Flickr - what is it exactly?

[David H. Bebbington]

Thanks once again for all the views. I think I'll close with this thought: A quick strum of my desk calculator reveals that 2,000 uploads a minute translates to 120,000 an hour, 2,880,000 per day, 86,400,000 per 30-day month ... How long before the whole thing simply implodes under the sheer weight of images?

Regards,

David

 

[amuderick]

David,

86 million photos is less than 350TB (86,400,000 * 4MB per file = 329 TB). That costs Yahoo about $500,000 to setup and install. There are ongoing costs for electricity, maintenance, etc. Of course, this is a high-end number. Most of their images are nowhere near 4MB per file.

They have about 2,089,291,619 pictures which have been uploaded. Theoretically some of these are deleted but it is probably a very small percentage. At 4MB each (which I think is a bit high), that's about 8 petabytes of disk. You can buy a 1 petabyte array (which is fully redundant with all the whiz-bang features) for $4 million. $64 million buys you the current storage capacity of Flickr.

At $25 a year for a 'pro' account, they only need 640,000 users to cover their immediate costs to purchase more disk. They probably have three times that many people paying. Plus they have other revenue streams.

I love Flickr. It is easy to use. Easy to connect with other people. Easy to share photos. And it acts as an archive of original resolution scans in case my own backups fail. Just like the Internet at large, no one is 'in charge' and there is no 'editor'. It's just a glorious mash-up of human expression.

If Flickr worries you, I wonder, have you ever used Wikipedia?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

If Flickr worries you, I wonder, have you ever used Wikipedia?

It wasn't actually the problem of server capacity that bothered me - as you illustrate, the costs are manageable - what I doubt is the ability of any user to find anything among the 2.1 trillion images except on a totally random "lucky dip" basis. I would suspect in practice that many people will avail themselves of shortcuts like "Today's (or this week's, or this month's) new pictures" - even a minute's worth is far more than anyone could look at who does not live in front of a computer 24/7. If they offered hit counters for individual pages, I would bet that the number of hits would be at a maximum right after posting and would then fall to a very low figure very soon! Wikipedia is different, people come to it with a definite search intention rather than just to see if any new interesting stuff has appeared!

Regards,

David

 

[delphine]

I very much understand David's feel.

At the begining I found flickr visually "busy", I was not too sure who's photos I was looking at, and navigating within one group, it is easy to find yourself in another one. I was mislead by the "pro" terminology too, as I did not realize that it meant merely subscriber.
Also, there is so much, you don't want to find yourself browsing through an endless sheer volume of material.

Probably I did not use it enough, and certainly I did not search it well.

However, as it was pointed out to me in a separate thread, I searched the groups with a couple of keywords. Within minutes, I found myself browsing through an endless list of photography groups which I pre-selected as I went along as as way to bookmark them:
Portraiture Photography//Portrait//Ilford//Medium Format//London by Londoners//London Photographers//120//Man in The White Suit:Film Photos, UK!//Analog Photography//London Independent photography//East London//London Holga Group//

I noticed that some of them have discussion threads, which opens up the possibility for social networks.

The way I view it, flickr can require perseverance, but it is certainly an effective sharing tool (no more no less than that) and it offers great coverage and network capabilities via the meta tags, look-up and references.
Certainly not limited to grannies photos, nor to be looked down at by film photographers.

 

[Akki14]

I think the disregard for copyright is something you'll find most "normal"/"averagejoe" people disregard too. It's like copying tapes or tracks to give to your friends or showing cutout magazine articles to a friend. The average joe doesn't see putting stuff on the web as publishing, as such, and have never given a toss about citation. It happens. A lot. Sorry to pop your bubble.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I think the disregard for copyright is something you'll find most "normal"/"averagejoe" people disregard too. It's like copying tapes or tracks to give to your friends or showing cutout magazine articles to a friend. The average joe doesn't see putting stuff on the web as publishing, as such, and have never given a toss about citation. It happens. A lot. Sorry to pop your bubble.

First of all, I haven't got a bubble (should I have? Are they all the rage this year?) and secondly, there is just a slight difference between giving copies of tapes to friends and running a highly public web forum which you are charging money to use and which depends in part on the attraction of pirated copyright material. You are right to say the average joe couldn't care less, but if I were running flickr, I'd be in fear of my life - specifically, I'd be afraid of this scenario - just think, 2.1 trillion images, maybe 1% are pirated, so that's 21 million images, and assuming damages awarded of £10 per image - this means PC Plod on your doorstep asking nicely for £210 million!

Rather you than me!

Regards,

Davcid

 

[Akki14]

First of all, I haven't got a bubble (should I have? Are they all the rage this year?) and secondly, there is just a slight difference between giving copies of tapes to friends and running a highly public web forum which you are charging money to use and which depends in part on the attraction of pirated copyright material. You are right to say the average joe couldn't care less, but if I were running flickr, I'd be in fear of my life - specifically, I'd be afraid of this scenario - just think, 2.1 trillion images, maybe 1% are pirated, so that's 21 million images, and assuming damages awarded of £10 per image - this means PC Plod on your doorstep asking nicely for £210 million!

Rather you than me!

Regards,

Davcid

In reality, all you do is say "didn't know" and delete the images and ban the user and you don't lose any money.

And the reason why flickr doesn't have 2million eyes is that there's a link on every image page that allows a user to report the image for whatever reason.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

In reality, all you do is say "didn't know" and delete the images and ban the user and you don't lose any money.

And the reason why flickr doesn't have 2million eyes is that there's a link on every image page that allows a user to report the image for whatever reason.

Just the same, if I was involved with flickr, which I'm not, I'd try a bit harder to keep my nose clean: In my humble opinion, the following extract from the user guidelines:
<< Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photographs and/or stuff that you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time. >>
is the kind of thing that gets lawyers on the phone ordering a new Porsche.

The word "primarily" is beautiful - twist that sentence just a little and it says "If your account features 49% pirated material and 51% original material, that's OK with us!" "May" is another good word - even if your account features mainly or only pirated material, flickr are not guaranteeing to nuke it.

Hair splitting? Many a person has been sued off the face of the earth for less!

Regards,

David

 

[tim_walls]

Just the same, if I was involved with flickr, which I'm not, I'd try a bit harder to keep my nose clean: In my humble opinion, the following extract from the user guidelines:
<< Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photographs and/or stuff that you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time. >>
is the kind of thing that gets lawyers on the phone ordering a new Porsche.

On the other hand, I work with lawyers specialising in Internet law as part of the day job. Now, ask 5 lawyers what they think and you'll get 5 different opinions, but as a general rule the consensus over the many years I've been involved in the Internet business is this:

If you actively manage the content - i.e. say 'we will search for and remove copyright images' - then you are taking responsibility for that content, and if someone finds an image you missed you may be held liable in court for not removing it.
If you do not actively manage the content, but provide a mechanism to remove images which are reported, then you have a defence in court that you did not, and in practice cannot, claim to take responsibility for that content, and the liability rests with the person who uploaded the content, not yourself.​

In practice, if you go the fully moderated "I'll make sure only legit images are uploaded" route then trust me on this - no insurer will touch you for insuring your legal liability. This fact alone tends to mandate the latter approach.


I think you're overstating the amount of pirated content on Flickr anyway. The vast, vast majority of the photos on Flickr are original photos (of kittens and sunsets in the main.) Yes, bad people exist, and yes they do steal things, but Flickr is better than many places. There exists a mechanism for people to report stolen images by simply clicking one button; where you do, the images get taken down pretty quickly (I've done it.) The more popular an image is, the higher the chance that someone is going to report it - in that respect, it looks after itself.



I wonder if Sean would like to put his hand on his heart and swear to the court that a 'stolen' copyrighted image has never been hosted on APUG?

 

[mabman]

What I really like about Flickr is the "tagging" system. If I read about an interesting camera or film type, chances are very good I can search Flickr for those keywords and come up with at least some entries that are relevant - either pics of the items themselves, or more useful to me, pics *taken* with the items. This helps to give me an idea if I might be interested in pursuing something further.

One thing I've found quite interesting is the number of people using Holgas - I have one, but haven't been satisfied with the results I've gotten to date. Now, after looking at a lot of pics taken with them, I'm getting inspired to try it again.

Flickr is a lot like a newstand magazine rack - a lot of it you probably won't like, but there is likely something for everyone's taste if you keep browsing.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

On the other hand, I work with lawyers specialising in Internet law as part of the day job. Now, ask 5 lawyers what they think and you'll get 5 different opinions, but as a general rule the consensus over the many years I've been involved in the Internet business is this:

If you actively manage the content - i.e. say 'we will search for and remove copyright images' - then you are taking responsibility for that content, and if someone finds an image you missed you may be held liable in court for not removing it.
If you do not actively manage the content, but provide a mechanism to remove images which are reported, then you have a defence in court that you did not, and in practice cannot, claim to take responsibility for that content, and the liability rests with the person who uploaded the content, not yourself.​

In practice, if you go the fully moderated "I'll make sure only legit images are uploaded" route then trust me on this - no insurer will touch you for insuring your legal liability. This fact alone tends to mandate the latter approach.


I think you're overstating the amount of pirated content on Flickr anyway. QUOTE]

I'm sure you're right, which is why I am still surprised flickr does not cover itself by saying "It is absolutely forbidden to upload material which is someone else's copyright, and if we become aware of any such material, we'll remove it immediately". To my mind, this would place the onus to respect copyright on the clients rather than the owners in the way you suggest but would not imply (as I think the present wording does) that flickr will tolerate pirated material up to a certain degree. And just to be clear - I'm not stating the amount of pirated content on flickr, I'm taking a wild guess, simply to illustrate the point that, even if the amount was very small indeed, potential damages could be ruinous. If I saw one of my images on flickr and no one seemed to be making money out of it, I probably wouldn't get too excited, but if images were pirated to which the rights are held by the likes of Corbis or another big picture library, I think the organic fertiliser could easily interface with the rotary cooling system !

Regards.

David

 

[Andy K]

David, copyright on the internet appears to be nearly always 'self-policed' by website users as part of the terms and conditions of those sites. One glaring case would be Youtube, just type in the name of any music track you like, 99% chance it'll be there, I'm pretty sure copyright was not sought by the person posting the music.
If copyright was enforced as rigidly as you seem to suggest it should be, then Google Image Search could not exist. In fact I doubt you would see many images at all anywhere on the web except at image libraries.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

David, copyright on the internet appears to be nearly always 'self-policed' by website users as part of the terms and conditions of those sites. One glaring case would be Youtube, just type in the name of any music track you like, 99% chance it'll be there, I'm pretty sure copyright was not sought by the person posting the music.
If copyright was enforced as rigidly as you seem to suggest it should be, then Google Image Search could not exist. In fact I doubt you would see many images at all anywhere on the web except at image libraries.

You are quite correct - in practice, it does seem to be the way you describe. I'm surprised, but there it is!

Regards,

David

 

[tim_walls]

You are quite correct - in practice, it does seem to be the way you describe. I'm surprised, but there it is!

Regards,

David

As I say, that's the way the law works. A certain way to poverty is to claim legal responsibility for things which in practice you don't have any control over. Proactively monitoring or controlling things implies you are taking responsibility; any sensible operator who doesn't want to spend their life in court relies on a "we don't accept responsibility, but will cooperate fully with relevant parties when an infringement is brought to our attention" policy.


Also, suppose Flickr's policy says "we will close any account which we are informed contains copyrighted works other than the account holder's." Well, that'll be my account closed then, and probably yours too if you had one. Take a photo in a street which contains a billboard, and your image contains copyright works.

I believe that my photos containing such copyrighted works are fair dealing, because they are incidental inclusion in my artistic work as defined by the copyright act, but that doesn't actually change the fact that my stream contains someone else's copyright work within it. Do you expect Flickr to have to arbitrate these cases, to play judge and jury to them? They'd be idiots if they decide to, because when the copyright holder wants to argue the toss with me I'll just go "Flickr's policy says they remove copyright work; thay haven't. Ergo Flickr are taking responsibility for that judgement, and I am in the clear - go sue them if you've got a problem." Now I wouldn't necessarily win that argument, but certain cases involving, for example, US citizens who are barred from gambling suing their credit card providers for their gambling losses and winning on the basis the credit card company should have stopped them breaking the law, suggest that there's a good chance I might.


I'm pretty sure the likes of Corbis & Getty's images have appeared on Flickr in the past, and will do so again in the future. I'm also sure Corbis and Getty are well aware of it. Provided Flickr remove the images when Corbis/Getty complain, Flickr believe they are in the clear; so far, they're probably right - "Perfect 10" are doing an excellent job of losing all the cases they're bringing against operators. If Corbis/Getty (or P10) wish to take it further, they are of course welcome to take action against the actual infringers - i.e the people uploading the works to Flickr in the first place. If they're not bothering, doubtless it's because they don't think they'll get any money out of them.

 

[copake_ham]

Hey, it's Yahoo - they're not fools:

Here is Flickr's copyright policy:

http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/details.html

Also:

"Yahoo! Terms of Service

MEMBER CONDUCT

You understand that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages, tags, or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. This means that you, and not Yahoo!, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available via the Service. Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Yahoo! be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Service.

You agree to not use the Service to:

.......
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
......."

 

[joel dallenbach]

David,
After finding images on flickr, censored, and or displayed as mature content which was not in my safety zone, I pretty well abandoned flickr,... I still have a site there but it will eventually fade away. The reason mose of the images were deamed mature etc,... was primarily because of German Law, this didn't affect me directly, but I found it confusing, Pictures that were/are not offensive in the least were blocked, I would need to plunge beyond flickrs safetynet to look at some material, that wasn't explicit at all. I noticed a lot of flickr people moving over to a more or less
independent site called Ipernity,... http://www.ipernity.com/doc/scratchy/1130609 where videos and music can be "Shared," I find it astonishing the amount of copywrited material that people upload here,... Music Videos etc,... I tend to make as much of the content on my own, music visual, but it's very difficult in a culture where corporate culture inundates the public sphere to such an extent, where ever I point a camera, there's usually copyrighted material in an image. Private people filter into public space as well,... It's a veritable anarchy online with regard to copyright, and content issues,... Flickr utube, ipernity etc,... have rules and regulations, but who takes the time to read very much of this before downloading content by hitting accept? Everyone stands a chance of getting sued for merely posting images for free. I suppose the danger is, if one starts to make some money on one of these "free," forums, and some content isn't their own! I wonder if images I post are not now being used by others to make bread on Cobus et. all, how do I know? I may be a very succesfull commercial photographer for all I know, I'd like to know where my images are turning up, I've deleted hundred of them from flickr, but not before I gave people the option inadvertently to Download massive files for nothing? If I do find my work in the public domain, used in profit making magazine or even on cites which are more commercially oriented, what is the recourse!? It's a throw away I suppose, Regards Joel.

 

[joel dallenbach]

today I deleted the flickr. And do mostly video on Ipernity. Corbus was spelled wrong above.

 

[joel dallenbach]

Corbis? there, spelled correctly. Anyone accidentally use fixer to prime films?

 

[Uncle Bill]

It's a bit of everything. I have a Flickr account, I joke I use it as an online contact sheet. I find it's a great way to connect with the local photography community.

 

[RoBBo]

Apug group anyone?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/
Thats mine...
Currently my only real output source, as prints continue to stack up in my apartment...

 

[jd callow]

Apug group anyone?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/
Thats mine...
Currently my only real output source, as prints continue to stack up in my apartment...

Some really nice work...

 

[RoBBo]

Some really nice work...

Thank you.
The stuff most Apugers would probably be interested in is buried a bit back...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/sets/72157600211157086/
11x14 from a wonderful old Chicago Deardorff S.

 

[naeroscatu]

other than sharing pictures with friends and other photography hobbysts I use my Flickr account to post pictures so I can link them to forums that have no space to display my work.

 

[RoBBo]

If I were to make an APUG group on Flickr would anyone be down?
I guess the gallery here pretty much takes care of that doesnt it...
I should probably get on that...

 

[pedropolis]

I would join an APUG flickr group, just had a search and thought i'd found one but it turned out to be for the Austin Python User Group :rolleyes: