Oath/Flickr

Many of us have a Flickr website. I suppose most of us have noticed a recent pop-up notice stating that it is now part of an organisation called "Oath".

Does this have any good or worrying significance?

There is an entry for Oath on Wikipedia: link

It seems that it is a branch of a major American media conglomerate: Verizon Digital Network, which now owns Yahoo (who own Flickr) as well as AOL, Huffington Post. Do you think that it is unimportant that Flickr is now under new ownership, or could it lead to intrusive abuse of our details?

Martin

I think we lost control of our personal details many years ago. Everything we do online is used in a commercial way.

I don't think Flickt/Oath/Verizon will be any different to any other site.

Out of interest my AV program tells me that at the moment:

Flickr uses 2 web analytics/ad tracking systems

Yahoo uses 4

Pentax User uses 3 !!!

I thank they guarantee they they won't take away your last knife, fork and plate

--

Which details did you choose to freely give them in the first place ?
What do you mean by 'abuse' ?

Given Yahoo!'s past history with privacy & security, I doubt it'll be any worse...

I read the licence on Tumblr - another of their components. You give them carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want with your material - right across their various 'partners' and to sub license from them to anyone else as they see fit ( but you do retain the right to call yourself the owner of the work ) !!

OK, so where's the problem?

At the end of the day the choice is ours. No-one forces us to use their free services.

It depends what you mean by carte blanche as well. There is probably a requirement for them to be licensed to publish your images in any form they want, because they publish to the whole world via the internet. In the future they may change their ownership, so need that ability to transfer those rights to the new owner. Otherwise, the whole system would break down through lack of permissions.

I suspect, although I haven't read the fine print, that the carte blanche isn't as onerous as thought, but just there to ensure that the site can operate properly.

Unless they are able to use images for profit by selling them, in which case that would be a breach of your copyright.

They do not have to sell them - they can just charge for access to their site, and enable downloading.
That way someone else is in breach of copyright.
And on the same theme, what about Photobucket and the small charge of $1 per day to link to one of the pictures in your library.
Who do you now suggest for photos of kit in the small-ads forum (Sale/Wanted)?
Geoff

You can now upload your pictures directly into the forum, so a hosting service isn't needed.

But the forum software resizes them.

If you don't want the forum to resize them, either use the Gallery (top menus) or do the resizing first. I haven't found the potential drop in quality is an issue, but if anyone is unhappy then making the images posted the correct size to begin with seems a way to go. As forums are discussion boards with images to support the posts or illustrate points made, I think the size limitations on images are fair enough.

Yes John, but as a discussion forum - we are all entitled to an opinion.

Absolutely right Steve, I thought we were!

Host the photos somewhere else like people have been doing if it's an issue, or upload them here at PU for free. Take your pick.