Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System

[andy_eulass]

Read the Terms of Use, Andrew. Doomsday is far from nigh in my opinion.

[mottershead]

Andrew, I clarify once again that Anna has not been accused of ratings abuse by anybody connected with the site. If there were sufficient evidence of such abuse, we would simply ban her from the site, as we have others.

 

Her portfolio has been taken out of the ratings system because (a) she has already received 10,000 ratings (far more than any other person in the history of the site); and (b) in the opinion of the moderators a very large number of these ratings are completely unreliable -- based on excessive enthusiasm or hostility. She was not accused of anything. If anybody was accused, it was her fans and critics -- of being so indiscriminate in their ratings of her work as to render those ratings useless by the site in determining the ranking of her photos in the Top Photos. It is true that I expressed some other reservations concerning Anna, which partly motivated our actions, in my private email to her explaining the decision. These have been made public by Anna herself.

 

Moreover, by commencing legal steps against us, Anna has made any "starting over" option impossible, as we are not prepared to have on the site a person who will force us to incur significant legal expenses in order to bullet-proof our Terms of Use and membership/subscription procedures against individuals inclined to sue us. Therefore, since her subscription is at an end, and her "extra photo quota" is nearly at end, her license to visit and use the site will soon be ended and whatever contractual rights she claims to have, she has for no more than six weeks, at which time any contract that might exist between her and the site is terminated, along with whatever implied priveleges she alleges it gives her. Nobody can say that we must admit to the site anybody that we do not care to admit. For contract infringement, she has at most a very weak claim that we are depriving her of six weeks of ratings that she is entitled to.

 

Concerning the "discrimination" claim, apparently this term is being used in the sense that we are singling out Anna for special discipline to which others are not being subjected, without there being an adequate justification, and even though there are alleged to be other portfolios that are similar to Anna's portfolio. In answer to that I have three points:

 

First, this is a private site, and such discrimination is not illegal unless it violates some contractual terms. Discriminating between competitors for prominence in an Art Gallery is inherent in the operation of a gallery, and a private Gallery operator is not even under any obligation to follow consistent or rational procedures. It is not illegal to make curatorial decisions for reasons of taste, or nepotism, or to get the artist in bed (although you could argue this one). If you don't like the way a Gallery operator decides which photos go on the walls, your recourse is to stay away from that Gallery, not to file a "discrimination" lawsuit. Nobody gets to sue MOMA because the curators pick somebody else to be famous instead of them. If a Gallery's decision-making process is deplorable, you get to deplore them, not sue them.

 

It is true that some forms of discrimination are illegal in many situations, such as racial discrimination (as it should be). But nobody is saying that this is one of those situations or that the discrimination in which we have allegedly engaged is one of the prohibited forms.

 

Second, while no other person has the number of ratings that Anna has, it may well be true that the ratings in several other portfolios are as suspect, perhaps more so, as the ratings in Anna's portfolio. However, the law surely does not force us to adopt an all-or-nothing posture that obliges us to identify and act upon all the problem cases, in one fell swoop, because we cannot "discriminate" against only one of them. If everybody on the highway is speeding, the person who receives the first traffic ticket has no defense of "discrimination" even if none of the other speeders get a ticket that day, or ever.

 

Third, where are these portfolios that are alleged to be the same as Anna's? I have said repeatedly that "mate rating" is a problem on this site and that it has many beneficiaries and victims. But one must still produce the portfolios that are completely invalidated by it. Marc and others allege they exist, and mention names, but these people do not speak for the site, and those who do are still analyzing. Roberto put forward his "recipe", implying that getting lots of high ratings is a formula, essentially claiming that the entire rating system is bogus and a game played by everybody. He implies of course that this makes it discrimination to single out Anna's portfolio, since her portfolio is no different than anybody's, just more visible. This is a form of the speeding ticket argument, which I already dealt with, but I would also say: produce all these portfolios that are beyond redemption, and we will see about them.

 

On the defamation claim, I'm still waiting for somebody to point to the defamation. As far as I am aware, there have been no defammatory statements made against Anna, and it would seem to me that the only person impugning Anna's reputation is Anna herself -- by claiming that defammatory statements have been made without producing them, leaving people to think that she has been accused of something without knowing what that is.

[philmorris]

Brian�s post above deals with all the wrongdoings I believe Anna has alleged. The law does not concern itself with discrimination; only unlawful discrimination, namely discrimination based upon grounds of race, sex, disability and the like. Her plea, disguised as discrimination is simply that she has been singled out. I seriously doubt that Anna will be able to frame a claim in discrimination in any one of the recognized grounds.

 

Regarding defamation I would point out that even if Anna had been accused of mate rating (which she hasn�t and I have no idea whether there may be a case for suggesting as much) I would argue such an accusation within the context of a members� club could never constitute an actionable defamation. The test is whether society at large would think poorly of Anna for mate rating not how such behaviour appears to PN subscribers. Indeed judging from comments, there are many many people here on PN who do not find that so scandalous. Put it this way, it is rather like the case of the club member accused of reporting his club to the police because they held an unlicensed striptease. Plainly not the done thing to grass up your own club. Within the club the club member is likely to be despised and ridiculed, but he has no grounds for bringing a claim in defamation even if he hadn�t reported the striptease to the police, because the law would find that right minded people would not hold such persons in contempt for bringing unlawful activities to the attention of the authorities. Anna would have to show that making favourable ratings of one�s friend�s photographs would horrify society at large.

 

On an aside and to demonstrate how Anna goes out of her way to create potential for harm, I was astonished that following Brian�s query concerning the professional capacity of whoever it was that wrote on Anna�s behalf (a person whose identity was not disclosed by Brian), it was Anna herself who announced the simple query as being an �insult� to a hitherto anonymous individual but who then proceeded to take the trouble to identify the writer as Monica Patti, a person duly enrolled with the Law Society of Padua, Italy.

 

Regarding contractual rights as has been pointed out, Anna�s subscription has expired. She is therefore reduced to a user whose fee for use has run out; to the status of a non-subscriber. Most legal systems approach contract on the basis of benefit and detriment (or consideration). Meaning for example, you give me your apple (my benefit) in return for which I will give you one dollar (my detriment) and vice versa of course. Any contractual rights to the facilities offered by the site are now unenforceable for want of sufficient consideration.

 

There is no need to run off incurring sizeable legal fees. It is one thing to allege and a completely different thing to prove. Far better to wait for the writ to hit the doormat. It will never happen. It has as much prospect of success as I might have if I were to allege that Michael Schumacher ran me over in Trafalgar Square yesterday morning.

 

All this is based upon my understanding of English Law. Whilst not identical to that in Massachusetts, I dare say that there are number of crossovers on principles.

[dougityb]

Hold it there, Phil.

 

Are you a competent lawyer...by chance?

[marshall]

Doug - he may not be able to answer if he's in the hospital recovering from his Trafalgar Square injuries and preparing his lawsuit...

[philmorris]

Prosecuting and defending civil lawsuits is what has put meat on my table for the last 25 years. Only in England though. I�m yet to find myself involved in a case in Massachusetts. Which is a bit of a pity. If ever it got off the ground, Pagnacco �v- Luminal Path would contain the kind of frivolous fresh air I haven't tasted professionally in a long time.

[dougityb]

hmmmm, I noticed some spots on my monitor whilst reading your comment, Phil. Could they be saliva droolings? Knaw markings? Is the prospect THAT savory? : )

[philmorris]

Hey Doug, can you please stop this? I�ve only gone and knocked over the vase of flowers Farrari sent me, the water�s gummed up the first three pages of my draft writ and in my comical attempts to prevent this misfortune I pulled out half my stitches! I�m on nil by mouth and I�m supposed to be recuperating! Any one got a cream cake they�d like to chuck my way? :)

[jay belton]

uuuuuuuh..... (chucks the cake) SPLAT! Got Milk?

[mark_j1]

I like the rating system. It provides me feedback. I put photos on this site for the feedback. I'm not always happy with the numbers, but at least it lets me know when I affect someone enough for them to take a minute give me a number. I also look at the number of views and the comments. All of this is what I love about this site. It is all valuable feedback. Why else would you post on this site but for the feedback? If you didn't care about the feedback, you woundn't be posting on this thread.

 

You could just as easily argue that a comment of �cool� or �nice� is useless feedback. Should we get rid of those as well? Maybe have a set of only10 pre-canned comments you can only apply to a photo? What fun would that be? Where does this end? No matter what is done, someone will complain about it.

 

I wouldn't mind if the "top photos" did not show the name of the photographer. Let the photo speak for itself, not the name under it.

 

If people abuse it, oh well. That's what you get with the freedom that the site provides. If you don't like the ratings, don't use them. I admit that I see photos getting 7's that I wouldn't give a 7 to, but I also see 1-3 given when I don't think it should be (especially when the rater has no comment to go along with the number).

 

When I see the system being "abused" (at least, in my opinion of that particular photo, I might feel the ratings are not warranted � too high or too low), I just ignore it and move on. Who cares? That�s going to happen when you have a flexible system like this with thousands of users. I�d vote to keep the system and ignore the people who I want to ignore.

 

The system is there for everyone to use or ignore. Use the parts you like, ignore the parts you don�t. Don't ruin it for those of us who like it, please.

[alberto.conde]

VERY SAD!

And more so coming from what is believed to be the land of freedom... Or should I say "What used-to-be the land of freedom"?

Extremely sad!<p>BTW, I do request all fellow photo.netters to abstain from rating my photos!

[kara_jansen]

I totally agree with Alberto Condo in his comment about the freedom. And for me no more ratings for my pictures too. It is very wrong that Anna Pagnacco has been punished this way.

[pdoyle]

People sure have funny ideas about what "freedom" means! Freedom does not mean that any and every form of behavior must be tolerated. Freedom does not mean freedom to act without consequences. Freedom does not mean that private individuals and private enterprises cannot set limits of various kinds that they enforce, within the bounds of public law. Most freedoms have built-in restrictions on their appropriate expression.

 

The administrators of this site have specific objectives in mind in operating this site. Apparently they have determined that certain behaviors have emerged that are thwarting the objectives of the site, and they have taken steps that they feel are within their legal rights as a private enterprise. This is freedom, too.

[kara_jansen]

And the freedom they make the rules afterwards .....

[nathanaelb]

<p>I just have one thing to say. </p>

<p>PhotoNet is <strong>not</strong> a public company, with directors and shareholders.

If it were so, then it would only be legal for the directors to give the shareholders

some rights and involvement in decision making processes. </p>

<p>But - PhotoNet is not this nor should it be expected to be. People contribute

money to support the service, and in return PhotoNet gives them added site functionality

and somewhat of a reputation amongst the PhotoNet community. </p>

<p>Paying money does not purchase you shares nor give you any rights to run this

place. There are people who have been appointed to run this place and it would

be awesome if everyone respected the hard work they are doing here. If you disagree

with some of the decisions they make, then this is a country of free speech

and you are entitled to express your opinion for or against their decisions.

</p>

<p>But one thing that really pisses me off is people threatening legal action

against PhotoNet. That is just totally unethical and against the principles

of online communities of this sort and I do not condone the throwing of big

words like "<strong>lawyer</strong>" and "<strong>sue</strong>" around on these

forums. </p>

<p>If you don't like it, leave - no-one is forcing you to stay. Otherwise build

a bridge and <em>get over it</em>! </p>

<p>If you feel that you CAN'T go because this is the only place that allows you

to display your photos online, then why not contact a web designer (like <a href="mailto:info@redsandsdesign.com">myself</a>)

who would be happy to give you a quotation for the development of a small online

photo gallery.</p>

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

<i>If you feel that you CAN'T go because this is the only place that allows you to display your photos online, then why not contact a web designer (like myself) who would be happy to give you a quotation for the development of a small online photo gallery.</i><p>

 

Why would they want to call you when PN gives them free space. A good example is Ms. Jansen here, bitchin and moaning about freedom, but whom also has more than 500 photographs on this site, and by the way has not become a contribuitor....NOw that I call a freeloader.<p>

 

And Ms. Jansen, freedom carries repsonsibilities as well...you dont get to do whatever you like just because you want to...<p>

 

Brian M wants evidence of other AP style portfolios? just look at those from people who are so upset about Ms. P. A great example is Ms. Jansen, giving 6 and 7 to AP and other italian guy...Valter something...Hell you dont need to have all that statitistical info from the site..just click on the people who are moaning about freedom and you will see the problem....

[pdoyle]

For the sake of fairness, I'll just point out that Ms. Jansen has <i>rated</i> ~500 photos on the site but has only <i>uploaded</i> ~66, which is within the limit of a non-subscriber.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

I said it once before on Doug's thread and I'll say it again here- (Margaret also said something along the same lines) People just need to grow up. Photo.net is a company, they provide a service and sometimes they make money off of it. This service is not ethics training. Many people here at PN just need to grow-up, take a dose of common sense and try to understand what is expected from them, As stated by the T&C and expressed by society. To understand the purpose of this site. Brian and Co. are not hear to teach that, they have a very specific purpose for the website/service they offer and they can go to "any" means necessary to preserve that purpose.

 

They can not and should not have to teach people how to behave in a professional adult manner. If you are unable to behave this way and flagrantly abuse other members of the PN community as well as the T&C and PN administrators, you have no reason to complain when the administrators take action.

 

They have done nothing currently or potentially illegal. They are striving to preserve Photo.nets purpose and direction and they have every right to do so, by any means they feel necessary.

 

If you don't like the actions they have take- just realize they are not here to teach us how to behave. That's up to us. If you think there is something inherently wrong with what Brian and Co. are trying to accomplish here- than perhaps you need to step back and take a look at your own portfolio, your own list of "friends" and your ratings.

 

And then think about what you want from PN, and why you signed up to begin with. If what YOU want are honest critiques and ratings- then give them. And believe it or not Doug, Marc, Anna and Co. are not the only good photographers on this site. Spend some time exploring the gallery, giving ratings and feedback to those photographers you've never heard of. Like Margaret said earlier- immerse yourself in the actual content here. You may be surprised at what you find.

[leanne_newton]

Could someone please explain the current site policy/objectives ?

They are no longer clear to me.

Where is the all the bitterness, the envy and jealousy going to end?

The current witch hunt is horrifying.

Where does the administration stand on this ?

[n_p]

Exactly! Well spoken, Grasshopper.<br>I've had enormous fun discovering and recovering long lost favourites from the Gallery in the last 5 days. This awful mess with AP has blown up, after I started compiling my inclusive search for finding 300 top rated images. I say "inclusive", because for some unfortunate reason I wanted to recognize that AP was one of those 300 (as well as some of her 'friends') - wish I had not done that now.<br>Anyway, since the membership drive started in June, I wonder what has become of <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005CpF"> this thread. </a>With the new servers installed, is the proposed limit for non-subscribers in place? I know Lex keeps referring to his limit of 20 images and Philip's comment above (66 uploads) made me think of it again!

[leanne_newton]

I have my own website.

Any single image of mine posted into the database of

Photo.net via the No Words threads, is worth far more than $25

in model fees alone.

While I am on the subject, any future abuse of my copyright

to these images will definitely see me taking legal action.

The shifting sands of current site policy have me psychologically

prepared for the worst.

[zcreem]

As one of the old Internet users, Gopher, FTP, and Email, I was there at the very begining of the WWW revolution, and had great expectations. Finally an international forum for free speech and interchange of ideas with the bonus of images to illustrate concepts and creatitvity.<br>

How sad that Mr Berners-Lee's vision has become clouded by the fog of law. As some one mention above, when this last bastion of free speech is choked by the threat of law it is a very sad day.<br>

People that threaten legal action (no matter how bizzar and unfounded) not only threaten the site they are unhappy with but threaten the whole system, by setting prescedence in law that may never be over-turned.<br>The WWW is all ready a far to commercial affair, big buisness flooding our web browsers with adds emails selling every kind of aid from sex to pension. <br>Call me old fashioned but I hark back to the old days, when inline image where a controversay in themselves and the web had a pioneering spirit.<br>So to all you would be suers, remember that each threat is like a nail in the coffin of freedom, thank you.<br>I find it a little odd that the preponent of this action is not from the land of litigation, I guess this at least makes it less likely to have a bigger effect.<br>PN is commercial, but only in the sense that it needs to generate income in order to survive, in this highly commercialised Web, the cost of an Internet bandwidth has become so prohibitive that many smaller groups can no longer survive, the threat of legal action can only make this situation worse.<br>

So in a few years when every decent site is sponsered by Choke and Popsie, remember these early days with fondness, 'cos I don't think they will last much longer, and for that I am very sad.

[leanne_newton]

Respect for the ethics of our craft,

our profession, our names and professional reputations.

 

Is this asking too much ?

 

I don`t see the point of passing on photographic

knowledge to potential new photographers,

if respect for their own work and that of others

is not taught as well.

 

These are rights worth defending, and internet or not,

these rights are recognised by international law.

[aa2000]

I'm an old user of photo.net and I've learn a lot from it. Few years ago, there was easy to find any good photo posted - few users, just some hundreds of new photos per day. Now, the things are totally different. Zounds and zounds of postings per day. In this situation, I found some solutions to "detect" valuable entries in the gallery: the list with users whom I've marked interesting, their ratings, even random browsing, and not the last, the "top photos" gallery.

 

Well, lately this top was flooded (because of mate rating system) by Anna's photos, which IHMO often are not above the snapshot level of quality, or they are just kitsch. Plain photos of flowers? Come on! Is this all that you expect from photography? Do something new, something interesting and original; at least try it! I have A LOT to learn, but I have nothing to learn from such photos, sorry...

 

Last weeks I give up to browse this top in search for good entries. I found it monopolised by a group of mate ratters. It's that fair for the rest of the users? Everybody here talk about Anna's broken rights (rights to do what?... mate rate?). How about the rights of rest of the photographers here? They have the right to learn from here, to grow up by browsing the top photos and find really great images there. They must have the chance to appear in this top. Why any user of photo.net to be forced to see day after day one group of mates photos? Come on, people, if Salgado in person will post something on photo.net, his entries will stay burried, in shadow because of that group.

 

I think the moderators did the right thing by breaking the circle. In this way, there is a possibility again for one to learn something from this site.

 

Regards., and sorry for my english.

[philmorris]

Leanne, are you saying your copyright in one or more photographs uploaded here has already been infringed? If so, infringed by what means, by whom and with what loss? If on the other hand you are simply apprehensive of a situation where your copyright might be infringed because of what you describe as the shifting sands please explain precisely what you understand by the shifting sands and what it is about the shifting sands that causes your apprehension. Lastly, what steps have you taken / do you propose to take in preparation for the worst and in order to protect your copyright? As someone who finds it necessary to give advance warning of the legal consequences which would follow an infringement, wouldn't you say it would be irresponsible of both you and the administrators of photo.net to allow your photographs to remain on photo.net a moment longer?