Help / The Help Forum

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

Hot Topics

[Spam] I WILL END YOU (Staff post!)
Latest: 39 minutes ago
[investigating] Email notifications failing (BT Internet Users especially)
Latest: 58 minutes ago
Yahoo sells to Verizon
Latest: 80 minutes ago
Login issues? Try this.
Latest: 89 minutes ago
[Kapersky/Antivirus Issues] I cannot upload photos today...
Latest: 2 hours ago
[Official Thread] Mobile Uploads back on for users in Germany
Latest: 20 hours ago

 

Current Discussion

Very slow upload, unable to upload, timeout errors
Latest: 16 minutes ago
Sharing a nested set of collections/Albums
Latest: 39 minutes ago
my name on my photostream was replaced by another name ; someone broke into my account ? gallery ?
Latest: 43 minutes ago
Interestingness API sort bug - will it ever get fixed ?
Latest: 79 minutes ago
Photographers name on photos
Latest: 2 hours ago
Quote 'This photo is no longer available' .... but it is there!
Latest: 4 hours ago
Sharing Album so others can contribute their own photos?
Latest: 5 hours ago
To staff: Bug or design? "Edit your Yahoo preferences" missing from Settings
Latest: 6 hours ago
Searching The Help Forum Yields Severely Limited Returns
Latest: 8 hours ago
[Official Thread] Introducing the Flickr Camera Roll (Beta)
Latest: 11 hours ago
Stats - many views on an old photo each day
Latest: 12 hours ago
Rules and definitions for stats
Latest: 13 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Closed] Are Hateful Pictures of U.S. Presidents Allowed under the TOS or not?

JimNtexas PRO says:

I understand Flickr is canceling accounts of users who post the famous 'Joker' picture of President Obama.

On the other hand, for years Flickr has allowed all sorts of hateful images of President Bush, as a quick search will show. Just a few examples:

[URLS removed]

These are 'Joker' pictures featuring George Bush:

[URLs removed]

It took less than five minutes to find these examples, there are hundred more.

So please explain why parody pictures of President Obama violate the TOS, yet almost identical parodies of President Bush are allowed.

Thanks
Posted at 7:47AM, 20 August 2009 PDT ( permalink )
Zack Sheppard (staff) edited this topic 84 months ago.

← prev 1 2 3
(1 to 100 of 240 replies in [Closed] Are Hateful Pictures of U.S. Presidents Allowed under the TOS or not?)
view photos

ColleenM PRO says:

This is a forum for help with Flickr features and software. Questions are primarily answered by volunteers with no affiliation with either Yahoo! or Flickr.

There's nothing anyone in this forum can assist you with. If you want a reply from staff, you'll need to use the Get Help email assistance link at the bottom of the page.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Яick Harris PRO says:

"I understand Flickr is canceling accounts of users who post the famous 'Joker' picture of President Obama."

Examples?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

*nacnud* says:

maybe ex presidents is allowed, maybe it's just a lot of tos
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ElWanderer PRO says:

users who post the famous 'Joker' picture of President Obama

If it's famous it's not likely their own creation is it?
From: www.flickr.com/guidelines/

Do upload content that you have created.
Respect the copyright of others. This means don't steal photos or videos that other people have shared and pass them off as your own. (That’s what favorites are for.)


Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time.


And finger-pointing isn't welcome in the forum either.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dwof PRO says:

I'm guessing that Time Magazine is having them take down the images since that's the source for the original image used in the Joker image.

This article latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-a... with the originator of the Joker image contains this paragraph:

"Flickr had removed the Joker image due to copyright-infringement concerns, Alkhateeb says the company told him in an e-mail. A Flickr spokeswoman declined to comment due to a company policy that bars discussing inquiries about individual users."

Not sure about cancelling of accounts, but copyright infringement isn't allowed in the TOS.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

The OPs question is a very reasonable one.

Any lawyer will tell you, and most comic artists rely on, the well know principle that parody is considered a transformative work and protected from copyright infringement.

Yet some forms of parody seem perfectly fine, while others are targeted for removal.

It is useful for the community to understand why such actions are taken, in order to assure one doesn't get targeted by the dreaded "Delete Account" button.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
Ѕhims edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

ENIGMA ARCANA PRO says:

NOW, NOW....no finger pointing, shims

*wags finger
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

JimNtexas PRO says:

I'm not pointing a finger at any user, just asking a simple question and providing examples.

I'm fine with all the pictures to whom I linked. I don't like them, but I used to think this was a free a country where we were allowed to parody our political leaders.

If the reports on slashdot and elsewhere of accounts be deleted for posting this image are incorrect, than that's a good thing. That's what I'm trying to get flickr to clarify.

That flickr is removing the Alkhateeb 'Joker' image is not in dispute, is it?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

IrenicRhonda says:

Any image that violates copyright would be removed. What the picture is of, is irrelevant
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Yet we continue to fail to address the question of "Copyright" and the proper and equitable application of it's protection.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

- a quick search reveals plenty of Joker/Obama images on Flickr, some of which are undoubtedly violating copyright.

I'm not sure what you need help with but I suspect you won't get the answers you want in this forum.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

GustavoG PRO says:

I just searched for hate images of William Howard Taft and couldn't find any. This is blatant censorship!
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

hahaah@ GustavoG touche !
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

"I understand Flickr is canceling accounts of users who post the famous 'Joker' picture of President Obama."

No.

Flickr must be compliant with all local laws within the 21 countries where we are. The Yahoo! Terms of Service in all of those regions outlines what the process is for dealing with infringement of copyright. In this intance, the Yahoo! Copyright Team here in the US received a complete Notice of Infringement as outlined by the DMCA (Digitial Millenium Copyright Act). Under the DMCA, an individual may choose to file a counterclaim.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Whether you love or hate the DMCA, that is a whole 'nother conversation (and one that really should include a glass or two of some frosty beverage).

There appears to be a whole lot of makey uppey going in the news and blogosphere about this event. The Flickerverse is a huge, wild and wooly place where our members come from many different walks of life. We very much value freedom of speech and creativity.

I don't know how this crazy game of telephone got started, but we sure have ended up in a unique eddy of thought. I'm not sure how complying with the law has led to the idea that we (the Flickr team) have a particular political agenda.

Please keep in mind our Privacy Policy precludes the team from discussing specifics of the action that we take. As such, many things that you hear or read about are just one (or in this instance many sides) of the story.

I've removed the URLs from the top as we don't like to be finger-pointy in the forum.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

seanreiser says:

Folks-

I don't want to get into the pro / anti Obama thing here this is bigger then that. at the risk of starting a storm here... political parody is considered fair use and is not a copyright violation.

All that said, this is Flickr's playground, we're just allowed to play here and they have the right to pull anything they want and their TOS is broad enough to do just that.

Quite frankly I'm not sure how these images are "hateful", nor am I certain why political satire is "hate", but what do I know, I'm just a dumb programmer.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

​eyebex PRO says:

and they have the right to pull anything they want and their TOS is broad enough to do just that.

that is a very sad truth and one the needs to change

flickr merely provides a medium for interaction

it is impossible for them to patrol everything within the site and they should not even attempt to do so
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Ewan PRO says:

Since you bring up the DMCA, and the necessity of complying with it, why is it that Flickr seems not to properly honour counter-notices by putting the disputed material back where it was?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

I was always a big fan of the popular flickr group "Anti-Bush League," which even today features as its icon a picture of President Bush's face with the reticle of a rifle scope positioned so it targets right between his eyes. That's been up for years.

www.flickr.com/groups/35237092212@N01/

Certainly this comes as close to breaking the laws against threatening the President as does the fair-use of a copyrighted image come close to breaking the DMCA.

usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa040398.htm

Is it that flickr is "compliant with all local laws within the 21 countries where [they] are," or is it that the application of the law depends upon the politics of the images involved?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Uncle Buddha says:

If my understanding of the copyright universe is correct, political parody is protected under fair use. However, copying someone else's parody, as is the case with the joker image, would still be a copyright infringement on the original parody-maker.

Now, if you were to parody the parody...
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

My understanding of this case is that the original artist is winding his way through the counter-claim rules of the DMCA (and to be clear, this is about the original parody, which was a copy of the full Time Magazine cover, text and all. The copies that people made -in violation of the artist's copyright- later, are not what this is about) That then puts the ball back in Time's court, they have something like 14 days to decide whether to take legal action or not. If they punt, then the image is allowed to return. Some sites allow the image to return at the beginning of that 14 days, but I don't know what Flickr/Yahoo's rules are in that regard.

This would work the same way if it were a picture of Dick Cheney wearing a torture suit, or George Bush in a naked flight suit.

The fail comes from the collateral damage of the way Flickr complies with the law. They delete the entire photo PAGE, not just the offending image. All the content on that page, the description and comments, are absolutely not part of the copyright claim in question, and should not be removed.

I would think it would be trivial of Flickr to ammend its procedures to just delete the IMAGE, and leave the photo page up (with a "this image is not available due to copyright concerns") or similar.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
The Searcher edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

The DMCA and the procedure for removing allegedly offending material is horrid, and the law needs to be re-written, as it has too often been used as a tool to suppress free speech, most often on YouTube. Instead of notice & takedown, there should be a notice & notice provision, which would allow those wrongly accused of violating copyright to challenge the claim.

To top it off, I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that the claimant does not have any interest in the underlying copyrighted image and is abusing the system & breaking the law by filing a perjurous claim. Second, the image is almost certainly fair use under even the narrowest reading of the term. It's both transformative and provides commentary, while not harming the market for the original and being entirely non-commercial in nature.

In short, in any sane world that image would remain on Flickr. The notice & takedown aspect of the DMCA takes this out of the realm of the sane world. The law needs to be fixed. While it would be nice if Flickr initiated an independent investigation before removing photos, that seems very unlikely. In the meantime, Flickr should create an undelete feature, or just introduce another level of privacy which would be "no one except Flickr staff can see this."

Undelete. Undelete. Undelete. Don't make me hold a sign.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

That "undelete" should include the commentary on the page, as well.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

Yeah, which is why the easiest way to do this in the Flickr realm may be to introduce another privacy level. If they can have friends, family, private & public, why not one more for "Flickr only" and I'll throw in "contact only" while I'm at it.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dr. Keats PRO says:

Restoration of that which has been nuked has been asked for, dozens of times over. Was even officially declared to be on the drawing board at one point. It'd certainly resolve quite a few issues...
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

​eyebex PRO says:

jake said donuts

hehehe
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

jakerome: yeah I suggested a similar locked "private" level some time ago, too. Turning the image to private would break any external links, and Flickr already has a mechanism in place to hide images from the user (free accounts +200 images), so it doesn't seem like much of a technological hurdle.

But that means essentially doubling their workload, since if there's an option for appeal, guilty and innocent alike will all jump at it. Which would be a pain, granted.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

​eyebex PRO says:

from a technical perspective, restoration of deleted database content is very easy, built into most database engines and turned on by default. either flickr is lying about their inability to restore deleted content or they have gone out of their way with their delete routines to ensure that the data truly is not recoverable.

both scenarios demonstrate an attitude that i disagree with
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Definitely DONT make jakerome hold a sign. We all know where that will lead :-)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome PRO says:

Yeah, Flickr has the ability right now to hide photos subject to a DMCA notice. Just do the following:

1) Set the photo to private
2) Make the photo invisible in the photostream (as Searcher says)
3) Boot it from all groups & sets
4) Expire photo-specific guest passes.

Give it 2 weeks, for the counter-notice, and if Flickr doesn't hear anything delete it. If there is a counter-notice then it's easy to restore the photo & comments since it's just a matter of making it visible again.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

No longer the boy says:

In this intance, the Yahoo! Copyright Team here in the US received a complete Notice of Infringement as outlined by the DMCA (Digitial Millenium Copyright Act). Under the DMCA, an individual may choose to file a counterclaim.

May we see a scan/may the uploader see it?

Nothing farther from me than to impute dishonesty, but 'we've got a notice' is basically opening up the gates to Flickr deleting at will.

