Totally unreasonable attention-seeker. Even the New York Times allows their photos to be reproduced on weblogs as long as they're a certain size. That said, Flickr is a very public website with the expressed purpose of sharing photos. If they didn't want to share, they shouldn't be on there.

Yes, said flickr person is a douche. It's like writing a blog in which you tell some secret and then getting pissed that people know.

You'd think someone who spent so much time taking pictures of herself wouldn't mind the attention.

Legally, I believe it's the case that all photo-takers are granted copyright upon taking the photo; the "public" option on Flckr just means that others can see them, not that they're public domain.

You would think that people who post "public" photos on Flckr WANT them to be seen by others, though.

I just removed her link and picture from the post anyway, and put up a link to different pics.

they should be happy you even looked at them. ;-)

...or it could be that she's embarrassed the tons of musically edumacated folks from your site will notice the TWELVE photos of THIRTY SECONDS FROM MARS that litter her account, there.

"Zero character flaws." Insecurity, perhaps?

While said person is in fact a douche, I did appreciate the use of Jeopardy Connery.

that flickr person is indeed an idiot.

To add to J's point, yeah, unless the photographer grants you permission, you can't legally post the photo on your site. You can look, but can't touch.

That said, she's being a douche, and she should've set up a Creative Commons license to avoid any condusion if she didn't want her photos posted, since most Flickr users don't care as long as you get credit.

And why is she pissed about a link? It's not her site anyway - it's not like she's paying for the bandwidth.

If the users chooses to copywright the image, as she did, it does seem like it's bad form to not even ask. I think Flickr created the creative commons browser to prevent this sort of problem.

seems like the flickr "terms of use" are pretty clear:

# The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!). However, pages on other websites which display images hosted on flickr.com must provide a link back to Flickr from each photo to its photo page on Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/terms.gne

to use the old saying "they can go fuck themselves" i think thats dumb that they are upset, what do they think you are going to sell those photos and make money off of their "work"

she's beastly looking.

HER PHOTOS ARE HILLARIOUS! ugly star-fuckers are my FAVORITE!

Good lord. It's not like you gave her cancer or anything. Besides, Fiona Apple sucks.

come on... but k-d-roxx or rocked...
meh... it's done. she really shouldn't get so upset about it.

You removed the link to her Flickr page? Man, if I were you, I would have added MORE links to her photos just to put her in her place. Anybody that foolish deserves to be given a hard time.

i always thought about it this way - if you link back to the flickr photo (especially if it's posted with that "originally posted by..." bit) that should more than cover giving credit. it's like saying "so-and-so posted about blah blah, here's a link to their blog entry" - you're directing people to the source with a link. generally people are happy about that.

flickr photos aren't public domain, no, but they are posted for the purposes of having other people find and look at them. your use of her photo(s) just made it so that more people looked at them, including probably way more people looking at them on her flickr site.

different people have different ideas about the etiquette of these things. that's reasonable. if you want things done a certain way where your photographs, content, whatever are concerned that's basically reasonable too. but you can't get righteously indignant when other people don't share your particular strict and arbitrary ideas. seems pretty self-important.

groupie whore....wonder if she has leopard print kneepads.

It amazes me that people don't know about the ability to restrict photo downloads on Flickr.

she's an idiot. 'nuff said.

The way I look at is if someone wants to use one of the crappy pictures I've taken, go for it. I don't even need credit.

i know this girl, she kind of resembles mr. ed thinks she is attractive when she is the langly thing with a huge overbite and bad hair loves to leach off of bands too

J, is correct: there are three levels of viewing permissioning on flickr -- public, private, and friends/family only. this has nothing to do with the copyrighting on a photograph, it only restricts who can view the photograph's page. public means any user who visits (whether they have a flickr account or not) can view the photo. using the photograph is another matter.

the copyright on her pages is on the right hand side, right by the green icon and it says "all rights reserved." which means she owns the copyright on her photographs, regardless of whether or not the page is public or private or whatever. unless she has explicitly allowed permission (usually via a creative commons license) you must ask before using.

the flickr terms of service allows off-site linking so that the copyright holder and those who have permission can hotlink to flickr images elsewhere. like on their own weblogs. sure, you can inline a flickr photo elsewhere as long as you follow the TOS but if you're not the copyright holder, or if you haven't gotten permission from the copyright holder, then it's infringment.

this is why i have explicitly put up a attribution-noncommercial-sharealike creative commons license: so people (like bloggers such as brooklynvegan) can use my photos without having to ask. permission (with some strings attached) has already been given.

what a dick. (not you...her) or as the French say "I hate Americans"

i'm right there with most of you. she was both hasty and rude, BUT do we really need to attack her looks or whom we assume her to be...or fiona apple for that matter?...and slanderous remarks about her overbite?!
that's just mean and unwarranted, i think.

Guess we all now know flickrs little fucker.

what a twat.

haha oh no, i guess this is technically my fault then for clicking on your link to her LJ and commenting on it and answering her question where I came from with: brooklynvegan.com

anyway, that is lame on her part IMHO. It's not like the pics are making you money, or would ever make her money. Or would be worth anything in any other way aside from sharing material. they are public both on her lj as well as her flickr. it's like you showing me a magazine with a picture in it. it's clear where it came from, credit was given.

Doesn't the Virgin store prohibit photography during their in-stores? If so, the irony...

I know this girl too, and she happens to be one of the sweetest people in nyc. hey kids, if you're making fun of a person's looks on a public forum, that time would be better spent figuring out why you're so miserable.

since the law cannot differentiate between a subjectively "good" photo and a "bad" one, a professional photo on flickr holds the same rights as a throwaway cameraphone snapshot. I personally wouldn't post someone's bread and butter on my blog, so I believe the same should go for all photos.

brooklynvegan: my argument aside, this blog is incredibly enjoyable to read. rock on.

i was at the show and YES, the virgin store does prohibit photography!

MK, it's nice to know that one of the sweetest people in NYC chooses to respond to a link by screaming "Suck it, X!" A simple e-mail requesting removal would have sufficed.

It's the nature of the net: People find, adopt, and link to information, be it textual or visual. It's how things evolve out here, and overzealous copyrighteousness doesn't do anyone any good - there's no $ involved. "Do not link to my site without permission" is pretty hilarious, and control-freakish.

I agree that the physical insults are uncalled for. But I do reserve the right to mock her for liking Jared Leto's band.

Official policy aside, if you have something on Flickr, you're meaning to share it. And whether you feel that way on the inside or not, there are great chances that people will link the image anyway. Want people to see your stuff without passing it along? Then get a flash site or watermark your images. I post stuff on flickr, and that's how I feel (and to that effect, I just cc my stuff). Maybe I'll feel different if I ever become good enough to be a pro, but flickr's very simply a sharing site.

lol, amen to the jared leto comment.

I realize it's impossible to control information on the internet. just as it's pretty difficult to keep a t-shirt design from being ripped off by someone in china. I'm just expressing how I feel about the issue, in full knowing that not much can be done without wasting your money on a lawyer.

she did give the wrong impression with her flickr message, but she also removed it. honestly, she is a very nice person! but even nice people are allowed ot get mad sometimes.

So did all you hipster fucks copy everyone's homework too? This entire thread reeks of disrespect for other people's work and art. I don't care if you think the photo sucks - if it does why do you need to link to it - you didn't take the picture. end of story. You don't get to decide that the attention from your oh-so-prestigious blog is something she should be privileged to receive, SHE does.

It takes all of three seconds to send an email that says, "I used your photo here because I thought it was cool. If you have any problems, let me know and I'll be glad to take it down." Presuming that you are more important than another human being is not a great way to get yourself through life.

Embedding someone's photo on your blog is not the same as saying 'Brooklynvegan had something cool to say about THIS, go over there and read it" - and even if I did that, and BV objected to the link, I would not argue or hesitate, I would remove the link immediately because the site is his and he has the right to decide what happens to it - to a certain extent, of course.

Common courtesy would not kill any of you. That's all this is about. Politeness. Does this still exist?

Again, someone calling for politeness opens by accusing people of being "hipster fucks." Lead by example.

Beyond that, you've missed the point of this thread. And, perhaps, the Internet.

And my mom is dead, by the way. Thanks.

I too know this girl and she is very dedicated to her love of music and works in the music industry. She's very talented at everything she does and is a beautiful person inside and out. There is no reason to criticize people that you don't know anything about. How would you like that done to you?

I wouldn't go telling someone to "suck it" without expecting to be critized in return.

Just an aside: working "in the music industry" is not a qualifying detail when preceded by the inference that she is "dedicated to her love of music." In fact, it is statistically a negation of that dedication. Either that, or she just started working in the industry this year.

they should not be putting anything online
if they dont understand how things work.

I have posted thousands of pictures of big
bands on flirkr and elsewhere all under CC
licence.

If they dont understand how to play well with others they should take their bad pictures elsewhere.

they should not be putting anything online
if they dont understand how things work.

I have posted thousands of pictures of big
bands on flickr and elsewhere all under CC
licence.

If they dont understand how to play well with others
they should take their bad pictures elsewhere.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediaeater/

the photos at the flickr can be distributed according to creative commons licencing agreement. http://creativecommons.org/ if she agreed than it should be cool.

Speaking of borrowing photos...

Vote for Miss Indie Rock 2005!

http://banananutrament.blogspot.com/2005/09/cast-your-vote-for-miss-indie-rock.html

There are so many more that should have been included in this poll, for instance, Kelly Crisp, Maura Davis, etc...

all you people who attacked this person and called her an attention whore are ridiculous. obviously she is not an attention whore if she didn't want attention brought to her site or her photos through brooklynvegan's link. use your brains a little bit.

also to the person who couldn't figure out "zero character flaws. also very humble." was obviously a joke, i feel sorry for you.

i don't think this was about money and that this person thought she was gonna make money on snapshot pics she took of an artist she admires. i think she didn't like the idea of a whole mass of people discovering her photo site, which before this was an unpublicized link and had relative anonymity as just another personal photo page among 92374927 on the web. but what's funny is that none of you got this, and you all went digging through all her pictures trying reeeally hard to find something you could bash her for. or was that your way of getting back at her for the fact that she asked for some privacy? congratulations for wasting a lot of your time, then. don't you have some arcade fire/sufjan stevens shows to attend or something?

furthermore, brooklynvegan, i know from reading the original post/exchange that this person told you that she would have appreciated being contacted first, and that she would have gladly e-mailed you the images so that people could see those few images w/o getting into her whole photo site. but you conveniently chose to leave out that information so that people could add to your one-sided argument. you. are. very. mature.

all you people who attacked this person and called her an attention whore are ridiculous. obviously she is not an attention whore if she didn't want attention brought to her site or her photos through brooklynvegan's link. use your brains a little bit.

also to the person who couldn't figure out "zero character flaws. also very humble." was obviously a joke, i feel sorry for you.

i don't think this was about money and that this person thought she was gonna make money on snapshot pics she took of an artist she admires. i think she didn't like the idea of a whole mass of people discovering her photo site, which before this was an unpublicized link and had relative anonymity as just another personal photo page among 92374927 on the web. but what's funny is that none of you got this, and you all went digging through all her pictures trying reeeally hard to find something you could bash her for. or was that your way of getting back at her for the fact that she asked for some privacy? congratulations for wasting a lot of your time, then. don't you have some arcade fire/sufjan stevens shows to attend or something?

furthermore, brooklynvegan, i know from reading the original post/exchange that this person told you that she would have appreciated being contacted first, and that she would have gladly e-mailed you the images so that people could see those few images w/o getting into her whole photo site. but you conveniently chose to leave out that information so that people could add to your one-sided argument. you. are. very. mature.

all you people who attacked this person and called her an attention whore are ridiculous. obviously she is not an attention whore if she didn't want attention brought to her site or her photos through brooklynvegan's link. use your brains a little bit.

also to the person who couldn't figure out "zero character flaws. also very humble." was obviously a joke, i feel sorry for you.

i don't think this was about money and that this person thought she was gonna make money on snapshot pics she took of an artist she admires. i think she didn't like the idea of a whole mass of people discovering her photo site, which before this was an unpublicized link and had relative anonymity as just another personal photo page among 92374927 on the web. but what's funny is that none of you got this, and you all went digging through all her pictures trying reeeally hard to find something you could bash her for. or was that your way of getting back at her for the fact that she asked for some privacy? congratulations for wasting a lot of your time, then. don't you have some arcade fire/sufjan stevens shows to attend or something?

furthermore, brooklynvegan, i know from reading the original post/exchange that this person told you that she would have appreciated being contacted first, and that she would have gladly e-mailed you the images so that people could see those few images w/o getting into her whole photo site. but you conveniently chose to leave out that information so that people could add to your one-sided argument. you. are. very. mature.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS POST 150%.

How did anyone get linked to her page through this site and had nothing better to do then rake through her pictures and draw conclusions? And to say she's a douche? If she wrote "suck it, x", it was not literal or rude, it was her sense of humor, but you can't grasp that over the internet. And why are you pissing your pants about the fact that she didn't want her personal life publicized on this website which BEGS for criticism from self-inflated-egos. She likes Jared Leto's band, who cares? WHO CARES? How does this categorize her as a douche or insist you criticize her looks? Did she try to come on to you? No? Then why would you go on public rants?

SHE JUST DIDNT WANT HER PERSONAL FILES EXPLOITED BY EVERYONE ON THIS SITE! And with right reason, you all seem to be on your high horses and at ease pointing out everyone else's flaws. Concluding that they suck or are disgusting or a nasty hipster or whatever you have said in this thread by looking AT HER PICTURES? How could you assume she's a starfucker? Did you get a fact sheet along with the flickr link? It's so embarrassing. Why can't you accept someone for their guilty pleasures and difference in taste? Why does it reserve the right to be mocked? Does your shit smell or not?

You all are disgusting for being presumptuous and absolutely unnecessary with your rude fucking comments. If you don't know her, back off. If you met her and hate her, have a field day.

all you people who attacked this person and called her an attention whore are ridiculous. obviously she is not an attention whore if she didn't want attention brought to her site or her photos through brooklynvegan's link. use your brains a little bit.

also to the person who couldn't figure out "zero character flaws. also very humble." was obviously a joke, i feel sorry for you.

i don't think this was about money and that this person thought she was gonna make money on snapshot pics she took of an artist she admires. i think she didn't like the idea of a whole mass of people discovering her photo site, which before this was an unpublicized link and had relative anonymity as just another personal photo page among 92374927 on the web. but what's funny is that none of you got this, and you all went digging through all her pictures trying reeeally hard to find something you could bash her for. or was that your way of getting back at her for the fact that she asked for some privacy? congratulations for wasting a lot of your time, then. don't you have some arcade fire/sufjan stevens shows to attend or something?

furthermore, brooklynvegan, i know from reading the original post/exchange that this person told you that she would have appreciated being contacted first, and that she would have gladly e-mailed you the images so that people could see those few images w/o getting into her whole photo site. but you conveniently chose to leave out that information so that people could add to your one-sided argument. you. are. very. mature.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS POST 150%.

How did anyone get linked to her page through this site and had nothing better to do then rake through her pictures and draw conclusions? And to say she's a douche? If she wrote "suck it, x", it was not literal or rude, it was her sense of humor, but you can't grasp that over the internet. And why are you pissing your pants about the fact that she didn't want her personal life publicized on this website which BEGS for criticism from self-inflated-egos. She likes Jared Leto's band, who cares? WHO CARES? How does this categorize her as a douche or insist you criticize her looks? Did she try to come on to you? No? Then why would you go on public rants?

SHE JUST DIDNT WANT HER PERSONAL FILES EXPLOITED BY EVERYONE ON THIS SITE! And with right reason, you all seem to be on your high horses and at ease pointing out everyone else's flaws. Concluding that they suck or are disgusting or a nasty hipster or whatever you have said in this thread by looking AT HER PICTURES? How could you assume she's a starfucker? Did you get a fact sheet along with the flickr link? It's so embarrassing. Why can't you accept someone for their guilty pleasures and difference in taste? Why does it reserve the right to be mocked? Does your shit smell or not?

You all are disgusting for being presumptuous and absolutely unnecessary with your rude comments. If you don't know her, back off. If you met her and hate her, have a field day.

all you people who attacked this person and called her an attention whore are ridiculous. obviously she is not an attention whore if she didn't want attention brought to her site or her photos through brooklynvegan's link. use your brains a little bit.

also to the person who couldn't figure out "zero character flaws. also very humble." was obviously a joke, i feel sorry for you.

i don't think this was about money and that this person thought she was gonna make money on snapshot pics she took of an artist she admires. i think she didn't like the idea of a whole mass of people discovering her photo site, which before this was an unpublicized link and had relative anonymity as just another personal photo page among 92374927 on the web. but what's funny is that none of you got this, and you all went digging through all her pictures trying reeeally hard to find something you could bash her for. or was that your way of getting back at her for the fact that she asked for some privacy? congratulations for wasting a lot of your time, then. don't you have some arcade fire/sufjan stevens shows to attend or something?

furthermore, brooklynvegan, i know from reading the original post/exchange that this person told you that she would have appreciated being contacted first, and that she would have gladly e-mailed you the images so that people could see those few images w/o getting into her whole photo site. but you conveniently chose to leave out that information so that people could add to your one-sided argument. you. are. very. mature.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THIS POST 150%.

How did anyone get linked to her page through this site and had nothing better to do then rake through her pictures and draw conclusions? And to say she's a douche? If she wrote "suck it, x", it was not literal or rude, it was her sense of humor, but you can't grasp that over the internet. And why are you pissing your pants about the fact that she didn't want her personal life publicized on this website which BEGS for criticism from self-inflated-egos. She likes Jared Leto's band, who cares? WHO CARES? How does this categorize her as a douche or insist you criticize her looks? Did she try to come on to you? No? Then why would you go on public rants?

SHE JUST DIDNT WANT HER PERSONAL FILES EXPLOITED BY EVERYONE ON THIS SITE! And with right reason, you all seem to be on your high horses and at ease pointing out everyone else's flaws. Concluding that they suck or are disgusting or a nasty hipster or whatever you have said in this thread by looking AT HER PICTURES? Did you get a fact sheet along with the flickr link? It's so embarrassing. Why can't you accept someone for their guilty pleasures and difference in taste? Why does it reserve the right to be mocked? Does your shit smell or not?

You all are disgusting for being presumptuous and absolutely unnecessary with your rude comments. If you don't know her, back off. If you met her and hate her, have a field day.

all you people who attacked this person and called her an attention whore are ridiculous. obviously she is not an attention whore if she didn't want attention brought to her site or her photos through brooklynvegan's link. use your brains a little bit.

also to the person who couldn't figure out "zero character flaws. also very humble." was obviously a joke, i feel sorry for you.

i don't think this was about money and that this person thought she was gonna make money on snapshot pics she took of an artist she admires. i think she didn't like the idea of a whole mass of people discovering her photo site, which before this was an unpublicized link and had relative anonymity as just another personal photo page among 92374927 on the web. but what's funny is that none of you got this, and you all went digging through all her pictures trying reeeally hard to find something you could bash her for. or was that your way of getting back at her for the fact that she asked for some privacy? congratulations for wasting a lot of your time, then. don't you have some arcade fire/sufjan stevens shows to attend or something?

furthermore, brooklynvegan, i know from reading the original post/exchange that this person told you that she would have appreciated being contacted first, and that she would have gladly e-mailed you the images so that people could see those few images w/o getting into her whole photo site. but you conveniently chose to leave out that information so that people could add to your one-sided argument. you. are. very. mature.

You can always tell when another war is about to take place.....

Well the thing is the photos you snatched were all rights reserved, now if it was a creative commons license that allowed non profit attribution only then it would be ok. Ignorance is no excuse on copyright infringement. Either you have permission to use the photo from the owner or not. Giving Credit to someone does not make it ok to use the photo. Credit does not pay photographers bills. If your site used one of my images I would have sent a DMCA takedown notice to your server, then your server would suspend your account until it was removed, then I would send you a bill for unauthorized usage. If you would not pay I would seek damages in court and win.