So we launched what I thought was going to be a wonderfully well-received feature on Myxer this past weekend. Using the public flickr APIs, we wired up Myxer’s search functionality such that, in addition to searching our large catalog of user-submitted images, we would also search public photos hosted by flickr. We then added a “send to phone” feature to the images, so that Myxer users could send images they discovered to their phones (e.g., to use as wallpapers).

We loved this feature internally, because most of us around here use flickr as a way to share simple snapshots of people and places that we want to share with others. Adding “send to phone” functionality to flickr was a great way to quickly find photos of friends, etc., and send them to your phone. Because we always included full attribution and direct links back to the hosting page on flickr, we thought the integration would be appreciated by the flickr community at large.

Unfortunately, that’s not exactly what happened.

Soon after we launched this feature on the evening of July 3, 2008, a thread appeared on Flickr’s help forums with the title Myxer Using Copyrighted Images Without Permission. After browsing through a dozen or so posts, it became fairly obvious that the community at large had some, err, issues with our implementation. We quickly disabled the Flickr integration feature on Saturday so that we could step back and take a look at the situation, and I posted a response on the flickr forum apologizing to the community for having obviously struck a nerve.

Comments publicly ranged from the straightforward (”The fact that you can see something on Flickr doesn’t automatically mean you can use it.”) to rather more USENET-style flaming to my personal email (”I guess you cheated in school and feel you can do anything you want just because you think you can”). At least there were a few less angry comments, for example a simple post by Jayal Aheram who said the words we were hoping everyone would say:

“Oh, sweet! They can send my photos and my favorites straight into my phone. How cool is that?”

So what was the problem? Well, the mechanical thing that caused grief was that our engineers mistakenly assumed that search results we received from the “public” flickr photostream via the API were all appropriate for use by Myxer (assuming we included all of the attribution information) because we had obtained a commercial API key. But as was very quickly pointed out to us after launch, the Flickr API Terms of Use state (in section 1.a.ii.):

…your use of the Flickr APIs [does not] override the photo owners’ requirements and restrictions, which may include “all rights reserved” notices…Creative Commons licenses or other terms and conditions that may be agreed upon between you and the owners. … If you use Flickr photos for a commercial purpose, the photos must be marked with a Creative Commons license that allows for such use, unless otherwise agreed upon between you and the owner…

In other words, without the explicit consent of the photo owner, a commercial Flickr API partner should filter out content that does not have an appropriate Creative Commons license attached to it. iansand pointed this out very concisely in a follow up post on the flickr forum (”Use CC Commercial content only and there will be no problems”).

So that appears to be a relatively simple fix for us: update our code to examine every item that comes back from the flickr API, and check it for a CC Commercial license, signaling that the owner of the photo has consented to commercial use such as ours. No CC license? Toss it in the bit bucket.

I think, though, that the mechanical failure is in many ways less notable than the failure to realize that, at a high level, not everyone who uses Flickr uses it like most of us here at Myxer do. Indeed, the Flickr community is home to a large number of professional photographers who use Flickr as a showcase for their commercial photography. This is to be contrasted with many people’s personal use of Flickr, as a convenient place to upload digital snaps they want to share freely with the world of family, friends, and so on. And while we have a couple of professional photographers in our company, it didn’t really sink in to us that there were many in the Flickr community who were not interested in spreading their photos far and wide, and opening them up to new uses by the web community.

Mea Culpa.

Let me repost some of my original reply from the Flickr forum thread:

“First of all, I want to apologize to everyone who was angered by the recent launch of our Flickr integration feature, and I want to thank everyone who took the time to send a note to our copyright alias (copyright@myxer.com). We do, in fact, read and act on every single email we receive.

Because of your emails, we have suspended Myxer’s Flickr integration features until we can re-evaluate the situation. (This feature was live on Myxer from late Thursday, 3 July, to Saturday, 5 July).

It was never our intention to power mobile delivery of any Flickr content against the wishes of the person who posted it to Flickr, and I feel terrible that there were many who felt violated by this feature. We were honestly just really excited to add what we thought was a really cool feature for Flickr users — the ability to send publicly-posted photos to mobile phones.”

Now, a couple of other bloggers picked up on this thread and ran with it. Jim Goldstein wrote a piece called How Every Flickr Photo Ended Up For Sale This Weekend on his blog that discusses the issue in the broader context of what responsibility Flickr should be burdened with with respect to controlling access to images via APIs, RSS feeds, and so forth. Says Jim:

This latest incident is by far the most egregious, as the use of photographs from Flickr were being sold with out the consent of a single photographer, all while photo licensing terms were programmatically ignored. I’m glad to see that Myxer took the proper steps to disable their Flickr integration, but this is the latest example of Flickr playing with fire. On some varying level it is easy to point the finger at Myxer, Dave Winer (author of FlickrFan), Eightface (the company behind FlickrRSS) or any other developer/company for improperly using the Flickr API, but I would argue that responsibility ultimately lies with Flickr.

(Now, I feel it is important to point out the fact that Myxer never sold photographs from Flickr. We are, indeed, a commercial company, but we are a service provider who generates revenue primarily by selling advertising around our conduit between the traditional web and mobile phones. Something akin to NetZero for mobile.)

Jim also points to Dave Winer’s FlickrFan (the website for which has the retro/Mosaic feel befitting a true web pioneer) as an example of concern for professional photographers.

These are indeed trying times for a massive number of creative people whose footing has been destabilized in this era of instant, zero-cost distribution of digital content on the internet. It’s not unlike the challenges faced by the music industry in the internet age, a topic about which I have previously written and that I spend a considerable amount of time thinking about.

I have to say, though, that I have always been a huge fan of Flickr, and have long respected the community of creative people that make it what it is. It pains me to see members of its community turn against pioneering features such as the open APIs, because I have seen firsthand how they have fostered innovation across a large spectrum of web companies. Web 2.0 itself owes a lot to the ‘mash-up’ spirit encouraged by Flickr early on, and the evolution of the web from an archipelago of isolated websites to a fluid and interconnected network of cooperating web services will ultimately bring previously unequaled opportunities to everyone — content creator and consumers alike.

And so I again apologize to all of those in the Flickr community who felt violated by our integration, and I assure you we will very carefully evaluate all of the details of our integration with third party sites going forward. Our current plan is to fix our original implementation such that it filters out non-CC Commercial content, as was discussed above. We’re also considering providing a mechanism by which Myxer users can proactively link their Myxer account to their Flickr account (on an opt-in basis) to make their Flickr photostream available on Myxer’s site according to their explicitly-defined policies.

I hope, on the second time around, the combination of Myxer & Flickr will be seen purely in a positive light by everyone!

Myk

12 Responses to “Flickr my Myxer! Or. Don’t.”

  1. Richard said

    Myk: Thanks for posting this, J.C. Hutchins has linked to it from my site and I’m glad I read it. I’d also read your post over at flickr.

    This issue has been around for a while, and will continue to be around (witness current discussion of Getty Images at flickr) and there are so many aspects to it it’s hard to completely grok.

    There’s the flickr API aspect, how flickr enables it, how you use it.

    There’s the copyright aspect, photographers and others making clear how they want their work protected (or not) and flickr and you respecting that.

    There’s the sharing aspect: between flickr and services like yours many more people will see images than they might have otherwise.

    And many more.

    What concerns me is that in the rush to batten down the hatches and lynch anyone who even looks like they’re stealing (no matter what their intensions), we’re losing track of what makes all of this connectivity technology so powerful: my photograph, through flickr and your service, could end up on the iPod of someone in Vietnam. I love that idea.

    The only thing that bothers me about this, and of course, it’s the crux of the issue, is that none of us on flickr got the option to opt out of this. It would be even nicer if it were an opt-in situation by default, rather than us having to opt out. Let folks who want to share, or, me, who wants to share some but not all of my work, opt in. Then you’ll have no problems at all.

    I realize that flickr’s API doesn’t work that way, but maybe YOU could make your service work that way. Then I think everyone (well, more people) would be happy.

  2. mykwillis said

    Thanks for the comments, Richard.

    Given the way we’re going to re-spin the feature, it is going to end up being explicitly opt-in. Either a Flickr user ‘opts-in’ by changing the default license attached to a photo to be “CC Commercial” or they opt-in by linking their Myxer account to their Flickr profile. In either case, the Flickr user will have to take explicit action in order for their stuff to be available via Myxer.

    I think that there are other photo sites on which the people posting photos have different intentions and expectations, and for which this level of explicit permission might not be necessary. But the fact that Flickr is used by so many professional photographers makes this the appropriate decision in this case.

    I really appreciate your example of how the combination of Flickr & Myxer can be so powerful, and I hope that with our next revision more people will start thinking about these possibilities.

    Myk

  3. [...] Myxer (the company which published all the photos in question here responds) [...]

  4. Rob... said

    Well done on responding so quickly. Everyone makes mistakes and you have fixed the problem and apologised very quickly.

    One side effect has been that the issue of copyrights and photographs on websites is a little higher than it was a week ago!

    Regards,

    Rob…

  5. This goes under the category good idea, BAD IDEA.
    You maybe covered legally by the API but not Morally. Lets be a little blunt here, You can try and hid behind the fact you were not selling images directly, but you were still using them Commercially as a way to promote your goods and services, so do not try and hide behind semantics. Napster tried that one.

    Do I think this was intentional, no. A second time around, yes. My suggestion is that you contact flickr and see if there is a practical way to opt in. If not stick a fork in this idea and call it done.

  6. mykwillis said

    Ralph -

    Thanks for taking the time to comment. I would kindly point out that we’re not trying to hide behind the fact that we weren’t selling images for anything. I brought that point up parenthetically because I thought the title of Jim Goldstein’s blog entry was a little misleading.

    Rob –

    Thank you for your kind words. I agree that it will be a good thing if this incident causes a fresh and reasoned round of discussions with regard to copyright and images.

    We’re in an era in which a huge percentage of the population has a digital camera in their possession, either stand-alone or integrated with their mobile phone. I think that when most of these casual/amateur “photographers” upload their photos to websites for sharing, they have a very different set of intents and expectations for their usage then do professional photographers. I think a broader discussion of copyright and photos that considers how to balance the desires of these very different groups of people would be very healthy.

    I do think that Creative Commons is a very commendable tool for expressing intent, but it is, like virtually everything about copyright, still too complicated to be practical for the layperson/amateur content creator.

  7. Patrick Heraghty said

    While I applaud your prompt ‘cease & desist,’ apologizing to those that were “angered” for an “integration feature” does not excuse the event. You violated the copyrights of every image you integrated from flicker without permission.

    No sale or resulting monetary benefit of any kind is required for copyright violation under US law. All that’s required is that someone redistributes images without the written consent of the copyright holder.

    As Scott Bourne states on TWiPPhoto.com, the fact that you didn’t sell any of them directly may affect the size of the damages it does not negate the violation. Scott further states:

    “Additionally – I would argue that Myxer DID
    profit, if they sold advertisements that
    surrounded my content, that’s the same as
    selling my image. In fact, I don’t ever
    “sell” my images. I license their use. And
    I have frequently licensed images for
    advertising-driven content. I get paid of
    course. Here, I didn’t get paid.”

    And I agree with him completely.

    To me this smacks of corporate spin, when a truly felt honest ‘oh $#!^ we really screwed that up and we are very sorry…’ etc. would have been easier to understand.

  8. Myxer,

    I applaud your prompt ‘cease & desist,’ and apology to those that were “angered” for an “integration feature”, and I do understand your explanation and reasoning.

    This would be an entirely different issue if you were resisting or stalling.

    You’re NOT! Kudos!

  9. Tony said

    Thanks for the apology, it seems sincere. Unfortunately, I have watermarked most of my images, and will finish soon. The problem is not you, but society (especially the younger sect) at large thinks that anything on the net is for the taking, and in a sense they are right. Just by viewing them in a browser, they are downloading it. Not to get into that debate, but after being on the net since 1998, I am starting to lean to watermarking everything, and if you don’t, that is your fault. I don’t believe stealing is right, but we don’t leave the keys in the ignition of our car, and then claim that it was our car after it gets stolen…do we.

  10. Myxer,

    Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!

    That’s become the best descriptor of how coding is done today. The word that stood out the most in your original post was “assume” (and all its variations). Assuming doesn’t get you out from in front of a judge, my friend! Ever hear that little ditty about ignorance not being a very good legal defense?

    I would have thought that if you were serious about doing business you would have an attorney on retainer…and if you were going to be doing anything with something that might possibly violate copyrights that you would have retained a copyright attorney.

    Sucks to be you and Flickr right now……

  11. The old adage comes to mind:
    Selling guns is legal, shooting people is not. Just because you can doesn’t mean you’re allowed to

    Since the damage has been done and you stopped, all that need to be figured out is:

    1. sizes of images delivered
    2. geographic location of delivery (to see if licensing is permitted at all)
    3. exact count of images per photographer
    4. pay up with an appropriate rate based on the Corbis standard for news / artistic stock. Based on applicable use.

    Yahoo should in turn publish who was harmed individually in the progress to allow for a transparent process.

    There are Getty and Corbis licensed images on Flickr. If you managed to hit one of those, oh boy. But Getty Images is aware of the issue and probably Corbis as well since it’s one company anyway. So I think we probably see this resolved soon either way.

  12. anon said

    Read your post as I begin to investigate using Flickr’s API to pull Commons photos for our use. I never would think to pull anything else as the use of any images outside Commons licensing is clearly a violation. Hard to believe that you were not aware of this. Lesson learned if so. More likely, hand in cookie jar when parent (Flickr community) walked into the room == you’re bad.

Leave a Reply