Flickr Really Screws Up: Community Revolts, Film at 11

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://thomashawk.com/2007/05/flickr-censorship.html' target='_blank'>http://thomashawk.com/2007/05/flickr-censorship.html</a><br /><br /></div>I had a feeling that <a href="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/index.php?topic_id=12136">this story</a> was going to get a lot bigger. And now, it has, but from a surprising source: Flickr seems to have put fuel on the fire, only they're in the middle. Thomas Hawk leaps into the fray as only he can:<br /><br /><i>"So what's got me pissed today? What's got me pissed today is that according to Rebekka, Flickr has removed her image from their site. That's right. Not only did they remove and kill her image and her *non-violent* words of protest, but they censored each and every one of us who commented on her photograph, who offered support to Rebekka, who shared in her frustration by wiping every single one of our comments off the face of the internet forever. According to Rebekka, Flickr's explanation? “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.” WTF?!?"</i><br /><br />Rebekka has <a href="http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/">some of her own thoughts</a> on what's happened, and it seems that this isn't the first time <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/389354469/">Flickr has gone overboard with censorship</a>. Flickr staff have responded and apparently <a href="http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/40074/">it was just a mistake</a>? Yeah, right. A mistake is "Oops, I didn't mean to click that button". A regret is "Oh, wow, we really shouldn't have deleted that!". It's a weak defence to say a regrettable decision was a mistake.<br /><br />I'm not one of those people that believes that every person has some sort of inalienable right to say whatever they want on someone else's Web site - freedom of speech only applies to public spaces - but on the other hand, Flickr is all about community and without community there is no Flickr - meaning they have to do what's right for the members of their community. In this case, they didn't do that, so getting raked over the coals isn't a surprising outcome...

[Vincent Ferrari]

Flickr is becoming a corporate tool. In the last few years I've watched people like Stewart Butterfield go from Mr. Nice Guy to Mr. "F" You if you don't like it.

Sorry but that's not cool. My sub expires on May 24th and I won't be renewing and once Zooomr Mk III is complete, plenty of people will have reasons to do the same.

[bluemax]

I'm really sorry about Rebekka's plight but there are two things going here that bear comment.

1) I would never put personal artwork or even family snapshots on a site like Flickr. Their terms of use give them too much control over my content. Even so, Rebekka has obviously been wronged and deserves compensation. I hope she prevails.
2) Even without Flickr, putting anything on the Internet is going to yield some loss. There are too many people who believe they can take anything they see or can get their hands on. I imagine everyone who reads this has done a little "borrowing" themselves.

Bill B

[Vincent Ferrari]

What happened to Rebekka is inexcusable.

Period.

Yes you assume a certain amount of your work is going to be taken and whatever. The problem is that assuming that's going to happen doesn't make it right when it does.

And Flickr's response was almost as bad as the original theft.

Flickr is for photosharing. It's not a cheap stock photography site, and it's certainly not meant to be a source for someone else to cash in commercially. I don't care what you put your work on, that's just wrong.

I wouldn't put photos of a deeply personal nature on Flickr, but that doesn't mean I surrender all rights to all my photos by putting them there, either.