According to Flickr’s user Shutterfever it appears that Flickr are not quite on the same side as photographers and have been deleting comments made over a video where a photographer has been harassed by a security guard for taking pictures in the street
As i didn’t mean to go to Stoke says:
Nearly 20 000 have watched this video, 38 000 have seen my photo.
The story has been read by over 30 000 people in the local press.
On American websites the story and video has been followed by tens of thousands of people. Over 100 000 people have heard this on Radio 4.
Attempts to gag us and preventing the truth from getting out there have failed completely.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photodrift/2422740769/
and this thread here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/
Any one for Ipenity?
2 Comments
May 24, 2008 at 8:40 pm
[...] is a flickr thread where this is discussed, and several such incidents reported around the world. There have even been complaints about photo websites like flickr taking unilateral steps against public photography because of some [...]
July 3, 2009 at 2:19 pm
As a photographer I wouldn’t lean toward Ipernity. The original file you upload is not protected in anyway except obscurity. If someone can guess or hack the file location and name then they or anyone they gine the details to can access the file without you ever knowing. Also that original file uploaded is, as far as I can tell, never deleted. I have some images I deleted 4 months ago that still sit there. I made a temporary account at the same time uploaded 2 photos and then deleted the account. The files still sit there.
The only thing deleting does is remove the links to the file from your account so you have no way of monitoring it. Not that visits to the original image is ever tracked in you account anyway.
So Ipernity is one program I would avoid if I cared about keeping any sort of control over my files.