Should sites such as Flickr pay you for your stuff?

Anil Dash talks about Flickr, and points out that while ads appear next to his pics, he isn’t getting a share of that ad income.

Scoble weighs in:

…there certainly is a belief among mainstream big company publishers I’m listening to that “user generated content” (I HATE that term) is how they are going to build profitable businesses. Basically, they are looking at bloggers and photographers and others as cheap labor. Get the stuff for free, stick ads next to it, and make a ton of money. That basically explains a large percentage of the Silicon Valley startup’s business plans lately too.





0 responses to “Should sites such as Flickr pay you for your stuff?”

  1. I don’t use Flickr. I hire some webspace (dirt cheap), and I put photos on it whenever I want. This requires a small amount of knowledge and time. In return for my investment in knowledge and time, I have the freedom to choose whether to put ads on my site and who gets the revenue if I do. If I don’t want to bother with that investment, I don’t get those benefits; if I rely on Flickr’s investment, Flickr get the benefits. Seems entirely fair to me.

  2. That being said, there’s a gap in the market for a site to pay its users a small fee, nick all Flickr’s customers as a result, and therefore get larger ad revenues.