dave_smit

John,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

FWIW, I don't think the student should lose his job on this issue.

Brian is correct.

This email is attributed to you:

"Though the present result was obvious, it was not intentional in that degree. Regardless, I

do appologize and I did not realize that the rest of the pages got imported all at once. As I

have never designed a website prior, I did get some help and will make sure that the entire

depths of that matter is resolved at once. I had them take the site down because it was not

intentional."

If it's your post, it written to say that you visited and downloaded all the code, contents

etc. This post and a few others, I believe has really drawn the ire of the photographic

community. We can all understand the young student and the immature mistake made.

Personally my reaction isn't caused by the actions of the student.

The note above, again I'm willing to accept it written under trying conditions, paints the

picture of you doing the importing.

I would suggest as probably you would, that if your post above had been written as a first

email to Ascough, we likely would be saying John Falk who? at this point.

John,

Thanks for your detailed response.

Could you address the issue of the program require that I've characterized as a "code

vacuum" as opposed to just using a basic screen capture or directing the student to your

favorite sites by way of pasting an address into an email to him.

A point of clarification for readers. I posted my response to Brian WITHOUT having read

John's reply to me at 12:11 am.

{I guess I just don't consider the inconsistencies you point out as smoking guns. I've

already seen reasonable explanations for the points you raised. The explanations from

John are consistent, believable and authentic.}

Respectfully Brian this is where we will disagree. There is a tenant in newspaper

journalism that seasoned writers avoid. The single source story. It's the story that always

gets a writer into trouble. Usually the trouble comes when the next journalist writing the

story starts to examine the facts again.

For example, Have you identified the web design student?

John is hanging the whole misunderstanding on this individual.

Going forward there are explanations offered by John that if true and John simply

misspoke in the rush of writing a response in the middle of a national marketing shoot

should be easy to address and clarify. He has failed to take the opportunity on a number

of occasions.

The furor here is not that John posted his website. It's that John's answers to basic

questions don't make sense AND he has failed to provide reasonable explanation without

inflammatory rhetoric.

I've stated that I'm willing to hear his explanation. On that point alone he should engage

in a conversation with me here.

It's just to convenient to simply write off all the angry people with, "why should I bother,

they won't change their minds anyway."

John's been a professional photographer at a national level for 30 years. He's not a man

lacking in intelligence.

The way he's managed this crisis really makes no sense to me.

{FWIW, people here (and elsewhere) seem to lack the ability to think objectively, and

separate fact from interpretation.}

My post acknowledged that John acted appropriately in removing the site as he did, when

it was brought to his attention.

Again, the reaction isn't from John's website or the subsequent removal of pages from his

site.

I'm trying to engage John in a reasonable conversation that will answer questions created

in follow up posts on the matter.

It's those post that have people so worked up.

{So if I understand you correctly, you are saddened by the fact that after getting a call at

2AM PST 3000 miles from home, I made every attempt to get the thing closed down in the

first minutes}

You don't understand me correctly.

There are 30 lines or so in my post pointing out your statements as inconsistent.

In those lines are the reason this issue has blown into a firestorm over the internet.

NOT THE FACT THAT YOU BORROWED ASCOUGH'S SITE. That was simply the first foul.

As you've done with other attempts at explanation you took the very last line and created a

defense, ignoring the rest of the post.

I'm saddened that with every opportunity you've had to offer either a genuine apology,

without rhetoric, or a clear explanation of the inconsistencies in your story, you've avoided

both.

I'm saddened that as a professional it looks like you made an attempt to steal another's

work and call it your own. I'm saddened that in your explanation there are more

inconsistencies that you can't or won't explain.

I can and have accepted that the instant you heard of Ascough's phone call, you acted to

remove the offending pages. I have accepted that when it was pointed out to you

additional pages were also removed a quick as humanly possible.

To be very clear, I'm saddened on two points.

1) That another professionals work was represented as your own.

2) That you won't explain the inconsistencies as I've outlined them above.

Once again John to be very clear.

This issue won't die because people view your posts as a poor attempt to hide the fact that

you LOOK LIKE you were caught plagiarizing someone else's work.

I have written to this thread because I hoped to engage you in conversation. I hope that as

things calm down and you've had a day or two to establish the facts as they happened, you

would provide a sequence of events that would cause all of us to think, Oh.. I could see

how that might have happened.

So now it's your turn.

In my previous post I made reference to 6-7 inconsistencies in your explanations to date.

How about it John? Everyone is listening... Can you address the points I've made. Here's

your opportunity to put this issue to bed as I believe you desire.

Come on John,

The "testing site" was linked to your profile on DP Challenge. That link isn't done by some

know nothing web designer kid. That's done by someone with access to your account on

the DPC site.

In addition there were photos on that account, presumably taken by you, posted to the site

over a few years. That was an active account, not a new one. That there were photos

posted also suggests at least a rudimentary knowledge (by someone) of how to upload

items to the web. It's a real stretch to suggest the kid web designer was posting a live site

for testing, and also linking that site to your account.

The "testing of the website" explanation just doesn't ring true. People test websites after

they've gone through some development. The only development on your site was to

substitute your name for Ascough's in a few places. There was NO development of the site

before it was posted with your name. If this was just a site downloaded to use as example

in designing a page for you as you've explained, why was it uploaded "for testing" with

little changed?

Additionally you've suggested that in your ignorance of web development procedure you

went to Ascough's site and downloaded to use as a guide in developing your site. This

also doesn't make sense. When a web designer asks for site that you like, people usually

take a screen capture of sites they like. Customers do not find a "code sucking" program,

download it and then visit the web vacuuming everything available. This is the work of

someone not intending to develop a new site but to borrow code from an existing one. I

will remind the readers that you've state that you performed this task, not the know

nothing college kid.

This was a site that was downloading in it's entirety, had some changes

made, and uploaded. Someone with access to your account on DP Challenge then linked

that site to your account.

The only explanation for a dumb kid web designer was that he's not bright enough to

remove the tracking elements and change all occurrences of the previous photographers

name and credits.

Part of the firestorm that you've witnessed is that this sort of thing happens all to often

and there is no penalty for these kinds of thefts. Whether it's photographers or designers

in the web community selling a ripped off product to an unsuspecting customer there is

no penalty.

On another note, each time you offer an apology it's accompanied with a shot at Ascough

for an "unprofessionally" placed phone call or a suggestion that his not wanting to accept

an incomplete explanation from you is in poor form on his part, has just added fuel to this

fire.

My own thermometer on this issue went from a 4 when I first saw the foul, to a 9 with your

subsequent shots across the bow under the guise of explanation or apology.

Had you been unaware I would have expected a statement that would have expressed

apology, shock and a timely investigation on your part. Your apologies were half hearted

and accompanied with a return "how dare you" or "well if you won't let this go, you'll be

the one who's name is tarnished."

As a fellow member of the professional photo community, I have been saddened at how

you've handled this.

-Dave