OK here are two links the first is to Bing Images where they have indexed the images from my blog site:
This second link is to Google Images where I robot ban Google from indexing the site images:
Do you see the difference? Do you appreciate what we could turn the internet into?
Let me give a quote from Stewart Butterfield the founder of Flickr regarding sharing and the Flickr API:
No one said that - the quotation marks were to delineate the position I was referring to. You said
"In a very clear sense, by making your information public, you already gave permission for it to be redistributed this way".
I think that's wrong too. She didn't "give permission" except in some slimey "you clicked through the EULA so screw you" way. It's true that making it public made it possible to retreive the photos via the API, but that's not the same as giving persmission.
But to say that people have to play by your rules if they want to make a photo public is bizarre to me. If the software supports the expression of their preference, why should they have to keep their photos private? If there are some that don't show up in the API's search methods or have the 'blog this' button, who cares? This seems like a basic issue of respect.
Imagine you're uploading photos of your kids, your family vacation, whatever. It's not your "work", and you're not "publishing" or looking for an "audience". You're willing to make them public because you like participating in a global community, but you don't want some random blogger (from your perspective; sorry lumis) redistributing all those photos. You don't necessarily understand apis and web services and rss and syndication, etc. -- it just seems like fun.
In that case, I don't think you should have to give up that much control to use Flickr. And in cases like this, a little understanding goes a long way.