I will do my best to suppress the rage that I feel at the moment toward Flickr and the schmucks who stole Rebekka Gu?ɬ?leifsd?ɬ?ttir’s photos, but I make no promises.I have never really been a fan of Flickr. That is not to say that I didn’t like the website. The whole thing never really clicked with me. I was indifferent to the idea, nothing more, nothing less. After the stunt they have pulled my feelings are now drastically one sided. It seems that Flickr has joined the ranks of Getty and Corbis in their complete and total disregard for the rights of the photographer.

Rebekka Gu?ɬ?leifsd?ɬ?ttir’s photographs were lifted from Flickr and sold time and time again by “Only Dreemin UK” (I will not link to them, they don’t deserve it, they are thieves, digitally prostituting the work of others illegally). When Rebekka demanded payment, they of course refused. Rebekka then made her case online in her flickrstream, republishing the stolen photograph. The post received 450+ comments. Flickr eventually got wind of this, deleted the post, as well as the photograph, and gave the following explanation;

“Flickr is not a venue for you to harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we will send you a warning or terminate your account.”

If Flickr is listening, and they damn well should be at this point, you disgust me. I think I speak for the entire online photographic community when I say that you have tarnished your reputation forever. The nausea I am feeling was previously reserved for the likes of Bill Gates and George Bush. Congratulations Flickr, your number one. Number one, with a bullet. A free expression, member driven, social photography community that censors the participants. I don’t know what is worse, Flickr’s behavior, or the gallery that stole the photographs.