Flickr Gets Flack For Non-Flick Flagging
from the web-2.0's-got-rules dept
In the ongoing love affair with everything “web 2.0,” one aspect that is continually stated is how many of these web 2.0 companies are all about building platforms whose communities are free to make them great. In some cases, that can mean that the community can take the sites in totally different directions than what the creators intended — but that should be part of the appeal. However, it seems like web 2.0 might have a few more rules than people would like. Poster child for Web 2.0, Flickr (now owned by Yahoo), is getting a bit of flack these days for deciding that screenshots really don’t belong in their community, and therefore hiding screenshots for users who have more than half of their photos considered “not photographic content.” The company admits that they need to figure out a way to update the rules — which is a good thing, but it’s a reminder that for all the lovely talk about user-generated content and how these sites are there to serve the community — often those communities have limitations placed on them from the top.
Comments on “Flickr Gets Flack For Non-Flick Flagging”
get outdoors, make some REAL friends, take a couple pictures of your REAL friends, post them on Flickr. Suddenly screenshots of a virtual world where you aren’t ostracized as a virgin loser geek, won’t seems to appealing. problem solved.
the other interesting flickr topic that hasn’t been addressed much is the sharing of homemade porn thru the ability to set privacy levels on photos. i would bet that more people look at “private” pictures on flickr, than “public” pics. my personal fav is a private, invitation only group called “rough oral”.
This is like the uproar when Wikipedia started locking anonymous edits. “Oh my goodness, the people who pay for these web sites impose some slight degree of control over them! The web is dead! Long live the revolution!”
I don’t understand the problem here. Either you suck it up and stop posting DVD screencaps to a PHOTOGRAPHY website, or you find someplace else that doesn’t offend your delicate sensibilities.
I signed up for flickr when it was new and the TOS read “images.” There wasn’t anything about not using filckr to host screencaps or vector art or animated gifs made from photographs.
I had screen caps of a spreedsheet I wanted to share with people I was doing a game with. All they needed was the visual and that was handy.
I had photos of a jack o’ lantern in various stages of illumination and animated that to have it come on. My sister showe it to an autistic boy she worked with and he loved it. (If flickr only wants photographs, why do they allow uploading .gifs?)
Many vector artists love the flickr interface and asked, repeatedly, for flickr to consider either allowing this form of artistic expression or opening a sister site for vector art.
None of this activity is indecent or violates any copyright law. But it’s all just wrong, according to flickr. It’s too, bad, too.
isn’t this idea similar to the one Geocities tried to do?
How is this any different? (Other then the crazy ads?)
Flickr does not say it’s indecent or violates any copyright. Neither do they say it’s wrong. If it were wrong, they would simply delete it. And what’s wrong with the TOS saying “images”? They DO allow you to upload images. In fact, you ARE allowed to upload images of any kind, as long as they’re legal, and people CAN browse your images, EVEN the screenshot types. All they’re saying is that these are not the images that they want appearing in the flickr PUBLIC areas, like the front page or search, because they believe flickr is a photocentric website. It’s like an art gallery allowing you store your artwork in their storage rooms but deciding that they DON’T your doodles on scrap paper displayed in their main hall.
Gamespot will be glad to take the business
Gamespot.com allows users to now upload video / photos, I think they will be elated about Flickr’s decision. BTW some of the videos are intriguing. Ever see someone beat super mario bros in 7 minutes flat?
"...these sites are there to serve the community "
I think this “…these sites are there to serve the community” is overly broad. Sites serve “a community”. Communities can certaily have rules. If you don’t like them, simply join one that has rules you do like.
I post screenshots from time to time (probably 10 out of my 1,000+ photos). It’s useful. Sometimes I want to blog something and still keep the images in my flickr account.
I don’t see what the big deal is. I wouldn’t start featuring any screenshots on the main flickr page… so, who cares? Can you ban tags? Just ban all images tagged “screenshot”!
That’s why Photobucket has 18 million users and takes every type of image and video…
Flickr and Yahoo?
Yahoo sucks. Why is it a surprise they screwed up Flickr?
Yahoo and Flickr
Flickr sucks. Why is it a suprise there are people still around flogging their wanker over them?