Priscilla 1969 by Joseph Szabo on Flickr

David Tyner says:

You're back??
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

the accidentalist says:

Hey welcome back! I loved this picture since I saw it on the Dinosaur Jr cover.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

p. kupferschmidt says:

smoking so young?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

smoothdude says:

THOMAS HAWK IS BACK AND CAUSING TROUBLE

awesome
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

Not back David, just got rattled up when I heard about the latest round of censorship over here.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Sugar Booger says:

you're such a tease.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jaymce says:

green mind!
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jaymce says:

oh thomas... c'mon admit it... you just missed us.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

mandyseyfang says:

your photos have been missed- great to see this one and hope there are more to come...
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Praying for Lions says:

Welcome Back! Glad to see one of your shots here! We've missed you. Awesome!
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Hey Mandy, still post every single day. My pace has gone up though, I'm uploading about 20 a day now, just doing it all over here:

www.zooomr.com/photos/thomashawk/view-blog/

I shot the most amazing warehouse out at point Richmond last night.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

mahonyweb says:

I have a lot of respect for you Thomas, and indeed have a huge disliking for censorship, but this is pretty ridiculous.

Trying to goad Flickr into censoring you is pretty cheap IMHO.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

scienceduck says:

dinosaur jr album green mind
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

mahonyweb, I'm trying to make a point. The policy is stupid and even though it doesn't affect me personally so much anymore it's still stupid and the world is a better place with less censorship in my opinion.

If Flickr censors me here it wouldn't be the first time.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

kwerfeldein says:

Hey Thomas, what's up ? Are you coming back to flickr ? Would be great ! Btw, love this portrait, looks good !
Edit : Oh, sorry, I should read your comments ;)
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

MrSnap says:

^^ agree with lane.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Maximum Mitch says:

True that Lane..
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jaymce says:

i double agree with lane...
get on it, thomas.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

mahonyweb says:

Thomas - why bother making the point if you've already given up on the service? Are you honestly trying to improve a competitors product?! Unlikely.

It appears you're just trying to kick up mud so that you're justified in climbing on your soapbox.

I have no axe to grind - I have no affiliation with Flickr or Zooomr (aside from having accounts at both). Could you say the same? Does it not appear that you're simply trying to kick up a fuss for personal gain?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Sugar Booger says:

Lane does have a good point.

or, why don't you just get your own server, and have your own website, and post what you want on it?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Maximum Mitch says:

I agree mahony. There's people eating out of garbage cans in other countries but we're more concerned in the US about how companies censor public photo-sites. Obviously, there must be a legitimate legal reason why they do it, Yahoo is not into doing this because they want to piss people off. Wait till Zooomr grows and you have to start dealing with the same legal issues, we'll see how fast you censor your site :)
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

mil8 says:

@Thomas

Pretty ironic that on a zoomr picture urltea.com/1iq4, Kristopher said, "this is nothing but a publicity stunt on your end. If you want things to change, just talk with me.....I really don't appreciate you throwing your weight around like this. I find it disrespectful to the community and hostile."

Yet...when you have an issue with flickr policy, you choose to air it publicly.

Surely you and Kristopher can see things differently, I just think the irony is thick since his partner (you) uses a public forum to discuss disagreements with flickr policy on a semi-regular basis.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

zombizi says:

:)
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher says:

I don't get why you'd use a stolen picture that you didn't take for this stunt? It can get pulled more quickly for that I would think than the subject, and then where are you, except with a weakly false claim?

How hard is it to step outside and snap a kid lighting up for this? Or grab one of the thousands of shots on Flickr, send a Flickrmail, get permission (or use a CC one) and then bob's your uncle.

Just seems like a con this way. What's next, are you going to file a false NOI against yourself, or "report abuse" with another account, just to get the ball rolling?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

schani says:

What does it matter what Thomas's motivation is in bringing this out to the public? Fact is that Flickr's policies are getting worse every day and I'm glad Thomas is keeping at least me informed, whatever his reasons might be.

Don't attack the man, attack what he's saying.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Laughing Squid says:

What did Lane say? I don't see her on this comment thread.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

indian nomad says:

Don't let the idiots bother you Thomas. I read your blog entry and this is indeed stupid. And the questions you raised do indeed need to be asked. I hate Yahoo trying to curtail anything and everything they don't agree with. If you go to other countries, you find kids as small as 12-15 yrs old who are smoking. And people do take shots of that... so what is the big deal. Not showing those pictures is gonna change anything. This is absolute BS.

