Your Favourite Photo Site Sucks
May 18, 2007 4:49 PM   Subscribe

Earlier this month photographer Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir discovered that seven of her pictures were reportedly being sold by a UK-based online gallery. Flickr's reaction? One of the images in her photostream was deleted (because the offending gallery's information was posted in its comment thread) and her account was threatened. Still feel like uploading at full res?
posted by chuckdarwin (13 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Flickr apologized about the fuckup; her account is in good standing; everybody's apparently cool. Where's the drama? -- cortex

The fact that I 'know' her a little from flickr is not what inspired this post... I actually saw the beeb link elsewhere.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:50 PM on May 18, 2007

posted by chuckdarwin at 4:54 PM on May 18, 2007

Flickr responded a couple days ago. They made a mistake, and things are going to be changed to prevent a similar situation from happening in the future.

A pretty open and shut case, I would think.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:55 PM on May 18, 2007

A "slam dunk," if you will.

(Yes, somehow this is about Iraq)
posted by basicchannel at 4:57 PM on May 18, 2007

This is a pretty one-sided post, especially considering Stewart and the Flickr folks apologized and responded to the situation days ago. Were you going to include that, chuckdarwin?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:58 PM on May 18, 2007

I'm confused. Why didn't they put the photo back, then?
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:00 PM on May 18, 2007

I'm confused. Why didn't they put the photo back, then?

Because it was deleted.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 5:02 PM on May 18, 2007

God, the BBC site's technology section is rubbish. It's always filled with "Web 2.0" ephemera, like the latest thing Robert Scoble has said or whatever, which as well as being utterly trivial, is of interest and relevance to a total of about three people in the whole of the UK. They should stop wasting the licence fee attempting to look 'cool' for the Techcrunch crowd.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:07 PM on May 18, 2007

It's a prime source of Second Life hype as well.
posted by Artw at 5:11 PM on May 18, 2007

You fail at internet breaking news.
posted by brownpau at 5:12 PM on May 18, 2007

If you make your work available online, eventually someone could probably represent it as being their own. It happens and is part of the risk you take doing this. The situation appears to have been taken care. Hooray, we can move on with our lives!
posted by GavinR at 5:12 PM on May 18, 2007

Because it was deleted.

Gotcha ;-) Why delete a photo if the 'problem' was in the thread? Why not just delete the offending comment? Why not restore the image now that it's over?
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:14 PM on May 18, 2007

This is a thinly veiled shill for a flickr competitor.

Still feel like uploading at full res?


Take your fear-mongering elsewhere.
posted by fake at 5:14 PM on May 18, 2007

« Older Do you know what it takes to make Ormitha...   |   Truth or Wikipedia-inspired Truthiness? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments