Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: louoates on October 24, 2013, 01:32:33 pm
-
I plan to publish a 60 page picture book with all my own photographs taken in a small Arizona town. It will be sold by local gift shops. The book will be about 50% local landscape pictures, and the rest of identifiable people doing various things in public places. Many of the people pictures are posed, some are attending local events, etc.
It would be impossible to get written approval for book use from all these people. The "fair use" copyright laws in the US don't seem to address this sort of thing specifically so I'm hoping someone here has a more concrete understanding of this situation and can give me some advice.
-
Lou, you need to talk to an attorney who has some knowledge of that branch of the law. A whole lot depends on what the book's going to be used for. Our local tourist bureau just latched on to one of my pictures looking up toward Pikes Peak for the cover of a new brochure, but they also wanted to use a picture of a little kid looking up at one of our local fountains for an inside shot. The PP shot was fine, but I couldn't let them use the kid, because the purpose was promotion rather than art.
-
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that as long as it is viewed as art, you should be ok. You are allowed to display recognizable people in an art gallery (that includes selling the prints as well), so as long as your book's main purpose is artistic (showcasing your work), I believe you should be ok. In Russ' case, the kid's picture would be used for a promotional brochure, thus commerce, rather than art, and Russ was right in not letting them use it. Again, just my non-legal, layman opinion.
-
I think you're right, Slobodan. I certainly have no problem showing the kid in art galleries. As long as you're doing it as art you're in pretty good shape, but my second son is an attorney who specializes in intellectual property and I know there are subtleties that need to be considered. I'd be willing to bet Lou's in good shape with his book, but I'd still recommend a quick sit-down with a guy who knows the law, and a run through the book to make sure he's not doing something like unintentionally misrepresenting a person's part in an action -- especially since he's dealing with locals who can come into the store and see themselves.
-
Thank you all for your comments. The people in the book are all doing very benign actions, or obviously posing for the camera. It is a book showcasing my landscape artistry in that location as well as my portrait-taking skills in everyday situations. In fact I think that most of sales of this book will be to those that see a picture of themselves or friends in the book. Since this will be a print-on-demand book I'm not worried about high upfront costs (under $10 ea.) and if there was a hassle with anyone I could easily delete that person from subsequent copies. I'm fairly well known in that town and my landscape work is featured in a gallery there that has shown interest in selling such a book.
-
Sounds as if you're safe, Lou.
-
The "fair use" copyright laws in the US don't seem to address this sort of thing [...]
This is not a copyright issue in any sense. You took the pictures, you own the copyright. And you can therefore publish the pictures without any possiblity of a copyright violation.
The legal problem is privacy, not copyright. Any use which promotes a business interest requires a release. But while copyright law is Federal, privacy law is State and might differ from one place to another in some not so obvious way. Hence the only sane thing to do is run it all past an attorney who specializes in this type of work.
Generally though you can figure that images inside the book, regardless of what the person is doing or whether they are recognizable or not, do not need a release. An image on the cover is promoting sale of the book, and would probably require a release.
-
Where did you get your law degree, Floyd, and which bar do you belong to?
-
Sounds as if you're safe, Lou.
Where did you get your law degree, Russ, and which bar do you belong to?
-
Where did you get your law degree, Russ, and which bar do you belong to?
Dude, You've been a member here for a month, and you've spent 3 days and 11 hours logged on. Sounds like about 10% of the total elapsed time, and perhaps 15% of your waking hours, although you'll undoubtedly dispute something about this statement.
Why do you have such a hard on for this innocent forum, and why are you such an insufferable know-it-all?
Please be advised that I won't respond if you respond, and I won't defend myself, or even explain or clarify anything. I'm strictly venting my spleen.
-
Thanks Floyd and others. I think I'll go ahead with the book.
I just read of a lawsuit thrown out by a NY judge having to do with presumed privacy. The sued photographer was shooting from his high rise apartment into the apartments of nearby residents. He had a show featuring those pictures that included recognizable people, one of whom brought the suit citing the state's privacy issue. Here's the link: http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Judge-Dismisses-Priv-8708.shtml A very logical decision.
-
Right, Lou. There was an extensive thread about that suit not long ago right here on LuLa. One thing you have to take into account, though, is that that happened in New York City, where weird is the rule of the day.
-
Where did you get your law degree, Russ, and which bar do you belong to?
The reason I don't give legal advice, Floyd, is because I don't have a law degree. Since you're handing out legal advice, for your own sake I hope you have a law degree and have passed the bar.
-
The reason I don't give legal advice, Floyd, is because I don't have a law degree. Since you're handing out legal advice, for your own sake I hope you have a law degree and have passed the bar.
I have not handed out any legal advice.
If you don't know what that is, talk to virtually any attorney.
-
I have not handed out any legal advice.
"Generally though you can figure that images inside the book, regardless of what the person is doing or whether they are recognizable or not, do not need a release. An image on the cover is promoting sale of the book, and would probably require a release." Floyd Davidson
Not only is this legal advice, it's not even correct.
-
"Generally though you can figure that images inside the book, regardless of what the person is doing or whether they are recognizable or not, do not need a release. An image on the cover is promoting sale of the book, and would probably require a release." Floyd Davidson
Not only is this legal advice, it's not even correct.
As I suggested, you should talk to an attorney. You'll find that is not legal advice. It is rather clearly my opinion as to facts about law, which barely constitutes even legal information; and is precisely correct too.
-
You probably ought to read the rest of the thread, Floyd.
-
Well, I am a lawyer, but I'm not giving any advice ;D Except to say that giving advice should be left to a lawyer who is familiar with the specific laws of the OP's state that govern the issue presented here. BTW, the NY case was decided under NY law and is only applicable to NY.
-
You probably ought to read the rest of the thread, Floyd.
Russ, you need to stop being silly. You snipped my sentence immediately following what you quoted:
"Hence the only sane thing to do is run it all past an attorney who specializes in this type of work."
Now read what AFairley, who admits he is an attorney, said about that. There is a reason for what we both had to say, and you might have noted too that I had previously pointed out the laws covering the OP's questions might vary from one state to another. That is of course different than Copyright Law, which is Federal and will be the same in all of the states of the US.
Just to give you more fits, even though AFairley is an attorney he can write exactly the same type of opinions here that I do and he will not be giving legal advice either. That type of information just does not constitute "legal advice".
-
Dude, You've been a member here for a month, and you've spent 3 days and 11 hours logged on. Sounds like about 10% of the total elapsed time, and perhaps 15% of your waking hours, although you'll undoubtedly dispute something about this statement.
Why do you have such a hard on for this innocent forum, and why are you such an insufferable know-it-all?
Please be advised that I won't respond if you respond, and I won't defend myself, or even explain or clarify anything. I'm strictly venting my spleen.
You won't be the first.
Not only has upset people on DP Review (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50358552) but also in his own community (http://majikimaje.com/WordPress/2010/04/28/floyd-davidson-barrows-pathological-liar/) but some people do seem to care about him.....
Shooty
14/06/2000
Hi, my name is Shooty. I am looking for a guy named Floyd L.
Davidson of Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska). Floyd L. Davidson of
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) used to post to this newsgroup, but
he's suddenly stopped, and I'm becoming worried for his safety.
As best I can tell, Floyd L. Davidson of Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
hasn't posted for nearly four whole hours. So I'm sure you can
understand my concern.
If case you don't know who Floyd L. Davidson of Ukpeagvik
(Barrow, Alaska) is, he's the poster who hates Anchorage with all
his heart, but loves Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) and its environs so
much that he never leaves his computer long enough to ever make
it to his front door.
Where's Floyd?
Shooty
-
. . .and is precisely correct too.
Floyd, I'm not even going to try to explain what's wrong with your legal advice. No, I'm not a lawyer, but if you'd read the rest of the thread you'd know that I have top-notch legal advice specific to this subject built into my family. I'm well acquainted with the legal ramifications surrounding publication and sale of photographs in Colorado, but since I'm not an attorney I can't hand out advice on the law. Here's some advice for you: Pay attention to what Alan said. A lot is specific to the locality where you're going to show and publish, and, as Alan said, you really need to talk to somebody who's familiar with the local situation. "Precisely correct?" You haven't a clue who the people are who're being shown in those pictures, and it's clear you've never heard of right of publicity. That's just one of the flaws in your "precisely correct" legal advice.
-
You won't be the first,
nor the last...
Dude, You've been a member here for a month, and you've spent 3 days and 11 hours logged on. Sounds like about 10% of the total elapsed time, and perhaps 15% of your waking hours, […] and why are you such an insufferable know-it-all?
See this post for an answer ( you could call it an artist's statement )
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82268.msg668064#msg668064
and this for another
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82268.msg668057#msg668057
add numerous instances a 'bull in a china shop' approach, including proffering unsolicited advice on cameras that don't exist (monochrome Leica DSLR's), printers he doesn't own (but has the manual!), a convoluted theory of colour management
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83298.msg672803#msg672803
only too persist with
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83376.msg673767#msg673767
and you begin to get the picture.
" Ignorance is forgivable, as it is where we all start out, but once one has been given the means to rectify their ignorance and persist in foolishness, they have crossed the line into stupidity. "
-
Now read what AFairley, who admits he is an attorney, said about that.
"Admits"? Ouch! :o
-
Yeah, my son puts up with the same crap, Alan. He does like lawyer jokes though. He's been in the business now for more than 30 years, and the stuff never slows down.
-
Floyd, I'm not even going to try to explain what's wrong with your legal advice. No, I'm not a lawyer, but if you'd read the rest of the thread you'd know that I have top-notch legal advice specific to this subject built into my family. I'm well acquainted with the legal ramifications surrounding publication and sale of photographs in Colorado, but since I'm not an attorney I can't hand out advice on the law. Here's some advice for you: Pay attention to what Alan said. A lot is specific to the locality where you're going to show and publish, and, as Alan said, you really need to talk to somebody who's familiar with the local situation. "Precisely correct?" You haven't a clue who the people are who're being shown in those pictures, and it's clear you've never heard of right of publicity. That's just one of the flaws in your "precisely correct" legal advice.
Poor Russ... you still haven't understood what I said, and continue to imply irrelevant significance when there is none.
I'm not exactly impressed, BTW, about your in family legal expertize. If your son who is an attorney is able to give you legal advice... that almost certainly means his level of expertize is not great, nor is his sphere of influence. More likely you are making claims that are not valid though! (I'll just leave it with the notion that any attorney worth much will be contractually bound up tight as a drum about just who has access to their legal talent. And you can guess how I would know about that too!)
-
"Admits"? Ouch! :o
Sorry about that! (I lie.)
I spend a lot of time BSing with lawyers on a social basis... ;-)
-
Floyd - after getting through some of your short posting history on this forum I suggest you take a break from it and rethink your posting style.
You might earn the "piss off most people in the shortest amount of time" - award.
I know of at least one long-time forum member who is seriously pondering of leaving Lula because of your interactions.
No - I won't elaborate on that.
Stop Trolling !
~Chris
-
... You might earn the "piss off most people in the shortest amount of time" - award...
I do not know why are you guys so much against poor Floyd!?
I, for one, find his postings uniquely concise, factual, up-to-the-point... if somewhat repetitive.
See for yourself:
-
I, for one, find his postings uniquely concise, factual, up-to-the-point...
You've nailed the "problem".
-
I do not know why are you guys so much against poor Floyd!?
I, for one, find his postings uniquely concise, factual, up-to-the-point... if somewhat repetitive.
See for yourself:
I tried doing that, but I'd forgotten the arcane method needed to do so.
-
Thanks Slobodan - you reminded me of something ...
-
I tried doing that, but I'd forgotten the arcane method needed to do so.
I little bit hidden feature... go to your own profile... anyway, the picture tells it all:
P.S. It applies both to posts and messages
-
Poor Russ... you still haven't understood what I said, and continue to imply irrelevant significance when there is none.
I'm not exactly impressed, BTW, about your in family legal expertize. If your son who is an attorney is able to give you legal advice... that almost certainly means his level of expertize is not great, nor is his sphere of influence. More likely you are making claims that are not valid though! (I'll just leave it with the notion that any attorney worth much will be contractually bound up tight as a drum about just who has access to their legal talent. And you can guess how I would know about that too!)
Sorry, Floyd. The utter unintelligibility of this post makes it impossible to answer, and I have no intention of trading insults with you, which seems to be your whole reason for being on LuLa. Maybe somebody else will be willing. I'm not.
-
Thx RSL
it was drifty from the art standpoint and perspective I'm guaranteed here.
Floyd could see it too if'n he wants,
I have the feeling though this is about building as big a fire as he can.
See his presence on google-
freaked out a whole dang town,
seems like he can keep his story straight just long enough to give away the punch line,
IDK,
i guess I like a good joke as much as anyone :)
-
I'm not sure that linking to other forums to deride someone - that is a member here - is good etiquette ? It is possible that you pick on the wrong person or that if it is the same then that person hasn't "improved his/her posting skills" It is also possible that the person on the other forums is posting under another persons guise such as "stealing" Slobodan's identity and posting as Slobodan from Chicago. I'm a member of other forums and definitely don't post with the same name. The reason being that is displayed in this thread. How do we know that the information displayed on Floyd is true? I'm not a fan of his style of posting but it seems the "attacks" are OTT. :(
-
I'm not sure that linking to other forums to deride someone - that is a member here - is good etiquette ?
Not sure that 'deride' is an accurate comment either. The links I've posted to are threads on this site. On the basis of 'say what you mean and mean what you say' the postings speak for themselves. Trolling is just that - trolling. That there is previous 'form' only serves to reinforce the objections raised by some of the more eminent contributors to this forum.
-
Manoli I wasn't referring to you. As you stated you have linked to threads on this forum. I am talking about external links to other sites. External links smacks of stalking imo. Whether the links were Googled or stumbled upon I don't know. This one in particular could be seen as defamatory but then again I am not a lawyer.
http://majikimaje.com/WordPress/2010/04/28/floyd-davidson-barrows-pathological-liar/
-
Stamper, the link you refer to 'prima facie' has no bearing on Davidson's postings here; it may or may not be defamatory. If it is, he has legal recourse (particularly in the USA) - that he has not yet done so, after 13 years, suggests otherwise.
I have followed some of your posts, I may not always agree with your views, but they are civil, reasoned and most importantly contribute to the discussion at hand - (at least the one's that I've seen).
Persisting in false, mistaken and uneducated hypotheses, particularly once the errors have already been pointed out, do not constitute 'discussion' and do nothing to add to this forum. Not to put too fine a point on it, IMO, they actually detract from it.
--
ps
he should know all about his legal rights as I see he has now taken to 'educating' some of our resident lawyers
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83409.msg674247#msg674247
-
Manoli are you aware that the link I posted in Reply#36 has already been posted in Reply#19 by another member and my point is that he was ill advised to do so?
Persisting in false, mistaken and uneducated hypotheses, particularly once the errors have already been pointed out, do not constitute 'discussion' and do nothing to add to this forum. Not to put too fine a point on it, IMO, they actually detract from it.
You will have to explain that to me in plainer English for me to understand it. I am not making accusations rather the opposite. :o
Here is the post. The link was posted under community.
You won't be the first.
Not only has upset people on DP Review but also in his own community but some people do seem to care about him.....
Shooty
14/06/2000
Hi, my name is Shooty. I am looking for a guy named Floyd L.
Davidson of Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska). Floyd L. Davidson of
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) used to post to this newsgroup, but
he's suddenly stopped, and I'm becoming worried for his safety.
As best I can tell, Floyd L. Davidson of Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
hasn't posted for nearly four whole hours. So I'm sure you can
understand my concern.
If case you don't know who Floyd L. Davidson of Ukpeagvik
(Barrow, Alaska) is, he's the poster who hates Anchorage with all
his heart, but loves Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) and its environs so
much that he never leaves his computer long enough to ever make
it to his front door.
Where's Floyd?
Shooty
-
... the link I posted in Reply#36 has already been posted in Reply#19...
Coincidentally, the link in question leads to a blog of a LuLa member.
-
Coincidentally, the link in question leads to a blog of a LuLa member.
Unforgettable:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18236.0
-
You will have to explain that to me in plainer English for me to understand it. I am not making accusations rather the opposite …
Stamper,
My fault. My post wasn't clear. The " Persisting in false, mistaken and uneducated hypotheses … " wasn't a comment referring to you or any of your posts. It was my summary 'take' on Davidson's dogged, ill-informed postings - two of which I highlighted in post #21.
I'm sorry if a misinterpretation caused you any offence - absolutely none was intended.
ps
I understand your point, but will not criticise jjj for posting the link. He's one of the more informed and interesting contributors to this site - given that we're not a court of law, I think it's good indication that FD's recent behaviour is not an aberration. Frankly, if he hadn't posted the link I would have - ( the /floyd-davidson-barrows-pathological-liar/ one)
Having said all that, do not wish to waste any more time on FD, enough's been wasted already.
-
... It is also possible that the person on the other forums is posting under another persons guise such as "stealing" Slobodan's identity and posting as Slobodan from Chicago...
Stamper, how can anyone "steal" my awesome and adorable personality, screwed-up sense of humor and a unique posting style!? ;D
-
My rule of thumb, though I don't portray an attorney or am one is real life is to put yourself in the shoes of the person you are showing. If it isn't controversial or advertising and you feel as though you would be comfortable if that photo was of you, you are probably ok. But for peace of mind, check with an attorney.
If you are a member of ASMP, NPPA, etc., you could ask the organization's general council for direction on how to proceed or with whom to turn for proper council.
-
My rule of thumb, though I don't portray an attorney or am one is real life is to put yourself in the shoes of the person you are showing. If it isn't controversial or advertising and you feel as though you would be comfortable if that photo was of you, you are probably ok.
OTOH, a while I was downtown shooting on the street with an EVF camera and I standing on the corner checking some menu setting or other with my eye to the EVF instead of the rear LCD and not paying any attention to where the camera was pointing, and some woman came up to me and started berating me for taking pictures of her car. Yes, not her, her car, some black SUV. She was from Europe, though I'm sure there are just as many nutty Americans. So you never know.
-
Stamper, how can anyone "steal" my awesome and adorable personality, screwed-up sense of humor and a unique posting style!? ;D
Yes, quite a good question. Clearly there's only one Slobo, only one Mozart, etc., etc....and only one Jerry Lewis, too. ;D
-
OTOH, a while I was downtown shooting on the street with an EVF camera and I standing on the corner checking some menu setting or other with my eye to the EVF instead of the rear LCD and not paying any attention to where the camera was pointing, and some woman came up to me and started berating me for taking pictures of her car. Yes, not her, her car, some black SUV. She was from Europe, though I'm sure there are just as many nutty Americans. So you never know.
There certainly are just as many nutty Americans, Alan. Maybe more. Hope you got a model release from the car.
-
Stamper, how can anyone "steal" my awesome and adorable personality, screwed-up sense of humor and a unique posting style!? ;D
Or why would they want to in the first place. ;D
-
Unforgettable:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18236.0
Perhaps a little information about that thread would help some people with their perspective. But first, let me note that the last post in the thread quotes one of the many later deleted articles by David Eves (aka Majik), which says:
"Although I wasn't in Barrow this year for whaling; we are still in Anchorage.
But under the 'fair use act' I can use these photos from a friend that was there."
The polar bear picture is mine, and was download from a site which specifically states no use other than viewing is permitted; plus he edited it to remove copyright information (a criminal offense). Since his discussion is not about the image, and he is using the image to illustrate his otherwise unrelated article, it probably does not constitute a Fair Use of my photography. (The original is at http://apaflo.com/savik/d3s_4232.s.jpg.html)
And obviously David Eves is not a friend of mine in any way. For 3 or 4 years he lived a block away, so we were neighbors. I enjoy his pictures greatly.
But make no mistake, David has fairly serious mental health issues. His forum posts, here on Lula and on other forums, make that abundantly clear to anyone with an ounce of judgment. Clearly many people don't, and they commonly abuse him greatly (I'm sure that thread was originally full of the typical abuse but fortunately has been cleaned up by the Administrators) or they just as mistakenly quote him as if what he says has some value. Both actions are unrealistic, and put those who engage in them in a very poor light.
People here today citing articles on his web page as if they were realistic, are demonstrating their own complete lack of judgment at best, and potentially a total lack integrity at worst. It works as a very good litmus test though! Cite articles like that (by him or anyone similar and about virtually any topic), and you then have zero credibility on any topic.
-
Stamper, how can anyone "steal" my awesome and adorable personality, screwed-up sense of humor and a unique posting style!? ;D
Slobodan you are correct. As an example I should have used a more "saner" person. ;) ;D
-
Stamper,
My fault. My post wasn't clear. The " Persisting in false, mistaken and uneducated hypotheses … " wasn't a comment referring to you or any of your posts. It was my summary 'take' on Davidson's dogged, ill-informed postings - two of which I highlighted in post #21.
I'm sorry if a misinterpretation caused you any offence - absolutely none was intended.
ps
I understand your point, but will not criticise jjj for posting the link. He's one of the more informed and interesting contributors to this site - given that we're not a court of law, I think it's good indication that FD's recent behaviour is not an aberration. Frankly, if he hadn't posted the link I would have - ( the /floyd-davidson-barrows-pathological-liar/ one)
Having said all that, do not wish to waste any more time on FD, enough's been wasted already.
No problem Manoli. I just wanted some clarification. :)
-
A whole can of worms has been opened in this thread. Perhaps the moderator should lock it?
-
A whole can of worms has been opened in this thread. Perhaps the moderator should lock it?
Agreed.
The destructive powers unleashed here need to be stopped.
-
Floyd,
No one was ever mean to majikimaj
we in fact got a great contribution from him.
I think his may have the most viewers of any thread on lula
Not because of controversy or form.
The guy is kind of odd, but ummmm
yeah,
he is a genuinely considered person.
And you can be too,
I always like to hang with outsiders, you seem like the ultimate outsider.
I'll be your friend if you need one.
I looked at your website, I like nature photography best, do you have more wildlife such as the beautiful owl??
I'd love to see some more.
Have a day!
-
I'm not sure that linking to other forums to deride someone - that is a member here - is good etiquette ? It is possible that you pick on the wrong person or that if it is the same then that person hasn't "improved his/her posting skills" It is also possible that the person on the other forums is posting under another persons guise such as "stealing" Slobodan's identity and posting as Slobodan from Chicago. I'm a member of other forums and definitely don't post with the same name. The reason being that is displayed in this thread. How do we know that the information displayed on Floyd is true? I'm not a fan of his style of posting but it seems the "attacks" are OTT. :(
The reason I posted the links was because it was to illustrate that a member here snapping because of Floyds posting style is not unusual.
Manoli I wasn't referring to you. As you stated you have linked to threads on this forum. I am talking about external links to other sites. External links smacks of stalking imo. Whether the links were Googled or stumbled upon I don't know.
The reason I googled him was simply because someone mentioned in another thread that he was a known troll from elsewhere and best avoided and suggested googling him to see why. So I did and discovered he'd annoyed people elsewhere.
-
Floyd,
No one was ever mean to majikimaj
Not true in general.
I cannot tell how he was treated here, because his posts have been deleted (and I can imagine exactly what caused that because he necessarily has been removed from many forums). Typically as soon as people realize how goofy what he says actually is, he gets dumped on pretty badly. It isn't nearly as bad in forums like this with a very broad audience of people with no idea about Alaska and are willing to swallow what he says without complaint, but on forums with other Alaskans the fierce animosity comes out very quickly because they have more knowledge of how he distorts his facts.
we in fact got a great contribution from him.
Great photography, yes. The stories he tells to explain the photography are fabrications that annoy Alaskans, and in particular annoy Alaska Native people. For example all the pictures and activities supposed be when it is 60 below zero in Point Hope... except it has never ever been 60 below in Point Hope!
I think his may have the most viewers of any thread on lula
Not because of controversy or form.
The guy is kind of odd, but ummmm
yeah,
he is a genuinely considered person.
And you can be too,
I always like to hang with outsiders, you seem like the ultimate outsider.
I'll be your friend if you need one.
I looked at your website, I like nature photography best, do you have more wildlife such as the beautiful owl??
I'd love to see some more.
Have a day!
Well, I have few thousand pictures of Snowy Owls... :-) But I'm only willing to post some of them to the web, I've basically released the best owl picture (it's on wiki commons) with a free license for use by anyone. I do wildlife pictures when I can't do people pictures.
-
The reason I posted the links was because it was to illustrate that a member here snapping because of Floyds posting style is not unusual.
I did suspect that you had something in common with David Eves. But blaming me is a bit much...
-
Again, struggling with reading comprehension Floyd. I didn't snap like David Eves, someone else did and you also provoked a similar reaction on DPReview.
Now to annoy people quite as much as you have here during your brief time on LuLa takes something special.
Which reminds me I need to hide your posts like others have already done.
-
Again, struggling with reading comprehension Floyd. I didn't snap like David Eves, someone else did and you also provoked a similar reaction on DPReview.
You almost certainly have exhibited these characteristics for decades before you ever heard of me.
-
Floyd, you really ought to check Michael's lead-in to The Coffee Corner: "It is assumed (and required) that posters conduct themselves in a civil and adult manner." The operative word is "required." Most of us have watched several people disappear permanently from LuLa because they either didn't read, or didn't understand that word. I'm not sure which of those shortcomings is your personal problem, but you might want to ponder the situation and see if you can figure it out. Of course, the other possible course is to leave LuLa voluntarily. That would remove the possibility of future embarrassment.
-
Floyd, you really ought to check Michael's lead-in to The Coffee Corner: "It is assumed (and required) that posters conduct themselves in a civil and adult manner." The operative word is "required." Most of us have watched several people disappear permanently from LuLa because they either didn't read, or didn't understand that word. I'm not sure which of those shortcomings is your personal problem, but you might want to ponder the situation and see if you can figure it out. Of course, the other possible course is to leave LuLa voluntarily. That would remove the possibility of future embarrassment.
Projection is not an appropriate method of discussion. The fact that you tend to post insults doesn't mean that someone else is not acting in a civil and adult manner.
-
Floyd, you really need to pay closer attention. Try re-reading Michael's lead-in. Here it is again: " "It is assumed (and required) that posters conduct themselves in a civil and adult manner." Maybe I need to post it in uppercase.
-
Maybe this will be of help Russ....
I little bit hidden feature... go to your own profile... anyway, the picture tells it all:
P.S. It applies both to posts and messages
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=83409.0;attach=90306;image)
-
Yeah, I know about that capability Jeremy, but I like to see what's going on, even when it's bone-rattling, terminal stupidity. Thanks for reminding me, though. I'll admit, sometimes it's tempting.
-
Floyd, you really need to pay closer attention. Try re-reading Michael's lead-in. Here it is again: " "It is assumed (and required) that posters conduct themselves in a civil and adult manner." Maybe I need to post it in uppercase.
I like to see what's going on, even when it's bone-rattling, terminal stupidity.
Maybe you should follow the forum rules. You might try treating others with respect, staying on topic, and leaving out the gratuitous personal insults and the condescending proclaimations. And cease claiming it's someone else too.
-
Sorry, Floyd. Are you taking a suggestion that you read and understand the Luminous Landscape rules as an insult? I can't imagine why you'd come to a conclusion like that. And if you assume my mention of bone-rattling, terminal stupidity applies to you then perhaps you're reading things into this thread that simply aren't there.
-
My own very short "ignore" list has just gotten bigger by one.
-
I'm sure you all must be aware that to ignore is to be ignorant of, unaware of, or to put it bluntly, to be an ignoramus. To deliberately put oneself in a position of ignorance seems a strange attitude to me.
I've never put anyone on an ignore list. Maybe that's because I intuitively believe that anyone, no matter how cantankerous, stubborn or wrong-headed he may appear to be, may eventually have something useful to say.
As regards the comments of Floyd Davidson in this thread, I see nothing egregiously offensive, nor more insulting than certain comments from others, including Russ. The most inflammatory comment in this thread, in my view, is that from Mezzoduomo on page 1.
-
Sorry, Floyd. Are you taking a suggestion that you read and understand the Luminous Landscape rules as an insult? I can't imagine why you'd come to a conclusion like that.
What you quoted wasn't about reading rules. You attitutde in the statement I quoted and lack of integrity in your followup is exactly what I referenced.
And if you assume my mention of bone-rattling, terminal stupidity applies to you then perhaps you're reading things into this thread that simply aren't there.
You still don't get it. Your insulting anyone is unnacceptable. My comment on it is simply a call for justice... "There will be justice in Athens when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are.' --Thucydides
Let me spell it out for you Russ: You post complaints saying others are not following the rules of forum etiquette, but first off the people you say that of actually are following them, secondly you are not, and thirdly the very article complaining about it is an example of the insulting manner typical of your posts.
Falsely claiming others are guilty of what you typically do is the "projection" previiously mentioned.
-
I'm sure you all must be aware that to ignore is to be ignorant of, unaware of, or to put it bluntly, to be an ignoramus. To deliberately put oneself in a position of ignorance seems a strange attitude to me.
I've never put anyone on an ignore list. Maybe that's because I intuitively believe that anyone, no matter how cantankerous, stubborn or wrong-headed he may appear to be, may eventually have something useful to say.
True, but it is also true that even worse are these announcements that someone is being ignored. And of course after that is announced there are still replies to articles, clearly indicating it was all a fabrication just meant to be a personal insult.
Plus these sorts of insults don't usually mean the person insulted is "wrong-headed" so much as it means they have argued in such a way that those who disagree are left with nothing to counter with except an insult. That isn't "wrong-headed", it's more like thorough.
I personally dearly wish that more of the folks who cannot be civil, cannot respond with reason and logic, and instead post little other than insults, would simply put me on ignore! I'm the one who benefits, and they lose.
The most inflammatory comment in this thread, in my view, is that from Mezzoduomo on page 1.
That was a very hilarious post! People don't realize just how self illuminating the average attempt at massive Ad Hominem can be! In trying to find insults that will emotionally injure their target, generally a person they really know nothing about, they have to find something "insulting", and the only source is what it is that would insult them. Usually they find it insulting because they know it is self applicable. Hence any list of generalities is generally more about the writer, not the target.
-
So Floyd - you are the innocent victim of an outraged mass of forum lunatics?
No involvement on your side?
Nitpicking more and more won't help.
And claiming to be the victim of an ad hominem attack in a discussion imo is just way over the top in your case.
You're causing trouble not because you're right or a misunderstood outsider or something.
You are no victim.
Its something different I can only fantasize about but won't do that publicly since I can't really judge
with my limited knowledge of you as a person. It is your job to reflect that for yourself.
To me as someone who has no issues with you and who is just following the discussions here
what I see from you to me appears overly rude.
Its a good sign for this forum, that there are people trying to see your side too.
But I think its finally time you start seeing your own part and involvement in this.
Not only in this, finally utterly destroyed thread, but in others too.
-
I'm sure you all must be aware that to ignore is to be ignorant of, unaware of, or to put it bluntly, to be an ignoramus. To deliberately put oneself in a position of ignorance seems a strange attitude to me.
Well what I learnt from Floyd's posts before I hid them them is that it's a waste of time debating with him as he redefines English if you show evidence for or prove an alternative point of view. Which seeing as he had a rant about someone else doing just that, it is somewhat hypocritical. As is bleating about about non-existent personal insults whilst slyly or openly insulting everyone else. In general he sneers at us posting on Lula as we are not 'authoritative' like the people he quotes endlessly, so our views do not count. So no point communicating with him really.
I've never put anyone on an ignore list. Maybe that's because I intuitively believe that anyone, no matter how cantankerous, stubborn or wrong-headed he may appear to be, may eventually have something useful to say.
I usually like to think that but in this case it's more like a crocodile chewing on your leg and thinking I won't do anything yet, as I may learn something from it.
As regards the comments of Floyd Davidson in this thread, I see nothing egregiously offensive, nor more insulting than certain comments from others, including Russ. The most inflammatory comment in this thread, in my view, is that from Mezzoduomo on page 1.
Think of this thread as being the straw that broke the camel's back. Others had already blocked him.
-
Well what I learnt from Floyd's posts before I hid them them is that it's a waste of time debating with him as he redefines English if you show evidence for or prove an alternative point of view. Which seeing as he had a rant about someone else doing just that, it is somewhat hypocritical. As is bleating about about non-existent personal insults whilst slyly or openly insulting everyone else.In general he sneers at us posting on Lula as we are not 'authoritative' like the people he quotes endlessly, so our views do not count. So no point communicating with him really.
That relates only to you and not to what I have said.
For example, quoting facts and expert opinion does make it a little difficult for you, but that is not sneering at everyone or even at you. It's just providing valid discussion rather than emotionsl distraction.
And then the question is why you are sneering... for example at someone for posting facts that really can't be disputed.
-
Enough. Please move on to something more productive. Topic closed.