That said, until zoomr is made more user friendly I won't be moving there. The design seems pretty crappy to me, after getting used to Flickr.

--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

knots says:

I loved GReen Mind
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Séverine C. aka sey 9 says:

great picture !!!!!!!!!!
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

brendadada says:

Kudos to you, Thomas.

Priscilla Smoking: Joseph Szabo
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

Obviously, there must be a legitimate legal reason why they do it, Yahoo is not into doing this because they want to piss people off. Wait till Zooomr grows and you have to start dealing with the same legal issues, we'll see how fast you censor your site :)

The acceptance of authority under the reasoning that there "must be a legitimate reason" is never the best tact. I believe instead that questioning authority is a better policy than blind acceptance. If there is a legitimate reason, lets hear it.

Zooomr might not be as big as Flickr but on a representative basis we've dealt with many of the same familiar issues around censorship. I've yet to censor a single image. I don't believe that the size of company has anything to do with whether or not they should censor.

I believe that there are legal reasons why photos should be pulled down. A legitimate DMCA notice, illegal child pornography, etc. But the last time I checked, photos of children smoking were not illegal.

I loved GReen Mind

Green Mind does rock Knots!

Pretty ironic that on a zoomr picture urltea.com/1iq4, Kristopher said, "this is nothing but a publicity stunt on your end. If you want things to change, just talk with me.....I really don't appreciate you throwing your weight around like this. I find it disrespectful to the community and hostile."

Yet...when you have an issue with flickr policy, you choose to air it publicly.

mil 8,

1. I'm not Kristopher.

2. Was that photo censored or is it still there?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher says:

I don't care about his motivation. I know it's just a way to call attention to himself, whatever, it's his way. It's just the approach is going to lead to a bygone conclusion, but not for the reasons that he/everyone will then attack. It's like trying to get arrested for free speech, but waving a gun the air. You'll get arrested for the gun, but then claim "I told you so" anyway.

So I'll totally attack what he's saying. he's using a stolen image to try to goad Flickr into removing it, so he can say it was over "censorship". It weakens the whole endeavor, which on it's face had merit.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

So I'll totally attack what he's saying. he's using a stolen image to try to goad Flickr into removing it, so he can say it was over "censorship". It weakens the whole endeavor, which on it's face had merit.

Your argument is a red herring.

Is it stolen? Or is it fair use that falls under free political speech. The last time I checked popular cultural icons and imagery, even when copyrighted, are allowed to be used under the fair use doctrine of free speech. My use is clearly political and doesn't violate copyright.

And if this were to be the excuse to remove this image from Flickr there would certainly be millions of images ahead of mine that ought to first be removed.

By the way if Szabo for whatever reason objected to my use of his image I probably would take it down. I would in fact be very interested in his opinion on this matter.

I doubt this image gets removed actually. Flickr has a pattern of pulling images when they think they can get away with it or when they think people won't notice.

When people do notice, as in the case of _rebekka's image a number of months back they typically back pedal and apologize. It's not the high profile situations that highlight their censorship where they censor the most, it's the everyday stuff that they routinely "get away with." This ought not be the case.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

mahonyweb says:

So now they can't win if they do, can't win if they don't?
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

So now they can't win if they do, can't win if they don't?

Well, if they pull my image then it only confirms their censorship. I actually don't think they will.

If they don't pull my image, then it points out the inconsistency of their policy of removing photos of people under 18 smoking.

My biggest problem with censorship at Flickr has always been how it's applied. By letting folks like Terrence make subjective calls on a day to day basis over what ought to be destroyed and censored vs. what ought to stand is a policy that is contrary to the free expression of ideas and art.

Back when Flickr made the "mistake" of censoring _rebekka, Stewart said, "There are several policies which will be changing as a direct result of this incident and the goal is that nothing like this ever happens again. Any errors from now on should be on the side of caution."

And yet nothing's really changed with regards to Yahoo's censorship.

I don't see Terrence's destroying an image as an error on the side of caution with regards to censorship.

Flickr is no longer my art museum. I rarely stop by and I don't exhibit here much anymore. But even still, they ought to be called out over this kind of behavior.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

tastygiant says:

why delete lane's comment? Why block her from commenting? Isnt that censoring? Isnt that hypocritical? unbelievable.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

mil8 says:

@Thomas

1. I never claimed you were Kristopher.

2. Censorship was not the issue I raised at all. The issue was the inappropriateness of public discussion of company policy. Your view on it differed from Kristopher's ... and that was ironic.

flickr may pull this photo but your public flogging of flickr remains up for all to see...with a link back to zoomr... rejoice! :)

www.zooomr.com/photos/thomashawk/view-blog/
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Cory Blundon says:

Has anyone really looked into why flickr was/is censoring? There seems to be a lot of complaints, but I haven't come across anyone actually willing to understand the situation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know either. But it would be nice to here from someone who actually cares what's happening and isn't just dramatically tearing down there accounts. It seems that these kind of "protests" are more childish then legitimate attempts at changing or understanding anything.

(also, wasn't Lane removed and banned from Zoomr? Censored, if you will?)
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

Apparently when you block someone on Flickr it deletes their comments, I wasn't aware of this when I blocked Lane on my Flickr account for reasons unrelated to this post. If you want to see her comment you can see it here:

www.zooomr.com/photos/fetching/3326479/
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome says:

We've looked into it, and Flickr tells everyone that it depends on some unspecified context, and they can't say any more.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome says:

Digg it, digg.com/tech_news/Thomas_Hawk_is_railing_aga inst_Flickr_...
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

MrSnap says:

"What did Lane say? I don't see her on this comment thread."

She deleted herself I'm going to assume.

Edit: Ok, no, Hawk deleted her. Classic.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

(also, wasn't Lane removed and banned from Zoomr? Censored, if you will?)

No.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called 6 Million People, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

KeithMokris says:

I just feel like I want to throw my own two cents in here. I don't particularly have a problem with a picture of a kid smoking cigarettes; even though it is illegal some places. Yet, I can understand Yahoo pulling the picture. Sure, it seems subjective, but what isn't.

While I do understand that Yahoo does not ALWAYS have clear rulings on privacy and / or censorship, I don't know how you justify yourself coming back and forth to criticize them, Thomas. I understand you're sticking to your guns and voicing your opinion, BUT it doesn't look good.

I love Zooomr and I will continue to support the site. BUT, I also love so many features on Flickr. Including the people here as well.

Both have their pro's and con's. In the end, no one is perfect. No SITE is perfect. I know you are invested here just like so many of us. At the same time, you seem to only focus on the negative. I have never met you, but I feel you are a REALLY enthusiastic and good person most of the time when I watch your photowalks and see your photos. I just dont know where all this criticism comes from.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

hillary h says:

i've uploaded this to my stream, too. totally into the rabblerousing.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Komrade P. says:

TM is back? Fagging children photos? This is a splat across Heathers face.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

communityguy says:

"My use is clearly political and doesn't violate copyright."

Clearly political? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a vested financial interest in a direct competitor to Flickr, right? Yeah, thought so.

Whether you believe you can separate your personal endavours from your business ventures, the sad fact is that it's impossible. This is precisely the reason that Wikipedia frowns (heavily) on autobiography type content.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTO

Of course, Thomas' argument has always been that he has the unique superhero ability to filter his work related thoughts/actions from his personal activity thoughts/actions. If you believe that that's possible, then you'd also believe this is a strictly political statement.

(And for those wondering what Lane said, here's her blog post about it)
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Michael Isdes.com says:

"Don't tase me bro!!"
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

fallsroad says:

Thomas, posting this is in clear violation of the Flickr TOS, and you know that.

Fair use doesn't apply here at all.

You have posted a copyrighted work for which you do not have permission to use to your photostream. It will get pulled eventually, but that is what you are hoping for, isn't it?

Searcher makes the cogent point - why not find a CC licensed image, or procure permission for an image of a child smoking, in order to make your point?

Otherwise it is nothing more than rabble rousing for the sake of it, and that is less than useful when attempting to draw attention to legitimate questions about a Flickr action.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

POONDOG [deleted] says:

Dino jr rocks
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

kabren says:

Come on, man...
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Studio H (Chris) says:

Flickr will not pull a copyrighted photograph unless the copyright holder requests this. Merely pointing out that a copyrighted photograph has been posted by someone other than the copyright holder will not get a photo pulled.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

Flickr will not pull a copyrighted photograph unless the copyright holder requests this. Merely pointing out that a copyrighted photograph has been posted by someone other than the copyright holder will not get a photo pulled.

Right. There are thousands if not millions of copyrighted photos on flickr today. Flickr operates under the DMCA, same as Zooomr. If Joseph Szabo asks them to take this one down I have no problem with it. If they choose to single me out though without this kind of request, particularly in light of the fair use and political context, I'd probably have a problem with this.

I seriously doubt they'll pull it. It would only draw more attention to Terrence's stupid interpretation of Yahoo's stupid policy about not allowing photos of children smoking.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Jim on the Wall says:

I don't understand why you're so upset over this... it's a website, not a nation. They're allowed to handle the photos that we use their bandwidth to show however they want... Still love to look at your Zooomr photos though.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

I don't understand why you're so upset over this... it's a website, not a nation. They're allowed to handle the photos that we use their bandwidth to show however they want..

Jim,

Places like Flickr and Zooomr to me are much more significant than just "a website." These are places that the new art is being shown and created. I believe Flickr has a responsibility to foster the arts in a free environment despite whatever underlying commercial interests might come along with this venture. Call me a communist if you want, but I see those who oversee the arts as having a certain responsibility to the artists who create the art. The more free from censorship Flickr, Zooomr, etc. are the better in my opinion.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

eugenio gp says:

i know you are all about Zooomr, but i am damn glad to see you around here!
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Automatt says:

Hey, welcome back!
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

MrSnap says:

Thomas, get your head out of the sand.

You should not be here, posting a copyrighted image you don't even own, discussing a policy by a company you don't even own.

In my eyes this is yet another publicity stunt for you and in effect, Zooomr. I would have respected you a great deal more if you would have had the balls to post this photo and rant on your own companies site than posting it to Flickr. The reason for this I can understand though, you've drawn much more attention here on Flickr than you could ever imagine on Zooomr. Heck, you'd draw more attention on SmugMug.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop posting about Flickr's policies. You have absolutely nothing to gain from it. Go post about how horrible Flickr is on your own site. It's pretty classless to come here after a few months and start this nonsense.

Just as Zooomr has a TOS, so does Flickr. I'd suggest you read it if you continue to use Flickr as a service. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't censored you completely but I'm sure they won't because that would be giving you exactly what you want.

If you want to see Zooomr succeed in the extremely overcrowded marketplace of online photo sharing, do yourself and Zooomr a favor, go worry about it instead of Flickr.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Tarky7 says:

Huzzah ! Huzzah ! Huzzah !

Thomas Hawk, you are just soooo Viral !

Viral Baby ! Yeah Yeah !

Saw this on Digg, had to pop in and see what all the fuss is about !

Go Team !

Huzzah ! Huzzah ! Huzzah !

A Sunflower for you, Thomas Hawk !
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome says:

Thomas Hawk came back here because several Flickr members, myself included, requested that he come over to help us generate more publicity about this issue. Flickr has been very unclear about what photos they will remove, and have offered contradictory answers at various times. He didn't come here to promote Zooomr, he came here because many Flickr users care deeply about censorship and we felt Thomas would be an effective advocate.

Do you know what it takes for Flickr to delete a photo? We're not talking copyright infringement, we're not talking child porn & we're not talking about flagging stuff.

We're talking about Flickr deciding to delete a perfectly legal photo taken by you that documents a common occurrence. How does Flickr decide? They won't even tell us, they just say it depends on the context. What context-- they won't tell us. Is this an across-the-board policy? Maybe, maybe not. Flickr owes its users an answer-- I want an answer, and I think Flickr will be more apt to provide answers with more visibility.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

jakerome says:

That's right Dave, they can. Nobody said they can't. It would be nice if they would inform their users what causes them to censor photos.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

JimNtexas says:

Flickr is 100% within their rights to refuse to host pictures that they don't care to associate with.

There are only a few billion web sites available to you host your pictures. Please go to one of those.
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )