Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RG's gone for good ?  (Read 24723 times)
stevenrk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2006, 09:45:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that things are well on their way to having this place be the next cafe. I'll buy a pitcher if anyone's willing to stick around.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Happy to contribute $25 to the tab, since I don't plan on spending it at the redecorated RG bar.

Steven
Logged
sdai
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2006, 10:14:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"

Cool ... I absolutely agree.  
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2006, 10:59:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Considering photography and copyright issues, I'm actually shocked that these new owners would even consider such a move but maybe they are green about how professional photographers make a living (we sell usage of images, not the images themselves) and copyright is key to this.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Considering that people like Andrew and others make their living from teaching and writing, there arises an interesting IP issue with posts on public forums being sold, not to mention the fact that the owners of the information in those posts being locked out and can no longer reference their own comments.

Put simply "You own your words" and selling those words without the permission of the owner is a simple breach of IP, which we as photographers take very seriously.

Are there published terms and conditions on the RG site - I never saw any but I am happy to be corrected. If not then the new owners should tread carefully.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2006, 09:51:24 AM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, but we should all cut the IP crap. For all we know the website could be run from China, in which case I wish anyone good luck with no matter how many US (or Ozzie) authorneys. If you offer any kind of information to the internet, you have to accept that it can, and most likely will, become public domain.

Your protection results from the fact that the value of information is inversely proportional to its speed. Considering the timeframe of internet information, there really is no informational value in your previous posts. If you really think there is any value, I would like to present exhibit A: the countless times I've seen the "experts" answer the same old questions over and over again.

In fact, that is probably what makes them experts to begin with; the fact that they have the patience to do so...


Quote
Considering that people like Andrew and others make their living from teaching and writing, there arises an interesting IP issue with posts on public forums being sold,
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8910


« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2006, 10:32:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking for myself, I've written enough on photographic forums to fill a number of books. But much of the stuff I've written is ill-informed and incorrect. I'd like to collect all that stuff as a record of my photographic development, but I'm not going to insist that it remain on archive as a valuable source of information.

I've thought about doing a search on all my posts, in this forum and Rob Galbraith's, and printing the results, but I haven't done so yet. I tend to think it would be an exercise in vanity.
Logged
n1x0n
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2006, 12:47:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of pitchers.

I am willing to donate domain name, hosting space, bandwidth, forum setup services and technical support for the idea of a new, professional, digital medium format forum.

Being one of the big klients of an hosting company/i own a web design company/, i have access to significant ammounts of free hosting space and bandwidth, also i'm qiute familiar with setting up, administration and moderation options of Invision and PhpBB forum boards. The team of programmers in my office should back me up in case of trouble.

If you guys think that is a good idea - i'm ready to kick it off. It will be a good idea to act now, while people are still searching for separate suitable space for MF specific discussions. Gathering them together will be more difficult with every passing day.


p.s.
I hope that this offer does not violate LL forum rules...

p.p.s.
Being a moderator/administrator of an big, free, art oriented forum, listing about 6000 active members - i'm aware that such a forum will require significant efforts and time on my part, but i'm prepared to face them.
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2006, 04:46:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With all due respect, but we should all cut the IP crap. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Relax.

No-one is suggesting suing anyone and of course from a practial perspective it would be foolish to even contemplate such a course of action.

OTOH, IP is hardly 'crap' as you so bluntly put it. It is a fundamental part of the creative industy's business model and has been fought for long and hard.

RG is based in Canada. Canada has stringent IP laws like the US and Europe and any violation of them needs to be brought into the open so people can be made aware of what is happening so they can make an informed decision about the situation.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2006, 06:23:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
RG is based in Canada. Canada has stringent IP laws like the US and Europe and any violation of them needs to be brought into the open so people can be made aware of what is happening so they can make an informed decision about the situation.

Fair enough, and I may have stated it somewhat more harshly than necessary, but providing information to the internet, especially in the form of answers to questions, is not protectable by law in a genetic sense. Trying to make laws to do so, or trying to apply existing laws, is equivalent to killing oneself (as a society).

Instead you should (simply) increase the speed of expansion. That is, believe in our ability to keep creating, more and more, preferrably in consistent form. You either believe in your ability to create, or you believe in your ability to protect. The latter is the surest way to loose a dominant position in the realm of globalization and will eventually lead to demise. Whereas creating in consistent form is not easily replicated, and undeniably your signature, thus your IP if you will.

