I've replied to Sandy's e-mail too, saying much the same thing: theft is theft.
There's a reason the Golden Rule is phrased the way it is. Would T-Ching like it if someone ripped off their intellectual property and used it without their permission and without acknowledging the source? I'm sure they would not.
Phyll: Agreed that Teachat is also there to drive traffic to Adagio. What I like about Teachat though is that it is, as far as I can tell, administered independently of the people who derive profit from Adagio. TChing is not.
And as Geekgirl mentioned in her post in the general forum -- the correct course of action by TChing should be to take the photos off the site until the license issue is cleared up, not to leave it up there while the copyright is being disputed.
And as Geekgirl mentioned in her post in the general forum -- the correct course of action by TChing should be to take the photos off the site until the license issue is cleared up, not to leave it up there while the copyright is being disputed.
I don't believe that there is the same control with TeaChat as the blog of T-ching. TeaChat is administered as best as possible by our gracious mods. Everything is handled well, but given the freedom of posting that cannot always happen. And from what I have seen it is dealt with in a manner as gracious as possible.Phyll wrote:
By the way, I agree with MarshalN that T Ching blog somewhat acts like "bait you with a nice blog and then spring a shop on you" site. And this is in the same way that TeaChat, TeaMuse, etc. are, too, for Adagio Tea, I think. I don't see anything wrong with that since store blogs have become the trend nowadays and they've been proven to help the business.
The practice itself isn't what would be the issue in my opinion. I could possibly accept the notion of it being a mistake, even given the precedent. But if that were so I would think the handling of it is more an issue. The first thing to have been done is to pull the image and then reevaluate, instead of what currently seems to have happened.
Not that i'm necessarily condoning taking images that don't belong to them, but that is a practice that they should reevaluate internally.
Nov 19th, '08, 23:37
Posts: 2625
Joined: May 31st, '08, 02:44
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:
Geekgirl
The problem, in my mind, is the disingenuous attempt to circumvent licensing by claiming that the blog is NOT commercial. I would have the same issue in the exact same way if Adagio was lifting material from artists or writers to spruce up their pages. They have not done that though. All photos posted around here are contributed voluntarily by the participants.
Tching is going out to get content from whoever they can lift it from. I do not for a second believe that they have been conscientious about licensing, I found 4 "all rights reserved" flickr images in their blog, and I only spent about 10 minutes looking. If they didn't ask me, why should I believe they have special permission to use fully copyrighted works from flickr?
My image is still up. About an hour ago, I explicitly asked them to remove it. The email went directly to the owner of Tching, who (interestingly) lives about an hour away from me. So she can't plead timezone ignorance, it's plenty early enough around here for a follow-through. I guess we'll see how long it takes.
The really stupid thing is, I'm a good share-girl. I've adjusted the licensing of my photos before so someone can use it. The difference is, they asked. AND, if they used it for marketing, they bartered for it. I've also been asked for photos, and said no, and had that "no" respected by the requesting party.
Tching is going out to get content from whoever they can lift it from. I do not for a second believe that they have been conscientious about licensing, I found 4 "all rights reserved" flickr images in their blog, and I only spent about 10 minutes looking. If they didn't ask me, why should I believe they have special permission to use fully copyrighted works from flickr?
My image is still up. About an hour ago, I explicitly asked them to remove it. The email went directly to the owner of Tching, who (interestingly) lives about an hour away from me. So she can't plead timezone ignorance, it's plenty early enough around here for a follow-through. I guess we'll see how long it takes.
The really stupid thing is, I'm a good share-girl. I've adjusted the licensing of my photos before so someone can use it. The difference is, they asked. AND, if they used it for marketing, they bartered for it. I've also been asked for photos, and said no, and had that "no" respected by the requesting party.
Nov 20th, '08, 00:11
Posts: 2625
Joined: May 31st, '08, 02:44
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:
Geekgirl
I see that. I also see the attempt in the comments to demonize anyone who doesn't just give them a no-consequence pass.
7 photos, 6 photographers. Seems like no effort at all was being made to be legal or ethical. They want to make it out like it is nothing at all and we are making a big fuss over nothing.
When this was first brought to my attention I was mildly annoyed. Now I'm pissed.
7 photos, 6 photographers. Seems like no effort at all was being made to be legal or ethical. They want to make it out like it is nothing at all and we are making a big fuss over nothing.
When this was first brought to my attention I was mildly annoyed. Now I'm pissed.
Nov 20th, '08, 00:25
Posts: 2625
Joined: May 31st, '08, 02:44
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:
Geekgirl
In addition to being unethical, it appears that the tching editors are punitive enough to leave a trail of breadcrumbs, by leaving the image link to my flickr account on the post, even though the image has obviously been removed.
They want their readers to believe that they made a simple mistake, and they have been upfront, but they are going to try and make the case that one person has been unreasonable. You see they are naming names, without actually naming names.
They want their readers to believe that they made a simple mistake, and they have been upfront, but they are going to try and make the case that one person has been unreasonable. You see they are naming names, without actually naming names.
Nov 20th, '08, 01:07
Posts: 5151
Joined: Dec 20th, '06, 23:33
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Gainesville, Florida
It's easy enough in Photoshop to put a Copyright © 2008 by .... into the actual photo, but is there a way to put the less restrictive Creative Commons language and symbol into the photo? You can easily paste it into a website, but I don't see an equally simple way to place it into a photo. Flickr, of course, allows you to post it next to the photo ... Photobucket doesn't.
I don't really want to place a full copyright because I want to allow non-commercial use, including (and especially) people copying my photos within TeaChat.
I don't really want to place a full copyright because I want to allow non-commercial use, including (and especially) people copying my photos within TeaChat.
Nov 20th, '08, 01:13
Posts: 2625
Joined: May 31st, '08, 02:44
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:
Geekgirl
I would, however, like to believe that I would first contact the person or business involved and ask them if they were aware that they were infringing on my personal property and give them the opportunity to correct it without assuming that they were criminals.
See, it's this kind of CRAP that makes me convinced that they are not as innocent as they are trying to portray themselves. They responded ON THEIR BLOG, that they had proceded properly and all permission had been obtained. When I objected in the same forum, not only did they NOT print my reply, but now they are characterizing me (and anyone who stood up for me) as, what, mean? unbusinesslike? unfair?
Bullshit.
Nov 20th, '08, 01:16
Posts: 2625
Joined: May 31st, '08, 02:44
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:
Geekgirl
I'm trying to learn the workaround so I can watermark all of my images in Lightroom, with a creative commons licensing. I know I can watermark, but it also does some oddball thing where it puts a standard sized frame around all the images. I don't want to add a frame. Still researching. I don't know how to use photoshop. Some geek I turned out to be.Salsero wrote: You can easily paste it into a website, but I don't see an equally simple way to place it into a photo. Flickr, of course, allows you to post it next to the photo ... Photobucket doesn't.
Nov 20th, '08, 01:17
Posts: 5151
Joined: Dec 20th, '06, 23:33
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Gainesville, Florida
This comment needs to be in the public forum where T Ching and others can see it.GeekgirlUnveiled wrote:I would, however, like to believe that I would first contact the person or business involved and ask them if they were aware that they were infringing on my personal property and give them the opportunity to correct it without assuming that they were criminals.
See, it's this kind of CRAP that makes me convinced that they are not as innocent as they are trying to portray themselves. They responded ON THEIR BLOG, that they had proceded properly and all permission had been obtained. When I objected in the same forum, not only did they NOT print my reply, but now they are characterizing me (and anyone who stood up for me) as, what, mean? unbusinesslike? unfair?
Bullshit.
Yeah, it's one thing to censor you and try to keep everything behind the scenes. But it's totally not right to post one side of it. If they prevent your voice they should at least have the decency to keep their side out of this.GeekgirlUnveiled wrote:I would, however, like to believe that I would first contact the person or business involved and ask them if they were aware that they were infringing on my personal property and give them the opportunity to correct it without assuming that they were criminals.
See, it's this kind of CRAP that makes me convinced that they are not as innocent as they are trying to portray themselves. They responded ON THEIR BLOG, that they had proceded properly and all permission had been obtained. When I objected in the same forum, not only did they NOT print my reply, but now they are characterizing me (and anyone who stood up for me) as, what, mean? unbusinesslike? unfair?
Bullshit.
Nov 20th, '08, 01:23
Posts: 1051
Joined: Jul 7th, '07, 01:37
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:
ABx
There are applications out there that will watermark image files as a batch operation. Here's a free one - http://www.digitalimagetool.com/
Nov 20th, '08, 01:36
Posts: 5151
Joined: Dec 20th, '06, 23:33
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Gainesville, Florida
This program will add the copyright symbol, but I can do that. It doesn't look like it has Creative Commons language/symbols, which is what I am interested in.ABx wrote:There are applications out there that will watermark image files as a batch operation. Here's a free one - http://www.digitalimagetool.com/