Chris Nixon’s Photografr.com

Photografr.com Chris Nixon has done a great series of blogs in Flickr Hits and Zooomr Hits. These blogs profile some of the best photography on Flickr and Zooomr and also report on Flickr/Zooomr related news as well as more general photography news as well.

Today Chris announced that he’s merging these two sites into Photografr.com. Definitely a photography site to keep an eye on.

Be Sociable, Share!
Loading Facebook Comments ...

No Comments

  1. I’ve been a fan of both these sites for awhile so it’s glad to see them come together. To me this is the best way to view photography…meaning having it filtered by another person and presented in an easy to consume stream. I couldn’t find the RSS link on the site, but for standard WP installs I just added the ?feed=rss2 to get it: http://photografr.com/?feed=rss2

  2. Chris Nixon says:

    Thanks Thomas. Your support of the site is very much appreciated. You are welcome to contribute any time you like.

    Kurt: The feed link has been given a nice prominent placing.

  3. Anonymous says:

    What a great idea, awesome site.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I have to ask. While that site looks great and all, it’s obviously infringing on the photographer’s copyright.

    None of those photos used from Zooomr are Creative Commons Licensed. And while Chris does leave a comment on the photo and I’m sure the photographer is happy with the exposure. Isn’t that then leaving the photographer to ask for it to be removed after the infringement?

    Why aren’t you protecting your users photographers rights to copyright and instead promoting a blog that steals your users photos?

    I’m sure there’s a really good answer, which is why I’m asking the question. Have Zooomr’s users signed up to letting their photos be stolen/used in this way when they sign up. Sorry but I haven’t read your sites smallprint when it comes to protecting users copyrights.

    Sorry I’m anonymous I have no blogger account.

  5. Chris Nixon says:

    Hey Anon,

    You raise a fair point. I’ve always made the assumption (which could be wrong) that because I’m not downloading the photo, simply pointing to where the photographer has shared the photo, then it’s OK. I’m not actually hosting their photo. Zooomr/Flickr/Whoever is.

    Flickr makes it explicit whether you want to allow your photos to be blogged or not, while other sites (including Zooomr) do not.

    If anybody raised any concern regarding me blogging their photograph (which it never has) then I would, of course take it down immediately.

    This may be worth further discussion. The photo sharing websites partly rely on these photos being blogged/myspaced/facebooked to drive traffic to their sites.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for leaving a reply Chris. I want to stress that I do love the blog.

    It’s just that, as you point out, it’s fair to assume that if the user has the “blog this” button on (on flickr) that they’re happy to have the photo blogged. Or if they have a Creative Commons License that allows it.

    The opposite is that if they have the “blog this” button turned off and full Copyright then they don’t want it blogged or want to be asked first.

    In the case of Zooomr there is no “blog this” to let people know that they are happy for that to happen and all photos are All Rights Reserved Copyright by default.

    So unless they explicitly say in the description or comments that you’re allowed to blog it (or you ask them) I’m going to guess that blogging it is … within the definition of the law, Copyright infringement. (I’m pretty sure that who’s hosting it doesn’t change the fact).

    Maybe your blog is the difference between “good” copyright infringement and “bad” copyright infringement 🙂

    The question though is assuming that 1) all photos on Zooomr are copyright by default. 2) there’s no explicit “blog this” button, option, whatever. 3) there’s no creative commons licenses. That as your blog seems to be infringing (but in a “good” way) copyright (within the definition of the law, i.e. it’s not fair use), which Thomas sometimes calls Stealing from Photographers. Why is Thomas not protecting Zooomr’s users from having their photo’s copyright infringed and instead promoting it?

    It’s possible that a photographer could claim that the value of their photo that they want to sell through the Zooomr’s market is being devalued by people happily blogging it left right and center, without paying attention to the copyright on it. While the sites CEO of promoting such sites.

    Other than the sticky legal issues, great blog Chris, keep up the good work. Interested to hear Thomas’ views on the matter.

  7. Sridhar says:

    Is batch uploading option on the list of ‘to-dos’ for Zooomr?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Oh I see, Thomas has enough time to post three more blog posts, mess around with Pownce, and play with video. But not enough to respond in this post where I’m asking him about his apparent support of a blog that builds itself on using other peoples copyrighted photos without asking permission first (as indicated by Chris’ response above).

    Considering that Thomas is normally so vocal about copyright infringement, why so quiet in this case? Probably because he has no good answer for why he’s promoting copyright infringement and hoping that this post will just scroll off the blog and die un-noticed, which I’m sure it will.

    Way to go to for protecting your user’s interests. And Chris what do you think will happen when you finally blog a photo of a user who notices and reacts by posting in a Zooomr group going “OMG a site is stealing my photos and lots of other users, what’s Zooomr going to do to stop this?”.

    I guess he’ll either tell you to take all the copyrighted Zooomr photos down, or tell the user that it’s up to them and Zooomr isn’t going to do anything to help them (in this case).

    So Thomas, any answers? Thomas?

    Nope, didn’t think so, and I bet when I check back in a few days time you still haven’t.

    Because there’s no way you can justify the position of supporting a website that illegally uses (but in a nice good way, not like that nasty Valleywag) photos from the site you’re a CEO of.

    Hypocrite.

  9. alan says:

    Interesting, lets hope he gives his opinion.