Slashdot Mirror
Flickr Censors A Photographer's Plea
Bananatree3 writes "Popular Icelandic photographer and art-student Rebekka Guoleifsdottir has been targeted by Flickr for posting a plea for help in a theft case involving an online retailer selling copycat art. She requested that people send the retailer letters concerning the issue, and in response her original post was promptly deleted. It is still ironically available on Yahoo cache. In the end it appears that the retailer had been duped by a rogue art dealer under the title "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD". However, Flickr seems to have overstepped its bounds in deleting this post." This whole case brings back up the messy issues surrounding content ownership in this strange new world of a services based internet.
Isn't it Flickr's site? They can do whatever they want. This isn't involving your rights online or anybody else's "right".
And, as a result of Rebekka's plea for people to send letters to OnlyDreemin, the blog entitled "Jumping to conclusions" states: So while Rebekka's post wasn't necessarily threatening, it sure resulted in threatening actions which, if I'm not mistaken, death threats are illegal in the United States and most likely in Iceland as well. If you read the rest of Flickr's ToS, they are very stringent about targeting other Flickr users with any kind of content/e-mail/threats whatsoever.
Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin? They are legally liable for what they sell. If they can't produce the people who sold them the prints, that's their fault for doing business with shady people. Did they bother to ask the people for licensing information? I find it hard to believe that the art world doesn't have a way to catalog and look up sellers of art with licenses or anything like that. You don't just transfer (£3000.00) in cash or to an anonymous Paypal account. Come on, hold someone responsible, don't get on Flickr and start a smear campaign toward them!
I honestly think Flickr did the right thing. They shouldn't be involved in this, they aren't a legal site or a petition site or anything like that at all. They are a general photo content site. Don't run your business from it, don't use it for your political or legal battles. That's it, plain and simple.
There is a better place for this conflict, in the courts not on Flickr.
My work here is dung.
That's what most businesses are run by. Craven cowards will crumble at the first sign of organized attack on them. It's ironic that they do things like that because it puts blood in the water for the other predators. In this case, that seems to be what Flickr did. They just folded and told their user to go to hell, until the outcry got big enough that they couldn't ignore it.
Personally, I think what we need is a push for a counter to this complaint culture by creating a culture where people who complain to get good things shut down without VERY good reason are subjected to no end of humiliation, emotional torment, destruction of their professional life, etc.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
You should host your own stuff, instead of using using 'free' web-services, if it's important.
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
important news
Just because you post (submit) something on a web site owned and operated by someone else, that doesn't give you the "right" to force them to publish it or keep serving it up. You're not entitled to that.
If I submit a "letter to the editor" to my local newspaper, I don't have the "right" to force the newspaper to publish my letter. Whether they publish it or not is up to them, not me, because they own the publication. They are not violating my free speech rights if they refuse to publish my letter, because I am free to publish it myself or to utilize some other forum.
It's no different with the web. Really. If I post something on Slashdot or Digg or whatever, and they decide to take it down, that's their right as "publishers". I'm free to go post my speech somewhere else, or to set up and operate my own web server and publish it myself, so they're not violating my free speech rights.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
No, seriously. How is it ironic that a cache retained information was deleted? Is there some new definition of the word "ironic" that means "worked as intended"?
The downside to Flickr, Blogger and other providers of services to the masses are the Terms of Service which generally give them the right to re-appropriate your content for their own uses.
So if you were, say traveling around the world and want to document it, best to use a combination like MovableType and Gallery so you retain complete control. If you are concerned about copyright I can't imagine why ANYONE would use a service provider like Google, Yahoo, etc.
Or at least use it enough to "see more here"... and refer them to your real site.
But rather of rational actions. As I said above, they can impose whatever censorship or editing they wish. Nonetheless, their actions smell of rash decision making and that is what this is about. Not a legal question, but a question about the morality of censoring one of Flickr's top submitters.
It will be interesting to see how the /. groupthink tackles this. Photographer (and hence, at least partially-nerd) from the imagined-to-be-always-hip Iceland strives to make some money doing something creative and leveraging the internet to become visible and reach customers. Someone rips off her creative work. Slashdot: "Man, she sure got screwed. But let's argue about whether and how to use the word "censorship" when Flickr removes a contentions and legally risky post from their system."
Or, she's a filmaker who puts, porportionately, the same amount of her money and reputation on the line (along with that of usually many other people), and works with a distributor as a way to make money from her work and fund her next project. Someone rips off her creative work. Slashdot: "That's cool. I shouldn't have to pay for bits."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When the victim is an RIAA or MPAA member company?
Or is that mere copyright infringement?
There's this interesting cognitive dissonance when it comes to copyright infringement. When the little guy (or gal) gets ripped off, it's called stealing; but when a large company gets ripped off, it's called sharing.
Maybe, just maybe, we need a better model for understanding the interests of consumers and artists alike. It seems that in the digital age, the copyright model doesn't do a very good job of protecting the interests of either the artist or the consumer.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
All value is based on scarcity. When you digitize something, it becomes instantly, perfectly reproducable across teh internets at practically zero cost.
Hence it no longer has any value.
Stop whining about how your intellectual property has been stolen, realise that it isn't actually worth anything.
A complaint at being ripped off is likely to contain many of the same words and sentence order fragments as someone who is ripping stuff off.
It's all part of the robot plan to take over the earth by Kafkaesque means...
Wikileaks, no DNS
...as someone's said above, this is overstepping rational bounds, not legal ones. The article is negative publicity for Flickr. Now a person may think twice before posting something there.
It would be nice if websites like Flickr, Youtube, etc... would work the way we wanted without catch or incident. Uploaded content, not legally infringing to anyone in anyway, could be shown and life would be grand for the online masses.
/done rambling..
Sadly, that is not reality. I've come to realize that this sort of thing, WILL happen. There is no way around it. The Internet is gray, and as such, companies like Flickr, who offer pretty much something for nothing, will on occasion screw up* and remove something that probably should not have been removed. It falls inline with those DMCA takedown requests that subsequently get reversed upon appeal.
Its easier for a company like Flickr, to kill an image in there system, than have an employee, or lawyer do a little leg work and see if there is valid reason to remove such content, other than someones request(I make distinction here as lawyers are a lower subset of the working class as they do not actually progress humanity in anyway shape or form. Rather, their attempt at inserting civil order to the psyche, is actually a perversion to humanity.)
Get used to things like this occurring. They will happen again and probabaly more often. In contrast to the amount of content that is uploaded, things like this become moot as a percentage. That doesn't mean, however, that the principal idea of online content rights becomes moot. In fact, I'd go as far as to say ANY incident that occurs with regard to user uploaded content is important and should be defended if no there is no legal cause to remove it. How can anyone tought the Internet as a bastion of freedom of ideas when instances of user generated content become denied online, and the reasoning behind it goes unchecked?
Today I have been in contact with OnlyDreemin and asked for clarification on this issue. I was saddened to learn they have received death threats over this matter, proving once again just how passionate people are, no matter how misguided, when it comes to this type of theft.
Calm down people it's just some pictures. If a post on my site was generating death threats, I'd delete the damn thing too.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This really is a non story now. I was aware of it a few days ago (when it was fresh, not limited by /.'s usual slow processes) when various 'fine art' types on CIX were discussing it. Since then, Flickr have apologised, reinstated the post and the other party has put forward their own perfectly reasonable side of the story. It's all over. Move on.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Was it todd?
On an off-topic note: still ironically available? So they're still available for ironic purposes? The comma is your friend, editors. I've even seen "there" instead of "their" in an earlier story, and the trend seems to be deepening.
If the editors are going to keep submissions in limbo for hours before they post them, they could at least do us the common courtesy of proof-reading them for mistakes of grammar, spelling, punctuation and such. If it's "stuff that matters", don't make it difficult to read by buggering with the conventions of written English. Thanks.
Meta will eat itself
...I guess she should find another business model like selling t-shirts or something since information wants to be free. Screw her if she thinks I'm going to pay for photographs that I could go take myself.
if I had seen this I would have included it in the article. Sigh, at least there are comments to help further the understanding of the situation.
I hope you allow us non 'artistes' a go at discussing this
Usual yahoo behavior i see, now if only the Chinese police got involved with Yahoo then this would be a completely different matter.
Don't you know that Yahoo! is an evil company?
Why would any serious photographer want to let a company like Yahoo! benefit from their work?
I deleted all my photographs from that site as soon as I heard about the Flickr/Yahoo buyout.
Yahoo! is a company that will help China find and arrest Chinese citizens who post anti-political statements.
Is that the kind of behavior you want to support with your art and your hard work?
And now they're censoring whatever they feel will help their company.
Come on people, show a some balls and soul and intestinal fortitude and dump that horrible site!
Flickr was great. Flickr *WAS* great.
Well then they are still getting it from you, the Russians are just charging a finder's fee, right. //takes tongue out of cheek
Quoting an antiquated definition that was created before the current situation arose is in now way definitive. Claiming that i's not stealing because a definition you like says so proves nothing.
"Stealing, by definition, removes the item from possession of the original possessor."
No, it doesn't It removes property from the original possessor with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit. This is not the same as taking an item as you claim. More importantly, it is the taking of the property that is the crime, whether or not the individual is deprived of its use is completely irrelevant, as in this case they could be deprived of its benefit and still meet your definition.
You are wrong. Now instead of composing a long winded but factually incorrect response, examine your position so you can realize where your mistakes are and correct them.
Find me one lawyer who explains to a client that copyright infringement is stealing and I will show you a disbarred lawyer.
I understand this all got out of hand really quick with censorship and what not... But i never understand why these big sites fail to make simple solutions to help and promote a safe site for its users. This is may be pure shameless advertising... but our lil site yuniti.com allows users to watermark their pictures. Yeah... you dont get to see the full image, but isnt the whole point of these picture sites a place to have users share their images?? and not to sell their photos online?? Anyway, programming wise its a one day featuere... seems so simple.. and would avoid so many problems...
Someone rips off her creative work. Slashdot: "That's cool. I shouldn't have to pay for bits."
And, if I might inquire, which bits are those? The bits that make up a physical printing of a product? Did we enter the matrix at some point?
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/45555499/in/set -1142602/t -1142602/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/31580466/in/se
Pretty ladies always get my sympathy.
They're not digg. They should apoligise, and restore the post.
The photographer accused a company of "theft" without any kind of evidence. Yahoo not only did the right thing to take down those comments, they may well be legally obligated to do so, since the photographer's comments may well be libelous.
I hope the guy who stole her photos will get found and published. But I also think the company she accused should consider suing her for libel--it sounds like they might have a good case.
And a piece of advice to photographers: if you don't want this to happen to you, put up your images in 1024x768 or lower resolution and put a couple of small watermarks somewhere in the image. You aren't legally obligated to do that, but it's foolish not to. Or, alternatively, just stop worrying about it and allow the images to be freely used with attribution. That way, people will make money off them (mostly just for the physical production), but you will usually get the credit as an artist.
If you go to only-dreemin's website and click "Shop" you get 404'd. Hopefully they are taking an inventory of their wares to make sure they aren't "warez". flickr is just being typically reactionary to a situation that they think might get them sued. Better to censor the individual than get sued by the company.
Well, it's back up (Rebecca's blog post) and Yahoo/flickr has apologized for taking it down so all is well on the utopian internets again.. And the people rejoiced and drank grape juice. Now back to our regularly scheduled nonsense.
If somebody had taken the picture, printed it, and stuck it on his/her wall, this wouldn't be an issue. If somebody had perhaps come across it, and used it as art in a website, again... probably not a big deal.
But that's not what happened. Somebody took the picture, claimed it was theirs, and profited from it. There's a certain lower-level to this.
I'm not a big "fan" of "piracy" myself. I still watch films in theatres, I buy CD's from independants, and download legally-available music. In the past I did download games (if they sucked I deleted them, if they were good I bought 'em). I'm also tempted to download various movies that I can't find locally, but I haven't bothered with that yet either. I don't have a personal issue with people who do download movies/songs/whatever, but I find those that sell them to be somewhat lower on the morality/respect scale. Even further down are those that claim they own said material. Picking somebody's art off the net (or scanning a picture, whatever) and claiming ownership is - at least in my mind - just a step short of nabbing somebody's jewelry, wearing it to a party and claiming that it was yours all along.
*posting anon because I have already moderated elsewhere in this post - phorm*
It is still not restored. How long does it take for them to do that? Or is their own internal administrative management panel some form of menu hell that they can't figure out how to navigate to find the OOPS button?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I know a gal who's got one of her images selling on a very popular shirt in Austrailia and (I think) China or Taiwan as well. She's not getting a dime for it of course, the T-Shirt company just ripped off the print. She's a poor starving artist so she can't afford to sue a foreign company, which has probably made a rather large amount of money, after all, the shirt was very popular two years ago (she saw it on a tourist here in the states I believe).
Heck there is even a 'famous' T-Shirt company/artist in LA that's been ripping off all his material from other people on the net. This is the result of all those people who steal art and cross post it everywhere, the original authors (who are often poor) get screwed.
Even though you have to pay like 20 bucks a year for it. It is worth t for the customer support you get. Plus they offer some great incentives if you were a flickr user. My advice? Switch. Flickr has started going downhill. www.smugmug.com
Philip Greenspun has been dealing with this since there were only a few dozen web sites total. His solution is a Hall of Shame which he has vowed to keep up forever. Of course it helps that he hosts his images himself, and that he never caves to take down and cease-and-desist letters regarding his Hall of Shame. He explains the genesis of his approach here (search for "Personal Approach to Copywright"). As Philip puts it "it has to be muchmore efficient for society than a bunch of corporations hiring lawyers to sling mud at each other in court. Under my system, we can enjoy seeing our work (with credit) on other folks' sites, vent our spleens at midnight by adding to a Web page of transgressors, and then move on to new productive activities."
1800-RIAA
Also, see http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2007/05/sometime s_we_ma.html for more details of Flickr's response.
...Flickr own the hardware, Flickr make it clear they own you virtual ass in regard to using the service. It's unseemly, but frankly, it's Flickr's bat and ball, they can take it home if they want.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1