digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Flickr = censorship

thomashawk.com — Recently Rebekka Gu ðleifsdóttira discovered that a gallery Only-Dreemin was ripping her off. They'd sold thousands of dollars worth of her images. So she did what anyone with a following on the internet might do and she posted about her frustration and plight on her flickrstream. What's yahoo do? Deletes the image & threatens to terminate account.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spankr, on 10/11/2007, -12/+169This is just plain wrong. Yahoo Sucks! I am "old skool" and am cancelling my account.

    http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -192/+18It's not wrong and it sure isn't censorship. It's not Yahoo!'s fight, and Yahoo! isn't a platform for that crap.

      She should have issued a DMCA to the company hosting the website and/or initiated legal action against the company.
    • mykos, on 10/11/2007, -7/+104Sounds like it's a case of who they would lose more money from--a corporation with lawyers or a beautiful girl who takes great pictures. Flickr chose to please the lawyers. Boooooo!
    • LukeD, on 10/11/2007, -27/+120@fkr3 - It seems you are obviously deluded, thinking your American laws extend beyond your national borders (Christ knows your government suffers from the same problem). The DMCA doesn't apply to a British company, nor does it protect an Icelandic photographer.
    • mykos, on 10/11/2007, -7/+89Here's a couple self-portraits of the photographer:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/395320678/
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/17682638/in/set-454414/
    • avihappy, on 10/11/2007, -15/+3@spankr (#6702804)
      REBELLION!!!
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -27/+45@ LukeD:
      a) I'm Australian
      b) The DMCA was created exactly for situations like this. A simple takedown notice and the company wouldn't be using her material anymore. And there's still the option to sue them.
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -52/+13Mmm double posting. Thanks for the "delete comment" button digg!
    • rlinsurf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31@ LukeD-- AFAIK, she can sue in the British courts to recover damages from a British company.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/11/2007, -32/+8Well, if she would have handled the situation like a big girl, and dealt with it in the correct manner, she wouldn't have that problem. She was, in fact, using flikr as a means to harass and intimidate them. Thats straight out of the TOS.

      Is she in the right, definitely, but if you handle something like a child, you will get treated as such.

      Also, Yahoo is a private company...they can censor what they want...if you dont like it, leave. That's how our system works. Whining and continuing to use the service does nothing but make you look like an imbicile.
    • Drewboy64, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38I agree, I'm canceling mine as well! Lets hit them where it hurts! Anyone want to join along? Don't let Flikr get way with this. This persons work is amazing, I think we need to step up! Count me in!
    • zioxide, on 10/11/2007, -16/+57"I agree, I'm canceling mine as well! Lets hit them where it hurts!"

      Wow, like 10 people out of their millions of users canceling is really going to do something!
    • weeeeeeee, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6That's a hell of a last name
    • molecool, on 10/11/2007, -9/+40I just canceled my Flickr account - I mean WTF happened to free speech?
    • Infowarmachine, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35yahoo SUUUUUCKS

      yahoo is censoring stuff like mad
      not to get political but another major example of yahoo censorship was on their voting stuff , they refused to add ron paul, deleted/banned anyone who asked about it

      i HATE yahoo
      these companies are abusing their position, and the users who got them there
    • zioxide, on 10/11/2007, -13/+34Well, I don't agree with what Yahoo has done, but I'd just like to point out that this doesn't violate any of your free speech. It's like Digg originally removing the HD-DVD codes.

      They are a private corporation and you agreed to terms of service when you signed up. If you violate these terms, they can stop providing this service to you. The first amendment does not apply to this because they are a private corporation.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -50/+4Can't be on this woman's side if you are in favor of piracy. They are in direct contrast with each other.

      DOES information want to be free, or no?

      And molecool...don't make youself look like a ***** idiot by claiing free speech in a case with a private company. Why can Digg have any intelligent people leaving comments?
    • ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -8/+45To everyone pitching in with her self portraits, and how beautiful she is: Shut up.

      Her beauty has nothing to do with her merits as a photographer, or whether she is in the right or wrong here.
    • mykos, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19@ahawks
      Yeah, but it sure doesn't hurt to see some lovely pictures, that SHE TOOK AND MADE PUBLIC ;)

      And she knows how pretty she is; I'm sure she wouldn't take much offense to someone spreading the word.
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24i was a big fan of flickr. i even organized an online auction on Flickr for the victims of Katrina a couple of years ago.

      when i found out they wereselling to yahoo, i canceled my account and never looked back. yahoo is next to microsoft in terms of abusive, monopolistic, greedy behavior. they show their disrespect of their clients at every turn.

      this isn't too surprising.
    • Scruffydan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+60Looks like flickr realized their mistake... hopefully they also learned from it

      from her photostream
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/500114525/
      "since posting this, i have received an apology from Flickr HQ, for removing my previous post, which had 450 comments (long , meaningful comments, about how selling other peoples stuff for profit is a crime, and advice and suggestions on how to deal with it) and had over 101,000 views in 24 hours.

      im relieved that they owned up to their hasty action of removing the photo. thats something."
    • ozroy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10*edit*
      nevermind. They apologised
    • nigh7dagger, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2I think Rebecca is in the right morally, but legally, Flickr is in the right. Sorry!
    • gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Yahoo's on a social website aquiration spree. They buy good sites, than ruin them. I'm afraid for del.icio.us -- also, they're trying to aquire Facebook -- hope they don't go through.
    • domataos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7***** scumbags
    • puttly, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5theres always http://beta.zooomr.com/home its awesome!
    • fuegosecret, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3You diggers are such hypocrits. You don't care about censorship! In fact, you endorse it every time you digg someone down. btw The 1st Amendment applies to Congress... not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not your precious Digg, and not Flicker (which sucks w/ or w/o censorship because of the poorly conceived interface). Prove it to yourself by digging me down, censor away, you sanctimonious untrue crowd of derivative 8 year olds! (And stay away from /. - your crappy blogspam is crudding up the net!)
    • 10scott10, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1yo secret, i wanted to have a record that when we digg you down, we are only following your suggestion.
      digg--
    • birdwatcher3000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7So what is the lesson we should learn about this?

      Place a HUGE transparent watermark from the bottom left corner to the upper right corner of your picture before you post it anywhere where it can be stolen, or just use thumbnails.

      Flickr is not the place to store your pictures. Get an HD for that.
    • WraythX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@weeeeeeee - it is a typical styling of name for an Icelandic female - you take the father's firstname (or, rarely, the mother's first name) and append "daughter of".

      eg: Guðleifs + dóttir = Daughter of Guthleif.

      Björk, the singer, is the same: Björk Guðmundsdóttir - her father is called Guthmund. This also means that a brother and sister don't share a surname - Bjork's brother would be Guðmundsson.

      Incidentally, the poster spelt Rebekka's surname incorrectly in the submission.
    • Sep11insidejob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2***** you guys haven't boycotted yahoo yet? come on then get with the program...
    • lantrix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Try http://www.dphoto.com instead. I have (amongst other things), as I haven't decided on a flickr pro account yet.
    • sleze, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is what people get when they let someone else host their photos. I have been running gallery and gallery2 with midphase for several years and my administrator (me) has never censored anything.
    • MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Wow, like 10 people out of their millions of users canceling is really going to do something!"

      No single drop of rain believes it is responsible for the flood.
    • vuzman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
      -- Margaret Mead
  • smaragd, on 10/11/2007, -9/+114Rebekka is seriously one of flickr's most talented, best-known, most respected and best-loved members. She's a true artist, and certainly one of the handful of people closest to flickr's very heart.

    If flickr lets this stand, and does not do something DRAMATIC to make right, flickr's reputation will be severely damaged by this. Flickr could see the sort of massive rebellion that struck Digg only a few weeks ago.
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -34/+7People will post thousands of photos? On a photo hosting site?

      I bet they're scared. And better equipped to deal with their users than digg is.
    • kevnaca, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21no. they will post the deleted photo set over and over again.
    • tjex, on 10/11/2007, -7/+49Goodbye Flickr, hello Picasa
    • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5What makes you think Google would handle it any differently? Flickr, Google and all the other alternatives aren't "police the internet" sites. If you have a complaint against another site you take it up with the site, their host or your lawyer.
  • cyrusbryan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14this is really disturbing. after being a member more than two years on flickr--since february 2005!!!--for me to see NO ONE at flickr mitigate this on Rebekka's side and put these scam artists out of business is deplorable. But on top of that, to effing censor her and Thomas? Truly weak on Caterina and Stewart's part. Disappointing does not begin to cover it. Can you imagine what will happen with other free speech issues if this is how they treat all commercial free speech revolving around mere issues of *fraud*?
  • johncabell, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18let's hope this was a knee-jerk reaction by a flunkie following the book. someone of substance needs to clarify.
  • lahdeedah, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Flickr really screwed up by doing this. That company that ripped of Rebekka couldn't take the heat and they only know low down tactics. I'm surprised Flickr even listened to their complaint.
  • SirStevieB, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15I'm a "long term" user and, until now, fan of Flickr. This is outrageous treatment of a respected community member. I too will consider closing my account if this is as it seems at face value.
  • callmereal, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3'tis a sad day, but pretty predictable I would think. Once Digg, MySpace, or DeviantArt gets a hold of an issue it always seems to do more harm than good. Sorry diggers, but you know it's true just as I do.

    Had the viewers of her post acted responsibly instead of abusing the abuser, she would still have the account open and would most likely have a good shot at a hefty lawsuit.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5So she is meant to be punished because somebody, unbidden, did something stupid on her behalf? Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
  • alabut, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Wow, what a coincidence - I just added Rebecca as a Flickr contact today because she was mentioned in a newspaper article as one of Flickr's most popular photographers and I can see why. She's the kind of power user that continues to give Flickr free press!
  • salazr, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2un-*****-believable.
  • phractured, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5She should go to deviantart, much better for people of her talent anyway.
  • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4[Insert "witty" joke relating this to the digg revolt here]
  • ashli, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0yahoo! doesnt have a say.. its a load of ***** *****
  • Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -1/+94If Yahoo turns information over to the Chinese government that gets a person jailed for years, do you honestly think they give a flying ***** about someone's art?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4221538.stm

    Yahoo is way off the evil charts here. They need to be deprecated.
    • nakani, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15We live in a Capitalist society, so the best way to protest Yahoo's behavior which we don't agree with is to boycott them. Stop using Flickr, stop using Yahoo! search, stop using Yahoo! Mail. Democracy through Capitalism.
    • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2do you know anything about google? they're pretty ***** evil too. most corporations are.
      • BloodyScum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0i dont know, i have never had a problem with google, but to be fair, what have they done to be evil?
    • loudintl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19I never used Yahoo anything, anyway. Hooray for proactive inactivity!
    • yangj08, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Oh yes-I currently live in China and do not use Yahoo's services for this reason. I turn instead to Japanese services like Livedoor- they wouldn't think to look there.
  • mehss, on 10/11/2007, -18/+2WHAT NAZIS
  • ecorona, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6We are embarking on a new era of censorship and truth-avoiding people in power. Shame on us all if we let this continue.
  • scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23This is the trouble with taking part in "user generated content" - the assholes running the show can censor you.

    Whatever happened to having your own website?
    • nakani, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10And the beauty in taking part in user-generated content is you can boycott them as well when you find out you're being censored ;)
  • plasmosis, on 10/11/2007, -17/+1..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... (never mind, I might get CENSORED.)
  • chadtatro, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3whatevs.. they'll do what they want!
  • Sphere777, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31Flickr just became a lot less cool in my book.
  • mercness, on 10/11/2007, -26/+1OH MY GOODNESS!! THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CENSOR ARE SPEACH! OH WAIT, FLICKR ISNT THE GUBBERMINT.... D'OH! DIGGERS INDIGNANT FOR NO REASON AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
  • silverwolfe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17THIS IS MADNESS!!!
    • keije, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5MADNESS?

      THIS. IS. YAHOOOOOOOOOOO!


      /note: OK, so I have no force of will, bite me.
    • keije, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2hehe, you guys are inconsistent, you dig me down for obliging a joke to OP, but not digging down OP? a little guilty conscience? you know you enjoy it, just afraid to publicly admit it by displaying the thing you all thinking. One day someone will make a kick ass psychology paper based on Digg comments :) This is gold.

      Cheers! :)
  • brewno2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Good were the days Flickr was an independent, well-intentioned company trying to create the best photo community site out there. Back then, they actually listened to it's costumers. Flickr's gone, only the name remained. Yahoo is there, profiting and censoring. Want to protect your photos? Save the full quality for yourself and post only a resized version.
    • phr4gmonk3y, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Good thing that their competitor, Zooomr, is actually an 'independent, well-intentioned company trying to create the best photo community site out there.' Kristopher Tate and Thomas Hawk are looking out for our interests, not for their checkbooks, unlike some Fortune 500 company I know.
    • sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@phr4gmonk3y: you left out "... for now."
    • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.23hq.com/ is also worth a look
  • monergism, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Did anyone read the license of flickr? Is this permitted under Cretaive Commons?
    • Zero2aHero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I found this in the help FAQ

      " I'd like to use a photo I found on Flickr. How do I do that?

      We don't act as matchmakers, so contact the photographer yourself. Only members of Flickr can send messages to one another, so if you haven't created an account, that's your first step.

      As a member of Flickr, you can move your mouse over someone's buddy icon and click the little arrow to open the "person menu." Then select "Send FlickrMail" and compose your message. When you contact a photographer, it's best to include as much info as possible about the photo, yourself, and how you want to use the photo."

      ----

      If yahoo is trying to attract photographers and artists to their site by advertising it as a place to meet other artists and share your work, then silencing someone who got their work stolen is the exact opposite way to go about that. What a complete ***** up of the way this situation was handled.
    • smithco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Flickr allows users to select their CC license. For the selected restrictions (any of non-commercial, no-derivatives, attribution), it is not necessary to ask permission. But, to do something beyond the CC license requires permission. So, it is really up to the photographer to select the CC license he wants.

      I choose to leave my photos open for free non-commercial use. If you don't intend to make money from my pictures, you may use my photos without any extra permission. But, if you want to use my photos for commercial purposes, you need to ask me first. Of course, when I'm asked nicely, I tend to say 'yes'. And so a few people have used my photos for commercial works. It's amazing how few people realise that taking a moment to ask for permission usually results in a 'yes', and can save a whole load of problems later on.
  • paku, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10You can add me to the list of people who are closing their flickr account.
  • eezzzz, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1That is one freaky equation.... my spirit guide foretold this day.
  • podsafegear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Don't know if this has anything to do with the controversy, but the site that was stealing pics has disabled the shop and the contact form.

    http://www.only-dreemin.com/index.html
    • Sepeteus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There's still the map if someone wants to visit them.
    • jads, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If they didn't want to be contacted, then they had better remove that mailto: tag at the bottom of the page...

      info@only-dreemin.com
  • Vandelay797, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's time for another old fashioned digg style inundation of support !
    • Hoov, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I hope this resonates to every corner of the Internet.
  • endustry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Yahoo is run by milquetoast corporate flunkies. I EAGERLY await Google's answer to the photosharing community concept.
    • sabarsky, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2ergh...

      digg needs a delete post function.
    • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Isn't that what Picaso is?
    • endustry, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I agree, Sabarsky.
    • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ Scheissen
      Picasa is great for managing your photos at home and also has free webalbums. The web album part needs more work with regard to the social part but I hope they'll get there.
    • nnolasco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That would be Google's "Picasa".
  • zgregoryg, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1I can't believe that we still have people who don't understand that anything, and I mean ANYTHING, posted on the Internet should be considered fair-game.

    Charlatans will take your images, content, whatever, sell them and good luck trying to sue them and recoup any money. You probably do not have the resources to pay a lawyer for one, and if you do, the case will be tied up for years unless it is small claims.

    Take if from a former professional photographer: GET A CLUE. If you don't want to share your work freely with everyone: DO NOT POST IT ON THE INTERNET.

    What a Homer. Doh!
    • jads, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I find that your advice of not posting it on the internet from a 'former' professional photograher quite ironic...

      Name one famous professional photographer worth their salt who does not have their work displayed on the web?

      Besides. If you are really really really concerned about theft, then watermarking is a way to go. Rebeka was a photographer who was in it for the creativity and wanted to share her talent with the world. I think telling everyone 'don't post on the internet' is quite narrow-minded, especially in this day and age.

      What a douche.
  • P1SC3S, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Has anyone checked the only-dreemin site linked in the article? It looks like it's been taken down or hacked. The links for Shop, About and Contact appear to be broken.

    Good!
  • RoflMyWaffle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4i gotta ask, how the hell is that last name pronounced!
  • fadeout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Is there a way to deactivate auto-renew on flickr accounts? Can't seem to find it under member options.
  • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2I realize most of you on here are teenagers, but the proper course of action is to post these types of opinions on machines owned by yourself, rather than putting Yahoo in the unfavorable position of having to try and mediate who is right and wrong in this case. If Yahoo guesses incorrectly, and people are posting libelous material, Yahoo is open to a lawsuit for allowing the material to be published.

    Assuming she is telling the absolute truth, imagine the opposite. Someone posts libel on flickr about you. Should Yahoo keep it online and hope they don't get sued? Or should they just have a very simple policy:

    DON'T POST HARASSING CONTENT

    It's much easier to police this then to decide what is true or not.

    It's too bad if she's getting ripped off, but the proper course of action is to pursue the matter legally. If she doesn't want to do that, she needs to put her own assets on the line by publishing her issues herself, not with Yahoo's service.
  • TDLA, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Account Canceled here also!!!
  • aserer511, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5digg about censorship...irony....
  • shortarabguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This honestly just makes me a little happier that Google's going to monopolize everything and Yahoo will find itself struggling economically. Not now, obviously, but eventually.
    Then again, Yahoo started out with a weak conviction to bring the people new and innovative things, and when the pressure got to them, they caved to take the easy way out in every situation. Google's done the exact opposite, which is ironic because you'd think that the second person at the party would be poorly imitating the first. Seems that's the other way around, and Yahoo's struggling to keep pace with Google, the stronger and slightly newer presence.

    I honestly can't imagine what Flickr and Yahoo thought they could gain by shirking their users at all... They're completely disregarding the fact that on the internet all it takes is one angry voice to centralize thousands, and those thousands can influence millions, leading to what is effectively a community-wide distrust and resentment of the company.
  • apsk121, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Can't wait for Zooomr Mark III to come out and I'll be moving permanently too.
  • Gimli, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4While I don't think what Flickr did was right, I think Rebekka's fight should be more on the pictures stolen than a fight with Flickr over censorship (Why they censored her and not others on Flickr is beyond me)...if this makes any sense (It probably doesn't). If I ever take a picture that I think is perfect (I haven't yet) I definitely will not be posting the internet on websites like Flickr, I might post it on my own website but even then I'll make sure the security is tight and there will be definitely a big huge ugly watermark right in the middle of the the picture :-)
  • gimpbully, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Flickr has since appologized:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/500114525/
  • GlennF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Thomas Hawk, who posted this, is the head of a small firm competing with Flickr (small, but with powerful tools). He's quite good at identifying bad behavior, and he discloses in the post that he's the head of a competitor. Still, he spends a lot of time writing about how Flickr or Flickr-via-Yahoo has done this or that bad thing.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7It doesn't change what Flickr did. Sometimes the source isn't the story.
    • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I like him, he's frank
  • linkedsolutions, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yahoo! is out of control. Censorship on FLICKR AND in Yahoo Answers too! Amazing!
  • jjb123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Email the company that is stealing her work at info@only-dreemin.com.
  • Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Typical uncreative limeys. I hope she sues that *****.

    Yahoo sucks.
  • el_jefe, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2What I find funny is when a individual is fighting copyright infringment and unable to make money from their creations people jump to support the individual, and call out those that "stole" the work. However, I am sure some if not many of these same people claim stealing copyrighted material from corporations is ok.

    And after we have blasted those corporations for harassing individuals suspected of stealing copyrighted works, people on this site are suggesting harrassing those expected of stealing this artist's work.

    I sure hope she is able to get some restitution. I hate to see people have their work stolen. But unfortunately that's the world we live in.

    "Bunch of savages in this town"
    • kraniac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7For the 4000th time, the difference between this and downloading music is that Only Dreemin claimed the work as THEIR OWN and tried to SELL IT FOR PROFIT.

      If I download an MP3, I don't claim that I wrote it or try to sell it to my friends.

      If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot.
    • edtruckell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3if you really want to know how much rights you give away in a record deal theres plenty of places to look, i recommend 'Confessions of a Record Producer' an excellent book, if a few years out of date.

      quite an eye opener, especially when you realise how very little the artist gets back. if you fail to be totally disgusted after that then theres something wrong with you.
  • edfx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3FOLKS!! Looks like Flickr fixed the problem and admitted their mistake. Read Rebecca's latest blog on Flickr....
    • monototo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4yep, it's been updated.. there's an EDIT under the description of this photo:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/500114525/
    • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2No they DID NOT fix the problem. This is a worthless apology until they restore the post and discussion!
      If they are actually sorry, then they should have no problem restoring it, until then this "apology" is nothing but manipulation.
  • tzon, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Stealing photos: Bad
    Stealing music: Good
    ?
    • Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4By downloading music, nobody's stealing anything. That's a lie the RIAA has perpetuated to you. However, people are infringing on artists' copyrights, but that's different from stealing.

      Here, Rebekka's photos were not only stolen, but the website used their photos as their own and never gave any of their profits to Rebekka; they were stealing from her. When you're downloading a song, sure, you take it from the original author, and they get no profit, but they don't lose any money either.
  • withears, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Interesting that only-dreemin has a store on eBay (UK) where they sell things.

    I wonder if they've ever sold Rebekka's images on eBay?

    I'll bet that eBay wouldn't like it very much if they found out that only-dreemin has been making these kinds of transactions over eBay.
    • rebekkagudleifs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0ebay is where i originally came across my work being sold.(this was back in december 2006) On there i was able to track back sales of at least 60 prints, totalling a little under 5000$. THEN i noticed they also had their own online shop, unrelated to ebay, where my work was also being offered for sale. i had no way of finding out how many (if any) prints were sold thru there.

      i find myself wondering what the people who bought the prints in question would think about all this.
      to their knowledge, the prints haning on their walls are artwork by some non-existent "rebekka sigrún"
  • weebit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2From Rebecca's web blog:

    "I was told by my lawyer that i should just accept the fact and move on."

    When a attorney tells you this what they are really saying is:

    "I don't know chit about copyright law, so move on."

    Look for a copyright lawyer. THEY will know what do do.
  • shuffle2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4mirror of the offending post:
    http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Frebba%2F497746041%2F&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&vc=&fp_ip=GB&u=www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/497746041/&d=fPI_ZfmdOyJr&icp=1&.intl=us

    only-dreemin UK contact info:
    Unit D, 88 Vernon Road
    Aylestone
    Leicester
    LE2 8GB
    United Kingdom
    +44 (0)1162 440 349
    info@only-dreemin.com
  • kraniac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yahoo ruins EVERYTHING.

    All Seeing Eye? Check.
    Konfabulator? Check.

    Flickr will be next.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.