Who Controls Your Photos Online?
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008There has been quite a bit of buzz in the past day around Flickr, their API, and your privacy settings on your Flickr account thanks to a wonderful article by Jim Goldstein about How Every Flickr Photo Ended Up on Sale this Weekend. Jim goes into great detail on his post, that is worth the read, to discuss how the privacy settings on your Flickr account are not being enforced by Flickr with regards to their API. (the 120 comments on his posting, as of this posting, are also interesting to peruse). Jim’s post also created a parallel discussion on Thomas Hawk’s blog posting.
What I find most surprising is how everyone seemed to loose site of the real issue here. It’s not about a technical discussion on how Flickr should implement their API or each photographer’s opinion on how they license their work. It’s about a large name in the photography (Flickr/Yahoo) and the fact that they don’t respect their customers enough to protect their work. I can only image how this will propogate forward with the new arrangement between Flickr and Getty Images. Will your “selection” by a Getty Editor to have your Flickr photos be licensed through Getty automatically change your Creative Commons licensed work to All Rights Reserved so Getty can make money off your work
If I’m using a service that claims to protect my work by allowing me to not let anyone but myself to download the images, then the service should do that. In all access methods to the images. When Flickr found out that this protection was not being extended to the API, they should have fixed it for the sake of their customers rather than ignore it for the sake of their API development community. SmugMug had a similar security issue be raised in the recent past which they quickly fixed…this is how a responsible company should act toward their customers, maybe this is why SmugMug is actually turning a profit while Flickr never could?
(Note: I’m stopping short of talking about how I think Yahoo’s ownership and corporate problems might be related to the current state of Flickr and their customer focus.)
One of the frustrating points that the FocalPower team had with photo sharing/hosting was the the lack of focus on the photographer for the sake of the photo sharing/hosting provider. This has been one of the facets behind the FocalPower solution since the day we started building it. We feel that control should be given back to the photographers. If they photographer wants to protect their photo assets and legal rights, then the systems they use should help them in this cause, not hinder them. Likewise, if the photographer is more concerned with their images being accessible to the larger audience to use under the Creative Common’s licensing, make it easy for the photographer to enable this and track the effect that this has. Opening up your work to Creative Commons is done for a multiplicity of reasons, one of which is to help spread your brand…hence the with Attribution license. I always found it shocking that Flickr allowed you to license your work this way but then let anyone take the work without providing you attribution…why couldn’t they provide that attribution for you? Why make the photographer work harder?
These are some of the issues that we are working to address here at FocalPower. So keep an eye out as we wrap up our development effort and move toward an open beta of our Photo Asset Management system later this year.
Update: Scott Bourne has a wonderful post on this topic over at the TWIP Blog. A great view of this topic from a long time professional photographer.
