NowPublic Trolling Flickr
May 17th, 2008 by Alex
I received a Flickr Mail from a NowPublic member asking if they could use a photo of mine in an article about National Chocolate Chip Day. The article itself isn’t really an article at all, just a summary of another article. Geek that I am, a link is a link and the photo doesn’t mean too much to me so I looked into it. The email said that the photo would be attributed to me, but when I visited their site to approve their request I found two things.
- you’re required to create an account with NowPublic
- the attribution is in the form of a Flickr comment
I try to keep my accounts to a minimum. I have way too many as it is. Plus a Flickr comment isn’t much in the way of attribution. The viewers of the story aren’t going to know that I took the photo. Isn’t that the point of attribution? Based on other stories it looks NowPublic just yanks the image rather than retrieving the image from Flickr, so there’s no way to tell how many people are seeing thing. There’s also no link back to the original Flickr photo. But that’s not all.
You should know that we will apply the licensing settings for your photos that you set on your Flickr account, if you agree to this request.
I don’t think so. I don’t want an outside company making changes to my photos’ licensing whenever they please. There is a reason why I reserve all rights to my photos. Looking up NowPublic yielded several other people with similar concerns as fine, with varied results.
Here is my take.
NowPublic is trolling Flickr and exploiting fame-hungry photographers. Imagery isn’t free. Compensation or credit is due, especially when the publisher is earning revenue from the use of the image. If the attribution were a reciprocal link to my Flickr page or blog and not just associated with a new profile on yet another service that I won’t use, I’d have said yes.
Moving on.
I didn’t have quite the same thing happen to me, but someone did ask to link to two of my photos I took at the Museum of the Confederacy when I visited Richmond in December. They weren’t NowPublic, but a Flickr group, something like “Veterens of the American Civil War” who go searching for Flickr photos of Union and Confederate soldiers. I just checked now to make triple-sure they weren’t someone stealing my photos. Nope, just a guy on Flickr who added a tag or two to two of my photos.
I use CC on my flickr stuff, and attribution required includes my blog’s URL — I don’t always get that, so I try to remind miscreants, many of whom comply and come back for more. Many of my flickr posts are illustrations from my blog, and I post flickr comments linking to the specific posts — I get some traffic through that. Nowpublic has found my stuff; I’m waiting to see if they will comply with my terms.
I’ve had some websites seek permission for some of my pictures, but none seemed as shady as this NowPublic. I don’t mind as long as I’m not giving away any rights and I truly get a link.
PS
The funniest Flickr group that has asked me to join is one dedicated to Walmart Supercenters.
John: I’d be fine with Flickr groups, since they retain attribution.
Mike: I hadn’t thought of linking back to the blog posts from the image page. That’s a good idea. Simple and relevant.
yellowjkt: I’ve been told that there’s a Flickr group dedicated to everything and anything, no matter how bizarre. No requests for that so far, but I’m not opposed to sharing. It’s the commercial use that I’m wary of.
You’ll want to stay away from Adobe’s free online photo editing tool. If you read the micro-fine print, you’ll see that by using the software, you’re basically giving Adobe permission to use any of your images for any reason they choose. Um, no thanks.
Carol: Are you serious? Got a link to the fine print?
Note 1- your site seems a bit screwy in old IE- I’m not seeing the left hand side of the page (making typing fun!)
Note 2- I received one of these requests from NowPublic as well. I’m not accepting, due of course to the same excellent reasons you’ve noted above.
Regarding John’s comment, my stuff apparently is appealing to all sorts of weird Flickr groups. Some I understand completely and enjoy (hello quilting groups, flattered they’d even consider my work good enough to post), but apparently I also appeal to some… less wholesome groups. None of my pictures are remotely NSFW!! It’s just good to bear in mind that checking who the group is… can be useful before agreeing to let them tag and play.
Jen: The Flickr groups seem pretty cool and I’d definitely be flattered, however to date my images have remain undiscovered by Flickr groupsters.
I just got my 4th or 5th NowPublic request… denied once again. I’m thinking about adding it to my profile “don’t ask to put these on NowPublic”… I don’t agree w/ their format, either. I’ll sell my photos to AP, Reuters, any news agency, etc, etc… but asking me to give them away to this online news site just bothers me, especially when the articles contain tons and tons of other photos. What good is it to me to have one or two photos in a gallery of hundreds? It seems like nowadays too many people and businesses have their hands out looking for photo freebies. If we all put our feet down then maybe we can teach people that quality photography doesn’t grow on trees - it has value, and if you want it then you need to offer some compensation… Kudos to you Alex for saying ‘no thanks’.
Hi,
I’m working on a book about cyber-piracy, and I’m very interested in your experiences. More to the specific point, I was a Guest Editor on Now Public, until today. Then I questioned mtippett about a news report that NP was financially successful because they got material contributed from members and then resold it. In less than an hour, they removed my “Guest Editor” ranking, and threatened to ban me forever from NP. Here’s what happened:
Then I asked this question:
–and here’s where I said it:
http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/editors-weblog-features-nowpublic
I was the #1 rated Editor on the site, and #3 member. (Note: they only recently instituted the Leaderboard, which I was against for many reasons.) While sending me an email threatening me with banning and of course, citing other reasons than the real one, they also asked if they could use one of my articles about NP as part of their introductory package.
If anyone wishes to let me know about your experiences with Now Public trolling on flickr, please email me at a special address set up for this.
[email removed by Ed]
Note: I’m not worried about posting the email because this email is shared by several writers, and we routinely create and use disposable addresses for projects.
Your input, private or public, will be respected. I’ve got more than 30 years in journalism and a lot of awards behind me.
Ironically, I’d been dallying on my new book–now they’ve provided rocket fuel with these new issues.
Best wishes,
PEP
Ed: If anyone wants to contact PEP, leave a comment to that effect and I’ll forward the address to you. I’m a bit suspect of this, an individual who, with more than 30 years in journalism and a lot of awards, uses disposable email addresses from Yahoo and doesn’t leave a real name. Seems like a ploy for more hits to me.
Well, I wanted to help you. I don’t contribute to NP any more. Of course when leaving a public note I don’t leave my primary email–who would, with spammers?
Don’t bother to “hit” on my stuff @ NP; I’ve deleted pages of it, including contributions with several thousand hits on just one story.
And your response shows why people need to be careful about leaving their full details and emails; sometimes you reach out to aid and someone hits back.
Had you bothered to email me yourself or ask I would have given you more details, privately. I’ve learned to be careful on the internet; your reply confirms why that’s necessary.
PEP: It sounds like you’re researching for your book on cyber-piracy (of all things). Help me with what exactly?
NowPublic encourages people to submit news, now with a leader board style ranking system. Most of this stories aren’t original. Most are excerpts from other news sites. I doubt many award winning journalists would consider this a valid part of their craft, even those who have made the transition to blogging and online media. If you’ve been a journalist for 30+ years, chances are good that your name has been all over the place long before you chose to comment here.
According to your NowPublic profile, you posted an excerpt of a story yesterday (06/18/08). People can change their ways overnight, but seeing as how you’ve contributed/excerpted hundreds of NowPublic stories and commented on countless others, you’ll have to accept or forgive my skepticism for the time being.
Whatever. I looked you up, and you’re very very green, so perhaps some maturation will help.
Some of us have had other experiences to be wise about the context in which we release full personal information. And one other thing maybe you’ll figure out some day: those of us who’ve been successful not only work hard, but we’re helped along the way.
I’m among those who believe in giving back. I thought that participating in NP, especially as a Guest Editor, was a way of giving back and maybe having some casual fun, too.
I’ve given away a great many things in my life. It’s also part of my spiritual practice. That may seem strange and unbelievable to you, and that’s too bad, for you.
If you’re tracking what I’ve done, you’d have seen that I’ve now deleted enough material to account for almost half a million page views. Be thorough if you’re going to research people and use it to attack them.
I don’t care if you’re skeptical. That’s your problem. You had a concern about something you thought was unethical and that bothered you. You discussed it. I heard about the discussion and showed up to validate you (that’s one step in helping), and had some other info as well. But I’m not dumb enough to share info with someone so dismissive of others.
Perhaps you could consider: being “skeptical” doesn’t include being rude or dismissive.
I thought you had a concern for others, as well. Given your responses, I don’t think so. I think it’s just another part of you “I got up, went to the movies, and oh yea, this pissed me off” blog.
I won’t be back. Arguing with someone who’s determined to be cutting and dismissive of others with no reason at all is a waste of time.
May I suggest reading Jim Rohn? Good resource.