Group Since Feb 5, 2004
Drag to set position!
Share
(1 to 100 of 166 replies)
charming snails [deleted]
6:47am, 12 July 2006
Hey, you may not be able to get your self portraits in explore any more but do you realise that with flickr's full authority, your photographs tagged "selfportrait" are being exhibited at a New York gallery? And that the creative commons licence is being ignored?
See selfportraitr at the Pace/MacGill Gallery
www.pacemacgill.com
See selfportraitr at the Pace/MacGill Gallery
www.pacemacgill.com
teotwawki
17 years ago
And that the creative commons licence is being ignored?
Absolutely no excuse for that if true - especially as photos can be automatically separated according to licence.
From the images on the website, it looks like all they're really doing is pulling photos through a different interface, and that's effectively not far removed from viewing them as anyone could on individual photostreams...
Absolutely no excuse for that if true - especially as photos can be automatically separated according to licence.
From the images on the website, it looks like all they're really doing is pulling photos through a different interface, and that's effectively not far removed from viewing them as anyone could on individual photostreams...
As long as the images on the computers in the gallery link back to the Flickr photo page (which they appear to), I believe it fits within Flickr's terms of use. Not different to using Retreivr or Flappr, really. Or virtually anything on the 3rd party list that uses global searches.
You can, however, opt out of external global API searches like this by using the settings on this page: www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/
[edit - changed Scout to Flappr, etc, since they are different, really]
You can, however, opt out of external global API searches like this by using the settings on this page: www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/
[edit - changed Scout to Flappr, etc, since they are different, really]
I just want to say they're using the wrong tag:
www.flickr.com/photos/tags/selfportrait
has only about 100k photos vs.
www.flickr.com/photos/tags/me
which has 600k...
www.flickr.com/photos/tags/selfportrait
has only about 100k photos vs.
www.flickr.com/photos/tags/me
which has 600k...
♥ shhexy corin ♥
17 years ago
More people using the wrong tag! Terrible stuff.
Maybe they wanted self-portraits rather than photos of me?
(Though a gallery of me would be ever so popular.)
Maybe they wanted self-portraits rather than photos of me?
(Though a gallery of me would be ever so popular.)
They actually don't seem to go back very far either. I could only find images from 2006 in there.
Self-portrait is more specific than me. After all, I tag the pictures I'm in with me, but I'm not necessarily the subject, and they definitely aren't self portraits.
This real question is, is it really "curating" or "art" if all you're doing is hooking up a couple of internet kiosks and doing a glorified tag search?
This real question is, is it really "curating" or "art" if all you're doing is hooking up a couple of internet kiosks and doing a glorified tag search?
I think thats just an interface limitation, because there are so many. If I check more obscure smaller tags, I can see pictures from over 2 years ago.
(edit: replying to yolise)
(edit: replying to yolise)
Ah right, I gotcha.
Fotomoe, presumably the Gallery Favourites are the ones they've curated?
Fotomoe, presumably the Gallery Favourites are the ones they've curated?
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
Yolise, you can curate those yourself by viewing the picture in the application and hitting add to gallery or somesuch command.
What bothers me is that this is clearly a commercial enterprise. Is the programmer being paid for putting the application together? Are the other artists who have exhibitions listed on the site selling their works? They are also talking about taking the 50 most favourited self-portraits at the end and turning them into prints. With whose permission?
What bothers me is that this is clearly a commercial enterprise. Is the programmer being paid for putting the application together? Are the other artists who have exhibitions listed on the site selling their works? They are also talking about taking the 50 most favourited self-portraits at the end and turning them into prints. With whose permission?
ponyintheair
17 years ago
That's funny. someone went to a lot of trouble for their stint as curator. Bit of a piss take really.
ponyintheair
17 years ago
If people tag their dog and cat pictures with "self portrait" will they show up in the show too? flickr people could ultimately subvert it.
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
If people tag their dog and cat pictures with "self portrait" will they show up in the show too? flickr people could ultimately subvert it.
Yes, there are already a number of off-topic postings, some of which have been clearly curated to get more exposure.
I'm thinking of tagging all my photographs as selfportrait from now on. :)
Yes, there are already a number of off-topic postings, some of which have been clearly curated to get more exposure.
I'm thinking of tagging all my photographs as selfportrait from now on. :)
Light Particles
17 years ago
Crap...
This is why I have my doubts on this Flickr "interface"
I am obviously not touched by this one, as I do not have self-portrait or me tags or images...
But the people whose pictures are being "misued", if not sold, should at least be warned, who is on this list?
Is there anyway to know...
(I will check the website you,ve given above)
This is why I have my doubts on this Flickr "interface"
I am obviously not touched by this one, as I do not have self-portrait or me tags or images...
But the people whose pictures are being "misued", if not sold, should at least be warned, who is on this list?
Is there anyway to know...
(I will check the website you,ve given above)
Light Particles
17 years ago
200 per page... and I can see 9 pages (there are probably more as they are mentioning 110, 353 uploads!!! just in the most recent uploads...
This is not even funny!
I just feel like shutting down my free account, with crap like this. What's the use of putting a creative commons licence (full copyrights) on our pictures if anyone can use them this way, and get money from the exhibit..... on photographers' back.
This is not even funny!
I just feel like shutting down my free account, with crap like this. What's the use of putting a creative commons licence (full copyrights) on our pictures if anyone can use them this way, and get money from the exhibit..... on photographers' back.
First off, who said they are getting money? Is there an admission charge for this exhibit?
Second, what's the difference between walking into this gallery and using their exhibit to browse Flickr photos (stored on Flickr, linked back to Flickr) with the tag "self portrait" ... and going into a cybercafe across the street and browsing the Flickr database looking at public photos tagged with "self portrait"?
Second, what's the difference between walking into this gallery and using their exhibit to browse Flickr photos (stored on Flickr, linked back to Flickr) with the tag "self portrait" ... and going into a cybercafe across the street and browsing the Flickr database looking at public photos tagged with "self portrait"?
Light Particles
17 years ago
The difference????????????
It is in a New York Gallery, it changes the whole thing sweety!
It is in a New York Gallery, it changes the whole thing sweety!
striatic
Posted 17 years ago. Edited by striatic (admin) 17 years ago
It is in a New York Gallery, it changes the whole thing sweety!
if it was a gallery in Wisconsin, would that change things any, muffin?
if it was a gallery in Wisconsin, would that change things any, muffin?
splitlenz
17 years ago
ahh this guy played it smart. He's riding the fine line of whats available.
It is in a new york gallery so yea, this art becomes somewhat commercial, but since the computer can't exactly be taken from the gallery like any old art piece and everything is really linked back to flickr and its original place then the licenses are technically not violated.
Sorta like a sweet loophole. riding the cracks of fine writing. :)
But yea, the fact that its in an art gallery does change things a bit, we wouldn't have the discussion if it wasn't. The art gallery means its one person, using the service, to promote themself to others, and what comes in return is the problem and what else happens after or during the use of this service. unfortunately when you go into a cafe you don't announce to the whole cafe what you are watching or why and surely don't go on all the computers and put on flickr for everyone to see.
well, im not sure if this is right or wrong, i haven't done all the research but from what i did see, its sure a fine line in between.
It is in a new york gallery so yea, this art becomes somewhat commercial, but since the computer can't exactly be taken from the gallery like any old art piece and everything is really linked back to flickr and its original place then the licenses are technically not violated.
Sorta like a sweet loophole. riding the cracks of fine writing. :)
But yea, the fact that its in an art gallery does change things a bit, we wouldn't have the discussion if it wasn't. The art gallery means its one person, using the service, to promote themself to others, and what comes in return is the problem and what else happens after or during the use of this service. unfortunately when you go into a cafe you don't announce to the whole cafe what you are watching or why and surely don't go on all the computers and put on flickr for everyone to see.
well, im not sure if this is right or wrong, i haven't done all the research but from what i did see, its sure a fine line in between.
splitlenz
17 years ago
personally i think its a nifty idea. the idea of curating , regular people curate the flickr community, a community that is large and public. a computer curating another whole system. flickr isn't thought of as such to curate, so giving us a new look into flickr is pretty cool to me.
Hopefully you can't actually print photos that you like lol. that might turn things a little hairy but besides that. viewing it, and understanding the underlying concept of what it might be is quite interesting.
Hopefully you can't actually print photos that you like lol. that might turn things a little hairy but besides that. viewing it, and understanding the underlying concept of what it might be is quite interesting.
Do they sell art or is this more of a museum / exhibition gallery? They have a pretty impressive artists roster: www.pacemacgill.com/artists.php
If it's true, I'd say anyone's self-portrait who appears in the installation is in pretty amazing company.
If it's true, I'd say anyone's self-portrait who appears in the installation is in pretty amazing company.
Light Particles
Posted 17 years ago. Edited by Light Particles (member) 17 years ago
"if it was a gallery in Wisconsin, would that change things any, muffin?"
smart arse jk... does not matter which Gallery
I won't be alone on this one... I might not have pictures there but other people do... and I want to know what THEY think about it, so I have invited a few... up to them!!! I am not comfortable with this, point!
yep a fine line, I don't know if people are simply caught up by "oh my pix are in a NY Gallery, the matter is did they know it was done? Most probably noone who had this brilliant idea minded to tell them about it.
And whatever the surrounding company might be yolise... if you don't know, it's like nothing never happened... good or bad.
smart arse jk... does not matter which Gallery
I won't be alone on this one... I might not have pictures there but other people do... and I want to know what THEY think about it, so I have invited a few... up to them!!! I am not comfortable with this, point!
yep a fine line, I don't know if people are simply caught up by "oh my pix are in a NY Gallery, the matter is did they know it was done? Most probably noone who had this brilliant idea minded to tell them about it.
And whatever the surrounding company might be yolise... if you don't know, it's like nothing never happened... good or bad.
a moment in time: you can opt out of it easily. Use this link: www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/
I've just opted back in. :-D
I've just opted back in. :-D
super steam [deleted]
17 years ago
As Striatic pointed out in another group, this has happened before.
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/32974/#comment223111
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/32974/#comment223111
The law always lags behind reality. The absurdities occur when legal reality and real reality collide.
Light Particles
17 years ago
The absurdity is too often human... unconsicousness and such a desire for fame... even when they are not involved in the making of it!
thanks iansand, laws are slow, and ignorance is not a blessing
thanks iansand, laws are slow, and ignorance is not a blessing
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
If this is so wonderful for the flickr community then why hasn't this been mentioned on the flickr blog? The exhibition has been running since June 30th and flickr have said nothing about it.
You may think that flickr didn't know about it but Heather has already admitted elsewhere that she helped set it up.
I also think that this is not just a violation of the non-commercial licence but also the no-derivative work licence. Giving the exhibition a title, selfportraitr and displaying the self-portraits on various computers in an gallery space is setting up an installation in my eyes. Clearly a derivative work.
You may think that flickr didn't know about it but Heather has already admitted elsewhere that she helped set it up.
I also think that this is not just a violation of the non-commercial licence but also the no-derivative work licence. Giving the exhibition a title, selfportraitr and displaying the self-portraits on various computers in an gallery space is setting up an installation in my eyes. Clearly a derivative work.
When they reach the point of determining the top 50 - likely they will contact those photographers directly for releases etc. .
This practice isn't that "new". The Art Galery of Ontario has been running a similar show but they arrange it differently buy having the photographer post specific portraits to a group pool which is then broadcast through a set up of screens at the gallery. The Art Gallery of Ontario also requires model releases (their category is portraits - not necessarily self portraits) and the like so they may have considered some of the potential pitfalls and flickr user concerns!
By the photographer having to post an image to the pool there is obviously already a willingness to participate and a willingness to share the photo image on a computer screen slideshow. You know up front what you're involved with.
This NYC Gallery is doing it a little differently by accessing the open source format and tapping into a stream of photos based on their own search criteria. Pitfalls for the NYC gallery is flickr and other users can screw with their tags and these fellows might become shocked with what shows up. It would have been better to set up a group and have people contribute.
Someone already mentioned you can opt out of these things if you wish. Unfortunately the "opt out" is a global thing - it can't be set for each photo. Flickr users should be aware this can happen anywhere with the open source technology. Anyone can rig up a program to do the same. Even I have built Flickr badges for my website featuring "group pool" photos - there are no permission slips with the programming that produces them so who's to know what someone else might be doing with flickr links? Seems if you're overly concerned then perhaps your only recourse is to opt out and make your photos off limit to api third party applications.
I think I'd like to see the api opt-out more flexible but that has it's own problems...
I guess in the end you'd need your own website with your own "image protection" techniques if there's a real concern about not being compensated for the use of your image somewhere on the world wide web. Reality comes home to roost and reminds us that once you've uploaded photos to the internet they are available to people around the world and some people will use them unwisely and some people will even hack to get what they want.
Is a school of photography and visual arts actually considered a profit center? I would consider they are not but not sure of other possible legal ramifications. I only have two or so photos marked self portrait so it's likely won't even show up - which is fine with me!
Think I'll go take a shot of my garden and tag it self portrait though! Ha! Ha! ;-)
This practice isn't that "new". The Art Galery of Ontario has been running a similar show but they arrange it differently buy having the photographer post specific portraits to a group pool which is then broadcast through a set up of screens at the gallery. The Art Gallery of Ontario also requires model releases (their category is portraits - not necessarily self portraits) and the like so they may have considered some of the potential pitfalls and flickr user concerns!
By the photographer having to post an image to the pool there is obviously already a willingness to participate and a willingness to share the photo image on a computer screen slideshow. You know up front what you're involved with.
This NYC Gallery is doing it a little differently by accessing the open source format and tapping into a stream of photos based on their own search criteria. Pitfalls for the NYC gallery is flickr and other users can screw with their tags and these fellows might become shocked with what shows up. It would have been better to set up a group and have people contribute.
Someone already mentioned you can opt out of these things if you wish. Unfortunately the "opt out" is a global thing - it can't be set for each photo. Flickr users should be aware this can happen anywhere with the open source technology. Anyone can rig up a program to do the same. Even I have built Flickr badges for my website featuring "group pool" photos - there are no permission slips with the programming that produces them so who's to know what someone else might be doing with flickr links? Seems if you're overly concerned then perhaps your only recourse is to opt out and make your photos off limit to api third party applications.
I think I'd like to see the api opt-out more flexible but that has it's own problems...
I guess in the end you'd need your own website with your own "image protection" techniques if there's a real concern about not being compensated for the use of your image somewhere on the world wide web. Reality comes home to roost and reminds us that once you've uploaded photos to the internet they are available to people around the world and some people will use them unwisely and some people will even hack to get what they want.
Is a school of photography and visual arts actually considered a profit center? I would consider they are not but not sure of other possible legal ramifications. I only have two or so photos marked self portrait so it's likely won't even show up - which is fine with me!
Think I'll go take a shot of my garden and tag it self portrait though! Ha! Ha! ;-)
People who put their photos on the internet discover people will look at them. Shock Horror.
Can I go to sleep now?
Can I go to sleep now?
I found out about the show through doublevelvet, and was excited. It's people viewing flickr and paying more attention. I think it's lame that flickr hasn't blogged about it or otherwise called attention to it, but honestly -- I wouldn't have checked the blog, and I don't ever want flickr emailing me.
Pace McGill, as a user, has faved a bunch of my photos. I could have blocked that user ID, but instead I made it a friend so it can see my more private photos.
New York galleries kind of piss me off (yes, much more than ones in Wisconsin), but this is EXCITING and anti-corporate, anti-tragically hip, anti-bullshit. It's art of the people, not of the people-trying-desperately-to-be-on-the-bleeding-edge. Well, some of that, too, I'm sure -- but, really, a mix.
We are all fish (some exotics, some goldfish, and even some piranhas) swimming around in the flickr aquarium, and the whole point is that not only will we see each other, but hordes of curious visitors will press their noses to the glass and look at the fishies. I, for one, enjoy being looked at. I can't expect to live in an aquarium and control who sees me and whether or not they've been charged admission or bought a shirt at the gift shop.
My 2 cents, probably less sense than that, given how sleep-deprived I am. ;)
Pace McGill, as a user, has faved a bunch of my photos. I could have blocked that user ID, but instead I made it a friend so it can see my more private photos.
New York galleries kind of piss me off (yes, much more than ones in Wisconsin), but this is EXCITING and anti-corporate, anti-tragically hip, anti-bullshit. It's art of the people, not of the people-trying-desperately-to-be-on-the-bleeding-edge. Well, some of that, too, I'm sure -- but, really, a mix.
We are all fish (some exotics, some goldfish, and even some piranhas) swimming around in the flickr aquarium, and the whole point is that not only will we see each other, but hordes of curious visitors will press their noses to the glass and look at the fishies. I, for one, enjoy being looked at. I can't expect to live in an aquarium and control who sees me and whether or not they've been charged admission or bought a shirt at the gift shop.
My 2 cents, probably less sense than that, given how sleep-deprived I am. ;)
Thanks to "a moment in time" for making me aware of this.
I think this is an interesting experiment. We have exhibited our photos and this is just another way to look at them where they are. I like the fact that SVA is a part of it. If they are charging admission, I think that would be wrong... but, if so, I'd also like to know where they found the suckers paying it. The program is dreadfully slow here at my home connection... I'll have to check again at work. Obviously, they can't move to the hoped for Top 50 prints without getting further permissions. Yes the law lags behind... and in the end, it often doesn't really protect or compensate the individual, but is just a way for those who have the money to take more from us. Interesting to think about how sharing, intellectual property, and stealing all relate.
I think this is an interesting experiment. We have exhibited our photos and this is just another way to look at them where they are. I like the fact that SVA is a part of it. If they are charging admission, I think that would be wrong... but, if so, I'd also like to know where they found the suckers paying it. The program is dreadfully slow here at my home connection... I'll have to check again at work. Obviously, they can't move to the hoped for Top 50 prints without getting further permissions. Yes the law lags behind... and in the end, it often doesn't really protect or compensate the individual, but is just a way for those who have the money to take more from us. Interesting to think about how sharing, intellectual property, and stealing all relate.
disillusioned basket [deleted]
Posted 17 years ago. Edited by disillusioned basket (member) 17 years ago
Pace Macgill do not charge admission nor do SVA...Galleries are free in New York. This is innovative of Pace MacGill to recognose, recognise even, what is happening on the internet and to give this arena to the curators from SVA.
oh people.
i upload a picture, to be viewed by people on computer screens, whether that screen is a small screen belonging to a masturbating chinese man or a jumbo screen at the super bowl, i knew full well about the old internet before i uploaded it.
fair deal.
if you have a problem here, you might want to consult webster on the definition of the word "public" which is a box you freely check on every photo you upload. the other option is "private" --- i'm pretty clear on both of those words. familiarize yourselves.
not that they'd need to to make me happy, but i can see that they link back. sweet, they dont even charge me for that.
interestingly, i have seen flickrwegian whining on other threads about the explore algorithm being changed, apparently making his own photos less "explorable" or "interesting" in explore. me thinks some people just like to hear themselves whine and complain, because that's the only consistency i can find in his arguments.
boo hoo.
ultimately, if someone finds my work so neat-o that they just HAVE to hang it on their bathroom wall, they can either print out the super low res version i uploaded and marked public, or they can contact me and negotiate for a full res file.
are you still considering the name ex-flickrwegian?
don't let the delete this account button hit you in the ass.
i upload a picture, to be viewed by people on computer screens, whether that screen is a small screen belonging to a masturbating chinese man or a jumbo screen at the super bowl, i knew full well about the old internet before i uploaded it.
fair deal.
if you have a problem here, you might want to consult webster on the definition of the word "public" which is a box you freely check on every photo you upload. the other option is "private" --- i'm pretty clear on both of those words. familiarize yourselves.
not that they'd need to to make me happy, but i can see that they link back. sweet, they dont even charge me for that.
interestingly, i have seen flickrwegian whining on other threads about the explore algorithm being changed, apparently making his own photos less "explorable" or "interesting" in explore. me thinks some people just like to hear themselves whine and complain, because that's the only consistency i can find in his arguments.
boo hoo.
ultimately, if someone finds my work so neat-o that they just HAVE to hang it on their bathroom wall, they can either print out the super low res version i uploaded and marked public, or they can contact me and negotiate for a full res file.
are you still considering the name ex-flickrwegian?
don't let the delete this account button hit you in the ass.
i don't believe in marriage but i'll gladly take half your stuff.
btw, i just charged my dog four milkbones to look at your collective streams on this here computer gizmo.
where would you like me to send your share? --
also, none of you have paid me the money you owe me for reading my totally copyrighted words dood. you know you enjoyed them so PAY UP!
btw, i just charged my dog four milkbones to look at your collective streams on this here computer gizmo.
where would you like me to send your share? --
also, none of you have paid me the money you owe me for reading my totally copyrighted words dood. you know you enjoyed them so PAY UP!
sarafigal
17 years ago
no, me. or at least be my friend and come over for dinner--I suspect conversation would be balanced and substantive.
While I don't think that inclusion in this event--even though it be at Pace MacGill--warrents an exhibition line on a cv (any more than an appreciative viewer's downloading a photo would count as a sale), I do think that what they are doing is clever and interesting, and I'm all in favor.
While I don't think that inclusion in this event--even though it be at Pace MacGill--warrents an exhibition line on a cv (any more than an appreciative viewer's downloading a photo would count as a sale), I do think that what they are doing is clever and interesting, and I'm all in favor.
merkley's right on on this one.
Personally I think this technology and art project is very exciting and I'd love to see more of it. I've long been a believer that all kinds of establishements, bars, nightclubs, swank hotel lobbies, etc. ought to be pulling full screen slide shows from Flickr. It's far more interesting than a single piece of art on the wall that never rotates. And anyone can use slickr to essentially pull full screen slide shows from flickr by tag or by favorite stream or by user or whatever.
There was an article some time ago about a nightclub pulling photos from flickr and displaying them where people could change the tags with their cell phones (if I remember correctly). This is hot technology.
As has been indicated before, assuming the photo links back to flickr I see no reason why any public display of your photos should be off limits. If you don't like it then mark your photos private. There is no difference between 100 people looking at your photos each alone in their home and a gallery hosting a kiosk which shows your photos.
Here in San Francisco 111 Minna art gallery has a computer in the center of it. While I was there a few months back I was showing Frank Chu photos of himself on it. Anyone at the gallery can use it. Under this logic this would somehow also violate someones all rights reserved license.
Personally I think this technology and art project is very exciting and I'd love to see more of it. I've long been a believer that all kinds of establishements, bars, nightclubs, swank hotel lobbies, etc. ought to be pulling full screen slide shows from Flickr. It's far more interesting than a single piece of art on the wall that never rotates. And anyone can use slickr to essentially pull full screen slide shows from flickr by tag or by favorite stream or by user or whatever.
There was an article some time ago about a nightclub pulling photos from flickr and displaying them where people could change the tags with their cell phones (if I remember correctly). This is hot technology.
As has been indicated before, assuming the photo links back to flickr I see no reason why any public display of your photos should be off limits. If you don't like it then mark your photos private. There is no difference between 100 people looking at your photos each alone in their home and a gallery hosting a kiosk which shows your photos.
Here in San Francisco 111 Minna art gallery has a computer in the center of it. While I was there a few months back I was showing Frank Chu photos of himself on it. Anyone at the gallery can use it. Under this logic this would somehow also violate someones all rights reserved license.
Light Particles
17 years ago
Well my point is it would have been nice to know... especially for the people whose pictures are involved in this exhibit/project...
The rest is up to everyone,
we have different levels of comfort and, of course, people post pictures to be viewed duh! but it's also nice to be able to have a say on what happens with them (if all options are open with your pictures, it's your choice, it does not mean everyone should think the same).
Come on, even the people who say they are totally cool with this aren't they glad to know it is happening at all, no???
The rest is up to everyone,
we have different levels of comfort and, of course, people post pictures to be viewed duh! but it's also nice to be able to have a say on what happens with them (if all options are open with your pictures, it's your choice, it does not mean everyone should think the same).
Come on, even the people who say they are totally cool with this aren't they glad to know it is happening at all, no???
I'm glad to know it's happening because I think it's super cool! I'd love to see more things like this.
"Well my point is it would have been nice to know"
That's not what the majority of nay-sayers are complaining about here. They're claiming that it violates the creative commons license (which it doesn't, in my opinion, and yes, I am a lawyer).
Anyone who has access to a computer can view your stream, and they certainly don't have to notify you. Public means public.
That's not what the majority of nay-sayers are complaining about here. They're claiming that it violates the creative commons license (which it doesn't, in my opinion, and yes, I am a lawyer).
Anyone who has access to a computer can view your stream, and they certainly don't have to notify you. Public means public.
Yes, it IS nice to know... just because it's interesting. Anyone who has a computer can view your photostream... but that doesn't mean they can show them as entertainment at a nightclub venue, as stated above, anymore than that nightclub can play people's music without paying royalties.
I don't believe in marriage either and I am a diseased old homo crone anyway, so it wouldn't be legal....
But you prooooooooooooomised, billy! When's the date? We could get married in Massachusetts after my sex change.
But you prooooooooooooomised, billy! When's the date? We could get married in Massachusetts after my sex change.
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
merkley??? You're right I am just whining about this because I was sore at the recent explore changes. It's in my nature to whine, I'm a Brit after all.
And I do think what Pace/MacGill are doing is cool. I was flattered to find my self portraits there.
What I don't like is the way there has been no inside flickr publicity about this. It was through another flickr user quoting a New York Times article that I heard about it.
I also think that flickr are being underhand about the creative commons licences. Why promote a licensing system if they have no intention of forcing anyone to honour it?
And I do think what Pace/MacGill are doing is cool. I was flattered to find my self portraits there.
What I don't like is the way there has been no inside flickr publicity about this. It was through another flickr user quoting a New York Times article that I heard about it.
I also think that flickr are being underhand about the creative commons licences. Why promote a licensing system if they have no intention of forcing anyone to honour it?
fd
17 years ago
Why promote a licensing system if they have no intention of forcing anyone to honour it?
It's not Flickr's job to enforce licensing, it's the artist's. Flickr just provides the means by which you can announce your licensing. Anyway, in what way are CC licenses being ignored here? I'd think that there'd be more of an uproar from people who have marked their photos all rights reserved.
It's not Flickr's job to enforce licensing, it's the artist's. Flickr just provides the means by which you can announce your licensing. Anyway, in what way are CC licenses being ignored here? I'd think that there'd be more of an uproar from people who have marked their photos all rights reserved.
JustMe005
17 years ago
I don't mind as long as this gallery has permission with flickr or is associated with flickr, and they are not going to reproduce/print the photos without consent.
I also think that flickr are being underhand about the creative commons licences. Why promote a licensing system if they have no intention of forcing anyone to honour it?
Who says they are not honoring it?
Who says they are not honoring it?
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
Who says they are not honoring it?
...
I also think that this is not just a violation of the non-commercial licence but also the no-derivative work licence. Giving the exhibition a title, selfportraitr and displaying the self-portraits on various computers in an gallery space is setting up an installation in my eyes. Clearly a derivative work.
...
I also think that this is not just a violation of the non-commercial licence but also the no-derivative work licence. Giving the exhibition a title, selfportraitr and displaying the self-portraits on various computers in an gallery space is setting up an installation in my eyes. Clearly a derivative work.
If this is so wonderful for the flickr community then why hasn't this been mentioned on the flickr blog? The exhibition has been running since June 30th and flickr have said nothing about it.
What I don't like is the way there has been no inside flickr publicity about this. It was through another flickr user quoting a New York Times article that I heard about it.
Yup. There hasn't been. The initial of the release of the application wasn't 100% complete and the photos didn't link back to the Flickr pages as outlined in our Community Guidelines. I didn't feel it appropriate to link to the exhibition from FlickrBlog until that had been resolved.
That was done on Monday and featuring the exhibition is on my list of things to do. Unfortunately, I've been home battling a bug for two days so my to do list is somewhat undone. That said, guess what I'm off to do?
(Edit -- Or at least, I will do so when Typepad is back from it's "massage")
What I don't like is the way there has been no inside flickr publicity about this. It was through another flickr user quoting a New York Times article that I heard about it.
Yup. There hasn't been. The initial of the release of the application wasn't 100% complete and the photos didn't link back to the Flickr pages as outlined in our Community Guidelines. I didn't feel it appropriate to link to the exhibition from FlickrBlog until that had been resolved.
That was done on Monday and featuring the exhibition is on my list of things to do. Unfortunately, I've been home battling a bug for two days so my to do list is somewhat undone. That said, guess what I'm off to do?
(Edit -- Or at least, I will do so when Typepad is back from it's "massage")
Clearly a derivative work.
But doesn't that make Flappr and Retrievr derivative works as well? They are being broadcast on the internet. How is that different from being broadcast on the internet in a gallery?
But doesn't that make Flappr and Retrievr derivative works as well? They are being broadcast on the internet. How is that different from being broadcast on the internet in a gallery?
disillusioned basket [deleted]
17 years ago
striatic
17 years ago
Clearly a derivative work.
but it isn't. you sort of have to read the license because it makes a distinction between a 'collective work' and a 'derivative work'.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode
self-portraitr is a collective work, as only the context has changed. for it to be a derivative work .. the photos themselves would have to be manipulated, and they aren't being manipulated.
but it isn't. you sort of have to read the license because it makes a distinction between a 'collective work' and a 'derivative work'.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode
"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
"Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
self-portraitr is a collective work, as only the context has changed. for it to be a derivative work .. the photos themselves would have to be manipulated, and they aren't being manipulated.
when Pace/MacGill added one of my self portraits as a favorite in early june, i was honestly flattered. i checked their profile, found out about the exhibit and again, thought "cool!"
while i do understand there would be some issues involved if they were offering prints, or making money from them, i think they are a reputable gallery and have enough business sense not to rip anyone off.
i find its an interesting way to explore the way people are sharing their photos and themselves through social networking.
oh, and if there is some way to go vote on this stuff would this be the place for a little shameless self-promotion???
while i do understand there would be some issues involved if they were offering prints, or making money from them, i think they are a reputable gallery and have enough business sense not to rip anyone off.
i find its an interesting way to explore the way people are sharing their photos and themselves through social networking.
oh, and if there is some way to go vote on this stuff would this be the place for a little shameless self-promotion???
I think it is kick ass and more power to Flickr. That is just bringing more exposure to our group of photographers/comedians.
I think if they wanted to it would also be cool if they had a running text of the conversations at deleteme uncensored underneath the actual photos. Since we've been NIPSA'd we need to figure out better ways to promote the group. A side project to portraitr could be just the thing we need to get the word out.
striatic
17 years ago
photographers/comedians.
speak for yourself, i'm more of a "photographer/narcissist" .. which makes me perfect for 'self-portraitr'!
*sarcasm*
i wonder how many people leaving the gallery will be muttering "damn are those people self-involved" .. i mean even this conversation is profoundly self involved .. what with the hand wringing about attribution, credit and compensation for a gallery show that doesn't appear to be making a profit off of this particular endeavour.
speak for yourself, i'm more of a "photographer/narcissist" .. which makes me perfect for 'self-portraitr'!
*sarcasm*
i wonder how many people leaving the gallery will be muttering "damn are those people self-involved" .. i mean even this conversation is profoundly self involved .. what with the hand wringing about attribution, credit and compensation for a gallery show that doesn't appear to be making a profit off of this particular endeavour.
fd
17 years ago
I don't think it qualifies as a derivate work under US copyright law either. The definition is very specific and requires a significant portion of the piece to be original work. Slapping a title on a collection is not enough. As it is, this isn't any different than someone blogging all 112,000 selfportrait tagged photos.
Still, I'm curious to see what the reaction will be like among the wider community once it's on the Flickr blog. We eggheads in Flickr Central are hardly representative. :-)
Still, I'm curious to see what the reaction will be like among the wider community once it's on the Flickr blog. We eggheads in Flickr Central are hardly representative. :-)
striatic
17 years ago
As it is, this isn't any different than someone blogging all 112,000 selfportrait tagged photos.
well, there is the interactive aspect .. you can sort the photos by tags .. though that's really not that different from blogging the 112,000 photos to a well organized blog .. or putting them all in a book with a killer index.
Still, I'm curious to see what the reaction will be like among the wider community once it's on the Flickr blog.
once it is on the flickr blog, it has flickr's stamp of approval. the gallery show is just another version of the tag page, not much of anything to get worked up over.
well, there is the interactive aspect .. you can sort the photos by tags .. though that's really not that different from blogging the 112,000 photos to a well organized blog .. or putting them all in a book with a killer index.
Still, I'm curious to see what the reaction will be like among the wider community once it's on the Flickr blog.
once it is on the flickr blog, it has flickr's stamp of approval. the gallery show is just another version of the tag page, not much of anything to get worked up over.
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
I hadn't realised all that about the collective stuff. Okay. I guess I have to read things more clearly. That means if someone publishes a book with flickr photographs with credit and licence attribution, as long as they don't sell it, they can give it away and not even tell us. Cool.
Heather I'll be happy to see the announcement on the blog. I'm sure other selfportraitrs will be glad to know about it.
Heather I'll be happy to see the announcement on the blog. I'm sure other selfportraitrs will be glad to know about it.
striatic
Posted 17 years ago. Edited by striatic (admin) 17 years ago
as long as they don't sell it
though if they stay away from photos licensed with a non-commercial clause, they can sell it.
though if they stay away from photos licensed with a non-commercial clause, they can sell it.
Dude, she said she was feeling sick AND, more importantly, its 12:30am here in the timezone where Heather lives.
Violentz
17 years ago
The only thing that annoys me about this a bit is that fact that Heather is saying that initially the application didn't link back to Flickr according to the Community Guidelines. How long has the exhibition been active without linking back? If the gallery has been displaying the images for any length of time without linking back to the original Flickr source, then that is a breech of trust with the Flickr members whose work has been on display.
striatic
17 years ago
How long has the exhibition been active without linking back?
linkback went active july 10th according to heather.
show started june 30th.
so to answer your question, around 10 days.
linkback went active july 10th according to heather.
show started june 30th.
so to answer your question, around 10 days.
striatic
17 years ago
also, keep in mind that the flickr staff has allowed nearly identical art projects to go on unhindered, even when the project had no linkback whatsoever.
The bottom line; they should have asked first, and given people the opportunity to opt out before this exibit. 'Copyright' and 'all rights reserved' seems to be becoming quite a grey area with Yahoo.
striatic
17 years ago
'Copyright' and 'all rights reserved' seems to be becoming quite a grey area with Yahoo.
you might be interested in this argument.
or something.
you might be interested in this argument.
or something.
"I think Flickr needs to announce the Opt Out thing rather than keeping it quiet."
Pretty much what I just said isn't it?
@striatic: Yes, I read Stewart's comment, and it's typical of a Corporate CEO's opinion. No surprises there.
Pretty much what I just said isn't it?
@striatic: Yes, I read Stewart's comment, and it's typical of a Corporate CEO's opinion. No surprises there.
Hey Merkley;
It's this very fact that makes me wonder about some of the photographs people do share on the internet so willingly - in particular photographs of children, partial and full nudes, and in particular those "come on" photos a lot of young female "photographers" (?questionable?) post on a regular basis!
What ARE people thinking?
Those questionable photos must make the programmers at the gallery cringe from time to time? Ha ha! ;-)
oh people.
i upload a picture, to be viewed by people on computer screens, whether that screen is a small screen belonging to a masturbating chinese man or a jumbo screen at the super bowl, i knew full well about the old internet before i uploaded it.
It's this very fact that makes me wonder about some of the photographs people do share on the internet so willingly - in particular photographs of children, partial and full nudes, and in particular those "come on" photos a lot of young female "photographers" (?questionable?) post on a regular basis!
What ARE people thinking?
Those questionable photos must make the programmers at the gallery cringe from time to time? Ha ha! ;-)
Does no one really want to deal with this using the settings they have at their disposal or do they just want to complain?
Amen Yolise!
The diacotomy that is known as Flickr. People bitching because not enough people are viewing their work anymore because Interestingness/Explore has changed. People complaining because Flickr is trying to bring exposure to themselves, in turn us ...
This is actually becoming kind of fun to sit back and watch ... or actually maybe I should go look at some photos ... but I will ask permission to view your photo first ;)
Amen Yolise!
The diacotomy that is known as Flickr. People bitching because not enough people are viewing their work anymore because Interestingness/Explore has changed. People complaining because Flickr is trying to bring exposure to themselves, in turn us ...
This is actually becoming kind of fun to sit back and watch ... or actually maybe I should go look at some photos ... but I will ask permission to view your photo first ;)
♥ shhexy corin ♥
17 years ago
"in particular those "come on" photos a lot of young female "photographers" (?questionable?) post on a regular basis!
What ARE people thinking? "
They're thinking they like having men look at them?
Something seriously wrong with their bio-chemistry there.
What ARE people thinking? "
They're thinking they like having men look at them?
Something seriously wrong with their bio-chemistry there.
Pretty much what I just said isn't it?
Probably. I didn't read it that way originally though. Soz.
Probably. I didn't read it that way originally though. Soz.
all bundled together as heathr.com
Funnily enough, the heathr.com domain is mine (all mine, mwah ha ha)
Hi Heather, any word on that flickr blog posting? Typepad appears to be back.
Even the wicked like myself need their beauty rest. Typepad was down when I went to bed last night. I'm sorry, but 24 hour heathr.com has yet to be implemented by the team.
[edit to read more like english]
Funnily enough, the heathr.com domain is mine (all mine, mwah ha ha)
Hi Heather, any word on that flickr blog posting? Typepad appears to be back.
Even the wicked like myself need their beauty rest. Typepad was down when I went to bed last night. I'm sorry, but 24 hour heathr.com has yet to be implemented by the team.
[edit to read more like english]
Violentz
17 years ago
I just want to point out that I went to the Gallery (on line) last night and browsed for about 15 minutes. I did notice in the "Gallery Favorites" section several images there that had full frontal male nudity in them. They could very well be considered of an "artistic" nature and I have a sense that the Gallery itself welcomes them, but in the end they still violate the Flickr Community Guidelines none the less. How is Flickr going to handle something like this? I don't believe people who attend the actual Gallery are going to be aware of or even interested in reporting such images, and if they are welcome into the Gallery by the organizers I think that's a double standard, as such images aren't welcome in public places on Flickr. The ironic thing is, I... who happen to take many artistic self-portraits not including nudity can't be seen in this gallery because my account is NIPSA'd due to another genre of photography I do take..... artistic nudes of models.
this is a fairly interesting argumnet basically because republishing/using/displaying other peoples work can be such a slippery slope.
it is unfortunate and questionable that the images didn't link back to the photographers page for so long, but i also know that is inherently part of the risk of dispaying work on the internet. people grab images. they use them. sometimes they credit them. sometimes they don't. all i know is i can prove their mine if it ever came into question. so i have to go with that. and honestly, in a case like this, i'm GLAD to have it there and on display.
i love that i looked at pace/macgills site last night and saw one of my images there among the gallery favorites. (was on page 5!!!! go look!! click on it, damnit.) and as long as they get proper permissions and give proper credit to the photographers lucky enough to have an image published in one of their gallery catalogues, i think it's fine.
maybe there should be clearer definitions developed so that use of the flickr database by outside parties would benefit it's users through exposure and not scare them that they're being robbed.
it is unfortunate and questionable that the images didn't link back to the photographers page for so long, but i also know that is inherently part of the risk of dispaying work on the internet. people grab images. they use them. sometimes they credit them. sometimes they don't. all i know is i can prove their mine if it ever came into question. so i have to go with that. and honestly, in a case like this, i'm GLAD to have it there and on display.
i love that i looked at pace/macgills site last night and saw one of my images there among the gallery favorites. (was on page 5!!!! go look!! click on it, damnit.) and as long as they get proper permissions and give proper credit to the photographers lucky enough to have an image published in one of their gallery catalogues, i think it's fine.
maybe there should be clearer definitions developed so that use of the flickr database by outside parties would benefit it's users through exposure and not scare them that they're being robbed.
it is unfortunate and questionable that the images didn't link back to the photographers page for so long, but i also know that is inherently part of the risk of dispaying work on the internet. people grab images.
It was always intended and launched in a beta state.
It was always intended and launched in a beta state.
charming snails [deleted]
17 years ago
Right. I've decided that I've turned into a bit of a troll over the whole explore/selfportraitr business so I am going to chill a bit and not care so much.
However, I do think that it is important that the exhibition is featured in the flickr blog. There are plenty of self-portrait takers out there (with much much much more talent than myself) who are unaware of how wonderful/horrifying the pace/macgill exhibit is and they should be told so they can opt-in or opt-out.
Violentz: you know I'm a big fan of your self-portrait and portrait work. Perhaps it's time to have two accounts, seperating the professional and personal work? I'd be a contact for both!
However, I do think that it is important that the exhibition is featured in the flickr blog. There are plenty of self-portrait takers out there (with much much much more talent than myself) who are unaware of how wonderful/horrifying the pace/macgill exhibit is and they should be told so they can opt-in or opt-out.
Violentz: you know I'm a big fan of your self-portrait and portrait work. Perhaps it's time to have two accounts, seperating the professional and personal work? I'd be a contact for both!
striatic
Posted 17 years ago. Edited by striatic (admin) 17 years ago
some tips for following/excluding yourself from the selfportraitr project:
go here and search on "selfportraitr" to see which photographers are popular with gallery goers:
krazydad.com/gustavog/FavoriteCrossing.pl [will be nsfw upon search]
the gallery has an interface here for following their gallery members' favourites:
www.pacemacgill.com/exhibitions.php
but it is much faster to simply follow the gallery account's flickr favourites page:
flickr.com/photos/selfportraitr/favorites/
or better yet go www.flickrleech.net/ and click 'favorites', then search on flickr.com/photos/selfportraitr/
for 'opting out' you have a couple options:
1] change your selfportrait tag to something like 'selfportraitexclude'
go to flickr.com/photos/striatic/tags/selfportrait/ [but replace my username with your own] and then click "change this tag" and edit it to be 'selfportraitexclude'.
when the gallery show is over, go to flickr.com/photos/striatic/tags/selfportraitexclude/ [but replace my username with your own] and change the tag back to 'selfportrait'.
2] opt-out of api searches
go here and exclude yourself from external api use, either indefinitely or simply for the duration of the show: www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/
go here and search on "selfportraitr" to see which photographers are popular with gallery goers:
krazydad.com/gustavog/FavoriteCrossing.pl [will be nsfw upon search]
the gallery has an interface here for following their gallery members' favourites:
www.pacemacgill.com/exhibitions.php
but it is much faster to simply follow the gallery account's flickr favourites page:
flickr.com/photos/selfportraitr/favorites/
or better yet go www.flickrleech.net/ and click 'favorites', then search on flickr.com/photos/selfportraitr/
for 'opting out' you have a couple options:
1] change your selfportrait tag to something like 'selfportraitexclude'
go to flickr.com/photos/striatic/tags/selfportrait/ [but replace my username with your own] and then click "change this tag" and edit it to be 'selfportraitexclude'.
when the gallery show is over, go to flickr.com/photos/striatic/tags/selfportraitexclude/ [but replace my username with your own] and change the tag back to 'selfportrait'.
2] opt-out of api searches
go here and exclude yourself from external api use, either indefinitely or simply for the duration of the show: www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/
Siris Amsterdam
17 years ago
I was informed about the exhibition one week ago, I was not "chocked" by the fact FlickR did not inform us. I was just surprised. I have moved from Paris to New York, I'm happy to go to Pace MacGill physically. But I admit I did not realize that other cool FlickR members could be very offended.
There is probably no such difference in between posting a public image on FlickR and finding it on another website...
There is probably no such difference in between posting a public image on FlickR and finding it on another website...
@Heather...
Nice article... but you didn't really tell your paying flickr members what they are doing and how we have already participated... or how we can stop participating. A bit one-sided "pro" if you ask me. At least from where I sit, there are definitely two sides to this coin.
Nice article... but you didn't really tell your paying flickr members what they are doing and how we have already participated... or how we can stop participating. A bit one-sided "pro" if you ask me. At least from where I sit, there are definitely two sides to this coin.
♥ shhexy corin ♥
17 years ago
Yeah! No one told ME that people would be able to look at my pictures when I posted them on Flickr! What the fuck is that all about?
thanks, heather!! the link to the times article was nice too.
it will be interesting to see how many photos get added in the next couple of weeks. i just wish i could see the set up at the gallery space. . .
it will be interesting to see how many photos get added in the next couple of weeks. i just wish i could see the set up at the gallery space. . .
@ Shhexy: Wow, that was classy. Nice.
Violentz
Posted 17 years ago. Edited by Violentz (member) 17 years ago
I hope the "Blink of an Eye" contest exhibition has a different venue than this particular gallery, though it is a wonderful gallery, only so it doesn't come off as some convenient cross promotion for another Flickr gallery showing.
Thankfully, I'm not affected by this.
However, it got me thinking:
It's really sad that the Opt-Out function is a Global "On/Off" switch and not specific to the service(s) that are out there.
EG: I heart FDs "service" (and many others) but I do not like all of them, this one included.
It is "things" like this that make me question the benefit of renewing my "Pro" account and/or keeping my photos public on Yahoo!
*coughs*
Excuse me, Flickr
However, it got me thinking:
It's really sad that the Opt-Out function is a Global "On/Off" switch and not specific to the service(s) that are out there.
EG: I heart FDs "service" (and many others) but I do not like all of them, this one included.
It is "things" like this that make me question the benefit of renewing my "Pro" account and/or keeping my photos public on Yahoo!
*coughs*
Excuse me, Flickr
striatic
17 years ago
It's really sad that the Opt-Out function is a Global "On/Off" switch and not specific to the service(s) that are out there.
you can also opt out by changing temporarily changing your 'selfportrait' tags.
you can also opt out by changing temporarily changing your 'selfportrait' tags.
Striatic said:
you can also opt out by changing temporarily changing your 'selfportrait' tags.
Your reply pertains to this "gallery" and it's specific use of the tags and favorites.
Again, I'm not affected by this gallery's use of Flickr.
And if I was, I would simply block that user as that action is much easier than modifying my tags as your "work-around" suggests.
I suppose that I need further clarify my statement.
I was speaking the Opt-Out Function found in the account prefrences: (as pointed out in the second post by Yolise)
www.flickr.com/account/prefs/apioptout/
It would be nice if that Opt-Out function worked better to allow Flickr users to dictate which services were permitted to access the stream as opposed to it being a global "On/Off" switch.
For example, I'd allow FD's Toys to access, but certainly not this NY Gallery.
I'm quite sure that kind of change to the Opt-Out function, API, ect.. is not likely happen and that's fine. I suppose.
But honestly, this is just yet another example of how the users are not given the tools, access or permission necessary to further control the data and service(s) they are paying for.
Public API you say? Yeah I get it. I know, I know.
I'm a seasoned code junkie.
However, the fact this gallery didn't link back (even though it was beta it was a public beta) is extremely questionable. Add to that that Flickr staff didn't promote this (yes, Heather was I'll [and I do hope you are feeling better, dear], is simply unacceptable considering this has been going on since before that time.)
As I mentioned before, this situation (and others) has certainly made me consider renewing .
That's all.
striatic
17 years ago
And if I was, I would simply block that user as that action is much easier than modifying my tags as your "work-around" suggests.
that wouldn't work entirely.
there are two aspects of the show.
one is the display of all the the photos under the 'self portrait' tag. through this aspect of the show, any flickr user with any photo tagged 'self portrait' is included.
this cannot be prevented by blocking the pace/macgill flickr account.
the second aspect is the 'favorites gallery', where gallery goers select favorites from within the self portrait tag using the pace/mac gill flickr account. you can exclude yourself from the favorites gallery by block the pace/macgill account, but this will not remove you from the first aspect, which essentially replicates the flickt tag page.
so while blocking the user might be 'easier' it isn't entirely effective as it leaves these photos:
flickr.com/photos/itodd76/tags/selfportrait/
accessible through the selfportraitr interface.
that wouldn't work entirely.
there are two aspects of the show.
one is the display of all the the photos under the 'self portrait' tag. through this aspect of the show, any flickr user with any photo tagged 'self portrait' is included.
this cannot be prevented by blocking the pace/macgill flickr account.
the second aspect is the 'favorites gallery', where gallery goers select favorites from within the self portrait tag using the pace/mac gill flickr account. you can exclude yourself from the favorites gallery by block the pace/macgill account, but this will not remove you from the first aspect, which essentially replicates the flickt tag page.
so while blocking the user might be 'easier' it isn't entirely effective as it leaves these photos:
flickr.com/photos/itodd76/tags/selfportrait/
accessible through the selfportraitr interface.
The opt out works only for global API searches, so most Flickr Toys will still work even if you opt out.
Stewart
17 years ago
Todd Kravos and Mark Klotz, I'm curious how you think we can handle stuff like this better. Emailing four million users each time someone does something new with the API isn't feasible.
For Mark: Even doing it from time to time when it seems like an exceptional case isn't realistic: if only one in hundred users responded and expected a response in return, that's 40,000 emails for us to read and respond to. That'd mean hiring hundreds of staff and that's really just not feasible.
(And in any case, it would drive most users crazy to get these emails: a big majority don't care about this stuff either way and there are a large number of people feel like any email we send is spam no matter what the content is.)
For Todd: Making the API opt-out on a key-by-key basis would mean you have to make decisions about somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 applications, many of will never launch or are private or intended for use only by the developer. And in case, if you don't hear about till after it is public then you can only opt-out after the fact.
As Yolise pointed out, most Flickr Toys (and most other apps that you might want to use with your own photos) still work with the opt-out, since they rely on you authenticating the application with Flickr. Therefore, it seems like it makes a lot more sense for it to be a global preference.
I think that most of the time the overall constraints we're working with are not very clear, but I'm really curious about practical ways we could do a better job.
For Mark: Even doing it from time to time when it seems like an exceptional case isn't realistic: if only one in hundred users responded and expected a response in return, that's 40,000 emails for us to read and respond to. That'd mean hiring hundreds of staff and that's really just not feasible.
(And in any case, it would drive most users crazy to get these emails: a big majority don't care about this stuff either way and there are a large number of people feel like any email we send is spam no matter what the content is.)
For Todd: Making the API opt-out on a key-by-key basis would mean you have to make decisions about somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 applications, many of will never launch or are private or intended for use only by the developer. And in case, if you don't hear about till after it is public then you can only opt-out after the fact.
As Yolise pointed out, most Flickr Toys (and most other apps that you might want to use with your own photos) still work with the opt-out, since they rely on you authenticating the application with Flickr. Therefore, it seems like it makes a lot more sense for it to be a global preference.
I think that most of the time the overall constraints we're working with are not very clear, but I'm really curious about practical ways we could do a better job.
super steam [deleted]
17 years ago
shhexy clearly has this all worked out
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157594196509450/7...
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157594196509450/7...