionally healthy adults.
There's no way to write a legal document that covers every possible interpretation a mentally ill person might come up with. So they write comprehensive, broad guidelines, and try to apply them consistently, while still giving themselves room to adjust and adapt to unusual circumstances.
These are not laws. These are the rules you have to follow to use this website. If you aren't able to follow the rules, you'll be deleted. And no company will inquire into your mental health, and allow you to break the rules because you are emotionally fragile.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The Searcher: I dismissed your first answer because we're dealing with legal issues, I mean real ones. So, when you say:
"They made the rules, they should be able to interpret them and massage them, any way they want. No "legal value" is required, from what I can see."
IMHO you failed to see the implications. Rules are rules, fine. Even side rules, or "house rules", like "words from staff". Now... Such Flickr "rules" are of no legal value (or, yet again, "against' Flickr). Only officially stated terms of use are. It's quite basic. It's called a contract (can take on other words, like Licence, Terms of Use, EULA, etc, but not words of a staff member, whatever his or her position, even less scattered all over the place).
And contracts can't be "massaged" at will, contrary to what you say (ok, "house rules" can, I guess). This is the point. Because, if they are "massaged", any user can raise a case as he or her cannot follow up with all and every posts in the forum. Let me tell you... That one is a killer in court. Not exaggerating.
As to your second point
"'I rely on Flickr to show images and mockups to my clients' is so scary."
I agree to some extent. However, I think people should be allowed to use Flickr services, among others (I hope for them) to showcase their art (read my previous posts, it's not my case, I don't want to sell anything :)
"So a user can't claim lost revenue or anything for a deleted account, or a slow server, or an abusive comment defacing "
Well, there are disclaimers for this. They protect my company and myself everyday. And I know, they're not perfect... There is no legal perfection, IMO. But gross imperfections are so surprising from a big company.
Now... In a way you're harsh on Flickr. I don't think this "no commercial purposes" rule stems from such petty concerns. At least it didn't not, initially, I think. I don't know, just a feeling. Flickr is about sharing, it's the bottom line, the market position. I believe there is candor here, again at least there was at some point. I hope it's still the case. And anyway it's a clever stand, so I'm fine with it :) As you say, letting too many people turning it, and too much, into a market place would ruin the feel.
Hence, I still agree with that part of your first comment, "keep the site from turning into an Etsy/eBay wasteland". It's boldly stated but, all in all, that's the idea for me, too.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) Read the Flickr Terms of Service. It's linked at the bottom of the page. It was written by a whole roomful of corporate attorneys. They have their bases covered. Not only does it state that they can terminate at will based on violations of the "spirit" of the Community Guidelines (using that term "spirit"? Just gave them a wide berth), but it also says that services are not guaranteed and that there are no refunds.
Who is really going to take Flickr to court over a $25/yr subscription? Small claims court? Or some weird class-action suit with a bunch of former members who were deleted for violating the spirit of the community guideline?
That ToS covers Flickr's ass.
I don't think that Flickr/Yahoo is in any sort of legal danger here.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
LOL ColleenM... Now people at Legal will have nightmares...
Hey... Why do you sound so... sort of unfriendly? This is a healthy debate, I think. Prove me wrong :)
My '"but what if ......" cases are highly unlikely.'? I would hope so. I'm not sure. So you say. On what ground? They're taking risks. I think it's a nice thing to point that out. Mind you, taking care of the "what if" is a big part of our economies. Don't you have any insurance policy? Same thing.
"They [companies] write rules for emotionally healthy adults."
Wrong. Definitely. Big, or small, companies write disclaimers in this regards, instead, if needed.
"don't write rules that cover every possible outcome"
Of course we can't... I'd hire you right now if you could. You'd be the allmighty God of Law :) But you'll jump to the next bigger position, I know. Well.... No legal perfection, I just said. But here... So many loopholes.
Look, frankly all this should *only* be seen as a very friendly reminder that things have to be clarified. A contribution. That's all :)
Pheeww... Is this so complicated to understand? :-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster: I will. Thanks for the tip. Sorry, big DSL problems, hadn't read your comment before posting mine :)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
Tangent~A (away) edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) "a very friendly reminder that things have to be clarified."
They don't have to be clarified.
The Yahoo! legal team has handled the legal matters for Flickr for the past three years. It is unlikely that all of Yahoo!'s risk-management staff AND all of their legal staff have overlooked much.
