Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RG invites back all banned members  (Read 58096 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3980



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2006, 03:50:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think Andrew has a legitimate gripe with the new forum owners. His posts are one of the reasons the archive has value, and the new owners need to either allow free access to the posts or else devise a way to compensate Mr. Rodney and the other experts. Or else delete them. Otherwise, they are deriving financial gain from the intellectual property of other people without their consent, and IMO ought to be thoroughly sued if they persist in that course of action. I've written a few posts that people have found educational and informative at RG, here, and Fred Miranda, and if some started charging money for access to my posts, I'd expect a piece of the action as well. If the new owners want to charge for posting privileges, fine. But charging for access to the writings of third parties who did not consent to such an arrangement is a big no-go.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with Jonathan and Andrew. We posted with the implicit assumption tht our stuff would be made available to all.

Edmund

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2006, 04:28:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But charging for access to the writings of third parties who did not consent to such an arrangement is a big no-go.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not only is there an IP issue but also, at least here in Australia, there is a clear right to "Attribution" in published work. By removing the names of posters whilst keeping the content the new owners are violating this right of attribution. They need to keep the name with the post, delete neither or delete both; removing the author's name is a clear case of trying to have your cake and eat it.

I fully agree with Andrew's position. I only posted a few hundred comments, and still have access until the end of the month, but it seems to me that the 'content' and value of a forum is 99.9% made up of the posts themselves - and this is clearly owned by the original posters.

Forums are not, and will never be a way to make money. 'Subscriptions for advice' set-ups like Imaging Review were on the right track because you are paying for access to experts time. Paying for a 'community forum' - I don't think so.

If the owners of a forum cannot get value out of it in other ways, and cannot afford to run it, then close it or ask for help from the members.

I suspect that the new RG Forums will slowly fade from here on, and we will see more and more knowledgeable people here at LL, which always was an excellent alternative to RG.

I have deleted my RG bookmark and will not be going back there.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2006, 04:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone have an email or way of contacting these new "owners"? Since I can't post or log in from the ban, I don't as yet have a way to even request my previous posts be deleted.

IF you've posted and want your stuff removed AND you have the ability to post to the site, I recommend you ask for this publicly on the site so we can get an idea of what kind of reply if any you get.

Anyone that can post who wants to reference this set of posts on LL or anything I specifically said with respect to my posts, you have my permission. Just don't get yourself banned...
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2006, 05:42:35 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 08:03:34 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
stevenrk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2006, 06:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Roland, thanks for finding them for us.  Looks like Andrew not only as an ethical point but a legal one as well.  There isn't any explicit waiving of copyright to written material posted by a subscriber.  The TOUs just seem to protect RG's copyright to his work product.  In fact, some of the disclaimer language comes close to making a specific disclaimer of any connection to the content of postings, let alone ownership of them.

Steven
Logged
RolandBaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2006, 07:45:38 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 08:02:50 PM by RolandBaker » Logged

Best regards,

Roland
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2006, 08:50:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does anyone have an email or way of contacting these new "owners"? Since I can't post or log in from the ban, I don't as yet have a way to even request my previous posts be deleted.

Andrew

I haven't noticed any contact info for them on the RG site but the new owners,Drew and
Melissa Strickland,run a wedding photography business in Atlanta.

www.elegantweddingphotography.com

You should be able to find access to them there

Mark
Logged
KenRexach
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2006, 01:29:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree, Forums are NOT a way to make money.

If you dont have enough money to run a Forum then give it to someone who does. Im sure there are several members of the thousands that read and contribute that have the time and the money to spare.

$49 to join a wedding forum, that is plain silly!, $25 then $39 to join RG? No thanks.
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2006, 01:49:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the joke is, when all the experts and people with experience refuse to pay and join, then you get only newbies paying the subscription, hoping to learn from those people who are no longer there.  They say, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King.

Henry
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2760



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2006, 02:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Roland

Thanks very much for finding those terms. It strikes me as wholly unprofessional (in the sense of unethical) that professional photographers (in the sense of earning their living) should perpetrate such a copyright theft and I will be complaining to the new forums' ISP. If my scribblings aren't publically available, I want them removed in their entirety.

(As an aside: thanks to the fee and sale agreement, these postings now have a quantifiable financial value and this Drew  says here : "All of the "old" stuff will be migrated. Testing on this has already been done. There don't appear to be any problems. The history of this forum is one of its greatest assets")

Having nailed my colours, I've read those terms very closely and want to sound a note of caution. Look at clause 5B.

"Rob Galbraith Digital Photography Insights contains copyrighted material, trademarks and other proprietary information, including, but not limited to, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound, and the entire contents of Rob Galbraith Digital Photography Insights are copyrighted as a collective work under Canadian copyright laws. Rob Galbraith Digital Photography Insights owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to it. "

Now section 5 relates to subscriber conduct and respect for copyright material on the site, and it should be contrasted with clause 11 on third party conduct. While the underlying purpose of the section is to wash their hands of anything potentially libellous or otherwise illegal, it's pretty clear that they do distance themselves from the contributions. Elsewhere other clauses repeat respect for copyright and, as I see it, there is no explicit transfer from the writer to the site owners.

It would be interesting to hear what a trained lawyer would say. My feeling is that there's enough for a valid argument and, more importantly, enough to scare the new forums' ISP.

John
Logged

roberte
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2006, 07:55:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It seems your voices are being heard (posts being read?). The old RG forums are closed while the migration to Drew's server takes place. The message posted is, "We've come up with a solution for this that will enable public viewing of the historical content". Perhaps it is a way of enticing new subscribers, and avoid litigation.

I wish Drew all the best in his endeavour, while looking for a new forum to loiter in while Photoshop churns away .

-- Robert.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2006, 08:01:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1) All formerly banned users are invited back by the new owner
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Seems like BS. The new forums are up as of today.  I'm still unable to log in as my old login to delete my old posts. Two emails to the owners have gone unanswered. So any banned users get an invite back?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mikebore
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2006, 01:27:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Just posted by Drew Strickland in a thread in the new forums:

" The current archive that started, I believe back in 2000, and going until April 21st, 2006 will remain freely viewable regardless of any votes.


What will be up for a vote is whether we continue to update the archive with 3 month old material going forward."
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2006, 01:52:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I've read with interest the arguments relating to the new arrangements at the Rob Galbraith forum, and I find that's there's one vital piece of information missing which, if known, would surely temper the arguments, and that is, namely, the profit figure.

Let me paint a scenario which might be true, for all I know.

Rob Galbraith never made much money from the forum. He began to actually lose money in recent years and struggled to remain afloat. He wondered if he should introduce subscriptions along the lines of Photo.net (a voluntary $25 per year) but decided he'd had enough. It was no longer as much fun as it had previously been and in any case he was fundamentally opposed to subscriptions.

Nevertheless, he had a few debts that needed clearing and he did his best to find a buyer who would at least clear those debts. He didn't succeed, but found a buyer, after much haggling, who would be prepared to pay a price that would clear most of his forum related debts.

The buyer, Drew, was very much aware that running public forums was a labour of love. Drew would have liked very much to have paid Rob more for the forum but he is not a charity organisation and knows he's going to struggle to keep the site afloat.

Rob was against charging an annual fee of $25. Drew sees it as the only solution, as well as measures to exploit the value of the archives. The alternative is complete oblivion and a total loss of all the valuable information and advice in the archives.

Okay! Call me naive   . But if this scenario is not a true picture of the situation, prove me wrong.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2760



WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2006, 03:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray

I think you're slightly missing the point as to why people were annoyed. Taking your line about profitability, no-one says Rob's a charity. If he wasn't covering his costs (maybe his bandwidth costs were unduly high because of all those Flash ads that I always blocked), he had every right to look for a way out. Equally no-one argues with his right to close his forums and transfer their name and reputation to whoever he chose.

But we're certainly not overlooking the profit figure - what caused much of the fuss is that the new owners initially proposed to make money from making our freely-given contributions only available to paying subscribers. The RG registration agreement contained no variation of normal copyright as part of the deal for being allowed to post. How would you like it if you gave someone your pictures, and he sold them to a guy who started acting as though their copyright belonged to him, and even asked you for money to see them?

Leaving those contributions in an openly-available archive seems a decent compromise.

John
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3980



WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2006, 05:51:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray

I think you're slightly missing the point as to why people were annoyed. Taking your line about profitability, no-one says Rob's a charity. If he wasn't covering his costs (maybe his bandwidth costs were unduly high because of all those Flash ads that I always blocked), he had every right to look for a way out. Equally no-one argues with his right to close his forums and transfer their name and reputation to whoever he chose.


John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A non-ad non-picture forum needs little bandwith -I know for sure because I run one and stress-tested it when I set it up . Rob's problem was he had all these blinkenlight ads and these chew up much more than forum text. Serve him right - what was a major annoyance to his readers ended up being a major problem for him.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2760



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2006, 06:05:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A non-ad non-picture forum needs little bandwith -I know for sure because I run one and stress-tested it when I set it up . Rob's problem was he had all these blinkenlight ads and these chew up much more than forum text. Serve him right - what was a major annoyance to his readers ended up being a major problem for him.
Edmund
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, that's what I thought. I was amused to read that one of the new moderators was previously banned by RG. She was OK with static banners but had posted to say she found the flashing banners to be distracting (now there's a surprise) and gently questioned the need for them. In the handover period, she was appointed as a moderator and posted this story - which RG promptly deleted for "personal attack".

I don't mind too much if a site owner tries to fund a useful site through adverts. But I don't want to see them, ever. It just amazes me that more people don't use the free [a href=\"http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/central]Firefox browser[/url] and its Adblock extension which allows wildcards in blocked content. This simple line said a firm and rude goodbye to almost all RG's ads:
Code:
http://forums.robgalbraith.com/images/*.swf
And I would definitely have been banned for posting that.

John
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 06:06:34 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

RicAgu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2006, 08:18:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I have tried resigning up and no luck for the read only section.  I think they will let you back if you pay to get back on.  Even the worst people in the world during some of the most vile atrocities let people go in the past when they paid for it.  The greed of man only continues here.  

It is actually quite funny and pathetic.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #38 on: April 28, 2006, 10:07:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But we're certainly not overlooking the profit figure - what caused much of the fuss is that the new owners initially proposed to make money from making our freely-given contributions only available to paying subscribers.


John,
I actually do understand that point. If running a forum is like any other business where people are in it for the money as much as anything else and expect to make a good profit, then the objections raised in this thread about access to previous freely given content, are very valid.

However, I simply don't know what the economics are of running a busy site like the Rob Galbraith forum where subscribers can include images with their posts, which take up bandwidth just like ads, presumably.

Some posters are making light of the cost, but I simply don't know what the costs are. If the intention is to make the forum a profitable concern, then Drew is up against stiff competition from the Luminous Landscape and Photonet.

Clearly, if Drew's agenda is something like, "Corr! Look at that wealth of professional advice in the archives. I can make a killing out of that." (rubbing his hands with glee), then I can appreciate that Andrew Rodney and others would have good reason to get upset.

However, if the true situation is likely to be that the only way the new owners expect to be able to attract sufficient paying subscribers to keep the forum afloat is to use the archival resource as a carrot, then doesn't that shed a different light on matters?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2760



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 28, 2006, 11:29:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Too many ifs, Ray. People rarely put images in their posts and would have had to have used their own webspace and bandwidth. Rob's adverts were bloating his own bandwidth usage by a factor of around 10 when I last looked. As Ronald posted, without such junk the cost of running such a site is not that great, nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars he said he had put in. Rob was running the thing badly, clearly wasn't enjoying the intellectual experience, and he just wanted out. I really couldn't care less why.

Nor was Drew's agenda something we need to guess at. In his own words, the past postings were the "greatest asset" he was buying and he said they would only be available to those who subscribed. I'm another who was happy to take legal action (I get top drawer City of London IP advice for free) if he had proceeded and taken my freely-given contributions, whatever their value, and made them a revenue-generating private asset. Now they are being left publically available, even if it is to encourage subscriptions, I'm less outraged by his high-handed behaviour and no longer see it tantamount to naked copyright theft. But I won't think of subscribing and quite understand why Andrew Rodney might wish to have his postings removed.

John
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad