leanne_newton Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Phil. No. My copyright has not yet been infringed.Judging by your post to the `rude replies to criticism thread` you should read up a bit on copyright law and intellectual property rights, though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 What I want to know, is ; what is the administration`s position on the current bitterness, jealousy and hostility. I understand that everyone wants to be a popular photographer, but let us be realistic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_eulass Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I'm a bit in the dark as to the rights under international law that you seem to indicate are at risk of infringement. I'm even more in the dark about your comment to Mr. Morris and your concern over intellectual property rights and copyright law. I confess that in the early hours of the morning, I tend to be a bit of a thickie. Please connect the dots of your argument for me because they seem a bit off the wall at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_eulass Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Oh and as you may be able to tell, I tend to use the term "a bit" a bit too much. Its a bit because its a bit too early for me. Looking forward to seeing your response in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philmorris Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Ho ho, good one Leanne. Don�t you think this last post of yours, about bitterness and hostility, sits rather uneasily against your earlier one today threatening legal action and your dig at my understanding of the law of copyright. Assuming you realize I�ve been a lawyer for quite some time now (just look a few posts up), I suppose you might get rather hot under the studio lamp if I suggested you should go seek out a book explaining which end of a camera to look through. So excuse me if I�m a little intemperate. That aside, we all have much to celebrate! Your copyright has not been infringed (or �not yet� as you prefer to say - I see you like to add superfluous words � �future� being another - in order to create a state of apprehension at PN). I guess you feel uncomfortable in answering the remainder of my question to you though. Regarding my post to the rude replies thread, specifically in the context of critiques that might rank as educational, if you were to take care you would have noticed that I referred to the need to obtain consent from the photog for a picture to be utilized in the way I suggested. That's a fairly important oversight you made wouldn't you say? Further and no doubt owing to your extensive working knowledge in the field you will have come across the notions of [1] fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review and [2] legitimate educational instruction and examination. Were you never supplied with a copy of a photograph at college for study purposes? The idea I suggested was a million miles from commercial exploitation. Thankfully it is concepts like these that have lead to the foundation of places called lending libraries. Most have a very useful section marked "LARGE PRINT". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 I am very concerned about the current bitterness and hostility in the Gallery. For one thing, if you have read my posts in this thread, you will have seen that I have referred to BOTH the excessively enthusiastic ratings on Anna's photos AND the hostile ratings of her critics in combination as rendering the ratings on her photos invalid. The hostility comes about because there is a basic disagreement between two main groups of Gallery members about the rating system. One group believes that it is "normal", "natural", and "human" for people to rate generously the photos of people who have become friends and for them to help each other's photos to the Top Photos pages. As Robert O's recipe made clear, many seem to believe that the rating system is a kind of high school popularity contest with little to do with the merit of the photographs, and the Top Photo pages are no more than the malt shoppe where the most popular kids hang out. The other group sees this as a misappropriation of the rating system, which was intended by the site as a method for visitors to find the best work. They want people in the first group to be more critical, to stop rating their friends all time, and they want to stop seeing the same people all the time in the Top Photo pages, especially when they post work that isn't "top". They want other people, including new people, to have a chance at visibility. Some of people in the second group go overboard and in their posts imply that mate-rating is a horrible offense that ought to be a federal crime and that the people who engage in it are contemptible. I am basically in the second group myself. I believe that mate-rating is destroying the rating system as a useful method for determining which photos should have prominence on the site. It has always been a problem, but lately it has gotten out of control. I part company with the people up in arms about mate-rating when they start implying that it is an enormous scandal, that engaging in it is a moral fault, and start calling on John Ashcroft to send the perpetrators to Leavenworth. I think there is truth in the arguments that it is natural, human, etc to rate your friends, and I largely agree with Mark Meyer that the fault lies with the system, and that without changing it we are never going to get people to rate strangers more than the people who have become their friends. I recognize that part of the attraction of the Gallery for many, perhaps the majority, are the social interactions, and I am sure many of those people are perplexed, vexed, and confused, suddenly to find that behaviour that they thought was completely normal is being questioned. I will probably have to change the system in order to diminish the effects of mate-rating. But meanwhile I would like to see it diminish significantly through people moderating their behaviour. I don't mind admitting that one of the reasons for the actions I have taken is to communicate the idea that when people rate photos they are acting as curators of the site, and that if a portfolio seems to the moderators to have been curated to the Top Photos pages by too many undiscriminating curators (both critical and adulatory), we will simply remove it from the rating system entirely. I would also like to see the balance-brigade be a lot more measured in their efforts to educate people about why mate-rating is bad for the site, and to stop making a federal case out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think27 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Wow.. I can't possibly read this entire thread - hot issue. <p>Brian - Kudos. I've been watching the top pages with interest. I long ago gave up my battle cry against mate rating. It used to be a lot worse with people down rating people high on the top photographers list and up rating others to try and change the order. Additionally there were fake accounts that were used to manipulate the list etc. etc. I used to purposefully leave honest critiques pointing out flaws and expressing amazement at the 10/10's (which used to be the highest rate). I finally concentrated on other things the site had to offer thinking that there was just no solution to the problem. I felt it was a problem because those top images are supposed to represent excellence and quite often they did not. That is a disservice to newbies who actually believe the ratings as well as truly talented photographers. <p>As to Anna...I saw that she dominated the top pages consistantly. Some belonged there and some did not. She clearly has a "fan club" which may or may not have been nutured by her actions .. Her work rise immediately upon loading - probably faster than any other images on the site. I know she sometimes sent thank you e-mail when you rate her well. I have rated some of her work well and on others made some honest critiques which were not well received. She clearly has a problem accepting constructive critiques and got very nasty with me. I've witnessed that same nasty attitude often on her portfolio pages. I responded - kindly - but honestly and stuck to my position. She left for a short while after that - but came back. I've also recognized that some of her work was quite creative and told her she is more of an artist than a photographer. What bothered me is that her images dominated the front pages at the expense of others and if it was purely on merit - that would have been ok. But...the consistant multitude of 7's were not warranted in too many cases and a sprinkling of technically bad images. At times my mouth would drop in shock when I'd see an average or bad image with all 7's and 6's. <p>People who love her work can still see her images and make comments... Anyway - Brian - maybe this action will help people realize that sprinkling 7's all over the images of their "friend" "family" or favorite photographer's stuff isn't doing them or the site any favors. Unfortunately for Anna - she was just the straw that broke the camel's back. You have my full support and I don't think people realized how high maintanance this issue is for you! Anotherwords the huge amount of mail and complaints you have to deal with when this sort of thing occurs. Some may not like the decision you made - but they are not in your shoes. I wonder what they would do if they were ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Thank you for replying so fully, Brian. It is important to me to know that this episode is being approached sensibly. Andy, and Phil. It is not my intention to enter into debate with you at this moment on the subject of copyright law. If you would like to begin a new thread, I will contribute to the best of my ability. Any and all information can be found on the web. A simple Google search should be enough for anyone to find out all they need to know on the subject. My reference to the importance of photographers` rights was in response the concept that the internet should be a realm of free speech and thus possibly exempt from the normal laws of conduct. I am all for free speech, but with respect for the individual rights of the people involved. Not only regarding legal issues such as copyright, but also ethical behaviour regarding human dignity. About my work posted, this is with my consent - I posted it myself. It is clearly stated that no work may be used `without the written consent of the photographer.` It is my faith that this will always be respected. Forgive my lack of legalese - I am a photographer, not a lawyer, and we are not in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zcreem Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Ahmen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philmorris Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Well listen Leanne, that�s fine. I got on my high horse because ... well everyone who�s read this far down knows why. I�m right behind you on protecting literary, musical and artistic works from misuse. Likewise free speech (the courteous kind of course), respect for one�s fellow man and all those other things that ensure society is made up of nice people. I�d like to think I�m one of those nice people and I reckon you are too. So here�s my hand. What say we shake eh? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Done. Good to meet you, Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miller1 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Alexandru....What's wrong with flower photo's?? That's all I have besides Lauren..Everyone else runs away when they see me with my camera! I now have a bird for a while, so that's different. I love flower photos & Anna's were some of the first I rated. I was finding this site quite enjoyable til yesterday I stumbled upon this thread. Last night I dared to upload "silly" flower photos, & OHG! one ended up on the TP page! Some people here,,Bob Hickson for one...worked to help me improve my Iris boquet. This is fun for me. Richard B. Has also been quite helpful & many, many others..But I get somewhat offended by all the negative comments about flower photos. What about all the silly bridges, mountain, waterfalls & lakes I have to look at. Some I like, some I dislike. Every once in a while as I'm crusing the recent uploaded, I come across a "wow" photo. I like it, , I don't know why, but now I'm hesitant about commenting "WoW"..7/7..Or great job, 6/6....I think I'm taking my bat & ball & going home,,,I'm not having fun anymore. Just a joke! But seriously guys,,lighten up! I will be uploading more flower photos tonight. Be forwarned!! FREE ANNA, FREE ANNA, FREE ANNA! Elizabeth<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miller1 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Another favorite of mine are digitally enhanced, or totally changed PS photos. They are also highly critisized..boy I wish you had spell check here! But, you get my point..nit picking about soo many things, enjoy life! I don't like the term "mate rating" either. Some of the people here I consider my friends even though they are in other countries & states. I recieve many emails regarding my health & photos. They are not my mates, they are my friends, & I don't give them high ratings on photos I don't like. I don't like Anna's mountains, therefore I don't rate them. According to the definition of Asthetics, don't rate something you don't like, such as french poodles. O.K. I'm done venting. Have a great Day! Elizabeth<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro4 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 There is nothing wrong with silly flower shots, what is wrong is rating them 7/7 when they are clearly not that original or that well presented. In the case of your photo, you seem to have taken a shot of a flower, heavily applied a photoshop "pointilist" effect on the crown and post it here. The final result is nice ( not my prefence but that is unimportant) I would have rated this a 3 on aesthetics and a 2 on originality. This is certainly a much better shot that those from AP which are just simple flower shots in front of a black background but still, it shows a clear use of photoshop and is <b>not</b> very original. I think those who use photoshop effects on their images should use them so that it enhances the photo and they should be used in a way that it blends with the image. If it is easily and markedly obvious that it has bee used (like many in AP portfolio) then I think it is merely an example of how to use the filter, not a finished photograph. I say all this as a person who would have critiqued this image, OTOH I have no idea why this photo ended in the TP page. Seems people are failing to really see the images and are just going by first impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Elisabeth, the term "mate-rating" started, I think, because of the strong Australian contingent on the site. In Oz, "mate" means "friend". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_crame1 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Get a life you lot. Jesus. You STILL really think all this is important? You should get out more. If you don't like what's happening, pull your images, and piss off. I did. I maybe drop by once a month now if i'm lucky - instead of being constantly here. You really don't get it Anna, do you? It isn't a pissing contest. And while I pulled my pics over something Brian did, I believe he acts with photo.nets best intentions. Perhaps those of you who have been here a while can remember just when, how and why Brian got involved. I want a big red 'Delete' button to hit. Then I'll hit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Brian, since the concept of rating on this site is meant to applaud good photography, of course it's wrong to simply rate your friends higher and your enemies lower. There goes any impartial judging and we're just trying to make our buddies visible. I hate it. I've got friends on this site (some who gave up when rating started to go crazy) and we do rate and comment on each others photos. But there's a difference between mate rating and providing concise criticism. I'm sure I've told several of my friends "I don't like it and here's why..." and given an appropriately low rating. The only people I dare rate any more are my friends here, I just write comments for everyone else. It's become too dangerous to rate other people's photographs because they might retaliate and while I'm not particularly worried about my ratings the thought of having to put of with someone going nuts like that isn't appealing. I saw rating normalization per person mentioned on the thread and that's an interesting idea. Unfortunately some people do only vote on photos that they like or don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_eulass Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I understand where you're coming from now. My apologies for anything I said that was perceived as being testy or obtuse. Having not had my required fourteen gallons of coffee at the time I wrote the earlier note in the thread, I may well have come across as testy or stupid or both. Sorry to have inadvertently gotten in your face as it wasn't intended on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_crame1 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Cheers Doug. Was that done on a digital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougityb Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 pure photoshop, hope you didn't cut your hand whilst hitting the screen. The 3-D could have been better, as shown with this version. red background, white words, flatten. Duplicate layer, select top layer, bevel and emboss: hard light, twiddle the sliders. Flatten, save jpg.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_crame1 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Thought so. Would have been better on film - might have got 7,7 off your friends. As I don't know you, its a 6,6 (and it gains 2 points on each in fear of what you may do to my blue recycle bin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott bulger Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I am curious about your requests to have people stop rating your photos, yet you both continue to rate others as recently as today. I am curious as to your reasons for these strange actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Silly me, I've always had a great time cruising the forums, posting and critiquing photos, and engaging in stimulating conversation that frequently made a problem I was working on become suddenly solvable.<p>I was unaware of all these earth shaking political issues, except for a few unsolicted emails from "offended parties" which only make me reach for my small grey delete button. Another problem "solved". One of the nice things about photo.net is that any problems that occur here actually <i>do</i> disappear if I ignore (and delete) them! <p>The only reason I even knew about this thread is because I keep Leanne on my favorites list, and I saw she had no pictures, but several comments on this thread. Now I will retreat, back into obscurity, whistling past the graveyard... t<p>P.S. Please <b>do not rate my pictures</b>. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laura2 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I think its highly immature when someone doesn't like the technique of a photograph and says so in an intelligent manner, but then they turn around and bully you by writing "I don't understand...avoid rating" on your most recent photograph uploaded....which is what was done to me. And the irony is the next person came by RIGHT AFTER and gave a 1/1 and said "I don't understand it." Then 20 other people came by a few weeks later after I said "uh...what is going on here? WTF" and said they understood it and actually liked it somewhat, although I dealt with a weird topic/presentation. I rate very high. You'll look at my ratings and see they teeter in the mid to high 6's, like 6.3, 6.4. I explain my ratings in my bio. I say that I rate high because I do not feel I have the right to bully/discourage others from their practice. However, I also say that I do not want people to feel like they have to give high ratings because I liked their work. Not only do I feel embarrassed if they start gushing over ALMOST ALL of the stuff I do, I begin to get that self-conscious, self-discrediting feeling deep in my gut...though on the other hand I don't want people to leave me 2's and 3's without comments or "Avoid rating!" out of spite either! I am also easily amused, which is why I leave high ratings when I become captivated. When I come across something I do not like, I just give some pointers for improvement, nothing more. I occasionally snap here and there at people who just leave 1's with no explanation, or occasionally I'll write to someone who left me a high rating and ask them to explain a bit. I would actually love some sense of normalization for the ratings I give. I can't see bringing down my "average" to keep up appearances by going on a ratings spree of giving 3's and 4's without any deep thought. I think there are a lot of excellent artistic people on here who get very little attention on the "Top Rated Photos" page. They become hard to find as a result. I'd like to see more of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now