Screenshot Accounts 'Delisted' on Flickr

An anonymous reader writes "Flickr and Second Life fans seem to have collided head-on over a little known policy on Flickr that 'delists' an account from public areas, including search, when more than half of your content is non-photographic in nature. Flickr stated that most people searching the site are looking for photographic content so the restriction is in place merely to keep the site focused on its original intent. From the article: 'As a result, many screenshots on Flickr are AWOL — at least as far as the general public is concerned. That's angering and confusing some of the people who carefully stage scenes in the popular virtual world and religiously post the results online.'"

Comments

posted one minute ago and already dead

[Anonymous Coward]

and now flickr is down.
thanks slashdot.

Re:posted one minute ago and already dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. really dumbass descion they made. Screw them. There are less bent alternatives.

Makes Sense

[Shadow Wrought]

Flickr is all about photographs, so it makes sense that that's what they focus on. If you need a place to post SL screen shots, there's still deviantart, renderosity, and myspace. There are quite a few options other than just flickr.

Re:Makes Sense

[nacturation]

... and as a result, World of Warcraft screenshot addicts the world over mourn this day. Remember, World of Warcraft is a feeling. (Grab episodes 6 and 7 if you haven't seen the full thing.)

Re:Makes Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

there's still deviantart, renderosity, and myspace

But these are soooo web 1.0. Bloggers hate web 1.0, don't you know?

Re:Makes Sense

[tehwebguy]

i've never browsed rederosity, but myspace is not an option. 8 image uploads are allowed, and not as a gallery. they are greatly resized using horribly low quality jpeg compression.

deviantart is one of the slowest sites i've ever used.

flickr should definitely change their policy for things like this.

Re:Makes Sense

[B3ryllium]

Heheh, when I finally get around to it, www.screenshots.ca will provide user-contributed screenshot galleries (With tags). I guess I'd better get started on coding that :)

Re:Makes Sense

[mlk]

flickr should definitely change their policy for things like this.

Why?

It is not as if free blogs& image hosting are in short surply.

Re:Makes Sense

[Shadow Wrought]

Indeed, the great thing about the Internet is that there is not just one single place for things. Why should flickr have to change from a photography site just because they are good at it?

Re:Makes Sense

[pete_norm]

http://www.photobucket.com/ is pretty good too.

Re:Makes Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I had that same problem with MySpace. That's why I now use MyOtherDrive.com to host my pictures and other content. I've been able to post work documents, html, .txt files and photos successfully. They also have a cool of way of viewing photos.

Re:Makes Sense

[denmarkw00t]

but myspace is not an option. 8 image uploads are allowed, and not as a gallery

12 images, maximum (they changed this some time ago). And it seems like a gallery to me when the thumbnails are laid out in a table, and clicking on one gives you the image, fullsize, with Previous and Next buttons to navigate.

Re:Makes Sense

[MaWeiTao]

Why should flickr change their policy?

Its creators wanted a site to share photographs. Why should they have to accomodate anyone who doesn't want to use the site as intended? There are countless other options for sharing images other than photographs.

If I go into your house and start using your bedroom as a toilet should you be forced to accommodate me? Of course not. I'm in your house, I should abide by your rules. It's essentially the same situation here

Re:Makes Sense

[evilneko]

Oh no, he spelled things right, you just didn't get it. ;)

Re:Makes Sense

[vertinox]

Flickr is all about photographs, so it makes sense that that's what they focus on.

What if I'm taking a picture of my monitor with a camera?

Re:Makes Sense

[earnest murderer]

There are quite a few options other than just flickr.

The free WWW account provided by your own ISP (or others) for instance?

Not very Web 2.0, but cheap as free and reliable.

Re:Makes Sense

[alfs boner]

Fuck off. Flickr has made it clear it doesn't want you, and I can see why.

Re:Makes Sense

[objwiz]

sl.me.com too

Re:Makes Sense

[Shadow Wrought]

What if I'm taking a picture of my monitor with a camera?

Then its a photograph and you have succesfully loopholed the system;-) So what's the difference then between that and merely taking a "screenshot?" Well that's the rub, ain't it?

I used to play with Scenery Animator all the time on my Amiga. Creating a random landscape and finding the perfect shot to place the virtual camera is very analogous to carting a SLR out into nature. They both take time and require more of an "eye" to be successful than anything else. But they are different, and a distinction can be made. Flickr ought to be able to make that distinction and stick with it.

Re:Makes Sense

[ShinGouki]

i agree
quit yer f*cking whining and find someplace else to put your pictures.

Re:Makes Sense

[tehwebguy]

ah right you are. i was thinking of top 8.

anyway, that still doesn't fix the problem of the painful jpeg compression and the 600k image limit.

Re:Makes Sense

[eingram]

And let's not forget Google's Picasa Web!

Re:Makes Sense

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You always have the option of going to rackforce and setting up a hosted server. I think the base configuration has 5G of space and unmetered bandwidth.

Re:Makes Sense

[voice_of_all_reason]

Because they are good at it.

"Well, our anal warts cream isn't coming along very well. It only cures both cancer and aids. Better scrap the batch and start over!"

Re:Makes Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

-= I own your ass! =-

You must be gay then. Not that there is anything wrong with that. At least not morally, but if you're talking biologically, because I read somewh...

Re:Makes Sense

[SamNmaX]

Why should flickr change their policy? Its creators wanted a site to share photographs. Why should they have to accomodate anyone who doesn't want to use the site as intended? There are countless other options for sharing images other than photographs.

It is definately there choice to run the site the way they want. If they feel their users in general only want to search for photographs and not anything else, then this makes sense.

However, I do think this move doesn't make much sense, as they are pushing away a set of customers. It would be fairly easy to allow users to tag their images to signify whether they are photos or not, and then allow people searching to use those tags to limit their search. For those who use flickr for both photos and non-photos, this policy my cause them to leave and join a competitor for *all* their images, which I would assume wouldn't make flickr all that happy/profitable.

Re:Makes Sense

[hyperquantization]

http://www.maj.com/ seems to slip under the wire of popularity all too often.

IIRC, it was originally just Brickshelf, but spun off into general image hosting.

Re:Makes Sense

[netsharc]

Ah, there's lots of other crap in Flickr. Like people doing dumb jock poses. I wonder what photographic value this picture has.

Re:Makes Sense

[NightRain]

That analogy doesn't work however, because it implies that the unintended goal is more important than the original goal, and not detrimental to the original goal. Meither of those assumptions is true for flickr. Hosting screenshots is /not/ more important that hosting photos. You can argue that it's just as important, but it's not more important, unlike the situation in your analogy.

Secondly, hosting screenshots could easily be seen as being detrimental to their main goal of hosting photos. They aren't about image hosting, they're about photo hosting, and conceivably, someone who isn't interested in screenshots may be annoyed if they start popping up all over the "photo" site they signed up with.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the only thing that actually happens when you host screenshots is that they don't appear when you do a search. If your friend hosts screenshots and points you at his account, you will see the shots just fine. You can even have flickr groups dedicated to screenshots from second life without any problems. This is a storm in a teacup. If you want to find secondlife images on flickr, you can, but for people who don't want to deal with screenshots, they aren't going to accidently stumble over them. Sounds about perfect to me

Re:Makes Sense

[nacturation]

Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

You might want to invest in a spell checker...

You might want to invest in a brain.

Re:Makes Sense

[PastaLover]

Exactly. I personally have my screenshots on there but I don't really care about the searching. The reliability and easy browsing is the major reason for me to put them on there. As long as they allow that, I didn't think anyone would actually mind. Perhaps neither did they.

Re:Makes Sense

[Da Masta]

No, I go by the prison definition. I'm not gay as long as it's your ass taking it in.

simple solutions

[gEvil (beta)]

This is easy enough to fix. You can take pictures of your computer monitor with a camera, then upload those. Or you can take your screenshot, print it out, scan it back in, then upload the scan. There's a bunch of ways around this. C'mon, use a little creativity, people!

Re:simple solutions

[The MAZZTer]

...

OK let me straighten some things out. Picture of your monitor != a photo, and it usually makes for a pretty #$%&y screenshot unless you have an LCD.

A scan is also definately not a photo, especially if you didn't scan a photo in.

The content of the images isn't going to change (degrade, maybe) by doing these things. C'mon, use your brain, gEvil!

Re:simple solutions

[Billosaur]

It brings up a good point though, since cameras are moving away from film to memory cards and pixels: just what constitutes an image? If you go the route of thinking that it's something that has to be taken by a camera, that severely limits what we could call an image. If you believe an image is made up of a collection of pixels in some organized fashion, then the range of things we can call images is staggering (PDF files, fonts, screenshots, etc.).

Flickr's probably just trying to keep from being overwhelmed by non-photographic images, since if they allowed those as well, there servers might very well become choked with all manner of things.

`

Re:simple solutions

[maeddi]

Sir, i think your humour-o-meter is broken.... get it fixed

Re:simple solutions

[SwissCheese]

How about a photograph is a picture of something in the real world, and a screenshot is not? I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Re:simple solutions

[gEvil (beta)]

My post was intended as a joke, but your response brings up an interesting semantics issue.

Picture of your monitor != a photo

If using a camera to take a picture of something doesn't result in a photo, then what exactly is a photo? I've generally viewed it as being a product of the device used to capture the image. Anything output by a camera would be a photo, in my opinion. However, you seem to disagree with this notion. Is a photo defined by the content of the image? Or is it something else entirely?

Re:simple solutions

[creepynut]

They're not debating what consitutes an image. It's what constitutes a photograph.

If you take a photo of your monitor in place of taking a screenshot, then it's not the photograph people will be looking for, it's the image in the photograph.

Re:simple solutions

[LiquidCoooled]

What if I take a picture of my screen with the digital camera, import it into the computer, insert it into a word document, email it to a friend who can print it out place it onto a wooden table, take a picture with a nice camera, develop the film, scan it in before finally uploading it to flickr.

Would it be acceptible then??

(appologies to dailywtf for copying an idea)

Re:simple solutions

[soft_guy]

OK, but how about if I create a scene in real life that is similar to what is on my computer screen. For example, if I want to post a screen shot of an error dialog, I could get a giant poster board and then write the error message on it and have someone hold it up while standing in front of something that looks like a computer desktop. Then, I could photograph that and post the photo.

(It would be a lot of work.)

Re:simple solutions

[vinsanity1]

if the display on my monitor is not in the "real world", where is it?

Re:simple solutions

[vishbar]

Photos are like porn--you know them when you see them.

Re:simple solutions

[jank1887]

Let's think about this:

If you take a photo of Big Ben, then it's not the photograph people will be looking for, it's the image (of Big Ben) in the photograph.

Re:simple solutions

[chrismcdirty]

I think it's fairly obvious that it's in the Matrix.

Re:simple solutions

[Tim C]

Personally, I'd say that a photogrpah is defined by the process through which it is created. Therefore, to my mind, a picture of the image on the screen of my monitor, taken by use of a camera ("traditional" or digital), camera phone, pin-hole camera, direct neural download, etc is a photograph. Conversely, a copy of the image on the screen dumped to the harddrive by the OS, game, etc that is causing it to be displayed is not.

For me, I think the difference is that there needs to be a physical process external to the thing that the image is being created of. Dumping a screenshot, while arguably a physical process (movement of electrons, pressing of key, etc) is not an external process. I'd also like to include something about the apparatus used to create the image, but don't have time to word it to include all of the examples above.

Maybe what I'm really feeling is that there needs to be a lens involved, and that without one, it's not a photograph. That would exclude pinhole cameras, however...

Re:simple solutions

[croddy]

it's a photograph. it's a photo if you're capturing photons.

Re:simple solutions

[mikael_j]

No, because Big Ben was not intended as a 2D representation of something else (not counting time..) but is a building and taking a photo of that building for the purpose of showing people what the building looks like is not the same thing as trying to bypass the rules by making a low-quality copy of an exact copy of a 2D image, sort of like how you taking a photo of a piece of paper with the word "Cunt" written on it and then tweaking that photo in Photoshop until you can't tell it's a photo but just looks like text on a white background doesn't count as a photo.

/Mikael

Re:simple solutions

[Tim C]

Yeah; I think that'll do very nicely, thank you.

Re:simple solutions

[obender]

what exactly is a photo

If an image comes out of a digital camera it will most likely have an exif section. This is the easiest thing to check for. OTOH adding some fake exif info to a screenshot is quite trivial.

Re:simple solutions

[bilgebag]

Not sure how we got on to it, but Big Ben isn't a building, it's a bell. The thing the bell is housed in is St. Stephen's tower

Re:simple solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to go to that much trouble. Take the screenshot, take a photo of your monitor with the scene displayed on it using your digital camera, and upload both images. Exactly one half of your collection will be photos and one half will be screenshots, which satisfies the unwritten policy.

Re:simple solutions

[krunk4ever]

You know it's a photo when you can spot someone making the V (peace) symbol with 2 of their fingers.

Re:simple solutions

[gEvil (beta)]

"Look kids! Big Ben, Parliament!"

Re:simple solutions

[jank1887]

/me beats the dead horse some more...

ok then, what if I take a photograph of the Mona Lisa? with frame? zoomed inside of the frame (just the picture)?

Re:simple solutions

[fm6]

I actually used to take screen shots that way, when I was documenting apps that ran on non-graphics terminals. But I suspect that this would not get past Flickr.

Re:simple solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello head Kokgobbler bilgebag, wtf are you doing?

bilgebag: "Gobble, gobble, gobble! Gobble, gobble, gobble......"

Alrighty then! See you! *Flees fast.*

Re:simple solutions

[bob65]

It brings up a good point though, since cameras are moving away from film to memory cards and pixels: just what constitutes an image?>

Well in this case it's pretty clear-cut - it's whatever the flickr creators want to have on their website. I guess that could result in some "unfair" "censorship" but meh: their site, their rules.

Re:simple solutions

[voice_of_all_reason]

The Enterprise is just a picture? Tell that to the Klingons.

Re:simple solutions

[mikael_j]

In both cases I wouldn't consider it a "photo" in the sense that it has anything resembling artistic merit, it's just a copy of an existing work, do a HDR photo of it and I might change my mind, that might actually bring something interesting out (not to mention it being fairly unique).

/Mikael

Re:simple solutions

[celotil]

Six hours later...

"Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament! HA ha haha! Aaaah!"

Search option

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just have a search option that includes searchs for screenshots? It can be disabled by default but a simple tick in a box opens search to all the screenshots as well without getting in the way for people looking for photos only?

Re:Search option

[ScottLindner]

You can't create something effective that is everything to everyone. It really is best to carve out your niche and stay in it. This is exactly what Fliky is doing and it is very wise. To do otherwise will only cause problems in the long run for both users and advertisers paying Flikr.

Scott

Re:Search option

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't create something effective that is everything to everyone. It really is best to carve out your niche and stay in it. This is exactly what Fliky is doing and it is very wise. To do otherwise will only cause problems in the long run for both users and advertisers paying Flikr.

Scott

right answer, rong question, imho.

flickr is in what business? the photo business or the people pleasing business?

imho, unles they desire to buggy whipped in the future, they better be in the latter category.

this isn't an either / or proposition.

all they need to do is add an "Include Screenshots in Search" checkbox...

and everyone is happy. the people are pleased and NOBODY loses, right?

win / win.

no, i have no ax to grind here... i don't think i've ever visited flickr, and if i did it was just to check out their home page. i do web programming, though, and i know how E-A-S-Y this is to do.

why avoid an easy win / win? flickr keeps the main search for photos, but gives its users CHOICE to search for screenshots if the USER CHOOSES to.

poor management, imho.

anyway, the current solution is brain dead dumb. screenshots will still show up in the search - just fewer of them. people will upload dummy photos just to "make quota," therby burning hd space for no productive reason.

it just floors me that "management" can be so two by four dumb to anger their customers FOR NO GOOD REASON. ...and no... a juvenile "b/c i can" is not a good reason.

Re:Search option

[Achromatic1978]

By your rationale... a significant subset of users here want to troll Slashdot. Their activities degrade those who want to use the service as it was intended. Just as we have people searching for photos on Flickr.

"Include screenshots in search"? Not much different to moderating trolls to -1 and setting default comment view to 1.

So should management be angering their customers by allowing trolls to be moderated down, and/or increasing the difficulty of posting troll-like things?

Virtual != Real (yet)

[brenddie]

Is true that these digital representations are not real photography but how long until you cant diferentiate from a real scene and one generated on a virtual world.

Maybe Flickr should start thinking about having 2 sections :
Real photography
Virtual photography

Re:Virtual != Real (yet)

[iainl]

They do. Then they delist the virtual one from the search engine, because their site isn't meant to be for looking at some stranger's screenshots.

Also, this is not news; it was in the click-through agreement from way back, and people who actually draw their own pictures in photoshop or whatever have already hit the problem, had an argument with Flickr and lost once already.

If nerd X isn't allowed to post homemade hentai, I see no reason why they would let nerd Y post a 3rd-rate imitation of same in Second Life.

Re:Virtual != Real (yet)

[jacksonj04]

DeviantArt is for homemade hentai, Flickr is for photographs.

Photographs on Flickr do not need to be art, and art on DA doesn't have to be photographs.

Re:Virtual != Real (yet)

[Tim C]

While I appreciate that digital cameras have somewhat blurred the distinctions, I still feel that it's a hell of a stretch equating screenshots with photographs. Even a perfectly photo-realistic scene captured from a game wouldn't be a photograph to my mind; that would require pointing an actual, physical object at some other, actual physical objects and pressing a button (or even saying "take photograph!" for that matter). Maybe I'm just an old stick in the mud.

I'm not arguing that purely digital representations aren't art, just that they're not photographs, in the same way that a painting or a sculpture isn't.

Re:Virtual != Real (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my first thought. I think Flickr does what it does well and I don't think that most screenshots make that a better experience. On YouTube for example, it looks like half the videos are of Hastur Pimpleface killing a sock puppet (of course there are exceptions but even that might be better as a video by the original artists).

Apparently there's a market for a mechaflickr so, rather than whining that they should change the rules on a site that works well, make the site and make a million.

Mr. Literal-Minded has the obvious answer.

[dpbsmith]

Instead of posting an electronic "screenshot," take an actual photograph of a computer screen... with some desk clutter like a soda can or a yellow Post-It note in the frame.

Heck, you could probably take a single photo like that and use an image editor to paste the screenshot into the genuine screen image. If television ads can get away with "picture simulated," why not Flickr users?

Re:Mr. Literal-Minded has the obvious answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

*writes a program to automatically place a screen shot onto a computer screen and randomly add desk junk to the bottom of the image*

Delisted, not removed.

[Aladrin]

They are simply delisted. Nobody WANTS to search for your crappy 'I'm so awesome' screenshots. All of your stuff can still be accessed, just not by people who don't care.

Big freaking deal.

Re:Delisted, not removed.

[penguinstorm]

This is true. There's always Slashdot to post them on anyway.

My Rights Online?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And what pray tell, do Flickrs policies and actions have any relevance to my rights online or any rights offline?!!!

If you dont like Flickrs actions, dont use them anymore. This isnt a holy violation of your rights or anything else.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

['nother poster]

Well, this is Slashdot. The editors can put the stories in whatever catagories they damn well please. If you dont like Slashdots actions, dont use them anymore. This isnt a holy violation of your rights or anything else. HTH. :)

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[ryane67]

i thought the same thing, how does this effect my rights online? Flikr is a private company and can do whatever they want.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[14CharUsername]

Because it's discrimination against virtual people.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[mypalmike]

From TFRA: (The R stands for Ridiculous)

"Flickr member Eric Rice, who regularly podcasts from Second Life and covered the virtual Vloggercon, suggested Flickr's actions could have a detrimental effect on legitimate reporting. As of Monday, Flickr showed more than 1,600 photos associated with Vloggercon, but only seven screenshots from the virtual version of the event."

See, it's clearly a violation of freedom of the press. The world must hear of the important events that transpired at virtual Vlobstercon!

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[treeves]

Not only that, but Flickr is a free service, so even in this case, you're geting more than you paid for it! Whiners. Simple solution: every time you upload a screen shot, upload a photo to keep it from going over 50% "non-photographic".

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[93 Escort Wagon]

"Because it's discrimination against virtual people."

First they came for the virtual people, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't virtual... oh nevermind.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[natrius]

"Caterina Fake doesn't care about virtual people."
- Kanye West

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[vertinox]

Censorship by a private company is still censorship.

If tomorrow, you only had one ISP you could choose from they said they are blocking Slashdot because its bad for their business... Would you claim that violates your rights? (somehow)

If our 1st amendment rights are violated by proxy by private groups it is still a violation if we have no alternatives.

I know some people would disagreee, but the truth of the matter is that these things violate the spirit of the bill of rights. Had the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) had enough foresight to realize that multi-national corporations were as powerful (if not more powerful) than national governments they might have included a clause implicitly states this fact.

You do have to remember that corporations didn't really exist as they are with rights as persons until the 1890s.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst

rationalization

ever

So, you feel "Terms of Service" should be renamed to "Censorship Manifesto"? I wish they had a "Whacko" moderation category for things like this.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[vertinox]

So, you feel "Terms of Service" should be renamed to "Censorship Manifesto"? I wish they had a "Whacko" moderation category for things like this.

No. Actually, I wasn't attacking flickr since there are alternatives and you aren't forced to use them for ideas, but rather the idea that "if you are a private organization that you can violate people's rights because your not the government".

But rights are not given by the government nor are they restricted to interactions with them. Government is pretty much a label for what runs the nation. Corporations almost run the nation in a sense that they have more power today over our every day lives than the government does.

Corporations pay my wages and I have vested interest in them in the stock market. But what if they decided to start inflicting on to me things that the government disalowed.

What if I would starve to death if I critized my employer or perhaps faced threat of force. (yes I know this is an extreme and does not happen, but if a scenario like this ever happened it would still count).

What if I was forced to house other employees of the corporation in my dwelling. What if my employer could search through my home without a warrant?

Most people would say this is isane or wacko and will never happen... (they also think I'm apparently trolling)

And I agree this is unlikley to happen in my lifetime.

But we should not exscuse private organizations from doing things that the government is not allowed because if this private groups one day have more power than our constitutional rights will be voided by proxy.

I just want to get that through to people that this private organization should not be a cop out of our rights. I know flickr was a bad example on my part, but we should hold everyone including individuals, corporations, and governments to respect the rights of others regardless of the situation. Altruism isn't dead yet.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

By using the terms "podcast", "virtual", and "reporting" in the same sentence it essentially negated this as anything resembling news.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[Paradise Pete]

What if I would starve to death if I critized my employer or perhaps faced threat of force.

There are laws about that sort of thing.

What if I was forced to house other employees of the corporation in my dwelling.

Also about that.

What if my employer could search through my home without a warrant?

Ditto.

Most people would say this is isane or wacko

I agree with this part.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you basically feel as if a private organization should in no way be able to limit anything which goes on within its space?

Therefore, you are fully against the Democratic National Convention for its continued political censorship of the right. Who are they to deny their opponents the ability to speak on the stage at their convention?

Best Buy is evil for denying you the right to sell your goods in their store while you are there.

How dare Gold's Gym deny you your rights to work out simply because you are not a member. If this keeps up nobody will be able to excercise without carrying offical papers.

I'll tell you what, contact Flicr and I am sure they will be more than happy to provide you with a full refund for your troubles.

It amazes me how people can still complain when they get things for free. "What do you mean I have to agree to use it the way they want me to! No fair! Censorship! Human rights violations!".

If this actually causes you any level of concern I suggest you never step outside. That real world out there can be mean and nasty.

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[vertinox]

There are laws about that sort of thing.

What if one day those laws were ignored because it would benefit either law enforcement or government because of corporation intereference?

I know my examples are extreme, but they are about when you have no alternatives. I'm not talking about being kicked out of Best Buy because you are a thief, but rather what if you were barred from all grocery stores because you said something against a particular corporation.

Human rights are not something only for governments. I keep telling people that... You have to sit back and say "private organizations, given enough power, must uphold these ideals or otherwise we might as well not have a government".

Re:My Rights Online?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you advocate governmental influence in private affairs. Since everyone has a forum for free speach (just go outside!), a company that censors speech through means that it publishes is fully within its right. If someone doesn't like it, they can start their own service. That's the great thing about freedom, you know...

Seems like over-moderation

[dubmun]

Why are they so concerned? It's not like text takes up more space on their servers that images.

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[dubmun]

Whoops! Disregard or delete this thread. I obviously misinterpreted the situation.

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, dumbman, or whatever your idiotic name is, if you enjoy over-moderation you've certainly come to the right place!

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[dubmun]

Whatever I can do to be the target of your aggression ;]

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused and thought that...thankfully, the title was accurate to what really happened, and I realized it didn't fit.

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[sjwest]

Well theres a lot of mac 'priests of the church of photoshop' on Flickr - they consider that sort of thing beneath them and blasphemous to there 'art'.

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[mlk]

Delisted not deleted. Still taking up file space, just not now listed. Apparently flicker has a target audience, and random crap from WoW in the listing is not what the target audience wants.

Re:Seems like over-moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

Delisted not deleted. Still taking up file space, just not now listed. Apparently flicker has a target audience, and random crap from WoW in the listing is not what the target audience wants.

but the search results will still display the screenshots of those folks who have more photos than screenshots, right?

this *solution* appears to be based on the idea that flickr "mismanagement" knows the exact amount of screenshots their users want to see - and it equals the screenshots of those people who have more photos than screenshots.

you are right - it is an absurd concept.

it is irrational. it is unprofessional. it is bizarre. it must be some kind of irrational, emotions based power trip decision.

filter out *all* screenshots and allow users to include screenshots or exclusively search screenshots. an easy "win / win" solution.

which is precisely why "mismanagement" can't grasp it.

they've angered many customers for, apparently, no rational reason. screenshots will *still* appear in searches, people.

this has more to do with controlling uploaders than working on a better user experience.

Damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first read that I thought it said "non-pornographic in nature."

Re:Damn.

[KimmoA]

No. In fact, I actually thought so until I read your comment... :S

Re:Damn.

[KimmoA]

(I don't know whether or not I misread your message too or if you modified it later, if that's possible here...)

Non what?

[spyrral]

Am I the only one who read that as "non-pornagraphic" the first time?

Re:Non what?

[aaribaud]

Am I the only one who read that as "non-pornagraphic" the first time?

I'm afraid you are. All the others read that as "non-pornographic".

Re:Non what?

[Amouth]

no.. no your not.. i reread it three times before i caught it.. althought it might make the site work looking at if that was their policy

Re:Non what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The only one. Aaaall alone.
Hear the wind ?

Re:Non what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"no.. no your not.. i reread it three times before i caught it.. althought it might make the site work looking at if that was their policy"

If your reading skills are as poor as your writing skills, I'm surprised it only took three tries.

Stop whining

[tygerstripes]

If I really really want a steady crapflood of WoW Wedding shots, I'll tick the "bore me senseless" option. You can put what you like on Flickr, just don't assume anyone else gives a damn. Delisting is a good thing for people who want to use the site as it was intended.

If you're really that obsessed with having people look at your uninteresting life, why not go and get one. Then take pictures of it. Sheesh.

Re:Stop whining

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're really that obsessed with having people look at your uninteresting life, why not go and get one. Then take pictures of it.

I think these two sentences are redundant. They already have an uninteresting life, and they have taken pictures of it.

Re:Stop whining

[tygerstripes]

No, they've taken screenshots of it. Try and keep up...

Re:Stop whining

[revlayle]

My life is totally awesome.. but


I DON'T HAVE A CAMERA!! *cry*


;)

They're screwing themselves ...

[LoudMusic]

It doesn't seem like it would be too terribly difficult to circumvent the block.

However, Ito's images do show up in the Flickr group pools for his guild, We Know, and for World of Warcraft, because more than half of the images in his account are traditional photographs. In Ito's Flickr account, images he has taken of Helsinki, Finland, and Vancouver, British Columbia, show up beside an image of guild members setting out for a hike in World of Warcraft.

Just upload a crap load of pictures, yours or ones you find randomly on the `net, and then add all the screenshots you wish.

They're pissing off members and potentially generating monumental amounts of useless data on their servers.

Instead of an "on | off" switch for the entire account they need to have it be selective per image. But good luck writing effective code for that.

Re:They're screwing themselves ...

[Rob T Firefly]

Just upload a crap load of pictures, yours or ones you find randomly on the `net, and then add all the screenshots you wish.

Nice one! You can even hit up Wikimedia Commons for free public domain and Creative Commons pics to use, and it'd all be nice and legal to boot.

Re:They're screwing themselves ...

[tygerstripes]

To be honest, if they just wrote a bit of code to recognise and block pictures showing the usual configuration of buttons & bars people tend to have in WoW, they'd clean up half the images in one go...

Alternatively, pink-pigtails recognition software would work equally well.

Re:They're screwing themselves ...

[LiquidCoooled]

You need to add BigBlueDress in there as well.

No big deal.

[Rob T Firefly]

I can totally see Flickr's side of the issue, it was never intended to be another deviantart/imageshack/whatever. Free image hosts are a dime a dozen these days. And if you do really want to stay on flickr, upload enough random real-life photos to satisfy the more-than-half requirement.

Their own domain?

[Thyamine]

You know, it's not that hard or costly to setup your own domain and Coppermine (or whatever image package you like). Not to mention you don't have to put up with ads or whatever other nonsense those public sites make you deal with.

Re:Their own domain?

[christopherfinke]

Plogger is nice too.

Re:Their own domain?

[ChrisA90278]

That's what I do. I don't need a powerful server. How many peope really want to see my photos. Actually I keep track and it's a few hundred hits per day at peak times. Right now I use a Pentium powered tower but I plan to replace it with an older Apple G4 based Mac Mini to save power, space and noise. If every user hd his own web server none of the servers whould need to be very big, nor have fat pipes to the Internet. You don't even need to buy a domain or have a static IP address. Go to www.dyndns.org and get a free account.

Re:Their own domain?

[swtaarrs]

And if you don't want to manage your own server, you can buy hosting now with 500GB+ of transfer for $4-6/month. Considering how cheap hosting is nowadays, I'm so sick of people using the free file download services like Fileplanet that make you wait in line or download their own download manager...

What is Flickr's business model?

[Bogtha]

If they are positioning themselves as some kind of photography site, then fair enough. But it seems Flickr's focus is on the sharing aspect rather than the photography aspect. I suspect that the original intention of this limitation was to stop people from turning Flickr into the average viral cartoon/funny photoshop picture dump, and that overzealous employees took it a bit too literally.

After all, is there any significant difference between capturing a scene from the real world and capturing a scene from a fictional world? That makes a difference to their business model?

I expect the policy will be clarified to allow things like screenshots from virtual worlds, but disallow things like movie posters and screenshots from desktop applications.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[spun]

After all, is there any significant difference between capturing a scene from the real world and capturing a scene from a fictional world?

Yes, yes there are significant differences. You see, most pictures taken of virtual worlds are boring, have little artistic merit, and are of no interest to anyone outside the immediate circle of the person taking them, whereas most real life pictures are... Oh, wait...

No, no difference.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[Rob T Firefly]

I expect the policy will be clarified to allow things like screenshots from virtual worlds, but disallow things like movie posters and screenshots from desktop applications.

Then we get into the tricky situation of defining a "virtual world" vs. a "desktop application." Any MMOG client is an application, and a certain popular spreadsheet has a flight simulator easter egg.

To take it to further levels of headache-induction, many mapped textures in 3D games and other CGI are based on a real photo of the texture to some degree. Plus, there is the huge subset of actual photographs that are augmented or virtualized in some way.. my own flickr account, for instance, is full of infrared photos which look nothing like most people percieve the real world, and almost all pro photographers photoshop their work in some way these days.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[BaronHethorSamedi]

As a matter of pure critical principle, I tend to agree that there's no real difference between capturing an image from a real life environment and capturing an image from a virtual environment. As far as posting the images to a site goes, it's all just light and pixels.

However, I think the very nature of the business model could answer your question. Flickr holds itself out as a photo-sharing site, geared toward the masses. They want the widest audience possible, including ecstatic grandmothers posting photos of slobbering babies. If such potential posters log on to Flickr for the first time, run a search, and see Quake 4 screencaps interspersed among landscapes and vacation photos, it might be a little off-putting. As has been observed, the screencaps are merely being de-listed, not deleted, allowing Flickr to maintain an initial public impression that it is what it holds itself out to be--a photo-sharing site for the masses.

And how, on a principled or practical basis, could you allow screenshots, but disallow actual photos of movie posters?

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[Eric Coleman]

After all, is there any significant difference between capturing a scene from the real world and capturing a scene from a fictional world? That makes a difference to their business model?

I can't tell, but are you being sarcastic or naive? Creating a real photograph is a lot more complex than simply pressing the "Print Scrn" button on a keyboard. Aesthetics aside, a video game is limited in scope and variation, and all pictures end up looking similar. Creating a real world photograph is more complex in too many ways to list here, but I'll give it a shot. You can use a flash, timed exposures, you have depth of field in terms of focus, you can manually adjust focus, lighting is realistic or sould I say real, DYI developing allows even more options in terms of timing of development such as over/under develop, real life objects are infintely complex, live subjects can express more emotion and have a larger range of motion. I could go on but I think I've made a point. A xerox-copy facsimile of the Mona Lisa is not art.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[chrismcdirty]

Creating a real photograph is a lot more complex than simply pressing the "Print Scrn" button on a keyboard

Taking a real photograph involves depressing the shutter release button. Sure, a lot more goes into taking an artistic photograph, but does Flickr really have that many artists sharing their photos with the world? I'd be willing to bet its more people sharing pictures of friends.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[Bogtha]

Creating a real photograph is a lot more complex than simply pressing the "Print Scrn" button on a keyboard.

Correction: creating a real photograph can be a lot more complex. In most cases it isn't, most people just point and shoot. And they are permitted to be hosted on Flickr aren't they? Even though the complexity of what they have done is the same as the people taking screenshots?

In any case, you've missed my point, despite quoting it. The process for creating the images may differ, but what difference does it make to Flickr's bottom line? The subject matter in most cases will be roughly analogous - people standing around, scenery, etc. The fact that one is real and one is virtual doesn't strike me as something Flickr would be overly concerned with.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[shark72]

"But it seems Flickr's focus is on the sharing aspect rather than the photography aspect."

I don't get that impression at all. I still quite clearly remember being told, upon signing up, that my photos would not show up on the home page until my account had been manually reviewed to confirm that I was uploading photos, and not screen shots or random art. That made it quite clear that flickr is about photos.

"I expect the policy will be clarified to allow things like screenshots from virtual worlds, but disallow things like movie posters and screenshots from desktop applications."

God, I hope not. What makes flickr so cool is that it's about photos. As many others have pointed out, generic image-hosting sites are prevalent. Second Life users can take their pick.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[jpc]

Not sure they really see themselves as a photo site for the masses. Ok the grannies and babies are there but most of the people who make it a community rather than a posting site (and the subscribers) are actually interested in photography per se. Check out the discussions on black and white filom development, HDR, vintage cameras and so on.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[Anonymous Coward]

nice research. anyways, i just checked the flickr site - in great big letters on their front page, "Flickr - The best way to store, search, sort and share your photos".
 
I don't know why this is even a story. They make it extremely clear exactly what the site is intended for with minimal research done on my part. In case anyone missed it, photos is the keyword. Now I'm not sure what kind of topsy turvy bizzaro land some readers are from, but screenshots aren't photo's. You want funny screenshots from your fav game online, go to fark or somethingawful and post there. don't complain cause you broke from the clearly stated content of the site. OR better yet, make your own site.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[NotQuiteReal]

I took a quick look at their Terms of Use - I didn't see any "50% photos" rule.

But they do say stuff like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time".

Anyhow, I would guess their business model was to be aquired by someone else.

In this case it worked! Yahoo bought them, and users will be subject to the Yahoo TOS, which among other things includes the phrase "which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you"...

So, all-in-all, just another you get what you pay for deal.

I fail to see the problem.

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[tubapro12]

taking a screenshot and using a real camera are becoming increasing alike. with cameras, if anyone can use one the photos are less likely to be artistic. but you fail to acknowledge that creating a screenshot is something that can be an artistic task just as photography-in a game the task of positioning everything just perfectly and then the task of editing the image as you want it to be. take a look at some fansites to a game like simcity 4 or similar. the planning and designing that some use makes this a bit more difficult than just "pressing a button."

Re:What is Flickr's business model?

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a quick look at their Terms of Use - I didn't see any "50% photos" rule.

It's in the Community Guidelienes. It's not actually a new change. They tell you very clearly that Flickr is for photos, and not for non-photographic content.

Honestly,

[dubmun]

just get some web space of your own and then you can post whatever you want online.

There are plenty of affordable hosting providers that are cheap and allow for easy installation of Gallery or another OSS photo gallery application.

There's a simple solution

[courtarro]

Instead of using the Print Screen key, just point your trusty Digital Rebel at the screen and voila ... real photo.

Re:There's a simple solution

[whitehatlurker]

Yeah, that was my first thought, too.

Does this "ban" (or what ever you want to call it) cover "photos" of my computer with the thing I really want to show on the screen? After all, my computer is the most important object in my life, or so my wife goes on about ...

Who's rights, where?

[ivan256]

This could be a useful slashdot section, but we keep getting these stories that don't have anything to do with 'rights' at all, much less the reader's rights... Somtimes even the online part is a stretch.

So, some website actually implemented their policy, and some self-important people with a misguided sense of propriety got pissed about it. News for Nerds? Absolutely! Your rights online? Not a chance.

Market Forces

[Doomedsnowball]

So why don't people use Photobucket or Snapfish or Snapzilla or VillagePhotos or Zoto or TinyPic or SmugMug or Greatest Journal or...

My personal favorite DeviantArt?

There's not much of a story here except that if you commit to one hosting service, you run the risk of them being complete jerks with your content choice.

Re:Market Forces

[OakDragon]

Or, there may be an opportunity here for the entrepreneur.

I need "vaccations"

[Akoma The Immortal]

Why did I read "non-pronographic in nature" ?

Man, its been a long time since the last "blast" (2 days).

"Honey! Were are U?" :)

Need my morning coffee

[gotem]

I at first read that as 'non-pornographic in nature'.
I was about to add Flickr to my bookmarks

Re:Need my morning coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig no longer works.

Re:Need my morning coffee

[whitehatlurker]

Oh good, I thought it was just me. I wondered why they would be banning pages for not having enough ...

Your Rights Online?

[Tim C]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous misapplications of this topic that I've ever seen.

1. You have no right, natural, God-given or otherwise, to have your content hosted on Flickr.

2. The accounts have not been deleted, they have just been delisted. That means that they won't show up in a search.

3. As I understand it, you can still provide people with direct links to the screenshots.

Please, help me out here - in what way is this a YRO issue?

Re:Your Rights Online?

[Nimey]

I think Scuttlemonkey is trolling.

How do they know?

[OakDragon]

Do they really have people looking at the pics? Or is there an algorithm they use?

Sorry if this was mentioned somewhere; I didn't see it.

Re:How do they know?

[Jester6641]

my guess, and it is just a guess, mind you, is that it basically revolves around all the EXIF data. post a bunch of .jpgs without EXIF data and it's very likley that either you're not using a camera or else you're photoshopping. if your ammount tips 50% w/out data, then you might get a looking at. should that inspection reveal that you're posting screenshots (and not just using ps to edit things), you're delisted. this would also be useful to keep people from copying and pasting random photos from the interweb into their fickr accounts. just a thought, but it it's how i would do it, if i were them (which, i assure you, i am not).

Re:How do they know?

[joshsisk]

Photoshop preserves EXIF data, I believe... I know I have used it to change contrast and so forth on an image, and it has kept the EXIF data on the file.

Re:How do they know?

[seanipoo]

Don't think so. You can take a photo in RAW, and export it to non-EXIF JPEG or TIFF format using whatever RAW conversion software. I accidentally did this once myself, and my photo has not been 'delisted'.

My So Called Virtual Life

[blueZhift]

Hmm, it looks like Flickr is between a rock and a hard place. I don't know exactly how they do it now, but I would guess they use automation to flag images that are not considered photographic. It's just too big a job to do this manually, even if you offshore the whole thing to a low wage country. So if they decide that due to demand, to allow "photos" of users' virtual lives in WoW, SL, FFXI, etc., then policing it is going to be a real challenge. There are ways to make it easier to automate this, but the things I have in mind right now would require some tech saavy on the part of the user. It would not be wise to assume that just because someone figured out how to take an in-game snapshot, that they also know how to either add the necessary digital tags say, or avoid wiping said tags during the editing process. And of course this would be open to the usual abuse fueled by commercial interests. Some kind of community based policing might be the best bet, but none of these solutions will be perfect. And this all assumes that there is enough demand for this from Flickr customers. If not, they could just keep quiet and wait for the next story to make people forget about this!

Is it so hard to follow a site's rules?

[joetheappleguy]

Flickr is a free site originally designed for photographers. Screenshots of Second Life or any other game are not photography. Seems pretty simple huh?

Go find a different host if you can't accept Flickr's rules.

Re:Is it so hard to follow a site's rules?

[dr_leviathan]

Flickr is hoping to use its 'online gallery of your pictures' to eventually leverage services like: "We'll send you real prints of your photos for real $". No one will ever use flickr's photo printing services to get real prints of screenshots.

That said, it may be that the screenshot galleries are drawing a lot of views. If flickr can generate revenue from pure traffic then they may want to support public browsing of screenshot images, otherwise someone else (snapzilla?) will be able to fill that niche and deflate some of the potential traffic of the flickr service.

Re:Is it so hard to follow a site's rules?

[cr0sh]

No one will ever use flickr's photo printing services to get real prints of screenshots.

Maybe not today, but what about "tommorow"?

In other words, it would be nice to be able to offer low-cost prints of "screenshots" of computer graphic artwork and such. Also, what happens when "virtual worlds" (like SL, WoW, and others) become so realistic (graphically) that a screenshot can't be distinguished from a "real life" photograph (outside of pictorial cues that could never occur in real life, perhaps)?

These are just questions for idle debate. We aren't there yet, and likely won't be there for a little while longer, and by that time Flickr or their successors likely will allow such screenshot "photographs" anyhow as a part of their TOS agreements...

Re:Is it so hard to follow a site's rules?

[dr_leviathan]

Ok, I'll admit that assertion was not provably correct.

You make a good point that screenshots are moving toward photorealism. To extend the idle debate (doesn't that describe the vast majority of /. comment threads? ;-) the quality of prints from color/photo printers are fast becoming standard household items, so the market for selling real prints of our digital images will be a vanishing niche. I'm sure flickr has other ways to monetize their image storage system, I just don't know what they all are.

Re:Is it so hard to follow a site's rules?

[CCFreak2K]

Better idea: Read and ignore the ToS, get your "photos" delisted, then post an article on Slashdot proclaiming the injustice incurred on you.

You can insert "profit" wherever.

Flickr Sucks

[Frozen Void]

I never bother visitng such lame web 2.0 sites.Plus there alot of hosts who allow any images to be uploaded.

As long as I can get to my poneys...

[RobertB-DC]

As long as I can still get to the OMG!!! PONEYS!!! version of Slashdot, I'll be fine. At least I'll always be able to make my own sign.

Why...

[Odin_Tiger]

Why is this YRO? People signed up for a free service on a website, abused that service, and so their QoS was decreased. This is no different than the way angelfire / geocities won't let you use images stored on their sites as avatars on web forums (without some creative workarounds, at least). Is that a story worthy of YRO?

This is a travesty- If only John Kerry were pres..

[elmerf9001]

Blame them neocons for doing this. If only John Kerry were president this would have never happened. he would have immediately brought this before the UN and sanctions would have been forthcoming. I refused to take the Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker off my truck.

Downside of Web 2.0

[LukePieStalker]

Here we see the downside of Web 2.0. Apps available for the asking? Cool. The problem is that what happens to my data is completely up to the whim of the people running these sites. People are _shocked_ when something that they throw onto someone else's web site is moved around, or removed entirely. Wake up. The bargain you've made for all these freebies is loss of control.

Posting Screenshots - Justification

[I Am Defragged]

Flickr user Pentadact has a rather nice justification on his Flickr profile:

Taking screenshots in games is just like taking photos in real life, only you're in mortal danger at all times and occasionally have to kill people backwards whilst taking them. They're photographs as much as any picture of something someone else made is.

I entirely agree with what he says there, although I can imagine Flickr adding a new flag to their picture browsing. Currently, there's "May Offend". Soon, maybe there'll be "Not a photograph"?

Re:Posting Screenshots - Justification

[joshsisk]

That justification (that it's hard to take a screenshot) doesn't make much sense considering that Flickr is a site thats goal is to be a community for people who enjoy photography. Thus, when people go to the public areas, they should see photographs. Not because it's hard to take a photograph, but because it's the interest that the site is designed to promote.

To put it another way, if I had a website dedicated to people posting their poetry, I would probably delist people if they posted perl code - and not because I thought writing a poem is harder or easier, just because it's not what the site is for.

Re:Posting Screenshots - Justification

[I Am Defragged]

It's worth noting that the difficulty is only half of his argument. The other half can be summarised as "Screenshots can be art just as much as photography can". In some cases, this is true. The problems (other than copyright) occur when posted screenshots change from "This in my opinion is artistic and is posted here for others to see and appreciate" to "This is a picture of me hitting an elf for my blog. I've hosted it on flickr so as not to exceed my bandwith limit from my hosting providor".

But I pretty much agree with you though. Ludicorp created the service as a photography appreciation service and they have every right to enforce that. I usually make a point of posting screenshots etc for hosting on other sites such as Photobucket or my ISP's webspace.

Re:Posting Screenshots - Justification

[joshsisk]

It's worth noting that the difficulty is only half of his argument. The other half can be summarised as "Screenshots can be art just as much as photography can".

The other half isn't really valid either - anything can be artistic. In fact, most of the photos posted on flickr aren't really reated as art. But they ARE photos. In my example, I wouldn't accuse either the poet or the programmer of being unartistic, unclever, or unanything... but I'd try and keep the poems on the poetry site, and the code on the code site. That's all that Flickr is doing here, as you say.

angered and confused

[Anonymous Coward]

...angering and confusing some of the people who carefully stage scenes in the popular virtual world and religiously post the results online...

this is absolutely ridiculous

Sounds like there's a market

[esobofh]

...to serve the needs of these folks. Anyone want to partner with me on a new screenshots only server site? ...the name screenjism.com immediately comes to mind mmhmm. gigigiddey

This is why. . .

[kimvette]

If you don't have a static IP, You go to say, hostmysite or dreamhost, get your own virtual server, and install Gallery2 then you can post anything from nudie pics to screenshots to landscapes, or even copyrighted videos and you won't get shut down. You might get an angry letter if you post copyrighted material you do not own then the courts might order you to shut down, but at least no one else will have any say in what you post.

What section would you put it in?

[MyNameIsEarl]

To all the folks complaining about this being in YRO, what section/sections would you consider proper for this topic? Games? Politics? It seems to fit best here for me at least even if it is not technically about "rights". Do we really have rights online anyway or do our ISPs TOS come first. Or is the section really meant to be Your Rights (Discussed) Online?

Re:What section would you put it in?

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for putting it under "Shit nobody cares about"

Re:What section would you put it in?

[gfreeman]

How about the ever increasingly needed "This is not news" section?

Screenshots sites

[jedigeek]

A friend of mine developed a site specifically for screenshots in virtual worlds:

http://multitap.net/

It's fairly popular, easy to use, has an API so you could hack it straight into WoW. Maybe some of you upset by flickr would like this?

Pornography?

[say]

Am I the only one who read "when more than half of your content is non-pornographic in nature"? That would make flickr interesting...

23

[L-ViS]

Use 23 instead. Pretty much the same service but without the lock-in and delisting of screenshots.

This is a YRO issue!!

[nuggz]

in what way is this a YRO issue?

In their hollow little self centered American heads of course.
People who want everything free, and don't take any responsiblity for their own actions instead blame others, society, genetics, anything but their own behaviour and choices.

In their twisted little heads not letting them do whatever they want is wrong and a violation of their rights.

Re:This is a YRO issue!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans? How do we know these people bitching are American's? nice bias.

Trolls are funny

[paladinwannabe2]

Above is an example of a classic troll tactic. Note that it does not even refer to the issue at hand- it's a general comment designed to get heated reactions in almost any disscussion. Of course, in this context it is completely ridiculous- We wouldn't expect to see a U.S. President try for U.N. sanctions against an American company. I doubt he even read the summary.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit like the "Offtopic" modifier on Slashdot.

Easy solution

[Spy der Mann]

Search: [__________] ( ) Photographs (*) Games/Video Screenshots ( ) CG art

Now, that wasn't too hard, was it?

You've all missed the point!

[brundlefly]

This was really just a gag article posted by Slashdot editors to take the pulse of herd attitude regarding Flickr. Obviously, to judge by the number of indignant "Flickr has every right!" and "Down with screenshots!" posts, it's apparent that Flickr is still in the upper-right quadrant of Slashdot love.

Well done. Carry on!

Re:This is a travesty- If only John Kerry were pre

[/dev/trash]

I know your a troll now. Kerry/Edwards supports ride bikes not drive trucks.

I guess I'm confused a

[crlove]

The only thing you can't do with screenshots is search for them on flickr's site.

You can still link to them from other sites, use them in [img] tags on websites, etc.

You just can't use flickr's search box to find them.

So... what's the big deal? Does anyone really search flickr for screenshots?

Re:I guess I'm confused a

[ostawookiee]

The way it works is: if I post screenshots and get flagged, then site searches won't find ANY of my uploads, regardless of whether they're screenshots or photos.

Re:I guess I'm confused a

[crlove]

Not exactly true.

You need to mark your screenshots as private, then email support and tell them to "review" your account. What's happened is that they've deactivated it because you've gone against the agreement you clicked Yes to when you signed up.

They'll reactivate your account and everything will show up... except things marked private (which they think should include ANYTHING that's not a photo).

yawn

[contrapuntalmindset]

who cares? Just use a different site!

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Just photograph yourself looking at your screenshot! That was you pass the Flickr "This is a photograph" restriction AND you can use it as your, "I'm so artsy, my personal photo is of the back of my head," Myspace photo.

Thanks, I linked it on Wikipedia's April Fools

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking for that. I updated Wikipedia's April Fool's Day updated here with a linkified "false news stories and theme changes" for Slashdot.

I hope Flickr can handle the bandwidth surge :)

This is perfectly OK!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to see stupid screenshots when I search for photos.

When I search for screenshots I use Google or might even visit such crapsites like gamespot or such and such...

Blog is journalism? Photos != Screenshots?

[Tei]

I am enginecoder. This mean I am god of a tiny universe where I create the Light, the Shadows, the Fire and Water. How It looks, How It Feels. And after creating that, you make screenshots. But making screenshots on this virtual univers is exactly the problem you have making photos on a real shot. Where put camera?, What angle? What details in/out?. So yes, SL screenshots are photos. Imho.

Can anyone say, "Opportunity?"

[toganet]

This is the type of thing that someone could jump on -- make a flickr competitor that doesn't have the photographic focus -- maybe add features that the MMORPG people want, and they will flock from flickr fast!

non-pornographic in nature?

[iamr00t]

That's how I read it... i was like WTF? Is this for real? Is that what people really use Flickr for?

Bad Move By Flickr

[TheZorch]

This move could result in them loosing more than 3/4 of their user base whom happen to be "Second Life" users. I've heard from a lot users inside Second Life that they are moving to Snapzilla (http://www.sluniverse.com/pics/) and abandoning their old Flickr accounts. Some of these people make money at the events their screenshots promote, and this policy could impact their business which is a very bad things for Flickr.

Flickr has to learn something about offering services on the web, the hard way. If you burn your user base they'll leave and there is nothing you can do to make them come back because once burned they'll never trust you again. During the first Internet Bubble I can't even begin to count the number of sites that died because of stuff like this.

Bye bye Flickr, its been nice knowing you but it appears you are bound and determined to "policy" yourself out of business. Oh well, looks like Snapzilla will be replacing you soon.

Re:Bad Move By Flickr

[RedOregon]

Do you really.... seriously.... think that 3/4 of their user base are Second Life users? Or, reading the sentence the other way, do you really.... seriously.... think that the 3/4 of Second Life users that are part of Flickr's user base constitute a number that would really hurt them if they ran off to Snapzilla, wringing their hands all the way?

Methinks that the number of Second Life users that run away will do anything but "burn the user base". And I really don't think that "they will die because of stuff like this". Please.

Not flamebait... just.... disbelief I guess. >wanders off, shaking head slowly...

Re:Bad Move By Flickr

[RyanXP]

I hate to break it to you, but losing the second life screenshot business won't kill flickr. Most users who were uploading screens were free account users, and Flickr makes a substantial amount of money from - gasp - actual photographers who sign up for pro accounts to use their awesome features. Flickr will stay strong because of the features and API options available to people, and most people on Flickr use it for non-gaming purposes. As a MMORPG player myself, I understand how important screens are, but flickr just isn't the place. DeviantArt, Photobucket, or guild space is infinitely better for those purposes than flickr.

Re:This is a travesty- If only John Kerry were pre

[elmerf9001]

Totally untrue. Kerry has 5 SUVs. oops... I mean his family owns them not him.

check-box when searching?

[chocolatetrumpet]

How about a check-box that lets people include non-photography and or screenshots in their search.

Would that be so hard? Oh wait, we're talking about a site where character over-run in comments creates long lines which makes for horizontal scrolling on otherwise normal web pages. Maybe it would be that hard. :-\

Re:check-box when searching?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How about a check-box that lets people include non-photography and or screenshots in their search.

Why? They don't want to host them at all.

So what if...

[Adam Hazzlebank]

I take a screenshot of secondlife containing object, larger than 50% of the screen which is texture mapped with a photo? Is that allowed? Hmm!

Or what if the object is texture mapped with a photo of my computer screen with secondlife running containing an object texture mapped with a photo of my comp... [Error Stack Overflow]

Snapzilla

[jafuser]

Of course there's always Snapzilla, which was made for exactly this purpose.

I have a paid-for flickr "Pro" account, I wonder if this affects them too? Doesn't really matter though, as I rarely use it anyway.

I ran into this problem with Flickr before...

[Khyber]

And here (not verbatim) was their response. "PhotoGRAPH = film, Image = digitally created without the use of a camera. You lose."

The number it takes to delist is subjective

[beej]

I had over 1000 photographs on my flickr page when I uploaded about 40 images that were straight reproductions of a series of public domain paintings and drawings.

I was promptly delisted, I think maybe because one of the paintings made it to the "interesting" page.

Well duh.

[Peganthyrus]

This is what Snapzilla is for. Or an image gallery on http://pics.livejournal.com/shatterstripes/gallery /00006bp6>Livejournal or Blogger or whatever you prefer, or on your own website. Fickr is for photographs, not general image hosting. Screenshots of a video game are not photos - if they were, we'd call them that.

No imagination

[fondue]

"The rationale is that when people do a global search on Flickr, they want to find photos," Butterfield said.

Don't dictate how users should use your service, jackass. If people are finding screenshots when they want photos, they should learn how tags work. Flickr should focus their efforts on making their UI less horrific instead of whining about completely subjective issues.

I don't want to look at people's boring Second Life shots, but I don't want to look at their boring everyday life photos either. Flickr's policy presumes that people do not (cannot?) use screenshots as a means of expression, or as appreciation of notable game art and design.

Use manditory tags...

[kjs3]

Create a "Lives in Parents Basement" tag and make it mandatory on anything from WoW. Filter out that tag, problem solved...:-)

Being Flexible

[airship]

I ran into this policy early on in Flickr's career when I posted scans of a bunch of my cartoons. Flickr blank-screened them, arguing that they were a 'photo' site. I finally convinced them to turn my scans back on, but only after a dozen emails back and forth. I think the only reason they caved is because I was one of their very first paying customers when they went live.

This is another case of a company not being responsive to its customers' needs. Sure, their original vision was the sharing of photos. But if their paying customers want to share all kinds of images, why not expand their business model to embrace that? They'll have more happy customers in the long run.

If Flickr wants to emplasize the 'photo' aspect, then set up 'types' to let users and viewers filter their views and searches. If someone wants to view only photos, they could. If somebody else wanted screenshots only, so be it. It seems easy to me.

You've forgotten rule number 1.

[/dev/trash]

Do as I SAY not as I DO.

"My Cat Looking at the FooInstaller Screens"

[billstewart]

So you need photographic copy - it's easy enough to generate. You may want to use Photoshop or GIMP to paste in the real screenshot instead of the harder-to-read photograph. If you don't already have a cat, you can obtain one at your local SPCA or Humane Society.

they can add a photographs-only option

[Walter Carver]

Flickr can add an option to show only photographs (which will probabaly be activated by default while the user can change it). But if they don't want at all non-photographs, and they want to discurage people from doing that, then it's a good strategy.

Answer: Screenshotr

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's needed is a good site for sharing screenshots. Just like Flickr, but meant for screenshots + hand-made / photoshopped (or photochopped) work, and (somehow) getting around copyright ... something like a Screenshotr.

(Ofr courser itr hasr tor haver ther Webr 2.0r -r suffixr).