This morning I was reading Robert Scoble's blog where he made some comments about Lane Hartwell, an active Flickr user and contributor to several publications. She decided to remove a large number of her photos from Flickr for copyright reasons. Here's an excerpt from Lane's explanation of her decision:
I’ve been a very loyal flickr user for almost 3 years. I had just under 5,000 photos here with almost a half million views. Most of my friends are fellow flickr users. I love sharing my images here and have really appreciated all the support and comments that I have received. This was not a happy decision I made and my heart was sinking as I watched 4000+ images disappear.
I don’t want to disparage flickr in any way over this. It’s not their fault that some people are dishonest scumbags who consider flickr a source for free photos. Flickr is clearly not a pro photo storage/gallery site. I get that. I *do* wish, though, that flickr would innovate a little more to keep up with the growing talents of the photographers here, who are producing higher quality images every day and are at risk of being ripped off. Did you know that someone can embed one of your sets as a slide show into their website, even if you disable downloading? That happened to me 2 weeks ago. My recourse was to remove the photos so the thieves would not have access. So I hope that flickr becomes aware of things like this and works harder to protect their photographers.
Robert's response is to say, "Steal my content, please!":
I’ve found that the more I give away my content, the more magical stuff happens to me anyway and if that means my photos or writings or videos get used in some way that I don’t really like, well, that’s a risk I’m willing to take. Lane obviously is not.
These are two very different approaches to internet distribution and copyright:
- Try to keep control.
- Let people do what they want and hope something good happens.
The first option appears to place more value on the content itself, whereas the second option makes the assumption that there's something of value beyond the content. Maybe there isn't a single "right" choice. Maybe these are just two different approaches/tools that creative-types can use to their advantage under different circumstances.
On a semi-related note, I wonder if Radiohead will continue to give away free digital downloads of their future albums the same as they did with In Rainbows.


