Flickr IP...legal?

I agree with your guess as to why he complained. Don't know the answer, but I'd like to know too, since I also wrote things inspired by photos that the photographers might not like. I wonder how he found out? I looked at the comments under the pic and can''t see any link back to here

It says this on her page: '...*All Rights Reserved - No Usage Allowed on my photos or digital artistry in any way for Blogging, Sale, Manipulation, or Publication...' ...which is clear enough. Out of respect for her wishes, if nothing else, I think you ought to remove it. http://www.ukauthors.com http://www.ukapress.com http://andrealowne.ukauthors.com/

Given the above, until I've clarified the position with each photographer, I've removed the links from my pieces for this IP.

Hi Jason, as a matter of courtesy, I have just now created a flickr acc and listed the ones I chose as 'favourites' with the option for the photographers to give permission for a link to be estabished. The quality of their photography outshines my attempts at writing, so I'm not going to be sniffy if they don't :-) atb Lx

Intellectual property copyright is a very grey area. There must be some cases where people have attempted self-defined rights as grounds for prosecution. I don't believe any of this has been addressed by specialists in internet law. You're probably on surer ground with the link argument, as you say, you did not post the actual picture. Putting something on the web does not automatically put it in the Public Domain, as paradoxical as that sounds. However, just saying you have copyright on something has no validity either, in a court of law. In fact, in the US, something called 'poor man's copyright' exists, involving a deposition of materials and affidavit with a lawyer, but is not necessarily recognised in a court of law, just another way for lawyers to make money, I suppose. It's probably simpler to remove the link and put it down to experience. I wonder if we should have contacted Flickr-ers to ask permission to link to them. You'd think they'd be pleased that more people were looking at their work.

While not in any way qualified to give advice, I'd be very surprised if you're not perfectly entitled to post whatever links you like (posting the actual image, even if it was still hosted on flickr, would be a different ball game). If the photographer doesn't want their photo viewed and discussed by random internet people, then flickr has a nice and easy to use set of privacy options. If they ask you not to link to it, then you can either be sympathetic and do as they wish, or be belligerent and stand up for your rights. There is merit in both options.

I hadn't seen the name before the post objecting to the link being used, but now she is often online. it IS a shame she objects. I really enjoyed the original poem. I think it's clear from what you wrote that you weren't disrespectful in any way to her original work - it's not like you made up some pointlessly insulting ditty, taking the piss out of it. Perhaps she'll reconsider her initial reaction? All legalities aside, I think if you post publicly on a site where you have many privacy options, you should be accepting of all serious comments, whether you happen to like them or not

From the always excellent TechDirt: "You simply can't forbid someone from linking to you, no matter how much you might wish to do so."

I suppose you could look at a link as no more than a Citation of the original piece, considered acceptable protocol. Part of the nature of poetry or prose is to reflect reality or imagination through the individuality of the writer, thus the photographer may feel there is cause to refuse the link as it may misrepresent or supercede the intention of the photographer when presenting the image? That doesn't really address the on-line community aspect, if another writing site had been directed to this one for inspiration, ABC talers would like to be informed at the very least. As Ewan has noted, perhaps we should have done this at the outset? Still, it was a very enjoyable exercise, Thanks again Nathan :) atb L

I wouldn't be surprised if I were told that I am infringing her copyright in reproducing her latest comment: 'THIS IMAGE OF A CHILD HAS BEEN REMOVED AS IT WAS USED ELSEWHERE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND THAT PERSON REFUSES TO REMOVE THE LINK TO IT AFTER BEING ASKED RESPECTFULLY TO DO SO. JUST ANOTHER DISRESPECTFUL BEING...THIS RESOLVES THE ISSUE.'

I was aware of the possible legal repercussions of this when I posted Nathan's IP. We are NOT reproducing the images. They are in the public domain. No law has been broken by us or any of you. If you feel that you should put up a link to your piece of writing on the comment section of flickr then I think that would be good. If the photographer then asks you to remove the link, then it would be appropriate to do so. But do not feel obliged - it's entirely up to you. You cannot put up an image on the internet for one and all to see and then not expect people to link to it!

I personally would not even consider the legal implications, with regard to using the photo. The fact that the 'owner' of the picture wishes it not to be used in this way, is enough for me. I would withdraw it. I am surprised that the photographer is upset about the usage, I too would have thought 'she' would have been delighted but there you go.

I believe in Santa - since I caught him shagging mum under the tree, shouting; 'Ho-ho-ho, here's one from Rudolph the one eyed reideer...'

I know this is a site in the US but it advises on the usage of links etc. There is a lot of legal advice on this site. I have split the url so as not to post it here as I am not sure whether to do so or not. http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creating/legallink.html

When you start splitting the urls, it's time to worry...look what happened to Russia!

You kill me - you really do>

>>>>said Anne Bolynne to the fella with the axe...