Flickr making another play to "entice" people to go Pro?

Bristolian

Bristolian

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,428
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I received an email today from Flickr, where I have a free account, stating "Starting May 15, 2025, Flickr will restrict the downloading of original and large (larger than 1024px) sizes of photos owned by free accounts. If you use a free account, this update applies to both your own content and to content shared by other free members. In addition, videos stored on free accounts will no longer be downloadable once the change takes effect."

They give the following reason "We’re addressing the misuse of free accounts as cloud storage for original files—a practice that violates our Terms of Service and negatively impacts the performance and experience for Pro members. By limiting access to original and large-size downloads from free accounts, we can help preserve the integrity of the platform and continue delivering high-quality service to our Pro community", which may (or may not) be the full story. Personally, I see this as another tilt at getting us freeloaders to go Pro - anyone have thoughts on it?
 
ecoleman said:
I have thoughts. They can #£*@ off

It’s dead and outdated. Why would anyone pay for it?
Click to expand...
I kinda agree on both counts but for me it works perfectly.

A friend and myself take photos for a car club (and an Armed Forces motorsport charity) at various charity track meets and use Flickr as somewhere the drivers can download full-res images of their cars from. Using tags (which come from keywords in LRC) it's very easy to set up albums for each event and separate albums for each driver.

As we get closer to the 1000 image limit I've been considering hosting the photos on my NAS but being technologically challenged will have to enlist some help for that.

However we go in the future I defo won't be paying for Pro!
 
the_accidental said:
Ah a shame, will presumably mean people can no longer user Flickr to get high res embeds on here.
Click to expand...
Not really, the forum doesn’t allow hi-res images. The 1024 max is what the forum allows. :)
 
I would guess, there’s a handful of users (<100) who are using Flickr as a hosting service for sites with millions of views and a subsequent $$$ bill for hosting. At the end of the day it’s a service, either you pay for it with money or ad/your data. Flickr doesn’t seem to make the latter work so it has to continue to move to the former.

Don’t think there’s any other photo sharing service that matches the full Flickr feature set? EXIF data, tags, privacy settings, etc.
 
Bodian said:
Not sure what it matters that other people can't download large size images from your flickr stream? Why would we be wanting others to download our best quality images?

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming that if they are not going to allow downloads of more than 1024px then they also won’t display images larger than 1024px. Once an image is displayed it’s already been downloaded.
 
gramps said:
Not really, the forum doesn’t allow hi-res images. The 1024 max is what the forum allows. :)
Click to expand...
But if you embed from Flickr it's a file greater than 1024* so appears sharper etc, and easy to click through.


*E.g. just checked and my post here the jpg served to me is 1600px wide as it appears in the thread (and I can of course click through for higher res still)
 
Bodian said:
Not sure what it matters that other people can't download large size images from your flickr stream? Why would we be wanting others to download our best quality images?

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
You will not be able to download your own original files if they exceed 1024px... therefore it will be no good for file sharing or cloud storage.
 
the_accidental said:
But if you embed from Flickr it's a file greater than 1024* so appears sharper etc, and easy to click through.


*E.g. just checked and my post here the jpg served to me is 1600px wide as it appears in the thread (and I can of course click through for higher res still)
Click to expand...


The jpeg embedded in that post is 560px x 373px and that is within the forum maximum.
Yes you can click through and currently see (on Flickr) at whatever size you stipulate in your Flickr settings, but you cannot AFAIK embed a file greater than 1024px (longest) in a forum post here at TP.
So even if you are limited to 1024px by Flickr, or you choose not to allow viewing at more than 1024px in your Flickr settings, you can still embed the 1024px image (subject to file size limit) in a forum post, using the BBCode option.
 
They need an intermediate membership level for those who don't need to upload everything, but don't want to offer that. If they had something allowing 10,000 images at 1920 longest side for 25 quid a year then I'm sure a lot more would use it.
 
I see they now have a banner at the top of each page about the new changes. They also have a Learn more here link which they can't even mange to point to the right page and they want people to pay for that?
 
The jpeg embedded in that post is 560px x 373px and that is within the forum maximum.
Click to expand...

Perhaps for you on your browser. On my machine (retina screen Mac) I'm being served a 1600px wide jpg preview from Flickr which is displayed inline in the forum.

Perhaps I'd be served a lower resolution file on a lower DPI screen but I don't have one to hand to test, though perhaps I can simulate one, I might test...
 
Ah wait, I think I see the confusion.

It's being shown at 560x374 points wide:

1744793162170.png

But if I look a bit deeper the asset is actually higher resolution:
1744793193571.png


About 3x pixels vs the point size which is no coincidence. Depending on the viewing device, you'll either see pixels-to-points at 1x (e.g. a low DPI PC screen), 2x (e.g. my iMac ) or 3x (e.g. modern iPhone).

So on a sharper screen, I see a sharper image if it's a Flickr embed as there are more pixels in the served file.

You can also see I'm being served a jpg above the forum size limit, never mind resolution. The limits only apply to images uploaded, not embedded.
 
Last edited:
Bristolian said:
I received an email today from Flickr, where I have a free account, stating "Starting May 15, 2025, Flickr will restrict the downloading of original and large (larger than 1024px) sizes of photos owned by free accounts. If you use a free account, this update applies to both your own content and to content shared by other free members. In addition, videos stored on free accounts will no longer be downloadable once the change takes effect."

They give the following reason "We’re addressing the misuse of free accounts as cloud storage for original files—a practice that violates our Terms of Service and negatively impacts the performance and experience for Pro members. By limiting access to original and large-size downloads from free accounts, we can help preserve the integrity of the platform and continue delivering high-quality service to our Pro community", which may (or may not) be the full story. Personally, I see this as another tilt at getting us freeloaders to go Pro - anyone have thoughts on it?
Click to expand...
I got one of these as well. It likely won't impact me much, as I don't have many images uploaded, and it's almost exclusively to allow display here and in other places with a maximum 1024 pixel dimension. I came here after the PhotoBucket debacle; I have to say flickr is MUCH better than PB was; towards the end the advertising content on that site was unpleasantly overwhelming!

I did check out a few other sites, including imgur, when I left PB. Imgur did have a ToS prohibition against embedding (which they appeared at the time to ignore, but I didn't want to risk it). I didn't notice such a prohibition on flickr, and I've just re-read the ToS twice (someone has to do it!). I couldn't find anything against embedding, unless the second part of this paragraph headed Hyperlinks could be so construed:

"You may create a text hyperlink to the Site, provided such link does not portray Flickr or SmugMug or any of its Products or Services in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise defamatory manner. This limited right may be revoked by SmugMug at any time. You may not frame the Site or utilize framing techniques to enclose the Site, Flickr Materials, Flickr Marks or other proprietary information without SmugMug’s express prior written consent."

The word "cloud" does not appear in their ToS.
 
Gold said:
I would guess, there’s a handful of users (<100) who are using Flickr as a hosting service for sites with millions of views and a subsequent $$$ bill for hosting. At the end of the day it’s a service, either you pay for it with money or ad/your data. Flickr doesn’t seem to make the latter work so it has to continue to move to the former.

Don’t think there’s any other photo sharing service that matches the full Flickr feature set? EXIF data, tags, privacy settings, etc.
Click to expand...
It seems clear that offering free image-hosting is a service that's hard to make sustainable. I think we all have to get more used to paying for what we use (I use Mastodon for my other social media, and voluntarily pay a small monthly amount to my instance admin to support hosting fees).

So far I think flickr is the best of any of the image hosting services I've tried.
 
