I wonder if Flickr wants to create a corpus of CC content so that they can launch a competitor to unsplash. A separate non-profit entity to limit liability sounds like a smart move. Or maybe I'm reading a cynical motive when there isn't one :)
Flickr has a huge collection of Creative Commons and public domain images, so I'd also like to see it stay around. Ultimately it will depend on whether it's profitable or not, and on how much damage corporate types can do in trying to increase profitability.
I stand corrected. Thank you. Although I'm not too sure on the financial status on whether or not Flickr actually makes a profit. There appears to be a lot of speculation surrounding Yahooo and Flickr's profitability.
We don't know what the future of Yahoo and Flickr will be. The terms of the deal could change drastically down the road, especially if Yahoo/Flickr get new owners.
There are also legal issues. Visitors from around the world will be accessing data from a US company as opposed to a UK organization bounded by UK and EU data protection laws (for what that's worth!).
But that doesn't really clear anything up. I see that there is a 501c that has been created, but it seems contrived to add value to flickr.com by offering some assurances that your photo collection doesn't slide into the abyss while offloading the storage costs. None of it seems
very charitable to me.
Without Flickr nonprofit advertising work would not be possible for me. Flickr has many users that offer open licensing, it's also used by various government orgs around the world and posts open licensing or public domain works.
No, and it isn't now. Flickr was recently acquired by SmugMug - a paid-for gallery hosting site [0]. It's SmugMug that is driving this change, not Oath / Yahoo.
Agree with that. However, what would be a good way to show connection with Flickr, as it is a Flickr focussed site, without infringing on trademarks etc?
Yeah, similar experience here. Never done it on a corporate, internet-wide scale ala Flickr.
I'm honestly confused - what's twofaced about Flickr's approach?
I just sort of assume any host of user-created content will have some restrictions, so it doesn't feel to me like they are "talking out of both sides" of their mouth when they announce/implement such restrictions.
I may be completely missing what you're reacting to, though, apologies if I'm being dense.
All these points are vague and non-actionable. Here's my take:
If you've been Net Native long enough you probably remember oFoto and Shutterfly and Webshots. What happened to all these sites? Flickr.
Flickr was designed around an open API from the ground up, meaning you could take your photos and embed around the web and in other applications. You could even take other people's photos and embed them around the web and in other applications. It was pretty sweet.
As a result they quickly dominated the photo sharing scene and were bought out by Yahoo! in record time.
Flickr's sustainable competitive advantage was freedom.
Back in June the Flickr team was having an internal debate about whether or not to allow competitors to data mine their site. Flickr's founder, Stewart Butterfield, posted a comment on his blog saying,
*******
"T]his is something that we've never had any set policy on and this thread has sparked a lot of internal debate on the team: some people felt that it was unreasonable, some people felt like it didn't matter since Flickr should win on the basis of being the best thing out there.
I actually had a change of heart and was convinced by Eric's position that we definitely should approve requests from direct competitors as long as they do the same. That means (a) that they need to have a full and complete API and (b) be willing to give us access.
The reasoning here is partly just that 'fair's fair' and more subtly, like a GPL license, it enforces user freedom down the chain. I think we'll take this approach (still discussing it internally)."
*******
This makes sense for a non-profit like Wikipedia but it was a bad idea in this case. Flickr made their money by tapping the differential in the freedom gradient, so by requiring reciprocal openness they are literally forcing the competition to steal their sustainable advantage.
The paradox is they'd be better off just bending over and taking it. That's pretty fucked up.
Or, as Thomas Pynchon says, "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."
I've been preparing to try to make an offer for Flickr in the event it goes up for sale (separate from the rest of the web business), organizing it as a benefit corp to be a long term business not to be put up for sale. It shouldn't be an Instagram. Its not a social network. Its a photo site that helps you organize/keep your photos, as well as share them (there's a difference).
FTA: Yahoo's Carol Bartz doesn't have any interest in Facebook or Twitter either. No money in it, and Yahoo's building its own communities without having to spend huge premiums on unproven, unprofitable assets.
Flickr has set up a non-profit "to properly preserve and care for the Flickr Commons archive, support Commons members […], and plan for the very long-term health and longevity of the entire Flickr collection."
reply