Sign In

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and install the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player.

Flickr Sometimes Deletes Your Content Even Though They Don't Have To

Best viewed at full size.

I think this has helped to open up the channels of communication. I don't know how long it'll take but I do think they now want to make changes. Blogged.

Comments and faves

★

Robertv! (Edinburgh, UK), quisnovus, Angryoffinchley, greenwood100, and 115 other people added this photo to their favorites.
quisnovus (14 months ago | reply)

This is outrageous behaviour by Flickr
greenwood100 (14 months ago | reply)

Thanks Dave - I've read all your important blog posts on this and this flow chart is a beauty. Simple enough even for the small team at Flickr to form better policy around. We can live in hope.
christabel's artworks (14 months ago | reply)

A concise summation of the flickr Help Forum progress on this subject so far.
Help Forum thread is here:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/7215762934911 9869/
notcatherinezeta (14 months ago | reply)

What!? Why?
oh yeah, you said... : \
Skire TNS (14 months ago | reply)

This made me get on Google to find out a bit more about Degban, which a few clicks later led me to the Eine photo story on you're blog, put a smile on my face.....
gormano.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-this-picture- looks-bit-fa...)
Ilovetodig0044 (14 months ago | reply)

Wait a minute, I made this image.... 'dear flickr,,,,'
SpeedSparkz (14 months ago | reply)

Brilliant bit of PR by flickr
jackofgrey (14 months ago | reply)

Let's get this on Explore... It's certainly Interesting enough :)
lomokev (14 months ago | reply)

It's really quite worrying especially because you essential you where collateral damage in some else's hack attack (i assume that's right).
I think things are even worse at YouTube as big copyright holders have special accounts where they can remove there copy righted material with YouTubes input.
If you can make your own photo as private why can't Flickr do it as well it's really silly. There is a little progress as Flickr can now un delete an account.
Wonder how many false positives they get?
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

@lomokev: As a rule, Youtube disables access to disputed content and then re-enables access to it when the dispute is settled. (Assuming it goes in your favour - which, if you follow the protocol of the DMCA, it should)
Joe Ruffles (14 months ago | reply)

Great summary. And it's good to see that the law does not compel them to delete disputed content; they can just hide it or otherwise not show it, until the dispute is resolved. I didn't think that the (existing) law was so bad that they had to delete it. So, it's very much within Flickr's power to behave reasonably...
smithy* (14 months ago | reply)

when did this change:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/104389/page3/ #reply680712
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

@smithy*: It didn't change. That's entirely consistent with what's here. You're okay if you're account is American and the notice of copyright infringement also comes from an American.
But if your account isn't American, then a notice of infringement from anyone will lead to flickr deleting your content.
If you are American, a notice of infringement from anyone outside of America will do the same.
And wherever you're from, once this has happened, flickr will not replace the content when it turns out you were the rightful copyright owner after all.
That's what it says here... and that's what it says in the link you've posted.
orinoko42 (14 months ago | reply)

This is a very interesting diagram. It is a cautionary tale for anyone thinking about putting anything "out there, in the Cloud."
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

@orinoko42: it is only true for flickr though. Other photo sites, other content sites like youtube etc. do not do this. Flickr isn't compelled by any law to behave like this. It is flickr's policy to do so... it's a choice.
smithy* (14 months ago | reply)

i thought that thread meant (if you were in the US) they'd restore the photo along with comments etc but just not if you're from elsewhere
orinoko42 (14 months ago | reply)

Thank you. How bizarre! Given that this is just a whimsical hobby for me - I don't need access to statistics on views, etc and I have copies of all my pictures, this strange behaviour could persuade me not to bother to convert to 'Pro'.
I suppose what it *does* bring to light is the lack of cohesion across the world, in the ways in which countries legislate to protect copyright. That, and the lack of understanding of the laws and conventions and companies' duties and liabilities by the officers of online companies (I have a friend who is an international copyright lawyer, who makes a very good living!).
This company (Degban) is in a reasonably expensive building - they share it with this company, among others
spldesignandconstruction.com/
Degban state that "At Degban, we value the trust our clients have invested in us and work relentlessly toward meeting their goals and achieving results beyond what is expected."
I wonder who their client was in the event that concerned you? Or perhaps it was just speculative 'crawling' by some kind of webrobot, hoping to make sufficient revenue to pay the rent.
In any event, I stand by my original position - take care about putting anything out there in the cloud!
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

@orinoko42: The address shared by Degban and those people is a serviced offices. Degban aren't there. Their mail goes there. As for their work... well, it's mainly searching for keywords on behalf of pornographers and then taking it off the internet whether it's infringing copyright or not. See here for some context.
widgett (14 months ago | reply)

Nothing wrong with having stuff in Cloud Land. Just make sure you keep a backup copy in Real Land.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

@widgett: but you can't keep a proper copy of things like the comments etc. And what about links? They link to a url that flickr has deleted for no good reason.
Sam Jolly (14 months ago | reply)

Thanks for highlighting, Flickr - get on it please.
digitalpigg (14 months ago | reply)

ah, moaning about about a free service. awesome
MrKev (14 months ago | reply)

Thanks for the link to full size. Otherwise, I'd click
1) The magnigying glass with a plus sign - a common symbol used for making things bigger. But no, this gives you the same size picture with a black background (duh?)
2) Then I click 'view all sizes', even though the only size I want to view is the big one, (I want one specific size, not all sizes). This brings back to a white background with a somewhat similar sized, parhaps slightly bigger picture, but still not big enough.
3) I can then clcik 'original' and voila! got there in the end.
This used to be much easier before they 'improved' the user interface... Another reason to go perhaps?
bjonesphotography (14 months ago | reply)

On the flip side I have had submitted numerous complaints to Flickr and had photographs that were mine taken off line, in some cases photographs with my watermark still on them were posted on another photographers Flickr account purporting to be theirs!
I have only just rejoined Flickr and only for a very specific purpose, it is hard to chose whether Flickr or Google images provide the worlds finest steal a photograph facility.
It would however make sense to have a dispute process where as photographs with associated links and comments could be reinstated if the claim proves to be fraudulent!
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

It's not a free service. I pay for the pro service.
Besides... even if it was a free service, "we deleted something we didn't have to delete and won't replace it even though we can't" wouldn't exactly be the best way of treating people.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

I'm glad you had content that infringed your copyright taken down. That should happen obviously. But it still would if flickr disabled access to it... and then deleted it when the dispute was resolved in your favour. Which it would be, because you're the copyright holder. I'm not suggesting they do nothing in such cases. But what they do now - delete content no matter what - and refuse to put back content when they should, sucks.
If someone files an incorrect claim against one of your pictures - it'll be gone.
bjonesphotography (14 months ago | reply)

I agree wholeheartedly that it would make sense to do so, I am unsure how many disputed claims Filckr gets I'm pretty certain that the number is fairly large, I guess that they taken the typically crappy and cheap decision to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Having said that I'm quite glad that you do not have to go through the DMCA process on places like Flickr and Facebook as it certainly makes it easier and quicker to deal with copyright infringers.
Franji (14 months ago | reply)

not free if you're on a pro account.
Franji (14 months ago | reply)

Definitely something Flickr need to look into if they want keep their 6 billion photos. While I agree that copyright is a serious issue - I certainly wouldn't want to find out that other people are claiming my photos as my own - Flickr (and others like them) should definitely have a policy of hearing from both parties before permanently deleting content.
dopiaza (14 months ago | reply)

From @heather's closing comment in the Help Forum post linked to above:
For the rest of the world
-- The existing process of photo removal will continue. We're going to begin reaching out to the other regional copyright teams to see if they would like us to enact this feature where they are. Given that the counter-claim process is unique to the DMCA, we'll need to work out how image restoration will work elsewhere.
That sounds like the decision as to delete or hide resides with Yahoo! legal folk in the various markets rather than with the Flickr team itself. I suspect your comment about Zack being hamstrung by his job is pretty much spot on.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

You'd think they'd be keen to explain what laws leave them having to do this. That other sites don't do this suggests there aren't any.
dopiaza (14 months ago | reply)

In the absence of other information, I just assume that the Flickr team aren't allowed to speak on 'legal' matters, and the various Yahoo! legal folk have just opted for the easy solution (delete it, problem gone) and don't really give a damn if that's inconvenient for some of the users.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

I don't really see why that is the "easy" solution. It would be easier, surely, to have one system for dealing with notices of infringement rather than two. Which is what they currently have.
dopiaza (14 months ago | reply)

That would be easier for Flickr, I'm sure - but it's presumably not their decision. It sounds like the people who call the shots here are the regional Yahoo! legal/copyright teams. They likely only care about their particular territory, and for them, the 'easy' answer is no doubt to just 'get rid of it'. Heather said Flickr were going to ask the regional teams if they'd like to adopt the more sensible US-style approach. It looks like the answer from those people was "No". I've no idea if the impediments there were legal or internal, but I know where I'd place my bet.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

The fact that other sites don't do this suggests it can't be legal. But then there's no reason why internal decisions would be made that are contrary to the site's purpose either.
dopiaza (14 months ago | reply)

Yahoo! have a pretty good track record on making poor decisions.
murky (14 months ago | reply)

Is this in a discussion on a flickr help forum anywhere?
bjonesphotography (14 months ago | reply)

The simple answer is that it can get messy and I guess that Flickr wants to avoid getting wrapped up in the formal DMCA process which is from my experience a real pain depending upon where the infringing images are hosted. You might wish to note that GoDaddy has a similarly tough approach to receiving a DMCA notification and have heard plenty of horror stories about people struggling to get things back on line.
In terms of the legality of the process, you sign up to Yahoos T&C's when you join Flickr and this process will be in there somewhere (not that any of us read it of course)! If you wished to look at it from a legal standpoint then you would have to pursue the individual or company that made the fraudulent Copyright claim on your "work" and not Yahoo for operating as they stated within their T&C's...
Éothain (14 months ago | reply)

That's true :(
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

Yes. Here: www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/7215762934911 9869/
But they are wrapped up in the formal DMCA process. They only delete the image if they receive a formal DMCA complaint. But that can happen even if the person filing it clearly hasn't seen the image in question. (See here for details as to how)
If a user then files a formal DMCA counter notice, flickr/yahoo are obliged to respond. Under the terms of the DMCA, once it has been resolved and it's established that you are the copyright holder, their responsibility is to replace the content they have deleted. Flickr appear to be unique amongst comparable sites in not doing so. But it's not because they don't want to get mired in the DMCA process, it's in spite of it.
The T&Cs give them the right to delete content without liability but only if they have a good faith belief that you are breaking the guidelines. It is not a catch all. And they demonstrably did not have such a belief when this deletion was made - they have specifically said they did not - and the same is true for other cases like it.
Besides, is what-they-can-legally-get-away-with the customer service you want to settle for? The content they deleted was not infringing any copyright.
They didn't have to delete it.
They can replace it.
They choose not to do so.
No matter if that is a stance they can legally back up, it's still an unnecessarily poor level of service. If someone says, we'd like to do better, but the law is complicated and we're simply not allowed to I understand. But the reality here is the law allows us to do it better than we are, but we simply don't want to.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

It's not.
j u 5 (14 months ago | reply)

i dont understand what's wrong with it. i would expect flickr or any other service to delete material if it was infringing copyright. why would you be posting copyright work to flickr anyway?
and as for the big who-ha over they wont replace the material if it is infact not copyright , well just upload it again. what's the problem here? am i missing something.
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

Yes, I think you are missing something, yes. I haven't posted anything that was infringing any copyright. Something that wasn't infringing copyright was deleted because someone - someone who had not even looked at the picture in question - filed a copyright infringement notice against it. The same could happen to any user.
You value the comments people leave on your pictures. That's why you respond saying, "thanks for all the comments, appreciated." Those comments would be gone. If you didn't have a back up copy of the work, that would be gone too. If ten people had posted blogs linking to that piece of work, all those blogs would now be showing a blank space and linking to a dead page. You might not know who has blogged about your work. There is no reason why you should know. But that doesn't mean that those blogs are worthless or should be spoiled.
More to the point, flickr's obligation is to disable access to disputed work. Good. And then re-enable access to it if it turns out not to be infringing. Good. Instead what they do is delete the work. Hmm. Okay. Then not replace it. Oh. Bad.
Would it be better if the non-infringing work was - after it had been proven to be non-infringing - left where it was, with all the links that previously pointed to it still pointing to it? I think it would.
When you favourite an image what are you doing? Is it a reward, a badge for the photographer? Some people see it that way, but really it's a bookmark for the person who favourites it. Everyone who had bookmarked that image no longer has the bookmark. They could have. But flickr chooses not to let them. It's an odd choice, no?
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

"how does someone who has not even looked at a picture in question file a copyright infringement notice anyway? surely they have to know what image it is and who the copyright belongs to? if they haven't seen the image, how do they know if its copyright or not? and how could the report an image they have never seen?"
Read the section on Degban here and you'll see how ridiculous some of the notices filed by them were. They were filing copyright notices against things that showed up in keyword searches but that none of their staff had bothered to check. They aren't the only company doing it. Essentially they have software searching for key words - depending on who their client is - and when it finds them it automatically files a notice of infringement.
"yes it would be better to hide the image until a final decision is clear, i agree. but maybe there is an legal issue with just hiding a copyright infringing work, they could hide it ,but are essentially still hosting a copyright image on their servers...maybe."
The terms of the DMCA state that they have to remove the content or disable access to it. It's their choice which one they do. But there is no reason why they have to delete it. If there was a law that made them do so, then youtube et al would do the same. But they don't. They disable access to things.
The terms of the DMCA also state that they have to replace the content they remove (or re-enable access to it) when it has been settled and it turns out not to be infringing. For some reason flickr do not fulfil this part of their obligation.
"also yes of course i appreciate the time people take to comment on my work, i wouldn't like to lose the comments/faves/blog links, i agree that would indeed suck."
Yep. Flickr could put all that back if they want. It's in google's cache. It's just code. They're the only ones who can access the url and put the code in the right place. They choose not to. As you say, it sucks.
Anthony Owen-Jones (14 months ago | reply)

Having followed this story for a while, the thing I find frustrating (and clearly you do too ) is the fact that Flickr have a fairly easy win here. Which isn't hiding behind the fact they have T&Cs which basically say they can do whatever they like (I'm amazed so many people in this and other places have supported this notion). Flickr could simply give a proper answer on why their approach isn't consistent across regions or implement the more user satisfactory approach across all regions in the future.
Sadly though I think Flickr would rather just attempt to ignore the question in the hope you'll go away rather than attempt to put right something they have the power to do for a loyal, paying, customer.
Muzzlehatch (14 months ago | reply)

Another nail in the coffin that contains my good will about Flickr.
yorksgalSue pain is a pain (14 months ago | reply)

Do you still have the original on a memory card anywhere? If so can you do anything to either of them with that?
Bunch of knobs.
j u 5 (14 months ago | reply)

well good luck Dave. hopefully this whole fiasco will bag you a few more followers, more comments and views:)
Dave Gorman (14 months ago | reply)

Actually I'd far rather it persuaded flickr to change their policy. Seeing as how it's unnecessary and bad for their users.

← prev 1 2 next →

(66 comments)

By Dave Gorman Dave Gorman + Add Contact

This photo was taken on March 11, 2012.

35,852 views 119 favorites 66 comments 0 galleries

This photo belongs to

Dave Gorman's photostream (5,782)

keyboard shortcuts: ← previous photo → next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts