Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Screenshot Accounts 'Delisted' on Flickr

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the screenshots-more-real-than-photos-for-some dept.

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.'"

15 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. simple solutions by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:simple solutions by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?
      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:simple solutions by vishbar · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Ride the skies
  2. Virtual != Real (yet) by brenddie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    The best test environment is production. - Me
    chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
    1. Re:Virtual != Real (yet) by iainl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:Virtual != Real (yet) by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  3. Delisted, not removed. by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  4. My Rights Online?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:My Rights Online?!! by 14CharUsername · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because it's discrimination against virtual people.

  5. Stop whining by tygerstripes · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
  6. Re:Search option by ScottLindner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
  7. Who's rights, where? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Market Forces by Doomedsnowball · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
  9. Your Rights Online? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  10. Re:Makes Sense by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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