Who owns & runs PN anyway?

We have all had an interesting ride over the past couple years as the site has made various efforts to modernize its platform. Regardless of how that was accomplished (and everyone has an opinion) we had an idea that NameMedia was our overlord--having purchased the domain from Phil G. in 2007.

 

Lately, all of the contact info for PN AND CreativeLive on mailings has been directed to 228 Dexter Avenue in Seattle, Washington. That is the physical address for CreativeLive. Most of the article content on our front portal is provided by CreativeLive. The true ownership of the domain name photo.net is hidden behind a privacy proxy, Whois Privacy Protection Service--also located in Washington State.

 

As someone who has been a paying subscriber for many years and a member for nearly 20--I would like to know who is getting my money. We live in a world where things that look rather innocuous are funding foreign terrorism--and corporate entities here in the states supporting very unpopular policies and politicians that discriminate again people on a variety of bases.

 

So, c'mon now--fess up! :p

I think it is NAMEMEDIA, INC in Waltham, MA

What is left of this site is nothing more than a vehicle to flog courses from Creativelive. I can see no other explanation for why the site still exists.

OMG! You're right!

 

What the heck has happened to PN's home page? It's totally redesigned with a bunch of columnar list of CreativeLive pay per view live stream tutorials and lessons. This site has become just a photography magazine made up of unknown supposedly "Pro" photography experts I've never heard or seen before. Is this site acting as some sort of marketing vehicle for these authors and videographer tutorialists?

 

This is getting creepy. All the paying member activities like POTW, POTD, Critiques are reduced to small gray font titles that would be missed scrolling through a white field of generically commercial stock styled photos and tuts.

 

Maybe this is why we don't see much of Glenn Palm. He might not work here any longer.

I clicked on "Contact" at the bottom of PN home page and get a blank page in the default blue color with the typical navigation banner as in the forums. There's not even a "Powered By" or ownership name at the bottom of each PN page as it used to be. There's nothing.

 

And I can't find a "PN Staff" listing. Maybe robots run this site now.

There's also been no GDPR compliance from what I can see, which is a real issue.

 

The articles linked from the home page don't finish without going to the CreativeLive site.

 

And the moderators are as in the dark as everyone else.

Adios Amigos - It has been an informative and fun ride, but I won't condone deception in any form. Thank you for dredging up the dirt.

OMG! You're right!

 

OF course, I am! I thought I was wrong once on March 12th, 1984, but I was mistaken... :cool:

 

By law, email marketers are required to provide a physical address for their operations and an unsubscribe link at the bottom of each email. P.O. boxes are not allowed. Again, note on emailings both the PN address and the CreativeLive address are the same. Google Maps street level view shows the CreativeLive building and the listing type identifies it as an "educational institution."

 

If you try calling NameMedia, an automated system eventually informs you that the line is "no longer active" and is not monitored. Referrals are made to email Brian Lucy for info regarding NM, and Glenn Palm for info regarding PN. The NameMedia website is now defunct and appears to have been that way since late March or early April of this year. The last valid capture of the site was in March:

 

NameMedia | Leader in Domain and Website Monetization

 

What is interesting here is what is present, and what is missing. Compare to an earlier version a year before:

 

NameMedia | Leader in Domain and Website Monetization

 

Photo.net is not included in the last version before the site rolled belly up, and curiously AfterNIC is the only listed concern. NameMedia sold AfterNIC to GoDaddy in 2013--but kept a marketing agreement with each other to distribute premium domain auctions across platforms. Looks to me like they are pretty dead in the water. Here are some other sites that NameMedia was listed as an owner to that now are held by someone else--or have become ghost sites:

• Photography.com
  
• RockClimbing.com
  
• DropZone.com
  
• BASEJumper.com
  
• Flyfish.com
  
• Tarot.com
  
• DailyHoroscope.com
  

For those who are interested, CreativeLive is a Delaware corporation (tax friendly state) operating in Washington State. Its corporate officers are:

• CHASE JARVIS — GOVERNOR
  
• JAMES SLAVET — GOVERNOR
  
• MIKA SALMI — GOVERNOR
  
• MAK AZADI
  
• BRIDGETTE LAU
  

See here: Corporations - WA Secretary of State

Maybe this is why we don't see much of Glenn Palm. He might not work here any longer.

 

Glenn Palm was not simply an administrator here at PN, he was one of the three principal officers of NameMedia. Here is an interesting tidbit. He was listed as one of my "followers" some months back. I note that his name has been replaced with "Photo Admin." Except of course (in a bit of minor coding error) where Glenn Palm appears in the browser page tab title... :p Glenn's few photos of he and his family have been replaced with a bunch of junk screen captures, stock photos, and page elements from everywhere including PN and CreativeLive. So yes, it looks like Mr. Palm is no longer with us, or if he is he is hiding behind a new screen name and a false persona.

 

Spearhead Wrote, "And the moderators are as in the dark as everyone else.

 

Sad. But it appeared that throughout this entire transition tragedy all of you on the moderation team were not being included in communications--just being left out to hang when members became angry. :(

 

Thank you though for all the time spent making sure that things ran smoothly on a social basis! :)

Edited July 2, 2018 by PapaTango

i know this has nothing to do with our present owners but you will find this interesting.....

 

 

Revenge rating and tweak critique at photo.net

 

 

and in the forum terms i see a MA address?......

 

 

Photo.net'signated Copyright Agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement is: Hannah Thiem, DMCA Agent, 230 Third Avenue, Waltham, MA 02451, U.S.A. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with all of the requirements of this Section, your DMCA notice may not be valid.

Edited July 2, 2018 by paul ron

Ron, you certainly remember the endless arguments that were had RIGHT HERE in the boards over stacking, packing and other behaviors. Or the cliques that shut many members not only out of the critique drama but participating in discussions. Sigh...

 

Keep in mind that the Terms section of this site has not been updated since March 2105--and as Spearhead points out none of the mandatory notices or language changes pursuant to the General Data Protection Ruling (this IS an international website) were not sent and are lacking.

 

Every website considers visitors and members fodder for monetization. It is the name of the game. You FarceBookers are worth about $73 each per year... :p

i did some digging too since our last conversation, cant find the actual owners either. i like your point about wonder where that money is actually going?... ive been a freeloader way too long but felt my contributions n participation should be worth at least the price of a subscription... maybe more?

 

i enjoyed the old days. people were much more experianced n always happy to help the new commers. but when it got hot, it was hot! i sat back for the dramas...

and in the forum terms i see a MA address?......

Photo.net'signated Copyright Agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement is: Hannah Thiem, DMCA Agent, 230 Third Avenue, Waltham, MA 02451, U.S.A. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with all of the requirements of this Section, your DMCA notice may not be valid.

 

Hannah hasn't had anything to do with photo.net in many years, maybe around six or eight. She's an international touring musician now under the name Häana. That address is obviously very old.

yeah but isnt it interesting how even after upgrades it still remains as a contact in their legal TERMS?

 

i was going to subscribe but do it via snail mail to the MA address untill someone brought up the ownership issue.

 

i guess pn is a ghost ship. the admins havent chimed in, mods know nothing... HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO?????????

Who owns & runs PN anyway?

Don’t know who owns it but it’s been run into the ground by launching a badly redesigned site before it was ready for prime time. The photo side of the site is still dysfunctional to an unacceptable extent. Administration insisted it was important for US to be community minded but never made itself part of that same community as past admins had done. That made a big difference.

 

As social networking influences took over, LIKES became more important than photos and critical eyes and creative efforts that might not please the typical LIKER. And, for similar reasons (some uncontrollable by administration), the site became less and less about photography per se and more and more about expectedly pretty snapshots and gear. Naturally, people who had more interest in the aesthetics and expressive nature of photos became less interested in what was going on here. Most who view photography as an art are gone, as art has become more the maligned punching bag here than a common goal or at least a respected one.

A lot of truth there Fred, except for one thing. In the nearly 20 years I have been hanging around here (beginning in 1999 as "Pragmatist"), I never saw 3 or more people come to a consensus of what art was. :rolleyes:

I never saw 3 or more people come to a consensus of what art was. :rolleyes:

There doesn’t need to be a “consensus” to talk intelligently about big ideas like art, love, fear, beauty, etc. and there doesn’t need to be a consensus on “what art is” to know art has fairly consistently been maligned here and plays less and less a role in the photography displayed and discussed here.

 

People may have different takes on art and that tends to get blown out of proportion to mean we can’t even talk rationally about it. But we can and we do, even if it has different shades of meaning for different people. Despite those differences, I’d suggest there’s an overwhelming agreement on certain aspects of art and when people use “art” in a sentence, it’s generally understand what the speaker is talking about.

If creativelive now either owns or at least runs this site - why not come out and say so? Something obviously has changed in the last few months. As already mentioned, some parts of the site are still "barely functional" - so if there is a new owner - what are the plans?

 

After using the site "for free" for some years, I re-subscribed last year. I just went to my account page to make sure I do NOT automatically resubscribe as I want to know beforehand what I am actually supporting.

In the nearly 20 years I have been hanging around here (beginning in 1999 as "Pragmatist"), I never saw 3 or more people come to a consensus of what art was. :rolleyes:

Ironically, this is just the kind of thing I’m talking about. By attempting to make art into an incoherent thing and hyperbolically claiming that no 3 people have ever agreed on what it is, you further the cause of rendering art inapplicable and untenable in discussions here. It’s just that kind of flippancy toward art that tells artists this is not the place to be.

Hannah hasn't had anything to do with photo.net in many years, maybe around six or eight. She's an international touring musician now under the name Häana.

 

Well, she seems to have landed in the 'trendy zone' as her music has taken her from TED to Burning Man. There is no doubt that her work is beautiful. It gets a little out there for me when she starts talking though. I had all of the "New Age" ruminations and delvings I care for back in the 70s and 80s. Have a listen with the artistic babble:

 

 

And a dose straight up:

 

 

Throw on some good open cans, tweak your equalizer profile for a 'Live' build, and crank it up... :cool:

I thought everybody was an artist.....

I thought everybody was an artist.....

You thought wrong.

I thought everybody was an artist.....

 

It all depends on the perceptions of the viewer.

 

I made some 'art' yesterday in Gerald's photoshop challenge thread. Some thought is going into making a dozen of these things and sticking them in a pop-up show this summer. Then I can dialog with art patrons over a glass of Dr. Frank's wonderful Riesling and demonstrate my secondary skill as a BS artist. I know others on the local scene who have become quite successful with the strategy. :p

So tell us Fred, who isn’t.

Based upon your previous posts it should be a simple proposition.....

Edited July 3, 2018 by Moving On

It all depends on the perceptions of the viewer.

 

I made some 'art' yesterday in Gerald's photoshop challenge thread. Some thought is going into making a dozen of these things and sticking them in a pop-up show this summer. Then I can dialog with art patrons over a glass of Dr. Frank's wonderful Riesling and demonstrate my secondary skill as a BS artist. I know others on the local scene who have become quite successful with the strategy. :p

Just too clever.

 

Here’s the thing. Artists can have a funny way of speaking, especially to outsiders. So can Burning Man people. So can people in AA. Nevertheless, I tend to emphasize what they produce and how they behave. So, AA folks I know have almost a cult-like language yet AA in most cases has helped them deal with addiction and improve their lives. The funny slogans don’t offend me. The Burning Man regulars I know also tend to speak a new age language that can sound strange. Yet, many of them are conscious of the footprint they leave on the planet, many of them do a whole lot of volunteer work and are politically active in some effective ways. So, they talk a little funny. Big deal! Hannah’s speech comes off as a little strange, sure. But she actually sounds quite sincere to me and I don’t see her way of speaking doing much harm. Your generally crass cynicism and specific belittling of Hannah, on the other hand, is another matter.

The simple fact is that for better of worse today’s society of ultra all inclusiveness has broadened the use of the term to sometimes laughable degrees.

You never addressed the proposition of who isn’t included in your definition.

You clearly stated everyone isn’t

 

Again, a simple proposition..

 

So far, the statement about getting 3 to agree is holding up....