From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Websites (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Google (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Yup! This article is an ad alright! uyi 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at the moment if you read the criticism. I doubt that the style of writing of the criticism meets the wikipedia standards though.
Then you two anonymous users are invited to contribute by enhancing it. I removed the spurious "no references" tag, as it is quite obvious that every one of the words in the criticism section is true. It is easier just to tag an article or section, instead of verifying its assertions. In this case, such assertions are readily verifiable. And there's a lot more criticism in store. --AVM 11:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain?[edit]

Are their pictures released into the public domain, thus allowing me to use them on Wikipedia articles? Bsrboy (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the contributing users appear to retain copyright, though Google uses them in Maps and Earth. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Photos can be released with a free license - see, commons:Category:Panoramio review needed, commons:Category:Commons. Panoramio. This should probably be included in the article, although it'd be nice to have a reliable source which states this. -- Trevj (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


I cleaned up the big list of languages, because I saw no use in listing all the languages as links to the actual language pages. --piksi (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Panoramio Widget API[edit]

This article fails to mention an important feature of Google/Panoramio's photo-sharing service: the so-called Panoramio Widget API (Application Programming Interface), which makes all the photos uploaded to Panoramio available to any website that wants to use them—for commercial purpose or not.(1) Most websites that use this feature are touristic and commercial in nature. According to the API's terms of usage, the websites cannot make copies of the photos and they cannot store these photos on their own servers. The photos obtained through the API must be linked to their respective page in Panoramio, and the name of the photographer must be mentioned and linked to his/her collection in Panoramio.(2) Photographers do not get any royalties. In this respect, "sharing" is in effect synonymous with "giving away for free," and the question about public domain mentioned above becomes difficult to answer properly. Many people do not seem to be aware that, when they join Panoramio, they must agree to Google and Panoramio's Terms of Services (TOS), which include the agreement that their photos may be used through the API by external websites.(3) This is not a problem, of course, as long as users remain vigilant, make the effort to read the TOS before signing up to the service, and indeed agree with these terms with the understanding that when they post their photos in any of Google's services, they relinquish their "rights" and "control" over their work, and they give Google "licence for it," and Google does not have to "pay for it."

What is problematic, however, is what happens to the photos when users decide to quit the service. This is a serious problem that should be mentioned in the article also. First of all, there is no functionality to quit by yourself. Users must ask Panoramio to delete their account via email.(4) Panoramio is fairly diligent with this. Within a day or two, users receive confirmation that their account and their photos have been removed. In Panoramio's view, however, "removed" does not mean "deleted." After the confirmation email, sure enough "deleted" accounts and photos are not accessible anymore, but it is not evident at all that the photos have been removed and deleted from Google/Panoramio's servers. In fact, they have not been removed. Indeed, weeks and even months after requests for account deletions, photos continue to appear in the websites that got them through the API. The only difference is that the links to the photos and to the user names take you to pages that say, "Photo Not Found–Photo with id xxxx has been deleted" and "User Not Found—There is no user with id xxxxx."

In other words, although an account has been removed/deleted, the photos remain on the Google/Panoramio servers, and they continue to be used without the user's consent by the website that obtained them through the API.(5) This is a problem that remains uncorrected despite several attempts by myself and other ex-users to alert Gerard Sanz, the current manager, about it. This, in effect, is an appropriation of goods on the part of Google/Panoramio. It is a behavior of dubious ethical value that should be mentioned in the article, unless the article is actually an advertisement for Panoramio, as other readers have mentioned. (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Nicolas Mertens81.38.255.107 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) See

(2) See "Conditions of Use" at, and "Panoramio Widget API Terms of Service" at

(3) For Google TOS, see; for Panoramio TOS, see

(4) See

(5) I would say that when users quit the service, they are no longer bound to the TOS and their consent about the usage of their work is revoked.

Notability, conflict of interest, lack of reliable secondary sources, copyright violations[edit]

This article seems to have been created by editors closely connected with the subject of the article, in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, and not on web pages hosted by the subject of the article.

Parts of the article appear to be lifted almost directly from another web site, in violation of copyright. For example, much of the section Earth Selection Policy seems to have been taken from The only reference in that section leads to Panoramio Earth Selection Policy. This section also reads like a "how-to" manual, not an encyclopedia. Wikfr (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:NOTHOWTO comment, and have removed the section. -- Trevj (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Pano will be removed...[edit]

Hi there.

Can someone write something about the future death of Panoramio ? I've added some ref's in the French page. If needed I've got other links not used yet in this French page (I'm on it).

Thanks. --[[Utilisateur:Llann Wé²|Llann .\m/]] <sup>([[User talk:Llann Wé²:Llann Wé²|Lie 2 Me ...]])</sup> (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)