Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flickr Censors A Photographer's Plea

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the who-owns-what dept.

Censorship 178

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.

cancel ×

178 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Overstepped??!! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144177)

However, Flickr seems to have overstepped its bounds in deleting this post."

Isn't it Flickr's site? They can do whatever they want. This isn't involving your rights online or anybody else's "right".

Re:Overstepped??!! (4, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144233)

Yes, it is their site, and they can censor as they wish. They could impose draconian laws if they wanted. However, that is unlikely as it would drive away people from their site. The kind of censorship of the kind described by this photographer is stepping outside of a rational bounds, not necessarily a legal one.

Re:Overstepped??!! (5, Informative)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144269)

Flickr HQ has since issued an apology [flickr.com] for the removal of her post.

Mod parent up! (0, Offtopic)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144287)

important news

Re:Overstepped??!! (4, Funny)

nametaken (610866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144985)

This doesn't happen often, but I think this /. article is now officially dead in the first 3 comments. :)

Everything below is just fluff.

Re:Overstepped??!! (4, Funny)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145221)

This doesn't happen often, but I think this /. article is now officially dead in the first 3 comments. :)

Well, if you want to end the conversation, at least do it right: mumble mumble mumble Nazi mumble mumble....

Re:Overstepped??!! (1, Funny)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145357)

Wait, we still have a ton of pro forma comments to get through! Here's my contribution:

Hey! I'm a Nazi, you insensitive clod!

Re:Overstepped??!! (0, Offtopic)

spamking (967666) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145823)

I didn't think it was really over until someone bashed George Bush.

Re:Overstepped??!! (2, Insightful)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145625)

No. Restoring a comment and apologizing once it hits the Slashdot homepage is slow. And not cool. Systemic problems solved in small doses are still problems.

Re:Overstepped??!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19145659)

Call and ask them if they really are theiving cunts

only-dreemin UK
Unit D, 88 Vernon Road
Aylestone
Leicester
LE2 8GB
United Kingdom

+44 (0)1162 440 349

Re:Overstepped??!! (3, Interesting)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144313)

However, Flickr seems to have overstepped its bounds in deleting this post."
Isn't it Flickr's site? They can do whatever they want. This isn't involving your rights online or anybody else's "right".

It is Flickr's site. And yes, they can do what they want. However, market forces can also force them to do what is right.

So, do you sympathize with the photographer? If we go by the anti-copyright crowd, she doesn't have a case. It is "copycat" art. Or, are we going to protect her intellectual property?

Re:Overstepped??!! (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144823)

the anti-copyright crowd is a convenient radicalization which can be better dealt with by the opponent: it worked with communism (fighting against the power of fake, anonymous capital became negating people whatever property and whatever freedom), it worked with nationalism (being patriot means being pro fascist/bushist right) it worked with geeks (depicting people who wants to share their own damn code and reverse engineer what is needed to interoperate in communist hippies who want all software to be free and copyright to be abolished).

She made the photos? they are hers, modulo the rights of the photographed subject. Am I pro microsoft, pro patents, pro drm? LOL no way. So how do I fit your mental model of pro vs anti copyright? The model is too simple.

Re:Overstepped??!! (0, Troll)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145023)

While I certainly sympathize with the photographer I don't think Flickr has any obligation in the matter what-so-ever. She took advantage of a free service that they offer in order to gather support for her cause. If anything, she was the one who overstepped her bounds. Of course I think her motivation may have been to warn other Flickr users. In that case it's more of a grey area. She could have gone through Flickr admin/mod/whatever channels first.

Either way I don't see this as being an issue of "right vs. wrong". She doesn't pay Flickr anything so far as I can assume. She can't expect anything from them. They have the right to do whatever they want. And yeah if they piss off the market the market may decide to find an alternative, but that's their problem and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they "overstepped their bounds". Their bounds are basically they can do whatever they want with their property. They can't resell or claim ownership of your work (as that is not their property), but they can sure as hell refuse to host it on their servers. If you've got a problem with that go pay $5 / month for some cheap web hosting or sign up for a free blogger account, post your story there and submit it to /. where you're sure to get a massive amount of support (;p)

Re:Overstepped??!! (3, Insightful)

Arathrael (742381) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145177)

She doesn't pay Flickr anything so far as I can assume
If you hadn't assumed and you'd gone and looked, you'd have found out that she pays them $24.95 a year.

If you've got a problem with that go pay $5 / month for some cheap web hosting or sign up for a free blogger account
And they couldn't do something similar because... ?

Re:Overstepped??!! (1)

dfiguero (324827) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145749)

These are the days I wish I had mod points!

I'm pretty sure you didn't even bother to follow any of the links on the story. Here's what Flickr told her when they erased her post:

"Flickr is not a venue for to you harass, abuse,
impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid
complaint about your conduct, we will send you a warning or
terminate your account."
Now please go read the yahoo cache of her plea and amuse us with all the examples you can find of harassment, abuse, impersonation or intimidation then com back and let us know how your right vs. wrong theory plays out.

She doesn't pay Flickr anything so far as I can assume
Again, you didn't even see her Flickr page I imagine. Here you go: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/ [flickr.com]
See that little "pro" image? It means she payed a yearly subscription.

Re:Overstepped??!! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145485)

So, do you sympathize with the photographer? If we go by the anti-copyright crowd, she doesn't have a case. It is "copycat" art. Or, are we going to protect her intellectual property?

Keep in mind that an ethical position is not a legal position. Maybe one can say that she shouldn't have a case, but legally, she probably does have a legitimate case and could win if she had the means to fight it.

Also, Berne convention means that a copyright in one country effectively translates to other countries, meaning that a company in the UK violating the copyrights of a person in the US is still a violation. The hard part is enforcement because she'd have to take the issue up in the UK court system, which is probably why said photographer is taking a grass-roots route instead. I think that's a better way.

Re:Overstepped??!! (4, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145699)

As part of the "anti-copyright" crowd, we do not support giving creator no right at all, simply reasonable rights.

Pretty much everyone supports her right to be identified as the creator of the photograph. Was that done in this case? Obviously not.

Most of us would support a reasonable copyright law, for example, with exceptions for non-commercial or private use, lasting for a reasonable time etc. In this case it was public commercial use, so she should be paid.

Another subtlety that you miss is that the issues around copyright of software (obviously a major concern on /.), are very different from those around photography so we may take different view on the two.

Re:Overstepped??!! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144399)

I don't know nuthin about censorship, but man she is hot! [flickr.com]

Re:Overstepped??!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144451)

I'd censor those sharp knees any day!

Re:Overstepped??!! (2, Informative)

artjunk (1088603) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144565)

Move along nothing to see here. Matter resolved peacefully...Flikr reposted the blog.

Update 2:Flickr have acknowledged that made a mistake, and have restored _Rebekaa's blog.

Re:Overstepped??!! (4, Insightful)

gunnk (463227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144755)

So you wouldn't feel wronged if Slashdot deleted your comment, right?

Is it in there power to do so? Sure. Would that make it right? No. Her posting on Flickr wasn't inappropriate -- in fact, it should be important to Flickr. She's one of the most popular photographer's Flickr has. I fell in love with her work back with this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/47807949/in/set -72057594112345061/

More importantly, this very popular photographer is having her work RIPPED OFF by some print shop in England. It's in Flickr's best interest for her to get the word out since this kind of criminal behavior scares people away from posting good stuff on Flickr.

The deletion was just plain stupid.

Re:Overstepped??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144917)

Hey, what about CafePress? They'll delete ANYBODY'S design without further review if you simply email and suggest that the design on someone's CafePress store violates your copyright. You don't even have to prove it! As soon as a complaint is received, they yank the design.

Why is there no public screaming about that injustice?

Try it yourself...pick a random CafePress store and complain that the design violates some copyright. Watch that design disappear without a hearing! Even if the design owner complains back and claims ownership, they believe the complainer, no evidence necessary!

The Conflict (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144195)

From Flickr's Terms of Use [flickr.com] , there are several reasons why this post was taken down. The ToS states:

Flickr is intended for personal use and is not a generic image hosting service. Professional or corporate uses of Flickr are prohibited.
How did they know that this isn't a PR stunt? Set up a facade company, sell your work through it with no traces back to you then post on Flickr about the problem. Bam! Instant exposure to thousands of people.

We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Use.
And, as a result of Rebekka's plea for people to send letters to OnlyDreemin, the blog entitled "Jumping to conclusions" states:

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.
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.

Goatse! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144213)

Goatse! [goatse.ch]

In case it's not already set as your wallpaper.

Re:The Conflict (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144317)

The courts are a bad case for any conflict - they're expensive, unpredictable, arbitrary and usually produce an outcome not satisfactory to either side.

Re:The Conflict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144655)

... and usually produce an outcome not satisfactory to either side.
Probably because they're supposed to be fair and unbiased. If they had an outcome that satisfied one side, it wouldn't be very unbiased now, would it?

It's called "compromising"--you know, finding a solution somewhere in the middle?

Re:The Conflict (1)

Kamots (321174) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144703)

I don't think unbiased means what you think it means.

