Hey Mike - I didn't think that your contribution was stupid or self serving; while perhaps sarcastic, and certainly comical, it was as valid a suggestion as any - but then I've been know to shoot Velvia at sunset. And for what it's worth, I had to reread that thread twice before I discovered Heroique's admonition.
Ken, I think you balance on the line well.
I was hoping we could keep personal names anonymous, especially Mike’s.
BTW, he contacted me; I didn’t contact him. He contacted me once this thread was up and going, as I explained above.
And we should be careful to quote Mike’s own concerns to me:
“I can’t seem to remove the posts myself but made requests to Kirk and Ken to remove them. Again I apologize and won't be doing that kind of thing anymore. ....Mike”
----
What may remain as a chief concern for some, however, is why the very first request wasn’t immediately acted upon, but rather brushed-off w/ a “don’t worry about it.” And why the second request wasn’t acted upon either. About this idea of “stirring things up,” I never saw potential for that, and I presume that Mike didn’t either. As for Kirk’s “perspective” – Dude, read the guidelines – that’s exactly the part that forum moderation seems to have forgotten, and might need to re-learn.
Anyway, I hope the larger issue of posting personal images w/ moderated protections has earned some beneficial attention. In view of Ken’s sensitive comments, it seems that it has – and I’ve won back some of my motivation to post images here. ;^)
Perhaps the willy-nilly deletion of someone's contribution wasn't carried out because "walking the thin line" requires the moderator to consider many view points and sensitivities, not just yours.
Regarding the anonymity of the interested parties, by quoting the PM (PERSONAL MESSAGE) you as much as fingered Ken when you wrote, "and I admire your work that helps settle it". For those unable to discern his identity, you effectively accused all moderators of the (perceived) objectionable action of one.
As much as I enjoy your contributions, particularly your photographs, I think you're largely to blame here. Your sensitivity to having your image(s) manipulated should be respected, but you as much as baited what transpired by not making it clear in your original post.
Furthermore, how is publicly paraphrasing your personal dialog with Ken any different than someone cropping or decreasing the luminescence of your photo? One way in which it differs is that you chose to make your photo public.
Last edited by Eric James; 20-Jun-2011 at 15:43.
I'm with Eric on this - you seem to have baited this set of circumstances.
If someone offends you take it up with them directly in the thread. A terse "HEY, DON'T DO THAT TO MY PICTURE!!" should be sufficient. Don't wait for a moderator to make your world right. And especially don't do it by publicly calling "them" out. "Them" being all or some of the moderators. "They" have other things to do.
And a bit more advice - once you post something on the 'net its done. You still have every right you had to the work prior to posting but you're going to have to stand up and assert and protect your copyright. I've found that a sharply worded email will get most any copyright infringer to stop.
My thought is that if there is a stated preference for it not to be done, then it shouldn't be done (it is a matter of respect). But if it is done, it really isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, so don't worry about it.
Hi Heroique, it looks like a PM to Mike would have solved the problem. As soon as he discovered your objections he acted to remove them.
You are still not getting it. Read what I posted. In your first post you insinuated there were no forum guidelines to cover this. There are and I posted them for you. You need to be knowledgeable of what is in the guidelines. You must take that responsibility first and foremost.As for Kirk’s “perspective” – Dude, read the guidelines – that’s exactly the part that forum moderation seems to have forgotten, and might need to re-learn.
If you had simply followed the guidelines in the first place and emailed all the moderators with your complaint the problem most likely would have been solved. But instead.........
Another section of the guidelines you seem to have overlooked:
Instead you emailed your favorite moderator. Next time follow the guidelines and report problems to all the moderators.Our moderators are volunteers and are not able to constantly monitor threads throughout the day. If you find a post offensive, please notify the moderator group by clicking the icon at the lower left of the offending post, or through the "Contact Us" link at the very bottom of the page. This is the only accepted way to report posts.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Informal plan:
Email to Ken.
Done.
Something is either unique or it isn't. There are no degrees of uniqueness.Originally Posted by Leigh
I think I would write the letter myself. No point making lawyers even richer!
Steve.
There certainly are degrees of uniqueness when it comes to convincing a jury that the image in question is really yours and not just one that looks like yours.
- Leigh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks