“Flickr is a photo sharing community which provides you with an easy way to post and share photos online, and add meaningful metadata and comments to photos.” This is how the company Flickr describes its website and what it exists to do. As it is available to the entire public around the world to post their own photographs of things they see or make, it is wide open for multiple issues involving copyright law. The fact that people can take photographs of anything and upload them to Flickr’s site begs the question of what should be allowed to be upload without consequences.
There are many ways that the copyright laws can affect both the site, Flickr, and the users who choose to upload their work onto it. Flickr addresses many of these issues within their forum on a thread called “The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright” posted by the user RuffRiderTx. One of the myths addressed is whether or not the user should register their photographs with the government’s copyright office, or if they are automatically granted a copyright the moment they take the photo. The response to this was that because the user was the individual who took the photograph, that the copyright does belong to them, but registering it will afford the user greater protection against theft if it is published or distributed. Another myth that was addressed was if the copyright notice is not placed on or around the photograph, then it presumed that anyone can use it however they choose to. RuffRiderTx states that in almost all cases, photographs are considered to be copyright whether the notice is or is not placed on it.
There is a page on Flickr’s site where they state what constitutes as copyright infringement. The company says that if a user notices that someone has taken their photograph without asking permission to utilize it first, then they should follow a series of steps to remedy the situation. Flickr suggests that the user contact the other user via FlickrMail and asks them to take the photo off their photostream. If that user does not comply with the request that then the original owner should file a Notice of Infringement with the Yahoo! Copyright Team who will litigate the matter from that point on if so desired.
Flickr also has a page of its own called “What to do” and “What not to do” offering information regarding the submission of photographs as it is seen through copyright laws. Some of these statements include “respecting the copyright of others”, “don’t upload anything that isn’t yours” and that if users do this, they will be sent warnings or even have their accounts modified or canceled. The company also offers “Copyright/IP Policy” links in the footer of their pages stating more information regarding copyright policies. According to Lessig, one of the reforms that he suggests is needed is to “Simplify” the legal jargon involved in stating copyright policy. In his book “Remix”, he states that “But when copyright law purports to regulate everyone with a computer-from kids accessing the Internet to grandmothers who allow their kids to access the Internet-then there is a special obligation to make sure this regulation is clear.” (Lessig, pg. 266). When I was going through Flickr’s site trying to find out more information regarding their copyright policies, I had initially found very basic information stating that I had to follow several hyperlinks to more hyperlinks in order to view the policies. Once I finally found the policies, they were written in such a manner of legal terminology that I could not clearly understand what my rights as a Flickr user were. As a user, I would only be partially aware as to what my rights were in submitting photographs to Flickr’s site. I agree with Lessig in that it would be very beneficial to both Flickr’s users and their own company to offer much simpler definitions of their copyright policies to avoid cases of infringement. The only people who benefit from the complex legal jargon are the lawyers and the users who can afford to hire them versus the users who cannot.
The other reform that Lessig discusses that I believe would benefit Flickr’s users is that of “Deregulating Amateur Creativity.” As a Flickr user, you have the choice of uploading your work under a Creative Commons license, choosing between “Attribution”, “Noncommercial”, “No Derivative Works”, and “Share Alike.” These licenses grant fellow users the permission to share the work of other users and to create a remixed community as they integrate the photos into their own photostreams. Lessig states that "Tools such as the Creative Commons "Noncommercial" license enable an artist to say "take and share my work freely. Let it become part of the sharing economy. But if you want to carry this work over to the commercial economy, you must ask me first. Depending upon the offer, I may or may not say yes." (Lessig, pg. 226). Taking away many of the regulations circling creativity can create a greater sense of community amongst users globally, instead of a constant sense of guarded protection in not allowing others to share in your work. When Caterina Fake, cofounder of Flickr, was asked “Should Flickr compensate the creators of the most popular pictures on its site?”, she said “There are systems of value other than, or in addition to, money, that are very important to people: connecting with other people, creating an online identity, expressing oneself-and, not least, garnering other people’s attention.” Fake also stated that “The culture of generosity is the very backbone of the Internet.” (Lessig, pg. 233). I believe that the more open everyone is to the idea of sharing their works with the world, the more creativity will spring from those creations from other creators. More works will be remixed and produced from those that were initially shared and a domino effect of creativity will occur as a result.
In conclusion, I think that legal jargon that “protects” Flickr users should be simplified so that everyone, not just lawyers, can understand their rights. Flickr users should deregulate amateur creativity by uploading their work using Creative Commons licensing. There are multiple types of licenses allowing users to upload and share their work without the fear of theft and copyright infringement. Copyright law should be reviewed and adjusted to return back to protecting the rights of the creators and artists rather than the capitalist interests of everyone else involved in showcasing their work.
