Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: rvanr on June 01, 2006, 06:42:29 am
-
I just wanted to let you know I really like the new Home Page photograph (Bathtub and Sand Dune. Kolmanskop, Namibia. April, 2006).
I like images that tell a story and especially the ones where the story is not immediately clear. How did a bathtub end up in the desert? I also like the bird tracks (if they are that?) very much.
Thanks for sharing this one with us Michael.
Ruud
-
I agree wholeheartedly. Fine shot, great b/w tonality.
I just wanted to let you know I really like the new Home Page photograph (Bathtub and Sand Dune. Kolmanskop, Namibia. April, 2006).
I like images that tell a story and especially the ones where the story is not immediately clear. How did a bathtub end up in the desert? I also like the bird tracks (if they are that?) very much.
Thanks for sharing this one with us Michael.
Ruud
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I had to laugh at the latest home page image "Lillooet Silhouette".
This would go in my round file.
-
> This would go in my round file.
Me too, maybe sans tree but probably not even then.
- DL
-
Well, one can't appeal to all tastes.
Fortunately you guys don't swing a large check book. I received an email today from a publishing company that would like to license the shot for a book cover, so there's at least one other person out there that likes it besides me.
Chacun a son gout.
Michael
-
> Fortunately you guys don't swing a large check book.
Big enough to buy your book
ps absolutely loved the last homepage photo
- DL
-
I liked your film work much better. Just one opinion I know.
-
One more vote for the bathtub in sand. But I'm happy for you that someone else likes the "Lillooet Silhouette".
Eric
P.S. My current exhibit in Newton, MA, has both color and B&W prints. The first color one sold was my wife's least favorite, and the first B&W sold was her least favorite of those.
So yes, indeed, "Chacun a son gout."
-
Chacun a son gout.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactement. La critique est facile, mais l'art est difficile. Critics tend to yell while artists speak. Eventually, we need not to forget where we stand: artists or critics. The critique we impose upon others may be imposed in equal amount to ourselves at a future time... Something to keep in mind. Why make our life more difficult than it is?
Love, or live it ;-) I love it.
Alain
-
Guess I started this. It was not intention to publicly humiliate. I realize that this is Michaels website and not a critique forum. So possibly it was out of place to offer a comment.
I actively seek critique usually on the NPN forums because:
1) I want to improve my photography and I value the opinions of others even if I do not always agree with them.
2) I am sometimes not a good judge of my own work. I mix the excitement and perceptions I had at the time of the shoot with objective evaluation of the resulting image.
This website has been of great value for me in learning about photography and garnering enthusiasm. I do feel though that the focus has moved from creative imaging more to evaluating technology. I'm just not too excited about the latest technology...still on 4x5
I remember doing this once before and the response was the same: someone was interested in licensing the image I didn't like. Hmm.
-
> Critics tend to yell while artists speak.
What's the fuss? No one was yelling, only commenting. Some people seem to be able to criticize freely but have a hard time accepting comments made with no malice. Sort of like the jokesters who turn red when the joke's on them. In general I like Michael's photos very much - enough to buy his book, but this particular image stuck me as odd, but that's just my opinion. Are we only allowed to express positive feedback here?
- DL
-
Lillooet Silhouette is why I am here. Photography, like all art, is a matter of personal taste. For me, Michael’s images capture the wonder of the planet without a whiff of documentary tedium. If I had to pick a photographer’s work to email to a galaxy far, far away, I think the Empire would both enjoy Michael’s work and learn a lot about life on planet Earth.
-
Hold on. Reread the thread. No one was upset. No one was insulted.
Don't read too much into causual comments.
And yes, I do license many of my images. Especially the better ones.
That's how I make part of my living. Why be surprised?
Michael
-
Peace
-
> Critics tend to yell while artists speak.
What's the fuss? No one was yelling, only commenting.
This is a general statement, not directed towards the posts on this thread.
-
> not directed towards the posts on this thread.
Sorry Alain,
I'm a bit testy today - among other things I publish an online magazine and just got hit with a demand for $3900 payment from a stock agency claiming illegal use of an image. The editor had downloaded it for editorial use from a photo sharing site which has instructions for posting on your website and lists no restrictions. Amazingly the stock agency had uploaded the image to the site but now claims it is rights managed, and magically overnight a restricted use notice has appeared. Grrrr..
The ironic thing is the stock agency claims all their images are exclusively licensed, but the identical image cropped slightly differently is available from another royalty free stock site for a $1.40 licensing fee including commercial usage.
- DL
-
Personally, I like "Lillooet Silhouette". Not because it "moves" me, but because I find it refreshing in terms of approaching a subject.
I am sure that given the location, the majority would make the "obvious" photo, i.e. the one without the tree (just the vista of the lake). And I believe that Michael did too.
What I like about it is that it is a good example of coming up with new interpretations for mundane subjects. I also like trees a lot, they speak loads about a particular location. What strikes me most about the photo is the stark contrast between the naked tree and the water. So much water, and the tree looks like it is dead? This contrast is enhanced by the silhoutte effect, to good results.
-
> not directed towards the posts on this thread.
Sorry Alain,
I'm a bit testy today - DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No problem. We all get frazzled from time to time.
-
May I suggest that rather than criticizing the critics, that readers with other opinions simply offer their opinions directly as pbizarro did. I realize that the intent was harmless but ntl this is how things inflate.
fwiw I think this image could work very well if the tonality were altered slightly so that the confusion between the foreground/background were eliminated. ie, detone (flatten. at least the left) the bg so that the tree stands out as the primary focus. The ambuigity between the tree reflection and actual tree is actually a plus as it requires a double take.
- DL
-
[quote Amazingly the stock agency had uploaded the image to the site but now claims it is rights managed, and magically overnight a restricted use notice has appeared. Grrrr..
The ironic thing is the stock agency claims all their images are exclusively licensed, but the identical image cropped slightly differently is available from another royalty free stock site for a $1.40 licensing fee including commercial usage.
[/quote]
Hi Don
Interesting story.
As someone who earns their income exclusively from stock sales you've piqued my interest.
If it doesn't compromise any legal action on your part could you provide a link to your
online magazine with the image in question in use and a link for the stock agency?
Thanks,
Mark
-
As someone who earns their income exclusively from stock sales you've piqued my interest.
If it doesn't compromise any legal action on your part could you provide a link to your
online magazine with the image in question in use and a link for the stock agency?
Hi Mark,
I've pulled the entire site temporarily until I have time to review it and make sure there's no other ticking time bombs. I was not the editor of the site but simply the host and sponsor (and owner of the domain), but the editor was a retired newspaper professional and very careful about copyright issues. I will tell you that the agency is superstock.com, and doing a little googling this isn't the first time they've tried to nail some poor innocent with outrageous fees. I think I'm on fairly firm ground and suspect it's just scare tactics like the time that Newport Corporation sent me a letter threatening legal action if I didn't immediately turn over "their" domain name (newportnet.com). I called them up and told them they were off their rocker and never heard anything more. I suspect the same thing will happen here although they haven't backed off yet. As to why a stock agency would post rights managed photos to an image sharing site where they display on a page that says you're free to post them on your website (and in the process give a wide open sub-licensable license for any and all purposes to the sharing site) is beyond me.
Here's one of the google results (http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6901), I suspect victims of the same sharing site which has a link "email this image" in addition to the "post this on your website" stuff. This is almost starting to look like a scam and I'm considering filing a complaint with the Florida Attorney General's Office, deceptive practices, entrapment, extortion attempt etc.
edit: I've not yet pointed out to superstock that they have no standing in the case since by posting the image they gave away all rights to cnet. If cnet wants to sue me (which I doubt) then I'll deal with them. I find it strange that superstock's lawyers don't realize this - apparantly they didn't read cnet's TOS. Cnet has their ass covered by the TOS but they did scramble to post a restricted rights notice when superstock called them, although the image still offers a "post to my site" option with no charges involved and the q/a still says you can post to your own site.
pps: a bit more research and I've concluded that technically this was third-party content (I didn't post the image myself but rather the author of an article) and I've done all that's required under the DMCA by responding to the complaint and pulling the image. And in fact the DMCA provides me with safe harbour so I'm just going to consider the case closed and ignore any further threats from superstock.
- DL
oh, and on an unrelated matter, I apologize for my previous post, I was still in a very bad mood last night over this issue and it generalized .
-
Hi Don
Thanks for the followup.
After reading the link to the legal forum you included it looks like the agency is pulling a
classic bait and switch scam.
Times are tough for many in the stock agency but I can't begin to fathom why a
reasonably 'reputable' agency would need to resort to such tactics
Mark
-
> it looks like the agency is pulling a classic bait and switch scam.
It's much worse than that - it's deceptive, a setup followed by a shakedown and intimidation, basically it appears to be an extortion racket. Notice that they're not putting their RF stuff on there but their high priced royalty managed stuff so they can demand high amounts. I wonder how many people (corporations probably) have just paid up. I'll be filing a complaint with the FTC.
> but I can't begin to fathom why a reasonably 'reputable' agency would need to resort to such tactics
This is what happens when lawyers get in control. Recall the joke: "Q: Is there a criminal lawyer in town? A: We think so, but can't prove it"
- DL
-
It's much worse than that - it's deceptive, a setup followed by a shakedown and intimidation, basically it appears to be an extortion racket.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cnet's webshots has now updated their site a bit but the language is still very contradictory on various parts of the site. A page will say "post this to your website" yet you click a link now that says you can't ???
As far as superstock, I haven't heard back from them and maybe should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was not a maliscous scheme but simply an example of incredible corporate stupidity on Superstock's part and incredibly poor site design and conflicted policy on Cnet's part.
A local web designer stopped by today to discuss a new site she's doing for a non-profit organization. I suggested that maybe I could provide a photo to base the banner on and she said "don't bother - I can get one from webshots". I showed her the $3900 invoice from superstock and she said "oh no!" and ran out the door to remove some images from one of her own websites. So this is a common misconception, not surprising since webshot's pages say "post this photo to your website" and have the image toolbar on.
I'm still filing an FTC complaint though - this behaviour is outrageous, intentional or not. I might /. them also.
- DL
-
Hello,
I believe that I am another victim of Superstock "bait and switch" strategy. Is this still a topic of interest to the group? If yes, I will post my story!
-
Yes, I am interested in hearing your story about SuperStock since I recently received a letter asking for over $11,000 for images I believed to be in public domain. I also wonder how the other previous situations turned out.
We were using 3 images on an nonprofit website, 2 of which are still downloadable on webshots.com and they have the webshots logo, not SuperStock. We were never contacted about their use, just sent a bill from SuperStock for damages with ficticious dates of usage. We immediately removed the photos. We were not using the photos for any commercial purpose and were using what we thought were public domain photos that you find everywhere on the internet. We don't know how they located our website except that it is a setup to extort money by uploading to a site like Webshots with a specific filename. Then they wait until they pick up sites on Google and send their letter. Why would they let the photos remain on Webshots if they are protected?
Please let me know about any others who have been contacted like this and what do you do to protect yourself from this kind of activity? I had never even heard of SuperStock before this happened.
-
I have rcd a large bill from Superstock also. My web disigner used a photo that is on their web site. They are threatening to sue and my attorney advises me to settle rather than fight because of costs involved. Anyone elso have any info on them?
Yes, I am interested in hearing your story about SuperStock since I recently received a letter asking for over $11,000 for images I believed to be in public domain. I also wonder how the other previous situations turned out.
We were using 3 images on an nonprofit website, 2 of which are still downloadable on webshots.com and they have the webshots logo, not SuperStock. We were never contacted about their use, just sent a bill from SuperStock for damages with ficticious dates of usage. We immediately removed the photos. We were not using the photos for any commercial purpose and were using what we thought were public domain photos that you find everywhere on the internet. We don't know how they located our website except that it is a setup to extort money by uploading to a site like Webshots with a specific filename. Then they wait until they pick up sites on Google and send their letter. Why would they let the photos remain on Webshots if they are protected?
Please let me know about any others who have been contacted like this and what do you do to protect yourself from this kind of activity? I had never even heard of SuperStock before this happened.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
My web disigner used a photo that is on their web site. Anyone elso have any info on them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm sorry but there is no free lunch in this world. The idea that you are all photographers or at least interested in photography is incredible how arrogant you would treat others' images with the 'assumption' on rights without even having an email "stating" that the image you have downloaded is free to use.
Why in the world as photographers could you not even contact the photographer or web-master asking for permission to use the images on your website? Do you realize that there are Diane Arbus photographs on Flicker to download? You think she uploaded them giving everyone usage rights to her images? Even if you knew 100 percent that the image was free to download and use, in today's world why would you not have some type of written communication stating that!?!
My post is not about how sleazy the organization that is trying to pull a fast one is? My post is about none of you stating my email receipt with webmaster/artist/someone-anyone clearly states I have usage rights for said image in the first place. And without that I just did NOT want the image on MY website.
jeff
-
I think that this is a problem created as much by wilful ignorance of copyright as by any intent to entrap.
A previous poster has questioned why anyone would imagine that a picture should be free to usage by the world and his wife. The fact that such usage might be for a non-profit purpose makes no difference at all and I do honestly doubt whether anyone using the internet can really claim ignorance of copyright - there has been so much noise about it both in respect of music and images, that there shouldn´t be an occassion when the ´I didn´t know´card can ever be played again.
Yes, things get murkier when a site fails to make itself as easily understood as might be desired, but even so, such innocence is hardly credible.
This problem is exacerbated in a world where photographers show such desperation to be seen that they will provide images at no cost. However, a commercial site is something else and one should simply expect the no free lunch ethic to apply.
As I have said here before, the amateur should be that; the pro shoud be what he is. It is the confusion within that space between which brings about many tears for both parties.
Rob C
-
I am another victim of superstock and their bait and switch tactic. I used a image from a free download site and now they want $2600.
The most frustrating part is the image was on a secondary page of my site which is rarely seen by visitors...
What is the strategy to deal with these guys?
I have removed this image and any other ones I did not personally take from my site.
Should I ignore the invoice amount and hope for the best? What have others done?
I saw on another forum where someone claimed there are no pending litigations by supershot which if true, confirms they are full of __it.
HELP PLEASE.
Thx, Grom
-
I have a friend that told me about his similar situation with SuperStock. It seems like this company is trying to scam money out of small businesses. There are several organizations that you should file complaints with.
1) Attorney General's Office in Florida (850-414-3990);
2) Better Business Bureau in Jacksonville (www.bbbnefla.org);
3) Internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov)
4) Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov)
When many people file complaints with these organizations, a pattern will be identified and action can be taken to stop the unethical behavior. The more times that SuperStock gets its way, the more they will bully people for money they didn't earn.