That is some freaking lame-ass shit right there. How can the LAT think they've any right? - Moody (Sweet FA 4 Life)

That's very lame. Almost as lame as looking at the fullsize pic and then trying to click onto the next image.... - WoH: Minding her Botts

They have a very creative use of the term copyright. - Pete D from iPhone

And now they're using several of mine (screenshot: http://www.citrano.com/pix...) -- I've e-mailed their editorial staff and am eager to hear the explanation. - Anthony Citrano

They just pulled it right off your Flickr? That's lame. (without attribution and slapping their copyright on it.) - Gus

Sounds like it's the MSM doing the pirating this time. - Dennis Jernberg

@Gus: correct. @Dennis: well said. - Anthony Citrano

Depends how they are doing it actually. If they are only pulling off Creative Commons licensed photos then they'd be ok. If they are pulling of all rights reserved photos and creative commons non commercial licensed photos they'd be in violation of these licenses. In either case they are violating Flickr's terms of use which require them to include a link back to the original image on flickr. Since your photos are included Anthony and they are cc non commercial, you could probably take screenshots of your photos on their site and send them a bill. You could probably get $1,000 if you wanted. - Thomas Hawk

Perhaps they intend the copyright to apply to entire content of the page versus the specific content of the photo. In any case, I agree quite lame. - Khürt Williams

FWIW their attribution link is hidden behind that 'i' at the bottom. They do this *all* the time and each time they get more and more clever about hiding the attribution from the pictures they pull from Flickr. Still, they need to stop pulling in photos by keywords and pay attention to the CC license. Too time consuming? Then don't do it, LA Times. - Anika

"Do link back to Flickr when you post your Flickr content elsewhere. The Flickr service makes it possible to post content hosted on Flickr to outside web sites. However, pages on other web sites that display content hosted on flickr.com must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Flickr." Per the community guidelines at Flickr. the L.A. Times is not linking back. - Thomas Hawk

Well, it looks like today they added the "LINK TO OWNER" thing within the "i" button. This was *not* there last night - I looked, very hard (and much harder than 99% of LATimes readers would look). But they're still ignoring the main issue. I've seen several today and last night with various license settings, including many marked "All Rights Reserved". - Anthony Citrano

I am just trying to get my mind around how this is much different than if the pictures where posted on FF. - Brian Sullivan

@Brian - (non-stolen) pictures on FF (such as flickr favorites, etc.) are always linked back to their creator and are (ostensibly) being used noncommercially. Further, a user is not asserting their own copyright. Yet further, I have long howled about FF users who steal images and then upload them directly to FF without credit - not because of the money or lack of respect for the artists but because they (the FF user) essentially orphan the work by doing that. - Anthony Citrano

The linking back is the only issue I can see. Here it could be said it looks like FF is asserting copyright -- much the same as LA Times put a copyright notice on the page.See http://friendfeed.com/briansu... where I used the bookmarklet to post pictures from your Flickr site. - Brian Sullivan

@Brian - sure, for my stuff, which is CC, but if you did that with someone's images that were marked "All Rights Reserved" then what you did there would be illegal. That is to say, it would not qualify as "fair use" (but I'm no lawyer) and the creator could pursue remedies against you and/or FF. - Anthony Citrano

But almost every use of the bookmarklet would then be deemed illegal and FF would the most copyright offending organization on the planet - the LA Times would be rank amateurs-- but maybe that is where this is all headed? - Brian Sullivan

Just for kicks, I marked one of my uploads "All Rights Reserved" just now. A few minutes later, there it was on the LA Times site. Brian - to your point about FF, let's set aside the general rule that just because other people do it doesn't mean it's not wrong - and think about commercial use. Say what you will about FriendFeed's future profit potential, but it's a hell of a lot more obvious that “commercial use” is going on when your copyrighted image is wrapped in an Audi and Mutual of Omaha ad. (See: http://www.citrano.com/pix...) This is no different from printing it in the paper. - Anthony Citrano

Is the "commercial use" thing real though -- "all rights" would include even what happens on FF. - Brian Sullivan

Anthony, take a screen shot of your image and send them in invoice for $1,000 and see what happens. If nothing else it would make for an interesting story as you followed the progress of it all. - Thomas Hawk

@Thomas I want to see what they say first. They deserve a chance to respond. If I do send them an invoice, it will only be to make a point - and if the invoice is honored, the money will go to a non-profit. - Anthony Citrano

Anthony -- my name is Sean Connelley. I am the one who created the Flickr widget used on the LA Times. I wanted to just explain what happened from my side, in hopes it clear some of this up for everyone. The CC issue was an honest mistake on my part and in know way was I just trying to hijack or steal anyone's photo. When retrieving photos using the Flickr API, there is a parameter called "license" and it can accept 7 different values which can be found here http://www.flickr.com/service.... Well the mistake I made was that I used the "name" of the license instead of the "id" for the license. Big mistake on my part, caused it to pull in all the the images. Second issue, about links back to user pages, another mistake on my part. When I pull in the image information, I do a test to make sure the information is there before I display it, well I left out a character that caused it to fail everytime. I understand why everyone is upset but I just want to explain it from my side. In hindsight, I should of not tried to rush this out with really testing it further, which we normally do. So I'll just have to take one on the chin for this one. Any other questions, please feel free to email at sean.connelley[at]latimes.com - Sean Connelley

