Editorial control over comments - DPChallenge Forums

02/20/2008 11:54:55 AM · #401

Originally posted by KaDi:

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?

No. Your responses seem to indicate a hint of sarcasm, but in case this is an honest question, the original post is simply requesting a feature that currently doesn't exist, to address concerns the OP (me) has from time to time. Simple as that.

02/20/2008 12:53:13 PM · #402

Originally posted by KaDi:

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?

No.

The need is not necessarily for a "delete comment" button, although that would accomplish the same end result, the need is that, in lieu of such a mechanism, SC should remove such comments regardless of their own opinion regarding the offensiveness of the comment.

02/20/2008 03:02:01 PM · #403

Louis - a movie is actually VERY similar to a photograph in terms of containing a model, having complicated themes, evoking comments which may be written, being intellectual property, having choices made regarding the display.........

Why do you feel that it doesn't apply?

Why do you feel that things people write about a movie doesn't relate to things people write about a picture?

Why do you think that if New Line Cinema cannot completely control the content of WRITTEN comments about works they own, that somehow you - on a level with me the 'nobody' - somehow deserve this right in a public display forum that you likewise do not own?

Spazmo, seriously you should ask a lawyer or something if you are really that concerned. The arguments about legality that have been presented in the last couple of pages are starting to get embarrassing. The SC responded pages back that there is a disclaimer in the TOS, which everybody participating here agreed to.

The disclaimer covers 'content' on this website. That includes photos AND words.

02/20/2008 03:21:12 PM · #404

Originally posted by Louis:

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.

This is bizarre reasoning.

So if I post a comment on your photo that says 'this makes me think' for example, you could technically go ahead and take offense at this based on some wild personal reason.

The SC would see this and choose not to remove it.

Then your model would set up some sort of lawsuit and sue... presumably myself and the website.

Your model's claim that my little one-liner comment led to their emotional distress, increased anorexia or whatever would then have to be reviewed by a judge or jury.

But how the heck is your model going to control THEIR opinion? Shouldn't the right to control what other people think and say about the model's personal property extend to these people? Your reasoning is that they would likewise not be qualified to determine damage, hence the model's claim should be automatically accepted as 'inviolate' and automatically win.

Actually, I don't think this is quite how it would work out.

Your rights over what other people say do NOT change simply because what they say is short.

Your rights over what other people say do NOT change simply because you choose to take offense at something.

In fact, it's not even your rights at all that are the reason that this website chooses to remove hateful and truly libelous statements. They remove them because they choose to because of the standard they want to keep for the website.

I'd love to see what would happen if someone went to court and tried to claim that was libelous simply because they were offended. Libel is related to a person's reputation - NOT just how they feel that day.

02/20/2008 03:29:09 PM · #405

Originally posted by nomad469:

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

But it is not an example of a comment that has made it through the SC's filter since there is evidence that the SC has not received a report of it and you just get all hissy when we ask for some substantiation that is has any relation to this conversation. Until we hear that the comment has been reported, has been reviewed by SC and has been deemed non-libelous or whatever, it does not serve to show that there is a problem with the system consisting of such.

Of course once that was done, you would have to show how the comment was specifically defamatory as opposed to simply not a very nice thing to say.

So the bottom line is - do you have any examples that show there is a problem with the current system with the SC or not?

02/20/2008 03:35:17 PM · #406

Originally posted by eschelar:

Libel is related to a person's reputation - NOT just how they feel that day.

Yup. Really the only point in your long posts that I concur with. And SC is not qualified to make the distinction between what is actionable and what is not.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/20/2008 04:28:28 PM · #407

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Libel is related to a person's reputation - NOT just how they feel that day.

Yup. Really the only point in your long posts that I concur with. And SC is not qualified to make the distinction between what is actionable and what is not.

And who the heck are you to make such an assertion or judgement? Our group includes an attorney, and we have access to others.

Personally, I'm getting really tired about hearing what we've decided -- that some particular comment did not rise to the level of offensiveness requiring removal -- is somehow illegal or unconstitutional or whatever.

Most jury intructions include the premise of what a "reasonable person" would think ... this is a site devoted to the review and evaluation of photos -- I think most "reasonable persons" would expect submitters to understand that to include some statements of opinion which might bother some people or with which they might not agree.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/20/2008 04:34:17 PM · #408

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Libel is related to a person's reputation - NOT just how they feel that day.

Yup. Really the only point in your long posts that I concur with. And SC is not qualified to make the distinction between what is actionable and what is not.

And who the heck are you to make such an assertion or judgement?

I'm the guy who is potentially libelled. I get to make that assertion for myself, and let a judge decide the outcome.

This is merely a hypothetical discussion, and not an attack against you or the powers that be here. There's no need to take it personally.

About juries, have you read Matthew's post on the matter? He's a lawyer too. He tells us that the UK courts advise service providers to give control over comments to the person being commented on.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/20/2008 04:37:07 PM · #409

Now I see why my beautiful wife is slowly going insane. Daggone.

Message edited by author 2008-02-20 16:37:21.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/20/2008 04:39:02 PM · #410

I would hope her sanity isn't in jeopardy because people are choosing to have a rational discussion about how things work.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/20/2008 04:39:23 PM · #411

Originally posted by Louis:

I'm the guy who is potentially libelled. I get to make that assertion for myself, and let a judge decide the outcome.

Reporting comment = you making assertion of libel, SC = judges deciding if the comment rises to that level

Why would you accept that a judge has any right to determine what you consider libellous if you won't accept it here?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/20/2008 04:44:05 PM · #412

Originally posted by Louis:

I would hope her sanity isn't in jeopardy because people are choosing to have a rational discussion about how things work.

You've been given rational answers as to why things were decided as they were, and why things are likely to continue operating in a similar fashion. What's rational about continuing to harangue the decision-makers, rather than allow us to devote our attention to other site functions? How is "hypothetically" threatening to sue us over decisions we haven't made (and likely wouldn't) contributing to the site's operation? What kind of example are you setting for new users? Sanity may not be at risk, but patience surely is ...

Message edited by author 2008-02-20 16:45:02.

02/20/2008 04:44:55 PM · #413

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Louis:
I'm the guy who is potentially libelled. I get to make that assertion for myself, and let a judge decide the outcome.

Reporting comment = you making assertion of libel, SC = judges deciding if the comment rises to that level
Why would you accept that a judge has any right to determine what you consider libellous if you won't accept it here?

If it's a true case of libel that you've chosen to do nothing about, what recourse does a user have? All I'm suggesting is that you (collective) may not be in a position to accurately determine which comments are "bad" 100% of the time. Is it hypothetical? Sure it is, I've said so a million times. Is this an extremely unlikely scenario? Could be; the track record so far is a perfect determination every time. Is there a non-zero chance that the site could be put in a position to defend itself over a bad decision when the site has ultimate control over comments? Absolutely.

02/20/2008 04:50:32 PM · #414

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Louis:
I would hope her sanity isn't in jeopardy because people are choosing to have a rational discussion about how things work.

You've been given rational answers as to why things were decided as they were, and why things are likely to continue operating in a similar fashion. What's rational about continuing to harangue the decision-makers, rather than allow us to devote our attention to other site functions? How is "hypothetically" threatening to sue us over decisions we haven't made (and likely wouldn't) contributing to the site's operation? What kind of example are you setting for new users? Sanity may not be at risk, but patience surely is ...

Excuse me, but I didn't threaten anybody. I have accepted your rational explanations; have you read my previous posts on the matter? I take exception to the suggestion that I'm haranguing you. I feel a bit put upon by your reaction, quite frankly. I'm not taking your time away from anything; you are free not to participate here (this isn't a ticket, it's a thread). As far as I know, I'm at liberty to discuss anything I like, including site functionality and your decision-making process, ad nauseum. Although I'm starting to get the feeling that that may not be altogether true.

As far as setting an example for new users, I would have thought that not exploding in a thousand colours of rage every five minutes was a good start. I like to think I have at least a modicum of control, and that some of what I say is at least marginally rational.

02/20/2008 04:52:13 PM · #415

Originally posted by eschelar:

Spazmo, seriously you should ask a lawyer or something if you are really that concerned. The arguments about legality that have been presented in the last couple of pages are starting to get embarrassing. The SC responded pages back that there is a disclaimer in the TOS, which everybody participating here agreed to.

The disclaimer covers 'content' on this website. That includes photos AND words.

The ToS is an agreement between the site and the photographer. Where is the model in that agreement? There is no agreement regarding the site's use of a person's likeness, a person not subject to that agreement.

Think a lawsuit can't happen? Virgin mobile is being sued for using a photograph of a Texas teenager without her permission and tagging it with the words "Virgin to Virgin" which caused her to be ridiculed.

02/20/2008 04:52:28 PM · #416

Originally posted by Louis:

If that's the only point that you agree with, then I don't think I've got anything more to say since you obviously have not or can not read what I have written.

I'll take my 'non-zero' chances. They are a heck of a lot better than the extremely likely chances that I would be subject to abuse of comment removal powers by individuals who have absolutely no check against authority they have over MY content.

Message edited by author 2008-02-20 16:53:24.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/20/2008 04:54:43 PM · #417

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Obtaining a model release to post the image here is the photographer's responsibility -- the site did not suck that image off your hard drive.

Message edited by author 2008-02-20 16:55:12.

02/20/2008 05:03:02 PM · #418

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Where is the model? The model gives release to the PHOTOGRAPHER. The PHOTOGRAPHER then bears responsibility for how the image is used. See example below.

Originally posted by Spazmo:

Think a lawsuit can't happen? Virgin mobile is being sued for using a photograph of a Texas teenager without her permission and tagging it with the words "Virgin to Virgin" which caused her to be ridiculed.

As a photographer, you need to obtain permission to use a picture. The case you provided here is a good example of that since the fault lies in the fact that Virgin mobile used the photograph without permission. Further, as the 'owners' of the photograph, they were liable.

If this were the case, the hypothetical lawsuit that you guys are all worked up about would be filed against the PHOTOGRAPHER. NOT DPC. If the girl had given permission, there wouldn't have been a case now would there?

What would you say the correct course of action for Virgin would have been? I would say that logically it would have been to NOT DISPLAY the picture of the girl.

On DPC, the Photographer is you and me, the users.
If there were a relation and DPC were to be liable, then the above mentioned example of Virgin Mobile would have had the girl placing a lawsuit against all of the locations where the ad was placed AND all of the people who saw it and repeated it within earshot of anyone else.

DPC does not screen comments. Businesses screen ads.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/20/2008 05:05:48 PM · #419

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The ToS is an agreement between the site and the photographer. Where is the model in that agreement? There is no agreement regarding the site's use of a person's likeness, a person not subject to that agreement.

Obtaining a model release to post the image here is the photographer's responsibility -- the site did not suck that image off your hard drive.

Not exactly. Obtaining the release may be the responsibility of the photographer, however a model release is required for the use of that image. Which is why all of the stock sites require releases for each recognizable person in an image. If the liability that could arise from NOT having a release rested solely with the photographer, why would they bother? It's because, in the end, the liability extends the publisher. The copyright license extended to DPC by the photographer by agreeing to the ToS only covers the image, it does not extend to the likenesses of any person in the image.

Nikon D200

02/20/2008 05:07:49 PM · #420

We're editorial usage here; model releases aren't required.

02/20/2008 05:08:49 PM · #421

Originally posted by eschelar:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The ToS is an agreement between the site and the photographer. Where is the model in that agreement? There is no agreement regarding the site's use of a person's likeness, a person not subject to that agreement.

Where is the model? The model gives release to the PHOTOGRAPHER. The PHOTOGRAPHER then bears responsibility for how the image is used. See example below.

No.

That is wrong, the liability for the misuse of someone's likeness extends to the publisher. If the publisher does not have a release from the person in the image, they do not have the right to use that person's likeness and are liable.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/20/2008 05:19:56 PM · #422

Originally posted by L2:

We're editorial usage here; model releases aren't required.

So, as the de facto editor-in-chief, DPC is ultimately responsible for all comments, right?

And, releases would be required, should an image be used under the ToS to promote (i.e. sell) DPC.

Message edited by author 2008-02-20 17:20:33.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/20/2008 05:34:01 PM · #423

Originally posted by Louis:

All I'm suggesting is that you (collective) may not be in a position to accurately determine which comments are "bad" 100% of the time.

Perhaps not, but the diverse opinions of a dozen or more people should be a pretty close approximation of what a reasonable person might think. Your odds would probably be less with a single judge, and about the same with a jury.

You submit/post images fully aware that they will receive comments. People WILL comment on what they do or do not like in an image, and a photo that includes models will eventually draw comments such as, "I don't like the hair" or "the hands are not appealing." IMO, those are reasonable opinions of compositional elements that happen to be people. How else are the commenters supposed to tell you what works or not? Heck, you wouldn't be able to post ANY opinion of content on a nude or portrait challenge. Could the models take offense? Sure. Were the comments inherently malicious? No, not really. There must be some balance between the expectation of comments and the ability to leave them. If the post is clearly designed to hurt ("Dude, that nappy hair can't be human") then we remove it, but innocuous opinions stay. You are free to politely ask the commenter to rephrase or remove the post, but contrary to rumor, we're really not evil overlords who would sanction a commenter over an innocent post just because the recipient doesn't approve.