4 ms·

Flickr respects the wishes of its users. So? If they had gone the other way, the headline could be "Flickr allows stealing of artist work".

mtigas 15y ago
Agreed. What bothers me about the “controversy” (“exclusive” link-baiting headline nonwithstanding) here is that Flickr might be the most transparent image sharing website with regards to setting your own content licensing. It’s not like Flickr has pulled a fast one on everyone by suddenly repurposing peoples’ work. Pinterest was the one that created this opt out, seemingly specifically for the types of content that are explicitly "all rights reserved" in the more restrictive (more meatspace-realistic) sense that Flickr uses on photos flagged as such. Generally all content implicitly has some sort of rights reserved, but in Flickr’s case the "all rights reserved" option is a conscious decision to pick it. (Or alternatively: to not read the fine print on what licenses you can pick — and who does online, anyway?) The one knock on Flickr’s CC licensing I recall was a dust-up a few years ago where a CC-BY photo was later used in an advertising campaign unbeknownst to the person photographed or the person who originally posted the picture on Flickr: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html FWIW, Flickr’s default behavior at the moment (“all rights reserved”) is to protect photographers’ rights and prevent things like that from happening and it’s better IMO to err to that side of caution.
andyfleming 15y ago
I'm not sure about all that. They could easily respond to an article like "Flickr allows stealing of artist work" by adding "nopin" later. However, I don't disagree with their intention. It is nice that they are considering the user in that way. Maybe a better implementation would be for it to be a preference, rather than assuming. They could have an option like "prevent users from posting my photos to other websites".
- spullara 15y ago
  They do have that option. The photos they are protecting have that option set. On their settings page: http://www.flickr.com/account/privacy/ http://www.flickr.com/account/privacy/ They have a setting that says "Allow others to share your stuff". If you have marked it No, it cannot be shared to Pinterest. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
- mtigas 15y ago
  > They could have an option like "prevent users from posting my photos to other websites". (EDIT: Totally missed the "Allow others to share your stuff" option that spullara mentioned. I still think that feature should probably be wrapped hand-in-hand with CC, though.) Flickr already has this in the CC licenses, which are already more specific options than that. (Anything in CC is "allow people to use this elsewhere" to some extent.) Honestly, this could all be made better by making the CC licenses more prominent and making the descriptions much more human-readable (for the non technical, non startup-y crowd). The CC tool at https://creativecommons.org/choose/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/ is really close, but the wording still a bit too close to legalese IMO. Perhaps: * Let other people use my photos as long as they credit me. (Yes is locked in) * Let other people use my photos on products and websites where they make money. (Yes/No) * Let other people use this for collages, Photoshopped mashups, and other derivative works. (Yes/As long as they use the same open license for it/No) (With some sort of live-updating "here is the license you have ended up with and here is what it means" bit.) I’m not sure if the licensing stuff shows up in the Flickr registration process at all, but maybe a reminder in the (relatively spacious) sidebar every few logins would help folks choose the right thing.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  I don't think the if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality is really appropriate for an innovative company. Flickr is simply giving its users the option to add a line of code Pinterest introduced that restricts how their work is used, which they are fully allowed to do. The title mis-represents the action.

mtigas 15y ago

Agreed. What bothers me about the “controversy” (“exclusive” link-baiting headline nonwithstanding) here is that Flickr might be the most transparent image sharing website with regards to setting your own content licensing. It’s not like Flickr has pulled a fast one on everyone by suddenly repurposing peoples’ work. Pinterest was the one that created this opt out, seemingly specifically for the types of content that are explicitly "all rights reserved" in the more restrictive (more meatspace-realistic) sense that Flickr uses on photos flagged as such. Generally all content implicitly has some sort of rights reserved, but in Flickr’s case the "all rights reserved" option is a conscious decision to pick it. (Or alternatively: to not read the fine print on what licenses you can pick — and who does online, anyway?) The one knock on Flickr’s CC licensing I recall was a dust-up a few years ago where a CC-BY photo was later used in an advertising campaign unbeknownst to the person photographed or the person who originally posted the picture on Flickr: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html FWIW, Flickr’s default behavior at the moment (“all rights reserved”) is to protect photographers’ rights and prevent things like that from happening and it’s better IMO to err to that side of caution.

andyfleming 15y ago

I'm not sure about all that. They could easily respond to an article like "Flickr allows stealing of artist work" by adding "nopin" later. However, I don't disagree with their intention. It is nice that they are considering the user in that way. Maybe a better implementation would be for it to be a preference, rather than assuming. They could have an option like "prevent users from posting my photos to other websites".

spullara 15y ago
They do have that option. The photos they are protecting have that option set. On their settings page: http://www.flickr.com/account/privacy/ http://www.flickr.com/account/privacy/ They have a setting that says "Allow others to share your stuff". If you have marked it No, it cannot be shared to Pinterest. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
mtigas 15y ago
> They could have an option like "prevent users from posting my photos to other websites". (EDIT: Totally missed the "Allow others to share your stuff" option that spullara mentioned. I still think that feature should probably be wrapped hand-in-hand with CC, though.) Flickr already has this in the CC licenses, which are already more specific options than that. (Anything in CC is "allow people to use this elsewhere" to some extent.) Honestly, this could all be made better by making the CC licenses more prominent and making the descriptions much more human-readable (for the non technical, non startup-y crowd). The CC tool at https://creativecommons.org/choose/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/ is really close, but the wording still a bit too close to legalese IMO. Perhaps: * Let other people use my photos as long as they credit me. (Yes is locked in) * Let other people use my photos on products and websites where they make money. (Yes/No) * Let other people use this for collages, Photoshopped mashups, and other derivative works. (Yes/As long as they use the same open license for it/No) (With some sort of live-updating "here is the license you have ended up with and here is what it means" bit.) I’m not sure if the licensing stuff shows up in the Flickr registration process at all, but maybe a reminder in the (relatively spacious) sidebar every few logins would help folks choose the right thing.
JumpCrisscross 15y ago
I don't think the if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality is really appropriate for an innovative company. Flickr is simply giving its users the option to add a line of code Pinterest introduced that restricts how their work is used, which they are fully allowed to do. The title mis-represents the action.