|
Yes it's truly disappointing. I read Rebekka's post yesterday, made a comment, nothing was out of line, and it gets deleted without notice. Very disappointing.
As a paying member like many others here, an explanation from flickr/Yahoo would be a good start to repair the damage. Or is this what we can expect of Yahoo in the future?
If this thread mysteriously disappear, I may just terminate my membership.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I am truly disappointed.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
thomashawk.com/2007/05/flickr-censorship.html
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
cross posted from original photo page:
This is all very sickening. First the theft, and now this censorship. I guess it's hard to litigate against the company since they are probably small so no lawyer will want to take on the case for free because it's not enough cash for him to make of them. (What if we all pitched in and got a legal fund to go after the bastards, and any new ones that pop up?)
As for the censorship, it makes no sense. I can't see how they could be afraid of getting sued themselves, since i'm sure they have a disclaimer that the comments of users are not their own. I would think they'd go after the company themselves.
Maybe yahoo didn't liek the seemingly bad publicity the case created. I hope they appologize at least, and set the record straight.
Now for the actual way that these scumbags operate, I was under the impression that Flickr changed the flirck API and the backend to not allow users access to the original images. I know it was easy before to do it, but I for one can't easily (at all) do it. So is there still a loophole that allows people to easily get these large sizes? If so, Flickr needs to knwo about it so they can plug the holes.
Maybe they don't care now since the site is not supposed to be used by professionals, but they will eventually want to make money by selling images (the partnership with imagemagik is probably just the beginning). So they better fix this NOW!
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Stewart and crew, a public response from the founders of Flickr would really be appropriate right now. I *really* want to believe this was done without your knowledge and that you are still protecting us from the corporate drones running Yahoo.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
What happened to rebekka is truly disgraceful and Flickr should be ashamed at their heavy handed response and treatment of someone who is responsible for a ton of positive publicity. A public apology to rebekka should be expected.
I would not be surprised to see this topic vanish as Flickr seems to stomp on any public discussion of their policies. They seem to think that other blogs won't carry the conversation if they delete things.
Short sighted reasoning. Look at what happened on digg recently over 16 numbers ... Flickr will eventually provoke a similar disaster.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
You know it's interesting. I know nothing about this particular situation or any of the details at all. But I remember a forum discussion some time ago about who owns the rights to the comments on Flickr. Not only on Flickr, but anyplace where public comments are allowed.
The general consensus was the person posting the comment has the right to the comment, the copyright, whatever you want to call it. My question was how can that be? How can we possibly own the right to something, if we do not own the original, or the ability to protect the original? Since a comment can be deleted by either the Flickr stream owner or Flickr, it seems pretty moot to say we have some right to the comments we write.
In other words, the things we write on the internet are transient. Especially in little boxes that have a "delete" button available to more than just the creator. It's unfortunate, but not unexpected.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Flickr/Yahoo thinks that rebekka was harassing someone? When *she* was the one getting ripped off? I read that thread yesterday and saw nothing close to abuse.
This is the most misguided tripe I have yet heard around here.
I'm interested to hear what Flickr staff has to say about this, although I fear it'll be the corporate "we cannot discuss individual accounts with the general public" line.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Yeah, I gotta agree. It's not like she was some crazy woman that was abusing the system. She's a very talented photographer and has a huge following here because of it.
And it's not that I'm so pro-Rebekka (even though I am) but it's that I am now pretty worried about the blatant censorship thing on flickr. I get that images can need to be kept an eye on for illegal stuff, and I get that people shouldn't use flickr for stuff against the guidelines, but this situation is a little extreme.
Again, I love flickr and will always be here, but there does need to be some sort of balance to the actions taken. The circumstances really do need to be considered; especially in a case like this.
I feel bad for Rebekka, but this is more about me now wondering just how far the "big brother" sorta thing goes here. Hopefully, not too far cuz I really do love flickr and the community it inspires.
Here's hoping it all works out... Somehow.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Someone should be quick then mirror it
216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.co...
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Unfortunately these cases don't really work in Flickr's favor. They don't generally comment on a specific case over the privacy of the people involved, and without the infringing page, we're stuck with only the story of the person who was punished. Even when true, it tends to be a lopsided wave against Flickr, who won't defend themselves.
[edit: wow. speak of the devil. Great find, Walwyn. Someone should definitely grab that, or let the owner know, so at least for posterity or proof or whatever.]
[edit edit: bummer. only the first page is visible. I'd imagine it was some of the last comments that may point to the trouble.]
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
Too late?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Its been purged already, tat cache....
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This came to a complete surprise to me.
Read the first post rebekka made – and today this!
Flickr should support Rebekka and stand behind her… true talent! else… a riot is comming :S
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I think flickr needs to answer to this.
Let's turn this into an unofficial petition.
Explain yourself, Flickr.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Jehza - While I certainly agree with your support of Rebekka, flickr doesn't have to do anything. As they are now owned by Yahoo, I seriously doubt that they will.
It's unfortunate, but this is one of those cases where big business wins out. Try to get an answer and you'll get that eerie corporate silence.
I just hope that flickr doesn't start trending in this direction now.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
When somebody commits an art heist and then fences that art, at least you'll know whose side flickr is on.
When your images are stolen, just say "thank you" and then shut up. Or else flickr staff will start deleting.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just read Rebekka's post in that cached page. Is it possible that the image site that was doing this had no idea those images were stolen? Maybe it was a user of theirs uploading the photos as their own, onto the site to sell, and they get portion of the sale. I'm not familliar with the site and i dont' know how it works, but if it's like imagekind then that can definitely happen, and the website would have very little knowledge of it., and the only thing they could do is take down the user's account.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Yahoo/Flickr, please do respond. If the company referenced in Rebekka's post sent a legal threat about this thread rather than removing photos which they apparently have no right to sell, then their business practices are even more egregious than we all thought.
If that's not what's going on, or there is more to the story that we do not know, immediately respond to the community and explain your actions. The longer you wait, the more damage you do to Flickr; at this point it appears that theft of intellectual property was ignored, and a fairly civil discussion about the theft deleted.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
My pro account expired a couple weeks ago and I've been wondering if I should renew as I'm none too fond of Yahoo's ownership of Flickr. Seems this is going to pretty much finish that debate.
Well, it was fun while it lasted but once again, Yahoo is destroying a great idea just as they have many, many times before.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
just a question, please don't all pounce on me:
What if the reaction was warranted? Even on the face of her argument (including the cached page) where all she supposedly said was to tell people to go write angry letters to this company. Forget about the death threats that may have resulted, just that first part:
Using Flickr to incite people to send letters to an "enemy".
Is that what we're supposed to be using Flickr for? Would that be considered against their TOS?
Beloved Flickr user or not. Personally I'd prefer if I didn't hear about another special Flickr user who got special treatment while average users get shafted. But that's beside the point. As just joe-normal Flickr user, isn't that enough against the TOS, regardless of the reasons?
[PS: what exactly is Flickr supposed to do about theft from another country? It sounds like the lawyer route was about the only option. Just saying, deleting the page/comments doesn't mean Flickr is siding with the Thieves.]
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
|
Sometimes they just aren't quick enough (just page1)
www.phizz.demon.co.uk/reba.zip
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Story takes a twist... take a read of this...
www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=455
Seems that they too were duped perhaps?
Regardless, the action that Yahoo has done by deleting that post without an explanation to Rebekka is still inexcusable.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
'How to alienate your users in one easy step', by Yahoo.
Of course Yahoo/Flickr don't need to fight Rebekka's corner, but they don't need to get in her way either. Her comments were completely reasonable, and as far as I could tell were intended to warn other users that pics had been/were being stolen.
If Yahoo is going to punish users for responsible behaviour, then they're shooting themselves in the foot. If this sort of thing continues, I'll be moving my pics elsewhere.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
This is just shocking. tbh, the warm fuzzy feeling that Flickr once had has all but gone now....
What happened Flickr?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, Tanner - that link explains A LOT.
Everybody here should read that post.
None the less, flickr doing the censor thing is still bothersome.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sure, they maybe owe her an explanation. But not so much us.
So a broader picture forms. So the inciting to write angry letters may have struck the wrong target? Now I wonder if we're getting into the gray-er area of liability for libelous (whichever it is for the written word) things written on your site. So maybe Flickr had to take this down or risk legal trouble of its own. Especially if the probably vast majority of the comments were actually aimed at the wrong entity.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Possible but ... hmmmm?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Whoah...yeah, Michael Ott's piece does thicken the plot. Crikey.
But even if Flickr were forced to take it down for the reasons you suggest, providing a short explanation would have headed off this sort of user community hoohah :-)
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Truly pathetic.
I too am an 'old skool' member, and have advocated on Flickr's behalf countless times. I derive immense enjoyment from the community.
Flickr really needs to address this issue. I am, sadly, committed to removing my presence (and membership) from Flickr should this issue remain unresolved. I will happily redirect future funds earmarked for Flickr membership to fighting Yahoo's abuse of a loyal customer.
Step up Yahoo. The internet is a big place.
John Grindon
Brinkman & Associates
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How about Flickr needs to address this issue with the owner of the photostream, and no one else? Then if she decides she wants to share info about her private situation, she can.
Man, it is getting quickly tiresome puffing up as a "paying customer" as if that instantly garners some special treatment by Flickr over a private situation. If you really want to redirect your vast fortunes spent here, send your $24 to me. I'll go have a few beers with it. [its not just you, john, its just like the tenth time I've heard it and I snapped.]
with people so quick to anger with very little real info to go on, it's no surprise that death threats so soon follow.
[edit: telekon: you mean that duplicate thread on the same topic as this one? since when has it worked any differently?]
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
They locked my thread on this but couldn't bring themselves to answer to their behavior. Classy, guys, thanks!
Edit: And could you be brown nosing any more, searcher? If you want to throw your money at a company that feels no obligations towards its paying customers that's up to you.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
telekon edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
@Tanner
The company in question sent that out as a blanket email to anyone who wrote to them. Do you believe it? Searching the internet for the company in question turned up nothing for me, it's convenient for a company who is being accused of stealing A LOT of money to pin the blame on another intermediary company.
As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on them. Just because they say they got duped, that doesn't mean that they are victims as well.
As for Yahoo, what a fucking pathetic shame. They are trying to get artists to come and share their work here, and when someone gets their work stolen... rather than Yahoo being supportive, they silence her. It shows that they have no clue about what it takes to run a site where the community is the focus. I guess if all of your best products are ones you have bought, then it shows that you really don't have a clue what it takes to build something successful.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
telekon: sorry, I thought you were interested in the truth. my mistake. carry on. I guess I'm just a fan of critical thinking, as opposed to mob rule. no matter who turns to be right or wrong.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Breathtakingly foolish move by Flickr/Yahoo. That's just...wow.
I'm sitting here trying to figure out if I'm going to need to move to a new photo sharing site, and it makes me really sad. A heartfelt mea culpa is the absolute minimum that Yahoo needs to give to the community right now to win us back.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
As Flickr's Community Manager, the actions of the Customer Care team are my responsibilty and you can say that the buck stops with me. Deletion is permanent and the photo in question can't be restored. This has nothing to do with censorship -- we made a mistake.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@ The Searcher
Aren't you being a little... no... ENTIRELY self-righteous?
Lumping everybody together as irrational and angry and 'puffy' sure is easy, but in fact a lot of people here are concerned because this does in fact affect us all, as users of this site.
I would hardly call some of the replies irrational, angry, or 'puffy'... instead I would say people are expressing their support for a fellow artist, and hoping a site we've all been a part of for a long time will show a little support or at least explain their rationale.
I saw the post about only-dreemin's side of things, and I think latching onto that and forming your counter-mob rule really doesn't help anything. This is more about Flickr's censorship-- at least, so long as we're on Flickr's forum, it is.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I realize that tempers are flaring and while you're free to have a go at me, please keep it civil with your fellow members. We're more than happy to host a discussion but if it devolves into fish slapping, I will lock this topic.
[edit typo]
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
So you're telling us that flickr has no provision for undeleteing? No backups?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We maintain a rolling snapshot of the site to recover from outages etc. When a photo, comment, FlickrMail, tag, note, etc., is deleted, it's removed from that snapshot.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I would find the justification for the use of images more convincing if it included an offer of a slice of the profit.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What i have a problem with is a very quick judgement that comes down on users. Someone complains about a user or their photo and the user is shut down immediately and often without just cause. It seems like a flag should be set and then a team of people should review whether the person or image should be removed/moderated. I've seen too many times the wrong action being taken and then it's too late, and Flickr can only appologize. Innocent unless proven guilty doesn't seem to always hold true here and that's what offends many users here, myself included. Of course there is also the occasional post taht flickr isn't acting fast enough to ban an abusive user. But in this case I'd rather have flickr take longer to do the right thing than act quickly and do the wrong thing.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sokaya: well, I'm sorry if trying to bring in a little perpective or contrary opinion comes off as self-righteous. and certainly you're correct, lumping everyone in to a certain number of people and comments is way stereotypy, or at least really lazy, of me. sorry for that.
As Heather's post may better illustrate now, I'm not latching onto any one side or story right now. I think that's the trouble and my attempted point, how quickly many people seem to pick a side, without enough info from any direction. A little time, some breathing, and maybe more of the truth can come out. Maybe a little less insta-Flickr-bashing until then, not such a bad thing.
but that's just my opinion, nothing I feel terribly righteous about.
[Proggie: that seems to be a bit of a recurring theme on here. As Heather explained, when something's deleted, it's gone. So if a takedown notice comes -just an example- and they act on it, and then you COUNTER the notice, something the law allows, then its too late. I think Thomas Hawk had that problem. something less than "Delete" may be a nice internal feature for them.]
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
Hey Heather, thanks for joining the thread. So what is the official Flickr position on pictures being pulled and threads being locked with reagrd to Rebekka Guðleifsdóttira?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So what is the official Flickr position on pictures being pulled and threads being locked with reagrd to Rebekka Guðleifsdóttira?
The other was topic locked given that there was an active topic on the same discussion. We have a policy of locking duplicate topics -- you're more than welcome to continue the discussion here.
Otherwise, please see my post above regarding the events of today:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/40074/#reply212150
[edited to read more like english]
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Heather. And I know you've had a tough day and I don't hold you responsible for this despite your taking accountability -- which is admirable -- but...
1. Flickr needs to have a back up provision to undo "mistakes" of this nature. Killing hundreds of comments, including mine permanently is not acceptable.
2. Was it a "mistake" when Flickr deleted my photo of Michael Crook and all the commentary that went along with it? Was it a "mistake" when Flickr deleted Kris Krug's photo and all the commentary that went along with his whole incident with Kevin Corazza?
The truth of the matter is that except for the fact that some high profile community members, rebekka, me, etc. got involved with this "mistake" that it likely otherwise would never have been addressed by Flickr.
Without the power of digg and strong support I'm sure that many, many, incidents like this happen with *no* recourse all the time. I know they do because people reference them all the time.
How about this? How about Flickr (not you) change their policy to be that they
1. Will not delete any photo and comments permanently ever. It's scary that Flickr does this.
2. That they will give any user 48 hours to respond to a complaint for a takedown and will actually have someone with some degree of competence review these responses and give some serious consideration to censorship before it takes place.
Flickr owes us that much. Really, they do.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
They could restore it if they wanted to...in fact, they could start by simply restoring her original caption for the image in question.
Here it is for them, nice and easy, straight from Yahoo's own cache:
I have a LOT on my mind right now.. to be honest, i've rarely been so royally pissed off as i am today.
The photos shown above all have one thing in common (besides being rather lovely landscape photos):
They were all taken , without my permission, by the London based print-selling company Only-Dreemin. This company prides itself on offering its customers only the best quality canvas prints of the finest photos , by top artists.
What they fail to mention is that some of the photos they're selling prints of have been illegally obtained, and are being sold without the artists consent or knowledge.
In my case, a friend of mine came across their store on ebay and recognized one of my prints. (this was way back in january i think)
I looked into the matter and discovered 7 more of my photos being sold there. In the case of pictures 1, 2, 6 and 7, the image had been divided up into 3 vertical panels. ( Something i would never DREAM of doing myself. ) Furthermore, the images had been given new and exciting titles, like "Seraque II" and "Attica", "Dawn expander II" and " Joga" (barf)
I spent a good many days researching, going back thru their customer feedback, and was able to track back the sales of at LEAST 60 prints made from my images.
These prints sold for a total sum of 2450 british pounds (around 4840 US$ )
I gathered all the evidence , saved each webpage displaying my work , saved the list of customer feedback, printed all this stuff out and took it to a lawyer here in iceland.
She was confident that by sending them some well-phrased letters i'd be sure to get some damages out of them. After all, i had tons of incriminating evidence.
The letters did nothing other than make them take the images down from their site. Further letters got no response from them. My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill and the infuriating fact that I, being only a non-wealthy art stutdent/ single mom in iceland, will have to accept that these people stole my work and made lots of money off it, and apparently are going to get away with it.
This is NOT OK BY ME.
I could think of little else to do than to at least tell people about this.
I have reason to believe that they've stolen images from other people, maybe other flickr users.
The reason i suspect this is quite simple. My photos were being sold under the bogus name of "Rebekka Sigrún" (the nerve of keeping the first name the same is somewhat amazing).
I saw a number of other photos being sold under that same artist name, and they werent mine. And obviously this Rebekka Sigrún doesnt exist.
Looking over the pictures i remember being sold under that name, it appears they've changed the artist name to "marco van eych". If anyone knows a landscape photographer by that name, let me know. i very much doubt he exists.
So i encourage everyone that has been displaying similar landscape photos on flickr to look at their site and see if they see something suspicious.
It would also be pretty cool if as many people as possible would send them angry letters, (address them to info@only-dreemin.com ) but that's just if you feel like it;)
ok. i've said my piece. Quite a load off my back.
The whole bit is there, including at least the first page of what were at least 430 comments from fellow Flickr members / customers, 96,000+ views.
Where's the abuse, harassment, etc.?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm not angry, just sad and a bit nervous about the prospect of trying to disentangle myself from flickr. It's like breaking up with a longtime girlfriend because you found out she beat up another girl (who you had a crush on) for no good reason.
I understand that the person who made the decision to pull the trigger and delete the photo probably had good intentions, or at least felt like they were following the rules. I'd just like to see flickr stand up and explain. Raising the possibility of closing Rebekka's account given the circumstances is just mean-spirited, with no real action being taken since then it appears that Flickr is content to leave things as they are.
Good luck, Heather. This is in Digg's top 10 articles, so you've got your work cut out for you.
(No backups? Really?)
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Phlivo: Trust me I did question the validity of the story however I read it for what it's worth.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The "acting on it" seems to happen to quickly for my tastes. I suppose it's just people acting on it, and people make mistakes, but too many times it's been an obviously WRONG decision and then they couldn't go back and make it right. Or it results in the innocent users having to make extra effort into setting things right. If you're going to make drastic changes such as making a photo/user deleted from the site, or a photo moderated, make sure first that you are doing the right thing according to your own guidelines. It's not good enough to just say sorry we made a mistake over and over. Give users the benefit of the doubt until a real competent person looks at their individual case. These takedowns can't be so automatic as often seems the case.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wow. I say his name and he appears. [I wonder what else I can do?]
Thomas, I often disagree with you on stuff like this, but you're almost entirely right on this one. Not being able to back out of a "delete" is becoming more and more terrifying on here, when so much of the community content is generated after an image is posted.
I would also add, having some ability for a user to save/backup the comments on their images, to guard against things like this, would be nice.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A mistake is deleting one photo. But at least three on as many different accounts?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh and another question that I hope Heather can address:
I know there were some recent changes made so that the original size URL changes when people change privacy levels of an image, etc, so it seems like that private original size URL should be safer now.
However I still keep reading about people's original images being stolen. To the best of your knowledge should that be impossible now? I'd like to know that when an aritst chooses to keep original images private that his wishes are honoured. I choose to make many of my originals available, but others obviously don't want to do the same.
(oops..i guess this is slightly off topic, but addresses how some people can steal images, and so it doesn't get to this whole mess again)
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
Proggie edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
|
The issue with the ability to undelete something is the question of, is it truly removed ever? What if that photo needs to be restored for evidence for some lawsuit? And if the user thought it was deleted but isn't and finds out, then what? Do we end up running into a scenario where we have a community throwing their arms up in the air screaming how this happened? I think there has been some similar questions for gmail for example.
I personally believe that better processes/methods are put in place internally if a photo is to be deleted. Before an image is deleted, complete the proper investigation before deleting a photo which could involve the owner of that photo, or have it double ask the question if the photo really should be removed to prevent mistakes like these as Heather mentions.
For us users, I believe it's sufficient as is. If you deleted the photo by mistake well you have nobody to blame except yourself IMO.
Just my two cents.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
What is Flickr's plan to ensure that this kind of mistake does not happen again?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Heather, I know when you are having a bad day it can feel good to go ahead and do something rash because you can. Makes you feel powerful and such. The question is, do you feel better now?
It's very easy to blame what happened here on a "mistake" but I think we all judge Flickr more by their actions, not their words.
In the end censorship is still censorship, and errant censorship is the worst. Censoring without thinking about what you are doing displays complete incompetence and lack of judgment.
The question now becomes, what are you doing/will you do to make this right?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
*phototristan edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
@ Heather
You said that Flickr made a mistake. Is this the official response to all of this concern or should I be waiting for more? I'm trying to decide if I should keep my account in light of what just happened and my general distrust for Yahoo. I would like some clarification because I sure don't want any of my pics permanently deleted because of the ensuing commentary it might cause.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Can we have some more details about how this "mistake" happened?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Heather - I too would like more explanation on how a mistake like this happens. It wasn't like it was accidentally deleted by a new employee or something when he tripped a cord loose. On the surface of things it seems that Flickr did censor the photo whether by DMCA takedown or another factor.
With DMCA I know you have to take it down immediately, but with the DMCA it can be put back up if the person proves it shouldn't have been removed. Something like a semi-delete file should be created to remove it from public view but still have a way to restore the photo later.
I know you are only doing your job and I thank you for being level headed about things like this, as I know it must be frustrating for you as well.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
See I don't see this deletion of Rebekka's image as a "mistake." If it is a "mistake" it's one that's happened many times in the past.
The mistake is not Heather's to make. Rather the policy of how flickr censors photos is the mistake.
