Help / The Help Forum

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Introducing the Flickr Camera Roll (Beta)
Latest: 42 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Introducing the new Flickr Uploadr for Mac (Beta)
Latest: 4 hours ago
[Official Thread] Personalized photo recommendations on Android (Koala Beta)
Latest: 6 days ago

 

Current Discussion

transfer photos from old flickr ID to new flickr ID
Latest: 7 minutes ago
Why Was I Banned From A Flickr Group?
Latest: 43 minutes ago
Page size
Latest: 67 minutes ago
Why are numbers in my title & description turned into links to explore?
Latest: 2 hours ago
Pro account billing
Latest: 3 hours ago
Flickr is Being Flaky
Latest: 3 hours ago
Cannot Access Previous Account
Latest: 3 hours ago
Pictures in my photostream...
Latest: 4 hours ago
invite codes
Latest: 4 hours ago
Find images which are *not* already in a group?
Latest: 5 hours ago
help
Latest: 5 hours ago
Error uploading on iPhone, locked account error message
Latest: 7 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Closed, Official Topic] Updated Community Guidelines

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

We have made some changes to the Community Guidelines. The main change is to allow for businesses, non-profits, and other organizations to have an account on Flickr, plus there’s also been some general rejiggering and tightening up of the language overall. This doesn't change that commercial behavior is not allowed but allows for organizations to have an account on Flickr without breaking the rules.

You can read more about the Community Guidelines changes and why we made them in the blog post.

We've also added an extra line in the "What are content filters?" FAQ to help give a little more clarity to what might be moderate and restricted, "A good rule of thumb is, bare breasts and bottoms are "moderate." Full frontal nudity is "restricted."

If you have any feedback please let us know here.
Posted at 10:18AM, 1 February 2011 PST ( permalink )
Zack Sheppard (staff) edited this topic 50 months ago.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5
(1 to 100 of 501 replies in [Closed, Official Topic] Updated Community Guidelines)
view photos

kmacgray says:

These URLs in the blog post are busted:

blog.flickr.net/bestpractices
blog.flickr.net/guidelines

"Bzzt! There's nothing to see at that web address."
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

CateyCate says:

Thanks! They've been fixed.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

Are you still able to delete someone's account with no recourse?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Excellent job on the Best Practices page!
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Ewan says:

How does the support for organisations interact with the "Don’t upload anything that isn't yours" rule? Previously it's been held that organisational accounts would, in principle, need to be run by a single individual, who was also the single photographer. Can someone looking after a company account upload photos that they didn't take themselves, but that the company does have a licence to publish?

On a related note, can the login details for an organisational account be shared among multiple people?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

"Flickr expressly reserves the right to immediately modify, delete content from, suspend or terminate your account and refuse current or future use of any Yahoo! service, including Flickr pro, if Flickr, in its sole discretion believes you have: (i) violated or tried to violate the rights of others; or (ii) acted inconsistently with the spirit or letter of the TOS, the Community Guidelines or these Additional Terms. In such event, your Flickr pro account may be suspended or cancelled immediately in our discretion, all the information and content contained within it deleted permanently and you will not be entitled to any refund of any of the amounts you've paid for such account. Flickr accepts no liability for information or content that is deleted."

www.flickr.com/atos/pro/
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

That''s what I thought. No change. Flickr is the only paid service which can take unilateral action against a paying customer with no recourse, feedback or even a proper explanation of why such a terrible event takes place. Seems unfair to me.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

EJP Photo says:

"A good rule of thumb is, bare breasts and bottoms are "moderate." Full frontal nudity is "restricted."

Why is this buried in the FAQ instead of being put right in the community guidelines? It's a much more clear and concise statement of the rules than nonsense about mom and uncle bob and "Please won't somebody think of the children!"

Not everyone has a mom or uncle bob that's nearly as uptight about nipples as Yahoo's corporate management, nor does everyone think that children need to be shielded from full frontal nudity.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Seems unfair to me.

But yet you agreed to these terms when you created your account?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

The new CG does link twice directly to the FAQ in specifying that safety & content filters need to be used. (First as part of "All content on Flickr, public and private, has to be appropriately moderated as “safe,” “moderate,” or “restricted” using our safety and content filters.") Might that not be enough? Seems like an improvement to me, though I don't have a copy of what it used to say right now.

Love the inclusion of organizations and the new best practices for them!
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

I had the same question as The Ewan about whether an individual must hold an account or can it now be a group of people posting content (that they may or may not have created...)
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

CateyCate says:

The Ewan -
"How does the support for organisations interact with the "Don’t upload anything that isn't yours" rule?"

Organizations need to upload original content, so it can't be content that your organization has purchased from Getty, for example or just has the rights to - it should be something that comes from the organization.

Login details shouldn't be shared, but for more info check out this FAQ:
www.flickr.com/help/signin/#11542835
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Robin Black Photography says:

kmacgray-- But the really draconian actions weren't part of Flickr's practices until fairly recently (I have several friends who were booted and deleted with no warning). If you're a photographer PAYING for a pro account, you ought to be able to put a link in for your workshops or photo site (and not just in your profile). Why on earth this is forbidden just boggles the mind.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

@kmamcgray Undoubtedly but who reads pages and pages and pages of documentation in the excitement of a new account? Also, I think these T&C's were introduced when Yahoo! bought the original "old skool" Flickr.

Still, we're not going to change anything here. Yahoo does need to realise that they need to improve that whole account deletion process.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

you ought to be able to put a link in for your workshops or photo site

From: www.flickr.com/help/website/#3225708

"Members are allowed to link to an external site where they show their photography portfolio and talk about their services."
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Robin Black Photography wrote

If you're a photographer PAYING for a pro account, you ought to be able to put a link in for your workshops or photo site (and not just in your profile). Why on earth this is forbidden just boggles the mind.


First of all, this is not a professional site. That would be like SmugMug, where for a "Pro" account it's $150/yr (vs. Flickr's $24.95/yr.)

Secondly, you can post links to a non-commercial site, like your blog or photo galleries (as long as there is no function to buy anything) which is a new(ish) change.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

The T&C's are one thing. It's the complete lack of due process.

Flickr says "You've been naughty but we won't say how and, by the way, BOOM! All your images have been blown up"....
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Robin Black Photography says:

@kmacgray But you are NOT allowed to link to commercial sites in individual photo postings--you can only do that on your profile. I thought I was pretty clear in distinguishing that.

@FlyButtafly Then why call it a "pro" account? You pay for the expanded capabilities, you ought to be able to link to your workshops and photo site in individual picture posts (and not just your profile). As you point out, this is "newish," and the way they've been cracking down on it has been beyond extreme.

@parkylondon That's it EXACTLY.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Smith says:

Robin Black Photography said: But the really draconian actions weren't part of Flickr's practices until fairly recently

Deletions without specific warnings have happened for the whole of the six years I've been here.

'Pro' just means enhanced.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

I haven't read anything about the new guidelines yet, haven't even read them, but whatever changes were made I'm absolutely positive that it's all too little and all too late.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Robin Black Photography says:

@Michael Smith Then why have large numbers of landscape photographers who linked to their workshop and photo sites in individual photo postings only suddenly been plotzed? The crackdown on that specific practice has been recent (and extreme), just within the last couple of months.

And "pro" means "pro," no matter how you choose interpret that. It's a service you've paid a premium for, so having your account zapped without warning seems a bit much. None of us are talking about obnoxious commercial graphic ads or high-pressure sales. These are folks who just put a simple hyperlink to their workshop. My objection (as well as a few others on this thread) is that the administrative reaction by Flickr is grossly out of proportion with the purported crime.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

Re. the single-person login - that should probably be mentioned in the Best Practices for Organizations, too.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

But the really draconian actions weren't part of Flickr's practices until fairly recently (I have several friends who were booted and deleted with no warning). If you're a photographer PAYING for a pro account, you ought to be able to put a link in for your workshops or photo site (and not just in your profile). Why on earth this is forbidden just boggles the mind.

This was actually changed fairly recently.

I think these T&C's were introduced when Yahoo! bought the original "old skool" Flickr.

The Community Guidelines weren't created because Yahoo! bought Flickr. If you'd like to read a little more of the story of why and how they were created, check out this article by George.

Flickr says "You've been naughty but we won't say how and, by the way, BOOM! All your images have been blown up"....

We do give a warning in most cases, and we give a reason when someone asks. There are some cases we feel deleting without a warning is an appropriate action, i.e. child pornography, hacking, and spam as only a couple examples. When someone asks why they were deleted we try to give them an understanding of what rules they broke to help them not break them again.