Both Flickr and Yahoo! seem to be satisfied with the level of ambiguity in the TOS and with the level of risk they are taking. Stewart, Kevin, and Heather are official company spokespeople. I doubt they'd have held their jobs this long if they were creating major legal issues for Yahoo!
While you might want things to be clarified, the Community Guidelines have been reviewed by Yahoo! corporate lawyers. They seem to think the guidelines and TOS are clear enough. I doubt your opinion is going to have much impact on the hundreds of lawyers on Yahoo!'s legal team.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) Why are they legal issues? All kinds or organisations have rules that apply to members beyond the constraints of formal laws. Think of a club, a church or a couple of teams playing sport. In many places those rules are justiciable if they are applied arbitrarily or capriciously, but there is no substantial restriction on the type of rules that can be made.
Nor is there any requirement for clarity in laws. The Corporations Act where I come from is full of motherhood statements. The prospectus provisions require a prospectus to contain the sort of information an investor would expect to find in the prospectus. It makes me weep, but the underlying philosophy is that a checklist encourages compliance with that checklist, and in fact enables unscrupulous companies to conceal information while staying strictly within the rules.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Nor is there any requirement for clarity in laws."
truer words..
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well... No. Again very... light and broken at the very first line (I might be wrong here, about the first line, I'd need to see the ToS in another configuration.)
In any case, we're talking of different things, then: Site rules (or community guidelines) and ToS. Two different documents, here. We were talking about this "commercial" thing. No direct reference to it in the ToS, right? I see the ToS only refers to community guidelines, in that regards (among other things). Community guidelines which are... well... what I think they are :) We've been talking about that. Any part of a contract refering to another part which is basically broken becomes... well... broken as well, unless specific terms are used I don't see here. And here... Oh my... This is the foundation.
But anyway... Flickr problem. I'm not an employee, have other things to do, just an "Ascripticius" and wanted to raise a point that may smoothen use of and operating the service :-) I wonder whether they've thought about all this. Almost sure they did. I know it's not easy to keep a balance between a nice community feel and strict legal terms. I can understand that. Plus the fact that the Internet is an international thingy, so it complicates matter so much, I know it to well. I still think *some* clarification is needed and would benefit all.
zyrcster, I appreciate very much the fact you understood it was not a challenge, but the simple need to help things move forward or see them explained better. Now, I guess it's not our job past a certain point :)
Cheers!
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There is a reference to the no-commercial thing in the Terms of Service. The ToS states:
you agree to these Additional Terms located at www.flickr.com/atos/pro/ that supplement the Yahoo! Terms of Service (TOS) located at info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html which is incorporated by reference, and you further agree to comply with the Flickr Community Guidelines (Community Guidelines) located at www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne.
emphasis mine
Notice that it links the Community Guidelines and states, "you further agree to comply with the Flickr Community Guidelines."
When you agree to the legally binding Flickr ToS, you also agree to the CG and to the Y! ToS.
No offense, but please read these documents before speculating further.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
> I'm not an employee, have other things to do
When? When do you have other things to do?
:->
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
"Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account."
Well isn't that some weird wording...how can you possibly sell yourself and it not be for personal use? And what exactly is "selling yourself" ??.....
Its impossible to take a self portrait without selling yourself. The site is full of facebook types with 500 webcam pics saying "aren't i pretty", selling themselves in the dating market.
Maybe selling yourself is meant, i will take pics for money? If so a site full of photogs has to be the worst place on earth to do that on.
The entire concept of this site is based on selling yourself through personality plus picture appeal. Few here post a pic and say they had nothing to do with it, they just pressed the button, it was all Nikon.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No need for semantics.
It's meant to be about commerce, not narcissistic self-promotion, which is how you're reading "self yourself".
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
how can you possibly sell yourself and it not be for personal use? And what exactly is "selling yourself" ??
How about sexual solicitation?
"I live in [x] city. Let's hook up and have 'fun'?" -- where fun would come down to something like "making the beasts with two backs", "knocking boots", etc....
That's selling yourself.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry guys, I fall behind, big DSL problems.
But, hey... If everything is fine, then, good, why do you bother? :-)
Only zyrcster came with constructive answers.
So... I know about a much bigger staff of lawyers who recently lost a number of cases, but lol... As users, we can ask for clarification, beyond our babbling on a forum. And I consider such clarification belongs to staff, and should be officially stated, and not come from fellow users. You all understand that, I guess. Even if you won't acknowledge, which is fine.
I only see this: The user who initiated this thread didn't get any official answer *but*, in all fairness, not yet. So wait and see now. He or she was left with interpretations from other users. You think it's fine? OK. Whatever you say, this user could do what he or she wants, within the real ToS, if he or she legally forms a request regarding the guidelines and do not get a reasonably clear and official answer within a reasonably short period of time. And yes, reasonably is hazy as well, I know... Just a teasing reference to this superb sentence:
"Nor is there any requirement for clarity in laws."
Lol first this is what makes a judge useful, second this only applies in some countries, and third but more importantly here, this really is not the point. Way simpler. It's about users asking for clarification with regards to the service they've subscribed too. Flickr is not a Supreme Court, as far as I know. We don't expect Flickr to write laws, where are you going? Too far, I'm afraid, asking too much :) You're making a confusion, here. It's about clarity in terms of service. And answers to request. Only that.
Most of you failed to see there were no challenge at all here. Just the expression of a need that could benefit all. Why do you get so jumpy? Quite amazing :-)
Just wait and see. I'm almost sure Flickr staff can understand that need, and see no challenge whatsoever here. I'll follow up, I think it's not useless.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ooops... Damn DSL bugs... You see :-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) The OP's question is ambiguous at best. So, all they get from anyone is conjecture.
They ask:
But can I upload photos on behalf of my clients?
What does this mean?
Does it mean they want to post their clients' photos (say they are a broker, and manage artists' accounts)?
Does it mean that they have clients and want to use Flickr to show off their skills (say they are into wedding photography and want to show off their portfolio to prospective clients)?
Well, they can't do the first because they can't have other people's photos in their streams.
They can't do the second because that is, in essence, using Flickr to promote their portfolio.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But now we also know you can't use Flickr to get laid. ;-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"The entire concept of this site is based on selling yourself through personality plus picture appeal."
Oh come on, please... If this is your view about Flickr... Well I feel sorry for you. There's so much more too it, you're playing on words as well. Can't you see around? I guess we're not visiting the same streams. Of course it's about telling what moves us, who we are, etc. A book is, as well, and a few scratches on the wall of a cave, and so many other things that existed before the Internet. Come on...
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster: "But can I upload photos on behalf of my clients?"
Yep, couldn't understand that part either. Well, sometimes the first thing when asked for clarification could be... to ask for the question to be clarified... I must say it applies here :-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
heather:
"making the beasts with two backs"
extra points for the high school english class flashback.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Tangent~A. (in, out, dunno :) I agree. I think too many times conclusions are jumped to here, when the first response should be to clarify the question.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think Heather wins the thread.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If you expect a buck, directly or indirectly, (not necessarily a profit) it is commercial.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zyrcster: Oh I had not read your other comment (big DSL bugs here). Gee, you know Yahoo! stuff by heart, aye? :) But you understand this is not my point, right? Now that Flickr is "old" enough, there's a need to compile house rules and make them consistent. I think...
Such knowledge cannot be restricted to some users only.
Civilized Explorer: I have other things to do all day long. Does it answer your request, or do you feel the need to clarify it? :-)))
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I agree that commercial use should not be allowed. I just got 'spammed' by someone adding me as a contact so they can sell their products. Looking at their photo stream it is just product shots. Their profile has a link directly to their commercial website so people can buy things!
The last thing i want is companies taking over trying to sell product on flickr.
I've seen many profiles specifically for the use of selling product.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
a.Vision edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
|
|
Now that Flickr is "old" enough, there's a need to compile house rules and make them consistent. I think...
That would be the Community Guidelines:
www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zyrcster...the way i interpret it is, yes u can use Flickr to get laid but you just can't pay for it....which leads us to the old joke.
Guy says to girl in bar..can i buy you a drink or would you just prefer the cash?
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Guy says to girl in bar..can i buy you a drink or would you just prefer the cash?
Depends on the guy. ;-)
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
yes u can use Flickr to get laid
Not so much.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wow.... so if you were to tell me this morning that I would be coming up with euphamisms for the thing that happens when "two people love each other very much" in response to a Help Forum topic, I would have called you crazy.
I think we're in the fast lane to the Bridge Too Far, so I'm going to lay down one of those spike belts I see in action flicks and give this puppy a flat.
Onward!
Posted 4 weeks ago.
( permalink
)
|
This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
Save to Delicious
