3 ms·

They are working with Creative Commons to preserve freely licensed photos: https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/01/flickr-2/ https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/

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.

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.