4 ms·

How do you expect Flickr to differentiate from you and someone else who wants to rip off your content?

by atarian 15y ago

spullara 15y ago
With cookies, this wouldn't be that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately let people pin their own content regardless of their settings.
- icebraining 15y ago
  I wouldn't, if I was making that decision. I can see too many users changing the setting to disable sharing, testing it and then claiming Flickr is "broken" (or worse). And rumors like that easily spread and are hard to disprove.
snsr 15y ago
> How do you expect Flickr to differentiate from you and someone else who wants to rip off your content? Any photographer or artist who really doesn't want their images shared should not make them available on the internet. Period. Given the capabilities of current computing platforms, there exists no method by which you can restrict redistribution. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
- mbreese 15y ago
  This is a good point. If you don't want your photos seen by others, don't put them on Flickr. If you want to sell highres versions of your photos, only put lowres versions up. So long as things are properly attributed and only low-quality images are stored/used, I see this as Fair Use.
- true_religion 15y ago
  Er... just because you can't prevent something by technical means, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prevent it by social means. For example: There's no technical way I can prevent you from slandering me, short of preventing all of your speech. However if you do slander me, and I find out about it then I can take you to court. The nopin setting just enforces a gentlemans agreement between Pinterest and the site in question. If the Pinterest user really wants to share that picture, all they have to do is copy the link and do it manually.
potatolicious 15y ago
How do they currently do it outside of Pinterest? They don't. Flickr makes an effort to spell out to visitors the terms of your image's copyright (whatever they may be), as a photographer that's where their responsibility ends, and I'm ok with that. I do not expect Flickr to slap DRM on it on my behalf and go out of its way to prevent the inevitable. If someone wants to throw my photos on imgur and share them without attribution, there's not a lick of anything I can do about it, Pinterest or otherwise. Flickr has done its due diligence informing users about the legalities of whatever use they have in mind, and that's fine. Also, when I hit the Pinterest bookmarklet, I am logged into Flickr, and staring at one of its own pages. Flickr knows exactly who I am - the same logic that's locking out Pinterest could just as well check if I have permissions to share these images.
waitwhat 15y ago
Depending on how the work is split between the pinterest bookmarklet and the pinterest server, it is possible that Flickr would just have to omit the <meta> tag for my own photo pages if I'm logged in.

How do you expect Flickr to differentiate from you and someone else who wants to rip off your content?

by atarian 15y ago

How do you expect Flickr to differentiate from you and someone else who wants to rip off your content?

With cookies, this wouldn't be that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately let people pin their own content regardless of their settings.

icebraining 15y ago
I wouldn't, if I was making that decision. I can see too many users changing the setting to disable sharing, testing it and then claiming Flickr is "broken" (or worse). And rumors like that easily spread and are hard to disprove.

snsr 15y ago

> How do you expect Flickr to differentiate from you and someone else who wants to rip off your content? Any photographer or artist who really doesn't want their images shared should not make them available on the internet. Period. Given the capabilities of current computing platforms, there exists no method by which you can restrict redistribution. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

mbreese 15y ago
This is a good point. If you don't want your photos seen by others, don't put them on Flickr. If you want to sell highres versions of your photos, only put lowres versions up. So long as things are properly attributed and only low-quality images are stored/used, I see this as Fair Use.
true_religion 15y ago
Er... just because you can't prevent something by technical means, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prevent it by social means. For example: There's no technical way I can prevent you from slandering me, short of preventing all of your speech. However if you do slander me, and I find out about it then I can take you to court. The nopin setting just enforces a gentlemans agreement between Pinterest and the site in question. If the Pinterest user really wants to share that picture, all they have to do is copy the link and do it manually.

potatolicious 15y ago

How do they currently do it outside of Pinterest? They don't. Flickr makes an effort to spell out to visitors the terms of your image's copyright (whatever they may be), as a photographer that's where their responsibility ends, and I'm ok with that. I do not expect Flickr to slap DRM on it on my behalf and go out of its way to prevent the inevitable. If someone wants to throw my photos on imgur and share them without attribution, there's not a lick of anything I can do about it, Pinterest or otherwise. Flickr has done its due diligence informing users about the legalities of whatever use they have in mind, and that's fine. Also, when I hit the Pinterest bookmarklet, I am logged into Flickr, and staring at one of its own pages. Flickr knows exactly who I am - the same logic that's locking out Pinterest could just as well check if I have permissions to share these images.

waitwhat 15y ago

Depending on how the work is split between the pinterest bookmarklet and the pinterest server, it is possible that Flickr would just have to omit the <meta> tag for my own photo pages if I'm logged in.