Find all your DIY electronics in the MakerShed. 3D Printing, Kits, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Books & more!

Flickr_mosaic-6X6_500w.jpg
From the MAKE Flickr pool

If you plan to submit your work of maker pride to the MAKE Flickr photo pool contest, this weekend’s a good time to do it! (submission deadline is Friday 2/29) So polish it off, dress it up and submit a pic to the pool. A lot of great stuff has been rolling in and we know there’s even more out there – We want to see it!

P.S. – if anyone is unclear about how to submit (it’s easy to overlook):
Sign in to Flickr, join the MAKE pool here, Open one of your own photos on Flickr, click ‘send to group’ at the top of the pic. Choose MAKE from the list that appears, hit OK and you’re done.

Thanks again to everyone who already submitted!

Collin Cunningham

Born, drew a lot, made video, made music on 4-track, then computer, more songwriting, met future wife, went to art school for video major, made websites, toured in a band, worked as web media tech, discovered electronics, taught myself electronics, blogged about DIY electronics, made web videos about electronics and made music for them … and I still do!


Related

Comments

  1. Creative Commons says:

    Sorry to be a pain here, but technically you are violating the Creative Commons license that some (all?) of these photos are licensed under. You should be giving attribution to the above photo montage.
    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
    I’m sure everyone who had their photo picked for this montage is thrilled to see it here on the blog, but it would have been nice to get credit for the photos.
    You are also supposed to: “For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.”

  2. pt says:

    @Creative Commons – hi, interesting and a good subject to discuss!

    i think this falls under fair use, we made a mosaic – it’s not commercial in nature. people put their works in the pool to be shared, these are not full hi-res versions (they’re tiny squares) and there isn’t any value lost to the creators – we do link to the pool where all these are and all the makers.

    no one has every complained or said anything like what you’re saying for a mosaic – i’m not suggesting you’re wrong, only that i think we’re making something new from the photos and crediting where people are putting them for the sole purpose of sharing them with other makers.

  3. paolo says:

    On behalf of pt, I think it’s quite ok as the image is used to link to the pool where one can find the originals. It’s not like if they were taken out of context. But, I do admit that, to a certain extent, MAKE: isn’t following the actual creative commons guide line, and as a big promoter of it, I would think and expect them to follow it…

  4. pt says:

    @paolo – on behalf of me? hey now- i’m replying to this!

    i think the commenters aren’t aware of how fair use works, just because something is copyrighted or creative commons that doesn’t mean it cannot be used in a fair use application, for example: creating a artistic mosaic of thumbnails.

    it’s not commercial in nature. people put their works in the pool to be shared, these are not full hi-res versions (they’re tiny squares) and there isn’t any value lost to the creators – we do link to the pool where all these are and all the makers.

    i think it’s ok, and we do follow/support creative commons – but that doesn’t mean we can’t create works that fall in to fair use too.

    all this being said, how do you define fair use?

  5. Creative Commons says:

    I know… I’m being overly sensitive here, but I’d like to respond – this topic interests me.
    Technically you are using these photos for commercial purposes. As I look to the above of the post, to the Right, and below the post I see a bunch of advertisements. I’m sure you are not putting these ads up for free right? (I hope not). Granted, you are not selling the mosaic directly, but you are making money off of click thrus (and possibly page hits?)

    You are correct that the Supreme Court found the use of Thumbnails as being considered fair use (Thanks to the EFF!)… But in that particular case, the thumbnails linked back to the original photos… not to a pool. The thumbnails were considered to have increased traffic to the original photo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
    This brings up another interesting point… I’m familiar with fair use (and all it’s gray areas) in relation to (c) but I’ve never heard “fair use” claimed in association with Creative Commons License. Does fair use pertain to CC or only (c) images? Anyone?
    Finally, I’m pretty sure that a mosaic would not really be considered a “derivative” form of art. Collage – yes, mosaic… not so sure. You did not alter the photos in any way except to reduce their size.
    Agreed – people put their photos in the pool (and even on flickr) with the intent of sharing them… but in both of those instances their names are associated with the photos. In your case, the names are not. Nor is it “easy” to find that persons photo in the pool of thousands.
    PS> I’m not a lawyer – I just play one on TV.

    I guess the point I’m trying to make here is…
    I realize it means more work to you (the poster) to link names to all 36 of the above photos… but isn’t that what MAKE is all about? Promoting one another as Makers? Helping one another get their work noticed?
    The mosaic doesn’t accomplish this.

  6. pt says:

    @Creative Commons

    >>>I know… I’m being overly sensitive here, but I’d like to respond – this topic interests me.

    not at all, we’re having a great discussion, this of course interests me too! the MAKE comments are wonderful, we all have civil and interesting conversations, i really value your comments and thoughts.

    >>Technically you are using these photos for commercial purposes. As I look to the above of the post, to the Right, and below the post I see a bunch of advertisements. I’m sure you are not putting these ads up for free right? (I hope not). Granted, you are not selling the mosaic directly, but you are making money off of click thrus (and possibly page hits?)

    that’s a topic that everyone debates, if a newspaper reports on something, or a tv program reports on something the same argument could be made since there are ads and commercials in both of those. fair use isn’t clear cut, it’s interpreted — in this case the mosaic is some we made, the photos are were put in the pool to share, there is no value lost from the

    >>You are correct that the Supreme Court found the use of Thumbnails as being considered fair use (Thanks to the EFF!)… But in that particular case, the thumbnails linked back to the original photos… not to a pool. The thumbnails were considered to have increased traffic to the original photo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
    >>This brings up another interesting point… I’m familiar with fair use (and all it’s gray areas) in relation to (c) but I’ve never heard “fair use” claimed in association with Creative Commons License. Does fair use pertain to CC or only (c) images? Anyone?

    if creative commons stopped fair use, we’d see everyone using creative commons :) — anything can be fair use, copyrighted works, creative commons — it doesn’t matter. big brands and even individuals would love to never see their works used in ways they might not approve of, but that’s not how our system works – that goodness for that!

    >>Finally, I’m pretty sure that a mosaic would not really be considered a “derivative” form of art. Collage – yes, mosaic… not so sure. You did not alter the photos in any way except to reduce their size.

    usually mosaics are considered artful, the combination of photos, the sizing– the order these are all derivatives of the originals, again – it’s important to look at the intent. we’re linking to the photos pool where people freely put their photos to share with others, specifically the MAKE pool for MAKE magazine. there are tons of mosaic examples that use copyrighted works in the art world, from warhol to

    >>Agreed – people put their photos in the pool (and even on flickr) with the intent of sharing them… but in both of those instances their names are associated with the photos. In your case, the names are not. Nor is it “easy” to find that persons photo in the pool of thousands. PS> I’m not a lawyer – I just play one on TV.

    we source where the photos are coming from, if the mosaic we 1,000 photos or 5,000 photos would it make sense to link to each of those? what about all the flickr mosaic creators that make other photos of things from photos of things. i’m pretty sure we’re ok here, but i understand what you’re saying. if it was 2-3 photos that would be different.

    >>I guess the point I’m trying to make here is… I realize it means more work to you (the poster) to link names to all 36 of the above photos… but isn’t that what MAKE is all about? Promoting one another as Makers? Helping one another get their work noticed?

    we’re doing that, and makers are adding more photos than ever – we’re not doing anything other than promoting makers and in a week we’re going to give some cool stuff away to anyone who

    >>The mosaic doesn’t accomplish this.

    that’s where we might disagree – and that’s ok, i don’t think there’s a wrong or right position here, i’d say this is “new” if every MAKE flickr photo pool member decides a mosaic with a tiny thumbnail that links to the photo pool is in some way not good for them, they won’t add photos and we’ll need to work out a solution within the community, so far that hasn’t happened – only the opposite.

    cheers,
    pt

  7. Creative Commons says:

    Wow… great points. I’m going to continue the comments if you don’t mind…

    >> Commercial use
    Perhaps it was because your text was cut off, but I didn’t understand your analogy to the newspaper. Newspapers and TV report news (well some of them do), facts are not copyright-able. Also newspapers and tv are paid for thus making them “Commercial”. Your blog is not really paid for by the users, but you still make money off of the advertisements thus making it a commercial use.

    >> Mosaic
    This might be our biggest difference of opinion. You seem to be claiming that by pasting the thumbnail photos in a 6×6 grid that you are creating a new form of art. According to “Fair use” the derivative art has to be “transformative”. ie: had you painted the above mosaic, that would fall under the fair use and/or altered the photos. You didn’t you just arranged them in a grid. What if you just two photos side by side… would you still claim that to be a new form of art?
    If I were to scan in the pages of MAKE and rearrange them say from last to first, then posted them on the web for free, would you consider that fair use? What if I scanned them i the shape of a pyramid?
    Again your comment got cut off :(
    I don’t think Warhol used mosaics in the same way you are. He re-painted his photos (or copyrighted soup can labels). He then transformed the original work.

    As far as the mosaics being used to create other forms:
    __what about all the flickr mosaic creators that make other photos of things from photos of things.__
    I agree. that’s a tough call there, and I can’t seem to find anything on the web about it! I’m reminded of those “photos” made up of little tiny thumbnails that form new images. (I think Time magazine had a cover of this). But that’s also a good argument for my side… those formed “transformative” pieces.
    I take your point though.

    >> fair use and CC vs (c)
    I answered one of my own questions today (thanks to this thread of comments).
    CC does not “replace” (c) it only appends it. ALL CC images are still protected under the full rights of a (c). All CC is meant to do is make it easier for people to share works of art. So that you don’t have to get “express written permission”.
    http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000_7-6357305-1.html

    >> Pool as the source
    Agreed. you do reference where they came from – but not specifically. That’s part of my point with this thread.
    You could use the same argument and just say “Here’s a series of photographs I found on the internet”. I gave you my source, but you’re gonna have to work to find them. Or, with the written word… “Here’s a quote from a famous person that I found in the Library”. I told you where it is, you just have to go find it.
    Yes… if the mosaic were 1000, 5000 under copyright law and CC you would have to give attribution. I don’t think the amount has much to do with this argument, whether it were one or 1 million.
    You do seem to agree with me on:
    “if it was 2-3 photos that would be different.”
    So it seems we have a number somewhere between 3 and 36 where you feel it’s ok to not give attribution :)

    ok, I may have beaten this dead horse now :)
    Thanks for the debate.

    PS> I’m really interested in your comment where you cite warhol and someone else, but for some reason the comment got cut off. I’d very much like to know your other example(s).

  8. pt says:

    >>Perhaps it was because your text was cut off, but I didn’t understand your analogy to the newspaper. Newspapers and TV report news (well some of them do), facts are not copyright-able. Also newspapers and tv are paid for thus making them “Commercial”. Your blog is not really paid for by the users, but you still make money off of the advertisements thus making it a commercial use.

    there is a debate about this on sites from time to time, i haven’t seen anything that says what is going to happen one way or the other.

    but again, it’s different – in this example the mosaic is transformative. adding to that, for MAKE this would be considered “newsworthy” – so take a recent example from gawker, they still host the tom cruise scientology video, why? they claim it’s newsworthy – the church of scientology sent copyright notices and legal letters, the video is still there – and gawker makes money from ads of course. what will happen? this might go to court — there are also dozens of “mashups” new works, parodies and more, these works are transformative too — i’m going to predict that all these things stay on the web. so while this isn’t the best comparison it does demonstrate a few of the things i mentioned – in the end, it’s about intent (usually). we’re selling t-shirts of these photos or postcards.

    >>This might be our biggest difference of opinion. You seem to be claiming that by pasting the thumbnail photos in a 6×6 grid that you are creating a new form of art. According to “Fair use” the derivative art has to be “transformative”. ie: had you painted the above mosaic, that would fall under the fair use and/or altered the photos. You didn’t you just arranged them in a grid. What if you just two photos side by side… would you still claim that to be a new form of art?

    yah, that’s where this debate would go back and forth – i’m pretty sure if for some bizarre reason this went to court a jury would say our tiny squares that represented our contest, a newsworthy “thing” for MAKE, from photos people shared to be seen by makers, that didn’t take any value away and linked to the pool they came from — would be OK. in the end, that’s how things get settled, it’s never binary – people are involved. intent would be a factor here, from the makers and from MAKE.

    >>If I were to scan in the pages of MAKE and rearrange them say from last to first, then posted them on the web for free, would you consider that fair use? What if I scanned them i the shape of a pyramid?

    tiny 25 x 25 pixels of the pages, i don’t think we could stop you. you see – that renders it useless, you wouldn’t be taking anything away from value of MAKE, if you linked to us (and if we had shared the pages for that use) i’d likely thank you.

    >>I don’t think Warhol used mosaics in the same way you are. He re-painted his photos (or copyrighted soup can labels). He then transformed the original work.

    at the time people said what he did wasn’t art, some still say that. in the digital age i think a mosaic (like the one we did) is art. that might be up to others to decide if it’s acceptable.

    >>As far as the mosaics being used to create other forms: I agree. that’s a tough call there, and I can’t seem to find anything on the web about it! I’m reminded of those “photos” made up of little tiny thumbnails that form new images. (I think Time magazine had a cover of this). But that’s also a good argument for my side… those formed “transformative” pieces.I take your point though.

    yup, this is new territory — and why it’s fun to discuss it for sure.

    >> Pool as the source. Agreed. you do reference where they came from – but not specifically. That’s part of my point with this thread. You could use the same argument and just say “Here’s a series of photographs I found on the internet”. I gave you my source, but you’re gonna have to work to find them. Or, with the written word… “Here’s a quote from a famous person that I found in the Library”. I told you where it is, you just have to go find it.

    actually, i wouldn’t do that. this is a MAKE contest, with photos form the MAKE pool that makers are sharing to show other makers. i’m being specific, if it was something else – i’d be specific for that too.

    >You do seem to agree with me on: “if it was 2-3 photos that would be different.” So it seems we have a number somewhere between 3 and 36 where you feel it’s ok to not give attribution :)

    i’m saying that we do attribute it, to the MAKE flickr photo pool, where makers put them to be shared – if we singled out a couple people we’d be even more specific (and we do) but with dozens and dozens of photos that are almost specks on a screen it makes more sense to link to the group in total. if you look at our latest post, we did less images and linked to each one directly, so it’s not like we have a no-link policy, quite the opposite.

    >>PS> I’m really interested in your comment where you cite warhol and someone else, but for some reason the comment got cut off. I’d very much like to know your other example(s).

    oh, here’s chris jordan…
    http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=7%20size=2%20width=%22100%25%22%20align=center

    lots of copyrighted works, repeated, a lot.