Restoring CC attribution to Flickr, because Yahoo broke it




Did you know the full post is repeated twice on


In parallel, since 2009 I maintained a greasemonkey script/chrome extension that wrote a cut and paste HTML attribution for blogging and for text attribution that like yours was rendered useless with each flickr layout change. And likewise, I rewrite mine as a bookmarklet tool

A difference is mine sends the photo ID from the URL to a standalone HTML/jQuery page hosted on github that then uses the flickr api to construct the attribution string, all of which is then sent to a pop up window (ugh, yes I know thats bad) with the cut and paste attribution.

But could not agree more how weak has flickr's support for creative commons has been- there is no RDF metadata for auto discovery of license, and that hardly takes much effort to do.


It's a shame, because all those other Yahoo acquisitions have gone so swimmingly well.


And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you sell out.


So if I sell my home and the new owner turns it into a crack den, it's my fault?

Let's keep the blame where it belongs. Otherwise it will never be fixed.


Yep, isn't it great now that a big company has bought oculus rift Flickr?


If you knowingly sell your house to a crack dealer? Well, yeah.

"Beloved website sells out to tech giant, who promptly ruins it" is basically the Web 2.0 story. Hell, a lot of the time that's the goal--entrepreneurs are going into business with the stated intention of getting enough people to love their company that they can sell it to Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple for a gazillion dollars, then ditch those annoying customers and retire. Listen to some Y-Combinator folks talk about "exit strategies" and "acqui-hires" and see if your cynicism doesn't go up a few notches.

I'm not trying to shift blame away from Yahoo. I'm saying that, when you sell out to a big company, they will fuck up everything you've built in the pursuit of higher profits, or just because they don't give enough of a shit. You can't work in tech right now and not know this. People sell out for two reasons: their business model has failed and they need new money to save their company, or they don't give a shit about the company and just want a fat wad of cash.


"Well, this is obviously a fuckup." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy


This is the kind of nonsense that can be deterred by the likes of GNU Mediagoblin.

If you are angry about this, have the time and energy, and are the type of person prone to the administration of systems, I recommend checking them out.


Perhaps people who sold their company a decade ago get a pass on what bad things happen with the site today, if only because they likely did not have prophetic powers to see what everyone in tech knows "right now".


Whilst this certainly sucks, it is just another component of an otherwise all-round sucky design change. Round Avatars but only some of the time? Great, so now Flickr users have the choice of composing their avatars for the square format or the round format, but the latter takes guesswork as the rounded edges are done automatically. One would have imagined entirely changing the composition of millions of users avatars might have rung some alarm bells when redesigning a photography website...

Of course I could continue to bitch, but there are literally hundreds of pages of bitching that has been seemingly entirely ignored on the 'New Flickr' beta testing feedback forum Yahoo kindly hosted.


Who cares? It is an important story/message. Why do you feel the need to point out that it was posted twice? (I, for one, missed it the first time). I get a little annoyed with some of the nitpicking in these comment threads. Sorry.


Does this mean that flickr is actually breaking the licence terms of the cc images?

Condition 4 a:

You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.


A few months back, I picked Flickr as one of the sites to use to distribute a large (1 million from the British Library) collection of public domain illustrations I had extracted. The choice was easy to promote due to the presence of Flickr Commons and Flickr's API. I am disappointed with the loss of certain services (notes) and how crucial services are now hidden by UI and require multiple steps to use (community tagging, download original image, etc). I have seen a sharp drop-off of casual tagging and only the diehard community remains.


If the story is so important, why do you feel the need to remark on what you consider to be my nit-picking comment?

There's a difference between nit picking for the sake of nit picking, and nit picking for the sake of constructive criticism. In this case I was trying to be constructive because due to the double posting, one had to scroll past the entire second copy of the article to get to the link to the comments (which one would be less likely to do). I see that it has since been fixed, which would lead me to believe that the person in charge (Cory?) didn't consider it nit-picking.


Thankfully, protection of 'intellectual property' is basically nonexistent if you aren't the RIAA/MPAA/BSA, or an individual deep-pocketed enough to field a lawyer squad, so Yahoo should be safe to continue doing business without pesky interference from proles...


I still wish there was a banana icon for "just look at it". I don't like your post, I just appreciate it.


Ariera resurgam!


Looks like Flickr is broken in other ways today. I made this decision months ago: Link to my [currently] broken Flickr page declaring my departure for 500px.