[cofe]

The Independent might nick your pics:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezab/4276745361/#

[jwi]

I suspect something similar must have happened to 3-4 of my pics.  Despite being fairly uninteresting they got a massive amount of views, but I couldn't figure out where they were linked from.

[cofe]

i'd guess it goes on all the time and people don't realise.

[slackline]

I suspect something similar must have happened to 3-4 of my pics.  Despite being fairly uninteresting they got a massive amount of views, but I couldn't figure out where they were linked from.

Once signed in go to the bottom of the page and click on the "Around You" link under the Activity section (or try just clicking on http://www.flickr.com/activity ).

You can then see who's commented on what, but to the right there is a small graph, click on this and you get to stats (or get there directly with /stats]http://www.flickr.com/photos/[your username]/stats.  You can then look at what pictures have been viewed that day, and see where referrals have come from.

Another more direct way is to simply view the picture you want to know stats about and then go to the URL and add the text '/stats' to the very end of the address.  You can go back in time and see what views and where they came from for an individual picture.

I've had spikes in views when someone Digg'ed a picture of mine, haven't noticed any official media outlets ripping my (crap) pics off yet.

[cofe]

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872764

[slackline]

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872764

 

[jwi]

Yes, I am well aware that it is possible to click on links, and I do understand what "stats" could be. Alas, as regards API use, it just shows flickr.com as the referrer - which makes sense as the stream is on Flickr.

[dave]

Its not reet clear reading any of this but did the Indie actually publish that shot in the newspaper or just embed it on their site?

[slackline]

Yes, I am well aware that it is possible to click on links, and I do understand what "stats" could be. Alas, as regards API use, it just shows flickr.com as the referrer - which makes sense as the stream is on Flickr.

In the absence of not knowing what you know I had no idea you were aware of that and thought it might be useful. Here, have an egg.   

Its not reet clear reading any of this but did the Indie actually publish that shot in the newspaper or just embed it on their site?

My take was that it was embedded into their site for two days only (comment from Indy editor saying they were removed from their site suggests they weren't printed).

[cofe]

they published the pic on their site.

[dave]

From what I read it sounded like they didn't publish it on their site (i.e. hosted it on their server) but they instead embedded it. I thought the issue of embedding shots (i.e. still hosted on their original site) on a website was a grey area. Bearing in mind that if embedding shots is illegal (from what I read about it recently I'm not sure it) then ever single image embedded on any thread on here or any other forum without permission is illegal.

[slackline]

My reading is they used the Flickr API, so no they didn't host the picture on their site, but they did publish it (present it within an article on their site with a write-up/comment), and even with due accreditation they failed to use the API correctly to exclude pictures where the author asserts their copyright as "all rights reserved" which implies that permission should be sought.

At least with my pics I grant myself permission to embed them here and anywhere else (although I rarely check anyone else's permissions when I embed them, but do ensure that I backlink them to their original page as per the Flickr T&C).

[Johnny Brown]

 

I thought the issue of embedding shots (i.e. still hosted on their original site) on a website was a grey area.

Not really. Unauthorised use of pics is illegal. End of story. I've got a clear policy on my site.

[Bonjoy]

Not really. Unauthorised use of pics is illegal. End of story. I've got a clear policy on my site.

Just had a look on your site. Landscape gallery is excellent. Did spot a caption error on image 20 though.

[dave]

I thought the issue of embedding shots (i.e. still hosted on their original site) on a website was a grey area.

Not really. Unauthorised use of pics is illegal. End of story. I've got a clear policy on my site.

The fact is people have taken google to court for embedding which is what happens in google image search (not to mention saving resized thumbnail versions of shots), and not won. Hence the grey area.

[Johnny Brown]

Landscape gallery is excellent. Did spot a caption error on image 20 though.

Cheers yoot, now sorted. Any other proofreading appreciated...

The fact is people have taken google to court for embedding which is what happens in google image search (not to mention saving resized thumbnail versions of shots), and not won.

Presumably this is not defined as a commercial use, whereas embedding on a news site certainly is. Why the fuck would you not want to appear in a google search though?

[dave]

I don't know why it wouldn't count as commercial use, google must rake in nuff cheddar from adverts.

[Johnny Brown]

Because their business is primarily providing a search engine? Whereas The Independent is a newspaper? Sounds like a rare case of common sense to me...

[Mr Cat]

yeah, newcastle university did this to me - I grabbed a few screenshots and contacted them...got a few hundred quid - even tho they used an API that hot linked to a few of my pics hosted on flickr...

but tyne tees news gave me the run around - but they paid up in the end...I only spotted that when I was watching the tv...!