Nothing about this has changed though. I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the changes that we've made today.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Then why call it a "pro" account? You pay for the expanded capabilities, you ought to be able to link to your workshops and photo site in individual picture posts (and not just your profile).

Pro doesn't give you any additional rights, just access to the enhancements you don't have with a free account.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

The FAQs list the extra services that premium is for. Those extra services do not include exemption from any part of the Community Guidelines, and they never have. Personally, I think the problem is that people read the word "pro" instead of what they've actually paid for; maybe they should read the contract? For me, as a businessperson, that's always part of my job.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Smith says:

Robin Black Photography said: Then why have large numbers of landscape photographers who linked to their workshop and photo sites in individual photo postings only suddenly been plotzed?

Flickr is to a great extent monitored by its members. Spammy or commercial accounts sometimes go a long time before they get reported and nuked simply because it can take a long time for someone to notice an offending account.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eric Hunt. says:

Zach - then how do you explain the recently deleted people who have asked for specific reasons and were told that a reason would not be given? If you keep an eye on the external blogs discussing flickr you'd be aware of these recent deletions for no-reason.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

If you keep an eye on the external blogs discussing flickr, you'd be aware of the recent deletions where the person deleted is claiming it was for no reason.

There's no truth requirement in blogging.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

The changes look good to me (not that anyone cares.)

But I still have the same question as The Ewan. CateyCate partially answered:

"Organizations need to upload original content, so it can't be content that your organization has purchased from Getty, for example or just has the rights to - it should be something that comes from the organization."

To clarify: As long as *someone* in the organization took the picture, it can be uploaded by someone else to the organization's account?

(The reason I'm asking is because if this is true, it opens many more doors. Example. My friend "Frank" and I start an "organization" so now I can upload both my images and Frank's images to the same photostream, because the photostream belongs to the "organization." Am I understanding this correctly?)
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jef Poskanzer says:

The changes are not significant. I'm sure this fact will not prevent a few megabytes of argument from appearing in this topic.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eric Hunt. says:

“Hi there,

Like I said before, we saw behavior in your account that
went against our guidelines and required us to take action -
which was to delete your account. Our guidelines apply to
any and all content you post on Flickr – photos you upload,
comments you make, group discussions you participate in,
etc.

I am afraid I cannot give you any more specific information
than this.

Thank you for your understanding,
Cathryn”

Can't get any clearer than that.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Removing the words "for personal use only" and "commercial purposes" is pretty significant.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

And the person in question really has no idea in what way they could have violated the CG? Unlikely. More likely, they just don't like that they got caught.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

-Scipio- says:

It's unfortunate that there is still no due process at Flickr. At the very least, they should implement a system whereby a user's account is made private for a limited time until the user takes corrective action. It seems to me that Flickr is a bit too trigger-happy when it comes to deleting accounts.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

That's been suggested before (there are probably multiple threads in Flickr Ideas asking for such a process).
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eric Hunt. says:

Ruby - I am not trying to get an answer for this particular example, I am only using it to counteract Zach's assertion that they do tell deleted members why they were deleted.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

█ fo112 █ says:

Interesting! Seen on flikr blog ;)
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wade Courtney says:

So...

Can I have the URL to my website in the watermark on my photos?

I wrote support to ask, but I never received a reply.

Thanks

Wade
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Perhaps this answers your question?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Robin Black Photography wrote

As you point out, this is "newish," and the way they've been cracking down on it has been beyond extreme.


Actually, what I was pointing out that was "newish" was the *allowance* of being able to post links to galleries and blogs as long as there is no "cart" function.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

We do give a warning in most cases

Zack, I've never seen a single warning on a single case of account deletion. Not one.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

When someone asks why they were deleted we try to give them an understanding of what rules they broke to help them not break them again.

In every case of explanation that I have seen the explanation has been an excerpt of the Community Guidelines without the context in which that excerpt applies. EG: When a user is deleted and asks why they are not told what they did, they are told what Guidelines they violated, which is not the same thing.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

double post, sorry.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

No warning, no explanation, no process, no appeal, no apology, no recovery - just BOOM...

I'm sure we could come up with a very long list of people who have had this happen to them.

The usual next step with Flickr is to close down comments on a thread like this.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

I'm curious why you've maintained your account if you're so unhappy with flickr's TOS?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

parkylondon wrote

The usual next step with Flickr is to close down comments on a thread like this.


Only when it strays waaaayyyy off topic like it's going.

If you want to discuss the issue of deletions without warning, there are appropriate topics in the Flickr Ideas group.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Smith says:

Comment threads don't get closed down without good reason. For example, the highly controversial German Safesearch thread went on for ages (43 pages) and only stopped because people no longer posted to it:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/43626/
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eric Hunt. says:

I don't think any of the people working for Flickr then are working for them now, at least in customer support. Apple to oranges comparison.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

Care to comment on the Mirco Wilhelm account deletion?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Zack Sheppard says:

And the person in question really has no idea in what way they could have violated the CG? Unlikely.

That is exactly why we reply with the guidelines. I think you will find that most companies reply pointing people to the rules instead of saying, "You are a spammer" or "You uploaded child porn." Replying with statements like that never work because no one writes back saying, "Yup I did that." And of course accusations like that might have legal implications. From many years of experience and talking to people in other companies I think you will find that most companies reply with the rules. Most people know what they did and in reading the rules they gain an understanding of what happened. (Even if they don't admit it publicly.)
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

I've stayed with Flickr because I LIKE it. I don't like account deletions the way they are done at the moment. See above.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Then, I suggest you head over to Flickr Ideas, and add your voice there to any number of the suggestions for changing flickr's policies.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

I've known someone who got deleted who had the "don't rant or bore other members" "Guideline" quoted to him. For those of us who participate heavily in groups ranting and boring other members is our bread and butter, so some specificity is required. IOW, yes, the person in question could very well have no idea in what way they violated the "guidelines."

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

parkylondon wrote

Care to comment on the Mirco Wilhelm account deletion?


Staff don't address specific deletions in the Forum, and especially not with third parties, for privacy reasons.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Furthermore - how is that related to the revision of the community guidelines, which is what staff is asking for feedback on.

That case (Micro Wilhelm) doesn't really have anything to do with the CG, as it appears (if second hand accounts are to be believed) that the deletion was a mistake.

Again, if you're asking flickr to revise account deletion policies, or to implement some sort of account holding pen, then Flickr Ideas would be the place to do that. Neither is really related to the issue at hand.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

Furthermore - how is that related to the revision of the community guidelines, which is what staff is asking for feedback on.

Are you trying to say that account deletions, generally, are not intertwined with the Community Guidelines of any vintage? You shouldn't be surprised that this kind of thing comes up when discussion of the Guidelines is raised in the Help Forum. It's a natural starting point for discussion of account deletions, among other things.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

I'm saying that account deletions will occur under any version of the CG, as deletions are warned of under TOS. If what people want is flickr to stop deleting account altogether, or to implement a holding system, then that's best raised in Flickr Ideas.

If you have feedback for this particular iteration of the CG then it goes here.

The Micro Wilhelm case (raised by Parkylondon) isn't related to the CG.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

While you are looking at the rules, could someone say, definitively, what qualifies as "Creepy" and what does not. Does Flickr hate The Addams Family?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

If you have feedback for this particular iteration of the CG then it goes here.

Thanks, teach, but I think I can manage.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

Also, if Flickr is going to continue to actively use account deletion as a tool, could it develop an un-delete feature so mistakes like this don't wipe out a users whole photostream?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Granz Photography says:

Flickr can be pretty heavy handed at times, and perhaps should resist sudden account deletions in favor of putting the offender's account into a private mode for a week's period to at least let the client download the items before the account is deleted.

It seems that Flickr does not want it's members to be "pro" in the real sense of the word (thus curtailing commercial links on photos). Maybe making a commercial account package at a higher dollar value would prove to be a direction for the site to move into…

All in all, the rules here are good, though some seem arbitrary and not well thought out.

Flickr's mortal weakness and humanity are showing….
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Matt Granz Photography wrote

It seems that Flickr does not want it's members to be "pro" in the real sense of the word (thus curtailing commercial links on photos).


This has always been the case.

Matt Granz Photography wrote
Maybe making a commercial account package at a higher dollar value would prove to be a direction for the site to move into…


Again, Flickr Ideas is the place for site feature requests. If you do a search there, you will find that very topic in (I'm sure) several threads.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andyscamera says:

"Pro" isn't short for professional. It's a "pro" account as opposed to a "lite" account.

People who use "lite" versions of software don't glow anymore than "pro" users need to be professionals.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SF Lіghts says:

I really wish the "Don't be that guy" phrase would go away. It made sense when it was made and it was a great idea. Now not so much.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

I always thought the lite versions were lower calorie.

:P
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Why not (why isn't "don't be that guy" a good idea any more)? What phraseology would you like to see flickr use?

I agree it's murky but if flickr where to explicitly state what constitutes creepy behavior (with a laundry list for instance) people would find all sorts of ways to still be creepy (be that guy) without actually doing anything on the list.

I suppose they could improve it by making it gender neutral.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SF Lіghts says:

Why not (why isn't "don't be that guy" a good idea any more)? What phraseology would you like to see flickr use?

It's not my job to say what Flickr should change it to, it's theirs. It obviously no longer works because Flickr can find any way that they want to get around it. The original intent was to create a safety net for Flickr and let people know how they SHOULD behave, but instead Flickr used it as their own loophole to justify doing anything.

I agree it's murky but if flickr where to explicitly state what constitutes creepy behavior (with a laundry list for instance) people would find all sorts of ways to still be creepy (be that guy) without actually doing anything on the list.

People will ALWAYS find a way around the rules. I don't really believe that using that as an excuse really helps the situation. As the Vulcans like to say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Rewording that phrase would save a lot of people who shouldn't be deleted that are.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Granz Photography says:

Thanks for responding to my secondary thought FlyButtafly, but I have to wonder why the Flickr moderators are not answering our repeated inquiries here for a less harsh treatment for those who have been offenders?

I thought my first idea was worthy of a response, much more-so than my second idea, or thought.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

There are millions of users on Flickr and thousands of definitions of what "creepy" or "that guy" might mean, but only one counts, and that's the definition Flickr uses just before they delete your account. So, yes, Flickr needs to be absolutely, bright line, explicit about what they mean when they say "don't be that guy," it's not fair of them to expect that their multitude of users with their varying experiences and expectations should know what some doughnut eating long hair siting in an office in San Francisco thinks it means.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SF Lіghts says:

Matt, Flickr only will respond to some replies, but they do (I think) read them all.

And by the way, why are you blocking me?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Granz Photography says:

By the way, I do like the way the overall content at this site is filtered… I left another sharing site because their filters would not work, and material I would not want my kids to see would suddenly pop up on the screen because the moderating wasn't working the way it should.

kudos!
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Matt Granz Photography wrote

but I have to wonder why the Flickr moderators are not answering our repeated inquiries here for a less harsh treatment for those who have been offenders?


Because it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

:/

eta: And there are plenty of other threads in this forum dealing with that topic if you search.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

elementalPaul says:

For what it's worth I think of pro as meaning in favour of (as an antonym to the preposition anti). One pays for a pro membership therefore one is showing their support for Flickr.

As to the new Community Guidelines (and the purpose of this thread for those members that appear to be straying a little off topic) I like the part about if you don't like it then Flickr may not be the site for you (something I'm sure I've said on more than one occasion in this forum and others) and the Best Practices section is helpful at providing some guidelines.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )
elementalPaul edited this topic 50 months ago.

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

I like the part about if you don't like it then Flickr may not be the site for you

Except some of us have been here longer than the Guidelines have.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

EJP Photo says:

Having the extra line is better than what was there before, but the fact remains that it's buried in the FAQ, while the community guidelines still has a lot of useless nonsense that doesn't make the rules clear at all.

If this is indeed the rule, then get rid of mom and uncle bob and children and just say in the guidelines "boobs and butts should be marked moderate, penises and labia should be marked restricted".

I know Flickr thinks it's being cute or something with "Uncle Bob". But rules aren't supposed to be cute, they're supposed to be clear.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

I know Flickr thinks it's being cute or something with "Uncle Bob". But rules aren't supposed to be cute, they're supposed to be clear.

This bears repeating. Being cute is not the same thing as being informative.

Besides, as an Uncle myself, there are some things my nieces and nephews would show me that would definitely need to be marked restricted on Flickr. Trust me on this.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Matt Granz Photography says:

I really don't like to search threads… sorry!
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

Perhaps Flickr should create a deletion process. When an Staffer hits "delete" on an account, the account and all it's content are turned invisible (should be an easy tag to attach to an account, and then content from that account or not shown). To restore an account, remove the tag. If an account has been invisible longer than a month or two, THEN actually delete it. Then Flickr's complete and total inability to restore accounts wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Except some of us have been here longer than the Guidelines have

Therefore, Flickr should never change their guidelines without first consulting the long-time users?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

Therefore, Flickr should never change their guidelines without first consulting the long-time users?

So the actual Flickr community should have no say in how Flickr's community is run?

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

Pretty sure you'll find an Ideas topic for exactly that.

(Personally, I think that it's also somewhat related to *this* topic - it's feedback on what's *not* been changed in the CG.)

(Though on second thought, including the full mechanism of a complex deletion process in the CG would likely not ever happen either.)
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

We are being consulted for feedback now, and always in Ideas. But we're not shareholders, and this isn't a state.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

So the actual Flickr community should have no say in how Flickr's community is run?

Flickr is not a democracy, it's a business. The same argument was made during the new photo page design brouhaha, and it's as invalid now as it was then.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

We are being consulted for feedback now, and always in Ideas. But we're not shareholders, and this isn't a state.

We're not shareholders but we are stakeholders and without us Flickr is nothing but a bunch of fancy code.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

Also, I think when Flickr deletes an account at a very minimum, they should do the following:
1) Email the user letting them know.
2) In the e-mail cite specifically what rule/guideline was broken.
3) Cite explicitly what content was violating the rule.
4) Explain why the violation was so aggregious that deletion, instead of a warning, was needed.

That way situations like this, where someone's account was deleted and they were just told (a couple weeks later) that "your account was deleted for violating some rule in some forum," can be avoided.

Requests for better feed back on deletions has been in the idea's forum for almost three years without any improvement on Flickr's part.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

The same argument was made during the new photo page design brouhaha, and it's as invalid now as it was then.

Ditto with the "love it or leave it" argument you're defending.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Ditto with the "love it or leave it" argument you're defending.

Sorry you didn't like my answer.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

The single most important concern that users of Flickr who know about it is the Account Deletion issue. These new Community Guidelines go nowhere to giving us any clear understanding of the Line Which Must Not Be Crossed.

"Not Being That Guy" will not, and could not, stand up in a court of law and if I was Yahoo/Flickr counsel I would be expressing concern as to that point.

To reiterate, I like Flickr. I used to love it.
I think the difference says a lot.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

""Not Being That Guy" will not, and could not, stand up in a court of law"

Which court is that exactly? Considering the financial obligation for an account deletion is at most $25.

I actually agree (and have many times suggested) that some sort of "limbo" be used for account deletions. Not so much for the people who don't realize they're "that guy", I really don't give a crap about the faux "epidemic" of people who can't figure out how to do what you and I and millions of others have without difficulty. But for those rare accidental deletions it would be awesome. While the account's technical value is only $25, the time and effort put into it by the users certainly elevates it to way more personal value.

But please. Flickr/Yahoo is on the legal hook for $25, so throwing lawyers and courts into the argument is just silly. And if you look at the longer form TOS, I think you'll find similarly vague boiler plate that basically amounts to what ANY establishment real or interwebs has the right to do: Refuse Service To Anyone For Any Reason.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

It may be $25 but I am sure someone could value the time and effort in creating and maintaining a Flickr account at a considerably higher number.

I raised the issue of Mirco Wilhelm as Flickr has (allegedly) deleted his account in error with no way, apparently, of recovering the pictures or comments in any way, shape or form. I suspect that comes under the definition of negligence.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

I remember when Stewart (founder of Flickr) accidentally deleted his own Flickr account and all of his stuff was lost forever too. Not even being the head honcho was enough to help him.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

phoneymanflickr says:

I agree that courts shouldn't enter into it, but I've personally seen an evolution of what it means to be "that guy" occur on Flickr, leading to deletions of long-standing active accounts, with no warning whatsoever. At some point Flickr, without letting anyone know, decided that some accounts were "voyeuristic" even if they contained no nudity and nothing illegal, content wise, about them, and started deleting them. These accounts had been active, in some cases, for years.

Clearly, legally, Flickr has no obligation to warn these users and can happily delete them at will. And clearly many people here are immediately going to focus on the fact that voyeurism is inherently creepy. The thing is, how am I as a photographer who does street photography supposed to know where that voyeurism line is? How can I distinguish what I do from what they do? When did the rules change, and why did they change, and how can I, as a street photographer, avoid being deleted now and in the future? These questions are rhetorical: they aren't meant to have specific answers. I'm using them to point out the difficulties involved, from a user's point of view, in determining what the Guidelines mean at any given point in time.

Flickr staff turns over and if Flickr staff's subjective judgment is used to interpret Guidelines, and clearly it is, then the meaning of the Guidelines themselves change arbitrarily, without warning, and without any actions by the users affected by them, and without any changing in the wording of the Guidelines themselves. So accounts that were "safe" one year may not be, and historically have not been safe the next.

Pardon me if I find this patently unfair. And pardon me if I don't think that the fact that this effects a marginal number of edge cases makes it unimportant.

Pierre
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

Or look back to the case of Shepherd Johnson. Deleted for comments in the Whitehouse photostream. Then Flickr reversed their decision and gave him a free year of membership, but his pictures were all deleted and couldn't be restored (also all his discussions in forums and comments on his pictures). That was a year or two ago, and that was when I originally suggested turning accounts invisible instead of deleting. It pains me that accounts are STILL being deleted with no means of restoring them.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

hogepodge says:

Srsly ppl. You need to take a long hard look and Yahoo management. Once you've done that, you can decide if Flickr is really a safe place for the long term storage and management of your photos.

Don't delude yourself into thinking Flickr/Yahoo owes you anything or actually listens to your suggestions. That doesn't make it a bad place, it just makes it unreliable.

The only thing you can count on is that one day the plug will be pulled on this service. Until then enjoy it.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AlaskaLoneWolf says:

nothing is actually "deleted". You see the images are still physically there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

AlaskaLoneWolf says:

....oh and for the record, when I pay for a service I get what I pay for. Otherwise I take my business, and my money ...elsewhere. In the age of the internet this can happen almost instantly. As a person running an on-line business, while never actually delivering a 'product' per se, I would be very careful with how I treated my consumers. Internet businesses live and die everyday, at the whim of the people who show interest. I seriously doubt the lion share of content within flickr is owned, even in part, by flickr. Imagine a store without shelves, that would be an on-line photo-sharing site with no one sharing photos.

Who would want to pay for a service to maintain a collection of photography, only to have it disappear?

Answer: No one.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paul Parkinson LRPS (parkylondon) says:

@alaskalonewolf - be that as it may, they don't get their accounts back.
@phoneymanflickr - an excellent summation of a point I hadn't considered

I don't use Flickr as an archive so even if they did nuke my account I wouldn't lose anything but it would be a soul destroying event to see all that go up in smoke on somebody's whim.

I find it remarkable and scary at the same time that there is no recovery possible - even where there is an accidental account nuke event.

Surely there are back ups of the database from which they could be recovered?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

I suspect the problem with restoring from back-up is that they have to restore everything, not just one user. I don;t think Flickr want's to roll back hours/days of content to restore one person. That's why the invisible setting I suggest (over a year ago) would likely be the best solution.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

phoneymanflickr wrote

The thing is, how am I as a photographer who does street photography supposed to know where that voyeurism line is? How can I distinguish what I do from what they do?


For real?

Try this: If the photos focus on body parts instead of a "street scene," then you've crossed that line.

If the photos have text accompanying them that refer to the subjects in the photos in sexual terms, then you've crossed that line.

There are two clear examples right there, but I guarantee you the people posting those photos would argue till their faces turned blue that they were doing nothing wrong.

Your argument is disingenuous, and no matter how many times you try to make it, over how many years, it stays the same. Those being "creepy" deserve to be deleted without warning, and if you're [general sense] taking photos that treat people as sex objects for your/others' gratification without their knowledge/consent and posting them here, then you deserve to be deleted without warning.
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

FlyButtafly: too subjective. I remember on user having his account deleted because he has lots of pictures of feet. Nothing nude. And it looked like all the pictures were posed and from the same angle.

Are feet creepy enough to be deleted over?
Posted 50 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread has been closed by Flickr Staff.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5
(1 to 100 of 501 replies in [Closed, Official Topic] Updated Community Guidelines)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads