I agree. I think the difference is that we proactively go in with that
knowledge (to PUG, photo.net, etc.) and accept the risk up front, whereas
here people were being asked to "trust" this person they didn't know and who
provided less than complete information. The gmail address did not help his
cause either.
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:59:31 -0500
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But I think it was very unlike how the Pentax Users Gallery operates
aside
>from there's no remuneration from either.
>
>For one, the PUG is quite explicit with rules, sizes, deadlines, and it
has
>plainly stated copyright and usage laws right on the opening page. And
it's
>all publicly stated. With the PUG we even get to SEE our work. From
what I
>knew of this other undertaking, we were not even going to get to see it.
Well true, but after those images are up on the PUG, any random web
surfer who's unaffiliated with the PUG, who hasn't agreed to all the
terms that the PUG specifies, can download and use them. We'll never see
it or even know about it.
>Once more... not that I thought anything suspicious was going on... I did
>not. But caution, prudence, wariness, are all antonyms to gullibility.
Yet a lot of us regularly place images online on the PUG, photo.net,
etc. and our own web pages/blogs where they can be downloaded by anyone
who surfs by.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
