Should Google Serve Copyrighted Flickr Photos on Street View?
Before we get into this week’s poll and discussion, here are the results from last week:
Would you switch to a medium format DSLR if it became affordable?
- Yes (429 Votes)
- No (71 Votes)
- Maybe (148 Votes)
Total Voters: 648
Loading ...This week’s question has to do with an interesting discussion that is going on regarding Google’s introduction of geo-tagged Flickr photos into their Google Maps Street View. Thomas Hawk writes on his blog:
When I first learned of this feature I thought for sure that it would be limited to Creative Commons Flickr photos. I wasn’t sure how Google could legally take high res photos for CC non-commercial photos or all rights reserved photos and integrate full sized versions of them into their product. But it seems as though this is exactly what they’ve done.
Thus, the problem is that large resolution photographs are being served through Google Maps for Flickr photographs labeled “All Rights Reserved”.
In the above screenshot in a San Francisco street view, Google displays the photo Day 5 by Flickr user gifrancis. On the Flickr page, we find that the photo is is labeled “All Rights Reserved”:
We should also note that Google serves sponsored links in Google Maps alongside the photographs.
What do you think of this use of copyrighted Flickr photos? Is it fair-use, or should Google only serve Creative Commons photographs?
Is Google violating copyright by serving Flickr photos through Street View?
- Yes (292 Votes)
- No (90 Votes)
Total Voters: 382
Loading ...Let us know what you think in the comments as well!
Join the PetaPixel Flickr Group
Follow @petapixel on Twitter
Google's business model involves copying, storing, and presenting content other people's web sites, with ads next to them. This doesn't seem like a big leap for them.
I suppose this should be dealt with on Flickr side, not on Google's.
Look, just below the “All rights reserved” mention it is written: “Anyone can see this photo”. If it says so – Google has the right to display the photos that are made available to public by Flickr through their API.
Not sure about sponsored links though…
As I understand, a google image search doesn't filter for all rights reserved photos, so why should street view be any different?
In this case street view is just a search engine that check geotags.
As long as the link to the original flickr page is maintained I have no issue with it.
Google is absolutely violating copyright if they use images that are marked with “All Rights Reserved”. If they are using Creative Commons licensed images with the proper attribution then that may be OK. (I haven't read the CC license enough to know for sure). This is absolutely a commercial usage and they should not do it without first getting permission or providing appropriate compensation.
I agree with mr Phillips. Google is the world's largest advertising agency and makes a fortune out of aggregating. This is simply not an indexing exercise whereby thumbnails or works in situ are shown. It is a full-on commercial use and the rights holder deserves compensation (a legal term for payment in exchange).
FWIW it's not the first time Flickr's API has dished up this all rights reserved material. It's about time Flickr tightened it right down – self policing by end users clearly isn't working. Users are told under T's and C's not to do this kind of thing.
I do use Flickr – I only upload low-res with watermarks across the image.
if Google are showing the full sized image or even a thumb without a link to the source, than that is outright theft.
fair use would suggest that, at most, Google could place a thumb and a link to the original on flickr – it will be interesting to see what flickr does regarding this
This is, in my opinion, breach of copyright as the image is being used on another website (separate from Flickr) and there is obvious commercial usage by use of the sponsored links alongside. I normally only allow this through the purchase of an appropriate license.
I have always had some doubts about Flickr which is why the images I have on Flickr are all watermarked. However, in light of this I may well leave Flickr altogether.
I'm curious to hear other viewpoints.
I just noticed a few of my Flickr photos on Street View yesterday. They certainly aren't pulling every geotagged photo (someone must be doing at least a little editing). They do link back to the original (as per Flickr's use policy). All my photos are licensed CC-BY-NC, but Google is probably still violating the terms of the license due to the adds that they run alongside. They are unquestionably violating the copyright of fully protected photos.
In my opinion I don't think this can in any way be read as non-commercial use by Google. Image street is right in thinking it doesn't actually matter if it is non-commercial or commercial – publishing without consent is infringement pure and simple.
They are a commercial co. – a very very large one. They are using Streetview alongside adverts which are paid for. By rights the authors of these works should be getting their fair share of the ad revenue. After all Google thinks them valuable enough to place there under it's substantial brand image.
FWIW I think the whole CC licencing is a bit of a dogs breakfast and open to misuse – it gives a green light to so much which is unsavoury exploitation both from a copyright and moral rights perspective.
Definitely a copyright breach. Fortunately from the sound of things there is an easy step to remove this problem… strip the GPS data out of the image. No data, Google will leave it alone.
But it is an issue Yahoo needs to look into though.
Makes you wonder if even creative commons photos should be used either. If they are serving up advertisements right next to creative commons non-commercial photos then surely they are using them for commercial reasons or perhaps that's another argument for another time?
All my photos are marked with a non-commercial creative commons as I feel it gives a chance for my photos to be seen by more people, I would love for them to come up in google street view. I'm quite comfortable with that which is why I set them to that license. However publishing copyrighted materials/photos without consent is complete copyright infringement plain and simple.
To be honest, if people are going to steal images, they're going to steal them (creative commons or not) so I certainly think Google should at least limit their use to only Creative Commons marked ones, as that's the whole reason people mark photos with that license. My main question (as a creative commons user) has to be how can google be allowed to make money of the back of my photos when I've specifically marked them with a license that doesn't allow that?
Of course on of the biggest problems with CC licencing is defining what is or isn't commercial use. I think this use by Google is commercial so according to me then the CC non-commercial usage pics shouldn't be used either. It's the wriggle room it creates which is one of the downsides of CC. Not the only one of course.
[...] are the results from last week’s poll regarding Google’s use of copyrighted Flickr content in its Street [...]