6 ms·

Snapjoy’s Flickraft Promised To Rescue Flickr Photos — Until It Was Blocked

75 points by michaeldwan 15y ago

jseliger 15y ago
1) That's certainly lame on the part of Flickr. 2) I find it odd that Snapjoy is offering this at a time it isn't accepting new accounts: I clicked "sign up" and entered an e-mail address to be notified about when they're expanding. 3) I hadn't heard of Snapjoy before this story.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Suspending an API key after that user exceeds a published rate limit sounds perfectly reasonable. We have no reason to believe it wasn't automated and temporary, yet. That's not "lame". The limit was 3600 API calls per hour. They moved 125,000 photos per hour. I don't know how many calls that involves, but it appears well over the limit.
  - jpren 15y ago
    You can pull up to 500 photos per flickr API call, so it's possible to fetch up to 180,000 photos per hour while staying under the limit.
- estel 15y ago
  Why is it lame on Flickr's part to ban/suspend an API key exceeding the requests limit? I can entirely believe that this was automated.
brandon 15y ago
michaeldwan, why are you posting techcrunch linkbait here? Since you were quoted as saying that you know your exporter went over the API limit, this seems like non-news. It's unlikely that you were even blocked by a human. EDIT: it's pretty disappointing to see a YC partner jumping on the linkbait bandwagon: http://twitter.com/garrytan/status/167050449747312640 http://twitter.com/garrytan/status/167050449747312640
- robryan 15y ago
  Seems like this kind of an article will get the whole thing more attention and increase the user uptake of this offer.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    This whole thing says to me: * We're willing to spread rumors about our competitors, and rip off their IP * We're willing to manufacture controversy to play the victim when there's no actual controversy * We will use every media channel we can to amplify fake controversy to get more eyeballs * Our service doesn't actually work; we DOS'd our competitor until it broke I won't be moving my photos there.
    - chairface 15y ago
      I haven't read a whole lot on this - could you clarify on the ripping off of IP? edit: I should have read the whole comment thread first - nevermind.
swang 15y ago
What TechCrunch fails to mention in its linkbaity headline is that it was blocked for exceeding the API limit calls of 3600/hr and was therefore blocked. I do not see how this is news at all. Most likely the article was written just to portray Flickr/Yahoo as a company that "banned" Snapjoy from its services.
natrius 15y ago
At the very least, the name of the tool is trademark infringement and the derivative logo is copyright infringement. If the main goal behind the suspension was user retention rather than just bypassing the API limits, whoever made the decision chose poorly. Flickr users who find out about this will know that it will be difficult to get their photos out if they decide to use something else in the future, so they have a greater incentive to seek alternatives beforehand.
- true_religion 15y ago
  The name of the tool is Flick Raft, two words. Logos are typically tried under trademark, not copyright protection. This is a good thing for Flicr because trying to claim that having two colors in your logo highlighting the text is something unique to your logo wouldn't make a very good fight in the copyright court.
  - natrius 15y ago
    Your first point is silly, so I'll skip it. Logos are protected by both trademark and copyright in many cases. Judging a work to be too trivial for copyright is a job for an actual lawyer. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - anthonyb 15y ago
        Colours would be under trademark, not copyright, but in this case they're also ripping off the Flickr logo. Same colours, same font.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
alrs 15y ago
"We’re a bit surprised that the key was disabled almost immediately after we reached the limit. " YCombinator founders are developing a reputation for weasel-word bullshit. Ditch the victim act.
- true_religion 15y ago
  Why read malice when it could just be naïveté? Maybe they really didn't think Flickr didn't have automatic systems to throttle you once you exceeded your API limit. Maybe they really thought it'd take hours, maybe even days before someone at Flickr noticed the spike and manually triggered a block. Maybe that's the level of competency and foresight one should expect out of Snapjoy... Even taken at face value, their own words make them look bad.
- patrickod 15y ago
  It's not unreasonable to think that companies would warn you before cutting off your API key. Any time I've ever integrated with a 3rd party API and come close to reaching their limit I've gotten friendly emails from devs asking if they can be of assistance.
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    > Any time I've ever integrated with a 3rd party API and come close to reaching their limit I've gotten friendly emails from devs asking if they can be of assistance. They didn't "come close", they blew through it in what sounds like minutes.
    - anthonyb 15y ago
      250,000 photos downloaded in 2 hours, according to http://www.flickraft.com/ http://www.flickraft.com/. 100x the API limit!
  - true_religion 15y ago
    That's kind of hit or miss. I wouldn't be surprised if a small or new company emailed me about nearing the API limit. They're trying to build a relationship. But a Fortune 500 like Yahoo or Google? They couldn't care less about someone trying to use their free API. You're just one of thousands to them.
danso 15y ago
I gave Snapjoy a try because of the HN link. It seemed to work fine. The pricing doesn't seem feasible for my uses and this kind of wink-wink behavior doesn't at all boost my opinion. See HN discussion about Path's "oops, our bad" thing.
shadowmatter 15y ago
"We built the system to stay within the limits of 3600 calls per hour, however it seems that a surge of imports pushed it over the threshold before we could throttle it back." It sounds like they designed it to stay within the rate limits, but had a bug, so it didn't. "We’re a bit surprised that the key was disabled almost immediately after we reached the limit." Is it crazy to think that Flickr abides by the rate limiting they advertise? Isn't that just like "truth in advertising"? The onus is on you to stay within that rate. "We thought about creating a new api key but didn’t know if that would be flagged as abuse." Is there really any part of your gut that says no? Do you think Flickr would implement a rate limiting policy if they were okay with people creating an unlimited number of keys so that it serves no point? Sorry to be so negative, but... Is this really news?
switz 15y ago
Their stuff didn't work? Flickr's worked exactly as it was described to. Obviously this is a huge PR piece, but it doesn't really make me want them over Flickr.

75 points by michaeldwan 15y ago

1) That's certainly lame on the part of Flickr. 2) I find it odd that Snapjoy is offering this at a time it isn't accepting new accounts: I clicked "sign up" and entered an e-mail address to be notified about when they're expanding. 3) I hadn't heard of Snapjoy before this story.

dangrossman 15y ago
Suspending an API key after that user exceeds a published rate limit sounds perfectly reasonable. We have no reason to believe it wasn't automated and temporary, yet. That's not "lame". The limit was 3600 API calls per hour. They moved 125,000 photos per hour. I don't know how many calls that involves, but it appears well over the limit.
- jpren 15y ago
  You can pull up to 500 photos per flickr API call, so it's possible to fetch up to 180,000 photos per hour while staying under the limit.
estel 15y ago
Why is it lame on Flickr's part to ban/suspend an API key exceeding the requests limit? I can entirely believe that this was automated.

brandon 15y ago

michaeldwan, why are you posting techcrunch linkbait here? Since you were quoted as saying that you know your exporter went over the API limit, this seems like non-news. It's unlikely that you were even blocked by a human. EDIT: it's pretty disappointing to see a YC partner jumping on the linkbait bandwagon: http://twitter.com/garrytan/status/167050449747312640 http://twitter.com/garrytan/status/167050449747312640

robryan 15y ago
Seems like this kind of an article will get the whole thing more attention and increase the user uptake of this offer.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  This whole thing says to me: * We're willing to spread rumors about our competitors, and rip off their IP * We're willing to manufacture controversy to play the victim when there's no actual controversy * We will use every media channel we can to amplify fake controversy to get more eyeballs * Our service doesn't actually work; we DOS'd our competitor until it broke I won't be moving my photos there.
  - chairface 15y ago
    I haven't read a whole lot on this - could you clarify on the ripping off of IP? edit: I should have read the whole comment thread first - nevermind.

swang 15y ago

What TechCrunch fails to mention in its linkbaity headline is that it was blocked for exceeding the API limit calls of 3600/hr and was therefore blocked. I do not see how this is news at all. Most likely the article was written just to portray Flickr/Yahoo as a company that "banned" Snapjoy from its services.

natrius 15y ago

At the very least, the name of the tool is trademark infringement and the derivative logo is copyright infringement. If the main goal behind the suspension was user retention rather than just bypassing the API limits, whoever made the decision chose poorly. Flickr users who find out about this will know that it will be difficult to get their photos out if they decide to use something else in the future, so they have a greater incentive to seek alternatives beforehand.

true_religion 15y ago
The name of the tool is Flick Raft, two words. Logos are typically tried under trademark, not copyright protection. This is a good thing for Flicr because trying to claim that having two colors in your logo highlighting the text is something unique to your logo wouldn't make a very good fight in the copyright court.
- natrius 15y ago
  Your first point is silly, so I'll skip it. Logos are protected by both trademark and copyright in many cases. Judging a work to be too trivial for copyright is a job for an actual lawyer. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#title
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - anthonyb 15y ago
      Colours would be under trademark, not copyright, but in this case they're also ripping off the Flickr logo. Same colours, same font.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]

alrs 15y ago

"We’re a bit surprised that the key was disabled almost immediately after we reached the limit. " YCombinator founders are developing a reputation for weasel-word bullshit. Ditch the victim act.

true_religion 15y ago
Why read malice when it could just be naïveté? Maybe they really didn't think Flickr didn't have automatic systems to throttle you once you exceeded your API limit. Maybe they really thought it'd take hours, maybe even days before someone at Flickr noticed the spike and manually triggered a block. Maybe that's the level of competency and foresight one should expect out of Snapjoy... Even taken at face value, their own words make them look bad.
patrickod 15y ago
It's not unreasonable to think that companies would warn you before cutting off your API key. Any time I've ever integrated with a 3rd party API and come close to reaching their limit I've gotten friendly emails from devs asking if they can be of assistance.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  > Any time I've ever integrated with a 3rd party API and come close to reaching their limit I've gotten friendly emails from devs asking if they can be of assistance. They didn't "come close", they blew through it in what sounds like minutes.
  - anthonyb 15y ago
    250,000 photos downloaded in 2 hours, according to http://www.flickraft.com/ http://www.flickraft.com/. 100x the API limit!
- true_religion 15y ago
  That's kind of hit or miss. I wouldn't be surprised if a small or new company emailed me about nearing the API limit. They're trying to build a relationship. But a Fortune 500 like Yahoo or Google? They couldn't care less about someone trying to use their free API. You're just one of thousands to them.

danso 15y ago

I gave Snapjoy a try because of the HN link. It seemed to work fine. The pricing doesn't seem feasible for my uses and this kind of wink-wink behavior doesn't at all boost my opinion. See HN discussion about Path's "oops, our bad" thing.

shadowmatter 15y ago

"We built the system to stay within the limits of 3600 calls per hour, however it seems that a surge of imports pushed it over the threshold before we could throttle it back." It sounds like they designed it to stay within the rate limits, but had a bug, so it didn't. "We’re a bit surprised that the key was disabled almost immediately after we reached the limit." Is it crazy to think that Flickr abides by the rate limiting they advertise? Isn't that just like "truth in advertising"? The onus is on you to stay within that rate. "We thought about creating a new api key but didn’t know if that would be flagged as abuse." Is there really any part of your gut that says no? Do you think Flickr would implement a rate limiting policy if they were okay with people creating an unlimited number of keys so that it serves no point? Sorry to be so negative, but... Is this really news?

switz 15y ago

Their stuff didn't work? Flickr's worked exactly as it was described to. Obviously this is a huge PR piece, but it doesn't really make me want them over Flickr.