Whenever I see photographers / artists who are precious about their work being used (especially without credit) I wonder about how they would rate themselves regarding life / carreer progression.
Does one really need credit / attribution for the furtherment of one's art? Or is it more to do with recognition or financial gain?
As far as artistic endeavour goes I would say that it is reward enough in itself to see someone using your images. (Words are another thing entirely and I''m not sure where I stand on that yet... *grin*)
Basically what I'm getting at is - fair play to you. Glad to see someone just happy that their work is good :-)
Vipul
· 1 year ago
The picture link of Mustafa Ceric is wrong
13. Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti of Bosnia (top religious leader).
Salubri: well, on the other hand it's nice to see artists and journalists getting paid. I just choose a different model for getting paid, that's all.
Rachel
· 1 year ago
you can't tell they are in the public domain from the Flickr image - you've used the least restrictive CC licence but under that you still maintain ownership. Pretty sure you're going to have to state on each image what you are doing. Although I actually think leaving them attribution needed is better.
CharlieM
· 1 year ago
Interesting that I count 11/59 women in your selection. I wonder if that is indicative of the general Davos balance?
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Rachel: true, I went with the loosest license that Flickr has. But this note here would legally hold up and will cover all my photos.
CharlieM: yeah, the male/female ratio is something like that there.
jonas
· 1 year ago
i have the 50mm F 1.8. those lenses are truly amazing, and the build quality is far superior to the canon equivalent. especially, for the cheaper one.
anyway, you probably never want to go belive 2 or 2.2 either way, for maximum sharpness throughout the image (note: not talking about depth of field here)
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
jonas: yup. That actually is true of every lens: they are usually about 30% sharper when stopped down mid-way. Wide open or all the way closed are least sharp. Some lenses this is worse than others, though.
Rich
· 1 year ago
You seem to be suggesting that the Nikon D3 is superior to the Canon EOS 5D by saying that 'It shoots in 1/4th the light (two stops) than my Canon 5D'
Perhaps that is because the lens on your 5D is two stops slower than the 50mm 1.8 on you Nikon?
So, your comparison between the two camera bodies appears somewhat misleading when you should, instead, be comparing the lenses on the two camera's.
Bill Koslosky
· 1 year ago
Robert:
Great work! I did a blog post about the possibility of a Nikon D3x based on the new Sony 25mp sensor, then added your photo of Tim shot at ISO 6400 just to show what the D3 can do:
I gave you full credit and linked it back to your Flickr account. Having photos like this, easily available, really adds to the quality of blog posts.
BK
moo
· 1 year ago
Why public domain and not CC attribution?
Or perhaps share alike so derivatives are also free?
Interested to know your reasoning. Do you think CC isnt viable?
Brian Sullivan
· 1 year ago
Kudos.
Great pictures.
Herschel
· 1 year ago
Robert, you have 2400+ pictures in your Flickr stream. That's crazy.
Crazy as a fox!
That's how you drive interest.
fortes
· 1 year ago
Are there any legal ramifications of putting up photos of other people? Aka, do you have the right to release them into the public domain, or do you need some kind of model release?
Daniel
· 1 year ago
Robert, I'm watching CrankyGeeks right now and I have to say, I love you!
You are a real web 2.0 hero.
greetings from austria
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Rich: I have the same lens (an F1.4) on my Canon. The Canon shoots at 1600 ISO at the same quality the Nikon shoots at 6400 ISO. And anyway a 50 mm F 1.8 is only 2/3rd of a stop slower than a 50mm F1.4.
fortes: you do NOT need a release of your subject to put them into public domain. The only reason you need a release from a subject is if you'd like to use them in advertising where their use might imply an endorsement of the subject. Professional photojournalists never get releases of subjects they take in public places, which is where I got all of these photos.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
moo: because I don't care if I get attribution or not. I want to give you the right to use my photos without doing anything for me in return.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
Scoble, none of these photos are in the public domain. You list a CC license on all of them that requires attribution. By labeling your images this way, you are imposing this license restriction on them. You should remove the CC license if you intend for them to be public domain.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Andrew: I can't figure out how to do that in Flickr's UI. If I change the license to "none" then Flickr says "all rights reserved", which is the opposite of what I actually want to do. Flickr doesn't let me mark them with a public domain, so I picked the loosest license I could find.
orcmid
· 1 year ago
OK, two problems. First, of course, Flickr has the photos under Creative Commons Attribution. You can declare that no attribution is required, but it doesn't show on Flickr. You probably need the declaration to be on your profile on Flickr, if there is a way to do that. This would be a natural place for people to find out what attribution satisfies your license. (By the way, the U.S. Copyright Code has no means to put material in the public domain. You have the copyright whether you want it or not, it will expire whether you want it to or not -- unless you are Disney Corp -- and the most you can do is make a quit claim, which you are doing.)
The second problem is more serious. While you can grant free use of your photograph, the subjects of the photograph have something to say about the use of their image. This is especially the case if a commercial use is made of the photograph. Unless you have model releases, and say what they are (they usually have to be in writing) your copyright license is important but insufficient for someone to do whatever they want with the image. I bet you know something about that from your work in a camera shop. Nothing has changed.
Notice, for example, that the Nikon School group on Flickr requires that contributors of images to the group are required to have obtained the necessary releases for images of identifiable people. Notice that your CC-attribution license is sufficient for this except for the possession of releases: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigitallearni...
Tomi Itkonen
· 1 year ago
That list is simply impressive. I wouldn't have guessed that World Economic Forum draws that kind of roster... A surprising amount of tech people participated i.e. not all were political leaders or economists.
orcmid
· 1 year ago
"fortes: you do NOT need a release of your subject to put them into public domain. The only reason you need a release from a subject is if you’d like to use them in advertising where their use might imply an endorsement of the subject. Professional photojournalists never get releases of subjects they take in public places, which is where I got all of these photos."
Let's be clear about something. You can only make a quite claim to rights that you have. Not to rights that you don't have. Your copyright in a photo does not include a right possessed by the subject of the photo and not you. That's why there are separate releases.
I am not disputing that the rights of people to their own image is diminished in public activities, but your making a public domain declaration is independent of that and people who use your image need to be just as careful as someone who purchases it from you.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Orcmid: that is true. If you want to use these images in an advertisement you need additional permissions. But you don't need to get mine.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Tomi: everyone except me was interesting at Davos. It was like being a kid in a candy store. My only regret? That I couldn't meet all of the 3,000 participants.
Thomas Hawk
· 1 year ago
Robert, fantastic work in capturing this historic summit. It's great to see the work made so freely available and adds greatly to the historical record of the event for generations ahead.
Herschel
· 1 year ago
You know, I glad I'm not in the publishing business cause the copyright and useage laws are pretty detailed.
But, I think in this particular case, where Scoble shot these people in a public forum as news worthy items the images can be used for such purposes.
Problaby can't use Bono's image shot there for a beer advertisement. But as a blogger I could use the image in my blog where I'm discussing something in reference to him.
But I think the fact is Robert has given everyone permission to use the images without compensation to him, which isn't the same as saying "use this image any way you want." Scoble doesn't have that much power, YET.
thomas
· 1 year ago
Salubri,
Do you realize that the majority of photographers / artist who are hammering home the importance of being credited and rewarded for their work do so because they are trying to make a living from them.
While it is great that Scoble makes his photos available for free use I doubt he would do the same with his book "naked conversations". (Robert if you do change your mind about that send me a PDF copy to my email address).
Point is, some people are trying to make a living from photography and as such need to receive a payment of some form. The reason they require copyright notice is so other people are aware this is rights managed image and payment for the use is required
francine hardaway
· 1 year ago
What an incredible amount of brain power Davos assembles. I hope there are some outcomes, other than the "rich and famous" socializing with each other. Do you see an opportunity for something to really happen?
anon
· 1 year ago
All my photos are in the public domain now.
Bravo, Robert! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
(and I will always attribute)
vinnie mirchandani
· 1 year ago
Robert, glad to see the mood at least around technology there was upbeat...was concerned the overall global economic malaise would dominate the conversations there
David Dalka
· 1 year ago
Very nice demonstration of your viewpoint Robert!
Peter Cooper
· 1 year ago
For those who seem to find the idea of the public domain ghastly, take a look at SQLite. SQLite has done a lot of good for developers over the past several years, and is totally in the public domain. Even Apple use it to power their Mail app.
