Comments on: Google Life Photo Archive: Fantastic Images / Fuzzy Info on Usage

By: Kim FLINTOFF

Kim FLINTOFF — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:45:59 +0000

Hi Alan,

OK – my understanding of copyright is limited but I think there are a few obvious errors in the reactions so far…

Many of the older photographs are well out of any copyright coverage… there are temporal limits to copyright despite any claims of ownership.

Browsing many of the images I find there are simple statements at the bottom of the page…

“For personal non-commercial use only” – seems to say to me that there is some permission to use them. Non-commercial seems to be the key…

I tend to think its probably OK the way you’ve used the image here and in most educational contexts.

There’s another aspect that’s often overlooked – simply asking for permission to use images – I’ve found that to be a very effective strategy – many organisations are quite happy to allow me to use materials after I ask.

By: google life

google life — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:04:31 +0000

Poor old Jerry Yang – he’s faced a takeover bid from Microsoft, the wrath of his shareholders when he rejected it, job losses, and now the market seems to have applauded his decision to stand down as CEO. Yahoo’s shares soared a whooping

By: Cole

Cole — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:49:37 +0000

Alan … this was my reaction as well. Here is an amazing archive, but it is not compatible with the realities of the read/write web. No use, unless you do what you have done or you claim Fair Use for teaching and learning. Interestingly enough, situations push us into the closed, dark corners of our campus CMS/LMS to comply with the TEACH Act. Too bad.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:54:19 +0000

@Alan I agree with you there.

I guess I was thinking about how the conversation must have gone between Google and Life. I mean, considering the standard Google image search warning “Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright” you get used to Google covering its ass.

Maybe Life felt the watermark was enough but it still seems really odd not to have some direct usage statement.

By: Alan Levine aka CogDog

Alan Levine aka CogDog — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:08:06 +0000

@Tom: I would think Google does not care about protecting copyright because like the rest of their image search, it ain’t their content, so it is Someone Else’s Problem. Now Time Magazine, which gave Google’s the Keys to the Life Kingdom, is another story… People get lost sometimes in seeing Google as some sort of altruistic non-business being, but Nicholas Carr has been helpful in reminding that they are,a t the end (and middle and beginning) of the day– a business with a need to generate revenue. And to that end, their prime motivation is generating ad sales.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:30:44 +0000

Stephen beat me to that comment, and it wouldn’t matter except that it’s good to know what we can do no matter the copyright or owner’s intent. In K12 I see way too much fear over legitimate uses and that stuff permeates.

I do find the lack of information regarding copyright strange. It’s an odd thing to leave out these days- cue conspiracy music- almost seems intentional.

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:54:54 +0000

It’s not a copyright violating use if you’ve reproduced it to annotate it and criticize it as you have here.

By: Ingunn

Ingunn — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:30:21 +0000

This is exactly the same reaction as I had myself, as posted on my blog this afternoon (in Norwegian). I am very disappointed that such an important source to our culture and history is presented in a very old-fashioned and traditional matter. Because, as you so eloquently point out, most people will “steal” them anyway, and they will do so because the photos are important, useful and beautiful, but they will not make money from them. I am a teacher. I would love to give my students the opportunity to blog about these photos, or let them use them as illustrations in their posts, but this is prohibited. If I do that now, I’ll turn them into criminals. Most people don’t care, they’ll use the photos anyway. I wish they could do that without breaking the law. What a shame.