I would really like the "experts", self-proclaimed or otherwise, to keep that in mind. It is their participating that is relevant, not their contributions. Yes, "you own your words", but you don't own the information behind those words, no? It is the way that they share information, in a positive, patient, constructive, unselfish matter, that makes their "words" valuable. It is very, very counter-productive if these people start running in negative mode, like lawyers need to do for a living: thinking about everything that can go wrong, instead of thinking about everything that can go right.

end-of-rant
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
heinrichvoelkel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2006, 08:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fair enough, and I may have stated it somewhat more harshly than necessary, but providing information to the internet, especially in the form of answers to questions, is not protectable by law in a genetic sense. Trying to make laws to do so, or trying to apply existing laws, is equivalent to killing oneself (as a society).

Instead you should (simply) increase the speed of expansion. That is, believe in our ability to keep creating, more and more, preferrably in consistent form. You either believe in your ability to create, or you believe in your ability to protect. The latter is the surest way to loose a dominant position in the realm of globalization and will eventually lead to demise. Whereas creating in consistent form is not easily replicated, and undeniably your signature, thus your IP if you will.

I would really like the "experts", self-proclaimed or otherwise, to keep that in mind. It is their participating that is relevant, not their contributions. Yes, "you own your words", but you don't own the information behind those words, no? It is the way that they share information, in a positive, patient, constructive, unselfish matter, that makes their "words" valuable. It is very, very counter-productive if these people start running in negative mode, like lawyers need to do for a living: thinking about everything that can go wrong, instead of thinking about everything that can go right.

end-of-rant
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


oscar, i'm afraid you don't get the point.

first of all, dealing with copyrights is the basic idea in profesionell photography. you take pictures, own the copyright and sell the usage rights for a fee. may be you're business is not based on this idea, but almost all art and intelectuell content business are function this way.

second, as you stated before: the knowledge in the rg forums archive was placed to public domain. absolutely right. and that is what it is all about. to keep it public!!!!

third, maybe you should read some of the post in the medium format section of the rg forum. really valuable information way beyond the "which zoom is better"-discussions or pixelpeeping in general.

at least, i learned quite a bit about business as well.

regards

heinrich
Logged
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2006, 08:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
third, maybe you should read some of the post in the medium format section of the rg forum. really valuable information way beyond the "which zoom is better"-discussions or pixelpeeping in general.

at least, i learned quite a bit about business as well.

I agree. It was a very educating read. And although as a passive reader mostly I am not personally involved, I dont understand what keeps the new owners from keeping the archives open, except to earn money with other people's advice and information. Which is not a good thing. I still think the owner would loose nothing in making reading free and only posting bound to membership.

THose who like the forum will pay even if they can read for free, and potentially more people will join, however in the current planned model many will not join to read what was free before. Therefore the owner will loose.

Just my opinion
Bernie
Logged
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2006, 02:24:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
first of all, dealing with copyrights is the basic idea in profesionell photography. you take pictures, own the copyright and sell the usage rights for a fee. may be you're business is not based on this idea, but almost all art and intelectuell content business are function this way.

But the reason they hire you is because of your style, not because of your protected content. Ultimately that is what drives your business. There is plenty of competition, in most any business including photography as well as consultancy.

However, I admit that I'm less familiar with the content of the RG MF forum. I am more familiar with the ColorManagement forum, and frankly, that place became somewhat of a caricature. even so, I still think that within 6 months time, no one will turn their heads back to the information in either forum, because such is the nature of the internet. In addition, it takes little common sense to see that the rate of change in MF will now accelerate to what 35mm has done in the past years.

Quote
second, as you stated before: the knowledge in the rg forums archive was placed to public domain. absolutely right. and that is what it is all about. to keep it public!!!!

Agreed.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2006, 06:33:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But the reason they hire you is because of your style, not because of your protected content. Ultimately that is what drives your business. There is plenty of competition, in most any business including photography as well as consultancy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Some people make a good living licensing out their images as opposed to just shooting images for clients and handing over the results. That is why protecting your IP rights is so important - the whole stock photography market revolves around this.

It's about style, sure, but it's also about making your images work for you long after they were shot. Without IP/Copyright protection all your images are worthless since anyone could use them for free.

To bust another common myth - images on the internet are absolutely NOT "in the public domain". They may not legally be copied or used in anyway without permission, even if this is almost impossible to enforce. Using a pic copied from the internet is no different to scanning a picture in a book and selling it.  Books are not in the public domain, they are in public view, but that is not the same thing at all.

If anyone uses my images in a clearly significant manner without my permission they will be hearing from me and will get an invoice, at the very least. I have successfully done this and been paid accordingly.

My 'protected content' is very valuable and I guard it with all the tools at my disposal, as should every photographer or creative professional.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2006, 07:57:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But the reason they hire you is because of your style, not because of your protected content. Ultimately that is what drives your business. There is plenty of competition, in most any business including photography as well as consultancy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One has nothing to do with the other. Yes, they hire him for his abilities and style. The protection is for him (the image creator) of course, not the client. Photographers do NOT SELL PHOTO's, they sell usage to use/publish the image for a limited time and place  (at least pro photographers who understand how the photo business works). That's the only way they can make a living. What Drew is doing is totally against everything a pro photographer does with respect to copyright, usage etc.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Walt Roycraft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2006, 08:02:53 AM »
ReplyReply

If the MF Forum at RG was like a group of friends sitting around a table in a cafe having a drink then why can't we simply move the party on to the next cafe?

Get over your anger, open up the next door and pull up a chair and ask,
"Who's chipping in to buy the next pitcher?"

Mark Tuttle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Totally agree.
I have asked paul to be included in the d64 venture(party)

Walt Roycraft
Logged

heinrichvoelkel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2006, 08:05:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One has nothing to do with the other. Yes, they hire him for his abilities and style. The protection is for him (the image creator) of course, not the client. Photographers do NOT SELL PHOTO's, they sell usage to use/publish the image for a limited time and place  (at least pro photographers who understand how the photo business works). That's the only way they can make a living. What Drew is doing is totally against everything a pro photographer does with respect to copyright, usage etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you so much, exactly, what I'm talking about...perfectly stated.  

And just before the question turns up again, the whole discussion is not about the 25/35$

Regards

Heinrich
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2006, 08:29:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I found Melissa's email on the wedding site thanks to a tip from a poster here. FWIW, if you need to contact her (and I assume Drew:

<melissa@whitelinenphoto.com>

Sent this a few minutes ago. Be interesting to see if I get a reply and if my posts get deleted. Decided to be "nice" since I have nothing against these guys yet.

-------
Good morning. Forgive me for writing to you directly but I am unable to access the former robgalbraith.com/ forum and understand you now have control of this site. I am writing to request you delete the 2543 posts to that forum I made over the years. Since I am unable to log onto the site due to Rob and Mike locking my account, I am unable to delete the posts made under my name. I therefore request you delete each post or provide some means of accessing the site so I can do so. Some of the posts contain copyrighted material from my book. As photographers, I don’t have to tell you the ramifications of publishing copyrighted material. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
--------
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
alba63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2006, 01:34:47 PM »
ReplyReply

So what will people do now? Drew has closed the forum site, saying that they have to transfer it to the new servers etc.

and: Old content (archives) will be freely readable. So noone will have to take action etc.

As far as I see, this is kind of like half the cup: He will not make the (new) forum viewable to non subscribers, what many of the old posters have asked for.

I dont know how much it actually costs over a year to run such a place, all included, but I still think he should not close it, and - maybe I am negative - I still believe that the new owner wants to make some money with it. I guess he has not gotten it for 5k, but has paid much more, so he wants to get that back somehow.

This is of course not illegal, its not even "immoral", it just means changing the character much compared to the old site, at least as it was before march 2006.

regards, Bernie
Logged
heinrichvoelkel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2006, 01:55:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, thats what most people, and me, asked for.

Very good. I'm glad, Drew did decide this way.

Regards

Heinrich
Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #38 on: April 26, 2006, 01:16:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't mean to sound like a broken record   , but it seems RG's has gone down the drain now.

It's pay-to-read, with the magnitude of worthy contributers put off by either RG or Drew.
No way to tell how, or if, the forum is going to develop, unless you pay the fee.
Judging by the recent comments on the forum before the close-down, it's not the pros who are favorable of the new business model and willing to subscribe.

It's a pity the MF community over there is lost, but good to be done with the matter, at last....
Logged
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2006, 01:42:16 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 07:48:18 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad