[Not a Number]

Usual response times for me.

[Tas]

Thanks for the feedback, it seems odd that my experience of a slow connection to Flickr isn't a problem for other websites hence I thought others would see it too but that's not the case.

Anyhoo, I appreciate your help. 😊

Tas

[twilhelm]

Thanks for the feedback, it seems odd that my experience of a slow connection to Flickr isn't a problem for other websites hence I thought others would see it too but that's not the case.

Anyhoo, I appreciate your help. 😊

Tas

I have noticed a slow down on my Flickr the past few days. Uploads still seem to do ok, but if I open an image to link it, it seems to take forever to load all the buttons.

[Not a Number]

There's been a solar stormflare and geomagnetic warning/alert on since 3 May - power grid fluctuations expected.

Seems to be a number of outages. My internet was down for 48 hours last week.

https://livemap.pingdom.com/

[Madaboutpix]

The angst level expressed in many posts in this thread makes one think we're talking about 500px bought up by Visual China Group, which frankly gave me much more concern.

As far as I can tell, SmugMug is a family-owned American business with servers located in Seattle that has a fairly good track record of protecting their clients' work, and thus far they have indicated that they intend to keep the two sites (SmugMug and Flickr) separate, although they will explore how meaningful bridges between them can be built. Has Flickr really fared so well under Yahoo's ownership that there isn't room for improvement?

I have just prolonged my SmugMug membership for a second year because actually I have never experienced a hosting site where my full-res JPEGs looked better.

[twilhelm]

The angst level expressed in many posts in this thread makes one think we're talking about 500px bought up by Visual China Group, which frankly gave me much more concern.

As far as I can tell, SmugMug is a family-owned American business with servers located in Seattle that has a fairly good track record of protecting their clients' work, and thus far they have indicated that they intend to keep the two sites (SmugMug and Flickr) separate, although they will explore how meaningful bridges between them can be built. Has Flickr really fared so well under Yahoo's ownership that there isn't room for improvement?

I have just prolonged my SmugMug membership for a second year because actually I have never experienced a hosting site where my full-res JPEGs looked better.

I think everyone is concerned with the “unknown” element. And yes, 500px is a good example which left a sour taste for lot of long time users.

I’m hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.

[Madaboutpix]

I think everyone is concerned with the “unknown” element. And yes, 500px is a good example which left a sour taste for lot of long time users.

Oh, that I get perfectly well. In fact, as far as 500px is concerned, the taste was sour enough for me to delete my whole account with them. I have few qualms buying Chinese-made and/or -designed gear, but relying on a licencing giant from a totalitarian state to protect my image data is a different story altogether. A little bit too Orwellian prospect for my taste.

I was just trying to make the point that there should be much less to fear for when someone like SmugMug takes over at Flickr.

[RobG]

Is anyone concerned about the Smugmug policies which replace the Flickr ones? I'm concerned that the wording of the policies state that I grant them a "perpetual license" with no mention of the license being revoked if I remove a photo from Flickr. I understand that they need some sort of license to present the photos on their site, but a perpetual one which (apparently) isn't revoked when I delete a photo?

[stevebrot]

I understand that they need some sort of license to present the photos on their site, but a perpetual one which (apparently) isn't revoked when I delete a photo?

Your concern is very valid and points out the full issue of "eternal content" on media/content sharing sites. Deletion is not the same as removal.


Steve

[Racer X 69]

Once something is placed on the internet it will be there forever.

Forever is a long time.

[Not a Number]

Well SmugMug said you had until May 11 to delete your files and account on Flickr it you didn't want to agree to SmugMug's TOS and to use their service. Since it is past May 11, 2018 it would seem you tacitly agreed to SmugMug's TOS. Complaining or expressing concerns about it now is the like closing the proverbial barn doors after the proverbial cows have left.

[RobG]

Your concern is very valid and points out the full issue of "eternal content" on media/content sharing sites. Deletion is not the same as removal.

The original TOS specifically had a limitation in it allowing the user to remove the content and the license would cease. The new TOS also states that the user agrees to waive all rights to dispute resolution other than arbitration in Santa Clara California. The thing which upsets me is that I paid for a certain service under certain conditions and now the circumstances have changed and my only choices are to accept them or delete the account and accept the loss of the paid service.



Does anyone have any suggestions for alternative places to share photos?

---------- Post added 24-05-18 at 07:52 AM ----------

Well SmugMug said you had until May 11 to delete your files and account on Flickr it you didn't want to agree to SmugMug's TOS and to use their service. Since it is past May 11, 2018 it would seem you tacitly agreed to SmugMug's TOS. Complaining or expressing concerns about it now is the like closing the proverbial barn doors after the proverbial cows have left.

While you are probably correct, I don't see how this helps.

[stevebrot]

I received a new reminder note from SmugMug/Flickr today and also spent some time with the T&C.

Well SmugMug said you had until May 11 to delete your files and account on Flickr it you didn't want to agree to SmugMug's TOS and to use their service.

Apparently they changed their mind. The new date is May 25. From an e-mail I received this morning:

You have until May 25, 2018 to review SmugMug’s Terms and Privacy Policy. If you do nothing in that time, your account will simply transition to SmugMug’s Terms of Service for Flickr and Privacy Policy for Flickr after the acquisition.

I'm concerned that the wording of the policies state that I grant them a "perpetual license" with no mention of the license being revoked if I remove a photo from Flickr.

The full section on user content is quoted below. Unfortunately, I don't have the previous Flickr version for comparison. Yes, the part about "perpetual" is bothersome, but the rest of the sentence indicates a restriction on use. There is also explicit language regarding user intellectual property rights. The Santa Clara County part is pretty standard and may or may not hold depending on your laws down-under.

From the User Content section (emphasis mine):

The Services may enable you to upload, post and transmit photos and videos to the Site or other portions of the Services (including to your user photo galleries or groups through the Services) and also provide you with access to discussion forums, blogs and other interactive areas in which you or other users may post or transmit photos, videos, text, music, messages, information or other content or materials (collectively, the “User Content”).

You retain all intellectual property rights in and to any User Content you post, upload or otherwise make available through the Services, including the copyright in and to your photos and videos. SmugMug does not claim any ownership, right, title or interest in and to your User Content.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, by uploading and/or posting any User Content to the Services, you grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive and royalty-free right to use the User Content (and the user name that is submitted in connection with such User Content) as is reasonably necessary in order to enable SmugMug to provide the Services, including to display the User Content on the Services.

You represent and warrant that (i) you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the User Content that you post or transmit, or you otherwise have the right to post, use, display, distribute and reproduce such User Content and to grant the rights granted herein; (ii) the User Content you supply is accurate and not misleading; and (iii) the use and posting of the User Content you supply does not violate these Terms of Use and will not violate any rights of or cause injury to any person or entity.

Flickr Terms and Conditions

That is still no guaranty that one's photos won't show up as an in-site promotion, perhaps even years after one leaves, but one does retain the right to sue.


Steve

[Doundounba]

Yes, the word perpetual raises an eyebrow, but the restriction on that, as bolded in the quote above by stevebrot, seems to make it OK, though I'm not a lawyer...

[RobG]

Apparently they changed their mind. The new date is May 25.

Yep. Which is why I removed most of my photos earlier this week.

That is still no guaranty that one's photos won't show up as an in-site promotion, perhaps even years after one leaves

Yes, that's what I wondered.

but one does retain the right to sue.

No, just to "arbitration" in Santa Clara. Which isn't much use unless you live in California. Viz:

You and SmugMug agree to arbitrate any dispute arising from these Terms of Use or relating to the Services, Site or Flickr Materials. ARBITRATION PREVENTS YOU FROM SUING IN COURT OR FROM HAVING A JURY TRIAL