Smart and Smarter

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ircam/4922122976/ Photo removed. follow link above if you want to see it.

Though the cable lock may be asking for trouble.

Comments

[RideTheWomble]

Gosh, and that helmet is right in the danger zone, if you know what I'm saying. You are now part of the, "Alpha Dog Communication Network."

[ontarioroader]

Not sure what the fascination is with the Smart cars - they have worse fuel efficiency than the Honda CRX and many other small cars that were produced over 25 years ago. They're not progress, just good marketing.

[afm]

You know, it'd be nice if you credited the photographer. Who is me, by the way.

[washcycle]

I used the official flickr html which is what flickr says to do. A click on the photo takes you to the site to show you who took the photo. I suppose it would be nice if I took the time to add in "Photo by (person's name)" but it seems extraneous and time is not something I have a lot of right now. I hope you understand. I did not mean to offend anyone or take credit for someone else's work.

[Christopher Fotos]

Love Washcycle even if I don't always agree with it. But the copyright notice and "All rights reserved" and a note inviting licensing through Getty might have been a tipoff....

Can't speak for afm but many if not most web photographers don't mind photos being used *with credit.* That's just minimally acceptable netiquette.

Agree with the commenter unimpressed with smartcars. Only plus is ability to park in really small spaces (which is not nothing). But in addition to unimpressive mileage for what they are, they're hazardous on highways or any lane where you can legally hit 55+.

Thanks for your work on washcycle.

[washcycle]

But the copyright notice and "All rights reserved" and a note inviting licensing through Getty might have been a tipoff....

Would it? I use the "share this" tool on flickr. Sometimes that is grayed out and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it allows for "blog this" and sometimes it doesn't. I believe the photographer defines these rights. In this case "blog this" was not available, had it been I would have chosen that and it would have added the "photo by ...." tag to the bottom. But only the "Grab HTML" option was available. The HTML does not include the "photo by ...." Since Flickr is run by photographers and for photographers am I wrong in assuming this is how they want it presented? If they want the "Photo by ...." why is that not included in the html? Some photos are "all rights reserved" and I can choose "Blog this". Some are "all rights reserved" and I can blog it. I don't even see the Getty thing you're talking about. Regardless, I don't see how that tells me anything useful.

This is all way more complicated than it needs to be, and I'm not interested in finding out what each photographer does and does not want for their photo. If you don't want people using it and linking it back to Flickr - the way Flickr says a person should - then don't make that an option. If you want to make sure that bloggers can use your photo and credit you for it, then allow for the "Blog this" option. But this is why I pay Flickr for a Pro membership - to make it easy on me. If someone feels slighted I'll take the photo down, but I don't exactly have a photo management legal office here and I don't really care to find out how each person wants to be cited. I don't mention each author I quote by name with a little "written by ...." tag, I just link back to them. What makes photographers so much more worthy of credit than writers?

[Michael]

I don't get it - you normally DO include a credit line below the photo, no?

Yes, Flickr's "grab the HTML" button should include the caption. Flickr isn't perfect, and they serve a wide audience.

And posting photos is similar to posting quotes, or anytime you reprint a significant amount of verbiage from another source - in addition to the link, you generally ought to mention the source, like "AP reports that" etc etc. A blind link doesn't need credit, but when you actually include someone else's content, visual or textual, a credit is due. The CC license typically includes an "Attribution" clause. Maybe someday Flickr will detect that and customize the "grab" code, but until then, I know most folks really appreciate seeing the credit.

[washcycle]

I normally have included it - but it was always a pain IMO. So then, when I found the "Grab the HTML" button and Flickr's policy about linking back, I though "Great, I don't have to deal with that anymore. All I have to do is use the HTML and I'm in compliance." But now it seems I was wrong. When I use the "Blog this" button it automatically credits the photographer.

My goal is to minimize my work without stepping on toes. What this means is that I'll continue to use few photos - fewer even now - and not blog any that don't allow for Blog this. I'm not sure if that's the result people are looking for. For example, I wouldn't blog this photo again because it doesn't allow for "Blog this." So afm still doesn't get the credit he wants.