cd_archives
The End of the Line
By now it should come as no surprise to anyone that my days of posting regular content on Flickr are in the rear-view mirror. Among other goings-on in my life, the deal was sealed on my status here in late 2018 when Smugmug purchased the site and decided to target non-Pro members of the site—members who may still have a passion for sharing stories through photography but may not necessarily be able to afford a Pro subscription—by limiting those users to 1000 photos.
It was at that time I moved over to Instagram and continued my photo-sharing journey. Sure, their backend may compress the quality of a photo beyond what any reasonable person may consider acceptable and doesn't allow for near the amount of commentary on photo descriptions (much to the delight of many of my friends who read these!), but the platform does allow you to share on a basic level. It also allows you to have a private account if you so desire, which is great if you don't want to spend an excessive amount of time moderating spam/troll comments or worry about someone else posting your content as their own.
Which, of course, brings us to March 17. You may have already heard Flickr has chosen to target non-Pro members yet again—except this time its sights are on users who have private photos. Anyone who has more than 50 photos set as private, friends, family, or friends and family will once again be at risk of having their content deleted if they don't choose to make those photos public. Or maybe not, says Smugmug, since they also claim to have never deleted any photos shared by free users on Flickr who have posted more than 1000 photos.
(However, I surmise Flickr likely sold a nonzero amount of Pro subscriptions by convincing users photos would be deleted unless they paid, when Smugmug/Flickr knew full well they had no intention of deleting the content regardless of whether a Pro subscription was purchased. That certainly sounds like an admission Smugmug/Flickr defrauded anyone who bought Pro after the 2018 announcement and those users might actually be entitled to their money back for the unnecessary subscription they bought under false pretenses, but I digress!)
Flickr has always been a fantastic site, and I've made a lot of friends here. I still enjoy dropping in on occasion and seeing the excellent content those friends are sharing. Regardless of Flickr's excellence as a platform, I think it's time both Pro and non-Pro users speak out when it comes to what Smugmug wants to do. Yes, a site like this costs money to run, and I completely understand that. What I don't understand is why Smugmug has now decided to monetize your right to privacy as the copyright holder of your photos to obtain the operating capital. If this becomes a mainstream and accepted practice, it sets a dangerous precedent for the privacy of our digital lives in the future. If Smugmug can get away with this on Flickr, it's only a matter of time before another site tries to do the same.
Let's use Facebook as an example, as it's also a mainstream platform with a large user base. Over the past 16 years, there has been scare after scare (all completely false, I might add) about Mark Zuckerberg presumably charging to access the site and exposing all personal information set as private unless users copy and paste the chain mail of the week as their status. None of that has ever happened—nor will it—but it hasn't stopped users from threatening to leave the site anyway every time these memes circulate.
Now imagine Zuckerberg really does decide to make your existence on Facebook conditional: you can stay on Facebook in perpetuity for free, but only 50 pieces of your personal information—whether that information be a cat meme or a picture of your infant son shared shortly after his birth—can remain private unless you pay $133 for a two-year subscription. Just how many people would be fine with this arrangement? Facebook would go under overnight and for good reason.
Having used the Internet for the better part of the last 25+ years, I'm well aware of how nobody can reasonably expect the right to privacy for content posted in a public space. However, content that was posted as private or targeted to a certain audience should be allowed to remain that way indefinitely without the owner of the site demanding the content creator pay for the right to do so.
The big question that remains unanswered about this recent announcement is actually a very simple one: "why now?" When the 1000-photo limit was announced in 2018, Flickr was perfectly fine with free users making all 1000 of their allotment private. Why, all of a sudden, is it a massive problem that some users choose to limit the audiences to which some or all of their content is viewable? If there are truly no heinous intentions by Smugmug in deciding to make this move, then Flickr must be in more financial trouble than anyone can fathom.
It is with all this being said that I post the cover of one of my favorite albums, the Traveling Wilburys' End of the Line. Not only does this announcement solidify this well and truly being the end of the line for any hopes I'll ever share photos regularly on Flickr again, I also see this as the beginning of the end for a site I enjoyed long before I created an account here. As a matter of fact, one of the major reasons I was compelled to create an account nine years ago was to leave a comment for a photographer whose work I enjoyed. From there, I started to share my own content, and the rest is history. I will never claim my content was great by any stretch, but I enjoyed sharing it—and still do. I'll still be around Flickr on occasion to check out the content of those I follow, but Instagram will remain my permanent photo-sharing home.
In a day and age where other sites, browsers, and companies put massive amounts of time, effort, and resources into making privacy a main feature of their product—even if it's just lip service in the end—Flickr is actually bold-faced telling you that you have no right to privacy for 95% of the content you post unless you pay a fee.
Remember: you fired the shutter to capture that image. Regardless of whether the subject is one of the world's greatest landscapes or a grocery store aisle marker, you as the copyright holder own the rights to that photo. Therefore, it is your choice how you choose to share—or not share—100% of your work. Never be silent when a website feels like it should be allowed to charge you to execute the basic ownership rights of your work. It is the photographer that is deserving of compensation when a third party wants to dictate the use of a photo, not the other way around.
Let's hope the site-runners at Smugmug are right and Flickr is around forever. Unfortunately, they have leaned into a devastating change—and once the userbase comes to the realization of what the change is about, I envision another 2018-style mass exodus that can’t be good for the future of the site.
If anyone from Smugmug reads this—which is very doubtful, but you never know—I implore them to reconsider.
The End of the Line
By now it should come as no surprise to anyone that my days of posting regular content on Flickr are in the rear-view mirror. Among other goings-on in my life, the deal was sealed on my status here in late 2018 when Smugmug purchased the site and decided to target non-Pro members of the site—members who may still have a passion for sharing stories through photography but may not necessarily be able to afford a Pro subscription—by limiting those users to 1000 photos.
It was at that time I moved over to Instagram and continued my photo-sharing journey. Sure, their backend may compress the quality of a photo beyond what any reasonable person may consider acceptable and doesn't allow for near the amount of commentary on photo descriptions (much to the delight of many of my friends who read these!), but the platform does allow you to share on a basic level. It also allows you to have a private account if you so desire, which is great if you don't want to spend an excessive amount of time moderating spam/troll comments or worry about someone else posting your content as their own.
Which, of course, brings us to March 17. You may have already heard Flickr has chosen to target non-Pro members yet again—except this time its sights are on users who have private photos. Anyone who has more than 50 photos set as private, friends, family, or friends and family will once again be at risk of having their content deleted if they don't choose to make those photos public. Or maybe not, says Smugmug, since they also claim to have never deleted any photos shared by free users on Flickr who have posted more than 1000 photos.
(However, I surmise Flickr likely sold a nonzero amount of Pro subscriptions by convincing users photos would be deleted unless they paid, when Smugmug/Flickr knew full well they had no intention of deleting the content regardless of whether a Pro subscription was purchased. That certainly sounds like an admission Smugmug/Flickr defrauded anyone who bought Pro after the 2018 announcement and those users might actually be entitled to their money back for the unnecessary subscription they bought under false pretenses, but I digress!)
Flickr has always been a fantastic site, and I've made a lot of friends here. I still enjoy dropping in on occasion and seeing the excellent content those friends are sharing. Regardless of Flickr's excellence as a platform, I think it's time both Pro and non-Pro users speak out when it comes to what Smugmug wants to do. Yes, a site like this costs money to run, and I completely understand that. What I don't understand is why Smugmug has now decided to monetize your right to privacy as the copyright holder of your photos to obtain the operating capital. If this becomes a mainstream and accepted practice, it sets a dangerous precedent for the privacy of our digital lives in the future. If Smugmug can get away with this on Flickr, it's only a matter of time before another site tries to do the same.
Let's use Facebook as an example, as it's also a mainstream platform with a large user base. Over the past 16 years, there has been scare after scare (all completely false, I might add) about Mark Zuckerberg presumably charging to access the site and exposing all personal information set as private unless users copy and paste the chain mail of the week as their status. None of that has ever happened—nor will it—but it hasn't stopped users from threatening to leave the site anyway every time these memes circulate.
Now imagine Zuckerberg really does decide to make your existence on Facebook conditional: you can stay on Facebook in perpetuity for free, but only 50 pieces of your personal information—whether that information be a cat meme or a picture of your infant son shared shortly after his birth—can remain private unless you pay $133 for a two-year subscription. Just how many people would be fine with this arrangement? Facebook would go under overnight and for good reason.
Having used the Internet for the better part of the last 25+ years, I'm well aware of how nobody can reasonably expect the right to privacy for content posted in a public space. However, content that was posted as private or targeted to a certain audience should be allowed to remain that way indefinitely without the owner of the site demanding the content creator pay for the right to do so.
The big question that remains unanswered about this recent announcement is actually a very simple one: "why now?" When the 1000-photo limit was announced in 2018, Flickr was perfectly fine with free users making all 1000 of their allotment private. Why, all of a sudden, is it a massive problem that some users choose to limit the audiences to which some or all of their content is viewable? If there are truly no heinous intentions by Smugmug in deciding to make this move, then Flickr must be in more financial trouble than anyone can fathom.
It is with all this being said that I post the cover of one of my favorite albums, the Traveling Wilburys' End of the Line. Not only does this announcement solidify this well and truly being the end of the line for any hopes I'll ever share photos regularly on Flickr again, I also see this as the beginning of the end for a site I enjoyed long before I created an account here. As a matter of fact, one of the major reasons I was compelled to create an account nine years ago was to leave a comment for a photographer whose work I enjoyed. From there, I started to share my own content, and the rest is history. I will never claim my content was great by any stretch, but I enjoyed sharing it—and still do. I'll still be around Flickr on occasion to check out the content of those I follow, but Instagram will remain my permanent photo-sharing home.
In a day and age where other sites, browsers, and companies put massive amounts of time, effort, and resources into making privacy a main feature of their product—even if it's just lip service in the end—Flickr is actually bold-faced telling you that you have no right to privacy for 95% of the content you post unless you pay a fee.
Remember: you fired the shutter to capture that image. Regardless of whether the subject is one of the world's greatest landscapes or a grocery store aisle marker, you as the copyright holder own the rights to that photo. Therefore, it is your choice how you choose to share—or not share—100% of your work. Never be silent when a website feels like it should be allowed to charge you to execute the basic ownership rights of your work. It is the photographer that is deserving of compensation when a third party wants to dictate the use of a photo, not the other way around.
Let's hope the site-runners at Smugmug are right and Flickr is around forever. Unfortunately, they have leaned into a devastating change—and once the userbase comes to the realization of what the change is about, I envision another 2018-style mass exodus that can’t be good for the future of the site.
If anyone from Smugmug reads this—which is very doubtful, but you never know—I implore them to reconsider.