(201 to 240 of 240 replies in [Closed] Are Hateful Pictures of U.S. Presidents Allowed under the TOS or not?)
|
|
Looks like this is now out of the corners of the web and into the media big-time:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>>FLICKR CAN NOT at political whims remove free speech
I have no idea what that means, but you agreed to allow Flick to remove any of your posts when you signed up to the site:
"Flickr expressly reserves the right to immediately modify, delete content from, suspend or terminate your account and refuse current or future use of any Yahoo! service, including Flickr pro, if Flickr, in its sole discretion believes you have: (i) violated or tried to violate the rights of others; or (ii) acted inconsistently with the spirit or letter of the TOS, the Community Guidelines or these Additional Terms. In such event, your Flickr pro account may be suspended or cancelled immediately in our discretion, all the information and content contained within it deleted permanently and you will not be entitled to any refund of any of the amounts you've paid for such account. Flickr accepts no liability for information or content that is deleted."
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ colleen LA has to obey the same laws as
the sate my legal degree is FROM KY
and the MAlls and apartment buildings i have sold in MISSISSIPPI or the ONES in TENN or KY obey the federal laws,
as i said you have no legal background, and i really can;t trust your imput.. it would be like me talking about what is like to have a baby, sense i have no children and my wife has never been expectant
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ patrick are you an attorney? are you a internet attorney? do you really belive a person can give up his or her rights by signing a TOS,
just as the tabacco industry can loose ina courtt of law, so will the TOS crap, if enough tmoney is involved, and think about it this way what is 15% of the flickr pro accounts, and then 45% of that, THAST a lot ofmoney,,, PATi am not against FLICKR,, LOVE It, but do find it odd that a image that probably has not copyright was removed,
lets not get off topic, FLICKR is a smart company, some one may have made a dumb decission,, in the coporate world we deal with this daily,,,
was the time magazine cover removed? or was it the image itself?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ pat flickr may be aboe to do lots of things but flickr is smart, enought to know this is a business,,, and $$ maters, they woudl not at whims remove political content,,,,
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this is my request, IF YOUR A COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY please address all our post. if your from flickr, if you might please post the takedown notice, or inform peole where they may view it( IF POSSIBLE ) also please let people know if it was the time magazine cover or the image itself? thansk Anthony Psoey
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't know where the line is exactly, because I am not an expert in these matters but I definitely believe a lot of what is being said here is pure bunk. Flickr is not the public radio or television airwaves, they are a private company. You have no free speech, why do you think you do? I have definitely worked at companies before where the owners were of a certain political persuasion and yes they rammed their beliefs down your throat and you are totally censored if you didn't agree with them. Sole discretion means they don't have to ask you anything, they can just do it
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have definitely worked at companies before where the owners were of a certain political persuasion and yes they rammed their beliefs down your throat and you are totally censored if you didn't agree with them. Sole discretion means they don't have to ask you anything, they can just do it
True enough, but flickr is a content-based community in which the users provide the content. Moreover, flickr greatly emphasizes the "community" part and allegedly strives to create a diverse one. It is reasonable for the members of such a community to question selective enforcement of laws and polices, particular when it appears to be an effort to form a non-inclusive, intolerant community.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"SIR: Poseyal : KNIGHT of the DESPOSYNI
Actually, take a look at the 1980 case and the Supreme Court decision. They specifically said that the constitutional protections in the California constitution could offer broader free speech rights than the US Constitution.
So, yes, California has to obey the same US laws as all other states, but they can also create laws that give more protection to free speech than the US laws require. No other state has to offer those enhanced protections.
Read it for yourself.
Edit: to save you some trouble, here's the citation
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
ColleenM edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
"please let people know if it was the time magazine cover or the image itself?"
A little research is not that difficult to do. According to the LA Times blog and other online media sources it was the Time mag. cover version that was subject to the takedown notice and was the item removed from the photostream.
Do you really expect flickr to say more on issue than it already has?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
to foster the community flickr tends to act in certain ways, or they tend to not take certain actions so as to not piss people off - but legally there is no requirement to do so, and when push comes to shove and they are faced with angering a few people versus being the center of a bunch of bad publicity, it is easy for flickr to decide which action to take
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
dsphoto-
Or when the Yahoo! lawyers say that they are legally required to respond a certain way to a legal affidavit.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh good, this story has now hit the Washington Post, at least online. Really, a case like this breaking into the mainstream media was just a matter of time. For years, Flickr addicts have been begging for Flickr to come up w/ an undelete feature-- just 2 weeks ago I posted a screed on the topic, www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/102379/668087/
It's been obvious for years that due to Flickr's market-leading position and inability to recover deleted content that eventually they'd delete the wrong account or the wrong photo and it would be become the tech story of the day. That's half the reason WHY Flickr addicts have been begging Flickr to add this essential function.
It's a shame that it's finally come to this, but it was inevitable given the clumsy, irrevocable way Flickr handles DMCA notices, content removal and account deletions.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@picsby if has been pointed out that not just the magazine cover was removed, it has also been pointed out account have been deleted etc, so yes if these statements are not true flickr owes me, you and anyone else the respect to respond,
@colleen i read the case when you cited, : They specifically said that the constitutional protections in the California constitution could offer broader free speech rights than the US Constitution. " but they can not offer less, so they can not restrict,it,, COLLEEN before this continues, as i stated i have a paralegal degree and have done tons of research of constitutional issue, I HAVE A LEGAL BACKGROUND and understand these issues
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ colleenM you have been asked if you have a legal education, and still have not answeared, so either give us a reason to trust your ideas, or know i having a legal background and education will not trust your understanding of the issue
Myself i hope FLickr took the advice of an attorney or two, ( A LEGAL DEPARTMENT ) but i don't know as you also don;t know so lets keep to facts,,,,
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The OPs question in this thread has definitely been answered. The lawyers will sort the rest of it out.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"@picsby if has been pointed out that not just the magazine cover was removed, it has also been pointed out account have been deleted etc"
Again, do a little research. Adding a link to the account in question is not the thing to do here. But, if you read the article that I, and someone else already linked to much earlier in this thread, the LA Times blog names and links to the flickr user's photostream. It was alive and well just a few minutes ago.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, his question has not been answered.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I read the answer pretty clearly. Flickr reserves the right, and they don't have to explain to you why. If you want to read some political agenda into what they do, or bitch because they don't keep your content on their servers forever "just in case" (a completely moronic idea) then that has nothing to do with the OPs original question, and is pure speculation on your part
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here is the staff answer
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/103784/#reply674768
No censorship. No accounts deleted. Only photos with DMCA NOI on them. And the information that a counter claim can be submitted
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, of course.
I saw that answer.
But a non-responsive answer really isn't an answer.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Aside from the makey uppy of new words and phrases by Flickr Staff I'd have to say their response is pretty straight forward. If you're looking at your screen through foggy lenses you can see clearly to a conspiracy. I don't see one here. It's a DMCA issue and nothing more.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
like i said at the start of this thread ,it's just a lot of tos
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"@picsby i read your post etc. as it has also been pointed out FINGER POINTING is a no no after all...: ) sono one will t post examples of threads / accounts / and others that have been censored etc, except i will summit this very thread was the image i posted really stoping the thread from loading? come on,....
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the image in question
www.flickr.com/photos/60053005@N00/3841076320/
[image removed by staff - link left behind]
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
zyrcster (staff) edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
No it's not, and you know it...
The actual image was a parody Time magazine cover. Speculation is that it was removed for infringing Time's copyright, which is yet to be confirmed.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dr. Keats edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
now the above should takes no longer for a page to load on a post with it
or those silly little secondary response icon
that colleen etc uses
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ DR if you read the original question is it,,
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the original question
((I understand Flickr is canceling accounts of users who post the famous 'Joker' picture of President Obama.
On the other hand, for years Flickr has allowed all sorts of hateful images of President Bush, as a quick search will show. Just a few examples:
[URLS removed]
These are 'Joker' pictures featuring George Bush:
[URLs removed]
It took less than five minutes to find these examples, there are hundred more.
So please explain why parody pictures of President Obama violate the TOS, yet almost identical parodies of President Bush are allowed.
Thanks
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The image that sparked all this was the Time magazine parody.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hello,
Please do not post images to the Forum unless they directly relate to a technical problem. We've asked this once already in this thread. Thanks.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ DR I agree with you for the most part,,
i understand the time magazine cover, was pulled i also agree with you the copy right of that image is still in question ( sense the graffitti versions seem to have been up a few weeks before times version or ussage )
the original poster asked a broad large question. correct?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ zycs you proved my point flickr asked me to not post it because is slowed down the loading
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ DR now see the image itself does get censored for conflicting reasons, .
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Posting images to the Forum does slow down page loading and we do discourage it unless it provides insight into a direct technical problem .
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ zyrcster thank UNDERSTOOD and appoligise for any problem
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Man this page is getting slow with all the Icons.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ruh roh
sir poseyal changed his icontar!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
just for the record, i voted for and still Support OBAMA, but this is not about that, also I mean no disrespect, in this debate, i ask only for honesty and fairness,
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Political discussions and expression are definitely allowed here on Flickr. We don't want to squelch political discussion, but if something is in violation of the Community Guidelines or copyright law and it's reported, it will be taken down whether it's a kitten, a sunset, or something political.
It looks like this thread has devolved into antics and gone off the rails so I'm shutting it down. The OPs question has been answered here. This image was removed because the Yahoo! Copyright Team received a complete Notice of Infringement.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
"SIR: Poseyal : KNIGHT of the DESPOSYNI 
dsphoto- 
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads