| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/24/2003 03:52:49 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
When I first heard the complaining i was thinking "Thou dost protest too much"
I think they are just choking at the fact that on DPC you are guilty until proven innocent. All communist nations have this law, why shouldn’t DPC? HAHAHAHAHA |
I see (like most of the public) you are substantially unfamiliar with the terms of the USA Patriot Act. We just go with the flow ... |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 03:54:24 PM · #77 |
I see (like most of the public) you are substantially unfamiliar with the terms of the USA Patriot Act. We just go with the flow ...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 03:57:55 PM · #78 |
Food for thought:
DPChallenge is a game.
You can choose to play by the site rules or not.
If your work is valuable to the point where theft is a fear, you probably shouldn't be submitting it to start with.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 03:58:17 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by karmat:
And is each user going to choose which site council member they trust?
Basically, you have several options
1) Trust us.
2) Don't trust us.
|
You already have it going on with the critique club so why not do it with this. First member of site council to click on the photo to be verified would get all the info and be able to then share with the rest of the site council.
As for the matter of trust it all disappeared with this new rule. We obviously aren't be trusted to follow the rules so why would we trust anyone one this site? |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:01:53 PM · #80 |
| John, I dont think it's so much about valuable, just a copyright issue, which can easily be overcome by a terms and agreement for use. Not a big deal on the internet. And I agree, if a shot is so good that you think it will make big bucks, dont submit it, hands down. I'm just playing devils advocate for grins. ;) |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:02:39 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
Karma, I think many are more concerned about copyrights than anything else. Perhaps a copyright agreement that the counsel has to sign and adhere to will help? I've been in film and music for years and your asking for orginal proofs not questions asked. For the novice, no problem, but for those making money, it's a legal issue. So some safeguards in place will help in the long run. Personally, I have no problem as long as whoever downloads the original agrees to the terms of agreement as with any copyrighted material. Whats your thoughts?
BTW, the second lead actress in a film I just finished name was Karma, is this a sign? hahahahaha
Love and hugs, TC |
There is already a copyright agreement in place between yourself and DPC regarding any images uploaded to the site -- perhaps you should re-read the TOS. They already agree to not infringe your copyright except to the extent necessary to run the site. Since displaying your hi-res images to the public is not necessary, they don't do it; therefore there's little likelihood of anyone other than the SC having an opportunity to steal your (hi-res) work. If you seriously think one of us would steal your work you should consider not doing business here at all -- since "that kind" of person is probably more likely to trace the connection back to your machine and make off with your whole portfolio ... |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:09:19 PM · #82 |
If you seriously think one of us would steal your work you should consider not doing business here at all
Oh come on Paul, you know thats not what I was talking about. I printed the agreements today when I joined but have not read them yet. I honestly dont think anyone would steal here on the site. I am just tryint to answer the concern I see from the posts with a possible solution. Thats all. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:12:04 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
[quote=karmat]
And is each user going to choose which site council member they trust?
Basically, you have several options
1) Trust us.
2) Don't trust us.
|
Forgive my rudeness bc I do respect your right to say what you think but everything you have said seems so ridiculous to me. What is your defintiion of trust, especially when it comes to peopl you do not know. Whay is it even an issue. It's the rules! It's what you have to do! What's the problem. I mean one that isn;t outrageously ridiculous like people stealing your picture and everyon being against you & not trusting you. Sounds like certifiable paranoia.
I dont mean to be overly harsh but just calling it like I see it.
Message edited by author 2003-12-24 16:25:16.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:18:22 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
If you seriously think one of us would steal your work you should consider not doing business here at all
Oh come on Paul, you know thats not what I was talking about. I printed the agreements today when I joined but have not read them yet. I honestly dont think anyone would steal here on the site. I am just tryint to answer the concern I see from the posts with a possible solution. Thats all. |
And I'm just saying that the only reasonable concern has already been addressed in the site agreement ... and that it shouldn't be a problem. Besides, the requirement to upload the original for verification has existed since the site's inception -- I don't think it needs revision now. And I really dislike -- when we've been having one or two ribbon-winners per week DQd almost every week -- to hear people whining about "you don't TRUST us."
The whole purpose of this kind of "testing" is to insure the integrity of the results. If you're taking honest pictures, then you better hope there's SOME way of screening the winners or you'll never have a chance. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:27:28 PM · #85 |
Wow, this has gotten ridicules. So I think I'll turn the knife.
If you don't want others to see your picture, DON'T ENTER IT.
I guarantee you there are plenty of good photographers out there that could just simply re-shoot one of your masterpices here on DPC and call it their own.
If you are worried about it, maybe you shouldn’t show your work to anyone.
You don't make any money by taking a picture. You make money by showing it to people that might buy it.
(any of the site counsel want to buy my pictures??)
not only have they not purchased any of them, but they could all pretty much take the picture better than I did..... so i feel safe.
BUT I'M Keep'in my eye on them.... I just know they want my lemon car!
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:27:35 PM · #86 |
[i] I don't think it needs revision now. And I really dislike -- when we've been having one or two ribbon-winners per week DQd almost every week -- to hear people whining about "you don't TRUST us." i]
Like I said, I don't have a problem with that, but I guess some do? The question that I was adressing was not about the rule, just the protection for the original material. I just read the agreement and see nothing to protect the original copyrights of the photographer. I read two agreements see nothing guarenteeing the rights of ownership. Perhaps you can point me to that agreement? I was going to post it on your behalf so those questioning could see. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:30:23 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
[i] I don't think it needs revision now. And I really dislike -- when we've been having one or two ribbon-winners per week DQd almost every week -- to hear people whining about "you don't TRUST us." i]
Like I said, I don't have a problem with that, but I guess some do? The question that I was adressing was not about the rule, just the protection for the original material. I just read the agreement and see nothing to protect the original copyrights of the photographer. I read two agreements see nothing guarenteeing the rights of ownership. Perhaps you can point me to that agreement? I was going to post it on your behalf so those questioning could see. |
I would like to see something protecting the photographer too.
Message edited by author 2003-12-24 16:30:43. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:42:10 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
Like I said, I don't have a problem with that, but I guess some do? The question that I was adressing was not about the rule, just the protection for the original material. I just read the agreement and see nothing to protect the original copyrights of the photographer. I read two agreements see nothing guarenteeing the rights of ownership. Perhaps you can point me to that agreement? I was going to post it on your behalf so those questioning could see. |
A the bottom of every single DPC page:
"DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2002 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission."
I think that's fairly explicit.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 04:42:42 PM · #89 |
Anna, you are protected. Your camera took the picture in question. You can proove it. I don't think you have anything here to worry about. You know where the picture was taken, you know the time and the day and everything you did to make that capture. Anyone else would need to make it up.
If another photographer, on another site were to copy one of your shots, consider it flattery.
Relax, enjoy, have fun. It's only a game. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:04:05 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
Anna, you are protected. Your camera took the picture in question. You can proove it. I don't think you have anything here to worry about. You know where the picture was taken, you know the time and the day and everything you did to make that capture. Anyone else would need to make it up.
If another photographer, on another site were to copy one of your shots, consider it flattery.
Relax, enjoy, have fun. It's only a game. |
No I'm not protected. When I upload something for a challenge it is uploaded as a jpg and the size is 640 x 480, which will only create a half decent 8 x 10 with a good printer but if I upload a 1600 x 1200 or even a 2560 x 1920 that will create not only an excellent 8 x 10 but I have been seeing a lot of poster sized prints at work using the 1600 x 1200 settings. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:06:20 PM · #91 |
If another photographer, on another site were to copy one of your shots, consider it flattery.
Relax, enjoy, have fun. It's only a game.
HAHAHAHA, yea, right. If you charge, it's not a game. If you want to protect your copyrights, it's not a game. The line about not submitting "if you don’t trust us" doesn't get it. Most have no idea who "We" are. All that’s needed is a protection clause as with any intellectual properties site. Why the anger and frustration?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:07:50 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by Gringo:
Anna, you are protected. Your camera took the picture in question. You can proove it. I don't think you have anything here to worry about. You know where the picture was taken, you know the time and the day and everything you did to make that capture. Anyone else would need to make it up.
If another photographer, on another site were to copy one of your shots, consider it flattery.
Relax, enjoy, have fun. It's only a game. |
No I'm not protected. When I upload something for a challenge it is uploaded as a jpg and the size is 640 x 480, which will only create a half decent 8 x 10 with a good printer but if I upload a 1600 x 1200 or even a 2560 x 1920 that will create not only an excellent 8 x 10 but I have been seeing a lot of poster sized prints at work using the 1600 x 1200 settings. |
Exactly
If anyone should use your shot to make a million dollars. It all belongs to you my dear. You stand to make far more money than selling a print. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:11:00 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
No I'm not protected. When I upload something for a challenge it is uploaded as a jpg and the size is 640 x 480, which will only create a half decent 8 x 10 with a good printer but if I upload a 1600 x 1200 or even a 2560 x 1920 that will create not only an excellent 8 x 10 but I have been seeing a lot of poster sized prints at work using the 1600 x 1200 settings. |
There is no difference between requesting proof from winners and requesting proof from others who had DQ requests. Why is this any different now? You've known since day one that there was a possibility that your original would be requested.
Of course, as John pointed out, you are certainly welcome to not participate if you don't agree. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:17:00 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by Gringo:
Anna, you are protected. Your camera took the picture in question. You can proove it. I don't think you have anything here to worry about. You know where the picture was taken, you know the time and the day and everything you did to make that capture. Anyone else would need to make it up.
If another photographer, on another site were to copy one of your shots, consider it flattery.
Relax, enjoy, have fun. It's only a game. |
No I'm not protected. When I upload something for a challenge it is uploaded as a jpg and the size is 640 x 480, which will only create a half decent 8 x 10 with a good printer but if I upload a 1600 x 1200 or even a 2560 x 1920 that will create not only an excellent 8 x 10 but I have been seeing a lot of poster sized prints at work using the 1600 x 1200 settings. |
Exactly
If anyone should use your shot to make a million dollars. It all belongs to you my dear. You stand to make far more money than selling a print. |
That is exactly why you want to protect your orginal file. Each person who has access to that file then has access to potentially using that photo for personal gain. It wouldn't matter who actaully owned the photo if it was being used without your knowledge then they could profit from it without your knowing it. I just object to making that orginal file available to more than one person. Would you willingly give someone a negative from film photography to study without a signed clause protecting your copyright? |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:17:04 PM · #95 |
you are certainly welcome to not participate if you don't agree.
That's not an acceptable answer for a pay site. I join to use your services and participate, but I refuse to relinquish my copyrights because of the rules. Once you charge, it's no longer a "welcome to not participate" site, it’s a site paid for by artists. Is it that hard to guarantee our copyrights? This makes me kind of uneasy as you defend the “right to not participate” clause. Perhaps we should hear an official (legal) answer from the site owner to let everyone know where the “official” stance on intellectual property rights?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:19:45 PM · #96 |
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
As PaulMDX pointed out,
Really, this is all you need.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:19:46 PM · #97 |
| And mk, I'm not a troublemaker. Promise. I'm a business man that’s been in the music and film business for years. My questions and concerns are legitimate and all I as are straight answers. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:21:07 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
you are certainly welcome to not participate if you don't agree.
That's not an acceptable answer for a pay site. I join to use your services and participate, but I refuse to relinquish my copyrights because of the rules. Once you charge, it's no longer a "welcome to not participate" site, it’s a site paid for by artists. Is it that hard to guarantee our copyrights? This makes me kind of uneasy as you defend the “right to not participate” clause. Perhaps we should hear an official (legal) answer from the site owner to let everyone know where the “official” stance on intellectual property rights? |
Beautifully said. |
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:26:58 PM · #99 |
Well, since this pot is pretty heated up already, I would think it's ok to add my thoughts as well ;)
First off, the FEW I see all in a uproar aka bitching, haven't really ever posted anything I've seen worth stealing. Just my thoughts.
I can't even begin to understand why it would be thought that this site or it's council would want to steal anything any of us post or submit to them. I do think your actions should be held accountable and this is a fair way to do that. If you don't like the rules you don't have to play ;) Pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2003 05:29:14 PM · #100 |
OK, here's something. When I resize an image to 640, and save as a JPEG, the Exif data is still all there. The only thing that seemed to change was the date stamp of the resizing. The original date was still there, along with all the exposure info, etc. That way there would be no "theft" possibility, given the small size. You could still see all the original look of the shot at that size.
Does that work?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 03:19:36 PM EDT.
