Summary
The blog post analyses the controversy surrounding Flickr's Wall Art service, which used Creative Commons licensed images without compensating photographers. Although Flickr's actions did not breach any CC license terms, the move sparked debate over the scope of the licenses, particularly concerning physical prints. In response to criticism from photographers and the community, Flickr decided to remove all Creative Commons images from its Wall Art offering and issue refunds for prior sales. The company also expressed its intent to collaborate with Creative Commons on future programs that better reflect community values. This decision aims to restore goodwill among photographers and maintain Flickr's competitive position in the market.
The Wall Art Controversy
Yahoo-owned image hosting platform Flickr issued an apology after its recently launched Wall Art service drew criticism from photographers whose images were licensed under Creative Commons. The service, which had been operating for approximately one month, permitted users to purchase canvas or wood prints of images featured in Flickr’s Creative Commons gallery.
Yahoo had initially intended to retain all revenue from the sale of prints of Creative Commons-licensed images, while directing a 52 per cent share of earnings to photographers whose images were not covered by Creative Commons. The Wall Art service did not technically breach any of the Creative Commons licence terms. Criticism arose, however, when a number of Creative Commons photographers observed that Flickr was earning close to US$ 49 per print without compensating the photographers who had made the images available. Those photographers took the position that the licence terms under which they had shared their images were intended to apply to online use and could not be extended to physical commercial prints.
Flickr’s Response
In response to the growing criticism, Flickr announced that it would remove the entire range of Creative Commons-licensed images from the Wall Art service and would issue refunds for all sales made with such images. The platform indicated that it did not intend to discontinue the Wall Art service altogether; it would continue to accept orders for prints of personal images and images contributed by what it described as “licensed artists”.
In a statement posted on the Flickr blog, Bernardo Hernandez, Vice President of Flickr, wrote:
We hear and understand your concerns, and we always want to ensure that we’re acting within the spirit with which the community has contributed.
He further stated:
Given the varied reactions, as a first step, we’ve decided to remove the pool of Creative Commons-licensed images from Flickr Wall Art, effective immediately. We’ll also be refunding all sales of Creative Commons-licensed images made to date through this service. Subsequently, we’ll work closely with Creative Commons to come back with programs that align better with our community values.
Broader Implications
The episode highlights the tension between the terms of open licences and the commercial expectations of content creators. While Creative Commons licences may not restrict certain commercial uses in their text, the controversy suggests that platforms utilising such licences for commercial purposes face reputational risk when creators perceive the arrangement as inequitable. The incident also underlines the importance of clarity in licence terms as to the scope of permissible commercial activity, particularly when digital content is repurposed in physical formats.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.