I release most (though not all) of my software, libraries, and similar contributions into the public domain, except for things I actively make money from, because I want to make the world a better place (and I don't care much about global warming, so I do it in other ways!) Scoble is to be applauded on this move, not questioned, because what you sow, you tend to reap further down the line.
Also, Creative Commons do have a public domain dedication. It's just that Flickr doesn't use it for some reason.
Peter Cooper
· 1 year ago
By the way, just to elaborate on something Scoble said, it's not just advertising that demands you get a release. While newspapers and most informational uses (such as Wikipedia entries) would not require a release, even using a picture as decoration on your home page or making a wallpaper that you distribute non-commercially would require a release (and that's not really "advertising"). Of course, almost no-one adheres to these rules, but it can open you up to litigation nonetheless (but almost everything nowadays can..)
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
Peter: good point. Any photo used for commercial purposes (which both of those examples you used do) should have model releases.
Derek K. Miller
· 1 year ago
It is a pity that Flickr doesn't offer a Public Domain option for photos. But I'm sure that would open up the likelihood that many people would release stuff into the public domain without understanding what that means, and in some cases without the rights to do so -- as already happens with CC licenses.
David Gerard
· 1 year ago
Robert - thanks so much for releasing these photos!
On the Wikimedia Commons, public domain shots of people do (or should, in any case) include a note that although the *copyright* is free, personality rights, etc. may well not be.
Even public domain pics should have source, etc. on the photo page where known, because it's relevant and useful information.
Pictures *generally* don't get credited in the caption right there on a Wikipedia article the picture is used in, but may do if the photographer is particularly noteworthy or relevant - it's decided case by case as an editorial decision like any other article content. So your name may show up in captions :-)
Annalie Killian
· 1 year ago
Hi Robert.....well....what a privilege it is to be exposed to such a diversity of genius, in the birthing room of global change.
I was wondering if you can help with a website for Beijing Hual Information Digital Technology Co. When I search it, all roads link back to you, this post and flickr!
Annalie Killian AMP, Sydney, Australia
Annalie Killian
· 1 year ago
Hi Robert
What a privilege it must have been to meet with such a diversity of genius in the birthing room of global leadership and change?
I was wondering if you could help me with a website or address for Beijing Hual Digital Information co? A search only leades me back to you, this post and Flickr?
It's only recently that I've started following your blogging/posting/twittering/etc but have enjoyed all the things I've seen, heard, and learned from you.
I have a quick question. I want to use your photos posted on Flickr for commerical use. Are they available for that purpose? I read that they were; however, I also noticed that there are restrictions on their usage.
Please advise. Dionne Celebre
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
You are welcome to use my photos. If you need to have further permissions or clarifications, please email me at scobleizer@gmail.com. Thanks!
All Comments
Does one really need credit / attribution for the furtherment of one's art? Or is it more to do with recognition or financial gain?
As far as artistic endeavour goes I would say that it is reward enough in itself to see someone using your images. (Words are another thing entirely and I''m not sure where I stand on that yet... *grin*)
Basically what I'm getting at is - fair play to you. Glad to see someone just happy that their work is good :-)
13. Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti of Bosnia (top religious leader).
Salubri: well, on the other hand it's nice to see artists and journalists getting paid. I just choose a different model for getting paid, that's all.
CharlieM: yeah, the male/female ratio is something like that there.
anyway, you probably never want to go belive 2 or 2.2 either way, for maximum sharpness throughout the image (note: not talking about depth of field here)
Perhaps that is because the lens on your 5D is two stops slower than the 50mm 1.8 on you Nikon?
So, your comparison between the two camera bodies appears somewhat misleading when you should, instead, be comparing the lenses on the two camera's.
Great work! I did a blog post about the possibility of a Nikon D3x based on the new Sony 25mp sensor, then added your photo of Tim shot at ISO 6400 just to show what the D3 can do:
http://billkosloskymd.typepad.com/wirelessdoc/2...
I gave you full credit and linked it back to your Flickr account. Having photos like this, easily available, really adds to the quality of blog posts.
BK
Or perhaps share alike so derivatives are also free?
Interested to know your reasoning. Do you think CC isnt viable?
Great pictures.
Crazy as a fox!
That's how you drive interest.
You are a real web 2.0 hero.
greetings from austria
fortes: you do NOT need a release of your subject to put them into public domain. The only reason you need a release from a subject is if you'd like to use them in advertising where their use might imply an endorsement of the subject. Professional photojournalists never get releases of subjects they take in public places, which is where I got all of these photos.
The second problem is more serious. While you can grant free use of your photograph, the subjects of the photograph have something to say about the use of their image. This is especially the case if a commercial use is made of the photograph. Unless you have model releases, and say what they are (they usually have to be in writing) your copyright license is important but insufficient for someone to do whatever they want with the image. I bet you know something about that from your work in a camera shop. Nothing has changed.
Notice, for example, that the Nikon School group on Flickr requires that contributors of images to the group are required to have obtained the necessary releases for images of identifiable people. Notice that your CC-attribution license is sufficient for this except for the possession of releases:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigitallearni...
Let's be clear about something. You can only make a quite claim to rights that you have. Not to rights that you don't have. Your copyright in a photo does not include a right possessed by the subject of the photo and not you. That's why there are separate releases.
I am not disputing that the rights of people to their own image is diminished in public activities, but your making a public domain declaration is independent of that and people who use your image need to be just as careful as someone who purchases it from you.
But, I think in this particular case, where Scoble shot these people in a public forum as news worthy items the images can be used for such purposes.
Problaby can't use Bono's image shot there for a beer advertisement. But as a blogger I could use the image in my blog where I'm discussing something in reference to him.
But I think the fact is Robert has given everyone permission to use the images without compensation to him, which isn't the same as saying "use this image any way you want." Scoble doesn't have that much power, YET.
Do you realize that the majority of photographers / artist who are hammering home the importance of being credited and rewarded for their work do so because they are trying to make a living from them.
While it is great that Scoble makes his photos available for free use I doubt he would do the same with his book "naked conversations". (Robert if you do change your mind about that send me a PDF copy to my email address).
Point is, some people are trying to make a living from photography and as such need to receive a payment of some form. The reason they require copyright notice is so other people are aware this is rights managed image and payment for the use is required
Bravo, Robert! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
(and I will always attribute)
I release most (though not all) of my software, libraries, and similar contributions into the public domain, except for things I actively make money from, because I want to make the world a better place (and I don't care much about global warming, so I do it in other ways!) Scoble is to be applauded on this move, not questioned, because what you sow, you tend to reap further down the line.
Also, Creative Commons do have a public domain dedication. It's just that Flickr doesn't use it for some reason.
On the Wikimedia Commons, public domain shots of people do (or should, in any case) include a note that although the *copyright* is free, personality rights, etc. may well not be.
Even public domain pics should have source, etc. on the photo page where known, because it's relevant and useful information.
Pictures *generally* don't get credited in the caption right there on a Wikipedia article the picture is used in, but may do if the photographer is particularly noteworthy or relevant - it's decided case by case as an editorial decision like any other article content. So your name may show up in captions :-)
I was wondering if you can help with a website for Beijing Hual Information Digital Technology Co. When I search it, all roads link back to you, this post and flickr!
Annalie Killian
AMP, Sydney, Australia
What a privilege it must have been to meet with such a diversity of genius in the birthing room of global leadership and change?
I was wondering if you could help me with a website or address for Beijing Hual Digital Information co? A search only leades me back to you, this post and Flickr?
Annalie Killian
AMP, Sydney, Australia
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=660250495
It's only recently that I've started following your blogging/posting/twittering/etc but have enjoyed all the things I've seen, heard, and learned from you.
I did notice 1 error in your listing of people/pictures from Davos - Jeff Zucker (#10) is the President and CEO of NBC Universal, not Interactive. Since I work for GE, it was easy to notice :) You can see him here: http://www.ge.com/company/leadership/executives... at the bottom of the page and his personal bio here: http://www.ge.com/company/leadership/bios_exec/...
I have a quick question. I want to use your photos posted on Flickr for commerical use. Are they available for that purpose? I read that they were; however, I also noticed that there are restrictions on their usage.
Please advise.
Dionne Celebre
Just wanted to let you know that I added you to the Wikipedia article called "List of notable people who dedicate works to the public domain"
Do you happen to know anyone else that should be added to the list?
The list has been moved here instead:
Set Free