Which, of course, it can. Whenever and however it wants. Except Flickr lives off the people who use it and their goodwill. Do realise: your major stakeholders are the people who use your services, not merely those who put money into it. If that hasn't dawned on you yet, you might need to take remedial classes in figuring out the economics of web2.0.

And right now, you're peeking off an increasing number of your stakeholders.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
No longer the boy edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmcatakedown.htm

There appears to be sound care in the procedures for removing copyrighted material..

excerpts ...
...# provide sufficient information so that the service provider can contact the copyright owner (address, phone number, and e-mail address),
...# include a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief the poster is using the material without authorization from the owner or the law, and
...# sign the notice with a statement that the notice is accurate under penalty of perjury.

excerpt....
Wrongful Notice : If someone sends a notice to the provider, knowing that the notice is a material misrepresentation, resulting in the wrongful removed of content (or if the poster sends a wrongful counter notice), the injured party has certain rights (recovery from the ISP is not one of them). [Diebold] The wrongful actor may be liable to the injured party (including the provider) for resulting damage including costs and attorney’s fees.

It seems to me that someone is not going to frivolously make claims since they have to provide their personal information and can be liable if their proved to be misrepresenting themselves.

Flickr is obligated to follow the procedures as outlined in DMCA
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

I think there are somewhere around 30 million account holders on flickr. That maybe a hundred, or even 200 of those users are peeved about flickr's perceived unevenhandedness regarding political parody is hardly a drop in a the bucket.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn PRO says:

jakerome The DMCA and the procedure for removing allegedly offending material is horrid, and the law needs to be re-written

No it is not, it is not broke, and it doesn't need fixing. If someone printed out your last photo, ejaculated over it and reposted a photograph of the result on "Rate my splooge" you'd want it removed, as soon as possible. The DMCA allows you to do that. How did the Orkut parents stop the abuse of their kids photos - the DMCA.

It is used far more by people like you and I wanting a stop a violation of our web2 content then by the big bad media, and the like.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

One of the intriguing things about this debate is that so many users seem to think it's not possible that flickr's actions in this affair and the various other Obama-related events could possibly be politically motivated.

I think a reasonable person could infer that flickr's actions are politically motivated.

After all,
www.google.ca/#q=site:blog.flickr.net+obama&hl=en&amp...

shows some 600 results for Obama on the Flickr blog, every single one of them positive towards Obama if not downright fawning, and

www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site:blog.flickr...

has exactly *zero* references to GW Bush, Obama's predecessor.

It is thus not unreasonable to assume politically motivated actions by flickr and the people doing the censoring. Also, the "Inauguration 2009" group was publicized relentlessly, along with the flickr Inauguration Party in DC. Curiously, no such events or publicity occurred in January, 2005.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

- speaking personally I don't think the "re-election" of George W. Bush was a cause for celebration. I think a lot of people shared that opinion, nothing curious about that.

I'm still not sure what anyone actually needs any help with here.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn PRO says:

andertho

That will probably because they had better things to do in 2005, 10 months after startup, like develop the site. than focus on a second rate personality.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Did you take a poll? Do you represent the other 29,999,800? When were you voted as their voice?

You're little "only 200" care diatribe is pointless and counterproductive.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Did you? Have you been elected to represent the whole site?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
RubyMae edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

andertho PRO says:

speaking personally I don't think the "re-election" of George W. Bush was a cause for celebration.

You seem to be missing the point, and in fact adding fuel to the fire.

The issue is not whether you or me or anyone else likes either of our past two Presidents. The issue is whether flickr is inappropriately and inconsistently enforcing laws and policies based on political beliefs.

The facts suggest that is a strong possibility.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

No. I'm not the one sitting here telling people there opinions are a minority either.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

- that's a good point, I'd kind of forgotten about that!

- that's my personal opinion and not necessarily a reflection on any one website's policy. I think Walwyn's point about Flickr being otherwise engaged is a fair one though.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

walwyn's point ignores the reality of the flickr blog.

______________________

it will be interesting to see if the "Anti-Bush League" icon with the crosshairs of a rifle superimposed over President Bush's face remains up very long, given this:

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000...
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

Of course, calling that a "threat" is a bit of stretch, but not nearly as big a stretch as claiming the Jokerbama image is not fair use.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

My claim that the vocal minority are just a drop in the bucket (which is not a scientific poll result, but a rhetorical device) was in response to 's claim that an increasing amount of stakeholders have been "peeked" off.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that, but rather that the usual suspects are (and continue to be) disgruntled with flickr policy.

Which is ultimately to say that flickr is unlikely to make such a large global policy change based on the out cry of a few.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn PRO says:

Of course, calling that a "threat" is a bit of stretch

That I can agree with. It would be an absolute miracle of biblical proportions if a bullet there did him any harm whatsoever.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

That's a standard practice of those that wish to silence ideas they don't like. Marginalize those that take the time to voice an opinion by looking around the room and saying "but you are the only ones". Nice try.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

so if somebody were to start up a group called the "anti-obama league" with a similarly-themed icon, that would be outrageous, hateful, and illegal and should immediately be deleted.

right?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

- hey try it dude, see what happens. No substitute for experience :-)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

​eyebex PRO says:

it's best not to have ANY ideas
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

I'm glad you recognize that is precisely what you are doing.

You haven't actually contributed substantially to any of these threads other than to chide, demean, belittle and attack any one whose views oppose yours.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn PRO says:

Hang, shoot, stab the bloody lot, for all I care. Bunch of wasters all of them.

On the other hand you've got such a crazed screwed up nation of bitter and twisted, right wing losers and nutbags someone might well take it up.

Say hello to Bill Riley.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

teh resa PRO says:

haven't read all this but I just wanted to add that if Bush satire is/was allowed then Obama satire should also be allowed.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

- as far as I'm aware it is.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

No I chide, demean and belittle those whose only contribution is to chide, demean and belittle. Again, nice try.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

I seem to recall during Bush's term, anyone that spoke out against anything he did was called 'anti-American, now the same group are crying foul every chance they get. Sound like sour grapes to me.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

"One of the intriguing things about this debate is that so many users seem to think it's not possible that flickr's actions in this affair and the various other Obama-related events could possibly be politically motivated."

Are you kidding? Do you know where Flickr is headquartered? Do you know the kind of ideology a group of people would be likely to have, to create a communal photo sharing site? I think it's laughable and naive to assume Flickr has no bias.

"The issue is whether flickr is inappropriately and inconsistently enforcing laws and policies based on political beliefs.

I think it's even more laughable to think that a Flickr bias is "inappropriate". Where do you think you are? Flickr can do whatever it wants, it's their site. If it tends to be left-leaning, perhaps that's a function and personality that they would prefer to encourage. Some people always wince whenever one of these copyright deletions occurs and "gets out" into the interweb media. Oh noes, Flickr is going to be seen as censoring and biased!

I suspect they're fine with that. Like putting their enemies heads on pikes back in older, simpler times, an occasional public awareness campaign that hey, maybe some of you folk of certain political leanings and temperament, will be better off going elsewhere for your photo sharing needs.

Of course like you, I have no proof to support my fiction. Unlike you, I will refrain from labeling it as "fact". And of course, marginalizing one group of people, even on a global site that has users of dozens of faiths and hundreds of political leanings, wouldn't be terribly good for business. But don't let logic get in the way of a good paranoid fear.

In other words, in the big picture, the rest of the world couldn't care less. Except they look at some of us here in the states, still bickering almost a year after the last election, and think, "Wow, they sure are whiners when they lose."
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

At least someone whose willing to accept and call it what it is. An evident case of an emerging pattern of bias and politcal/social agenda
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

I seem to recall during Bush's term, anyone that spoke out against anything he did was called 'anti-American, now the same group are crying foul every chance they get. Sound like sour grapes to me.

Incorrect.

We are specifically discussing flickr's inequitable enforcement of the law and their own policies, possibly for political reasons.

Such behavior lessens the community and creates an intolerant atmosphere where diversity of thought is stifled.

This transcends one's particular political affiliation, and should be troubling to everyone, regardless of who they have voted for in the past.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
andertho edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

The Searcher said "Wow, they sure are whiners when they lose."

Glad someone else noticed it besides me :-)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

GustavoG PRO says:

andertho>The issue is whether flickr is inappropriately and inconsistently enforcing laws and policies based on political beliefs.

I frankly don't follow your logic here.

Assume for a second that flickr staff are no less than marginally pleased with the fact that Obama was elected, and on the other hand they were slightly less than happy about Bush's terms. Their blog posts then positively showcase their thoughts about Obama, and conversely utterly ignore Bush, in the interest of following the guidelines on not venting frustrations, rant, and in general being polite.

How, exactly, does that support the hypothesis of inconsistent enforcement? I would agree with your suggestion if they had actually bashed Bush in the flickr blog, but how can silence be construed as against the laws and policies?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

This has nothing to do with Obama winning an election. Hell I voted for the man.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

andertho Where is your proof they are enforceing the law inequitably? Do you know of a DMCA copyright notice they received that they did not enforce?!?

edit to correct icon
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

It is fascinating to see though that there is a consensus regarding "It's OK to censor and create pseudo-death threat icons against people with whom I politically disagree."

There's a name for that sort of thing: intolerance.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn PRO says:

if they had actually bashed Bush in the flickr blog,

I was heart broken that Stewart didn't hold up a placard say sorry to the world as so many other Americans did.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

@terrieK:

Earlier in this thread, flickr stated: "Flickr must be compliant with all local laws within the 21 countries where we are."

In response, I cited an example where a long-running image is a violation of the United States Code.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

Despite what y'all may think, we really hate closing topics.

The tone of this topic is beginning to feel like the Friday Night Lights with DMU vs. the Cabal. Everyone needs to take it down a notch or this topic will be closed.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Once we hang, shoot, and stab the bloody lot I am sure the world will understand how sorry we were for re-electing Bush.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

OK Heather, I'm out.

I agree, there is no need for this to get personal.

Please note the icon with President Bush in the cross-hairs of a rifle though.

Thank you.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn PRO says:

I cited an example where a long-running image is a violation of the United States Code.

Then contact the FBI.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Яick Harris PRO says:

This thread has turned into a town hall on health care.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

"OK to censor and create pseudo-death threat icons against people with whom I politically disagree."

You mean like packing guns to a healthcare debate to intimidate others from sharing their dissenting opinion?

Everyone's got blind spots.

In fact this whole thing is so pointless really, once we get into entrenched ideologies. Barring evidence, our assumptions tend to follow our personal leanings. I suspect the truth is closer when it doesn't fit neatly into anyone's particular world view (this sounds familiar, I may be plagiarizing from myself)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

teh resa PRO says:

I am not DMU, I am everywhere..
People used to associate me with DM and I was only active in the group for 6 months. I don't wish to get labelled with the DMU or DM groups as I've been active more in my own groups and groups with a new topographia slant. In fact, I contribute very little (and no pictures) to DMU relative to Utata over the years. Its just that if you hang out in the DMU (or DM) groups at all you get associated with that even if you've been more active in quieter groups.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

teh resa PRO says:

I'm sure I've contributed more to the help forum and flickr central than to dmu discussions.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

This thread has turned into a town hall on health care.

Oh, oh, oh (waves hand in the air) ..... Can I be Barney Frank?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Depends. Who do you wish to call a "table" not worth arguing with :-)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul PRO says:

Oh I just watched the video of Congressman Frank in action, he seems like a bit of character :-)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
elementalPaul edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

Яick Harris PRO says:

the thread recognizes the United States House Representative for Massachusetts' 4th congressional district
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Anthony Posey SIR:Poseyal Kinght of Desposyni PRO says:

@ HEATHER: sure you may be Barney frank. . but you seems in your icon to be prettier ,, but hey thats your call. as to copyright, i have my coporate attorney looking for the copyright , as soon as he finds it , if it exist , i'll post it,. however. it appears at first search one does not exist for this image, , it also seems unclear as to who or whom may really have created it or who may own it,, it probably is already be a public image / public domain..
@ FRANK was brilliant Heather, and I for on do not agree with the image but, as the HEALTH CARE I HAVE emaile me congressman etc and support a public option

PS i just post a photo of one of these that had been placed on St Charles, and just became aware of this $h!t storm... over a parody, free speech image.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Wait!? You have a picture of this poster? Sounds dicey to me ...
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

dsphoto- says:

The artist is getting a lot of publicity over the whole thing. I'd say he knocked the ball out of the park
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Anthony Posey SIR:Poseyal Kinght of Desposyni PRO says:

yes dsp . they turned a poorly though tout parody into a hit,
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Flickr's getting a lot of publicity too it would seem
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Anthony Posey SIR:Poseyal Kinght of Desposyni PRO says:

in case anyone needs to know what image every one is talking about
[edited out by staff]
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
Zack Sheppard (staff) edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

iansand PRO says:

The USA sure is a strange place.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

We bizarrely cling to this stupid freedom thing don't we.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

iansand Why, because having conversations with some is like conversing with a dining room table? :-)

edit for spelling
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

We prefer to think of ourselves as Chaise Lounges. Dining Room Table is kind of derogatory.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard PRO says:

Please refrain from including images in your forum posts. We would like the pages to load as fast as possible here and don't allow images in forum posts.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand PRO says:

~Terri K~ Not particularly. It is because the obsession with the exercise of rights seems to trump the social give and take that is the basis of civilisation in most other societies. A conversation like this simply would not happen in more civilised places.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

~Terrie K ~ says:

dang, I feel so uncivilized now. Be back later, there's a chaise lounge calling my name :-)
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Barbarians the lot of us. How much social give and take went into blanketing London with spy cameras and criminalizing anyone who takes a photo of an Officer?

How about them "Report Anyone Doing Something Suspicious" posters. I'd like some of them here in San Francisco.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand PRO says:

My work here is done. The thread is about something else.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

​eyebex PRO says:

there were no complaints about this thread being slow and it loaded fast enough with the photo included, zack

the photo was a relevant contribution/context filler to the discussion here

i think most people will agree that it's desirable to put it back and put up with the miniscule delay it may cause to the dial up paritcipants here...
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Which is the little "get the thread locked technique". Nice try.

So back to the topic at hand, which remains, how is SirPosneyal and others supposed to know whether an image is going to get their account deleted, when Flickr maintains such a purposefully obtuse and vague definition of what is acceptable?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )
Ѕhims edited this topic 84 months ago.

view photos

The Searcher PRO says:

idiot: except this isn't a flickrcentral forum thread. In fact this entire thread is discussing something that isn't even a help issue at all. Or if it is, it was already answered succinctly way up there by staff.

However, the utility you describe for the sake of the discussion, would work just as well with a text link. I'm curious which image people are throwing up, in fact. Since the image in question on Flickr, is not the same as the one popularized in the media with the "socialism" logo.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ѕhims says:

Actually. The fundamental question remains completely unanswered. And it is certainly a "Help" issue. People should be clear about what is really being targeted by the TOS, and how it will be applied, lest they find their account wiped out without warning.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Anthony Posey SIR:Poseyal Kinght of Desposyni PRO says:

@ zack sorry about that
here is a photo of the image
www.flickr.com/photos/60053005@N00/3840428495/
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Adderworks says:

This boils down to Freedom of Speech regardless of the excuses from the Flickr staff. I kind of hope that the artists gets some legal help on that front. Who knows, it might even be worth a few bucks in settlement.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Anthony Posey SIR:Poseyal Kinght of Desposyni PRO says:

@ zack if i post a small image will the still slow things down.. ?
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho PRO says:

Can I be Barney Frank?

If only we had some Lyndon LaRouche supporters here to get crazy, that would be fun.

Unfortunately, instead we simply have a bipartisan bunch of calm individuals wondering why flickr censors some political speech but not others.
Posted 84 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

← prev 1 2 3
(1 to 100 of 240 replies in [Closed] Are Hateful Pictures of U.S. Presidents Allowed under the TOS or not?)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads