flickr criticisms

After much consideration I have decided to articulate my criticisms of flickr. I only hope that I dont sound like a pretentious twat! By no means am I judging the quality of photography but rather the concerns I have that flickr undermines the professional photographic market. It may not have been their initial objective however flickr has been utilised as a stock-photo database. Individuals and businesses access flickr for images, which in turn impacts on the opportunities available for a professional photographer. By using images from flickr the quality of reproduction is often quite low, and the amount paid (if any) often undercuts professional standards. I read on one site a contributer to flickr had been paid $500 for the use of his image for one year within an advertising campaign. 

If flickr recognised their potential as a stock photo provider then they could insist on a price structure, image size options, and establish criteria that each image or photographer would need to meet, for instance model release forms. Flickr could potentially be a strong competitor to other agencys, such as getty's, as they are one of the more popular sites to upload your images to.  The fact that they dont have credible procedures in place bothers me.