| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2006 05:40:35 PM · #101 |
Mt strong suspicion is that this is simple naivete - there's simply such a wide range of images, and so very many of them, and no direct suggestion that they are being passed of as his/her own; proabbly just a resource for referencing the images in a blog, as has been suggested. The default 'for sale' thing is a shame, and certainly SmugMug ought to change that, but I can't believe this isn't a storm in a tea-cup.
My only worry is why the hell there are none of my images there.
e |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 05:49:06 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by e301:
The default 'for sale' thing is a shame, and certainly SmugMug ought to change that, but I can't believe this isn't a storm in a tea-cup.
|
Hi, you nailed it. These things happen SO infrequently, and are dealt with rapidly. We shouldn't have to suffer (nor the hundreds of thousands that buy prints from us) just becuase of a bad apple. It's being dealt with :) |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 05:50:01 PM · #103 |
| Andy - As a smugmuger and a digigrinner, I appreciate your getting personally involved, Andy and I'm a bit embarassed by the persons from DPC who would send you rude email before you've had the opportunity to take all necessary steps to solve this issue. I hope you are having sucess contacting the site owner and would love an update once all is resolved. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 05:55:42 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Andy - As a smugmuger and a digigrinner, I appreciate your getting personally involved, Andy and I'm a bit embarassed by the persons from DPC who would send you rude email before you've had the opportunity to take all necessary steps to solve this issue. I hope you are having sucess contacting the site owner and would love an update once all is resolved. |
Ditto....the bad behavior/email made dpchallenge look worse than the person with the photos on their account IMO.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 06:28:54 PM · #105 |
Everyone, if you see copyright violations on other sites, please be a good DPC ambassador and address your concerns through the proper channels while remaining polite and friendly. You do represent DPC when you write from this site or refer to it, and so be aware that your actions do reflect on this community and we hardly want to be known as that "site full of foul-mouthed hotheads"
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 18:46:12.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 06:38:45 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by frisca:
... we hardly want to known as that "site full of foul-mouthed hotheads" |
when did that change?!? great now I need to order new stationary...
:P |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:36:05 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by frisca:
... we hardly want to known as that "site full of foul-mouthed hotheads" |
when did that change?!? great now I need to order new stationary...
:P |
...and I can't exactly "unburn" their village. Oh well, live & burn- er, I mean learn. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:43:36 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Andy - As a smugmuger and a digigrinner, I appreciate your getting personally involved, Andy and I'm a bit embarassed by the persons from DPC who would send you rude email before you've had the opportunity to take all necessary steps to solve this issue. I hope you are having sucess contacting the site owner and would love an update once all is resolved. |
my thoughts exactly. the folks at smugmug and dgrin have been extremely helpful and giving of their time to me and many many others (andy even did some coding for my site - and i've never even met the man!). rudeness is not necessary.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 03:07:58 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Andy - As a smugmuger and a digigrinner, I appreciate your getting personally involved, Andy and I'm a bit embarassed by the persons from DPC who would send you rude email before you've had the opportunity to take all necessary steps to solve this issue. I hope you are having sucess contacting the site owner and would love an update once all is resolved. |
ditto! |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 06:08:44 AM · #110 |
The images that were stolen from some of us here at dpc were blocked when they got complaints from some of us. What about the other stolen stuff in that guy's galleries? Were they waiting to recieve complaints from the late Norman Rockwell?
The defense that they have so many photos that they can't keep track of them all is pure hogwash. Smugmug, unlike dpc, is a for-profit business. If they can't keep track they need to adjust their business model. And keep in mind when they are so graciously helping you with your pages there, they are making a profit off of you.
I really don't think that dpc'ers have to apologize for the way we have acted. The tenor of our complaints rose as a result of smugmug's unresponsiveness. I can understand that some of us who do business there don't want to be identified as part of a group of harsh complainers, but that is not a concern of this community as a whole. Please don't apologize for me to save your own face at smugmug.
The two representatives of smugmug mentioned a price of $0.19 but when I put the 4x6 Normal Rockwell into my cart it said $0.99.
I think that the statement about smugmug being protected from liability by the Terms of Service there customers agree to is wishful thinking, a paper tiger that would blow away like a feather when subjected to the harsh winds of justice. Think about it -- if someone bought a few prints of Norman Rockwell, and his estate decided to sue, do you think the judge is going to say it's OK for smugmug to reap the profits? Yeah, right.
And even after this incident blows over and all traces of that accout disappear there is still the question of the "for sale" default at smugmug. How on earth can they defend that? They are taking advantage even of their own unsuspecting account holders who may never have had any intention of selling anything. That's a crock.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 07:54:35 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
The defense that they have so many photos that they can't keep track of them all is pure hogwash. Smugmug, unlike dpc, is a for-profit business. If they can't keep track they need to adjust their business model. |
Aren't you being harsh?
If you had your own busines .. perhaps a store of some sort where you let your customers come in and sell their products through your store .. would we be right in expecting you to personally be responsible for every sale that goes through your store?
By the way, I have nearly 12,000 images posted on smugmug. I seriously doubt someone is overseeing all of my sales. No, I take that back. I don't just doubt it. I truly hope that they really aren't "so controlling" that they feel the need to watch every single sale I make.
Originally posted by coolhar:
And even after this incident blows over and all traces of that accout disappear there is still the question of the "for sale" default at smugmug. How on earth can they defend that? They are taking advantage even of their own unsuspecting account holders who may never have had any intention of selling anything. That's a crock. |
Again, it sounds harsh...
The only account that can be used to sell photos is the "Professional Account". While it's true, not everyone who purchases the "Professional Account" is actually a "professional", but I think the implication is there - that the purchasER needs to take some responsibility in setting up his or her account.
Yes, the default is that you can sell pictures. It also defaults to being a public folder. 99% of my own folders are private - for my customers. So I (as the account owner) have to make that decision as I set up the folder - it's just as easy to decide whether the images will be for sale as to decide whether they will be public (the choice is a radio button only a couple of lines below the radio button for the folder being made public).
I guess I don't see the big deal.
People should take responsibility for their own actions and stop expecting others to do it for them. The guy (girl?) that had the stolen pictures for sale is the one to be held responsibility - not the company whose software she used to do it.
When someone pulls a trigger and shoots someone, I fault the trigger puller, not the gun manufacturer.
Now, if the gun was faulty and went off by accident - that would be a different story. Likewise, if smugmug had accidently made the images available - without the account owner having a chance to know what was going on - then I would fault smugmug. That just isn't the case here. The options in the Professional Account folder setup are just too obvious to call it an accident.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 07:57:01 AM · #112 |
Hello there, coolhar, responses inline:
Originally posted by coolhar:
The images that were stolen from some of us here at dpc were blocked when they got complaints from some of us. What about the other stolen stuff in that guy's galleries? Were they waiting to recieve complaints from the late Norman Rockwell? |
If we are notified of photos that shouldn't be posted on SmugMug we will handle the situation immediately.
Originally posted by coolhar:
The defense that they have so many photos that they can't keep track of them all is pure hogwash. Smugmug, unlike dpc, is a for-profit business. If they can't keep track they need to adjust their business model. And keep in mind when they are so graciously helping you with your pages there, they are making a profit off of you.
I really don't think that dpc'ers have to apologize for the way we have acted. The tenor of our complaints rose as a result of smugmug's unresponsiveness. |
Oh Really? How could we have possibly acted faster than instantly up on notification? Oy vey.
Originally posted by coolhar:
I can understand that some of us who do business there don't want to be identified as part of a group of harsh complainers, but that is not a concern of this community as a whole. Please don't apologize for me to save your own face at smugmug.
The two representatives of smugmug mentioned a price of $0.19 but when I put the 4x6 Normal Rockwell into my cart it said $0.99. |
If you'd care to give me the photo & gallery link, I'll be happy to investigate. FYI, there is only ONE representative from SmugMug here, and that's me.
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think that the statement about smugmug being protected from liability by the Terms of Service there customers agree to is wishful thinking, a paper tiger that would blow away like a feather when subjected to the harsh winds of justice. Think about it -- if someone bought a few prints of Norman Rockwell, and his estate decided to sue, do you think the judge is going to say it's OK for smugmug to reap the profits? Yeah, right. |
Nope. And if we were made aware of such a situation we'd rectify it immediately - we're not evil.
Originally posted by coolhar:
And even after this incident blows over and all traces of that accout disappear there is still the question of the "for sale" default at smugmug. How on earth can they defend that? They are taking advantage even of their own unsuspecting account holders who may never have had any intention of selling anything. That's a crock. |
Well, I can tell you that our "unsuspecting" account holders enjoy printing their photos - mom&pop, the happy amateur, and our professionals as well.
Thanks for your comments on our TOS. We're comfortable with them, but it's always nice to hear disinterested, if not dispassionate, lay opinions. As to why we have printing "on" by default, well, thanks again for your input there. We'll leave it the way it is.
We appreciate everyone's comments, but let's not blow this out of proportion. It's one guy in a sea of 80,000,000 and we were on it as fas as possible. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:04:28 AM · #113 |
I agree completely with dw...and I think those of you who would apologize to smugmug's 'officials' for the way others acted are goofy to be honest. I just want to clear up the fact that I wasn't one of the people that sent a 'vulgar' or anything like that email. I'd consider my email nice and professional, but to the point.
I'd also like to point out the fact that it took them nearly 2 days to remove the galleries. They didn't remove the galleries because they were worried about someone infringing upon someone else's copyright. They removed the photos because they didn't want to get sued, and that's the bottom line, only reason.
Like I mentioned before, I was considering there or printroom.com for some little league and other events I'm covering for selling to parents, but Smugmug's care-free attitude about photographers' rights really opened my eyes wide.
-----
Lastly, it's one thing for a few people in a comunity to get smart with their responses and act a little immature. We don't have an image to uphold to a community like the owners / representatives of smugmug do. This last post, Andy, you're out of line. Someone that is supposed to be 'professional' like yourself really shouldn't be getting involved like you are. The customer is always right...and in your case, that means the potential customer, as well, is always right...I think you're ruining your business, and if things continue they way they have for the past 3 days, your site is destined for failure...and to end up in court.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:09:38 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
People should take responsibility for their own actions and stop expecting others to do it for them. The guy (girl?) that had the stolen pictures for sale is the one to be held responsibility - not the company whose software she used to do it.
|
So if some crazy guy runs up to to a gun store, steals a gun and a clip of ammo and runs around on the street with it...you tell the people that are authorized to legally take the guy's gun away from him (the police) and they don't do anything about it for 3 days, and in the course of those three days, he shoots your mother, or father, or wife, or husband, or children, who's responsible?
Sure the guy shouldn't have done it in the first place, but if the proper authorities did their job properly, and when notified, it wouldn't have been an issue. Imagine having to threaten the police with lawsuits for negligence and knowingly allowing people to commit crimes before they're willing to step it up a notch...pure insanity.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:34:54 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I agree completely with dw...and I think those of you who would apologize to smugmug's 'officials' for the way others acted are goofy to be honest. I just want to clear up the fact that I wasn't one of the people that sent a 'vulgar' or anything like that email. I'd consider my email nice and professional, but to the point.
I'd also like to point out the fact that it took them nearly 2 days to remove the galleries. They didn't remove the galleries because they were worried about someone infringing upon someone else's copyright. They removed the photos because they didn't want to get sued, and that's the bottom line, only reason.
Like I mentioned before, I was considering there or printroom.com for some little league and other events I'm covering for selling to parents, but Smugmug's care-free attitude about photographers' rights really opened my eyes wide.
-----
Lastly, it's one thing for a few people in a comunity to get smart with their responses and act a little immature. We don't have an image to uphold to a community like the owners / representatives of smugmug do. This last post, Andy, you're out of line. Someone that is supposed to be 'professional' like yourself really shouldn't be getting involved like you are. The customer is always right...and in your case, that means the potential customer, as well, is always right...I think you're ruining your business, and if things continue they way they have for the past 3 days, your site is destined for failure...and to end up in court. |
Hi Deapee, thanks for posting. I'll stand by my comments. And as well, by the swiftness of our action - which was darn near immediate as soon as one of your members brought this issue to our attention.
All the best,
Andy
SmugMug |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:37:09 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by deapee:
but if the proper authorities did their job properly, and when notified, it wouldn't have been an issue. Imagine having to threaten the police with lawsuits for negligence and knowingly allowing people to commit crimes before they're willing to step it up a notch...pure insanity. |
Already covered, several times in this thread. Response was immediate upon notification of the first gallery. I don't guess you'll believe that, though.
And now, we are investigating, waiting for the gallery owner to reply to us. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:43:24 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by awilliamsny:
Originally posted by deapee:
but if the proper authorities did their job properly, and when notified, it wouldn't have been an issue. Imagine having to threaten the police with lawsuits for negligence and knowingly allowing people to commit crimes before they're willing to step it up a notch...pure insanity. |
Already covered, several times in this thread. Response was immediate upon notification of the first gallery. I don't guess you'll believe that, though.
And now, we are investigating, waiting for the gallery owner to reply to us. |
Seriously dude, don't play those cards with me. Other folks might not be aware that you're lieing, but I sat here and watched from the moment this thread began...someone posted, someone notified you guys, and then 48 hours later, Normal Rockwell's photos were still available to purchase for nineteen cents...there were photos available of the earth from outer space for nineteen cents. There were shots that were on the cover of National Geographic for nineteen cents.
That's when I stepped in and emailed smugmug. At which time, about 3 hours later, they responded and said that unfortunately they cannot be held responsible for any damages from any photographer whose prints sell on there for nineteen cents because their 'terms' protect them against that. At which time (about 8 hours later) I wrote to them explaining how they couldn't possibly have terms that protect them against damages from knowingly receiving, distributing, and selling someone's copyrighted, stolen property....it was THEN and only THEN that they shut off access to the galleries.
Don't make it sound like as soon as you guys knew, you promptly swept into action and closed the galleries...because that is lying to me, yourself, and the entire community.
There is nothing wrong with making an error...if a person or a company is willing and able to man up and accept the fact that they made an error of judgement...I think a public apology would be more acceptable, and maybe gain smugmug back some respect, from me anyway...instead of parading around, pretending like you're some little photographers-rights advocate, when the truth is, that in this situation, your company was protecting one thing, and that was its own behind. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:46:55 AM · #118 |
You are making yourself look like an ass deapee.
Just being honest. Let it go. It is over.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:51:50 AM · #119 |
this so makes no sense at all, actually I read every post since this thread had started and it pisses me off with all the rudeness I have read here, and to send at them more than a few rude emails just cause of one dam guy is childness. Come on calm down people it was one persons site and they are looking into it. I am a smugmug member and even if I was not this would still bother me as stated before in this thread it makes all of DPC look like a bunch of hotheads here. The more post I read here on different subjects turn into a war.....
Just let it go already they are looking into it, I have lost no respect at all for smugmug and I dont think Andy should have to make a public apology should be needed damn if it is we here at DPC need to make one too. If you see photos of your that were stole jsut send a email explaining that it's yours and not a rude email...
For this thread to go on for almost a week now makes no sense...
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 09:58:07.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:52:10 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by rex:
You are making yourself look like an ass deapee.
Just being honest. Let it go. It is over. |
Thankyou rex
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:53:26 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by digitalpins:
... Thankyou rex |
Why? He's just adding fuel to the fire.
edit to add "He's".
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 08:54:01. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:54:31 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Seriously dude, don't play those cards with me. |
Cards? I love cards.
Really, deapee! OK again, for the 100th time:
I was personally notified via IM from a dpc memeber (devbobo) about the gallery, a single gallery - which I shut right away. 24 hours later I was told about more on the site, so I put a lock on the site.
I can live with this. You can't, that's fine by us. But at this point, you are beating a dead horse. All this time going back and forth is taking me away from other duties, so I'll say thanks for helping us uncover this situation, and do let us know of any other photo violations you see out there, we appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 08:57:37 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by digitalpins:
as stated before in this thread it makes all of DPC look like a bunch of hotheads here. |
And who was the first one to post something like this. The quick smartass himself rex. :-)
hmmmmmmmmm.
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 08:57:56.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 09:17:18 AM · #124 |
| I'm suprised that they shut them down that fast. Lets say there is a photographer that is local to me and beats me out for an event and really makes me mad, I make a complaint and they take his photos down without him even knowing. Surly you can see why they wouldn't cut off a paying customer before they investigate a little. Although it sounds like they did it pretty quick. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 09:29:08 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by rex:
You are making yourself look like an ass deapee.
|
Actually, I don't think so. If all is correct as to deapee's reported chronology of events, then it strikes me that he has every right to be angry and that there may be an element of truth in his harsh judgement of SmugMug's conduct.
awilliamsny, you said "I was personally notified via IM from a dpc memeber (devbobo) about the gallery, a single gallery - which I shut right away. 24 hours later I was told about more on the site, so I put a lock on the site".
Given that one gallery on a specific user's site contained stolen material, didn't you think to perhaps cast a passing glance over that user's other galleries? What were the possibilities of perhaps running a statistics query on his uploads - so many in such a short space of time across many galleries might have also given some cause for further investigation, had you taken a moment at the first notification of theft, and not waited for half a week till someone finally blew some smoke up your backsides?
Given the discrepancy between your timing of events (24hrs) and deapee's (approx 60 hrs), I can only assume that you were told around the time devbobo posted in this thread. Who was in charge from the time the first notice sent to administrators on the 11th June by Arnit, and devbobo's notice to you later, and why didn't they take action?
So, yeah, deapee is being pretty harsh, but I don't think it is completely undeserved.
Message edited by author 2006-06-14 09:40:39. |
|
