5 ms·

This is a nightmare for our digital history. Millions of valuable photos could disappear for good from the public Internet because of corporate greed. It seems

This is a nightmare for our digital history. Millions of valuable photos could disappear for good from the public Internet because of corporate greed. It seems very irresponsible of Flickr not to grandfather older accounts to avoid mass destruction of history.

icebraining 8y ago
They are working with Creative Commons to preserve freely licensed photos: https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/01/flickr-2/ https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/01/flickr-2/ Frankly, seems fair to me. The company certainly benefited (marketing wise) by offering these larger accounts, so they definitively have some responsibility. But I also don't think that should condemn them to indefinite hosting of all photos and videos ever uploaded, should it?
- greeneggs 8y ago
  Yes, the company should have to stand behind its promises. The company benefited from them, after all. One day they promise a terabyte of free storage, and the next they say they'll all your photos in three months. That's quite a slap in the face. (Asking for "indefinite" storage is also a big jump from three months.) The blog post in which they announced the new policy was similarly two-faced. (Yes, Facebook and Instagram beat Flickr. No, this obviously wasn't because Flickr was too inexpensive.) And as a photographer, there's just no way I will ever trust a company that so blithely deletes huge swathes of photos. No photography company would do that.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I agree they have to stand by their promise, I'm just asking what their promise was. If the matter is the length, then that becomes quite subjective, no? I mean, should it be three years? Three decades? How do you arrive at a number that is "correct" and not just whatever one feels is right?
    - gdhbcc 8y ago
      Whats the time until the heat death of the universe? That's what they committed to (or more if se manage to extend that)
    - greeneggs 8y ago
      I don't know, does three months feel right to you? To me, until they go out of business feels right. My expectations aren't unreasonable. I only have 2 or 3 gigabytes of photos there. Up to two days ago, they were advertising a terabyte of free storage.
ashelmire 8y ago
> corporate greed Is this greed? Data storage, backups, etc, all cost money. They don't have to allow free accounts at all. That's not greed, it's good business. Do you give away space in your refrigerator to everyone around the world?
- Double_a_92 8y ago
  It's still a dishonest move to first promise something for free and then taking it away when you don't make profit from it. Especially when that could break lots of links on the internet. I remember when imageshack pulled off the same thing. Instantly half of the images in forums and such were gone forever. Sometimes I still stumble upon old turials with dead pictures. :(
  - danso 8y ago
    Flickr is under new ownership -- it was under Yahoo that Flickr made the 1TB promise. It's too bad Smugmug can't go along with it, but if it were a viable offering (i.e. Flickr was profitable), Yahoo might not have had to sell off Flickr in the first place.
- fma 8y ago
  If I once promised to keep your food in my fridge, I'll keep it there. If it's running out of space I will limit your new food. I won't throw your food away that I once promised to keep! If I sell the fridge to a new owner, of course they can do whatever they want. Throwing away old food that was promised to be kept is the corporate greed part.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    What if you haven't seen or had any contact from 90% of the owners of said food since it was placed there?
    - ship_it 8y ago
      I wouldn't promise.
kyleblarson 8y ago
How dare a for-profit business focus on making money!
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  Yes, how dare we care about other things?
ojbyrne 8y ago
This is a street view of SmugMug's office: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3907386,-122.0674312,3a,75y,160.76h,96.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfFQGFTwA3xZUUFbexe_RJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3907386,-122.0674312,3a,75y,... Maybe you can make a case for "small business" greed, but "corporate" just seems like the wrong buzzword.

icebraining 8y ago

They are working with Creative Commons to preserve freely licensed photos: https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/01/flickr-2/ https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/01/flickr-2/ Frankly, seems fair to me. The company certainly benefited (marketing wise) by offering these larger accounts, so they definitively have some responsibility. But I also don't think that should condemn them to indefinite hosting of all photos and videos ever uploaded, should it?

greeneggs 8y ago
Yes, the company should have to stand behind its promises. The company benefited from them, after all. One day they promise a terabyte of free storage, and the next they say they'll all your photos in three months. That's quite a slap in the face. (Asking for "indefinite" storage is also a big jump from three months.) The blog post in which they announced the new policy was similarly two-faced. (Yes, Facebook and Instagram beat Flickr. No, this obviously wasn't because Flickr was too inexpensive.) And as a photographer, there's just no way I will ever trust a company that so blithely deletes huge swathes of photos. No photography company would do that.
- icebraining 8y ago
  I agree they have to stand by their promise, I'm just asking what their promise was. If the matter is the length, then that becomes quite subjective, no? I mean, should it be three years? Three decades? How do you arrive at a number that is "correct" and not just whatever one feels is right?
  - gdhbcc 8y ago
    Whats the time until the heat death of the universe? That's what they committed to (or more if se manage to extend that)
  - greeneggs 8y ago
    I don't know, does three months feel right to you? To me, until they go out of business feels right. My expectations aren't unreasonable. I only have 2 or 3 gigabytes of photos there. Up to two days ago, they were advertising a terabyte of free storage.

ashelmire 8y ago

> corporate greed Is this greed? Data storage, backups, etc, all cost money. They don't have to allow free accounts at all. That's not greed, it's good business. Do you give away space in your refrigerator to everyone around the world?

Double_a_92 8y ago
It's still a dishonest move to first promise something for free and then taking it away when you don't make profit from it. Especially when that could break lots of links on the internet. I remember when imageshack pulled off the same thing. Instantly half of the images in forums and such were gone forever. Sometimes I still stumble upon old turials with dead pictures. :(
- danso 8y ago
  Flickr is under new ownership -- it was under Yahoo that Flickr made the 1TB promise. It's too bad Smugmug can't go along with it, but if it were a viable offering (i.e. Flickr was profitable), Yahoo might not have had to sell off Flickr in the first place.
fma 8y ago
If I once promised to keep your food in my fridge, I'll keep it there. If it's running out of space I will limit your new food. I won't throw your food away that I once promised to keep! If I sell the fridge to a new owner, of course they can do whatever they want. Throwing away old food that was promised to be kept is the corporate greed part.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  What if you haven't seen or had any contact from 90% of the owners of said food since it was placed there?
  - ship_it 8y ago
    I wouldn't promise.

kyleblarson 8y ago

How dare a for-profit business focus on making money!

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
Yes, how dare we care about other things?

ojbyrne 8y ago

This is a street view of SmugMug's office: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3907386,-122.0674312,3a,75y,160.76h,96.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfFQGFTwA3xZUUFbexe_RJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3907386,-122.0674312,3a,75y,... Maybe you can make a case for "small business" greed, but "corporate" just seems like the wrong buzzword.