It will be interesting to see if, once the new rules kick in, flickr Pro users here can see higher res images on flickr free accounts!
 
sk66 said:
You will not be able to download your own original files if they exceed 1024px... therefore it will be no good for file sharing or cloud storage.
Click to expand...

Whenever another ‘Is Flickr dead?’ thread appears on this forum, it seems there are usually several members who say they only use it for backup, and that’s not its intended purpose (nor is it really suitable for it).

I think this move is supposed to underline that point that if you want backup, you should be using a backup service.
 
the_accidental said:
It's being shown at 560x374 points wide:
Click to expand...
Exactly, and as I see it on my iMac Retina display.
The restriction referenced by Flickr refers to greater that 1024px, which is the forum max, so if you post a BBCode link it will still display - at 1024px ... resolution is another matter.
Or are you saying that, for you, your image is displaying at 1600px within your post on TP?
 
Ah I'm maybe not being clear.

The point I was making is I use Flickr to get image embeds greater than 1024 resolution on here (not points, my goal is displaying a sharp image) this won't be possible after Flickr make this change (without a Pro account).

Or are you saying that, for you, your image is displaying at 1600px within your post on TP?
Click to expand...

It's displaying at 560pts wide (size) and 1120px (resolution).
 
the_accidental said:
Ah I'm maybe not being clear.

The point I was making is I use Flickr to get image embeds greater than 1024 resolution on here (not points, my goal is displaying a sharp image) this won't be possible after Flickr make this change (without a Pro account)
Click to expand...
I don't read it that way. When you imbed a Flickr image elsewhere it is not being downloaded or copied. I.e. it is not being hosted/stored on the forum's server, which is why you are allowed to use larger images. Also, image sharing on forums/social is significant advertising for Flickr... it would not be in their best interest to hinder that.

Musicman said:
Whenever another ‘Is Flickr dead?’ thread appears on this forum, it seems there are usually several members who say they only use it for backup, and that’s not its intended purpose (nor is it really suitable for it).

I think this move is supposed to underline that point that if you want backup, you should be using a backup service.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The functionality of Flickr isn't changing perse; you just won't be able to get your original (large) file back.
 
sk66 said:
You will not be able to download your own original files if they exceed 1024px... therefore it will be no good for file sharing or cloud storage.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. But as non-subscription folk are limited to 1000 photos anyway, won't most of those who use it as cloud storage already be paying and so won't be affected? I've never used flickr for file sharing - OneDrive and so on are good for that.
 
When you imbed a Flickr image elsewhere it is not being downloaded
Click to expand...

But it is - to continue my example above, my machine downloads the 1600px image to display it to me. Flickr incur the bandwidth costs.
 
the_accidental said:
But it is - to continue my example above, my machine downloads the 1600px image to display it to me. Flickr incur the bandwidth costs.
Click to expand...
The data is being "streamed/served," not downloaded/saved. Flickr incurs all of the storage cost and some of the bandwidth costs.
 
Surely it’s down to the individual to pay for the service or not? I choose to, but respect and don’t denigrate those who don’t.
 
ancient_mariner said:
They need an intermediate membership level for those who don't need to upload everything, but don't want to offer that. If they had something allowing 10,000 images at 1920 longest side for 25 quid a year then I'm sure a lot more would use it.
Click to expand...
While I agree about intermediate level, in my view this should look entirely different. I am only too happy not to allow anyone steal larger versions of my work and hotlinking apparently can't be even successfully sued for. It happens a lot. I limit my uploads to 1024 for that reason.
What I would like to see is 1000 limit removed or raised. You don't need much space for 1000 avif or webp files. On top of that I would like some marketing features for my business which would make it better that Instagram. And this would pay them well too
 
The data is being "streamed/served," not downloaded/saved. Flickr incurs all of the storage cost and some of the bandwidth costs.
Click to expand...

Well, it amounts to the same thing in terms of their costs - the jpg ends up on my disk, just in a browser cache rather than a folder of my choosing. And yes, they just pay the egress costs, but I don't pay per megabyte for mine. And the bandwidth costs will be greater than the storage costs for any image that gets any amount of views (especially as that means keeping it in hot/warm storage).
 
Worth reminding ourselves here that if you double the size of an image (say from 1024x768 to 2048x1536) then the amount of data increases fourfold.

That ends up as a direct cost to Flickr for serving out to any page on the internet that requests an image from them.
 
Hi folks, interesting reading so far :)

I know that people have different views on Flickr and I certainly didn't intend for this to slide into another "is Flickr dead?" thread - I just wondered if anyone else had the same cynical thoughts that I did that this change is just a way to get more paying members?

Personally, I'm very against paying the Pro fee as I feel it is too much for what I and the car club members get out of it. Having said that, the members appear willing to share the cost amongst themselves so we may well go that way anyway :thinking: That would definitely make my life easier :)
 
Bristolian said:
I just wondered if anyone else had the same cynical thoughts that I did that this change is just a way to get more paying members?
Click to expand...
I suspect strongly that yes, one aspect is to encourage more people to stump up - but alongside a sensible business urge to rationalise the provision of server space, especially if the ad revenue doesn't do much more than balance that out.

We're unlikely to be told ...
 
I hate to say, as others have stated, this is just a way to get more money. I remember the days when Flickr was happy to accept as many images as you can throw at it, and gradually over the years they have reduced and reduced.

The other way of looking at it is that they are offering unlimited photo storage for a very reasonable £60 a year. However, when you have the likes of Amazon photos offering a bundled service with Amazon prime for a few ££ more, its hard to see the value in Flickr's service.
 
Like all these companies, all they can see is an easy way to get more £ or $ . What seems to be beyond their reasoning is they are driving people away to find alternatives.
 
An oddity of perception about internet services is an expectation that things can be had for free - which isn't altogether plausible. Why should it be? Despite various 'expert' comments above!

We perform our own valuations. :)
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Like all these companies, all they can see is an easy way to get more £ or $ . What seems to be beyond their reasoning is they are driving people away to find alternatives.
Click to expand...
It seems to me equally plausible that flickr are finding it increasingly difficult to cover their costs from the averts on the free tier. I'm pleased they still allow it. As it happens, the maximum size I really need to download is 1024 pixels (TP, Mastodon etc). If I really needed more fill size photos, then the Pro fee would probably seem reasonable. As droj says, we do need to be prepared to pay for some services that appear free, if we want them to stay around. (Which I guess also includes TP! I'd better act on that...)
 
Last edited:
Since @ChrisR mentioned it, I thought I'd chip in: we did discuss a subscription model for TP on a couple of occasions when Cobra was with us, but we all agreed that that was a non-starter for many reasons. We also considered a subscriber status for a fee, but again couldn't decide what would differentiate membership levels (other than Classifieds access) and again decided it was not desirable. That's when Sirch came up with the Buy Me a Coffee idea, and we have Paypal Donation as well, and these two together (thanks to those who use them) do cover a good deal of the costs of the site. If this continues to be the case, then there is no need for us to even remotely consider charging for TP for a long time, if ever.
 
Might be a bit off topic, but I have a Flickr Pro account at the moment, but due to the price going up and up each year way outstripping inflation, this current membership year will likely be my last, as for how much I upload I just can't justify the costs anymore.

However, as I have a pretty high powered Qnap 6 bay NAS (with 30tb of available storage in RAID 5) that that my entire photo library exists on anyway (as well as two other back ups), I have been wondering for some time, if it is indeed possible to host images yourself without the need for Flickr just using the NAS? Anyone know if this is possible and what the steps would be please ?
 
I don't have a problem with paying for something like Flickr, I did for a few years but I felt that we were getting nothing in return so cancelled.

The platform is nothing like it used to be, it hasn't been modernised in any way. Smugmug aren't giving people the incentive to join or stay subscribed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top