The Creative Commons License is important for Tourism!

Pendant le mondial du vent...This is a photo uploaded by the flickr user leucatetourisme. It is possible for me to embed the photo in this blog entry because I simply asked the user to change the license.
He or she decided to switch it to Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).
This is on one hand good, because it is possible to embed it here in the blog but I am not allowed to use it commercially. This blog appears on our website cocoate.com which is of course a company site with a commercial intention. So am I allowed or not?
I am honestly not sure. Most of our photos on flickr are under this license Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).
If you click on one of them, like the one below, a lightbox will appears with a link to the original flickr page.

PyreneesPyrenees

Anyone can use the photo - BUT ...

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).

As a result of this, many of our photos appears in tutorials, travel guides and articles around the world. All of them link to our flickr account or mention us in the description of the photo.

But back to leucatetourisme. They want to brand the name and to attract visitors. I like the the idea, so I help them.



tourisme-leucate.fr
facebook.com/tourisme.leucateChar à voile à Leucate

Go immediately to their website, become a fan of their Facebook page, follow them on Twitter, enjoy the photos on Flickr, decide to spend your holidays or even a few days in this wonderful area and don't forget to book one of our apartments in the village of Fitou, which is situated a few kilometers from Leucate and has unfortunately no Twitter, no Flickr, no Facebook account (we are working on that) but partly wonderful wine :-)

I an not sure whether this statement is understood as commercial or not. So am I allowed to embed the photo?
If the responsible team of leucatetourisme would change the photo license to a more open one it would allow many more people to combine their efforts in a strong marketing for the region enriched with 'good' photos.

Let's look at another example. places2b is one of our international projects trying to develop communication in tourism and community work. Apart from other activities like round tables, the project groups discover and collect materials about wonderful places (places2b). There is a project group in Fitou btw. which meets regularly. The project relies partly on existing material, so free available flickr photos would be wonderful and they have the side effect too that these photos link to the original flickr account (see my first quote). That means free marketing for the owners of the photos.

How to change the license in my Flickr photos?

Directly in a photo by clicking the licence link and choose a licence (Figure 1)

cocoate.com/node/6915Change License in one photo

Set a default license - this is probaly the best switch :-)(Figure 2)

cocoate.com/node/6915Change default Licence

Change as many photos as you want in a batch process (Figure 3)

cocoate.com/node/6915Change License in a batch process


[update] All photos from leucatetourism are now available under the most open CC licence - thanks :-)

 

Section: 

Comments

That's true, the more rights you grant the more spreading you achieve for your ideas/business. If, and that's important: if you want to spread other services, than to sell your photos. The problem is, or better the question is: how many users on flickr intend to become a payed "photographer" ? Maybe they could use flickr for "giveaways". But at the end they'll have the same problem to finance their equipment as you, giving your joomla books as giveaway. You can't live from the income of flattr ;). Can you?

Sure it is web2.0 marketing, but this kind of marketing needs a high investment of time and work in advance, you need to be carefull to reserve time for payed works. If not, you'll work only for your selfmarketing. :)

About the rights of the photos shown above, I hope you have a kind of agreement with the people on the photos. For commercially use you or more exactly the photographer needs a model release contract. Flickr users often don't know, that they are presenting photos they don't have the licenses. This mostly concerns people/portraits as buildings ( for example the inside of historical buildings).

That's true, the more rights you grant the more spreading you achieve for your ideas/business. If, and that's important: if you want to spread other services, than to sell your photos.

The target group of this blog post are e.g. tourist offices. Usually the idea of these bodies is to spread the word about their city/region. This post is not about selling photos, it is about sharing existing and may be already payed photos to make the marketing more effective!

The problem is, or better the question is: how many users on flickr intend to become a payed "photographer" ?

I don't know

But at the end they'll have the same problem to finance their equipment as you, giving your joomla books as giveaway. You can't live from the income of flattr ;). Can you?

A tourist office usually pay photographers for having good pictures in their marketing material or sometimes they have community members who provide photos, so the payment is already done when the photo appears on Flickr.
My case is totally different. I am NOT an official body promoting a region, but a company with a business model. Free books and payed books are a part of our business model too. Flattr is becoming more important.

Sure it is web2.0 marketing, but this kind of marketing needs a high investment of time and work in advance, you need to be carefull to reserve time for payed works. If not, you'll work only for your selfmarketing. :)

Every kind of marketing needs a high investment in thinking and planning (time) and of course an evalution whether the approach was sucessful or not. In the case I mentioned I assume that the photos where already payed or given for free to the Flickr users.

About the rights of the photos shown above, I hope you have a kind of agreement with the people on the photos. For commercially use you or more exactly the photographer needs a model release contract.

All photos above are published under Creative Commons license as mentioned above. Worst case could be that the person on the photo claims his rights by notifiying the original Flickr user who uploaded the photo. In our case that would be the tourist office of Leucate. They would make an agreement among each other and it could be that they'll delete the photo on Flickr. Then it will disappear automatically from our page. So where do you see a problem?

Flickr users often don't know, that they are presenting photos they don't have the licenses.

If so, then we have one reason more to talk about that topic :-)

This mostly concerns people/portraits as buildings ( for example the inside of historical buildings).

Can you please provide more information?

"A tourist office usually pay photographers for having good pictures in their marketing material or sometimes they have community members who provide photos, so the payment is already done when the photo appears on Flickr."

Imho it is not as simple as you explain above.
Payed photos:
When selling a photo for commercial use, the rights a photographer grants a business company (for me tourist offices are business companies, pls correct me if am wrong) normally concern only one or more specified uses. Normally these licenses don't contain the right to provide these photos to others, i.e. by loading them up on community websites like flickr. If you would like to use a photo, bought by this company, correctly you will have to buy these photos for your own purposes. In any case you'll better check out, whether the flickruser really owns the rights he grants or not.

freely given photos...
... for example by uploading the photos on the business website of this tourist office. Let's admit users signed up a kind of contract, granting all rights to the owner of the site, when uploading pictures to the website of his company. In this case, the business owner may have the right to redistribute such photos on flickr. In all other cases, strictly seen, he has not. I know that a lot of people exchange their photos in a free way, but we are speaking of existing "rights" (if hey make sense or not).

All photos above are published under Creative Commons license as mentioned above. Worst case could be that the person on the photo claims his rights by notifiying the original Flickr user who uploaded the photo. In our case that would be the tourist office of Leucate. They would make an agreement among each other and it could be that they'll delete the photo on Flickr. Then it will disappear automatically from our page. So where do you see a problem?≤/em>

Worst case is: they don't possess the rights they are granting on flickr, you get involved in this problem, because you are responsible yourself for contents on your website (not very probably but not excluded). Juridically it makes no difference whether you embed the photo from the flickr server or host it on your one.

Can you please provide more information?
Let's take for example travel photos. the inside of castles, their parks, or even photos of churches, taken from the inner. To provide or to sell photos of those objects you correctly need a "property release".

Short:
Better don't trust the licences attached on flickr. You do not know whether the uploader possesses the rights he claims. The genuine copyright holder may not even be aware of the CC licence or the existence of the image on flickr. If things turn out bad, the genuine copyright holder will look for damages and turn to the infringer first, not to flickr, and not to the uploader.

Better don't trust the licences attached on flickr. You do not know whether the uploader possesses the rights he claims. The genuine copyright holder may not even be aware of the CC licence or the existence of the image on flickr. If things turn out bad, the genuine copyright holder will look for damages and turn to the infringer first, not to flickr, and not to the uploader.

I agree with you that it is possible that the owner of a flickr user account makes a mistake by assigning a license. But this is not a problem of licences or of the Flickr platform or of photographers, it is imho a problem of reading and understanding existing contracts and laws.

If things turn out bad, the genuine copyright holder will look for damages and turn to the infringer first, not to flickr, and not to the uploader.

  1. May be things turn out bad. Would be interesting to look at existing cases (domain name in one country, server in another country, embedded photo on flickr servers and so on). As far as I know, the place where the photo is stored is an important issue, the audience of the website, the top level domain and much more. The place of storage would be always on a Flickr server with a relationship to the original user account. Do you now some cases where things turned out bad?
  2. May be things turn out good. People put their photos intentially under CC and there is no problem. I know many cases where this works fine.

btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Co...

hm ... what can we do ... ?