4 ms·

We do our best to verify the license but cannot 100% guarantee that the image is CC-licensed. We have custom scripts that we use to ingest content from each con

by kgodey 7y ago

We do our best to verify the license but cannot 100% guarantee that the image is CC-licensed. We have custom scripts that we use to ingest content from each content provider. For Flickr, we use their API which contains license information for each work. If you click through to the source image, you can see that the user who uploaded the image did license it under CC BY-SA 2.0. We don't yet have a way of dealing with content where the user incorrectly licensed it, I think we could add a "report image" function that would help us identify and remove this type of content. There's a disclaimer if you scroll down that says "Verify at the source: Flickr" with an explanation of why we can't guarantee the license, maybe we should make that more prominent.

scanny 7y ago
Thanks for the answer, that is completely understandable. I guess the user just needs to do a bit of due diligence before running with it.
adrianN 7y ago
Maybe the Flickr user did buy a license from Google for that particular screenshot that allowed them to publish it as CC BY-SA. How would you verify this? What's the legal situation here? Can Google sue me when I use that image, or do they have to sue the Flickr user?
- luckylion 7y ago
  Google can sue you, you can in turn probably sue whoever "gave" you the image and said it was licensed CC BY-SA. Just like you can't keep a stolen item that somebody sold you for cash, you're not free from liability when you're publishing an image you didn't have rights to. You'll always need to apply judgement before publishing, and I'd do a reverse image search at the very least.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    But, in general if you inadvertently buy an item that was stolen; on eBay, say; then you wouldn't be prosecuted for it, you just would lose ownership. In the parallel situation here the 'selling' company [CC search] is saying "this isn't stolen", and you're using it in good faith. Seems like your liability _should_ be zero. If CC_search also did due diligence then their liability should probably be zero too. Media mega-corps probably see things differently so I imagine their copyright laws mightn't be as liberal.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Yeah, it's a civil issue, I don't think anybody would try to jail somebody. You will be in breach of license, so the rights holder won't care why you're violating copyright, only that you do. I don't know of any judicial system where "good faith" is applied to civil suits (i.e. you eating my food thinking it was yours gets you out of buying me a new plate). Similar to the hypothetical ebay case: you're going to be asked to reimburse the owner (or return his property), you collecting from the seller is a different story.
      - mojomark 7y ago
        Would be interesting if moving forward, when a user wants to take an image they know they will likely share as CC, they could tap a button to turn on 'CC tagging' such that the camera app applies a digital signaure to the image. Perhaps then, at least some image sources could be validated as being intentionally released under CC by operator of the image source at the time.
- gnopgnip 7y ago
  If you are publishing the image on a website, or billboard, or book cover, or any other use, you are ultimately liable for any infringement. If you licensed the image from a traditional stock photo service, they have certain practices that ensure the artist does have the rights to license the image to you, and they make some limited guarantees to you to that end. If the images were sold to you without permission of the original artist, and you were successfully sued it is possible you could pursue the stock image company for these damages. The CC licenses, and sites like Flickr are not giving you any guarantee or warranting their use, and they expressly disclaim any liability.

by kgodey 7y ago

scanny 7y ago

Thanks for the answer, that is completely understandable. I guess the user just needs to do a bit of due diligence before running with it.

adrianN 7y ago

Maybe the Flickr user did buy a license from Google for that particular screenshot that allowed them to publish it as CC BY-SA. How would you verify this? What's the legal situation here? Can Google sue me when I use that image, or do they have to sue the Flickr user?

luckylion 7y ago
Google can sue you, you can in turn probably sue whoever "gave" you the image and said it was licensed CC BY-SA. Just like you can't keep a stolen item that somebody sold you for cash, you're not free from liability when you're publishing an image you didn't have rights to. You'll always need to apply judgement before publishing, and I'd do a reverse image search at the very least.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  But, in general if you inadvertently buy an item that was stolen; on eBay, say; then you wouldn't be prosecuted for it, you just would lose ownership. In the parallel situation here the 'selling' company [CC search] is saying "this isn't stolen", and you're using it in good faith. Seems like your liability _should_ be zero. If CC_search also did due diligence then their liability should probably be zero too. Media mega-corps probably see things differently so I imagine their copyright laws mightn't be as liberal.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Yeah, it's a civil issue, I don't think anybody would try to jail somebody. You will be in breach of license, so the rights holder won't care why you're violating copyright, only that you do. I don't know of any judicial system where "good faith" is applied to civil suits (i.e. you eating my food thinking it was yours gets you out of buying me a new plate). Similar to the hypothetical ebay case: you're going to be asked to reimburse the owner (or return his property), you collecting from the seller is a different story.
    - mojomark 7y ago
      Would be interesting if moving forward, when a user wants to take an image they know they will likely share as CC, they could tap a button to turn on 'CC tagging' such that the camera app applies a digital signaure to the image. Perhaps then, at least some image sources could be validated as being intentionally released under CC by operator of the image source at the time.
gnopgnip 7y ago
If you are publishing the image on a website, or billboard, or book cover, or any other use, you are ultimately liable for any infringement. If you licensed the image from a traditional stock photo service, they have certain practices that ensure the artist does have the rights to license the image to you, and they make some limited guarantees to you to that end. If the images were sold to you without permission of the original artist, and you were successfully sued it is possible you could pursue the stock image company for these damages. The CC licenses, and sites like Flickr are not giving you any guarantee or warranting their use, and they expressly disclaim any liability.