It's a mistake to allow an obvious thoughtless low level employee the ability to permanently delete images and literally hundreds of comments. It's a mistake to not first notify a user about a conflict and to intelligently hear their side of the story. The system and it's policies are the mistake and these are the mistakes that need to be addressed at this point.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If I can post the entire first page of comments right here, right now, from my web-connected PC thousands of miles away, surely Flickr can dig into their data for pages 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
Here's comment number one, from the infamous thread, by one van23xeon:
van23xeon Pro User says:
I'm really sorry to hear about this. I am also outraged and disgusted by this act of criminality. My friends, there was an evil that took place and it is disgusting and dispicable. The photographic artist, Rebekka, who will sometimes take up to 6 hours to get one great picture, was robbed.
************* ***************
I would like to take the liberties and open up a paypal account for Rebekka so she can defend herself in the court of law.
This is terrible event that happened and we need to right the wrong. Let’s act and do something about it.
I would like to ask the good people who have written and read comments to donate perhaps $10.00 or more to help Rebekka in her defense to find a lawyer who lives in the UK.
As she wrote so eloquently in her statements; she is a single mom and non-wealthy student just trying to make ends meet.
I just feel the shame of this tragic episode must end with a righteous ending and I feel we can pull together and help her in her time of need. She has a winnable case and I for one would like to see her win it.
This abuse and criminal actions against artists must end now.
***************** ******************
It's not really that hard...I call Bullshit on their "we can't restore it stance...
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I too am not going to renew my membership.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Deletion is permanent and the photo in question can't be restored. This has nothing to do with censorship -- we made a mistake.
1) it would be nice to have backups so that "mistakes" can be corrected.
i would hate to see my entire flickr account deleted "by mistake" by flickr.
2) this has to do with flickr not fully investigating a complaint and punishing the wrong person.
Flickr's explanation, according to Thomas Hawk: “Flickr is not a venue for to you harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we will send you a warning or terminate your account.”
if the punition involves removing photos (an action that flickr says is irreversible), then flickr should make absolutly sure that no such mistake can happen - or they should backup the removed photos in case they make a mistake.
3) "we made a mistake" is a bit short for an explanation and an appology.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For them to say, it can't be restored is just a Bullshit version of we won't restore it .
Isn't Yahoo smarter than that?
Are we to assume they are that careless with their/OUR data?
Balderdash!
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For them to say, it can't be restored is just a Bullshit version of we won't restore it .
i think so too.
BTW most links on the shady website that Rebekka said was selling illegally her Flickr photos are now non-functionnal. i went there to see if they lifted some of my work, too.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Flickr can restore it perfectly well, just as they have restored other parts of the site many times in the past.
Delete the word "can't" and replace with "won't", and then you have an honest statement.
So, flickr's response to this is just to say "Oops! Sorry" and then not bother to do one damned thing to actually make it right?
When you have a traffic accident, if you're at fault, you'd better have your insurance info handy because you're going to be responsible for repairing the damage you did. That's called "being responsible."
Flickr is at fault here, and even admits it -- but they won't lift a finger to make it right. "We rammed your car? Oops. Our bad. But fix it yourself."
Yeah, think about it.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dave Ward [shoots people in the face!] edited this topic 15 months ago.
|
|
At this point, I'm just wondering how many "mistakes" like this have been made before? And how many more will be made in the future??
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
In the past? Lots. Most probably were genuine mistakes.
The future? Why, the future is a broad horizon, full of countless opportunities to make more "mistakes" and then not remedy them!
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3 mistakes? Wow. That's a lot.
How many have you made today?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ian, when I make a mistake, I try to correct it, especially, if it impacts my customers and they are unhappy.
Flickr's just walking away from this one so far, as best I can tell.
That's a shitty move.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You know, even without a clear official answer, it's clear to me that this is not the same Flickr I joined way back when. All of this censorship talk brought me to the story about Yahoo selling out that Chinese reporter to the Chinese government and it makes me sick to think I'm paying this company money. It's not for me to judge anyone or any company for what they choose to do but I can choose to not spend my money and time here.
Would it violate any rules if you guys were to recommend Flickr alternatives? I keep thinking back to the Friendster mutiny to Myspace and how quickly the public's favor can turn.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thought I'd share a quote from Yahoo's CFO taken from their most recent quarterly earnings investment call:
"Let’s turn to our first quarter results and begin with a look at free cash flow, which we view as our most important financial metric as it relates to value creation. As a reminder, we define free cash flow as cash generated form operations, which includes cash costs for taxes, tax benefits from stock-based compensation, and changes in working capital less capital expenditures and dividends received.
Free cash flow was $369 million in the first quarter, reflecting solid P&L performance and an improvement in collections. Our DSOs dropped from 50 in Q406 to 48 days in Q107, as collections were consummated on receivables that were built through strong revenue growth late in the fourth quarter, a trend we noted on our last call. "
"Value Creation?" I like that. That's nice. Sounds warm and snuggly.
$369 million a quarter is like what, almost $1.5 *billion* per year? Is the problem that low paid low level employees are making bad decisions to permanently delete hundreds of users comments? If this is what the problem really is I'm not all that sympathetic in light of the $369 million that Yahoo made last quarter.
I'll repeat it again and it would be nice to see someone from Flickr staff agree to the following.
1. In the case that Yahoo feels it necessary to delete user data (including photos and metadata, comments etc.) a backup should be made in case "mistakes" like this happen in the future as they frequently have in the past. I do believe as others have expressed in this thread by the way that the current decision not to restore Rebekka's photos and the comments associated with it is more of a "won't" thing than a "can't" thing. If it really is a "can't" thing then let me point you to a post that I recently penned reminding people about the importance of backing up their photos.
2. Before making a decision to delete a photo Yahoo should give a user 48 hours to respond to any complaint about their image.
3. A competent individual (and yes there is money in the budget to pay these folks) should review the complaint and the response and make a competent decision about the act of censorship.
Censorship should not be taken lightly.
To flippantly dismiss censoring in this case hundreds of Flickr voices as a "mistake" is not sufficient enough response from Yahoo on this matter. A public apology would seem to be in order in this case as well and I still would like a formal response as to whether or not Yahoo's decision to censor my photo of Michael Crook or Kris Krug's previously mentioned photos were also "mistakes."
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Should spam sit there for 48 hours? Should truly offensive material?
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Nowherelad,
Flickr politely suggests the following as alternatives: Kodak Gallery, Shutterfly, Snapfish, and Photobucket.
Our friend Thomas here, would likely suggest Zoomer.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Should spam sit there for 48 hours? Should truly offensive material?
At the expense of censoring important stuff I'd say yes. But at a minimum it could be marked private until a 48 hour review process took place. I'd like to think that Flickr could distinguish between spam and serious and important discussion but it's obvious in this case at least and in others that they cannot.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm sorry Thomas Hawk but you are overreacting (again).
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Iansand,
Yahoo mail doesn't delete spam from your mailbox, they make you take that explicit step yourself, on your own schedule. They'll let is sit there for more than 48 hours.
Truly offensive material is shielded from view (by those who desire it to be) by our fancy new filters...48 hours, 48 days, 48 months, 48 years.
Neither point is germane to Flickr's mistake.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm sorry Thomas Hawk but you are overreacting (again).
Overreacting because hundreds of people had their comments thoughtlessly censored and a mere "it was a mistake" is supposed to suffice. Especially after the same thing has happened with my own flickrstream and others like Kris Krug.
Whatever dude. It's not unreasonable to ask that
1. Photo deletions and metadata are not permanet.
2. People are given 48 hours to respond to these kinds of complaints
and
3. Review is done by a thoughtful and competent individual.
Call it overreacting all you want. We obviously feel differently about the importance of censorship, especially as it relates to art and discourse.
Posted 15 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
How can flickr justify censoring and artists original work?
Its on a Par o |
