| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2006 11:18:29 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Well, you guys are all taking it a lot better than I would be.
|
Which is surprising, because you are usually so calm, cool and collected... |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:21:50 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by deapee:
Well, you guys are all taking it a lot better than I would be.
|
Which is surprising, because you are usually so calm, cool and collected... |
Yeah true, good point...
No, in all seriousness though, I'm not talking about flipping out and losing your cool about the situation, I'm talking about getting on the phone or doing whatever it is that you have to do to get your copyrighted photos off this guy's gallery. Obviously writing a nice calm email just isn't enough for smugmug to remove obviously stolen photos.
I sent them an email of myself and if anyone needs a copy of the email for court reasons, to show they were informed of the situation and did nothing about it, I'll be happy to provide you with that, just let me know.
--
Seriously, there is only so much you can sit back and just watch photographers' rights getting thrown to the ground and stomped on before you just gotta stand up and speak your mind. I, personally, was considering signing up at smugmug for that pro account for prints, but after this, I guarantee you that's definately not going to happen.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 06:52:45 AM · #78 |
| Magnum are onto it now, in re the Erwitt images ... |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:01:04 AM · #79 |
Hi deapee,
Firstly, let me start out by saying that I am not a smugmug employee, but I am a volunteer moderator over at dgrin.com
I totally understand issues that photogs have expressed in this thread, but please don't say nothing has been done. I have personally ensured that galleries that were infringing on copyrights from photogs here on dpchallenge.com have been made inaccessible.
I realise that there are numerous other galleries that need to be addressed, while some of this stuff could be argued as being in the public domain, my personal belief is that it doesn't belong on smugmug. I will taking this issue up with Andy today.
I have also attempted to address the issue of the photos being available for sale (which I believe was unintentional), by suggesting that smugmug reverse this setting to be off by default instead of on. Whether this change is adopted is out of my control.
smugmug and dgrin.com like dpchallenge.com are trying to make the internet a better place for photogs to share, learn and display their work for the benefit of everyone.
Cheers,
David |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:03:39 AM · #80 |
The man should NOT have anything other than his own photographs on his web pages..period. there is copywritten information there (i.e. - photographs of books, norman rockwell work, and other photographers copywritten work)
Originally posted by devbobo:
Hi deapee,
Firstly, let me start out by saying that I am not a smugmug employee, but I am a volunteer moderator over at dgrin.com
I totally understand issues that photogs have expressed in this thread, but please don't say nothing has been done. I have personally ensured that galleries that were infringing on copyrights from photogs here on dpchallenge.com have been made inaccessible.
I realise that there are numerous other galleries that need to be addressed, while some of this stuff could be argued as being in the public domain, my personal belief is that it doesn't belong on smugmug. I will taking this issue up with Andy today.
I have also attempted to address the issue of the photos being available for sale (which I believe was unintentional), by suggesting that smugmug reverse this setting to be off by default instead of on. Whether this change is adopted is out of my control.
smugmug and dgrin.com like dpchallenge.com are trying to make the internet a better place for photogs to share, learn and display their work for the benefit of everyone.
Cheers,
David |
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 08:12:56. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:07:53 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Di:
The man should NOT have anything other than his own photographs on his web pages..period. there is copywritten information there (i.e. - photographs of books)
|
Di,
I totally agree with you. Please don't get me wrong, but with millions of photos it's hard to police this sort of thing.
Please don't shoot the messenger, I am trying to do the right thing here.
Thanks,
David
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 08:11:02. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:14:04 AM · #82 |
Geez...after the email I sent, Smugmug replies back and says they are still looking into it and "Smugmug's terms protect us from being held responisble for the actions of photographers."
So I guess that mean then that it's an ok thing to still allow to be floating around on the internet. Imagine if Smugmug didn't have its terms, then they'd probably take the galleries down right away lol.
Anyway, someone has to be responsible if a print that a photographer was going to sell for $500.00 is sold for nineteen cents.
--
It's like a used car lot. Say that Joe's used car lots 'terms' protect them against the actions held by the 'used car scouts'. So used car scouts have to go looking for cars and find them cheap, then bring them back to be resold. The car scouts aren't allowed to bring back stolen cars. This one guy brings back 40 cars in one week, and about 50 people tell the used car lot owner that pretty much 39 of those 40 cars are stolen. I'm positively sure, without a shadow of a doubt that used car lot, regardless of any terms its 'car scouts' agreed to, is now responsible for any damages from the sales of those cars.
--
Anyway, does anyone know where I can get a copy of a set of these terms to use for myself to protect me against damages from receiving, selling, and redistributing stolen property? My take on it is that this guy that runs smugmug apparently thinks he is above the law for whatever reason. That's just a shame.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:18:43 AM · #83 |
I agree that you are trying to address the issue... but I still see copywritten items on his site, I would like to see his whole site password protected until he's addressed the fact he has photographs on his site that do not belong to him that are for sale... or put photographs of copywritten books on his site.
