| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2008 09:35:35 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
Protecting the minority is a good idea anytime.
While the issues on this site are much smaller scale, the reasoning is the same. Also, I used examples from American History because it's more familiar to me, I'm sure there are examples from civilized countries elsewhere on the globe. |
Sure, in social issues I would agree with you, but as stated this is a business not the civil rights movement. If you run a business by what the minority of your customers want then guess what, you will probably alienate the majority of your customers resulting in a loss of income when they cease doing business with you.
edit for spelling
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 09:44:36. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:39:13 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
You don't have that right until you own the site - OR - are the author of the comments. |
I struck me while reading the sentence above:
The solution is everything after the "OR". A number of people in this and other threads have stated the obvious:
Comments have owners. So, maybe if a change is to be made we should change the wording of the sites TOS. Suggesting that if you receive a comment that you deem offensive, you should contact the owner of the comment and request that it be removed. This would encourage an interchange of information that might clear up misunderstandings. If not, the response, or lack thereof, could help guide SC when the offended party disputed the comment. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:50:41 AM · #378 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
Protecting the minority is a good idea anytime.
While the issues on this site are much smaller scale, the reasoning is the same. Also, I used examples from American History because it's more familiar to me, I'm sure there are examples from civilized countries elsewhere on the globe. |
Sure, in social issues I would agree with you, but as stated this is a business not the civil rights movement. If you run a business by what the minority of your customers want then guess what, you will probably alienate the majority of your customers resulting in a loss of income when they cease doing business with you.
edit for spelling |
If the majority of your customers wanted something illegal would you give it to them? What if they wanted something that left you, the business owner, legally exposed? Would you do it then?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:52:44 AM · #379 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
if you receive a comment that you deem offensive, you should contact the owner of the comment and request that it be removed. This would encourage an interchange of information that might clear up misunderstandings. If not, the response, or lack thereof, could help guide SC when the offended party disputed the comment. |
I've been Yanko'd! As long as the request is polite, this should be the obvious approach. Simply discarding the comment on your own demonstrates the same lack of respect you're effectively accusing the commenter of. Sure, the obvious attacks can be tossed (we already do that), but many comments the photographer thinks are attacks turn out to be misunderstandings, language barriers and the like. A little respectful dialog goes a long way. Of course, if your PM is a hateful demand, loaded with obscenities and/or accompanied by retaliatory remarks, the result will not be what you wanted.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 10:06:32. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:13:18 AM · #380 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
Protecting the minority is a good idea anytime.
While the issues on this site are much smaller scale, the reasoning is the same. Also, I used examples from American History because it's more familiar to me, I'm sure there are examples from civilized countries elsewhere on the globe. |
Sure, in social issues I would agree with you, but as stated this is a business not the civil rights movement. If you run a business by what the minority of your customers want then guess what, you will probably alienate the majority of your customers resulting in a loss of income when they cease doing business with you.
edit for spelling |
If the majority of your customers wanted something illegal would you give it to them? What if they wanted something that left you, the business owner, legally exposed? Would you do it then? |
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though.
added word
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 10:15:03. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:26:33 AM · #381 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Louis, you don't have rights over people's commentary on your photos. You never have. |
Precisely. I believe that's what this whole thing is about. |
You don't have that right until you own the site - OR - are the author of the comments. |
Yes, that's the policy of this site at present. If you are claiming there's some universal right of ownership that people have over one-liners deposited at third-party websites in relation to property they clearly don't own, that's, to put it politely, a bit of a stretch. If it were such a sacrosanct given that websites should guarantee comments were forever inviolate, DPC would not be in the minority in refusing to give control over such comments to the owners of the photos to which they are attached. The issue can be turned around if you consider that my rights are being violated because I can't ultimately control the way the public views my property, and that the final decision about what is viewable rests with a body that is not qualified to make determinations of a kind other than that which is completely subjective. In any event, in my view you are attaching lofty ideas of freedom of speech and rights of ownership in a situation where it isn't warranted.
Originally posted by eschelar:
To change that is to assert that your rights are above the rights of others. |
No, to change that is to assert that my rights regarding the display of my property are above the rights of others. Sure, you can respond and say, "So don't display your property," but that's a childish response to an issue that has a potentially more mature resolution.
Originally posted by eschelar:
If it's not abusive, but you are still taking offense, then you either need to open your thinking a little or remove your pictures from the public site. |
And this is at the heart of the problem, isn't it? Who are you to make the determination that one comment or other isn't abusive or offensive in some way to me or my models? Nobody. You can't make that determination; you're unqualified to do so. Only I can decide what is harmful or injurious to me, my models, and my property.
All your observations about movies and magazines are completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:27:20 AM · #382 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it. |
EXACTLY!!! Well said. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:31:27 AM · #383 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No. Majority rule leads to the trampling of the few. Is that really the kind of thing you want to stand for? |
imo, it's ridiculous to use that argument about the running of a photography website. majority rule should work just fine here. comparing the running of this website with serious social issues that 'americans' have faced in the past, like segregation and women's rights, just doesn't make sense to me.
and as i understand it, this is a privately run website and the majority is not in charge either, but it's probably a good way for the owner to gauge what things he should change if he so desires it.
or if you guys are just talking politics in general and not discussing ideas for change to do with this website, then carry on. |
Protecting the minority is a good idea anytime.
While the issues on this site are much smaller scale, the reasoning is the same. Also, I used examples from American History because it's more familiar to me, I'm sure there are examples from civilized countries elsewhere on the globe. |
Sure, in social issues I would agree with you, but as stated this is a business not the civil rights movement. If you run a business by what the minority of your customers want then guess what, you will probably alienate the majority of your customers resulting in a loss of income when they cease doing business with you.
edit for spelling |
If the majority of your customers wanted something illegal would you give it to them? What if they wanted something that left you, the business owner, legally exposed? Would you do it then? |
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here. |
It's easy to see how it could evolve into a situation involving legal action. Say, a model poses for a photographer and the photographer posts the image to DPC. Some dipstick member makes a comment that implies something unseemly about the model. The model and/or photographer requests SC delete or edit the comment since it's defamatory. SC refuses, interpreting the comment differently. A potential client for this model sees her image on DPC, but is put off by the comment and rejects her. She then sues DPC and the member posting the remark.
Would the model win? Maybe, maybe not. Would defending such a suit be a total pain in the ass? You bet and expensive too, if DPC were to lose. Would any publicity about the case make DPC look bad? Probably. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:33:51 AM · #384 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:34:15 AM · #385 |
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
... I do agree that the ability to disallow all comments on non-challenge images would be a good idea. ... |
Why non-challenge images? I think those are the ones that are setup for the most abuse, if any. The photographer cannot remove the challenge entry photo or reload it to clear out the comments. Challenge entries are also the ones that many spend time with on giving feedback/comments. These would be the ideal photos to "turn off" comments so people aren't wasting time on commenting when comments aren't desired.
When someone posts a photo from their portfolio they do so by choice for feedback/review or to just say "hey, look what I've done". And again, portfolio images are easily removed or hidden at the photographers whim.
In summary, I think having a checkbox on the challenge entry submission form to accept/not accept comments would be a good thing to try and beneficial to many. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:37:02 AM · #386 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:37:37 AM · #387 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:44:52 AM · #388 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
Where is the libelous comment that hasn't been removed? |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:46:35 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
Where is the libelous comment that hasn't been removed? |
This is a hypothetical conversation. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:46:42 AM · #390 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
I'm sure the site owners have it all worked out on their end and if he is relying on legal advice from you, me, Spazmo99 or any forum on this site on how to run his website wothout breaking any laws or violating anyones rights then he has a bigger issue on his hands then a delete comment button. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:47:19 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
Getting that decision would be a painful, drawn-out and expensive process. Even more expensive should DPC lose in court.
In any event, leaving such comments in place is simply not nice.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 10:48:55. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 10:58:04 AM · #392 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I'm sure the site owners have it all worked out on their end and if he is relying on legal advice from you, me, Spazmo99 or any forum on this site on how to run his website wothout breaking any laws or violating anyones rights then he has a bigger issue on his hands then a delete comment button. |
Lawyers are not always as smart as they pretend. I recently had a lawyer tell me to settle a real estate matter in a way that violated state law. He was totally oblivious to the applicable laws and, in fact, got angry, telling me that I was being "recalcitrant" in the matter. I had to explain it to him in detail, citing specific sections of code and the wording of the contract before he finally relented.
The bottom line is that if you rely solely on lawyers for such advice, you may be just as screwed as if you took matters into your own hands.
Not to mention the fact that just because something may be legal, doesn't make it right.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 10:59:12. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:01:00 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Weird.
How about that comment that was used as an example from LanceW? Has it been reported yet? Does the owner even care enough to report it?
. |
EDIT ...
None of your damn business why |
Well you were the one who brought it up as an example to show that the system is broken. If your example does not show that the system was even used, you need another example or your argument falls flat.
You brought the example to the public forum, making it the business of anyone and everyone who reads this public forum. If you don't feel it's also our business as to why that person is not interested in using the system, then kindly retract the 'damn' example and admit that you have not one good example of the problem which you claim exists... or at least bring to light an example that carries some weight in the discussion. |
Look ... The comment is there ...
Motivation and intent for it remaining is not germane to the conversation on any level.
The comment is there. There was a level of offense. Deal with it ...
As far as your retraction demand...I'm presently disinclined to acquiesce to your request
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:02:11 AM · #394 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
Where is the libelous comment that hasn't been removed? |
This is a hypothetical conversation. |
Yes, it is hypothetical.
That is because in the past when a comment is "libelous" it has been removed. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:10:14 AM · #395 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If indeed this had been enshrined in the American mindset, I remain confident that the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses..." would never have seen the light of day. |
I think those days are long gone.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:16:34 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
Where is the libelous comment that hasn't been removed? |
This is a hypothetical conversation. |
Yes, it is hypothetical.
That is because in the past when a comment is "libelous" it has been removed. |
A comment you thought was "libellous". There may well have been, or may well be, cases when your decision not to remove a comment was a bad one. My point has been that you are not able to make that determination in 100% of the cases. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:20:36 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Would I break the law, no. Would I provide a serice or goods that would violate any law, no. I don't think that pertains to the situation at hand here though. |
Actually, it does. The site is exposed to legal liability the minute they refuse to remove a comment that is perceived of as libellous, despite what the terms say. |
Just becuase someone perceives it as libellous doesn't make it so, that's for the courts decided. |
And once the courts are involved, the site is exposed. That was my point. |
Where is the libelous comment that hasn't been removed? |
This is a hypothetical conversation. |
Yes, it is hypothetical.
That is because in the past when a comment is "libelous" it has been removed. |
So, following along, if there were such a comment and if after contacting the commenter and the SC and the site owners the comment still stood then the site owners could be vulnerable to a lawsuit and therefore people who willingly post images of other people in challenges need to have a "delete comment" button? As derived from this argument the button would be an altruistic mechanism to protect the site owners from a lawsuit that would, purportedly, be brought by the photographer and/or the photographer's model. Is that about right? |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:29:40 AM · #398 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
So, following along, if there were such a comment and if after contacting the commenter and the SC and the site owners the comment still stood then the site owners could be vulnerable to a lawsuit and therefore people who willingly post images of other people in challenges need to have a "delete comment" button? As derived from this argument the button would be an altruistic mechanism to protect the site owners from a lawsuit that would, purportedly, be brought by the photographer and/or the photographer's model. Is that about right? |
No. The original point of this thread was a request to add a delete comment button, giving control over the content of a photo to the photographer, thereby removing the need to contact SC at all. This talk of lawsuits and so forth is ancillary to the conversation, merely brought up to illustrate a point. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:32:10 AM · #399 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by KaDi:
So, following along, if there were such a comment and if after contacting the commenter and the SC and the site owners the comment still stood then the site owners could be vulnerable to a lawsuit and therefore people who willingly post images of other people in challenges need to have a "delete comment" button? As derived from this argument the button would be an altruistic mechanism to protect the site owners from a lawsuit that would, purportedly, be brought by the photographer and/or the photographer's model. Is that about right? |
No. The original point of this thread was a request to add a delete comment button, giving control over the content of a photo to the photographer, thereby removing the need to contact SC at all. This talk of lawsuits and so forth is ancillary to the conversation, merely brought up to illustrate a point. |
Oh, I think I get it! The SC is over-burdened with removal requests and the current methods of contacting the commenter and/or SC and/or site owner is not working? |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:32:35 AM · #400 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Weird.
How about that comment that was used as an example from LanceW? Has it been reported yet? Does the owner even care enough to report it?
. |
EDIT ...
None of your damn business why |
Well you were the one who brought it up as an example to show that the system is broken. If your example does not show that the system was even used, you need another example or your argument falls flat.
You brought the example to the public forum, making it the business of anyone and everyone who reads this public forum. If you don't feel it's also our business as to why that person is not interested in using the system, then kindly retract the 'damn' example and admit that you have not one good example of the problem which you claim exists... or at least bring to light an example that carries some weight in the discussion. |
Look ... The comment is there ...
Motivation and intent for it remaining is not germane to the conversation on any level.
The comment is there. There was a level of offense. Deal with it ...
As far as your retraction demand...I'm presently disinclined to acquiesce to your request |
About the pic in question Lance said, "One can only dream of being a punk loser".
The resulting energy spent reacting to it is a little overblown I think.
So what if he thinks the guy looks like a punk loser.
The title "Gangsta", after all, isn't one that conveys "winner".
|
|
