Posts Tagged ‘license’

Bing Now Allows You to Filter Your Image Searches by Licence

binglicensesearch1

As the saying goes: “better late than never.” In a move that puts Bing on par with the likes of Google’s and Yahoo’s image search engines, Microsoft’s search giant has just added licensing refinements to its image searching capabilities as well. Read more…

A Flowchart For Figuring Out Which CC License You Should Use

ccflowchart

Creative Commons is a non-profit organization founded in 2001 that, over the years, has released a set of licenses that enable creative types to share their work with others. The content creator allows others to use their work, just as long as the users follow the guidelines set forth in that particular license. It’s a “some rights reserved” system rather than an “all rights reserved system.”

In the photographic community, some aren’t fond of CC licensing while others are downright prolific about it. But if you’re looking to license some of your content in this way, this useful infographic put together by CC Australia will help you navigate the common licensing combinations. Read more…

Artist Has Self-Portrait Painting Approved as Drivers License Photograph

licenseart

Check out this portrait photograph of Swedish artist Fredrik Saker. It’s actually a self-portrait that Saker painted by hand. While we’ve seen and shared photo-realistic drawings before, Saker’s came up with a clever way of validating his photo’s realism: he managed to have it approved as his drivers license photo.
Read more…

Photographer Suing Skechers for $250M for Violating Licensing Agreement

Here’s a lawsuit you might want to keep an eye on: in late 2010, photographer Richard Reinsdorf sued shoe company Skechers for violating the licensing agreement for a number of images he made for the company between 2006 and 2009. While the lawsuit itself isn’t anything unusual, the price demanded by Reinsdorf is: he wants $250 million.
Read more…

Stipple Trying to Turn Microstock On Its Head with In-Photo Ads

Microstock did a lot of damage by turning traditional stock photography on its head, but now a company called Stipple is trying to give microstock a taste of its own medicine. The company, which offers technology for tagging people and objects in photos, has launched its new Image Marketplace website for publishers who want to use photographs without having to pay for them. Instead of publishers paying the photographers or agencies for licenses, brands step into the equation by paying money to advertise through the photos. The photographer then collects money based on the number of clicks and hovers their photographs receive.

Stipple Marketplace (via TechCrunch)

New Flickr Feature Makes it Easier to Make Money with Your Photos

Flickr has just announced a new feature that lets you to add a “Request to License” link to all of your photos stored on the service, allowing visitors who wish to license your photos to send you the request through Getty.

Visit any of your photos while logged in, and you should see a link under “Additional Information” that says “Want to license your photos through Getty images?”. Follow the instructions after clicking this to change your preferences.

Once you’ve enabled the “Request to License” link, visitors can click through to be put in touch with a Getty representative, who will then handle the details and send you a FlickrMail with the licensing request.

The companies are mum regarding the rates paid for photos, but BBC News reports that the average rate may be between $150 and $240.

One complaint that members are making on the Flickr forum is that the feature is globally enabled or disabled rather than allowing you to choose which photographs to show the link for. Presumably Flickr is working on changing this to give users more control.

Have you sold any photos on Flickr through Getty? If so, what was your experience?

Photographers Launch Class Action Lawsuit Against Google

Google Books, an ambitious project to make millions of physical books searchable online, found itself in yet another legal battle today after photographers followed in the footsteps of authors by launching their own class action lawsuit for copyright infringement.

In 2005, the Authors Guild of America sued Google for copyright infringement due to the fact that Google was scanning massive amounts of copyright material and storing them in its private database. Though Google entered into a settlement agreement in 2008, the judge presiding over the case would not allow other photographers’ groups to be involved in the case.

For this reason, American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) filed its own separate class action lawsuit against Google today, and is joined by a number of other organizations including the North American Nature Photography Association, the Picture Archive Council of America, and Professional Photographers of America.

Like the Authors Guild, the ASMP’s lawsuit deals with the fact that Google is scanning, indexing, and storing copyright work without permission of the copyright holders. The difference is that this new lawsuit focuses on photographs and visual works rather than written text. In a press release posted on its website, the ASMP states,

The suit [...] relates to Google’s illegal scanning of millions of books and other publications containing copyrighted images and displaying them to the public without regard to the rights of the visual creators [...]

We strongly believe that our members and those of other organizations, whose livelihoods are significantly and negatively impacted, deserve to have representation in this landmark issue [...]

We are seeking justice and fair compensation for visual artists whose work appears in the twelve million books and other publications Google has illegally scanned to date. In doing so, we are giving voice to thousands of disenfranchised creators of visual artworks whose rights we hope to enforce through this class action.

Furthermore, the ASMP states that the lawsuit is not limited to Google’s Library Project, but includes “Google’s other systematic and pervasive infringements of the rights of photographers, illustrators and other visual artists.”

While this is a pretty vague statement, we reported last month that Google had begun including copyrighted photographs from websites such as Flickr in its Maps application.

What are your thoughts on Google’s projects and how they impact copyright holders? Have photographers’ lives been “significantly and negatively impacted” by Google’s activities?


Image credit: In Google We Trust by sonicbloom

ImageStamper Proves Photo Licenses

ImageStamper is an online tool that acts as your witness when it comes to image rights.

If you’re a photographer, it can verify when you uploaded a photograph, and if you use creative commons images, it can help document the license of the image when you used it in case the owner decides to change the license or remove the photograph in the future.

The service currently only handles photographs uploaded to Flickr, but they’re planning to add support for other photo services as well.

There also isn’t currently an automated way to have your photographs “stamped”, so you’ll have to manually enter them into the ImageStamper system.

Do you think the extra work required by this service is worth it? Would you use it to protect yourself and/or your photographs?