Originally posted by devbobo:
Originally posted by Di:
The man should NOT have anything other than his own photographs on his web pages..period. there is copywritten information there (i.e. - photographs of books)
|
Di,
I totally agree with you. Please don't get me wrong, but with millions of photos it's hard to police this sort of thing.
Please don't shoot the messenger, I am trying to do the right thing here.
Thanks,
David |
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:19:31 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by devbobo:
I totally agree with you. Please don't get me wrong, but with millions of photos it's hard to police this sort of thing.
|
It's not hard to police these sorts of things when there are people that find the infringing galleries and photos for you. I don't know how many people contacted smugmug about the galleries, but they're not doing anything because, like Dustin Whatever said, ::cough:: our Terms protect us from being held responsible.
Originally posted by devbobo:
smugmug and dgrin.com like dpchallenge.com are trying to make the internet a better place for photogs...
|
Yeah...hiding behind some 'legal' set of terms that probably couldn't stand up in a municipal court, let alone the court that someone would probably be taking you to if their $1000 print was sold for nineteen cents.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:22:21 AM · #85 |
Comment made in the heat of the moment. Removed
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 08:55:05. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:27:42 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by devbobo:
Originally posted by deapee:
Anyway, someone has to be responsible if a print that a photographer was going to sell for $500.00 is sold for nineteen cents.
|
Let's get serious for a second, please tell what size prints you are going to get from 800x600 image ? And are you seriously selling 6x4 images for $500 ? |
Seriousness isn't worth anything. I guarantee you that all I'd have to do is prove in a court of law that I have the 4x6, 800x600 photograph up for sale for $500 dollars while I print was sold at smugmug for nineteen cents, and smugmug would be held responsible.
--
I can't believe that smugmug and its representitives still want to argue whether one is serious or not about a hypothetical situation. Please, go put some effort into fixing the problem with having galleries full of other photographers' copyrighted works that is for sale. Take my word for it my friend...before I go and search through this guy's galleries for one of my own copyrighted photos. And I pray now, please, please, let me find something of mine in there...something, anything!!
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:30:22 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by deapee:
It's not hard to police these sorts of things when there are people that find the infringing galleries and photos for you. I don't know how many people contacted smugmug about the galleries, but they're not doing anything because, like Dustin Whatever said, ::cough:: our Terms protect us from being held responsible.
|
ummm....did u not read my reply from before ?
The galleries that are infringing on dpchallenge.com photogs have been removed. I am not privy to what details you provided in your email to smugmug in regard to what galleries etc.
You have to understand as well, that I live in Australia so I have a limited window in which I can contact people to try to get this sorted out. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:31:27 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by devbobo:
Originally posted by deapee:
Anyway, someone has to be responsible if a print that a photographer was going to sell for $500.00 is sold for nineteen cents.
|
Let's get serious for a second, please tell what size prints you are going to get from 800x600 image ? And are you seriously selling 6x4 images for $500 ? |
Guess the point was not really the exact amount of $500, the point was something on the lines of "amount high enough to matter for the owner of the image".
- |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:31:35 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by devbobo:
Originally posted by deapee:
Anyway, someone has to be responsible if a print that a photographer was going to sell for $500.00 is sold for nineteen cents.
|
Let's get serious for a second, please tell what size prints you are going to get from 800x600 image ? And are you seriously selling 6x4 images for $500 ? |
As I see it (and it would seem some here would agree), it's not the size of the print that matters, it's the principle of the thing. Selling stolen artwork $499.81 less than its going value, as set by the photog, is wrong. deapee has a point. To whom does the responsibility of restitution fall - the photog is now out that much money, assuming that a copy of the print was sold.
As some have said earlier in this thread, the person doing this should be pulled up real short and tossed out on their backside. There's not a whole lot of investigation required here. They violated rights. Necessary result: end game. A more aggressive stance against this sort of thing, wide spread, would help us all in the end.
My $.02 |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:32:18 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by devbobo:
smugmug and dgrin.com like dpchallenge.com are trying to make the internet a better place for photogs to share, learn and display their work for the benefit of everyone.
|
Oh, and please don't lump dpchallenge and smugmug into the same sentence. I know for sure that if something like that happened here on dpchallenge, the galleries would be closed, probably within minutes, of notification. They wouldn't stand back and argue about how they're not responsible. They would use common sense to see that the photos were stolen, and take action, not to protect themselves from legal problems, but to protect the copyright of the original photographer.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:37:19 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Seriousness isn't worth anything. I guarantee you that all I'd have to do is prove in a court of law that I have the 4x6, 800x600 photograph up for sale for $500 dollars while I print was sold at smugmug for nineteen cents, and smugmug would be held responsible. |
deapee,
ok...I admit that wasn't the most thought out response, written in the heat of the moment.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, I agree and I am trying to sort this mess out.
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 09:14:48. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:38:10 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Oh, and please don't lump dpchallenge and smugmug into the same sentence. I know for sure that if something like that happened here on dpchallenge, the galleries would be closed, probably within minutes, of notification. They wouldn't stand back and argue about how they're not responsible. They would use common sense to see that the photos were stolen, and take action, not to protect themselves from legal problems, but to protect the copyright of the original photographer. |
Deapee, Karmat has already told us earlier in the thread that dpchallenge first requests from the offender that the images in question be removed, and they there has not been a request (to her knowledge) that was not complied with. Here at DPC we have not faced a similiar situation yet.
As devbobo has stated numerous times, the galleries including pictures from DPC have been removed or otherwise denied public access.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 09:00:43 AM · #93 |
Devbobo Thanks for helping get r beckstead's site password protected while smugmug sorts out the copywrite infringement he'd doing!
Hopefully he only posts his own photographs from now on :)
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 09:02:00. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 09:03:47 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
If any print were in fact sold shouldn't the profits actually be returned to the actual photographers? |
While their was printing available on those photos, none were for sale, none sold, at any profit to the site owner.
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 09:08:19. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 09:07:05 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by devbobo:
smugmug and dgrin.com like dpchallenge.com are trying to make the internet a better place for photogs to share, learn and display their work for the benefit of everyone.
|
Oh, and please don't lump dpchallenge and smugmug into the same sentence. I know for sure that if something like that happened here on dpchallenge, the galleries would be closed, probably within minutes, of notification. They wouldn't stand back and argue about how they're not responsible. They would use common sense to see that the photos were stolen, and take action, not to protect themselves from legal problems, but to protect the copyright of the original photographer. |
Hi deapee,
I'm from SmugMug. With nearly 100,000,000 photos online, and over 100,000 customers, we simply can't scour each gallery and each photo - it's hard! We take copyright violation very seriously. I'm the House Pro, and also a working professional photographer - so I know how you guys feel!
When we hear of violations, we investigate them thoroughly and completely. I have contacted the site owner, and I'll hear from him I'm sure. In the meantime, his site is shut to viewing.
Thanks everyone,
Andy
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 09:17:44 AM · #96 |
Thank you, also, Andy for locking his site until you can talk to him!
Originally posted by awilliamsny:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by devbobo:
smugmug and dgrin.com like dpchallenge.com are trying to make the internet a better place for photogs to share, learn and display their work for the benefit of everyone.
|
Oh, and please don't lump dpchallenge and smugmug into the same sentence. I know for sure that if something like that happened here on dpchallenge, the galleries would be closed, probably within minutes, of notification. They wouldn't stand back and argue about how they're not responsible. They would use common sense to see that the photos were stolen, and take action, not to protect themselves from legal problems, but to protect the copyright of the original photographer. |
Hi deapee,
I'm from SmugMug. With nearly 100,000,000 photos online, and over 100,000 customers, we simply can't scour each gallery and each photo - it's hard! We take copyright violation very seriously. I'm the House Pro, and also a working professional photographer - so I know how you guys feel!
When we hear of violations, we investigate them thoroughly and completely. I have contacted the site owner, and I'll hear from him I'm sure. In the meantime, his site is shut to viewing.
Thanks everyone,
Andy |
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 09:24:06 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by xianart:
all of the above, and then there's the horendous abuse of apostrophes. if i see one more plural written as 's, i may flip. or the it's/its conundrum (it's - contraction of it is, its is possesive)
grammar nazi back in the box... |
You know, there's only a limited supply of apostrophes in the world. If people keep using them for plurals, we're going to run out. And then where will we be? An apostrophe-less world would be a sad, sad place.
So please, folks. Be kind. Please help save the apostrophes! |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 10:45:23 AM · #98 |
Hello Everyone,
Please - we've received some angry emails from some of you. This is not helpful! We're doing everything we can to investigate this situation - It is most certainly *not* negligence on SmugMug's part, as has been written to us in several emails. From the moment I was made aware of the violation, I locked the gallery in question. Then, after receiving more information, we took further action. I've contacted the site owner, put a lock on his site, and we're investigating thoroughly. This is all being done is as expeditious and fair manner as possible.
Accusatory, inflammatory emails to our help staff are not the way to go about this - our attention has been gotten, and we're on it! |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 10:52:07 AM · #99 |
Well said and well met Andy.
Decency folks?
Yeesh. All the guy did was rip some small size prints.
It's not like he entered your personal computer and stole 3x4 foot prints.
Excessive pride gets ya nowhere... Sure is stressful for you though... |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 12:01:01 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Well said and well met Andy.
Decency folks?
Yeesh. All the guy did was rip some small size prints.
It's not like he entered your personal computer and stole 3x4 foot prints.
Excessive pride gets ya nowhere... Sure is stressful for you though... |
Stealing is stealing. What does the size of the print have to do with anything? |
|
