7 thoughts on “@HistoryinPics brings history to the public. So what’s the problem? (Part 1)

  1. Considering the number of times you feel the need to refer to the creators as “teenagers” definitely suggests the jealousy element you wisely mention. Not simply of their success but their age and that they had this idea in their youth whereas you didn’t.

    Oh history, the dread mirror upon our times!

  2. I haven’t read Alexis Madrigal’s account in The Atlantic (will do so) — but some of what I’ve read here makes me wonder.
    ” the duo have created several other social media accounts, each with hundreds of thousands of followers.”
    This sounds like the way reputation management firms operate — setting up accounts that link to one another, click farms, link pools, SEO — and images are the new search darling. I don’t begrudge them their success, but I do wonder if it’s as clear as it seems. Whenever my colleagues cheer about a sudden rush of new “Likes” on their official Facebook pages, I cynically wonder how many of those “people” live in a computer somewhere….

  3. In response to John–Yes, they may have had a good or at least clever idea, and there may be some jealously mixed in. But what grates me so much (and I will confess I am an archivist) is that they are basically monetizing other people’s assets w/out even linking back to the sites where the found the images; in other words, their whole business model is predatory, rather than productive, but of course that goes for much of the web.

  4. Pingback: @HistoryinPics brings history to the public. So what’s the problem? (Part 2) | History@Work

  5. Time for everyone to watermark every image they post online anywhere.

    I’ll make a boatload selling my easy watermarking products.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *