|
Search this group's discussions
|
Article: "Anti-video on Flickr" movement, scared of losing the leading role?
|
Here is an article to think about the Anti-video movement on Flickr. If you want to read the original version of the article in Spanish, click here
It is kind of funny that I actually found out the ‘Anti-video on Flickr’ movement before the actual piece of news regarding this new service. The renowned platform which has been offering free picture host and sharing services has recently introduced a new feature which allows its Pro users (annual fee payment) up to 90 seconds video uploading.
I have been quite surprised by the amount of registered complaints, if I am to be perfectly honest. Many users of this social network panic about this new service; some of them vindicating Flickr natural conception as a photography sharing service, some of them claiming there is already YouTube for this sort of content. The snag is that there is currently more than 30.400 users, most of them Pro, subscribed to the “We say NO to videos on Flickr” group.
Nevertheless, before judging this particular matter I would like to briefly overlook Flickr’s history.
Flickr was originally launched as Flickrlive back in 2004, as a chat-based online multiplayer where users could share pictures in real-time. Step by step it evolved into an upload picture host where new features were introduced for individual users, eventually getting rid of the chat lobby. Thus the users were who –at the end of the day- decided what was going to be Flickr’s raison d’etre, although it was not initially conceived for that.
Finally, in march 2005, Yahoo! acquired Flickr and converted it into what we know nowadays. Back in the day, Yahoo! had its own image sharing platform called Yahoo! Photos so why would they change their own service for a new one which was chasing the same goal? Moreover, when Flickr was launched, there were already many well-known social networks offering image hosting (ImageShack, 2003) and image sharing (Fotolog, 2002).
Why would another social network offering pretty much the same be a success?
Very simple indeed: Yahoo! stood out differentiating its service from the rest offering a platform which could be used either as a photo booth or a virtual gallery by whomever who appreciates and practices photography, no matter if they do it as professionals or as amateurs, as well as offering an outstanding quality and a brilliant managing interface.
Yet again Yahoo! has detected a market niche. Is there any other choice amongst YouTube, Metacafe and Dailymotion for the audiovisual media fans? None at all.
YouTube is a low-quality audiovisual garbage collector, more or less what Imageshack or Fotolog are to Flickr currently, which nowadays are focused to a very different target user.
Now, Yahoo! offers a new alternative adapting its service for those who use their camcorder to create artistic videos, allowing them to have recognition for their work on a platform which is clearly more serious than YouTube, Vimeo, Metacafe or DailyMotion.
Of course, this fact has frightened Flickr users, whom have prognosticated non-qualified material being uploaded to the platform, thus converting it into the new YouTube, although this is quite unlikely to happen due to the following conditions:
- Only Pro users are allowed to video uploading ($24.95 annual fee)
- Clip length is limited to 90 seconds.
- The community guidelines, including the Creative Commons license, where it is said:
"Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you have collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time."
Given these arguments it is hard to believe that anybody would migrate to Flickr in order to import non-qualified videos; if Pro users decide to use this option to upload doubtful quality video content, this will eventually worsen the overall appealing of their collections therefore losing their professional credibility.
Anyway, this brewing revolution in their own battlefield has shown that Flickr does not know its users at all, users who are loyal as a designer is to Mac computers. After all, the creation of individual spaces on the Web 2.0 is a pure excercise of selfishness which only chases the local recognition. Offering video content in the first and only social network dedicated to author photography scares its users who are now forced to share the space where they once felt fully integrated.
I personally believe that including video features to Flickr is definitely an added value which could offer not only benefit but richness to the current Web 2.0 but, has anyone asked Flickr users if they do want to share their little not-so-little space?
Posted at 1:45PM, 7 May 2008 PDT
(permalink)
|
 |
Father McKenzie [deleted] says:
Article? It is just your comments on another forum.
Patricil wrote
Of course, this fact has frightened Flickr users, whom have prognosticated non-qualified material being uploaded to the platform, thus converting it into the new YouTube, although this is quite unlikely to happen due to the following conditions:
- Only Pro users are allowed to video uploading ($24.95 annual fee)
- Clip length is limited to 90 seconds.
- The community guidelines, including the Creative Commons license, where it is said:
"Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you have collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time."
Maybe you should read what is said rather then just jumping in with your eyes covered.
I love when people make the points of you have to be a pro user and it is only 90 seconds.
What happens if it doesn't grow as fast as they want and they offer 30 seconds free?
Or when those that love making films with their camcorders realise 90 seconds is too short and protest to get it made longer?
And for someone that can write an article you didn't check your facts, Youtube has a copyright clause as well. The terms of Youtube state that it must be your own work.
You have mentioned a phrase in your article that most of us here are against. Social Networking site. If I want social networking I will click on Facebook. I come to Flickr to upload and look at photos.
And on a final note, when you gave us the history of Flickr I thought you must have been around since the start but it says you have only been a member for 11 months. Where did you copy and past that history from. You do realise when you write and article and copy someone elses work as part of that article you have to say where you got it.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That is unfair, father mckenzie, the link from the spanish version takes you to a blog which references wikipedia as its source.
But it is someone's blog, it is not an 'article' or 'news', just someone's opinion on the internet. I wish people would stop claiming blogs are news!
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Father McKenzie [deleted] says:
Patricil wrote
- The community guidelines, including the Creative Commons license, where it is said:
"Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you have collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time."
?
Re-reading this they aren't going to kick you off for having photo's video's and stuff you have collected from around the net. You can have a few of these items but not have most of your content of stuff you have collected from round the net.
"But Mr Yahoo, I only had 1 video of the girl at school being bashed"
"Ok, just don't put a lot of it on your page"
BTW 6B of the Youtube terms
B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I asked someone to translate my article for me, so I must apologize because my english may not be as good as it should be, but I'll try to explain my position as best as I can:
Father McKenzie:
1. Let's wait and see what happens with Flickr Videos before making a drama based on free hypothesis. Anyway:
I don't see what would be the problem in allowing people making longer videos nor allowing convencional users to do it, don't they allow you to upload high resolution images?
And for the same reason you think that Flickr will be full of non-qualified videos like those in Youtube, Flickr should be full right now of non-qualified images like those in Imageshack.
2. Flickr is a social network. It becomes a social network by the time you decide to share your pictures with people, by the time you post a comment to someone's picture, you mark someone as a contact or you get subscribed into a Flickr group. So wheter if you like it or not, you're making part of a social network and you're playing your rol as a member interacting with the platform and the other members.
3. As Le Kizz sais, The source of Flickr history is in the original post of my blog, and you can reach it by following the link to the spanish translation.
I didn't find interesting to mention directly where the original article came from because it was me who wrote it. Maybe I should had to.
4. To sum up: Re-read the last phrase: "has anyone asked Flickr users if they do want to share their little not-so-little space?"
The users of web 2.0 are who decide the final use of the site, so as I said too "Thus the users were who –at the end of the day- decided what was going to be Flickr’s raison d’etre, although it was not initially conceived for that" and this won't change, because at the end we, the members, are who the make the contect of web 2.0 sites.
Originally posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
Patricil edited this topic 49 months ago.
|
|
|
Le Kizz:
The definition of article is:
"nonfictional prose forming an independent part of a publication" from Wordnet
So the verb who goes with "article" is "to publish" and that's what you do every time you update new stuff on a blog. Opinion articles are articles too! That's the way I understand the word "article , and that's the meaning I wanted to expose by using the word. I'm sorry If it is a misunderstanding.
I'm pretty sure that if I call "article" to an information published in the Wikipedia, nobody would have find inappropiate, and the reliability of Wiki is a matter of opinion...
Originally posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
Patricil edited this topic 49 months ago.
|
|
Father McKenzie [deleted] says:
Do you really think you are the first to come to this group and tell us how good video is?
I like how you tell us to wait and see but your article tells us it wont happen. Do you know something we don't.
Flickr may be a social network in the form that people can post messages to each other but we are against it becoming like the other social networks Facebook and Myspace.
To sum up: Re-read the last phrase: "has anyone asked Flickr users if they do want to share their little not-so-little space?"
No they haven't and this is what this group is about, having our say in what we, the paying members, would like to see on Flickr.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i smell a troll
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Father McKenzie [deleted] says:
I was going to ask who was walking over her bridge.
Posts like this are almost as funny as the one that post I say yes to video then in the message have I am over this group I am leaving.
Then you look at the members list and they are still members.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Patricil , in regards to terms and conditions your POST reiterates I would have to say that flickr and youtube both share this common denominator as well as the fact that both sharing sites' users do NOT completely 100% follow them.
In regards to "The renowned platform which has been offering free picture host and sharing services " in your POST , well let me shine my spotlight on the word FREE. Free which is really what Flickr is NOT to many of us. And since I do pay for the site , I think I have a right to be a part of protest against the so called moving pictures that is doing nothing for me but tainting my photo site and hogging some of my bandwidth now too.
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just hate the fact that Flickr is deemed a social networking site over and over and over again. I never felt this place to be on par with Myspace or Facebook.
I guess it is a social networking site, but the term comes with alot of rolled eyes and stuff.
Id rather it be a photographic networking site
Posted 49 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
We say NO to VIDEOS on FLICKR /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to We say NO to VIDEOS on FLICKR discussion threads