This would retain the "flickrness" that people value and enable them to re-upload photos after the dispute is over. The hole could be filled with a standard notice that says something like "this photo has been removed for copyright reasons". Degban started sending out DMCA takedown notices, presumably based on web searches, and Flickr deleted Gorman's image in response to one of those.Įven if there is some legal reason why an image has to be deleted, there is surely no legal reason why the page has to be deleted. About six years later, a pornography company called Wasteland Inc hired Degban, a "multimedia copyright protection company". In brief, it seems that a long-defunct blog called "Of The Wasteland" had innocently linked the word "graffiti" to Gorman's composite image. Gorman explained the problem in a series of blog posts starting on March 3 and an impressive flow chart. In effect, Flickr destroyed the very things that attracted Gorman to Flickr, and gave it its value. Flickr destroyed the comments and broke the links when it deleted the page instead of, for example, temporarily replacing the disputed image with a black box. This particular image had attracted hundreds of comments, and other websites linked to it. He says he doesn't pay for a pro Flickr account for storage but for the community, the comments, favourites and links. The key point was not the deletion of the image, which was easily replaced, but the loss of what Gorman calls its "flickrness".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |