Those of us who publish pictures at flickr, too, received the following message someday in September:
Yahoo is now part of ‘Oath’, a digital and mobile media company with more than 50 brands globally (including Yahoo, HuffPost, Engadget, TechCrunch, Moviefone and Makers), and a member of the Verizon family of companies working to shape the future of media. Oath strives to create a passionate and engaged community of users by building content and products that inspire and entertain the world.

Following the links you could read: We would like to inform you in advance that, as of 18 September 2017, Yahoo and Oath plan to share some user information within the Verizon family of companies which will enable us to integrate our business, allowing us to coordinate more and improve your experiences.

And: We will share the same information […] (such as your user ID, gender, name, email address, postcode & age), your content and advertising interests, content associated with your account, the types of services you use and how you engage with them, cookie and device IDs, IP addresses, geolocation information and activity information from across our websites, apps, software and other services.

You could even find out that yahoo/verizon/oath shares the above mentioned data with third parties outside of the oath organization…. But they tell you, everything is ok, because they did not change the rules of sharing data with third parties.

How appeasing….

By the way, what sites are that anonymous oath? Take a look here:
www.oath.com/our-brands

and now recap the collected and shared data: user ID, gender, name, email address, postcode & age, your content and advertising interests, content associated with your account, the types of services you use and how you engage with them, cookie and device IDs, IP addresses, geolocation information and activity information from across our websites, apps, software and other services.

So, they know and track what you are uploading to Flickr, commenting at your flickr buddies, reading in the Huffington Post, searching at yahoo and buying to wear. They know who is communicating with you at Flickr, Tumblr, Yahoo, AOL, Altomail……
They know in what cars you are interested, what hardware you are looking for, which videos you are watching, the movies you are interested in, the celebrity gossip you are following, the sports you like to watch, the blogs you subscribe…..

You think: No problem at all? OK, short break. Watch this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pFX2P7JLwA

Back?
Fine.
Wiser?
Even finer.

To state it clearly: Running a site causes costs and these have to be earned either by fees or by monetizing users’ content or privacy.

How does a company convert content into cash?

I started publishing photos on the web back in 2007 at Panoramio. Soon I found my photos at weather forecast sites, real estate selling sites, hotel booking and rating sites. That was ok with me. I knew about it and accepted it as a price for the “free” chance to publish and communicate. That business model seemed not to bring enough revenue, so they closed Panoramio in 2016.

A slightly different way takes Google with Google maps. One of the Google founders wrote (using my own words) when he offered Google+ as an alternative: Wouldn’t it be nice to share a picture from the restaurant you are eating in with your friends? That is exactly, what they have in mind with Google maps – an advertising and rating platform. You are hungry? Just use your mobile phone to find a recommended place to eat. You need something else? Find a shop.

Google could even charge fees for showing positive ratings and pictures on top and bad ones way down – a method to draw money out of users’ content without getting copyright trouble….. If I were Google, I would do so.

And the users? To a certain extent you may see them as robbed by Google – but for quite sure you can see them as Google’s useful idiots.

Another business model is to monetize the users’ data, their privacy. That’s how Facebook works. Take a look at the stock prices – Facebook was worth more than 200 billion $ by 2016. Let’s assume the assets are worth 1 billion $ and Facebook has 2 billion users. Then every single users data is worth 100 $ to the stock markets. So much for being free.

By the way: In 2016 Facebook earned 22 billion € with (personalised) advertising. Google some 40 billion €. (source: www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/onlinewerbung-wie-wir-von-personalisierter-werbung-verfolgt-werden-1.3707010 )

Beside that data mining (done by all the big players) Facebook even takes in it’s terms of use a right to sell your content. That is a real direct way to earn from users’ content. They say they don’t do it, but in their terms and conditions users grant Facebook “[…] a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [IP] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook.”

That means, they can sell your content, if they want. (source: www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter )

You think I overdraw? Verizon was fined $ 1,35 mio by US authorities for using kind of super cookies to spy their users – see LA Times:
www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-verizon-yahoo-privacy-20170224-story.html
As an insider said they do it still now (see LA Times above).

Ok, so far about the bad sides (should I say sites?) of the net. Is there any hope for users to keep control of their privacy?

Yes. Controlling privacy is controlling the site. It’s that simple. (Maybe you can get it a little less simple by using proxy servers, anonymous email, private browsing… but let’s talk about the average user.)

Ipernity was already a very user orientated site: There is a rights management, users can allow or forbid downloading and embedding their content. In comparison with the big players users' privacy is rather high at Ipernity – for the simple reason they did not try to monetize this privacy so far.
With being operated by the members (as a members association) the users are even more in control of their data. The code will (and must) be maintained and developed by the members, the every-day and the strategic long-term business is done by the members – even if there is a dispute about the direction to develop the site, the basics are open to all members. No secrets. (That reminds me to post another article about governance models and decision making in multi national communities;-))

You are still in favour of Flickr? No problem as they do not “have immediate plans to update the pricing of Flickr” (source: petapixel.com/2017/06/14/done-verizon-now-owns-flickr-via-4-48b-yahoo-acqusition ).

Maybe they will charge you 100 bucks per annum next year. Or 200. Running a web site causes costs and these are always paid by users. What are the costs of a site run by a company? These are most of all staff, technics, taxes and dividends/entrepreneurial profits. A site run by a non-profit association has not to distribute dividends and – depending on local laws of the state the association is based in – there are no or less taxes to pay.

Perhaps Flickr will shut down. They own Tumblr as well – why provide two “similar” sites?

To come to an end: Flickr is doomed. More or less, as I explained in December 2016 here: www.ipernity.com/blog/b_k/4643746

(insert 21.10.2017: see my note regarding Flickr's new politics at the end of this text)

Medium-term Flickr will either shut down or increase fees. I still think they will shut down (even though petapixel says” some new innovation and features are likely” […] “and that means only one thing for Oath: more ad and subscription dollars” (source: petapixel.com/2017/06/14/done-verizon-now-owns-flickr-via-4-48b-yahoo-acqusition ).

Digitalrev.com expects either Flickr to be liquidated by Verizon in the near future or they will push even more ads on it, see:
www.digitalrev.com/article/does-verizon-s-yahoo-takeover-mean-the-end-of-flickr
Remember: Verizon spent a lot of money on it’s mergers over the last years – they have to earn money now to satisfy share holders.

In the long run Flickr is no alternative to Ipernity as it is now - member-owned and member-operated.

So forget Flickr (and the other big sites) – and tell your buddies to do so as well. There is now an alternative – not perfect but with the chance to become better by the contribution of the users (that means both content and coding/operating).

Once again, reality was faster……
While this post was maturing on my hard disk Flickr changed it’s guidelines for commercial use. Now they say: If you make and sell products (e.g. cookbooks, origami, custom bricks, craftwork, jewelry, digital products, etc), so long as you are a Flickr Pro member, you can promote them on Flickr. (source: www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157688094017033 )

A really good assessment made Colette Simonds saying: Perhaps it's the answer to all of us who wondered what would happen to Flickr after the move to Verizon!!! Well, it will be an ad platform. So, basically, pro or not, we will all see everything but photography here. (source: www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157688094017033/#reply72157688129275353 )

I’ld like to say Flickr offers you a licence to spam – for $ 49.99 per year. ;-)

Most of all this development shows how difficult it is to keep a photo sharing platform running and covering costs, not to speak of making profits.

Folks, ever heard of TANSTAAFL?
If not Google may help…….