3 ms·

Crash course in licenses for a lot of people, I don't know if Yahoo should be blamed for using licenses correctly. Though it seems kind of under-handed that th

Crash course in licenses for a lot of people, I don't know if Yahoo should be blamed for using licenses correctly. Though it seems kind of under-handed that they're going to essentially forcefully profit from their own users. Why not give them 50% just out of good will? I would be very surprised to find out that Yahoo is depending on 100% of the cash they're getting from the sale of these photos (I'd imagine they have more lucrative pursuits)... Also, this is probably an opportunity to create a site that caters to flicker users and allows them to sell their prints to people. And if you take only a small cut of the profit (let's say 10%) for access to the printing resources, you can make a lot of money.

lnanek2 12y ago
What's really sad is that Yahoo is already giving 51% to the creators of other images, so they had to intentionally complicate their product and extend development time to distinguish between who to pay nothing to and who to pay. The article says people are already changing their licenses to opt-out. If Yahoo had gone the other way and rewarded them, maybe they would have gotten more people posting images, not a bunch of bad PR.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
I intentionally chose to make my pics available for commercial use. As long as I get attribution I don't really care. A reasonable number of them have been used for various purposes and that makes me happy. (I have a pic on a sign in a state park, which is neat!) That said, I'm a little annoyed that the company hosting the images is now actively trying to making money on them. It's not what I imagined. It doesn't bother me enough to complain about it, but it does change my perception of the "deal" I have with Flickr.
- hardwaresofton 12y ago
  Yeah, it's definitely chafing people the wrong way (to say the least), I'm just surprised Yahoo would think that was fine, to do to the people who keep their site alive. If I had my stuff on flickr with that license, I probably wouldn't care either, but still it's bad PR they definitely don't need

lnanek2 12y ago

What's really sad is that Yahoo is already giving 51% to the creators of other images, so they had to intentionally complicate their product and extend development time to distinguish between who to pay nothing to and who to pay. The article says people are already changing their licenses to opt-out. If Yahoo had gone the other way and rewarded them, maybe they would have gotten more people posting images, not a bunch of bad PR.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

I intentionally chose to make my pics available for commercial use. As long as I get attribution I don't really care. A reasonable number of them have been used for various purposes and that makes me happy. (I have a pic on a sign in a state park, which is neat!) That said, I'm a little annoyed that the company hosting the images is now actively trying to making money on them. It's not what I imagined. It doesn't bother me enough to complain about it, but it does change my perception of the "deal" I have with Flickr.

hardwaresofton 12y ago
Yeah, it's definitely chafing people the wrong way (to say the least), I'm just surprised Yahoo would think that was fine, to do to the people who keep their site alive. If I had my stuff on flickr with that license, I probably wouldn't care either, but still it's bad PR they definitely don't need