Interesting to see what Anthony says but good to see Mr Connelley giving an explanation. - WoH: Minding her Botts

Sean, thanks for posting here with the explanation, but can you explain why both mistakes you detail were left up and running for more than a day before being corrected? I understand the point you made about wanting to rush out your widget, but even a few minutes of testing after launch should have revealed both errors to you. - Stephen Mack

Stephen -- All I can say is they slipped through. After initially finishing the widget, I debugged it for about an hour or so, for various problems. So I guessed I overlooked those. Also on the CC issue, I had no real reason to believe it wasn't working, I thought I was doing it right. I was alerted to the problem this morning and I fixed the link back to the user and I thought I fixed the CC problem as well. I left for the day and when I returned home I saw from several emails it still wasn't working, so that's when we decided to take it down until I could look into. After about 30 to 45 minutes of debugging, I noticed I was supposed to use the "id" of the license I wanted and that's when I went DUH! I hope this may help and I wish I had a better answer that didn't make me look like a big dork for overlooking those mistakes. I feel Anthony has every right to advocate for copyrights. I am photographer myself (sean.forty-ninth.com) and I would hate for someone to illegally use my work. - Sean Connelley

Sean, thanks for being forthcoming and posting the details. - Stephen Mack

Hi Sean - thanks for explaining what's going on here. We all make mistakes. I didn't think you guys were being intentionally malicious, just careless. And it appears you still are - I just went over to the widget and you are *still* using photos marked “Noncommercial” and “All Rights Reserved.” Are you asserting some kind of fair use claim with select images (which I really don't think you can legitimately do here), or is it still just coded incorrectly? - Anthony Citrano

For example, the first photo the widget is showing at the moment is this one by Theron Trowbridge: http://www.flickr.com/photos... which is marked with a CC Attribution-Noncommercial license. Images 4-17 are by Clayton Bruster, and all of Clayton's images are marked (C) "All Rights Reserved." (e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos...) And to your earlier comment that you “had no real reason to believe it wasn't working” - did you consider actually checking, as I just did? - Anthony Citrano

A great reason to establish your social media plan of attack parameters long before a crisis, so as to eliminate (or at least reduce) opportunity for error. This realm of reporting will continue to extend its reach into territories that continue to test the scope and spirit of traditional media. An editor must also wonder at which point does the life of a reporter (photographer) transfer to and from personal and professional. - FidelGonzales

interesting. Good to see the L.A. Times chime in, but it does seem pretty sloppy that it would appear that *still* all rights reserved photos are showing up in the stream. I just looked at it and the first photo that was pulled up was an all rights reserved one: http://www.flickr.com/photos... - Thomas Hawk

The first photo that now shows up for me is also "all rights reserved" - http://www.flickr.com/photos... The second photos doesn't have a link (probably due to a too long description). Number 3 is this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos... LOL! - Holger Eilhard

Guess people need to start sending invoices. Maybe we should post onto the photo's comments that 'did you know the LAT is currently using your image?' - MikeDeal / ZoneDancer

I thought photos were "free like the air". Invoices would certaily be the way to go - Jim Goldstein from iPhone

Not to be obstreperous here -- but again I ask -- how is LA Times use any different than what happens on FriendFeed? - Brian Sullivan

oh, my nightmare continues... I assumed the widget was taken down. I have now corrected it, with a version that should eliminate any of your photos from being grabbed please check in a few minutes, also might need to clear cache and reload page. I apologize for these series of mistakes. - Sean Connelley

ok, I just checked... it does not appear to be loading any "All Rights Reserved."... Anthony to your question of why I didn't just check. I should of and I didn't, I wish I had a better answer. Can I ask this group a question. Seeing as you all seem to be passionate flickr user's and photographers. Do you see any value and/or need in a widget like this? Of course, a widget that worked correctly and respected copyrights and provided links back to the owners - Sean Connelley

side note - the power of FF! This would have not gotten visibility on FB due to the way privacy works over there - Jeff (Team マクダジ )

Sean, Yes this is a very cool idea, as long as you respect copyrights. It is a great way to croudsource news, as long as your not outsourcing your photographers. - MikeDeal / ZoneDancer

@Jeff: truth is, this has nothing to do with the power of FF. @Brian: asked and answered. @Sean: it looks to be fixed now, if a bit sparse. - Anthony Citrano

Sean, absolutely see value in a widget like this and am actually impressed by the ways that the L.A. Times is embracing social media. You guys are ahead of the curve in that regard. - Thomas Hawk

Anthony -- I'm glad that it is now working correctly and again apologize for the inconvenience I caused you and other flickr users. Unfortunately, the results now are a little discouraging but I what can you do. I'm just happy that it is working correctly now and learned a pretty good lesson from this. I'm going to try to expand my search tags to see if it helps bring in more content but I am thinking that probably won't help as I have been seeing that many people like yourself and others mark their photos w/ All Rights Reserved and Non-Commercial use, which is great and is what I would do as well. Maybe the better thing to do for our readers is just provide a link to a Flickr search result page. That way they will be able to see a more robust selection of images - Sean Connelley