PetaPixel

I Am CC Allows Instagram Users to Share Under a Creative Commons License

Flickr’s Creative Commons licensing options allows its users to grant licenses that allow creators to make use of the photographs under a set of terms (e.g. attribution, non-commercial). Most photo sharing services have yet to bake Creative Commons licenses into their websites, but starting today, Instagram users can now release their photos under CC — albeit through a third-party solution.

It’s called I Am CC, and is a project started by LocalWiki founder Philip Neustrom that aims to “make the world a better, more creative place.”

Basically, you sign up by connecting the app with your Instagram account. Once you’re in, you’ll be presented with a form through which you agree to release your images under a CC license of your choice:

As you can see from the screenshot above, the agreement is sweeping, covering all the photos in your account taken over the next three months (the site’s agreements work in three month cycles). This differs from Flickr, where you can choose licenses for photos individually.

Here’s what an individual photo page looks like on the website:

Once you’re part of the program (over a thousand Instagrammers are already), your photographs will be marked through the service as being CC licensed. The website doesn’t currently offer any easy way to search through these photos, but there is an API that developers can use to do searches.

We’re guessing that a web interface will be coming shortly, either by Neustrom himself, or by another developer using the API.

I Am CC (via Lifehacker)


 
  • RobDobbs

    That’s cool, but I can’t allow that all my photos would be on the same licence. That would mean I couldn’t (shouldn’t) take pictures of friends, or their kids etc.

  • Leslie Burns

    Incredibly bad idea for any pro.

  • Joakim Bidebo

    You can still make a living as a pro photographer and release your photos under CC, one example is Trey Ratcliff.

    No matter what licence someone use I can still download there image from the web and use it for private use legally, like art work in my computer or print for my wall. Can’t ofc re-publish on the web/newspaper/magazine or in a book…

    but anyway, how many pro photographer do use a smartphone as there living instrument for taking photos? :)

  • frank

    Well, there goes the profession of photography… For all you pixel-generating people out there who like to call yourselves or think of yourselves as “photographers,” there is the practice/art/craft/hobby of photography, and then there is the BUSINESS of photography. Creative Commons licensing of photography is basically the death knell of the business of photography.

  • Tom Brown

    Trey Ratcliffe is not the best photographer. His photos were interesting to me at first but every single one of his photos is HDR-processed. I just find it boring now looking at the endless stream of HDR that he comes out with. I mean why even worry about light if you’re going to do that?

    I saw a webcast recently with Trey and some of his friends discussing new cameras from Canon and Nikon, and he was complaining that he wasn’t given special treatment by Nikon to be first in line to receive the D800 and had to apply for one through the proper channels. He even went as far as to say that Nikon should be giving him cameras for free! I bet the bosses at Nikon had a good laugh about that one, i mean he’s no David Bailey that’s for sure.

    Anyway, the point is he makes his money from sponsorship and off the back of his internet fame running HDR workshops and the like, which is why he dosen’t need to put a copyright on his images. He wants people to download and imitate his work, to reach out to anyone with a computer and a camera to get maximum exposure.

    (Sorry Trey, if it’s any consolation i enjoyed your HDR tutorial a few years back but i’ve moved on a bit since then)