Squared Circle
January 30, 2005 9:40 AM Subscribe
Flickr-related projects like this depend on licensed photos. The red bands on this image show unlicensed photos, and how much the project could grow. Also of interest is Color Fields, and the Squared Circle Color Picker.
That's a neat result. It's a little off that they intentionally used some photos that have a "No Derivatives" clause (the purple band). They should respect people's wishes.
Also, how do they plan on giving credit, since they're recommending licenses that require attribution?
posted by smackfu at 10:23 AM on January 30, 2005
Also, how do they plan on giving credit, since they're recommending licenses that require attribution?
posted by smackfu at 10:23 AM on January 30, 2005
Very cool. I'm glad he's using thumbnail size or smaller so as to not violate anyone's copyright.
posted by wolfey at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by wolfey at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2005
Just spectacular. Thank you!
posted by wolftrouble at 6:06 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by wolftrouble at 6:06 PM on January 30, 2005
Fantastic.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:49 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:49 PM on January 30, 2005
Gorgeous.
posted by NickDouglas at 9:42 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by NickDouglas at 9:42 PM on January 30, 2005
That's a neat result. It's a little off that they intentionally used some photos that have a "No Derivatives" clause (the purple band). They should respect people's wishes.
actually, if you read carefully, we're not using any images with a no-derivatives clause. all images with a no derivatives clause are Xed out in purple.
this is stated very clearly if you follow the first link.
Also, how do they plan on giving credit, since they're recommending licenses that require attribution?
there will be a link in the corner of the poster to an interactive version of the poster. there may also be a ring of small print screen names around the circle.
the attribution thing isn't mentioned in any of the links here, but it is one of the current topics of discussion over in squared circle.
posted by striatic at 6:52 AM on January 31, 2005
actually, if you read carefully, we're not using any images with a no-derivatives clause. all images with a no derivatives clause are Xed out in purple.
this is stated very clearly if you follow the first link.
Also, how do they plan on giving credit, since they're recommending licenses that require attribution?
there will be a link in the corner of the poster to an interactive version of the poster. there may also be a ring of small print screen names around the circle.
the attribution thing isn't mentioned in any of the links here, but it is one of the current topics of discussion over in squared circle.
posted by striatic at 6:52 AM on January 31, 2005
actually, if you read carefully, we're not using any images with a no-derivatives clause. all images with a no derivatives clause are Xed out in purple.
It seems like you already did use them, if you can indicate which ones they are in purple. Why wouldn't you just exclude those in the first place?
posted by smackfu at 8:06 AM on January 31, 2005
It seems like you already did use them, if you can indicate which ones they are in purple. Why wouldn't you just exclude those in the first place?
posted by smackfu at 8:06 AM on January 31, 2005
It seems like you already did use them
They did, for illustrative purposes, use very small copies of the images. If they were excluded, it would be hard to say how many more images they could have - "Just imagine how much larger it could be" really doesn't do it justice.
Each purpled-out image is about 8x9 pixels large. I don't see any larger versions available (unlike the large version of the properly licensed squared circle image - which is very nice). There is only a "medium" image, which isn't very large.
They are probably relying on the fact that you can't recognize any of the images when they are so small. In fact, they are this small:
I'm not sure what that is - it could be a CD, or a bell, or any other yellowish round thing.
If you don't count purple lines (which, I guess, are the product of the Squared Circle people) I count 24 infringing pixels. I don't think that is substantial. An 800x600 image has 480,000 pixels
I do see your point, of course, but I think the red- and purpled-out images serve their purpose well and are primarily non-infringing as the images aren't recognizable.
posted by drstupid at 10:13 AM on January 31, 2005
They did, for illustrative purposes, use very small copies of the images. If they were excluded, it would be hard to say how many more images they could have - "Just imagine how much larger it could be" really doesn't do it justice.
Each purpled-out image is about 8x9 pixels large. I don't see any larger versions available (unlike the large version of the properly licensed squared circle image - which is very nice). There is only a "medium" image, which isn't very large.
They are probably relying on the fact that you can't recognize any of the images when they are so small. In fact, they are this small:
I'm not sure what that is - it could be a CD, or a bell, or any other yellowish round thing. If you don't count purple lines (which, I guess, are the product of the Squared Circle people) I count 24 infringing pixels. I don't think that is substantial. An 800x600 image has 480,000 pixels
I do see your point, of course, but I think the red- and purpled-out images serve their purpose well and are primarily non-infringing as the images aren't recognizable.
posted by drstupid at 10:13 AM on January 31, 2005
Ah, my mistake, there is a larger version of the unlicensed one. The individual images are still small, but less absurdly small.
posted by drstupid at 10:25 AM on January 31, 2005
posted by drstupid at 10:25 AM on January 31, 2005
The project started by using photos that had been posted to the Squared Circle group, which meant they were all usable. Then one guy started playing around and made these beautiful patterns with them, somebody else said wouldn't that be nice as a poster.... but making and selling/distributing a poster requires rights so the group is in the process of getting all the original contributors to provide rights as well. Photos whose rights are not available will not be used in the final product. This is all a work in progress.
posted by dharmamaya at 1:48 PM on January 31, 2005
posted by dharmamaya at 1:48 PM on January 31, 2005
the more recent progress images don't use ANY infringing pixels, we just replace any image we wouldn't use with a white circle with a line through it.
we have had no complaints regarding any of the posters we've created so far.
all the photos are from people who dropped them into a groups pool so that they could be seen in a collaborative slideshow with each circle "morphing/dissolving" into the next .. so i don't think there are many who would object to them being used in some other collaborative non-profit context... but we're taking the time to cross our 't's and dot our 'i's and not step on any toes.
besides, having a little "license the photos" campaign is sort of fun.
where's that "flickr is an MMOG" post again?
posted by striatic at 4:15 PM on January 31, 2005
we have had no complaints regarding any of the posters we've created so far.
all the photos are from people who dropped them into a groups pool so that they could be seen in a collaborative slideshow with each circle "morphing/dissolving" into the next .. so i don't think there are many who would object to them being used in some other collaborative non-profit context... but we're taking the time to cross our 't's and dot our 'i's and not step on any toes.
besides, having a little "license the photos" campaign is sort of fun.
where's that "flickr is an MMOG" post again?
posted by striatic at 4:15 PM on January 31, 2005
« Older Trapped by the Three Dustbins of History | Bosnia's horrific war memories Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by taz at 9:55 AM on January 30, 2005