A Small Tweak Puts Truth In Yahoo’s Ads

The Internet is Under New Management "Ours"

DeleteMe Uncensored was a thriving online community of 3000 photographers and critics hosted by Flickr, the Yahoo-owned photo-sharing platform. The group, which had called Yahoo home for years, was a popular, user-governed hub of free speech. But then someone at Flickr pushed a button and within seconds, thousands of photographs, conversations and connections were obliterated. All because of one user comment that Flickr censors deemed inappropriate. Flickr didn’t issue a warning, it didn’t delete the thread – it simply pulled the plug.

More from Adbusters here.

Yahoo: The Internet is Under New Mangement ‘Ours’

The Internet is Under New Management Ours

Yesterday the Yahoo! executive who reportedly oversaw Flickr , Scott Dietzen, resigned from Yahoo! according to TechCrunch. It was also reported yesterday that Yahoo has now retained Goodby, Silverstein and Partners to somehow try and recover from their failing marketing campaign.

While Yahoo censors paintings of classical nudes from public museums, their employees are off getting public lap dances at Yahoo “Hack Day.”

How can Yahoo seriously expect us to accept their $100 million marketing big lie that "the internet is under new management, yours," when they carelessly and maliciously destroy customer data without so much as a warning?

Yahoo’s new $100 million marketing campaign should not read "the internet is under new management yours." It should read "the internet is under new management ours."

Until Yahoo learns to respect their users and their user data and embraces true community management rather than community mis-management, their outlandish marketing message will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Here is an open letter I wrote to the head of Yahoo’s Marketing efforts, Elisa Steele, regarding these problems.

Yahoo! Totally You = Totally Screwed

Yahoo!  Totally You = Totally Screwed

While Yahoo! professes to care about "you" in their new multi million dollar marketing campaign, in actuality Yahoo!’s Flickr destroys user data.

Your sites, your mail, your friends, your whatever, yes totally.

…unless your site is on Yahoo’s flickr and then they can nuke it whenever they feel like it.

More information here.

Richard Giles Changes His Olympic Flickr Photos from Creative Commons to All Rights Reserved

Bump Up
Olympic Volleyball Image by cmaccubbin used via a Creative Commons license.

In a move that is a bit disappointing to me (but understandable), photographer Richard Giles has changed the licensing on all of his photos of the Olympic Games on Flickr from Creative Commons to All Rights Reserved. This was not done because this is how Giles preferred it, it was done because the International Olympic Committee (IOC), after considering Giles’ request that he be allowed to use a Creative Commons non-commercial license on his images, decided that they would not back down and came back insisting on the license for the images.

As I’ve said previously
, this accomplishes nothing for the IOC. The Creative Commons license is irrevocable as I understand it and per Creative Commons, and as such I think that this change offers the IOC no additional protection regarding use of the images. There are still thousands of Creative Commons licensed images (and many more to be uploaded in the future) on Flickr and in other places like wikipedia on the web.

I doubt that the IOC will be sending cease and desist letters to all of these individuals. While they may have effectively removed Giles’ images from Creative Commons searches on Flickr, there still is an extremely large and growing body of work of the Olympic Games available for other publishers to choose from (see the photo above). It will be interesting to see if the IOC decides to play whack-a-mole for the next few years or if they will eventually realize that the games are effectively too large to really be contained the way that they’d like to contain them.

I think this move on their part reflects negatively on the Olympics and the games and has generated negative publicity for the IOC.

Giles has a rundown of the thinking behind his decision to relicense his photos “all rights reserved” here.

I was also disappointed by the tone of the follow up phone call that Giles said he received from the IOC. Especially where Giles says, “In the phone call he suggested that I’d gone off, “half cocked,” and should not have shared the IOC’s letter on Flickr. ”

Personally I think cease and desist letters *ought* to be shared at places like Flickr. They ought to be as public as possible. If an organization wants to challenge freedom on the internet then they needed to be prepared to deal with the PR side of the fallout from that. The IOC very much deserved to receive the lumps that it did over that letter especially. The letter actually stated that images of the Olympic Games “belong” to the IOC. That’s just ridiculous and I’m sure completely unenforceable. Even the license on the back of an Olympic ticket does not require photographers to assign the ownership of their work to the IOC. While it might try and dictate how the images can be used, claiming outright ownership over the images was way over the top on the IOC’s part in my opinion.

Anyways, I hope the IOC reconsiders how they deal with Creative Commons licensed photography in the future and I hope that lawyers at some forward thinking organization like the EFF or Creative Commons might find their way to Giles to convince him to fight this with their help.

An Open Letter to Elisa Steele EVP & Chief Marketing Officer, Yahoo Inc. on the New “The Internet is You,” Yahoo Marketing Campaign

An Open Letter to Elisa Steele EVP & Chief Marketing Officer, Yahoo Inc. on the New "The Internet is You," Yahoo Marketing Campaign

Dear Elisa:

Last month when you announced Yahoo! Inc’s new multi-million dollar ad campaign including the tagline, “the internet’s under new management yours,” I wrote you an open letter. While admittedly the letter was critical and even a bit sarcastic at times regarding censorship on Yahoo’s photo sharing site Flickr, I nonetheless was hopeful that perhaps Yahoo was sincere in your latest marketing message. I thought the statement was much better than the last big Yahoo marketing campaign about everybody needing to wear purple clothes or whatever, and as someone who values customer service oriented companies, I thought it was a positive statement for Yahoo to make.

Unfortunately, at this point, however, I am going to have to call bullshit on your new campaign. I assume it’s ok with you that I’m using such strong language to describe your campaign. Your boss Carol Bartz has built a big reputation as a tough talker with salty language so I’m hoping you’ll understand.

You see Elisa, despite the fact that seemingly everywhere I turn in San Francisco I see another one of your new ads on a bus shelter somewhere, the message rings hollow. It’s doublespeak. It’s inauthentic.

Yesterday, your Flickr Community Manager Heather Champ destroyed a community on Flickr that was home to over 3,000 hard-core Yahoo users. It was a community of photographers, many of whom have spent years on Yahoo in a group that was rich and vibrant. The group had over 5,000 ongoing conversations in it. It’s where many of us lived on Yahoo. The group was in part dedicated to free speech, but it was so much more than that. The group was a place where we talked about music. Where we shared tips on photography. Where we debated about film vs. digital. Where we went to ask each other for advice on what lens we ought to purchase next. It was a place where many of us went to meet each day. It was a place where offline photography meetups were organized. We actually published a magazine together. Many of us became good friends in real life.

But yesterday, while we were conversing there, and without any warning or opportunity to take any sort of self-corrective action, your Community Manager went nuclear and destroyed all of that user data. All of it. Every last thread. With a push of a button. Threads that were meaningful and important to us.

This was data that did not belong to Yahoo! Elisa. You destroyed something that did not belong to you. You destroyed hours and hours of peoples hard work maliciously and callously. You destroyed a group dedicated to free speech, but more significantly you destroyed a group that thousands of people had put significant emotional energy into.

And do you know what your Community Manager was tweeting mere seconds before she nuked this very popular group Elisa? She was tweeting “I hate your freedom.”

That’s right Elisa I, hate, your, freedom. That’s the image that I chose to go with this letter to you. A screenshot of her freedom hating tweet.

While I’m sure your representative got a good laugh out of that tweet, personally I found it as offensive as the fact that so much user data was destroyed so callously in the first place. You see Elisa, Yahoo already has a problem with people thinking that you hate freedom. Remember when Jerry Yang got called before the U.S. Congress and was brow beaten after you all released private emails to the Chinese Govt which resulted in a Chinese journalist’s imprisonment to this day? Remember just last week when rumors (very unfounded rumors I might add) were flying that Yahoo! had released private information on thousands of freedom seeking dissidents to the Iranian Govt?

“I hate your freedom?” Really Elisa? This is the marketing message that you as Yahoo’s Chief Marketing Officer want to send out to the world as you rip apart an online community dedicated to free speech. It’s distasteful and it’s offensive.

You see Elisa, all the money spent in the world on bus stop billboards cannot make your marketing message ring true when the real voices, real human authentic voices online, ring out that the internet (at least at Yahoo!) is in fact very much not under our management at all. In fact our feelings are not taken into consideration one iota. We, thousands of us, are tossed aside, thrown out like garbage. Our hard work destroyed by you. Not only do actions like this invalidate your message, they create enormous ill will against Yahoo that will stand for many years going forward.

A number of help forum threads (now all conveniently locked down by your staff) were created over the destruction of this group. I will quote you the official Yahoo! statement, again from Ms. Champ stated in one of those locked threads:

“Flickr is a community with fences. If you want the open range, then unfortunately, what you want to do is beyond what we allow.”

You see how that reads Elisa? It does not read that Yahoo is all about “you” at all. It’s a patronizing statement that says Yahoo is not about what “you” want. It’s about what “we” want. I hope you can see how this statement directly contradicts your current marketing slogan that the internet is under new management, you.

I’m sure you are familiar with John Gilmore, Elisa, a well respected thinker who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a quite respected organization that fights for freedom online. John Gilmore once said, “the Internet perceives censorship as damage and routes around it.” And that’s what many of us have now done. Many of us in the community that was destroyed have now decided that we will no longer use Yahoo for our community experience. Yahoo simply cannot be trusted to not destroy thousands of hours of our work in the future. Instead we will be using community space hosted by one of your competitors, FriendFeed, a site owned by Facebook.

You see, despite not having a large glitzy “the internet’s about you,” campaign, to my knowledge FriendFeed has never censored anyone. They have this really cool feature allowing users to block somebody if you don’t like what they have to say instead. It’s great. When you do that they just disappear entirely on the site for you. Poof. Magic. Rather than pay for salaries and benefits for a team of censors, they just let their users block content that they don’t like and let me tell you, it works *alot* better that way.

Interestingly enough Elisa, FriendFeed was founded in part by the very guy who came up with the Google (another one of your competitors) slogan, “don’t be evil,” — as a marketing exec I’m sure you realize how powerful of a corporate message that has turned out to be, much more powerful than everybody needs to wear purple.

I’d hope that you could see how nuking an entire group over what was a skirmish between maybe two members in the group might not make sense. You used a shotgun to kill a gnat.

Many things could have been done to more responsibly address the Yahoo concern in question. Admins of the group could have been warned and given an opportunity to take corrective action on their own, the single offending post could have been deleted rather than destroying thousands of posts 99.9% of which were entirely unoffensive, you could have simply removed what you found offensive and locked the group down, leaving a rich collection of user data to at least exist in an archive format for future reference for those who had created it.

It did not need to be nuked.

I do hope you take a moment out of your busy day to address this situation personally Elisa because it is damaging to both Yahoo’s brand and your own campaign that you are spending significant shareholder money on.

And as long as these are the types of actions that you and your management stand behind then your current campaign is very much meaningless indeed. I do also hope that you do not allow your staff to personally retaliate against me by nuking my own flickr photostream for writing to you what is in fact a very respectful letter.

Thomas Hawk

Flickr Nukes DMU

Flickr Nukes DMU

Flickr just nuked deleteme uncensored. A group with a long tradition on Flickr with over 5,000 posts and 3,000 members all gone, instantly. Flickr objected to discussions in the group which they said violated Flickr’s TOS.

This was done without warning.

Rather than delete a single offending thread or offer any type of alternative arrangement flickr simply nuked the group.

It is clear to me now that an uncensored internet discussion forum is not possible on Flickr. In light of Flickr’s decision to nuke DMU I’ve set up (for now) a temporary arrangement where the game can still be played here.

This new group will have no forum associated with it. Instead the forum has been moved to FriendFeed, a site much more open to free speech. I would encourage any of the DMU members to join the new group on FriendFeed here where we can discuss what went down more specifically.

FriendFeed’s forum structure is a bit different (but very similar) to Flickr’s.

An Update on the International Olympic Committee’s Threatening Letter to Flickr User Richard Giles

Beijing Olympics: Usain Bolt Breaks The World Record (Men's 100 Meters)
Usain Bolt Image by Richard Giles, used under a Creative Commons license.

Earlier this week I blogged about a threatening cease and desist letter that Australian photographer Richard Giles received from the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The letter had objected to Giles’ “distribution and licensing” of Olympic photos in his Flickrstream.

Among other things, the IOC noted that “any reproduction and distribution of images of the Olympic Games and IOC identifications by any means, including over the World Wide Web, without the consent of the IOC is unauthorized.” They further claimed ownership over the Olympic rings and actually over the word “Olympics,” itself. Perhaps most offensive to me personally, the IOC had written in their heavy handed letter to Giles that any images of the Olympic Games actually “belonged” to the IOC.

The letter was signed by Howard M. Strupp, the IOC’s Director of Legal Affairs and suggested that Giles needed to conform with their requests (which were a bit vague) by October 8th. Rather than remove or relicense his images on Flickr, Giles instead posted his letter to his Flickrstream. It was first picked up by Duncan Riley over at the Inquisitr. I blogged about it. Boing Boing picked it up. TechDirt blogged about it. It started going viral. Giles also got in contact with both Electronic Frontiers Australia and Creative Commons Australia to try and figure out what his best course of action might be.

From the tone of the original heavy handed letter, it initially sounded like the IOC was actually objecting to Olympic imagery appearing on Flickr at all, having cited the images as unauthorized and saying that the images belonged to them (contrary to U.S. copyright law at least).

The IOC after receiving a bit of heat from the web though quickly back pedaled and clarified that their position was not that they wanted Giles to remove his photos from Flickr, but rather they wanted him to relicense his image from Creative Commons to all rights reserved.

After writing in to the IOC I was contacted myself by Mark Adams at the IOC who clarified that position and Giles was also contacted by the IOC with this information as well. To their credit, I found Adams very professional in his email correspondence with me. Adams told me that the the main objection that they had was that Giles’ image had been used for a major commercial book promotion in London. On his blog Giles confirmed that his image had been used (without any compensation to him) as an advertisement at a book store in London in conjunction with the launch of the 2010 Guiness Book of World Records.

Giles has a much more detailed post describing most of the above and much more information about his case here.

As of tonight, the issue is still not entirely resolved. Although the IOC seems much more diplomatic at this point than they did in the harsh C&D letter that they originally sent Giles, they still seem to be insisting that he change the license on his photos to all rights reserved.

Giles, on the other hand, would like to retain a Creative Commons non-commercial license on his photos. All of his Olympic photos are licensed CC non-commercial as it stands now, with the exception of the Usain Bolt photo (the same photo used by the bookstore in London) that is licensed just regular CC. Giles had removed the non-commercial restriction on this license originally at the bequest of wikipedia so that they could include the image on their site.

To me Giles’ position to retain his CC non-commercial license on his images makes perfect sense. I think he should not cave in to the IOC and change his Olympic photos to “all rights reserved.” The Creative Commons non-commercial license is perfectly suitable to protect the IOC against unauthorized commercial use as the non-commercial portion of CC would prohibit this. If the IOC is going to insist on Giles making this change, this move would worry me for a number of reasons.

First, the CC license (despite the fact that Flickr allows you to change back to all rights reserved) technically cannot be revoked. it is an irrevocable license. From Creative Commons:

“Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work.”

Further, it seems like an uphill battle to me for the IOC to go after this popular license. At present there are almost 140,000 images licensed as CC images on Flickr for the search term “Olympics.” While admittedly, many of these images are not of the Olympic games, when you restrict a CC search to “Olympics” and “China” you still get almost 20,000 CC images. Many of them of very high caliber, professional type images of the games.

Even if the IOC gets Giles to relicense his photos, this does nothing to stop other people from using these other images. Unless the IOC is prepared to play a lengthy game of whack-a-mole, this problem is only going to reappear again and again.

Especially in light of the fact that social media is more popular than ever, future Olympic Games will only mean a far greater number of CC Olympic Images make their way online. And we haven’t even gotten into all of the CC Olympic images available at other places like wikipedia — for example, this image of sprinter Michael Johnson from the 2000 games in Sydney.

Rather than try and fight the CC license, the IOC should take a deep breath, relax and learn to accept it. The liberal nature of the CC license means that images of the games receive even greater distribution. This is the best free PR that money can’t buy.

Trying to stomp out every single photographer with a CC license will only backfire against the IOC. Can they hunker down and take an RIAA approach to images of the games? Sure they can. But if they do, they ought to expect the same sort of hatred that is shelled out to the RIAA when they go about threatening photographers the way the RIAA threatens grandmothers.

Might the IOC miss out on a few dollars here and there because some publisher chooses to go with a free CC image rather than try and license one from them? Sure. But it’s a small price to pay to ensure the goodwill of photographers and fans all over the planet.

The Olympics belong to all of us — to the fans, to the athletes, to every person on the planet, and yes, this even includes photographers like Richard Giles. I think the IOC has taken a good first step to try and diffuse this messy PR case that they’ve made for themselves. They should take the next logical step and tell Richard Giles that they’ve rethought his situation and are willing to accept a CC non-commercial license.

International Olympic Committee Tries to Shut Down Olympic Photos On Flickr

IOC Cease and Desist
Note: An update on this story here.

I was disappointed to hear from Duncan Riley over at the Inquisitr that it looks like the International Olympics Committee is playing hardball with people over photos of the Olympics on Flickr.

Duncan points us to the letter at left sent from the IOC’s Director of Legal Affairs, Howard M. Strupp, to photographer Richard Giles. The letter is a legal threat against Giles for hosting images of the Olympics on his Flickrstream in what the IOC feels is a violation of the terms and conditions of his ticket. You can read a large size version of the BS letter that the IOC sent to Giles here.

This really sucks.

The International Olympic Committee is being terribly proprietary with images of their events here and I hope this cease and desist letter backfires on them. I’m equally concerned that the IOC would consider use on Flickr as something other than private use. Flickr is a non-commercial website (by the definition of the terms and conditions of the site, unless approval is received from Flickr for commercial use) and a place for people to share photos with their family, friends and yes the world. That the IOC would go after non-commercial use is disturbing.

What’s even worse, it appears that the IOC is trying to argue with Giles that even using the *word* Olympics in his photostream is somehow some sort of violation.

I hope that the EFF or some other organization can come to the aid of Giles and I hope that he doesn’t end up backing down against the lawyers at the IOC. I’m not sure whoever initiated this action at the IOC but they should probably be fired. Flickr (as well as other online publications) represent a wonderful place for the IOC to generate free publicity over their games. The Olympics really belong to all of us. They are typically associated with goodwill from all nations over the world. To taint this image by being hostile with photographers is just stupid.

Personally as a photographer, learning of this news will ensure that I never attend the Olympics myself. Why would I want to go to an event where they use their money grubbing attack dog lawyers after the event to attack you for sharing positive images of your experience non-commercially with others. The IOC should issue an apology to Giles and tell him that he can leave his photos up and publicly state that non-commercial use of Olympic photography is both allowed and encouraged.

Thanks Duncan for the heads up.

Do You Find This Painting Obscene?

Do You Consider This Painting Obscene?

I’ve been regularly reviewing my Flickr photos using the Flickr organizer to see which of my photos Flickr has been hiding on their site. If you are not aware of how to do this yourself: 1. Go to the Flickr Organizer. 2. Click under the “more options” button under search. 3. And then restrict your flickr images to either “moderate” or “restricted.” Has Flickr censored any of your images?

This will show you images from your photostream that Flickr has hidden or buried from public site areas. These images don’t come up in the vast majority of searches people do on the site. They can’t be used for galleries. They won’t show up under the default view used by most users on the site etc.

I blogged yesterday about James Doiron having his entire 25,000+ photostream restricted over photos of mannequins that show nipples — something Victoria’s Secret has been doing publicly at over 1,000 stores in public malls and other sites across United States for the past several years.

But increasingly Flickr has gone about burying images of art and culture, attacking images from museums of paintings and sculpture with an alarming rate. I had to fight last year with Flickr Staff in the Help Forum (where I’m now banned permanently) because they tried to censor one of my images of a public sculpture that has sat in the middle of Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills now for several years. Public art. Censored. They reversed their decision on that one and lifted the restriction, but not without a lot of work on my part.

Most recently they have censored the artwork above from my stream. The image above is one of a famous painting that hangs in the Art Institute of Chicago. It’s entitled Odalisque with Tambourine and was originally painted by Jules-Joseph Lefebvre. They didn’t tell me it was censored. As they mostly do Flickr likes to censor things behind your back, without you knowing.

Ask yourself this — do you find this painting obscene? There are no warnings regarding it’s placement in the museums all ages gallery. And why is it not ok to show the backside of painting of a woman in a museum, but it seems perfectly fine for people to show full frontal nudity of the famous statue of Michelangelo’s David? isn’t it a double standard for Flickr to say that great art of females ought to be treated differently than great art of males.

The basic problem is that the Censorship Division at Flickr is unchecked. They’ve been given unlimited power over who sees our images and who does not. Flickr relevancy to our culture is too important not to resist these intrusions. Censoring great works of art is an insult to all photographers and artists. Like the Victorians of yesteryear who ruined many sculptures by plastering fig leafs over their private parts, Flickr wields the censors sword flippantly and seemingly without consequence. This is bad for morale, bad for Flickr/Yahoo’s PR, bad for Yahoo shareholders and causes Flickr to lose both revenue and important users and contributors who have great things to offer the world.

Yahoo Management ought to seriously consider cutting staff within Flickr’s Censorship Division. Not only would they be saving valuable money from salaries and benefits that could be used for more important things like engineering, they would be doing a better job as stewards of the important and significant cultural jewel that they have on their hands.