Flickr for All

Flickr is a free online photo management site that allows users to upload and organize their digital photos, elect to share them, and includes a utility for keeping in touch with friends.  It has a clean interface and there’s a quick tour that helps potential users get acquainted with the program—a really good feature for attracting a wide range of ages and computer abilities.  One of the coolest features, which no doubt allows the site to grow and generate revenue, is the ability to make your pictures into books, cards, postage stamps, DVDs, calendars, and other physical stuff that is great for gifts.  Flickr seems to have a strong core value of providing a place to organize and store your photos, and they show a commitment to that objective by not bombarding the user with ads, charging fees, or requiring casual viewers to sign in.  From a user's perspective, it would be nice to have a back-up of my digital photos on Flickr, or maybe even use it as a storage space for my digital images, saving my computer’s memory space.   
I think that Flickr will continue to grow and prosper because it seems to be in touch with the needs and wants of its clientèle, while providing a place for the amateur or hobby photographer to learn and be inspired.  Flickr has many different ways of organizing photos to suit the browser’s desires.  This page shows the percentages of different cameras people use, and you can go further to see the pictures shot by each camera—a great feature if you are in the market for a new camera.  It allows for easy browsing by photo “tags,” which are a way of categorizing the subject.  Thumbnails allow for fast loading and browsing.  Comments on the picture allow for feedback, and you can even see notes on a specific point on a picture that becomes visible when the mouse rolls over it.  “Geotags” allow users to click on a map of the world and find photos taken there.  Flickr allows any amateur photographer to get noticed, but the emphasis is placed strongly on the photos, not the photographer, so if it’s recognition you’re after, you’ll still want you own site.
I noticed that some really great photos didn’t have watermarks—would you be worried about people stealing your work if you post them on Flickr? 
Could this be a good place to find images or at least photographers for print advertisements?  Buying permission for photos from Flickr would most likely be cheaper than hiring a photographer—is this a cost-effective way to make ads for small clients, or does it violate advertising industry standards?

Posted by guest author, Michelle Gerber.

Comments

[Kristin Oberding]

I think that advertisers utilizing Flickr to find low-cost photographers and photographs for their advertisements is a great idea, and is definitely doable with the implication of quite a bit of regulation. I think the best way to do it would be to have those photographers who want to have their photographs used in ads and who are members of Flickr for the purpose of getting their photography noticed should have certain terms of agreement they have to agree to before their work is posted. I also think that advertisers who utilize Flickr to find low cost photos and photographers should have to register themselves with separate terms and should only have access to those photos that have been given permission to be published for that purpose. If done right, I see this as a total win-win situation – photographers trying to break into the industry can get their name out there and a great bullet point on their resume, and advertisers save money by hiring “amateurs”. So really, this is pretty much good for everyone except the high-cost professional photographers who might have been hired by the advertisers, but generally an advertiser looking for a photographer on Flickr probably wouldn’t be able to afford Annie Leibovitz in the first place. Personally, until there are legal regulations of this sort in place, I won’t be posting photos on Flickr, because I would be afraid of them being taken and used for purposes I didn’t explicitly approve of. I realize that putting photos on Facebook could be just as dangerous in that regard, but as far as I know, no one is stealing them for ads (yet).

[Jordan Denham]

If you are worried about someone stealing your work from Flickr, you probably shouldn’t upload pictures to the site. I imagine there is nothing you could do to prevent people from stealing content that you post on the Internet.

I think Flickr would be a great place to find images and photographers for print advertisements. If an advertiser wants a picture that looks as natural as possible, there isn’t a better place than Flickr. Most of the pictures you find on Flickr are not staged; they are taken randomly, making them more true to life.

I do not believe that buying permission to use photos from Flickr for advertisements would violate advertising industry standards. Who is to say that a picture is not good enough to be used for an advertisement just because it was taken by an amateur photographer and not a professional? It would be great to be able to purchase good quality photos for a small client, at a low cost. I think Flickr holds a lot of potential to revolutionize what the advertising industry sees as an ad-worthy photo.

[Godina Lai]

Personally, I visit Flickr quite often for different kinds of pictures from natural scenery to events photos. Sometimes I need pictures for projects, or a picture for wallpaper. It is a good place to visit for pictures from different styles and from all over the world. There are different kinds of high quality pictures taken by different amateurs and they are very easy to be searched for. The popular ones would have tags and they are actually very similar with youtube technology. The easy set up is very user friendly without many advertisement distractions. The printing services provide not only convenience but an opportunity for partners to explore ways to advertise their printing products that they can provide to flickr users. If I already post my work on flickr, I welcome people to take my work to share. And it is inevitable that someone will take your work for commercial use.
From a commercial standpoint, flickr does not totally benefit from online advertisers because it is mostly user friendly and pictures can be shared freely on it. Visitors do not have to pay anything to get the pictures and do not even have to pay for a membership fee to be able to see the photos. Advertisers could not be able to gain money, but could gain popularity from the tags. If more people try to click on the pictures the tag would become bigger and it could be free advertising. It is not beneficial to advertisers, yet it can be a competition to advertisers that they have to think of advertising to be more strategic in order to be more memorable to the target audience.
I would disagree that flickr charges a person to get a photo, because flickr is a platform for free photo exchange and sharing. It would change its original aim if flickr charged a person for a photo. It would be cost effective to small business, but at the same time would lower the standard of that business. It is because we never know the actual information and the origin of the photo. We would not know if the picture is a real one or edited one if the small business client would need to know about the actual information. Flickr could be a leisure website for photo sharing similar with youtube, which is more a leisure-based website than a commercial-based photo sharing website.

[Jennifer Johnson]

From what I’ve seen, Flickr has some photographs that are quite impressive. I’ve had a couple of friends refer me to that site so they could show me some of the work that they had done. Personally, I would be hesitant to post my photos on this site because individuals are able to access these photos regardless of whether or not they were a member of Flickr. However, as far as the issue of watermarks go, I feel that it is up to the discretion of the photographer as to whether or not they post their work online. With any website, I feel there are risks and a level of uncertainty when it comes to the credibility and safeguarding of one’s personal achievements, such as photographs or other unique works of art. On the other hand, independent artists trying to sell their pieces may find that the benefits of posting their work online may outweigh the risks involved. With businesses these days becoming more and more dependent on the internet to increase product and brand awareness, it is almost imperative that a business have an online outlet.

While this site would be a good resource for finding images and photographers for advertisements, the validity of the photographs and photographers would have to be examined before an agency would be able to use a photograph and/or photographer. When I see impressive photographs on this site, my first inclination is to wonder whether or not the photographer truly created the piece I am viewing. With that said, if a client were to favor a specific photograph, would the photograph need to be removed from the site so other clients couldn’t potentially use the same image? In my opinion, this would be a risky route to take if a client wanted a photograph with a specific feel to it. Instead, I feel that agencies should seek out photographers for their clients, because there are a multitude of photographers, each with their own unique style and asking prices.

[Scott Linnertz]

Flickr is a great idea and site. The Geotag is one of the best features that the site has to offer, allowing you to quickly and efficiently find photos from different regions of the world. It’s great to be able to do visual research like that to try and get an idea of what the world is like outside of your own neighborhood or school.

As far as the pictures without watermarks, I feel like if you aren’t going to take the time to try and protect your work when you put it on an online space like Flickr, then it is pretty much free reign over the material. Of course, it would be courteous for someone to tell you that they are going to use your work, but many people wouldn’t think twice about right clicking and going on their way.

The site is a great way to find new and upcoming photographers, but as you said, the site is about the pictures and not the people behind the pictures. And while it may be more cost efficient to go with an amateur, I think that most ad firms and clients would want an established professional with past work that has been noticed and awarded to work with them on their ads. It’s kind of like consumer generated content. The amateur may put the professional out of work, or everyone will turn into the professional.

[Jessica Brown]

Flickr is a great tool. I use it now more than I use Google images or Yahoo images because you are likely to find photo content that relates more to the subject at hand. I have my own Flickr account that I started for one of my classes but because I am a very amateur photographer, I don’t worry about people using my images. However, I guess it would be a different story if I saw one of my images on an ad or billboard. I would be totally upset if I didn’t get any credit or commission for it.
I think Flickr is a great place to find images for print advertisements because the skill level and options you have on the site are unlimited. You would definitely be risking credibility if two brands used the same image without knowing it. So in that respect it might be safer to have photography that’s directed by your own agency and in that case using Flickr to find a photographer would be a great idea. It would definitely be cheaper to use Flickr photos than to hire a photographer, so it would also depend on the agency or brand and whether or not they want to risk duplicating something already used or something that seems too generic. But for things like school projects, Flickr is the way to go.
It is also interesting to note that even the watermarks don’t stop everyone from using Flickr images. There are ways to get around even those, eeehmmm, screenshots, or that’s what I have heard anyway ;). However, if I was running an ad that was to go public I would certainly avoid any copywriting laws that perhaps screenshots violate.

[Sabrina DeMartini]

Flickr to me is a site that allows people, who are past the social networking phase, to share their lives with their friends. It’s a social tool that’s honest, ad-free, and most importantly, photo-centric. Whether it be pictures of family, friends, cars, pets, or random objects in the world, Flickr is all about sharing creativity through artistic photography.

One thing I love about Flickr is that it’s open to people of all ages. There’s no exclusivity of accounts or “profiles.” It’s all about having a place to house your life in digital form. My family took a trip to Disneyland this summer, and my uncle was snapping his camera the whole time. When we got back, he posted all the pictures onto Flickr so that my grandparents could view, copy, and print any of the pictures they wanted. One of Flickr’s best traits is that it’s easy to use. If those pictures were tagged or posted to a social networking site like Facebook or MySpace, my grandparents would never have been able to figure it out.

As Michelle mentioned, I think that one of the best features about Flickr is the option it provides to create calendars, mugs, cards, or stamps of your photos. Personally, I’m a scrapbooker, so I believe that people should compile the photos they take in a creative manner (as opposed to keeping them in a box in your closet), preserving memories in a useful way that everyone can enjoy.

That’s what I think photography is about- sharing experiences. If you are a photographer for a living, I probably would advise you to not put pictures up on Flickr because you would lose money. On the other hand, if your main goal is not necessarily to make money, but instead to put out thought-provoking, inspirational photos that allow people to know more about you and the way you view the world, then I say post on!

On a professional note, I don’t think taking photos from Flickr would be a bad thing, just as long as credit’s given where credit’s due. I think people would respond well to advertisements with pictures taken from Flickr because it hits home, and makes it personal. It’s a very grassroots approach to advertising, which, in my opinion is always a positive tactic in touching base with the consumers.

[V. Stephens]

Yes, I would be worried about people stealing my work if you post them on Flickr.


Could this be a good place to find images or at least photographers for print advertisements? Maybe if you got permission and did not just scam the images from the artist.

Buying permission for photos from Flickr would most likely be cheaper than hiring a photographer—is this a cost-effective way to make ads for small clients? I think so.

Does it violate advertising industry standards? I don’t think so, but I don’t know where those are listed.

[Brandon Whitley]

I have spent a minimal amount of time on Flickr, but I am very interested in learning more about Flickr's features. I wouldn't be worried about people stealing my photos if I were to put them on Flickr, because that is what I would be putting them on there for. If I had some amazing photos that I had taken I would watermark them. I know I have been on the other side; needing pictures for ads and presentations and I am grateful when I find that perfect picture. I think as a student, Flickr could be a good place to find photos for ads. I don't think that buying photos from Flickr would violate advertising standards as long as the pictures are high quality and relevant to the ad's concept. There are a lot of amazing amateur photographers who would be happy to make an extra buck or two here and there for their pictures.

[Molly Cathcart]

I know that on Flickr you can make it so that people can't take your pictures without asking for your permission first. Though there are probably ways around asking for permission, I am not serious enough with my photography to care if someone took my pictures. I would probably be flattered if I saw someone using my work. I think Flickr shouldn't be used beyond school projects. While it is probably more cost effective to buy the rights of an image from Flickr than to hire a photographer, using pictures that are already in existence rather than taking your own can cause you to change the content or idea of your ad to fit the image you find, rather than creating the picture to work for your ad. I think it is always better to create your own images (or direct a photographer) than to rely on images created by others, because it gives you complete control of the outcome of your project and doesn't cause you to have to mold any of your ideas.

[Amanda Lopez]

Flickr is an amazing site for those of us who are privileged to have a computer and are able to share their memories/art online. I fear, personally, that people will steal photos, especially my amateur shots. It’s hard to enforce copyright on this site and the amount of theft online is growing immaculately. Photography is a great form of art and Flickr can help you share this, but can also diminish the value of such great work. I don’t think that purchasing photos for advertisements would be a sign of low quality work because many of the photos online have been touched up just as any other professional could do and if they are not they are just as good. As an advertising student, I would applaud any agency that would utilize the opportunity to use the work of different photographers and open the market to a new photographic artist who would generally find it hard to break into the market. I don’t think this lowers industry standards but opens the standards to knew images and artists. I personally would invest in using such photos in order to attract new photographers and as an advertiser I think it would attract more consumers because the pictures are usually more personal than most professional work.

[Andrea Schneider]

Flickr seems like a great website for photographers and people looking for free amateur stock photos. However, I’m very skeptical of stealing other people’s work as this was exemplified by the Napster lawsuits a few years ago. The ethics behind intellectual property are extremely thin and it’s hard to choose a particular side. For example, it could be argued that posting photos on Flickr will help amateur photographers get their work out. However, these amateur photographers are eventually going to want some money for their work.

I would imagine most of the people uploading to Flickr are not worried about people stealing their photos. As mentioned numerous times before, Flickr is about the photos and not the photographer. Like Scott said, it would be courteous for people to tell you if they’re going to use your photos; however, I’m sure most people don’t bother.

I don’t think Flickr necessarily violates industry standards; however, I would be skeptical of using photos from Flickr in my advertisements. Amateur photos are for amateur advertisements and I would hope that a professional ad agency would seek out the photographer that not only has the best value, but more importantly fits the client needs.

[Molly Horner]

I don’t think that people need to be worried about others stealing their work. I don’t find harm in others using your photos for their enjoyment, as long as they aren’t making money off it. I definitely steal pics from others for school projects and other various things, but I am not producing any of them and making a profit, so I don’t see any harm in it. If people steal something, call it their own and make a buck, then that’s were the problem comes in.

I think it is a good idea for advertisers to start buying permission of photos they find on the web as an alternative to hiring photographers. This also opens up the door for many amateur photographers who aren’t in the photography business but have talent. By having their photo used in an ad, it gives them recognition and payment for something that they might not think they could ever do. It would also be beneficial to those small companies that couldn’t budget a fancy photographer to shoot their work, which then makes those companies eligible to compete with the larger companies who can. I wouldn’t consider buying permission of photos online a violation of advertising industry standards. I think that it actually respects the standards by keeping advertising technologically up to date and trendy.