Re:The Conflict (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144871)

The courts are a bad case for any conflict - they're expensive, unpredictable, arbitrary and usually produce an outcome not satisfactory to either side.

The real question is if letter bombing is better.

Re:The Conflict (1)

ubuwalker31 (1009137) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144941)

Yea, I think trial by combat is a better idea -- lets leave courts out of it entirely and let g-d decide who is right!

Most Likely (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144487)

My guess is that the post was caught by a generic bot looking for phrases that suggest matherial that has been ripped off.

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...

Re:The Conflict (3, Interesting)

lostboy2 (194153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145469)

Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin?
That's a good question and the thing that makes this story interesting to me.

On Rebekka's original page (Yahoo cache), she mentions having an Icelanding lawyer send letters to OnlyDreemin. The response, it seems, was less than satisfying:

The letters did nothing other than make them take the images down from their site. Further letters got no response from them.
She then says:

My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else
Presumably this is because an Icelandic lawyer is only certified to practice law in Iceland and OnlyDreemin is based in the UK. So, Rebekka's only other option is to hire a UK attorney. But, as she mentions in her comments, she doesn't feel that she can risk all of her money (literally) to hire a lawyer for a case that might drag on for a long time and which she might not even win (or might not win enough to make it worth it).

So I'm curious if anyone on /. has had similar experiences (where an individual pursues legal action against a company in another country).

Craven cowards (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144247)

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.

Re:Craven cowards (1)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144673)

"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."

You seem have a problem with freedom of speech I see. Freedom of speech means the right to say stupid and outrageous things. It's the price we pay. And no, having her images pulled by Flicker does not constitute a muzzling. She was using their servers to post and has to play by their rules. There was nothing holding her back from doing it on a server with different rules.

I can understand Flickr being cowards here, but I don't see them being at fault. If Flickr explicitly says "do your money related things elsewhere", then she should not be surprised if they pull her post. It's not as if she could not post it elsewhere or take 1/2 an hour to set up a blog.

As far as craven cowards running most business. Their desire to make a buck/living/ill-gotten-fortune/whatever is stronger than their passion for . They are in the business of making money, not moral crusades. That's life. They are not required to join you on your crusade. In fact, they'll probably avoid it like the plague. Every political issue has two sides and being in any way political invariably results in SOMEBODY boycotting them. From their perspective, its better to go the inoffensive to anyone route. I won't spend a dime on Benetton's clothes because of they way they did a billboard campaign against the death penalty in the US a few years ago. I object to the death penalty, but was offended at the way they portrayed the various convicts - and the victims were never mentioned at all. This same company has been accused of sweatshop labor. Cynical old me has a hard time accepting their holier than thou "we are social responsible" line. So can you blame most companies for not stepping into the minefield?

I don't know where you are posting from, so you may or may not know about this reference - a few weeks ago, a morning radio commentator in the US said some unpleasant things about a womens' basketball team with mostly black players. In the ensuing uproar, many advertisers pulled their sponsorship and the the commentator eventually lost his job. For weeks afterwards, I was reading editorials about how political correctness. Bull; all of it. The man did not loose his right to call someone a nappy ho. A company merely decided that paying him megabucks to do so was bad for business - just as the advertisers dropped his show. It boiled down to firms simply not wanting to offend people.

Re:Craven cowards (1)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144711)

"For weeks afterwards, I was reading editorials about how political correctness. Bull; all of it. "

gah... must proofread!

That should read: "For weeks afterwards, I was reading editorials about how political correctness is intruding on free speech. Bull; all of it. "

Rebekka's post (4, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144255)

Here's the text of the post, because I wouldn't expect it to stay in Yahoo's cache forever..

I have a LOT on my mind right now.. to be honest, i've rarely been so royally pissed off as i am today.
The photos shown above all have one thing in common (besides being rather lovely landscape photos):

They were all taken , without my permission, by the London based print-selling company Only-Dreemin [only-dreemin.com] . This company prides itself on offering its customers only the best quality canvas prints of the finest photos , by top artists.

What they fail to mention is that some of the photos they're selling prints of have been illegally obtained, and are being sold without the artists consent or knowledge.

In my case, a friend of mine came across their store on ebay [ebay.co.uk] and recognized one of my prints. (this was way back in january i think)
I looked into the matter and discovered 7 more of my photos being sold there. In the case of pictures 1, 2, 6 and 7, the image had been divided up into 3 vertical panels. ( Something i would never DREAM of doing myself. ) Furthermore, the images had been given new and exciting titles, like "Seraque II" and "Attica", "Dawn expander II" and " Joga" (barf)
I spent a good many days researching, going back thru their customer feedback, and was able to track back the sales of at LEAST 60 prints made from my images.
These prints sold for a total sum of 2450 british pounds (around 4840 US$ )

I gathered all the evidence , saved each webpage displaying my work , saved the list of customer feedback, printed all this stuff out and took it to a lawyer here in iceland.
She was confident that by sending them some well-phrased letters i'd be sure to get some damages out of them. After all, i had tons of incriminating evidence.
The letters did nothing other than make them take the images down from their site. Further letters got no response from them. My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill and the infuriating fact that I, being only a non-wealthy art stutdent/ single mom in iceland, will have to accept that these people stole my work and made lots of money off it, and apparently are going to get away with it.

This is NOT OK BY ME.
I could think of little else to do than to at least tell people about this.
I have reason to believe that they've stolen images from other people, maybe other flickr users.
The reason i suspect this is quite simple. My photos were being sold under the bogus name of "Rebekka Sigrún" (the nerve of keeping the first name the same is somewhat amazing).
I saw a number of other photos being sold under that same artist name, and they werent mine. And obviously this Rebekka Sigrún doesnt exist.
Looking over the pictures i remember being sold under that name, it appears they've changed the artist name to "marco van eych". If anyone knows a landscape photographer by that name, let me know. i very much doubt he exists.

So i encourage everyone that has been displaying similar landscape photos on flickr to look at their site and see if they see something suspicious.
It would also be pretty cool if as many people as possible would send them angry letters, (address them to info@only-dreemin.com ) but that's just if you feel like it;)


ok. i've said my piece. Quite a load off my back.

Re:Rebekka's post (2, Funny)

SlayerofGods (682938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144429)

My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill
Well there's the problem; you need a sleazy American lawyer. Those guys can get blood from a stone ;)

Re:Rebekka's post (5, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144545)

Regarding the claims of the seller having been the victim of a dubious third-party/picture libary/whatever, it is not entirely clear that this is true. Note one of the later comments from Rebekka states (my emphasis):-

Their claims of a third party selling them the images are not new. This is something they told to my lawyer back in february, claiming "someone" presented them with the high-res files and "official looking documents". When asked by my lawyer to show us evidence of this transaction, they simply stopped replying.

Yesterday they openly admitted to having sold my images, albeit without the knowlege of them belonging to me. Suddenly they have a name for the mysterious seller, "wild aspects and panoramics LTD" which, as someone already mentioned above, does not exist, and does not appear to have ever existed. If they are telling the truth, explain this to me: why did they refuse to put forth evidence that this party exists when my laywer requested it? If anything, it would help their argument, and if this party conned them, why on earth would they want to protect them? Afer all, they claim to have payed them 3000 pounds, there must exist some sortof bill or something?

Furthermore, if you realize you've inadvertantly sold something that was stolen, you've still committed a crime. In their case, they seem to feel its perfectly OK for them to keep the money they illegally made from my stolen work. Saying their sorry isnt enough. If they were conned, that's their problem, and they are free to go after that mysterious seller and sue THEM. Its not my problem. I still deserve to get paid damages from them for the profit they made from my copyrighted work.

There is nothing complicated about this matter. They did wrong. Theyve admitted it. Its not fair that they just get away with it by putting forth some very dubious excuse and saying their sorry.
I'd advise people to read the whole thread on the rustylime.com website (which I haven't done myself yet). There are two dozen sides to every story, and this appears to be one, but it's misleading to imply that the company was definitely a victim here; their explanation seems dubious, and is not yet accepted by Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir herself.

Re:Rebekka's post (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144793)

Also, from a later post she says

there were photos on there being sold under the same false name as was put on my images (Rebekka Sigrún). They were still up there yesterday morning, under the artist name "Marco Van Eych". The fact that these images were also being sold (months ago) under that same false name should lead any clear-headed individual to believe that those images had been stolen as well.
Only-Dreemin themselves reply in that thread (link here again for your convenience [rustylime.com] ); some have expressed scepticism at the supposed death threats. Personally, I'm tempted to believe that- simply because there *is* a somewhat mob mentality here, and in such situations there's always some hyped-up fuckwit willing to make such threats in the face of something they see as wrong. This is neither acceptable nor helpful, regardless of whether only-dreemin.com were in the wrong or not.

However, one moronic zealot's actions are not the fault of Rebekka, and *if* she was intentionally ripped off by only-dreemin themselves, this does not justify or excuse their actions in the slightest.

As I said, read the thread linked above and those linked to by the summary also.

Mod parent up! (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144887)

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.

Re:Rebekka's post (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144923)

Well said.

The defense:(taken from http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=455 [rustylime.com] )

"Many thanks for asking for our side of the story rather than simply offering more death threats...

In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London, they offered to show us some imagery, that they stated would be high resolution and we would have sole reselling rights. We were visited by a salesperson from the company and we liked what we saw

Anyway 2 weeks passed, emails were sent back and forth, basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them and then the paperwork was signed and a considerable amount of money was paid (£3000.00) by us , for us to start selling these images in the form of canvas prints.

6 months later we had a letter from a law firm in Iceland, stating we were using someone's images, we Googled the claimants name, lo and behold we found we had been duped!

As requested, we immediately removed the images from the internet and destroyed any copies of the images we had.

We emailed the law firm to state we had dealt with these requests and to apologise to their client.

We took legal advice, they told us say nothing more than we had, not recommending we contact the claimant and tell her what had happened, by the way we were very keen to do that, but we were told to avoid all contact.

In the meantime we started our own investigation into the above company's contacts and sources but have since found nothing more because the telephone doesn't get answered, mobiles are permanently off and emails are getting bounced back, it seems we were conned too.

As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise."

Re:Rebekka's post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144989)

I think she needs a better lawyer, one who specializes in copyright law. She definitely has a right to be compensated for the pictures that have been sold, regardless of the existence of a fraudulent middle-man. The company that was duped by a middle man, if that is true, can then recover their losses from that middle man. In many countries she can also get "punitive" damages or a higher license price because she was "forced into licensing her images", and even more because she was not named as the artist.

This is why... (1, Insightful)

JudicatorX (455442) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144257)

You should host your own stuff, instead of using using 'free' web-services, if it's important.

Re:This is why... (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144285)

She uses a paid Flickr account, not the free service.

Re:This is why... (1)

JudicatorX (455442) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144323)

Apparently, then, it would matter little if it was a paid service or not.... I think my point still holds, just knock out the word 'free'.

Re:This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144527)

So you would buy your own servers to host a few dozen (or even a few hundred) pictures instead of paying a professional to do it? That seems kinda pointless...

Re:This is why... (1)

wyztix (1078477) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145613)

Well hosting his own works raise a lot of troubles, and some can't be resolved:

1) Domain: Not everyone hold a domain or a static IP that people can use to contact their site. Even if free solutions exists, it needs a little bit of knowledge to set it up and to discover them.

2) Internet connection: even if Iceland is 3th on the broadband penetration (http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_342 23_38446855_1_1_1_1,00.html#Data2005 [oecd.org] ) it doesn't mean there is no restriction on the amount of data that can be sent and received per month. Increasing would require more money.

3) Setting a _AMP solution for a normal user would mean exposing his computer. Most people use windows and as we know that it doesn't last long unprotected: (http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/54201306 [techweb.com] ). Would you let your local photograph secure your computer?

4) 24/7 computer usage mean electricity bill raise. I know most of /. users are leaving their computer(s) opened 24/7, but let's not forget we're the exeption, not the rule.

5) Bring the people: what's the point of loading your pictures on the net if nobody watch them? Pretty useless isn't it?

Even tought I agree that it's best ot keep our own stuff under our control, some people can't, for lots of reason, do so. What's the best solution for them? Watermarking. Professional cameras* should come with a way to upload a watermark and insert it automatically in all taken picture. That way, if you know your work is used by another one, all you have to do is show them the watermark. Would still require some knowledge to use but if the app is done correctly, could be pretty easy to use. Mix that to a fingerprint scanner and your watermark become your fingerprint: pretty hard to prove the picture is yours when it's marked with someone else fingerprint.

* May already exists

Ridiculous sense of entitlement (2, Insightful)

c0d3h4x0r (604141) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144311)

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.

not a question of free speech... (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144393)

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.

Re:not a question of free speech... (1)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144759)

"but a question about the morality of censoring one of Flickr's top submitters"

I have a hard time associating "morality" with "censoring one of Flickr's top submitters". That would seem to imply that its okay to "censor" non-top submitters. I doubt thats what you intended.

Yes, but... (1)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144491)

...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.

Re:Ridiculous sense of entitlement (1)

dave1791 (315728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144863)

If I had mod points right now, I'd give them to you. People seem unable or unwilling to grasp that most forums are in fact private places where the host has no obligation to allow you to post whatever you want - as opposed to public places. USENET is probably closer to the latter. Unless you live in a country that legally restricts speech however, there is nothing stopping you from hosting yourself and saying what you want.

Ironically? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144363)

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"?

Re:Ironically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144443)

Well, Flickr is owned by Yahoo!. Whether Dave Eggers would agree that it's irony is an open question, but Alanis Morissette definitely would.

Re:Ironically? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144561)

ironic: adj. 1) A word not used to mean what it actually means.

How's that for, er, something.

TOS problems with Flickr, Blogger, etc (4, Informative)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144383)

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.

Re:TOS problems with Flickr, Blogger, etc (1)

thechrisproject (824579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144727)

I'd like to see you point out the part of the Flickr TOS that states that they can freely re-appropriate your content for their own uses.

Flickr is generally very good about copyright issues. You can retain full copyright, or apply Creative Commons licenses to your photos. This was not a Flickr problem, it is a problem with the people that ripped her off and sold prints of her photos. If she had her images on a site that she had complete control over, this would still be a problem.

Using Google, Yahoo, etc should not and does not mean that you lose all control over your content.

Re:TOS problems with Flickr, Blogger, etc (1)

Hays (409837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145557)

I don't think Flickr takes any of your photo rights. Show me the part of the ToS where they claim to "appropriate" your content. Flickr has even integrated different copyright licenses such as creative commons.

They have lots of questions in their FAQ about creative commons and default copyright license, but they don't address "Does Flickr take my copyrights just because I upload my pictures?" probably because they think that's insane.

I read through their terms of use and I certainly don't see anything about the transfer of copyright to Flickr.

It's only a matter of scale, folks. (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144395)

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."

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

Cereal Box (4286) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144473)

Well, the usual response is "this is totally different because they resold the (art, program, etc.) without crediting the (artist, programmer, etc.)." Ripping off movies and music is OK because, you know, they're not being resold...

Also notice how the word "theft" goes uncontested in stories like these, but as soon as it's about the MPAA or RIAA, there are always at least a dozen posts that are quick to point out that it's merely "copyright infringement".

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144523)

could it have anything to do with slashdot being the very definition of hypocrisy anymore?

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144535)

Well, the usual response is "this is totally different because they resold the (art, program, etc.) without crediting the (artist, programmer, etc.)." Ripping off movies and music is OK because, you know, they're not being resold...

But even when the conversation turns to outright piracy for sale, people here are wierdly hesitant to call a spade a spade. For example, if someone rips off a copy of MS Windows and sells it for $2 on the street, people here do a Simpson's 'ha-ha!' and move on. When a photographer's work gets ripped off and used as the cover art on a $2 CD on the street, there's an awkward silence, and then all sorts of mumbling about how The Man might be interfering with the artist's choice of venues to complain about being ripped off. *sigh*

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (2, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144645)

Don't expect consistency from people. It's not realistic.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144993)

*snort*

There's nothing inconsistent about the viewpoint that fraud is bad, regardless of whether copyright infringement occurred or not.

It doesn't surprise me that you three dislike making the distinction.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145771)

Fraud? What fraud? This has played out to be a corrected mistake. Calling it fraud is an interesting bit of hyperbole that makes me wonder how clearly you thought about it.

And for that matter, what in my post expressed an opinion one way or the other?

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145051)

While there *is* a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst some Slashdotters regarding copyright, the two examples you give are *not* the same IMHO.

Microsoft is a large monopolist which has used its market dominance and financial power to bully and coerce other companies, to crush its rivals, stall legal action and government investigations against it and to entrench its power. This using tactics which are all at best ethically dubious, many of which would likely be found criminal or illegal if taken to court- except that most businesses can't risk pissing off Microsoft, so won't- and at worst *have* been found criminal.

Ms. Guðleifsdóttir has not (apparently) yet behaved in a comparable manner, even accounting for the discrepancies in size.

If you think the two are comparable, that's your prerogative; but I hope you'll understand why I disagree.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145395)

Oh stop. What part of "The differences between an Attractive Icelandic Female vs. Evil-Soul Sucking-Megacorp headed by a dweeb" don't you understand?

What I don't understand is why Ms. Photographer placed large enough files on Flikr to enable the poster company to (allegedly) print the pictures at some reasonable size. Most photographers who post on the web either post no larger than 800 x 600 pixels (which at 72 dpi doesn't give you much room to print it out), place a watermark showing copyright info on the file or both. The really paranoid use some form of steganography.

Hopefully she'll pick up a few pointers on avoiding the copyright sleeze.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144707)

Also notice that it does not go uncontested in stories like these. Now, shortly after the story was posted, there are already at least two threads devoted to the imprecise usage of legal terms.

And yes, selling unlicensed copies and wrongfully claiming to be the artist are both considered to be worse offenses than copyright infringement for personal use. The economic argument for that is that plagiarism and commercial copyright infringement cause bigger financial damage to the original artist.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

Floydius (811220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144575)

Amen. I'm not a big fan of RIAA or MPAA tactics, but I do believe that the only real way to show dedication for your cause against them is to not use their products, rather than just stealing them. This is the same issue, but we're outraged when the victim is individual rather than corporate.

The one difference I can see here is that the person's art is being sold rather than just duplicated and stolen. Still, I think your point remains valid.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (2, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144605)

It's only a matter of scale, folks [...]"That's cool. I shouldn't have to pay for bits."

Yes, a matter of scale. And while a little digitalis can save lives, a lot ends them rather quickly. A little alcohol makes for a good time, a lot makes for worshipping the porcelain god, and a bit more leads to death. A little ambergris makes for the finest perfumes, a lot smells like, well, whale barf.

You just can't fairly compare try-before-you-buy illegally downloaded music from Sony with ripping off a small-scale art student, however much Sony might want us to make that comparison.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19145061)

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."
There is a big difference between copying/downloading a cd/movie and selling copies of a cd/movie. Same thing here.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (2, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145277)

There is a big difference between copying/downloading a cd/movie and selling copies of a cd/movie.

Ripping it off for your own use: civil court matter
Ripping it off to sell it: criminal matter

Both: ethically identical. The person who rips it off to sell it is looking to avoid having to pay the cost of something they want to use (in this case, in their 'retail' business). The person who rips it off to show on their big screen TV on Friday night when their friends come over for a pizza and beer is looking to avoid paying the cost of something they want to use (for entertainment).

Ripping off the artist is ripping off the artist. Period. Don't want to pay what the artist is asking? Just walk away, and choose entertainment that an artist is willing to give away, or which you're more willing to pay for. Don't like that an artist would rather concentrate on their art, and have decided to let a publishing company handle all of their business affairs? Just walk away, and get your entertainment from bar bands, street performers, the local playhouse, or some other source. Don't rip off the artist to make a point about how you think they should be working under your terms, rather than their own. There is no difference between ripping it off to make the artist your own personal entertainment-making slave, and ripping it off to make the artist your own personal creator-of-entertainment-which-you-then-sell slave.

Re:It's only a matter of scale, folks. (1)

tahuti (744415) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145881)

It is not matter of scale. She had images available for download for free. Than company takes her images, change author name and sell it. Compare that to BSD, GPL and other opensource licences.

Physical Products Don't Have Bits (1)

Inhibit (105449) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145925)

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?

Is it still stealing? (2, Insightful)

gillbates (106458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144437)

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.

Re:Is it still stealing? (2, Informative)

malkavian (9512) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144635)

No, it's still called copyright infringement.
However, most of the P2P infringement that the *IAA go after is not for profit, and often raises visibility of the artist in question, producing more sales in future.
In this case the motive was purely profit (as shown by the thousands of dollars worth of sales the artist had been able to track herself, which would be a significant portion of her own income). These are demonstrably 'lost sales' to her, as money was indeed exchanged, so the demand was there. They were also mis-attributed to another author to cover the for-profit infringement.

In the *IAA case, as the 'consumers' are often people without the money to pay at the time, who are influenced in the future to purchase when they can for things they may have encountered on P2P, while still being illegal, the ethical ground is slightly muddy.
In the latter case, of deliberately ripping off another artist's work, passing it off as your own, and making money, there is no ethical uncertainty.
Read the old /. articles on this subject. I think it's universally accepted here that the commercial pirates are frowned on and disliked. The P2P sharers are on muddy ground.

Re:Is it still stealing? (1)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144729)

"However, most of the P2P infringement that the *IAA go after is not for profit, and often raises visibility of the artist in question, producing more sales in future. In this case the motive was purely profit (as shown by the thousands of dollars worth of sales the artist had been able to track herself, which would be a significant portion of her own income). These are demonstrably 'lost sales' to her, as money was indeed exchanged, so the demand was there. They were also mis-attributed to another author to cover the for-profit infringement."

Well, in this case--it has brought her more exposure than she would have gotten otherwise. So it's a good thing for her, because now she'll sell more! Man, funny how we can put our own twist and make any statement sound like what we *want* it to mean.

Copyright infringement is stealing, whether it's for profit or just so you can enjoy some music without paying for it. No sugar coating, please.

Re:Is it still stealing? (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145327)

Copyright infringement is not stealing, by definition. It doesn't deprive the original author of their work (merely makes a copy of it). Stealing, by definition, removes the item from possession of the original possessor.
See the definition of Stealing [lectlaw.com] to clear up any confusion.
As to the cost of exposure, would you feel comfortable losing a thousand dollars, if you had a couple of hundred thousand in the bank, knowing that in a few years, you'd be having ten thousand come back? Would you still be happy losing that thousand dollars, with the same return, if you had 100 dollars to your name?
Life, by nature is shades of grey, but sometimes, things get to one end of the spectrum or another. This deliberate fraud is pretty much in the clear cut end.

Re:Is it still stealing? Yes. (1)

dharbee (1076687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145599)

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.

Re:Is it still stealing? Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19145731)

Find me one lawyer who explains to a client that copyright infringement is stealing and I will show you a disbarred lawyer.

Re:Is it still stealing? (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144651)

Because most people are doing just that sharing.

They're not reselling the work as their own or selling it at all for that matter.

Except in Russia. My DJ mixes from time to time show up on Russian mp3 sites that charge for a download link, which then downloads directly from my server. Funny how that works.

Finder's Fee (1)

ohearn (969704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145289)

Well then they are still getting it from you, the Russians are just charging a finder's fee, right. //takes tongue out of cheek

Re:Finder's Fee (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145705)

Well, what they end up finding is a 80 meg tiff of goatse...

Re:Is it still stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144665)

When the company got ripped off, it was saying you can pay for our art but only look at it where we say so. When the stuff was taken from them, by and large it was because the restrictions didn't want to be adheared to, not because people didn't beleive they should pay. Secondly, it's theft with the woman, because people weren't veiwing her art, they were selling it, and made alot (comparitively for her) of money

BULLSHIT! (-1, Offtopic)

ChineseDragon (1101707) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144463)

right?

Value and Scarcity. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144465)

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.

Re:Value and Scarcity. (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144907)

Imagine working as a programmer and on payday, being told that you aren't getting a paycheck because your code is infinitely reproducible and not worth anything. Heck, you can say that about nearly any job where you don't actually produce a tangible product or service.

Re:Value and Scarcity. (2, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145497)

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.
Your smartass intellectual answer is in fact nothing more than a lightly modernised restatement of the practical problem that underlies most IP laws.

Literature, for example, has always been fairly "digital", in that the relevant part (i.e. the words and not their typeset printed appearance) can be reproduced "exactly". Hand-copying is laborious and thus self-limiting, but although printed material isn't as easily distributed as the Internet, it still makes mass ripping off of intellectual works technically feasible.

The fact is that most intellectual property requires work (physical or mental) to create, regardless of how easy it is to copy *once created*. Unless you're living in some lala land, you'll realise that whilst some types of intellectual property (e.g. *certain* forms of art, *certain* types of computer programs) may be created for the love of it, many others will be created with the expectation of financial reward- and likely wouldn't be otherwise.

Might be unpleasant for you to accept, but some people are in it for the money. Very many worthwhile things have been designed/produced/etc in the name of filthy lucre, and may not have been otherwise. Copyright was (and is) intended to encourage such efforts by stopping parasitism because exactly as you said, if IP is able to be freely copied with no obligation to reward the creator, it is effectively worthless.

And you either accept that such things will not be produced and/or rely on someone being willing to create these things purely for the love of it (except that this will be restricted to their leisure time because most people have to earn a living, and they won't have the money to invest in expensive research equipment, etc.)

In short, you haven't stated the solution, you've stated the problem. Copyright was one solution and to imply "Ha ha, your material is worthless because it can be copied" is smug and misguided.

As I said, copyright should be a practical measure. It has doubtless been abused, and I'm not defending that, or badly-written copyright laws. However, the principle is (IMHO) sound, and if we accept your comment the implication is that we need to find new ways of making sure that people are rewarded- either via copyright or by other means.

Re:Value and Scarcity. (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145907)

I believe that is the point of copyright and other IP laws: to create scarcity and, thus, value in these sorts of cases. I cannot understand why the /. crowd, working in mostly "intellectual" areas (programmers, scientists, engineers, etc) would think that this is a bad thing.

Illusions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19144511)

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.

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?

/done rambling..

Gotta love the Vigalantism (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144525)

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.

Nothing to see here. (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144553)

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.

Yahoo's Chinese 'goodthink' (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144921)

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.

Just a guess? (2, Funny)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144601)

Was it todd?

Speak for yourself (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144781)

You have a services-based internet? Mines based on tubes.


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.

Re:Speak for yourself (0)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144821)

God Dammit! Missed an apostrophe. It may be a poor example, but that is irony.

Well... (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19144815)

...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. </sarcasm>

WHY ARE YOU STILL USING FLICKR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19145179)

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.

simple solution... (1)

mateuscb (1052870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19145759)

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...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>