[OpenGLAM] One Hundred Million Creative Commons Flickr Images for Research
Laurel L. Russwurm
laurel.l at russwurm.org
Wed Jun 25 17:11:39 UTC 2014
Thanks, Ben.
I do know enough about privacy and security concerns to be aware that
de-identification is almost always ineffective.
For ordinary people, google is the gold standard. When I need an image,
I search flickr and google, because their searches allow me to search
for images with free culture licenses. (I see no point in bothering
with non-free culture images. Ever.) Image search is the only reason
I still use Google search at all. Admittedly I have not investigated
the competition recently, but when I did, of the few alternatives
available, no other image search allowed this type of search.
The tag No Known Copyright' irritates me as well, because this is not an
accurate description of public domain material. There are a great many
works well and truly in the public domain everywhere. Works that
existed before copyright law, for instance.
When I post public domain images to flickr, I tag them as well as
including a block of text in the description to explain this. Only a
small amount of what I post is PD; so long as there is copyright law, I
will use licenses for my own original work, so it wouldn't be worthwhile
to set up for the commons. If you want to upload material that is not
'No Known Copyright' I suggest you set up an auxiliary account to do
so. (When you say "We were forced tobecome a member of 'The Commons'"
suggests you are part of a group, so presumably a different part of the
group/affiliated individual could reasonably have another account to
post such material without falling afoul of Flickr's TOS.
Regards,
Laurel
On 06/25/2014 12:06 PM, Ben O'Steen wrote:
> Re: image search. I've found the search not to be comprehensive and
> when new metadata is added, the index updates in a unreliable manner.
> I regularly harvest the metadata for the images I've uploaded, and
> have found distinct discrepancies between what data I know is there,
> and what turns up in the search results. For example, a number of the
> images require rotating, and Flickr does not offer a way for a user to
> indicate that to the account owner. I suggested to people to tag them
> with "rotate" to flag them up. A search of images tagged with 'rotate'
> and belonging to my account differs considerably from the tag
> information I know about from my daily harvests.
>
> For example, this search is meant to show any image with the tag 'rotate':
>
> https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=rotate&m=tags&ss=2&ct=6&mt=all&w=12403504%40N02&adv=1
>
> You may notice that majority of these do not need rotating any longer,
> and do not bear the 'rotate' tag. They likely will all have the
> 'rotated' tag however. A search for this 'rotated' tag shows a
> different picture again. I know that as of 5am this morning, 6462
> images have the rotated tag, which is a different number to what the
> search gives me.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=rotated&m=tags&ss=2&ct=6&mt=all&w=12403504%40N02&adv=1
>
> The search may be better than google's but that isn't saying much. The
> search is also built with textual data. I know that Flickr are
> experimenting behind the scenes with image analysis to provide other
> routes to explore and cluster images together. Imagine if every image
> on Flickr is OCRd, or has a field added indicating the three main
> colours in the image for example. With images, we should strive to do
> better than a simple text-only search.
>
> You are absolutely right to be worried about privacy and licensing
> concerns. They seem to be glossed over. They are pushing the
> responsibility onto researchers but without making it clear that the
> images have a range of licences. Hidden in the T&C for Flickr's
> sandbox area is a clause saying that you must not use it to derive any
> personally identifying information. Leigh Dodds has captured it and
> put it up for viewing here:
> https://gist.github.com/ldodds/28367dfc533487ea7c5b (line 12 is the
> key line)
>
> And yes, Flickr should just let any user upload with a CC0/PDDL type
> licence if they wish, a real PITA. We were forced to become a member
> of 'The Commons' to do so and now we have no opportunity to use a
> different licence on subsequent photos uploaded to that account. (It
> always shows 'No Known Copyright', regardless of the license I try to
> apply.)
>
> Ben
>
>
> On 25 June 2014 16:35, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l at russwurm.org
> <mailto:laurel.l at russwurm.org>> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I just don't understand the point of this, but it seems to
> me that Flickr already has an image search capability at least as
> good (if not better than) Google's... and I suspect Google has
> done something to limit the incidence of Flickr returns in its own
> search method.
>
> My privacy hackles are raised by:
>
> "the task is to build a system capable of accurately predicting
> where in the world the photos and videos were taken without using
> the longitude and latitude coordinates."
>
> Guess its time to only limit cc images purged of metadata or maybe
> to stop posting cc images to flickr at all.
>
> Personally I think it would be much more useful and cost Flickr
> much less to add the capability for users to post CC0 and public
> domain marked images.
>
> Regards,
> Laurel L. Russwurm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/25/2014 05:04 AM, Ben O'Steen wrote:
>> An excellent initiative from its description :) It will be
>> interesting to see how this actually pans out.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>> On 25 June 2014 09:35, Johan Oomen <joomen at beeldengeluid.nl
>> <mailto:joomen at beeldengeluid.nl>> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning (for those in Europe;-),
>>
>> I just came across this announcement from Yahoo Labs: "One
>> Hundred Million Creative Commons Flickr Images for Research”.
>>
>> More information here:
>> http://yahoolabs.tumblr.com/post/89783581601/one-hundred-million-creative-commons-flickr-images-for
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Johan
>> @johanoomen
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-glam mailing list
>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-glam mailing list
>> open-glam at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>
>
> --
> Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> §
> about.me <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books
> <http://libreleft.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>
>
--
Laurel L. Russwurm, Author <http://laurel.russwurm.org/blogs/> §
about.me <http://about.me/laurelrusswurm> § Libreleft Books
<http://libreleft.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20140625/bfd5d622/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the open-glam
mailing list