No, You Are NOT Allowed to Use Any Flickr Images
The common delusion (under which I’ve also been for some time) is that you can use any image you find at Flickr as long as you link back to it. Well, this is wrong. Let’s try to figure all Flickr image license types to see which images you are allowed to post at your sites and blogs.
You are only allowed to use (not all) images under Creative Commons with appropriate license:
Attribution License
You are allowed to publish the image (even for commercial use) and modify it (e.g. crop, resize, etc) as long as you link back to the author;
Attribution-NoDerivs License
Publish the image (even for commercial use) but don’t modify it and link back to the author;
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License
No commercial use is allowed.
Attribution-ShareAlike License
You can publish the image (even for commercial use) as long as you link back to the author and to the license
Note: in all the above cases, when linking back to the author’s profile, you can use ‘nofollow’ attribute.
What is fair use?
Really, journalists and bloggers can take advantage of fair use that allows them to use any web content as long as they credit the original creator. Fair use would apply if you are making journalistic commentary on a particular image
But this fair use does not refer to the cases when you use images for decorating purposes.
How to search for images with appropriate license?
- Flickr built-in search engine;
- Creative Commons search;
- Compfight: the service lets you set the Creative Commons (’Off’, ‘Commercial’, ‘All’);
- FlickrStorm allows to search by keyword and /or by Creative Commons. The tool also has a handy flash-based interface:
Image credit: fair use classroom poster draft by tvol
Related posts:
Stumble it!
21 Responses to “No, You Are NOT Allowed to Use Any Flickr Images”
i agree, but sometimes authors don’t set if you can publish their photos or not, sometimes you find a photo but person who posted on flickr account didn’t say the source so you can’t say whether you can use it or not
By nikola on Jan 4, 2009
Ann,
I have had some questions about this myself. I knew there were some differences in which ones you can use and not use so thanks for helping clear that up.
There is a really cool wordpress plugin called Photo Dropper that I use that allows you to search for creative commons use photos on flickr directly from the admin panel in WordPress. The really cool thing is it will insert the image your want to use as well as automatically create the link back to the author.
By Gerald Weber SEM Group on Jan 4, 2009
Useful post, as it helps address the common misconception that you can use any flickr image you want.
As you’ve pointed out, this is definitely not the case – only CC-licensed images can be used, providing you meet the license conditions.
Note that if you find an image on flickr that’s not CC-licensed, and you still want to use it, you can contact the person who posted the image, and request permission to use it.
By Martin on Jan 5, 2009
@Gerald, cool plugin suggestion! Thank you!
@Martin, thanks for the tip!
By Ann Smarty on Jan 5, 2009
Honestly, I thought it was safe if we just linked back to them. Looks like there’s more to check.
Cheers!
By Mani Karthik on Jan 7, 2009
Wow, thanks a lot. I was in the understanding all these images were just to grab.
Also I thought they were acquired by Google, but now again this might have been another company. Anyone?
By Begrippen lenen on Jan 14, 2009
There is something else to mind when using an “Attribution-ShareAlike License”.
When you license your work using “Attribution-ShareAlike License”, people who use your work, making any modifications on it; they MUST link back to the author (in this case you) and SHARE THEIR WORK with the same license (as you did) .
Thank you for publishing the benefits of the creative commons licenses. I started using them last year on an academic project named Open CourseWare and now I am a big fan!
By Adelaida Henao on Jan 16, 2009
Good post Ann.
Btw, I swear I did not read this before I wrote my post on Monday on Smackdown.
-Michael
By Michael VanDeMar on Jan 16, 2009
Nice article
By Femin on Mar 5, 2009
As someone who has had his photos stolen several times from flickr for use on minor and major blogs alike, IK truly think the public needs to be better educated on copyright, fair use, and Creative Commons.
Despite marking my photos as Creative Common Attribution Share-Alike, I have found my photos on other sites and even marked up with others’ watermarks. I truly wish people would be more respectful of Creative Commons.
Unfortunately, I may need to move to “whole-image watermarking” in the near future to prevent such ignorant theft by flickr browsers. It’s a shame.
By Ken Foreman on Mar 16, 2009
nice article
By SEO on Mar 25, 2009
@ann @adelaida
Attribution License
“as long as you link back to the author” not really, you just have to mention/credit the autohor no link is required although a link back is a nice way to do it.
“atribution” concept was before the internet era
By Ani López on Apr 13, 2009
Hi Ann
Nice post, pointing out a very common misconception amongst the online community. I know many of my city daily photo community have started watermarking all their images, some discretely and some very obviously.
When I started my photoblog I certainly did not realise how many images were taken, often with no credit/link.
If people ask, I would most likely be agreeable to them using my photos.
Paul Leeds Photo Daily
By Paul - leeds photo daily on Apr 13, 2009
Thank you for the post. Sourcing imagery can be a time consuming process – finding the right image can make or break a design. Once you have found the best image its only right to seek permission to use the image – this is essential.
By Mandy on Jul 13, 2009
yeah, I agree but there are plenty of other free photo sites are available on internet so why to worry about flickr ?
By website design montreal on Jul 13, 2010
I’ve given the whole web photo stealing idea some thought. To me it boils down to who’s getting paid. The creator and the thief seem to have potential for payment no matter how the photo is used. Most of these photos wouldn’t even see the light of day without thievery. If you’re using the photo for decoration the idea would be that it would drive traffic to the thief site in turn possibly generating revenue. In turn, the creator gets free publicity. My hope as a photo creator is that my work DOES get stolen, and by a lucrative thief with a good site. Then all I have to do as good a job getting my work exposed on a paying basis that I control. Doesn’t it make sense that if you absolutely don’t want your work absconded, maybe you should make right click saving it impossible. It’s just so silly. If I photograph an apple, it’s still an apple no matter where it’s placed. If it’s unique, and not an apple anymore…then who’d really want to eat it anyway without getting used to it. Enforcing the monetary damages for something like this becomes even sillier since anyone robbing an image could not likely afford to generate original work, so all you get is a cease and desist out of it. Zero sum in my book.
By Howard on Nov 29, 2010
Howard, perhaps you should read the blog post you are commenting on then. There is an appropriate license for those who want their work “stolen”. Also, just so you know, in addition to it being impossible to make an image viewable and unsavable at the same time, that attitude is similar to saying that because someone didn’t spend $100k on a security system they deserve to have rob their house.
Property and rights are concepts that you either believe extend to the digital realm, or you don’t. It boils down to permission, not benefit.
By Michael VanDeMar on Nov 29, 2010
Important reminder and clarification for people. I think it’s also crucial to point out that Fair Use is different for lots of countries, especially the US and UK. Site owners need to be aware of the laws that apply in their country.
By Angela on Jul 14, 2011