There will be no more photos in the rss feed!!! This is why
December 18th, 2006
Dear readers,
yesterday I got contacted by one of the photographers whose photographs was featured here weeks ago. That photo was removed from the site weeks ago, as I immediately do with anyone that requests this, because they are the ones that own the photo (not even flickr are the owners of these photos). I got authorization from many photographers to post these photos. From others I don’t have asked, they are aware I’ve posted these photos (as I leave a message at flickr for every photo I post) and most of them are ok with it, as they’ve added me as a contact at flickr.
Back to the story, this photographer that contacted me yesterday, asked me to remove her photo from another website that is not mine. Why did she contact me? because I put a link back to this site on every post in the rss feed, and there’s a nice little form you can use to contact me. Anyway, it turns out this site, another blog, is copying the content of this blog, not copying the idea or concept, as two sites I’ve recently seen: pd5.de and las chavas de flickr (hey, i didn’t invent this type of site, I’m just saying these two sites have the same concept as this one, and actually I think they are great).
This other site I’m talking about takes the feed from flickrbabes and just republish it at his blog (even the title says flickrbabes.com and a link back to the site, as you can all see in your rss readers). I went on a little research and found out there are several sites that do exactly the same. There’s one specific site that has added porn ads next to each repost. I don’t want this site being related to porn.
I emailed the owners of sites asking them to remove any flickrbabes.com content from their sites. I hope they do so. While I can deal with the authors from flickr to remove any photo from this site, I cannot do so in sites I do not own. I’ve provided the feed for over a year, happy that you like the site and don’t caring if you read it here or in your rss feeds. I do care if flickrbabes.com content is read from other sites because I cannot control their content or if they decide to put porn ads or any kind of freaky thing.
Anyway, I was going to wait until I see an answer back from the owner of the site featuring porn ads, but there was another answer from one of these sites ( www.doublenegative.com/wordpress ) that just made me immediately change the feed.
The anwer I got was:
> I have links back to you. And besides, you’re stealing from Flickr.
> Every link has flickrbabes.com in the title of the post too, it’s not
> like you aren’t getting credit.
>
> This is no different than having your feed in my news reader. It’s just
> my news reader is my website. I’ll cut you in on the 2 cents per day my
> personal blog makes.
He can think that way I guess, but I disagree. Unfortunately, this one person, plus the owners of the other sites (specially the one that added porn ads) are ruining the feed for the other 3000+ of you. I am not going to discuss this issue anymore, and I’m sorry guys that you have a crippled feed now. It’s a shame.
If you’re willing to do so, you can contact Daniel (owner of doublenegative.com ) and thank him for making me realize there are people without respect, which are usually the ones that ruin the fun for everyone else. His email is dblaisdell@digitaljedi.com (please don’t send him any nasty emails).
I’ll update you on the info about the site that has porn ads, as that’s the one I’m interested in at the moment. Daniel’s site, well, I could probably given him permission to keep posting the content at his site, but his attitude isn’t just right, don’t you think?
I’m sorry 
I had the wrong name, it’s not David, it’s Daniel.
Entry Filed under: General updates
34 Comments Add your own
1. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
The name is Daniel not David. I’m sorry you don’t agree with the social mechanisms that make Web 2.0 what they are. My site gets a whole 100 hits a day or less and they’re almost all me.
This is hilarious btw. Have a super day
-Daniel
PS. Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.
2. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
Dude, the other two links in this article freakin’ own. Thanks for the info!
-Daniel!
3. JP Loh | December 18th, 2006
Oh that sucks. Apparently, copying content is called splogging. I think this method is used for AdSense farming.
4. coupland | December 18th, 2006
Well, I agree with your choice, particularly with regard to the porn ads. I’d be pretty freaked out to find my vacation pics out on the web plastered with porn ads. (I mean, if I was female, and not hideously unattractive.)
5. Karl | December 18th, 2006
There are some Plugins to save your Feed from being stolen. I saw some in german, just google the thing, and you’ll find these things…
6. Ben Northern | December 18th, 2006
Sorry to hear about this, but I had a feeling it was coming. I actually stumbled upon a site that’s similar in theme to flickrbabes - but they don’t even give credit. They also used ads on their site, which just infuriates me that someone is making money of of my work - and violating international copyright laws. Dirtbags like that ruin ot for the rest of us.
7. Houser | December 18th, 2006
Daniel is a tool. No one said bits should try to be made uncopyable - hell… that’s what RSS is! But it’s a matter of respecting a publisher’s distribution wishes and “playing nice in the sandbox”. If you want to consume the RSS that’s one thing. If you want to re-distribute it with express non-consent, well… then you’re just an asshole. Good luck getting help from others when you brazenly and defiantly piss on a simple, polite request.
8. Jim Thompson | December 18th, 2006
It’s a shame you have to do this. Flickrbabes is one of my favorite feeds, and my absolute favorite way of collecting non-pr0n photos of beautiful women. So now reading Flickrbabes becomes a bit less convenient, but I guess you gotta do what you gotta do…
9. info | December 18th, 2006
Karl, yes it’s probably possible to have more control over the feed, but right now it is being managed by feedburner, so it’s out of my hands. I’ll be looking for solutions, I don’t want to fuck with 3000 users just because of a couple of abussive persons.
David, you don’t get it, do you? I’ve probably would have let it go regarding your site, as it does seem harmless, but you have the wrong attitude. Learn from life, you get what you give, that’s all i’m going to say to you.
I take care of the image I give to flickrbabes. In the end, it doesn’t harm me, but as Ben Northern said (his photos have been posted here by the way), he works to create his photos, he probably pays his models, and it sucks that someone goes and tries to profit from that, and it sucks even more if your work is lowered to plain porn. So, I want to play nicely, specially with the owners of the photos, and if I can help protect their work, I will, that’s why I think I’ve managed to keep the site working for so long.
10. info | December 18th, 2006
One thing i might be doing is finished a plugin i wanted to do for netvibes, that way, you could at least keep flickrbabes in your feeds if you use netvibes.
I’ll look for solutions. David’s site doesn’t really bother me (though that doesn’t mean it’s right of him to republish the feed), but the ones with ads and porn ads are the ones bothering me.
11. pacificdave | December 18th, 2006
I totally agree with Houser’s comment.
I also want to add… If you want your site to function as your own RSS reader then at least take down your damn ads. If you do post ads and use other people’s content then be ready to take shit down when requested.
@Daniel: What’s the big deal? Just take it down. Now what the hell am I going to read every morning in Google Reader? There’s over 3 thousand peeps that you’re screwing here. I know you’re not the only one but this goes out to all the other fucktards out there also.
12. Notdan | December 18th, 2006
It doesn’t matter how many hits your site gets, Dan. RSS is Web 2.0. Stealing RSS and putting ads on it and then refusing to stop even though you say you’re the only one who looks at it is just you being an asshole.
Since we’re being assholes…
Daniel Blaisdell
3427 Westgate Dr
Greenville, North Carolina 27834
(704) 800 1035 (Fax)
13. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
*OH NO*
14. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
The author of this blog is the one to blame. He’s the one stopping your source of entertainment.
He was just looking for an out to stop posting to his site. I bet some real life things are taking up more and more of his time and he doesn’t want to maintain this site anymore. I was just a scapegoat.
Now that he has provided other sources for my personal entertainment, i hope he never posts to this site again.
Yay internet flames. The source of hilarity everywhere.
15. Gavin Cooney | December 18th, 2006
Why not just add a load of photos to your flickr photos and then we can subscribe to your favorites RSS?
16. thor_ssw | December 18th, 2006
Class “A” asshole!
Just accept that you are lame and leave!
17. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
I’m a lame asshole, accepted.
Still hilarious that the guy is shutting down the site for everyone. There has to be more than just me going into his decision. Just like there was more going on with the photographer asking for a single picture to be removed. That was missing from the original e-mail he sent me.
GG
-Lame Asshole
18. info | December 18th, 2006
I’m not shutting the site down. The rss is being restricted to show the photos, that’s all, or you don’t know how to read.
Yes, one single photo from a single photographer can and must be removed if the owner requests. It’s their work. I even remove them if the photo is under CC license, eventhough I’d have the right to post it, but I think the first thing you have to have is respect.
And no, you’re not the cause of the rss feed being restricted. I actually are more worried about another site featuring porn ads, I think I’ve mentioned that in my post? no?
You’re just a retard, and I’m not even mad about your attitude, because in the end, when you grow up, you’re going to realize that you pay for every one of your acts.
19. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
Oh I’ll pay alright! You told me!
20. Tim Lawrenz | December 18th, 2006
hi,
I am a senior developer, I handled REAL spam, especially porn spam and mass posters. I love your feed that much that I am willing to contribute a couple of hours of work to make your feed work again.
please contact me.
Tim
21. Dan | December 18th, 2006
Pity, but I understand your motivation. I loved the feed as a source for great non-explicit pin-ups. I often used them as sample poses for my own artwork.
But this Daniel guy is a shithead. Flickrbabes is providing a value-added service of selection and aggregation. This isn’t a raw Flickr feed. It’s a premium selection of the raw stream of Flickr content.
Maybe someday Daniel will learn what it is to add value rather than just steal because it’s possible.
Meanwhile, I’ll just add Flickrbabes to my daily surfing list.
Have a good day!
22. Daniel | December 18th, 2006
Maybe he should stop stealing from Flickr first.
Also, thank you so much for the best stats my blog has ever seen, ever.
I actually helped you gain readers/subscribers because my friends would check out my site and add your feed to their feed readers. This is not accomplishing anything, but making my day go by quickly with so much hilarity.
Thank you so much, this is awesome.
-Daniel
23. Ronald Poi | December 18th, 2006
Bad news… i’m sorry to read all this but i think you should go without the pics for a while. At least ’til those fuck*rs learn to create their own content…
24. pacificdave | December 18th, 2006
“Also, thank you so much for the best stats my blog has ever seen, ever.”
Who cares… no one will ever go back. So you really gain nothing.
And I doubt flickrbabes.com cares if you got your 2 friends to subscribe to his feed. Laugh all you want to but you’re laughing by yourself.
25. coupland | December 18th, 2006
Notdan, posting the guy’s address was TOTALLY uncalled for. But it *did* make me spew Sprite all over my monitor.
26. joe | December 18th, 2006
to hell with this pathetic nonsense, you’re letting idiots make the rules ignore the whiners and copycats and get back to whats important!!!!
your goal in life is to find us the hot photos of babes and put it on rss!!!!
dang it I don’t have time to mess around clicking sites rss rocks you realize if you don’t have it you loose your rss readers…
omg what moron doesn’t use rss anyway?
27. Tommy | December 19th, 2006
Hi from Germany & Ibiza,
thx for your positiv comment about my http://www.pd5.de
Would like to make a Link-Exchange with you.
Please write back per eMail.
Tommy
28. a | December 19th, 2006
i guess the problem is not really that he republishes the feed - for what he has all the right to do - but that the original post is not clear as a matter of copyright, and ownership. the owner of this site admitted that he basically just “takes” the pics without authorization, what is the difference then? removing pics from the feed clears up the problem, because this way he has total control of what is being published, and remains published. besides daniel being an asshole he still didnt do anything wrong really.
29. pacificdave | December 19th, 2006
@a:
“besides daniel being an asshole he still didnt do anything wrong really.”
Directly republishing someone else’s work using that site’s own RSS feed IS wrong for one. Two, he tried to make money off of it by placing ads on the same page. Three, he didn’t remove it upon request. So a combination of the first 2 which lead to the last is where most people draw the line. Some draw the line earlier but most believe that if the outcome is beneficial and doesn’t cause any monetary or reputational damage to the owner then rules can be overlooked.
30. info | December 19th, 2006
one clear example of this is del.icio.us. I was trying to find where they say it, but couldn’t find it, but they certainly make it clear: there you can make a list of bookmarks (links). You don’t own the links, but you own the list as a whole: how you tag them, which elements you added. Your list of bookmarks belongs to you, it’s copyrighted.
The fact that these photos come from flickr is one thing. The fact that I classify them, title them, maybe add comments, and by that generate a list of photos (the photos are not mine, but the list is mine, as I’m the one figuring out how to list them) means I got the intelectual property on that list.
Of course, it doesn’t mean that someone else can’t come up with the same list in the same order with the same categories. But one thing is doing that, another thing is simply get the feed as is, and republish it as is.
The thing is, all the posts are marked in the rss, i guess you’ve noticed that all of them say: source: flickrbabes.com. If this content is posted somewhere else, say a porn site, and I the author of the photo sees it, he’s going to blame flickrbabes as well, as it clearly says the content originated there. So, I also need to protect the site and its contents.
I publish the rss feeds, offering a service to all of you, so you can access the content of this site in an easier way (making your rss reader, using a common one like google reader), but that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with it: like, republish it in your own site, fill it with ads and profit from it.
Sites like flickrlicio.us (doesn’t exist anymore) and flickrbabes.com where blocked by flickr because we were displaying ads (among other things, we were using too much of flickr bandwith as well). Flickrbabes continued, but making the compromise of never make this site for profit, and you see it isn’t, and I did understand why. First, the photos I post here are not mine, second, the bandwith of the photos is provided by Flickr. Profiting from that would be an abuse from my part. I think the owner of the photos may profit from that if he choses to, as it’s their photos, but all I’m doing is putting the list of photos together.
Just because it’s freely available to display, doesn’t mean it’s freely available for reproduction. I could take all photos i find and publish them here, without credit to the author, and that violates copyright.
I have problems from time to time from photographers that are not willing that their photos are displayed here. I’m very careful about that, and I remove that content. Though I should ask for permission first, the fact is, that most of the photographers are happy when I post their work here, or just don’t mind….and because I post so many photos, I prefer to deal with it when a photographer doesn’t like it. All in all, I do try to respect their rights. It’s their work, and you know this site wouldn’t exist if photographers wouldn’t want to share their content. But first and above all, you have to respect their work, and that’s what I also try to do by restricting my feed to be published in other sites.
31. a | December 20th, 2006
pacificdave: the point is that this line is kind of fuid, its an accapted feature, to publish rss feeds on blogs. basing the whole blog on this feed is ambiguous indeed, but i dont see a clear separation of the two things. placing ads on the page is only immoral, true, but i dont see any rule braking there. removing post - only the ip info said he had in the feed, not the pictures.
what info said about his own intellectual property in the feed is an argument i can totally accept.
32. t | December 20th, 2006
However, there are a LOT of RSS readers that this won’t work with. I use SpbInsight for my Pocket PC phone and now I can’t see any of the photos. Please change it back to the way it was before so everyone (not just a select few) can read it…THanks!!
33. t | December 20th, 2006
also, what is the point of having a RSS feed that is about photography if there are no photos in it???????
34. pacificdave | December 20th, 2006
“placing ads on the page is only immoral, true, but i dont see any rule braking there.”
I’m not going to go deep into this because you can do a Google search for all types of information supporting my argument. My personal opinion for your above statement is this: He’s making money off of someone else’s work. Rule breaking? This should be obvious. Again, do the research. Making money off of someone else’s work is against the law if the publisher doesn’t consent to it. If you believe in intellectual property laws as you kind of stated in your last sentence then you’re kind of stepping on your own words in your first paragraph.
Let’s put this into quick lamen terms:
1) Publishing someone else’s feed publicly on your personal site. — The wrong: stealing bandwidth from the feed owner, stealing his content and not removing it after requested. Again, the whole intellectual property rights cloud covering stealing and plagiarism.
2) Placing ads by the content that was created by someone else on your personal site with the intent of cashing in. — The wrong: For one it’s against Google Adsense TOS. If someone was to report him and when the Adsense team got around to it then they would request him to remove their ads from the illegal pages. It doesn’t matter how much money he’s making… .02 to 1000.00. It’s the same either way. Two, cashing in on someone else’s work. Do I really need to go into this?
I’m not trying to bash on you here but this has been discussed on numerous blogs, forums, news sites, news groups, podcasts and has been beaten to the ground over and over. When it comes down to it… it is wrong.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed