| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2008 03:04:38 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then give control to the photographers... it can't be censorship then. |
The photographer whose considered comment gets arbitrarily deleted may not agree. |
It isn't censorship. It might be something else, but it isn't censorship, ungratefulness perhaps. Petty, maybe. |
Removing what someone else authored isn't censorship? What is? |
By definition, censorship is practiced by authorities, not by individuals, and certainly not by individuals controlling their own property. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:07:32 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The recipient certainly does not own it. Whether SC or the recipient removes it, it is censorship of the author. |
No, you don't get to redefine the word just because you'd like to. It is perhaps censorship if you do it. It wouldn't be if the photographer did it. Much in the same way that copyright infringement isn't theft, just because the RIAA would like to redefine it that way because it sounds worse. That's why it would seem to be better to get the SC out of the equation. The collective you claim you are constantly inundated with removal requests, so this would save that time too. |
Removing what someone else authored isn't censorship? What is?
Hey... I've yanko'd yanko! |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:08:10 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Why is it nobody in favor of a delete button care about the sensitivity of the commenters? After all we are not talking about deleting malicious attacks designed to hurt because those do get removed when requested. |
What he said. |
The issue is one of control of one's own property. Sometimes the SC do not agree that a particular comment is damaging, after a photographer brings it up via the ticket system. I know from personal experience. In my view, they are not qualified to make such distinctions, and do so at their potential peril; turning control over to the actual owners of the material in question absolves them and this website of any liability arising from their inability to make accurate determinations 100% of the time. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:09:27 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by Louis:
By definition, censorship is practiced by authorities, not by individuals, and certainly not by individuals controlling their own property. |
So if eBay allowed sellers to delete any feedback they don't agree with, they would just be controlling their own property? That does not compute. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:10:25 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
By definition, censorship is practiced by authorities, not by individuals, and certainly not by individuals controlling their own property. |
So if eBay allowed sellers to delete any feedback they don't agree with, they would just be controlling their own property? That does not compute. |
Regardless of how its bent, the preceding is the accurate definition of "censorship". |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:13:39 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by Louis:
turning control over to the actual owners of the material in question absolves them and this website of any liability arising from their inability to make accurate determinations 100% of the time. |
So does the Terms of Use: "DPChallenge.com does not control the content (including Media) posted on the Website and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such content. You understand that by using the Website, you may be exposed to content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will DPChallenge.com be liable in any way for any content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Website."
The eBay example I posted (somebody else brought it up earlier) was meant to show that the premise is flawed whether you call it censorship or not. When you can delete the posted comments of others, you become the authority.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:16:25. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:15:35 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
turning control over to the actual owners of the material in question absolves them and this website of any liability arising from their inability to make accurate determinations 100% of the time. |
So does the Terms of Use: "DPChallenge.com does not control the content (including Media) posted on the Website and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such content. You understand that by using the Website, you may be exposed to content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will DPChallenge.com be liable in any way for any content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Website." ;-) |
I'll get my Pack-O-Lawyers® on that. :P |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:20:40 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by nomad469:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Send a polite PM- "I appreciate the time you took to post a comment (maybe a different camera angle or lighting could have worked), but my model is rather sensitive. Would you mind editing your comment to prevent an embarrassing situation? Thanks!" |
And if they refuse? |
In the very unlikely case they refused, you'd have a much stronger argument for showing the comment was intended maliciously. If the response is abusive, you'd simply report it. However, I believe that the VAST majority of voters will gladly rephrase or remove a sensitive comment if approached politely and respectfully (thereby eliminating the need for any SC involvement). If you want control, it's already within your power to have a comment changed or removed.
Look, I really have no problem with deleting ANY comment aimed at the model if the photographer requests it (and I've said as much in earlier SC discussions). My objection is to allowing photographer complete control over posted comments. In the photo with the "not very attractive belly" comment, there was one other comment that wasn't marked helpful. It was a respectful, on-target critique that addressed the photo itself. Do you think it would still be there if the photographer could remove it? Would the commenter continue posting constructive criticism if he found that his posts were being deleted by the photographers? |
DAMMIT SHANNON ... stop being reasonable ! :)
The point is that the photographer did not find it respectful or on target.
You might ... heck ... I might also ... but that is not the point. The point is that the photographer wanted the comment to go away ... he doesn't need to go to you guys to make the determination.
a system that would allow a member to just make comments go away on a limited basis would not harm at all the commenting system but would allow the member to control to some extent what is publicly visible in relation to his or her work.
This is not a issue about constructive critique. |
The example Shannon gave would be an issue of constructive critique and if such critiques were being removed on a regular basis if photographers had the ability (which I believe would happen, but just my guess), it would harm the commenting process. That is those who are active engaged in the commenting process would be effected should their comments be deleted not to mention the value of such comment lossed to everyone else. To say this wouldn't harm anything at all is wrong, IMO. These threads are proof of the heighten sensitivity among DPCers, do you think this sensitivity only functions when one has the photographer hat on? Why is it nobody in favor of a delete button care about the sensitivity of the commenters? After all we are not talking about deleting malicious attacks designed to hurt because those do get removed when requested.
What I don't get at all in this debate is the sense from others that just because you upload a photo to this web site that you "own" the page it displays on. You don't. Nor do you own the mini forum functionality attached to the photo page or who favs your work. Why anybody would think they should control any of this content of a site they don't own is beyond me. If we are going to just give people ownership of content they didn't author, why stop at just the photo page? Why not give me full editorial control over any thread I create or any thread I post a photo in? Actually we do have full control right now. It's called not uploading. I practice that all the time whenever I feel the subject of my photo might be sensitive to negative comments. |
There is effort on the part of the commenters for sure, but, for most instances, there's much less work into the comments than the image. How much effort goes into a comment that suggests taking the model for a Big Mac and Fries next time because she's thin? All it takes is a few keystrokes and the malicious intent of someone lurking behind the relative anonymity of the internet. I highly doubt that the people making such rude statements would do so to someone's face.
Effort alone does not validate the comment simply because someone expended the effort to comment. It's the intent with which that effort is expended. It took great effort to fly airliners full of people into the World Trade Center, does that make that act a good thing? How do you think the terrorists would feel if their plans had been thwarted? Do you care? Should you? It's an extreme example for sure, but the same thinking applies to such comments.
As to your argument about "owning" the comments attached to their image. The commenter "owns" their comment. They can return at anytime to edit, delete or otherwise modify it. Perhaps the comments on an image should be irrevocable as well? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:22:55 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Why is it nobody in favor of a delete button care about the sensitivity of the commenters? After all we are not talking about deleting malicious attacks designed to hurt because those do get removed when requested. |
What he said. |
The issue is one of control of one's own property. Sometimes the SC do not agree that a particular comment is damaging, after a photographer brings it up via the ticket system. I know from personal experience. In my view, they are not qualified to make such distinctions, and do so at their potential peril; turning control over to the actual owners of the material in question absolves them and this website of any liability arising from their inability to make accurate determinations 100% of the time. |
Maybe I missed the memo. When did we get ownership of the web pages at DPC? I know I own the photos I uploaded but I didn't realize I also own the space around it. If I own it, dammit I want to change my pages to black.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:24:08.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:23:04 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The eBay example I posted (somebody else brought it up earlier) was meant to show that the premise is flawed whether you call it censorship or not. When you can delete the posted comments of others, you become the authority. |
In this case (controlling comments on one's own photos), rightly so in my view. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:24:14 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe I missed the memo. When did we get ownership of the web pages at DPC? I know I own the photos I uploaded but I didn't realize I also own the space around it. If I own it dammit I want to change my pages to black. |
De Sousa made the point well earlier about photographic property and that which surrounds it (in a metaphysical, not physical, sense). |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:25:33 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
By definition, censorship is practiced by authorities, not by individuals, and certainly not by individuals controlling their own property. |
So if eBay allowed sellers to delete any feedback they don't agree with, they would just be controlling their own property? That does not compute. |
I believe eBay does allow negative feedback to be withdrawn, both parties are consulted and agree to mutually withdraw the feedback, and this is what is shown in feedback for sellers and buyers.
Perhaps not the best example to quote?? :) |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:26:32 PM · #288 |
| The comment is the commenters intellectual property and you become the authority by removing it, that is censorship. If the commenter altered you picture then thats different, but he/she merely left a statement about your picture, your not protecting your property, your policing what is said about your property. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:26:42 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How much effort goes into a comment that suggests taking the model for a Big Mac and Fries next time because she's thin? |
You miss the point. I have no problem with removing comments like that, but allowing photographers free rein to delete comments on their own does not limit them to even remotely offensive posts. Most of the comments we're asked to remove (I don't know the exact percentage) have nothing to do with models. They're usually polite, constructive criticism, and the photographer wants it removed because "this moron doesn't know what he's talking about."
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:29:36. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:27:43 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I believe eBay does allow negative feedback to be withdrawn, both parties are consulted and agree to mutually withdraw the feedback, and this is what is shown in feedback for sellers and buyers. |
Consultation is a far cry from allowing sellers to unilaterally delete anything they don't like. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:30:38 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
The comment is the commenters intellectual property and you become the authority by removing it, that is censorship. If the commenter altered you picture then thats different, but he/she merely left a statement about your picture, your not protecting your property, your policing what is said about your property. |
You aren't the one to decide whether or not I'm protecting my property, however; only I can decide that. And by definition, this is simply not censorship. I believe that's using a loaded word to intentionally misconstrue the owner's intent. But I'll accept your definition for these purposes. I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:30:59 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I believe eBay does allow negative feedback to be withdrawn, both parties are consulted and agree to mutually withdraw the feedback, and this is what is shown in feedback for sellers and buyers. |
Consultation is a far cry from allowing sellers to unilaterally delete anything they don't like. |
I agree wholeheartedly:) So, why not have a consultation process allowing comments to be withdrawn. It seems that everything hinges on SC's interpretation of what does or doesn't break ToS. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:31:48 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
... You are concerned with the learning part of this place and I'm completely with you, but from my experience I never took any valuable information from comments on the others photos. ... |
I find comments on other photos helpful. Many times I'll comment on a photo during a challenge and after the challenge is over I'll compare notes. It's a pretty good exercise IMO to see what I missed that other people commented on, or to see where other commenters were in agreement. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:32:25 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I believe eBay does allow negative feedback to be withdrawn, both parties are consulted and agree to mutually withdraw the feedback, and this is what is shown in feedback for sellers and buyers. |
Consultation is a far cry from allowing sellers to unilaterally delete anything they don't like. |
I agree wholeheartedly:) So, why not have a consultation process allowing comments to be withdrawn. It seems that everything hinges on SC's interpretation of what does or doesn't break ToS. |
This was another suggestion from earlier that I support. The cool thing is, depending on its implementation, it could all be automated, relieving SC from the workload in virtually 100% of the cases. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:33:20 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:34:47 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:35:29. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:39:33 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe I missed the memo. When did we get ownership of the web pages at DPC? I know I own the photos I uploaded but I didn't realize I also own the space around it. If I own it dammit I want to change my pages to black. |
De Sousa made the point well earlier about photographic property and that which surrounds it (in a metaphysical, not physical, sense). |
I didn't see it. Was it a legal defense? And this applies to the internet? Does it apply to art in general? Would the written word be subject to this as well? How far out does this ownership extend around the property? Seriously this is news to me.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 15:53:32.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:40:25 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
So, why not have a consultation process allowing comments to be withdrawn. It seems that everything hinges on SC's interpretation of what does or doesn't break ToS. |
I've long said that our first response should be to contact the commenter with the concern and see if he'd be willing to modify his post, however the photographer is fully capable of doing that on his own. Allowing photographers to delete comments on their own just shifts the offense from one side to the other, and from what I've seen FAR more people would be complaining about their innocuous posts deleted than the relatively tame comments we currently decline to remove. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:40:55 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Louis:
... I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
See my last post. |
I guarantee that you would learn nothing from comments I would choose to delete, and I suspect you would learn next to nothing from comments those that support this idea in these threads would choose to delete. As I've said, my use of such a feature would be virtually nil. But I want the option. |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by karmat:
Comment: Is that a real duck? That looks stuffed.
Photog: I would like this comment removed. It is an idiotic comment that does not help me improve the picture at all.
Comment: This looks like a snapshot.
Photog: This shot is obviously not a snapshot. I put a great deal of effort into this shot. It offends me that someone would say it was a snapshot.
Comment: That sky looks unnatural.
Photog: How in the world can a sky look unnatural. Of course it is a natural sky. This commenter has no idea about how to comment to improve my photography. Please remove.
Comment: The background would be better if it were more even/a different color/etc.
Photog: They obviously have no idea. I could not control this. Please remove it.
Comment: This shot reminds me of my great uncle, Horace.
Photog: This woman is nowhere near old enough to be a great aunt, and there is nothing manly about her. It is insulting to the model and does not improve my photography at all. Please remove.
Comment: I really don't like chess/horses/baby shots/the color green.
Photog: How is this helpful or constructive criticism. This is ridiculous.
|
if this is the level of things that would be 'lost' from the site - could you explain what the issue is ? Do you think other viewers are getting deep insight into photography by your preservation of these sorts of commentary ? The photographer may or may not get something from them and have obviously decided not to take anything from it. Anyone else is unlikely to gain much value from comparisons to Horace. One of the above is perhaps vaguely on topic, but again really only of value to the photographer who's decided not to care. |
I think a point that was missed since karmat posted these examples is that in several cases, these comments alone may not mean much as far as a learning/improvement tool to the photographer or a viewer. However, we're not seeing these in context. If the "sky looks unnatural" comment is mixed in with other comments making observations like "that hue of orange is rather interesting...I've not seen that before", or "the clouds seem to have picked up a pink tinge, perhaps from a hue shift?". Then, those seeking to learn from others may get a better idea of why that photo placed in the bottom 10% of the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 03:41:30 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
The comment is the commenters intellectual property and you become the authority by removing it, that is censorship. If the commenter altered you picture then thats different, but he/she merely left a statement about your picture, your not protecting your property, your policing what is said about your property. |
You aren't the one to decide whether or not I'm protecting my property, however; only I can decide that. And by definition, this is simply not censorship. I believe that's using a loaded word to intentionally misconstrue the owner's intent. But I'll accept your definition for these purposes. I want to be able to police what people say about my photos, for all the reasons I've mentioned previously. What difference does my practice of this potential feature make to you? |
Because free reign would lead to abuse and deletion of valuable learing comments. These are not just valuable to the the photog and commenter but to other viewers of the photo. I look at photos and then comments and alot of times someone points out something that was bothering me in the photo but I couldn't put my finger on it. Having these deleted at will b/c the photog chooses would be a shame and a discredit to a valuable diservice of this site. That does effect me and does make a difference to me. IF you really want to police your comments, there are tons of sites that allow that, why come here and change the rules when you agreed to them in the first place?
|
|
