New Gallery Feature: Send a photo.net eCard

You know Jayme, I've tried to be as precise as I can and you and some others don't seem to get it. I am not concerned about posting on the internet and take the precautions I need to. I am concerned that images of people I know and care about, and which I post here, will become the butt of jokes or worse through the ecard procedure, and that possibly, even though the possibility is remote, that their feelings could be hurt. No release can take care of that. I'm not worried about protecting ME, I'm worried about protecting THEM.

 

Its one thing for someone to lift the image from pnet without my permission, its quite another for pnet to make the procedure available so that someone can send a link to a photo, say of my own son, with a demeaning message, and with my name on it, implying my sponsorship, or at least permission, in such a procedure.

 

If that doesn't concern you, well, I suggest you think about it a little more.

 

Perhaps I just have my panties in a wad, as I've had an experience, as I describe above, with someone leaving an inappropriate comment on a photo of Jewish friend of mine. But as long as I can limit the possibility of misuse of my photos -- again, LIMIT that possibility --I will do what I can, knowing the risk of posting in a public site, albeit one that advertises itself as "a photography learning community" of "photography enthusiasts."

 

As I have already stated, Brian's opt out works for me. To be blunt, you are beating a dead horse.

I like Brian's division of the two types-very simplistic. In the same vein

I will add that a cursory glance at the portfolios of those contributing to

this thread reveals that, to some extent, those who have a vast majority of

photos of landscapes, flowers, et al, are pro and those who have a majority

of pictures with people, ie nudes, portraiture, are against. This may possibly

arise because there is a genuine fear of abuse <i>with text. </i>It's difficult

to be abusive about a rose (or that ugly fat lily) However, let's be clear here-<b>any

visitor can attach any comment to any photo. </b>So, the Dallas women who shyly

agreed to pose and have a photo put on a <b>photographic</b> website, could

find herself winging around the inboxes of offices in New York and the art schools

of moscow with a jokey comment attached to her image. The same fate could await

the Polish kid with bad acne used in a poetic portrayal of teenage angst...and

so on and so on. This I think is the basic fear of allowing <b>ANYONE</b> to

add text to an image on pn.<br>

This problem is resolved almost completely by the changes Brian has made and

I thank him for doing this so quickly. Answering all our worries with the right

hand whilst re-writing a script with the left. Some talent you have, my friend.

Guess you have to press your shutter with your toes. (that's not a comment on

your photographic skills btw-which are fine and will be ecarded in abundance)<br>

<br>

Cathy-you say 'this feature doesn't violate copyright'. I'd agree with you and

I don't think anyone suggested it did. What it does do is bring a different

audience to PN. As i wrote earlier, my fear is that the new non-photographic

participants are far less likely to share the concerns for copyright that the

photographic community will. Brian will possibly agree with me here.</p>

<p>Brian-a couple of issues. All is now cool in my garden and I can de-ecard my

entire portfolio if I wish. However, you indicate this is not a courtesy you

intend to extend to non-subscribing members of PN. It seems a shame. People

WILL self-censor if not provided a choice. The non-subscribers obviously have

some value to PN otherwise why have them. And would it really make much difference

to the possible revenue streams from additional visitors if non-subscribers

are given a choice? Bear in mind, your idea looks like it will be popular and

therefore non-subscribers are just as likely to keep the facility as paying

members. If you balance possible loss with possible gain in this equation it

is evidently worth extending the largesse shown so far to everyone.<br>

<br>

The quality of the ecard is still really poor on some monitors. I checked this

out with a few friends today and the result was about 50% fine 50% dreadful.<br>

<br>

My final concern is that this ecard has been implemented very quickly and without

warning. As I say, all is cool in my garden but still the entire database of

photos are currently displayed in a way the contributers did not expect when

they uploaded their images. Now, that just ain't right. Some of these contributors

won't give a damn, but a minority will be totally pissed off about it. I'm here

today and can see what's going on but others might not be back for awhile and

they have posted to one type of site but now are getting something very different.

As a courtesy to them and also to give yourself time to iron out any flaws,

could the ecard not be suspended for a week or two, publicised (a big banner

on the home page should do it) and then re-launched?</p>

<p>Sorry to bang on. I'm not going to say another word on the subject.....and

the queen of spain is coming for lunch

. . . "Since each of us naturally wants to control use of our own images"

 

Please allow each user to enable or disable this feature. Some will like this feature, others won't. I personally do not like it, and wish I could turn it off. My two cents - Thanks,

 

-James

Darell, I'm glad you're fine with it now. The quality issue is unfortunately a trade-off between wanting to have a size that will display on the majority of monitors and not wanting to alter the image from what the photographer uploaded. I think making the image fit is even more important with ecards that with the regular photo pages. I can perhaps make the ecards a tad bigger so that the resizing happens less often. At present, on the photo page the "medium" view is sized to fit in 650 pixels of width and the height is allowed to fall where it might. The ecards use the medium view (or the large/original view if that already fell within the parameters) but the browser is directed via the HTML to fit the image within a 512 pixel square. The photos that are most likely to be impacted are the portrait format images that were longer than 650 pixels even in the medium view.

 

Finally, on the point about changing the ground underneath where people were standing: That is always going to happen. The site is not going to remain the same as it was when someone became a member or became a subscriber, and nobody gets a veto on the evolution of the site just because they signed up or paid the $25.00, and uploaded some photos or posted something in a forum. The Terms of Use are full of disclaimers to this effect. Of course, anybody who is dissatisfied with changes can decamp (or not renew his suscription). So when/if we ®evolve the site, we have to take that into consideration.

Brian, with the considerable respect I have for you, I think you set up a "straw man" argument in your last message. I don't see where anyone tried to veto changes you deem need to happen. You came up with a new idea, you asked for feedback when you did it, which was very much appreciated, people gave it in good faith and more (as usual of course), and you took from it what you thought made sense.

 

My point is, the product may well have improved as a result of this unique, sometimes messy, interactive process (don't ya wish Microsoft worked like this?), and the process showed that this strange beast called the "feedback forum" can work. Seems like a succesful thread to me. Thanks again.

I was responding to Darrel's notion that any new feature which someone might deem a change to the terms under which he posted to the site should require an opt in. I don't agree to that, and the Terms of Use make it very clear that while anybody can offer feedback of changes (and indeed it may be solicited sometimes), participating in the site doesn't give anybody the right to an opt-in, veto, etc on new features or changes in the site.

 

Indeed, just because we eventually provided an opt-out for subscribers on this one does not mean there will always be an opt-out either. Other than, of course, quitting the site, a possibility which the people operating the site will have to reckon with when planning changes.

Thanks Brian for clarifying.

 

Indeed, there are no guarantees, there may not always be a photo.net either. But surely, surely, we can have fun while there is.

 

Whatever my own sentiments about it for me, I will always think of the ecard idea fondly because its genesis was in your sending a Valentine to your daughter. Perhaps you can name the card after her as the muse on this one; regardless, may we all be worthy of our childrens' love.

 

Take care, thanks very much for dialoguing on this. I'm done, and the queen of spain is coming for dinner.

I am happy that there is an opt out on this one. (Missed it last night...) I have two questions though:-

 

1. Would it be possible to do it on a photograph by photograph basis and not a folder basis?

 

2. If I do opt out, can I opt back in?

Brian, thanks for changing this to an opt-in/opt-out feature. I appreciate that consideration.

Not to have an auto response or anything here. I joined Photo.net for the maturity content. The features were simple, to the point. I didn't join a photo greting card company. I don't nescessarily want my photos being E-carded to people. I sent my self one, so I know what they look like. It's not a thrilling Idea to me. I don't upload my photos so that people can ecard eachother with them.

 

I think that if this feature is to stay, there should definately be an option when you upload a photo, to have or not to have it available for an e-card.

 

At present, it's a horrible idea and I don't think it fits with what this site is about.

Brian, I thank you for providing those who wish it a means of not having this new function enabled. I know you honestly thought that it would be a good idea and that people would warmly welcome it; it does have many merits. I know you did not expect the kind of reaction that you received from some of us...or, perhaps you did. Regardless, I am glad the opt-out now exists. As already mentioned above, why not extend it to everyone? Very few would use it and you would still have your increase in traffic. <p>

 

On another note, I mentioned that this was a significant change to the site and one that I did not agree to when I joined. Several years ago, during one of the darker moments here, I started a Feedback Forum thread in which I asked you for a refund. You yourself said that refunds are rarely allowed (understandable) but that in certain situations they could be allowed. You said that one such situation was if there was a siginficant change in how this site operated. I tried to find this thead but it does not seem to exist anymore.<p>

Sometime later, after the dust from that time settled, I reupped for three more years. Look, I don't want a refund. I don't want to quit the site (even though last summer you banned me from posting here). I just want to post photographs, study photographs, enjoy photographs, and learn and share knowledge with others. That is what this site was originally for.<p>

But I do not want to be treated like garbage either. The e-card has merits, I agree with that. A lot of people are going to use it; probably too many, as was also mentioned. You asked for feedback on this and that is what you got. Is it really <i>that</i> hard to have some consideration for what other people think? Regards.

Hello Brian; are you taking the idea forward about showing which photos have been sent as ecards somewhere in each photogs work/detail space? (Probably not after everything i read above, but am curious :). thanks.

J Hill, "At present, it's a horrible idea and I don't think it fits with what this site is about." Easy, don't do it and get on with your life.

Walter, "You asked for feedback on this and that is what you got. Is it really that hard to have some consideration for what other people think?" You had this to say further up in the post. "Hey lookie there Butthead, what a great non-idea! I can send hundreds, no thousands, of links of my very fav PN pix ANONYMOUSLY to whomever I choose while appending all manner of juicy BS to them with total impunity. Oh Joy and Rapture!" You may want to go to the library and check out the book by Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People", it would help you turn around your current strategy of communication in a more positive way I think.

Walter, I don't recall saying that refunds of subscriptions would be considered in the case where someone disagreed with changes to the site. If I said that, I shouldn't have, and I take it back.

 

It is off-topic, but since it has come up: our refund policy on subscriptions is that we give refunds in the first 30 days no-questions-asked, unless the account has meanwhile been banned for misbehaviour. (I can't recall anybody ever being banned during the first 30 days of a subscription, so that case has not come up so far.)

 

After the 30 days, our policy is that we only will give refunds in situations where if we didn't do a refund, there would be a credit card chargeback anyway. Since there is open-ended Trial/Guest period, and what we are selling are subscriptions, just about the only cases I can think of where the credit card company would do a chargeback would be where there was some problem with the processing, like the person paid twice, or the subscription didn't get registered.

 

In the last year, during which a few thousand people paid for subscriptions, we've done about four refunds during the "no-questions -asked" 30 days, basically because people had buyer's remorse. We have had one credit card chargeback, and there is another one pending. Both of these were because of unauthorized use of the credit cards.

 

No subscription-based web-site could operate on the basis of giving subscribers refunds whenever they were displeased with changes. You'd either end up freezing the site, or you'd always being doing refunds because no change pleases everybody.

Reading that long thread of pro and against the ecard feature , I think it was good Brian, to add the opt-out possibility .

I think that even PN is a public domain, and photos can be taken out without permission ( and I have found some of mine in other sites), I still think that it will augment the phenomenon.

 

There are photographers that will use it or not , but I think that it has to be a free decision of each one if he wants his work to be part of it or not.

Ben- I do see your point & I understand what you are saying. I just can't find a significant difference between Brian's new e-card & me right clicking on the address line of one of your images, copying it, then returning to my e-mail & in a "mass" mailing, pasteing your address into my mass mailing. The most significant difference I see is that Brian's ecard would be "prettier" than my email :)

 

No one wants our images abused. Brian has come up with a satisfactory solution to the complaints. Really fast too!

 

Ben- I didn't think you wore panties :)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see much discussion on including an automatic notification feature that lets the photographer know who sent an ecard of one of your images and to whom. It's always nice to know who likes what images in what venue. I suspect it would also greatly reduce the possibility of abuse. We already receive notification of request for email addresses. What do you think?

I'll probably let photographers know which of their photos are being sent as eCards, and how many.

 

But I'd have a problem with disclosing the email addresses that were used. I'd be afraid that someone would put up a portfolio of nice eCard-able photos in order to harvest email addresses, and generally disclosing the email addresses just seems open to a lot of abuse. Next thing that happens is I get email from someone who sent an ecard link to his mother, and then Mom got harassed by the photographer.

 

If a photographer isn't comfortable with links to his photos being sent via the eCard feature without knowing who was sending and receiving the links, then I think it would be better if he just opts out.

Carl, you are right, but do you mean a feature that will send you a copy of the ecard ,photo and text? or only notify you that one of your images was sent to a certain address for a certain event?( like birthday etc...).Aside from the Opt-out solution, it can be some other solution that will help reduce the problems people wrote and uploaded in the thread.

When I first put my work on the web I was surprised and somewhat appalled by the number of people who were "borrowing" images. One search revealed that there were 9000+ pages relating to either hotlinking (mostly from photo.net) or just plain stealing my images and these were only the ones that had some sort of credit or link and were therefore searchable. God only knows how many pages were out there that weren't traceable, probably just as well that I'll never know.

 

I have to say that my attitude towards unauthorised web use, hotlinking etc. has softened over the years. These days I've more or less accepted that it's virtually impossible to control where the images appear and I now tend to look upon most instances as just free publicity. The only time I take direct action is if the images are used in a commercial context or if they are using too much of my bandwidth or if I don't like the way in which they are being used. I suppose that if we choose not to opt out of the eCard thingy we are allowing the use. It would be interesting to know how often our images are being used in this context and this information would perhaps help us to determine whether we want in or out.

I feel like I'm sending a mixed message when I ask someone to pay art prices for photographic prints while allowing photo.net to promote their use for any purpose on the web, the latter being different from the more passive policy of not being vigilant about going after every innocent use that you're on record as discouraging.

 

I think that at least knowing the amount of activity, and on which images, may be a reasonable compromise. Pnina, your idea of being able to see the text that accompanies an image, even without knowing the addresses of the sender or receiver, would be better still.

Carl, there is a big difference between a 50KB 'ecard' which is sent to one recipient and available to that recipient for a few days on a web site, and a 8x10 or 11x14 signed and framed art print, as I'm sure you know.

 

Out of curiosity, if photo.net wanted to license your photos for ecards, what would the royalty be per "ecard" sent? What would it be per photo for unlimited "ecard" usage? Bear in mind that with that model, it wouldn't be like the current implementation. In that model, the person would actually be sent the image attached to the email which they would be able to file in their mail folders along with the message, keep, and maybe print out on the ink-jet.

 

You can opt out of course, but I would think that a photographer selling art prints would regard someone being sent an ecard of an image as a potential customer and look upon the feature as advertising. No charge for this advertising, Carl, since its you. :-) But if you want a few million impressions of a nice leaderboard, we can talk. Cheers,

I personally decided to opt out, and opt out completly by removing my portfolio. I need to take the time to consider all the personal pros and cons to this feature and my feelings associated with it and the overall site and its evolution. I was just getting ready to sign up as a subscriber, and am glad now that I was too busy to do it last week when I ready. Brian, obviously you are in the drivers seat here, but perhaps in the future you might create a forum for your new ideas and test them out there first. I am in that group that saw Photo.Net as a tool for learning, not for self promotion. There are numerous other ways for me to share my photographs with those I choose to view them. I would prefer, as a general rule, to NOT have a downloadable feature for photo's, similar to stock photography sites that disable Windows ability to pull the image off the site. I feel that each individual photographer here should have the ability to determine if a file is downloadable for each individual photo/file. I know that many people like to download photos and manipulate them as a way of demonstrating a certain PS feature or to suggest a different crop or other adjustment. I think that the submitting photographer should determine for themselves whether they want that feature or not. My "two cents" worth. Thanks

Who said Ben wore panties? Seems a strange thing to say. Is there photographic proof? If so, could someone ecard it to me.