Another REALLY good reason to avoid Flickr like the plague!

[tirediron]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

 

[D-B-J]

Just set default rights to "All Rights Reserved" and never worry about it....

 

[Overread]

In all honesty this just underlines problems with the Creative Commons licence idea in itself - its not like flickr is doing anything that couldn't be done before - its just doing what its never taken advantage of before.

Thing is just set it to all rights reserved and you're done - no further problems. Which is likely what will happen - flickr will get a huge backlash and everyone will drop creative commons like a hot potato.

 

[Buckster]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

Sorry, but that's not a reason to "avoid Flickr like the plague." It's a reason to not specifically take the time and make the effort to check the boxes at Flickr to give away your rights to others to do anything they want with your images, including sell them, or shut up and accept it when they do.

 

[JustJazzie]

Is there a better website to go with?

 

[Overread]

Jazzie - like was said you just change your settings to all rights reserved and you don't have to do anything else - flickr won't sell a single photo under that licence. They are only selling those under a licence that allows for selling - they are doing nothing that people couldn't do before its just them doing it.

It's more of a dick move than anything else on the part of flickr - its also very strange that they didn't do any form of compensation for the creator of the works like Deviant Art does as that could have been a potentially much better approach for flickr - letting people actually earn whilst using flikrs services

 

[JustJazzie]

Jazzie - like was said you just change your settings to all rights reserved and you don't have to do anything else - flickr won't sell a single photo under that licence. They are only selling those under a licence that allows for selling - they are doing nothing that people couldn't do before its just them doing it.

It's more of a dick move than anything else on the part of flickr - its also very strange that they didn't do any form of compensation for the creator of the works like Deviant Art does as that could have been a potentially much better approach for flickr - letting people actually earn whilst using flikrs services

I understand that it is avoidable, but I do prefer to support companies with a little more integrity whenever possible. *shrug*

 

[tirediron]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

Sorry, but that's not a reason to "avoid Flickr like the plague." It's a reason to not specifically take the time and make the effort to check the boxes at Flickr to give away your rights to others to do anything they want with your images, including sell them, or shut up and accept it when they do.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, with which I will respectfully disagree. Of course it's simply a matter of selecting the appropriate license, and of course they're not doing anything that they're not legally allowed to do, HOWEVER, I would suggest that given their mission statement is:

"Flickr - almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world - has two main goals:
1. We want to help people make their photos available to the people who matter to them.
2. We want to enable new ways of organizing photos and video."

and the general impression they attempt to present is one of being supportive to artists and artistic intent, such actions, while legal, are unethical and immoral and should not be supported.

 

[Buckster]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

Sorry, but that's not a reason to "avoid Flickr like the plague." It's a reason to not specifically take the time and make the effort to check the boxes at Flickr to give away your rights to others to do anything they want with your images, including sell them, or shut up and accept it when they do.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, with which I will respectfully disagree. Of course it's simply a matter of selecting the appropriate license, and of course they're not doing anything that they're not legally allowed to do, HOWEVER, I would suggest that given their mission statement is:

"Flickr - almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world - has two main goals:
1. We want to help people make their photos available to the people who matter to them.
2. We want to enable new ways of organizing photos and video."

and the general impression they attempt to present is one of being supportive to artists and artistic intent, such actions, while legal, are unethical and immoral and should not be supported.

If you INTENTIONALLY offer your photos for the WHOLE WORLD to use WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION, which is what you're doing by checking the box on Flickr that says that's your intent, then there's nothing to cry about when that happens, whether it's by Joe Blow or a company, INCLUDING Flickr itself. There's nothing immoral or unethical about it at all because you told the whole world up front to go right ahead and DO IT and that you're A-OK with it.

On the other hand, if you were on a web site like Flickr, or even THIS FORUM, and did NOT give ANYBODY permission to use your photos for ANY PURPOSE, and they did it, THAT would be immoral, unethical and ILLEGAL because it's a clear violation of copyright LAW. If you then reported that to the people that run that website and they said it was none of their business, that TOO would be immoral and unethical, as well as condoning that which is ILLEGAL.

 

[Gary A.]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

Sorry, but that's not a reason to "avoid Flickr like the plague." It's a reason to not specifically take the time and make the effort to check the boxes at Flickr to give away your rights to others to do anything they want with your images, including sell them, or shut up and accept it when they do.

There are other similar reasons;

I don't use Flickr because it is owned by Yahoo. Yahoo is the company that turned over email addresses to the Chinese government, which in turned, caused the imprisonment of a number of Chinese dissidents and journalists. Including this guy who was released early from his ten year imprisonment.

Shi Tao: China frees journalist jailed over Yahoo emails | World news | The Guardian

Additional background info:
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/US_Senate_IT_May2008_statementonrecord_ok-trad-rev-ok.pdf

In a hearing on this case, Yahoo owners/top management testified directly to U.S. Senators. One Senator summarized his feelings ... and I paraphrase ... The owners of Yahoo may be materialistically rich, but they are morally bankrupt.

Gary

 

[Buckster]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

Sorry, but that's not a reason to "avoid Flickr like the plague." It's a reason to not specifically take the time and make the effort to check the boxes at Flickr to give away your rights to others to do anything they want with your images, including sell them, or shut up and accept it when they do.

There are other similar reasons;

I don't use Flickr because it is owned by Yahoo. Yahoo is the company that turned over email addresses to the Chinese government which in turned caused the imprisonment of a number of Chinese dissidents and journalists. Including this guy who was released early from his eight year imprisonment.

Shi Tao: China frees journalist jailed over Yahoo emails | World news | The Guardian

Additional background info:
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/US_Senate_IT_May2008_statementonrecord_ok-trad-rev-ok.pdf

In a hearing on this case, Yahoo owners/top management testified directly to U.S. Senators. One Senator summarized his feelings ... and I paraphrase ... The owners of Yahoo may be materialistically rich, but they are morally bankrupt.

Gary

That may be a good reason, but the reason the OP gave here isn't.

If my signature here said, "Everybody is free to use any of my images that I post here for any purpose they like without even giving me credit" and then the owners of this forum did exactly that, I would have nothing to cry about, and it would NOT be a good reason to avoid this website like the plaque. It would be my own damn fault for being an idiot.

 

[baturn]

wow! Seems like some folks' Thanksgiving didn't go so well.

 

[Tailgunner]

Flickr now selling creative-commons images for profit!

Sorry, but that's not a reason to "avoid Flickr like the plague." It's a reason to not specifically take the time and make the effort to check the boxes at Flickr to give away your rights to others to do anything they want with your images, including sell them, or shut up and accept it when they do.

There are other similar reasons;

I don't use Flickr because it is owned by Yahoo. Yahoo is the company that turned over email addresses to the Chinese government which in turned caused the imprisonment of a number of Chinese dissidents and journalists. Including this guy who was released early from his eight year imprisonment.

Shi Tao: China frees journalist jailed over Yahoo emails | World news | The Guardian

Additional background info:
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/US_Senate_IT_May2008_statementonrecord_ok-trad-rev-ok.pdf

In a hearing on this case, Yahoo owners/top management testified directly to U.S. Senators. One Senator summarized his feelings ... and I paraphrase ... The owners of Yahoo may be materialistically rich, but they are morally bankrupt.

Gary

I don't use Yahoo and Flicker for other reasons but this really puts a nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned.

 

[D-B-J]

Or maybe, photographers should... Oh I don't know... PAY ATTENTION to what rights they sign away when they post a photo. I'm sick of blame being put on others for your own mistake. Pay attention to what rights you give to each photo and it becomes a non-issue. Laziness on the photographer/posters part doesn't make Flickr a bad website.

 

[baturn]

That's true, but the inflammatory language seemed unnecessary.