However, that’s a gray area because you may allow me to blog your image to this site but how do you feel about the fact that I get a small amount of adsense money from google and a small amount of affiliate money from B&H? If your image gets a lot of eyeballs here no doubt some of those folks are clicking on my adsense links. So, you’re indirectly making me money.

In my case it’s probably a non issue but there are some people aggregating flickr images with open EXIF to use in lens comparisons and they too have adsense running on their sites. I’ve generally allowed this kind of use but I do think it runs into the gray area that Chris is talking about: my images are making other people money and without them, they’d have no web site, no money. They’re not selling my images or claiming them as their own, but they’re still making money from my content.

To a lesser extent, I’m making money from other people’s content when and if I blog someone else’s image here.

Man, makes my head hurt to think about it too much.

I have to agree with your thoughts and use of flickr. I’m flattered and interested when any of my photos are used on blogs or websites, especially as this, as you say, is free advertising.

I think Chris makes an interesting point though and for myself i’d have no problem someone using a picture of mine at home or at their cubicle at work. I only get funny about it when people want to use my pictures commercially but don’t feel they have to pay for them.

As you may know from this blog, I routinely blog people’s photographs from flickr. I don’t ask, I just do it. I do it in a way that will give them the right kind of exposure: the image is always a link back to original and I cite their flickr screen name with a link back to their account.

Many on flickr would say that what I do is as bad as some of the things you list above and to them I say, you need to learn how flickr works and turn off those features if you don’t want me blogging your work. Or, don’t use flickr.

What I object to is people assuming that flickr is by default a personal photoblog for each registered user. It wasn’t built that way and the terms of service do not support that assumption. Flickr is about sharing and sharing includes blogging images off of flickr. I realize that some people download images and repost them with no links and no citations but I don’t do that. Yet, many on flickr and in the comment threads for Sonia’s two posts would say I’m being a jerk.

What they don’t realize is that my links to them are bringing people to their photostreams who would never have found them otherwise, they’re essentially getting free advertising.

I’ve had huge arguments on flickr with folks who say I should have to write them and ask permission, etc. but they refuse to change their profiles so that blogging or all sizes are disabled for others.

So, there’s a middle ground of oddness at flickr and elsewhere and while I don’t fall into Sonia’s camp I do understand where she’s coming from.

If flickr users don’t want their images used then they need to tighten down access to them or consider getting off flickr entirely.

- printing an ARR image at a lab and framing it for home display
- printing the same ARR image on 8×10 plain paper and tacking it on a cubicle wall at work
- saving the image to a memory card then loading it onto a digital frame hanging in a home
- pointing a wifi capable digital frame at an rss feed with the ARR image
- setting the screensaver on a 30″ computer display to an rss feed with the ARR image

On the one hand these are all methods of decorating with said images, but I wonder how many people jumping on the Times writer would have more of a problem with some of these usages then others.