- This topic is empty.
Out of the Blue
-
hmmm………
That photo was uploaded on 12 September 2004, and won the online competition in October 2004. Someone somewhere has some explaining to do. :oops: :oops:If this is how it looks then it’s a sad day for Photography Ireland.
Having commented positively on this photo, indeed being hugely inspired by it, I feel almost sick to the stomach.
Andy
We can jump to assumptions – I did, but we shouldn’t point fingers. I was hesitant on posting this link but I want to develop my ability inspired by others. I can take a photo of something that has been taken a million times before and replicate someones view but I want my photo to portray my style, my thinking and my mistakes. I for one can guarantee that photos posted in my name to any site or public arena will be of my making and would like to think that those that I admire and aspire to are equally trustworthy. To see a duplicate image being posted to either site immoraly or illegally sickens me, hence the posting of the link. I, as most, were stunned by the ingenuity and uniqueness of this image.
I won’t point a finger as I said as what we assume to be the case, may not be. This may now not be the correct forum now for this thread but I want to trust a photo to be from the originator however good or bad it is perceived in the viewers eyes.
the mind boggles why anyone would do this its just sad. mind you it did bring me to betterphoto.com where I wittled away two hours of my life browsing and ogling :lol: :lol: :lol:
One thing that this illustrates,
and which I’ve suggested it in the past,
(but unfortunately no action was taken)-The betterphoto site illustrates remarkably clearly and forcibly
that the copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer.Somewhere, on the page that we post our pictures to,
a notice to this effect should be clearly visible.It wont stop theft,
but if it makes someone think twice,
then its done its job-Is there any reason why this can’t be done?
Does anyone else think that a copyright notice
indicating that the copyright is vested in the photographer,
would be a good thing here?Mark?
j
jb7:
Its up to the individual whether they type something with their post to suggest not to copy it,
place something in the image information or overlay with a copyright.Its not possible to change the site to add in text everytime someone posts and image to a thread.
Either way, none of this will stop anyone taking one of your images.If anyone is going to discuss this further, please take it to a new thread in a different forum.
Others:
Don’t make any assumption on this particular image. You don’t know all the facts.Yes, I will be interested too.
Starting another thread on this buisiness is pointless. I think that we are owed an explanation here given that we all commented on Robert’s photo in this thread.
The only possible legitimite explanation is that Hazel McFarland has registered on PI using the male pseudonym of Robert55. This seems very unlikely given that the photo is on the internet under the two different photographers. That’s not the way pseudonyms are supposed to work. Richard Bachman would have been discovered as the alter-ego of Stephen King long before he did if they were both publishing the same books at the same time!!
So I’ve patiently waitied. But given the lack of explanation, I feel that it is absolutely fair to now state my opinion that Robert55 is a cheat and a fraud. Mark, I am happy to take heat about my comments, but this whole buisiness has made me very angry.
Andy
I believe that Robert55 posted another ‘incredible’ image which he hastily deleted. I doubt that we will see him here again.
Cant believe the irony on this thread where Swordie said it appeared ‘false’ and then apologised when I teased him about it……. :lol: Little did we know it was ‘false‘ in a different sense. :shock:Inspired by this thread,
and Hauke’s new signature,
I decided to fashion one of my own-
What do you think?Remember,
Things go down as well as up.
and your home is at risk-j
What’s always with the ‘written’ permission?
If I tell you on the phone it’s ok to post my photo on your websiite, isn’t that enough?
Just wondering?[edit] Edited my signature after inspiration from Joseph.
BTW I can’t believe your man Robert55 did that (if he did it)!
What’s the point of getting praise for something you didn’t do? :roll:Its only an issue if someone says you gave permission,
when you didn’t-Then all you have to do is to get them to produce the written permission-
It puts the onus for proof onto the party who illegally used the image.
But the phone is fine too,
if you work that way-j
Andy pointed me to this fascinating thread. I just want everyone to know that I’m not Robert55
Over a thousand views and the beginning of an “I’m NOT spartacus!!” moment.
This thread will go down in PI history.
Andy
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
