wii.yahoo.com — Check out their Wii website. There's about 27k photos tagged as "wii" used there without consent from it's owners. If your photo is tagged as "wii", it's definately there and you're not being paid accordingly. Flickr users are expressing their disgust here: http://www.flickr.com/forums/help/32752/What do you have to say about it?
Jan 31, 2007 View in Crawl 4
realystFeb 1, 2007
Oh no. Someone is using your picture, stating where it's at(a site they actually own and all and reserve the rights to use for promotional purposes) and allowing people to see all the rest of your pictures by clicking it! The OUTRAGE.I call this mutual advertising. They advertise themselves(which they damn well can considering they give you storage), while advertising you. What's the problem here?What is the perceived loss?
tizz66Feb 1, 2007
Thanks actorboy, glad I'm not the only one that sees it.
sketchstudiosFeb 1, 2007
from the flickr.com forum:STAFF UPDATE: "Update! I have spoken with the team working on wii.yahoo.com and they are going to be changing the site to only use images with appropriately licensed Creative Commons photos effective very soon. " -- mroth and just on a side note, if my picture *i* took was on the front page of wii.yahoo.com I'd actually feel good and honored, geez.
lavahotFeb 1, 2007
Why? Just because? Yay, stupidity!
metlinFeb 1, 2007
That is where you are mistaken. A great many of the folks that have a bone to pick with this are Pro subscribers, and a lot of them are professional photographers who make a living out of photography.
realystFeb 1, 2007
Then posting it on an "everyone can see" myspace for photos as opposed actually hosting it proper if they wanted it private is their mistake.If I were to go to Flickr and type "Wii" I would find those pictures. Yahoo is putting it on their "Wii" page being viewed by Wii fans who may be interested in Wii pictures. The picture then links to the artist. It's even branded as being "These pictures are from flickr". At no point is Yahoo claiming the picture as their own. Nor are they violating their terms of service. NOR are they making it difficult to figure out who took the picture.And frankly, I doubt very much I'll end up paying for a picture of a Wii anyways. If they are pros making money from this, they may want to change that which they take pictures of.Had any other smaller Web2.0 startup(man, I hate that word), started a project with which you could do this(as has been done numerous times) there would be no such outrage.