Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Cool! This message was regurgitated by the list. We can start sending images to Marco again, then argue about the whole affair. Paul On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:58 AM, frank theriault wrote: On 1/27/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only the messenger. I'm assuming that the e-mail address (above) would be the place to send any enquiries... Any questions regarding this matter can be forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know that if I had a Pentax digital camera, I'd send a few in. I think it would be fun, but that's just me. If you don't think it would be fun, then don't participate... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Hi Keith On the other hand, it's my time and energy so I think it's up to me to judge whether or not the expenditure is futile. 8-) Futile is my word of the day, I just wanted to write something to use it. I guess I'm ecologically concerned about waste of energy. But no-one is making you read the thread. Fair enough, I'm problably just too curious to see how this ends (or not...). My fault. And sometimes clarification comes through discussion, even if the issue is *never* decided. 8-) My dear PDMLer, I can't stop you, can I? so be my guest Bye From: Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:01:59 +0930 Fernando Terrazzino wrote: puh-leeze! I just joined this list a couple of days ago, which may not enable me to give a valuable opinion on many matters, but I certainly didn't expect to be expectator of a soap opera. Can you guys please let this one go and move on... Some people think that there are issues to discuss here. Apparently, you don't. Fine. I have no intention of trying to convince you, or anyone else, otherwise. But no-one is making you read the thread. I may be a beginner photographer but I don't need to be a good one to realize that all this emails are futile lost of energy in a topic that's not gona be solved. If you ask me Dario's yes, no, yes, no is the one that made more sense in all this. I didn't ask you...but like anyone else you can express an opinion. 8-) On the other hand, it's my time and energy so I think it's up to me to judge whether or not the expenditure is futile. 8-) And sometimes clarification comes through discussion, even if the issue is *never* decided. 8-) Keith McG _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Doug wrote a long message, so I have to snip... Doug Brewer wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 8 Feb 2006 at 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/8/2006 6:24:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anything Marco and/or Pentax Canada owes those who took the time to inquire and/or contribute an apology for not having their act together. Tom C. === You're beginning to approach JCO's record for remaking the same point over and over. Except he's correct. Unfortunately, Rob, Tom is not correct. Unfortunately, Doug, I partly agree with Tom; only partly because whoever sent the abusive messages is most to blame for the subsequent fall-out. The partly is because I agree, with several others, that the request for photographs was not made in a particularly professional fashion, nor was the subsequent rejection of those who took the trouble to submit images. The key phrase (for me) in the reply sent to those who submitted was: We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. As Tom C said, the more trouble than it is worth is not a particularly gracious response to those who submitted images for FREE for Pentax to use in promoting its products. I can't speak for others, but mine were sent with no strings attached, so I have difficulty seeing what the trouble is here. The message did say, twice, thanks to those who submitted images and, as a consequence, I am interpreting more trouble than it is worth AS JUST AN UNFORTUNATE CHOICE OF PHRASE. I think the poor guy just got caught in the middle of something he did not anticipate. (I, on the other hand, having been on lists and read newsgroups for over a decade am not in the least surprised about the whole shemozzle.) [snip] And then, to have the whole thing blow up because some list members apparently don't have the good sense and respect to write civil inquiries just shocks and saddens me. Adding insult to injury, now there is a hue and cry that someone Pentax Canada owes them an apology. No. No. No. I don't call anyone a jackass and then demand an apology for my doing so. To the best of my knowledge Tom C didn't send abusive letters to Pentax, nor did I. On the other hand, as I said before, the people who are most at fault are those who sent the abusive messages in the first place. The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. It might help if, in situations like this, people didn't refer to the PDML as if it was some independent entity. According to the suspicions of some (I've seen no definite proof) and Doug's belief (as stated above), some of the abusive messages were sent by people subscribed to the PDML list. If such individuals apologised to the list (highly unlikely), they would also be apologising to themselves! 8-) For giving themselves a black eye? 8-) This is all a bit convoluted for me. Some people, possibly or probably subscribed to PDML (depending on your belief and access to the relevant messages), violated the norms of civil behaviour by sending abusive messages. The rest of us (presumably) condemn such behaviour and at least some of us are disappointed at the outcome of this. On the other hand (I'm up to about six hands so far!), such abuse is not uncommon (I've experienced it, although not that often), and it is odd for a corporation to decide to pick up its ball and go home because of it. My conclusions, for what (not a lot) they are worth: Was the original request made in a professional manner? Could have been handled better. Did the requester deserve to get abused for it? Definitely not. Was the response and subsequent reply to those who sent images made in a professional manner? Could have been handled better. Does the PDML list deserve an apology? The list is not an entity. Do the subscribers to the PDML list deserve an apology? Those who did not send abusive messages have a reasonable case for thinking so. Does Marco deserve an apology? Yes. Do I want an apology? I have better things to worry about. Does Tom C deserve an apology? Oh...I hear the kids calling; I'll have to sign off now... 8-) Keith McG Secure in the knowledge that he is several thousand km away from any other subscribers to PDML...!
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Hi! The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. What pisses me is that as a member of the PDML I'm being bundled in with all this BS too. Agreed. Boris
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Well said, Doug. On Feb 9, 2006, at 12:45 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 8 Feb 2006 at 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/8/2006 6:24:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anything Marco and/or Pentax Canada owes those who took the time to inquire and/or contribute an apology for not having their act together. Tom C. === You're beginning to approach JCO's record for remaking the same point over and over. Except he's correct. Unfortunately, Rob, Tom is not correct. With all due respect, and with the extra-added reminder that anyone on here is free to hold his or her own opinion, what some less-than-respectful members of this list have done is pretty much destroy what I, and a number of others here, have been working to achieve for several years now, which is a relationship with Pentax based on mutual respect and civility. I have personally visited Pentax headquarters in Colorado, and had conversations with many employees leading toward this relationship. I have sat at a conference table showing off the PUG on a big digital projector and talked up the list and its members as an invaluable resource of opinion, both good and bad, about the Pentax product line. I have considered it my honor to carry the PDML banner wherever I thought it necessary, from GFM to camera shops and workshops and into the Pentax USA offices. And I am not alone. Other members of this list have developed ties to Pentax reps and other employees, carrying that same banner. It has hurt me to read the hateful things that have been said about Pentax employees over my years here. These are hard-working, regular people with families, who are doing the best job they can, and when they are vilified, attacked personally, it's been all I could do to hold my tongue. I was here long before Aaron left. I remember his first faltering steps in his business. When Frank forwarded Aaron's email from Marco, I trusted that it was legit, and when the follow-up came, that any questions could be sent to Marco's direct email address at Pentax Canada, it sealed the deal. Here was a regular guy, asking other regular guys, to show off a few photos, at no risk whatsoever. And then, to have the whole thing blow up because some list members apparently don't have the good sense and respect to write civil inquiries just shocks and saddens me. Adding insult to injury, now there is a hue and cry that someone Pentax Canada owes them an apology. No. No. No. I don't call anyone a jackass and then demand an apology for my doing so. The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Doug Brewer List Guy
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Thanks Doug. I think this last thought is what's been subconsciously bothering me without my being able to articulate it. I almost killfiled this thread last night. Glad I waited until after your message to do so. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 2/9/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Thanks Doug. I think this last thought is what's been subconsciously bothering me without my being able to articulate it. I almost killfiled this thread last night. Glad I waited until after your message to do so. We've had a lot of ridiculous flame-wars over the years, but this has to take the cake. You all may have noticed that I haven't been posting much over the past couple of weeks, and this shit is the reason why. It just doesn't seem like the warm, welcoming place that it was before I started this thread. I honestly thought this would be a fun thing. Those that were interested in participating would do so, and derive some satisfaction that others were enjoying their photos, while in some small way helping out Our Corporate Mother. I figured that those who didn't want to participate, or who wanted some sort of remuneration, or were worried that their photos would be used for nefarious purposes would just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO NOTHING! Once a few questions were raised, and I posted Marco's Pentax Canada e-mail address, and I thought (again), Okay, frank, this is the end of it. We might hear from a few people what a nice guy Marco is, and how he answered questions promptly and politely, and how a few folks have sent in images. This thing's over now. (as an aside, a few did make such posts, which I was glad to see) I was wrong. This thing has simply devolved into a morass of accusations, finger pointing and demands for apologies the likes of which I've rarely seen. Now I see after Doug's post, people are still being defensive and saying it's not the list as a whole, it's not me, it's ~other people~ on this list. It's all been quite unseemly, and Doug is right, we should all hang our collective heads in shame. The list as a whole has misbehaved. I accept some responsibility, not because I started the thread, but just because I'm here. This used to be a pretty cool place to be. It's not any more. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:45 AM, frank theriault wrote: It's all been quite unseemly, and Doug is right, we should all hang our collective heads in shame. The list as a whole has misbehaved. I accept some responsibility, not because I started the thread, but just because I'm here. This used to be a pretty cool place to be. A similar thing happened when Fuji solicited photos last year. The pro community in NYC got wind of it and raised hell. I think Fuji just quietly withdrew the idea. There are two sides to everything, though. I am in favor of photo competitions in general, but I am opposed to those that say things like all entries become the property of *** and we can use them any way we damned well please without paying the photographer a cent. There are tons of competitions with words to that effect somewhere in their rules. I won't participate in or promote such competitions. But competitions which claim no rights to submitted photos and offer nice prizes for those selected are tops in my opinion. Bob
Re: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not any more. My healthy skepticism was based on two things. First, I thought it was rather cheeky of a national corporation to ask its customers to provide something effectively for nothing. Secondly, the approach style did not meet what I expected from the said body. Your, and other persons', later remarks negated the second point but I still adhere to the first. So I didn't participate in either the event or the subsequent discussion. But the list hasn't changed. It is exactly the same as it was before. The only difference is that you are aware of aspects of it that you were not before. That goes for quite a few of us. I'm going to carry on as before. As I hope Doug and the rest will. This may have been a particularly bloody skirmish but the war goes on. 8-))) mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Do we owe Marco an appology (was RE: Pentax wants your digital pix)
I sent this message last night. It has not as yet shown up in the digest, so I'm re-sending it. My apologies if you are receiving it twice. Also, thanks Doug for your point in your letter about building a mutually supportive relationship with Pentax. It summarizes a lot of my reasoning for suggesting the PDML send Marco an apology. Butch I'm saddened to hear that too. Since no one has come forward admitting to the jackass statement perhaps the PDML should send an e-mail apologizing for that statement and assuring that it is not the sentiment of the majority of the list members. Butch It is far from clear that a PDML member was responsible for writing that. When pressed, Aaron became a little vague and rather defensive. John I remember Aaron from my early days on the list and as such I have no doubt to his sincerity about the jackass statement. I can also understand a reluctance to name names given the litigious world we live in. Whether it is a current or former member is a valid question, as we have had a few loose cannons amongst us from time to time. My point is that the good name of the PDML has been hurt by this incident, whether caused by a current or former member or someone else. While there seems to be a widely varying opinion of the original request it appears that much, if not most, of the list does not approve of the jackass statement. I am a firm believer in when wrong, promptly admitting it, and making amends whenever possible. Hence, my suggestion for the e-mail assuring him that this was not the sentiment of the vast majority of the list members. Am I the only one who thinks an apology is in order? Butch
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
In a message dated 2/9/2006 7:01:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are two sides to everything, though. I am in favor of photo competitions in general, but I am opposed to those that say things like all entries become the property of *** and we can use them any way we damned well please without paying the photographer a cent. There are tons of competitions with words to that effect somewhere in their rules. I won't participate in or promote such competitions. But competitions which claim no rights to submitted photos and offer nice prizes for those selected are tops in my opinion. Bob === Microsoft recently ran a contest using VB.Net and it was not specified what would happen to the programs. Nothing was said about who would own the entered programs once they were entered. I thought it was one of the most poorly conceived contests I had ever heard of and wondered who would be dumb enough to enter. People could sell their programs directly rather than let MS possibly make money on them later. However, money/prizes were offered for the winner(s). I don't know what happened with it, I haven't tracked it since, but my impression was it generated very little interest. It was very poorly thought out. I don't own a Pentax, so I don't know if I should even comment. And I am not up on all the details on this issue. But I sort of fall in the middle, I think. I think the approach was poorly thought out by Pentax. Something specifically mentioning copyright should have been done from the beginning -- in detail and clearly. It is not unusual for lists or newsgroups for there to be uninformed individuals about copyright. It is not unusual for there to be jackasses. When a company deals with the public, ownership rights must be discussed up front and clearly. And some the public will be jackasses. It's just par for the course, unfortunately. Sure, it was informal. But, unfortunately, I don't think a company can do an informal approach when copyright issues for personal property/creativity are involved. If you think this was bad, you should have read the game writing newsgroup I was in for years, and years, and years. Well, they discuss copyright a lot, and it gets repetitive and boring. But it does mean most are fairly informed. However, I mean some of the flame wars. All writers they can be rather effective in their sarcasm and cutting and put downs. :-) So I guess I think both sides erred. Doug, PDML, is a special place. OTOH, it is also a mailing list. Although you/and we all collectively, keep the BS down to a minimum. BS on the Net happens. So the PDML can only be special to a degree. And especially because you leave this list essentially unmoderated. If you or frank or anyone want to apologize for the list to Pentax Canada, feel free. But it does seem they tucked tail and ran rather fast. That tells me they are not used to dealing with the normal jackasses one finds EVERYWHERE on the Net. It is simply part of dealing with a large group of people who remain faceless behind emails/posts etc. People will say things in emails and posts, unfortunately, they will not say face to face in real life. And it was obvious Aaron did not want to name names. Pentax Canada is never going to apologize. I don't feel they need to. Poorly conceived, does not mean they meant harm. And refusing to go forward on a project is not harmful either. It may be disappointing, but it is not harmful. Whoever on this list (if they are on this list and not in the other groups contacted by members of this list) who was a jackass is not going to apologize to this list. But, yeah, we could collectively apologize to Pentax Canada for whoever or for the several whoevers who were a jackass(es). And it doesn't mean, by apologizing, we are saying we in particular are a jackasses. Just that we feel it was unfortunate and most on the list who submitted photos liked the idea and had no problems with it. I suggest a web page with a simple letter and where people can add their names. Sort of like a petition. We the undersigned liked the idea and apologize for the unfortunate... blah, blah... the PDML is unmoderated and unfortunately jackasses happen everywhere on the Net... blah, blah. Wording could be arrived at jointly. Or it could be done by email too. Would that help? Would it help repair any Pentaxian relationship bridges? Marnie aka Doe
Re: Do we owe Marco an appology (was RE: Pentax wants your digital pix)
In my contact with Aaron over this, his reply was Pentax management was not going forward with this project and best leave it alone. That s all i have to say on this, other than well thought out reply Doug. I WAS going to submit,but not now i quess. Dave I sent this message last night. It has not as yet shown up in the digest, so I'm re-sending it. My apologies if you are receiving it twice. Also, thanks Doug for your point in your letter about building a mutually supportive relationship with Pentax. It summarizes a lot of my reasoning for suggesting the PDML send Marco an apology. Butch I'm saddened to hear that too. Since no one has come forward admitting to the jackass statement perhaps the PDML should send an e-mail apologizing for that statement and assuring that it is not the sentiment of the majority of the list members. Butch It is far from clear that a PDML member was responsible for writing that. When pressed, Aaron became a little vague and rather defensive. John I remember Aaron from my early days on the list and as such I have no doubt to his sincerity about the jackass statement. I can also understand a reluctance to name names given the litigious world we live in. Whether it is a current or former member is a valid question, as we have had a few loose cannons amongst us from time to time. My point is that the good name of the PDML has been hurt by this incident, whether caused by a current or former member or someone else. While there seems to be a widely varying opinion of the original request it appears that much, if not most, of the list does not approve of the jackass statement. I am a firm believer in when wrong, promptly admitting it, and making amends whenever possible. Hence, my suggestion for the e-mail assuring him that this was not the sentiment of the vast majority of the list members. Am I the only one who thinks an apology is in order? Butch
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Keith McGuinnesswrote (in part): Unfortunately, Doug, I partly agree with Tom; only partly because whoever sent the abusive messages is most to blame for the subsequent fall-out. It's good to not be alone. :-) The partly is because I agree, with several others, that the request for photographs was not made in a particularly professional fashion, nor was the subsequent rejection of those who took the trouble to submit images. The key phrase (for me) in the reply sent to those who submitted was: We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. As Tom C said, the more trouble than it is worth is not a particularly gracious response to those who submitted images for FREE for Pentax to use in promoting its products. I can't speak for others, but mine were sent with no strings attached, so I have difficulty seeing what the trouble is here. An employee of Pentax Canada, when dealing with the public on Pentax Canada business, is for all practical purposes, representing the company. The phrasing was basically insulting, even if unintentionally so. I won't pick on it any more. The message did say, twice, thanks to those who submitted images and, as a consequence, I am interpreting more trouble than it is worth AS JUST AN UNFORTUNATE CHOICE OF PHRASE. I think the poor guy just got caught in the middle of something he did not anticipate. (I, on the other hand, having been on lists and read newsgroups for over a decade am not in the least surprised about the whole shemozzle.) [snip] To the best of my knowledge Tom C didn't send abusive letters to Pentax, nor did I. On the other hand, as I said before, the people who are most at fault are those who sent the abusive messages in the first place. Of course not. It might help if, in situations like this, people didn't refer to the PDML as if it was some independent entity. As a member of a mailing list we are individually no more responible for another member's actions than we are for the guy down the street. My conclusions, for what (not a lot) they are worth: Was the original request made in a professional manner? Could have been handled better. Did the requester deserve to get abused for it? Definitely not. Was the response and subsequent reply to those who sent images made in a professional manner? Could have been handled better. Does the PDML list deserve an apology? The list is not an entity. Do the subscribers to the PDML list deserve an apology? Those who did not send abusive messages have a reasonable case for thinking so. And we're big enough not to actually require one. Does Marco deserve an apology? Yes. But not from the list at large. Do I want an apology? I have better things to worry about. Does Tom C deserve an apology? Oh...I hear the kids calling; I'll have to sign off now... 8-) PLEASE SOMEONE APOLOGIZE! OK, I'm Sorry. :-) Keith McG Secure in the knowledge that he is several thousand km away from any other subscribers to PDML...!
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unfortunately, Rob, Tom is not correct. With all due respect, and with the extra-added reminder that anyone on here is free to hold his or her own opinion, what some less-than-respectful members of this list have done is pretty much destroy what I, and a number of others here, have been working to achieve for several years now, which is a relationship with Pentax based on mutual respect and civility. I'm not correct in WHAT Doug? I do not feel responsible for apologizing for something I did not do. Nor do I feel that because others on the list may be jackasses that it reflects any on me (I'm quite capable of hee-hawing all on my own). :-) An apology only makes sense if it comes from the one(s) giving offense. The PDML is not that body. I have personally visited Pentax headquarters in Colorado, and had conversations with many employees leading toward this relationship. I have sat at a conference table showing off the PUG on a big digital projector and talked up the list and its members as an invaluable resource of opinion, both good and bad, about the Pentax product line. I have considered it my honor to carry the PDML banner wherever I thought it necessary, from GFM to camera shops and workshops and into the Pentax USA offices. I don't want to belittle those efforts. This is the first time I've heard mention on the list from you that you did that. What feedback has Pentax given to the list? What feedback has Pentax given to you to pass on to the list? I haven't heard any. I don't see that this relationship is a shared one between the PDML and Pentax. I'm not meaning any disrespect. It seems this is more a relationship between yourself and Pentax. That being said, I'm sure myself and others appreciate and thank you for anything you may have said or done that represents our interests. And I am not alone. Other members of this list have developed ties to Pentax reps and other employees, carrying that same banner. I'm not sure I get the 'banner' part. The members of this list are so diverse and even those that participate frequently disagree with each other on what they want to see out of Pentax. Aside from those such as yourself who may have had first hand contact with Pentax, how has the list benefitted from this relationship? I am asking only because relationships generally benefit all parties and as far as I know Pentax has been silent. I'm not trying to be a wise-guy, I'm sincerely asking. It has hurt me to read the hateful things that have been said about Pentax employees over my years here. These are hard-working, regular people with families, who are doing the best job they can, and when they are vilified, attacked personally, it's been all I could do to hold my tongue. Sure they are. We are all pretty much the same in that respect. Whoever wrote the insulting e-mails did a bad thing and it was unjustified, no doubt about it. You are using the plural here, so I have to ask what Pentax employees? What things over the years? Was more than one attacked personally? I'm assuming you must be referring to Marco as one, and who else? Pentax collectively? This is actually the first time I've known any Pentax employee to have even written the list. So the attacks you're referring to must have gone beneath my radar. I hope you're not referring to a widely-shared, though not universally held opinion, that Pentax has not been going in the direction some would hope. I was here long before Aaron left. I remember his first faltering steps in his business. When Frank forwarded Aaron's email from Marco, I trusted that it was legit, and when the follow-up came, that any questions could be sent to Marco's direct email address at Pentax Canada, it sealed the deal. Here was a regular guy, asking other regular guys, to show off a few photos, at no risk whatsoever. Sure that's all it was. Except he was representing Pentax Canada. There are some of us here on the list that did not write those terrible e-mails (which appear to be tightly and secretly guarded), yet we had additional questions because we did not see all the earmarks of a corporation requesting photo submissions. A number of list members have vilified us as *suspicious*, *not understanding copyright laws*, and otherwise ridiculed myself and those who simply raised those questions. And then, to have the whole thing blow up because some list members apparently don't have the good sense and respect to write civil inquiries just shocks and saddens me. Adding insult to injury, now there is a hue and cry that someone Pentax Canada owes them an apology. No. No. No. Who do you mean by them in that last sentence? The ones that wrote the uncivil inquires? No one here suggested that THOSE persons deserved an apology. When I wrote I was referring to those that had inquired sincerely and had
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Frank... I like you but that's the biggest bunch of BS I've ever read from you. FWIW, you were not at all responsible, nor was Aaron, nor was Doug. Those of us on the list that had legitimate additional questions to ask and raised them in a civilzed manner were labled as suspicious and ignorant. Those legitimate questions asked in a civilzed manner, from what I can tell, is not why Pentax Canada, or Marco, or whoever was really behind withdrawing the request, did so. Respectfully, those who had those questions and were intersted in participating, as I was, should not have just SHUT UP and DONE NOTHING. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:45:24 -0500 On 2/9/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Thanks Doug. I think this last thought is what's been subconsciously bothering me without my being able to articulate it. I almost killfiled this thread last night. Glad I waited until after your message to do so. We've had a lot of ridiculous flame-wars over the years, but this has to take the cake. You all may have noticed that I haven't been posting much over the past couple of weeks, and this shit is the reason why. It just doesn't seem like the warm, welcoming place that it was before I started this thread. I honestly thought this would be a fun thing. Those that were interested in participating would do so, and derive some satisfaction that others were enjoying their photos, while in some small way helping out Our Corporate Mother. I figured that those who didn't want to participate, or who wanted some sort of remuneration, or were worried that their photos would be used for nefarious purposes would just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO NOTHING! Once a few questions were raised, and I posted Marco's Pentax Canada e-mail address, and I thought (again), Okay, frank, this is the end of it. We might hear from a few people what a nice guy Marco is, and how he answered questions promptly and politely, and how a few folks have sent in images. This thing's over now. (as an aside, a few did make such posts, which I was glad to see) I was wrong. This thing has simply devolved into a morass of accusations, finger pointing and demands for apologies the likes of which I've rarely seen. Now I see after Doug's post, people are still being defensive and saying it's not the list as a whole, it's not me, it's ~other people~ on this list. It's all been quite unseemly, and Doug is right, we should all hang our collective heads in shame. The list as a whole has misbehaved. I accept some responsibility, not because I started the thread, but just because I'm here. This used to be a pretty cool place to be. It's not any more. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
And Frank, I think Mike Wilson is right. The list hasn't changed as much as we've gotten to know people better. What I do notice is immediate name-calling, labeling, rush to judgement, and scoffing by some on the list when others don't share their opinion on a matter. In that respect it is not a friendly place to be. Ridicule is not a prerequisite to disagreement. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:45:24 -0500 On 2/9/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Thanks Doug. I think this last thought is what's been subconsciously bothering me without my being able to articulate it. I almost killfiled this thread last night. Glad I waited until after your message to do so. We've had a lot of ridiculous flame-wars over the years, but this has to take the cake. You all may have noticed that I haven't been posting much over the past couple of weeks, and this shit is the reason why. It just doesn't seem like the warm, welcoming place that it was before I started this thread. I honestly thought this would be a fun thing. Those that were interested in participating would do so, and derive some satisfaction that others were enjoying their photos, while in some small way helping out Our Corporate Mother. I figured that those who didn't want to participate, or who wanted some sort of remuneration, or were worried that their photos would be used for nefarious purposes would just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO NOTHING! Once a few questions were raised, and I posted Marco's Pentax Canada e-mail address, and I thought (again), Okay, frank, this is the end of it. We might hear from a few people what a nice guy Marco is, and how he answered questions promptly and politely, and how a few folks have sent in images. This thing's over now. (as an aside, a few did make such posts, which I was glad to see) I was wrong. This thing has simply devolved into a morass of accusations, finger pointing and demands for apologies the likes of which I've rarely seen. Now I see after Doug's post, people are still being defensive and saying it's not the list as a whole, it's not me, it's ~other people~ on this list. It's all been quite unseemly, and Doug is right, we should all hang our collective heads in shame. The list as a whole has misbehaved. I accept some responsibility, not because I started the thread, but just because I'm here. This used to be a pretty cool place to be. It's not any more. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Well Frank, with all sincerity, It ~is~ other people on this list. It's not everyone. It's not most. There were no ~demands~ for apologies. We don't have a collective head. I have a hard time understanding why peoples words are so often twisted and propagated to mean something this didn't. I'm sorry that this project that you had a hand in delivering to the list got out of hand. It was kind on your part to make us aware. I still hold to the opinion that the list is not to blame, it is not an organization, or an entity. Tom C. We've had a lot of ridiculous flame-wars over the years, but this has to take the cake. You all may have noticed that I haven't been posting much over the past couple of weeks, and this shit is the reason why. It just doesn't seem like the warm, welcoming place that it was before I started this thread. I honestly thought this would be a fun thing. Those that were interested in participating would do so, and derive some satisfaction that others were enjoying their photos, while in some small way helping out Our Corporate Mother. I figured that those who didn't want to participate, or who wanted some sort of remuneration, or were worried that their photos would be used for nefarious purposes would just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO NOTHING! Once a few questions were raised, and I posted Marco's Pentax Canada e-mail address, and I thought (again), Okay, frank, this is the end of it. We might hear from a few people what a nice guy Marco is, and how he answered questions promptly and politely, and how a few folks have sent in images. This thing's over now. (as an aside, a few did make such posts, which I was glad to see) I was wrong. This thing has simply devolved into a morass of accusations, finger pointing and demands for apologies the likes of which I've rarely seen. Now I see after Doug's post, people are still being defensive and saying it's not the list as a whole, it's not me, it's ~other people~ on this list. It's all been quite unseemly, and Doug is right, we should all hang our collective heads in shame. The list as a whole has misbehaved. I accept some responsibility, not because I started the thread, but just because I'm here. This used to be a pretty cool place to be. It's not any more. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
puh-leeze! I just joined this list a couple of days ago, which may not enable me to give a valuable opinion on many matters, but I certainly didn't expect to be expectator of a soap opera. Can you guys please let this one go and move on... I may be a beginner photographer but I don't need to be a good one to realize that all this emails are futile lost of energy in a topic that's not gona be solved. If you ask me Dario's yes, no, yes, no is the one that made more sense in all this. Fernando From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:55:00 -0700 And Frank, I think Mike Wilson is right. The list hasn't changed as much as we've gotten to know people better. What I do notice is immediate name-calling, labeling, rush to judgement, and scoffing by some on the list when others don't share their opinion on a matter. In that respect it is not a friendly place to be. Ridicule is not a prerequisite to disagreement. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:45:24 -0500 On 2/9/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Thanks Doug. I think this last thought is what's been subconsciously bothering me without my being able to articulate it. I almost killfiled this thread last night. Glad I waited until after your message to do so. We've had a lot of ridiculous flame-wars over the years, but this has to take the cake. You all may have noticed that I haven't been posting much over the past couple of weeks, and this shit is the reason why. It just doesn't seem like the warm, welcoming place that it was before I started this thread. I honestly thought this would be a fun thing. Those that were interested in participating would do so, and derive some satisfaction that others were enjoying their photos, while in some small way helping out Our Corporate Mother. I figured that those who didn't want to participate, or who wanted some sort of remuneration, or were worried that their photos would be used for nefarious purposes would just SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO NOTHING! Once a few questions were raised, and I posted Marco's Pentax Canada e-mail address, and I thought (again), Okay, frank, this is the end of it. We might hear from a few people what a nice guy Marco is, and how he answered questions promptly and politely, and how a few folks have sent in images. This thing's over now. (as an aside, a few did make such posts, which I was glad to see) I was wrong. This thing has simply devolved into a morass of accusations, finger pointing and demands for apologies the likes of which I've rarely seen. Now I see after Doug's post, people are still being defensive and saying it's not the list as a whole, it's not me, it's ~other people~ on this list. It's all been quite unseemly, and Doug is right, we should all hang our collective heads in shame. The list as a whole has misbehaved. I accept some responsibility, not because I started the thread, but just because I'm here. This used to be a pretty cool place to be. It's not any more. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Feb 9, 2006, at 2:24 PM, William Robb wrote: Sure, it was informal. But, unfortunately, I don't think a company can do an informal approach when copyright issues for personal property/ creativity are involved. As far as I was able to tell from the initial request, there were no copyright issues. On a somewhat different topic, with the exception of the 3 people on list who actually earn a living doing photography, any issues revolving around copyright is little more than arrogant bullshit, and the three people here who earn their living at photography seemed to be the ones who gave freely of their work, no questions asked. I don't know if I'm one of your three, but regardless of whether one makes a living from photography or not, copyright is important. I don't know of any working pro who disregards the importance of copyright. It's what enables us to make a living doing photography. Bob
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I just don't understand this no copyright issues idea. Maybe there were not issues as such, respecting who the pictures belong to. But there are law libraries full of books on the subject and it is common practice for corporations and individuals to put copyright notices on works. It is also common practice for a corporation (wittingly or unwittingly represented by an employee) to make a statement of ownership in clear unambiguous language. You'll find it almost everywhere you look, where this type of property is involved. To not have seen it present, simply makes inquiring minds want to know. I believe that was the reason why Marco's e-mail address was given to the list... So that those who had questions could ask? Whether others did not ask or did not feel the need to ask is actually irrelevant to my or anyone else's actions. Now this things seems to have morphed into 'it was stupid to ask questions'. I highly disagree. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:24:29 -0600 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Sure, it was informal. But, unfortunately, I don't think a company can do an informal approach when copyright issues for personal property/creativity are involved. As far as I was able to tell from the initial request, there were no copyright issues. On a somewhat different topic, with the exception of the 3 people on list who actually earn a living doing photography, any issues revolving around copyright is little more than arrogant bullshit, and the three people here who earn their living at photography seemed to be the ones who gave freely of their work, no questions asked. I am more than a little embarrassed that my name is is associated with Pentax Discuss at the moment. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
- Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix I don't know if I'm one of your three, but regardless of whether one makes a living from photography or not, copyright is important. I'm not sure if I follow. Why is copyright an important issue if you are not making commercial gain from your work? I don't know of any working pro who disregards the importance of copyright. It's what enables us to make a living doing photography. Nor do I, but thats not germaine to the discussion, other than, as noted, the on list pros seemed a lot more willing to hand over some work, no questions asked. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Just for the record, anytime I've had a photo published, with the exception of the small newsletter that gets sent to around 250 homes where I live, I have received and been asked to sign what is essentially a usage agreement for my work, that clearly states ownership and limitations on usage of the photograph. I assume that is for the protection of both the publisher and myself. Using photos in a slideshow at tradeshow is a form of publication. I know that you know this common practice as does the three you are referring to. There was not an unwillingness to provide Pentax Canada with photographs, Bill. I don't understand 'no questions asked', though. That is not the norm for this kind of transaction. The norm is to have everything clearly spelled out. I was willing to submit photographs after corresponding with Marcos, though I still found it unusual. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:01:30 -0600 - Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix I don't know if I'm one of your three, but regardless of whether one makes a living from photography or not, copyright is important. I'm not sure if I follow. Why is copyright an important issue if you are not making commercial gain from your work? I don't know of any working pro who disregards the importance of copyright. It's what enables us to make a living doing photography. Nor do I, but thats not germaine to the discussion, other than, as noted, the on list pros seemed a lot more willing to hand over some work, no questions asked. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Just for the record, anytime I've had a photo published, with the exception of the small newsletter that gets sent to around 250 homes where I live, I have received and been asked to sign what is essentially a usage agreement for my work, that clearly states ownership and limitations on usage of the photograph. I assume that is for the protection of both the publisher and myself. Using photos in a slideshow at tradeshow is a form of publication. I know that you know this common practice as does the three you are referring to. There was not an unwillingness to provide Pentax Canada with photographs, Bill. I don't understand 'no questions asked', though. That is not the norm for this kind of transaction. The norm is to have everything clearly spelled out. I was willing to submit photographs after corresponding with Marcos, though I still found it unusual. Cultural difference. We tend to do the small things without worrying about it over much up here. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Tom C wrote: Just for the record, anytime I've had a photo published, with the exception of the small newsletter that gets sent to around 250 homes where I live, I have received and been asked to sign what is essentially a usage agreement for my work, that clearly states ownership and limitations on usage of the photograph. On the other hand, I only recall *once* being presented with anything to sign. No, come to think of it -- it may have happened one other time. That still leaves a handful of clients who didn't do that. ERNR
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
- Original Message - From: Tom C Just for the record, anytime I've had a photo published, with the exception of the small newsletter that gets sent to around 250 homes where I live, I have received and been asked to sign what is essentially a usage agreement for my work, that clearly states ownership and limitations on usage of the photograph. Do you insist on a usage agreement before posting a pic on the web? This slide show was essentially the equivelant of a web post, save for the fact that far fewer people would see the photo. Paul
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Paul, I didn't *insist* on anything in this instance. Not sure why you chose that word. I *asked* questions in a very polite and business-like manner and received answers, in a like fashion, as earlier e-mails suggested we could do. I did not *insist*. In fact, as we all know, their was no agreement, just correspondence... and I was ready to submit a few images. The slideshow may be viewed as the equivalent of a web post, but in this case it was being presented by a corporate entity that is part of a multi-national conglomerate (at least that's what I think it is). :-) What makes that different? I guess in one case it's *me* deciding to post a photograph on my own. In the other case it's an entity asking to see my photos for possible use. Since I/we were asked, we certainly have the right to ask back. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you insist on a usage agreement before posting a pic on the web? This slide show was essentially the equivelant of a web post, save for the fact that far fewer people would see the photo. Paul
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I've read this entire thread from start to finish and I still haven't got a clue what it's all about. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Blessed are the feeble-minded. :-) Tom C. I've read this entire thread from start to finish and I still haven't got a clue what it's all about. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 9/2/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: What pisses me is that as a member of the PDML I'm being bundled in with all this BS too. You could do what I did and buy into Canon. At least there, nobody gives a fart. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:24:29PM -0600, William Robb wrote: On a somewhat different topic, with the exception of the 3 people on list who actually earn a living doing photography, any issues revolving around copyright is little more than arrogant bullshit . . . I'd have to take exception to that. While I don't earn my living from photography, I (and several other folks here) fall in the middle ground between full-time professional and just- for-fun amateur. I probably know as much about copyright as most of us, because much of my photography involves race series with diligent control of their intellectual property, including copyright. Not only that - I also work (during the week) for a software house, but with a very unusual arrangement involving intellectual property rights.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:01:16PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Just for the record, anytime I've had a photo published, with the exception of the small newsletter that gets sent to around 250 homes where I live, I have received and been asked to sign what is essentially a usage agreement for my work, that clearly states ownership and limitations on usage of the photograph. Do you insist on a usage agreement before posting a pic on the web? This slide show was essentially the equivelant of a web post, save for the fact that far fewer people would see the photo. In a way, yes. I won't post pictures on the local meetup.com photography site, for example, because I strongly disagree with their posted policy on copyright. I wouldn't have sent pictures to Pentax without any explanatory statement. But I found the followup message, explaining how the photographs were to be used, to be more than sufficient.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Fernando Terrazzino wrote: puh-leeze! I just joined this list a couple of days ago, which may not enable me to give a valuable opinion on many matters, but I certainly didn't expect to be expectator of a soap opera. Can you guys please let this one go and move on... Some people think that there are issues to discuss here. Apparently, you don't. Fine. I have no intention of trying to convince you, or anyone else, otherwise. But no-one is making you read the thread. I may be a beginner photographer but I don't need to be a good one to realize that all this emails are futile lost of energy in a topic that's not gona be solved. If you ask me Dario's yes, no, yes, no is the one that made more sense in all this. I didn't ask you...but like anyone else you can express an opinion. 8-) On the other hand, it's my time and energy so I think it's up to me to judge whether or not the expenditure is futile. 8-) And sometimes clarification comes through discussion, even if the issue is *never* decided. 8-) Keith McG
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Reminds me of the summer I spent in Alaska. My home base was Haines. During the time I was up there., my driver's license was about to expire. I went to the Haines branch of the Dept of Motor vehicles and asked about getting an Alaskan license. No problem - I got one on the spot. No test was required. I asked why not and was told, Well, you drove up here from California, you obviously know how to drive. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Cultural difference. We tend to do the small things without worrying about it over much up here.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix More than anything else, regardless of how it was handled, the withdrawing of the request simply because there were a number of rude people and saying 'it's more trouble than it's worth' when the images were being offered gratis, devalues Pentax's clientele. It devalues those who were not rude. It devalues the images that were presented, and it devalues the work that was done by some to prepare the images. If those images he might have gotten were 'not worth' the effort of deleting a couple of rude e-mails, or a hundred rude e-mails, then I'm happy that I didn't waste my time for something that was 'not worth it'. Tom, I think you are being a bit unfair. It's pretty obvious to me that Marco was doing this on a bit of a lark. As soon as it became apparent that he was going to have to involve the legal team, I would guess that it became more trouble than it was worth. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix You guys don't have an overabundance of lawyers up there? We encourage them to become politicians. It's easier to keep track of them that way. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Just a wild guess, but anyone who reads the PDML would know this. It comes up in discussion several times a year. William Robb
Re: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/02/08 Wed PM 12:42:21 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Just a wild guess, but anyone who reads the PDML would know this. It comes up in discussion several times a year. William Robb Usually it's really nice to know that the person on the other side is playing with the same shaped ball as you, though. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Tom C wrote: The whole thing was just sort of bungled from the Pentax side... Nothing new there! :-) oh yeah, MARK! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
William Robb wrote: Tom, I think you are being a bit unfair. It's pretty obvious to me that Marco was doing this on a bit of a lark. As soon as it became apparent that he was going to have to involve the legal team, I would guess that it became more trouble than it was worth. Possibly. I'm picking on the words more trouble than it's worth. Oh my pictures are more trouble than it's worth? Your pictures are more trouble than it's worth? My perception (probably incorrectly) at the outset and I think others was, that this was more or less Pentax Canada asking for these pictures. So when a person who previously requested photos and as a practical matter was representing Pentax Canada, says it's more trouble than it's worth... well I tend to have a pretty thick skin, but this in particular bothers me. As a side point, when I did that little Syncronicity gallery there were a small handful of people that got somewhat rude about it not being finished as quickly as they liked. I was ready to either say forget it or just throw them up on photo.net. But that's not what I said I would do and and I didn't back out of it because a minority of people made me mad or hurt my feelings. :-( Now if Marco decided that the legal department of Pentax Canada was going to need to be involved and it would be too timely an undertaking, or if his superiors decided that this was not what they wanted to do, that's fine. Then present that information acccurately. 'After further consideration it's been decided to withdraw the request due to circumstances beyond my control'. That would be a palatable statement. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 06:45:13 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix More than anything else, regardless of how it was handled, the withdrawing of the request simply because there were a number of rude people and saying 'it's more trouble than it's worth' when the images were being offered gratis, devalues Pentax's clientele. It devalues those who were not rude. It devalues the images that were presented, and it devalues the work that was done by some to prepare the images. If those images he might have gotten were 'not worth' the effort of deleting a couple of rude e-mails, or a hundred rude e-mails, then I'm happy that I didn't waste my time for something that was 'not worth it'. Tom, I think you are being a bit unfair. It's pretty obvious to me that Marco was doing this on a bit of a lark. As soon as it became apparent that he was going to have to involve the legal team, I would guess that it became more trouble than it was worth. William Robb
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, No, Yes.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. Did I miss an email? I don't recall seeing an email from Pentax Canada soliciting images for their usage. I do remember seeing an email from a PDMLer relaying a request from a Pentax Canada employee. I never sent them anything but I would have if the request was made direct to this list. I'm not slighting any of the PDMLers that were involved with that request. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix But phrases just like that (or even opposite of that) are frequently used almost, if not every time I've seen an organization asking for photo submissions. Photo contests, Magazine articles, the photo gallery websites, you name it. Whether it's legally necessary or not isn't the point. I have a friend who came and told me he was going to use one of my photo.net images for something and then he read the copyright notice and didn't do it. This guy is, of course honest, it wouldn't stop other people. Of course then I told him to feel free to use them (mostly for home/computer made greeting cards, thank you notes, etc.). This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. As such, I think individuals naturally had an expectation that the whole thing would be handled in that corporate manner we all tend to expect. I's dotted and T's crossed. Marco did not even join the list and announce it himself, did he? That might have made a difference. Actually I think the fact that he was representing a corporate entitiy and we heard about the request third hand, albeit by people we already knew, lessened his credibility. Don't worry my fingers are starting to cramp... 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 19:42:20 -0500 Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yes I think the words Photographer retains all rights or something like that should have been used. There is no legal reason in the world why that is necessary. The whole thing was just sort of bungled from the Pentax side... Perhaps they should have been more prepared for suspicion and cynicism. I'd say they overestimated their audience rather than bungled. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Summing up: Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, Yes, No,
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Paul Stenquist wrote: Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Paul I don't believe that's the point though. We all tend to expect a certain type of behavior from a corporate entity even though it's made up of people. I think the issue is we wanted to know how the images are going to be used, and usually when some 3rd party entity is going to use or display our photographs, things are pretty much spelled out. After additional correspondence I was satisfied. If someone wrote the list saying Hey do you guys mind if I download and save around 100 PUG pictures for a photo presentation I'm doing... do you think the list at large would simply say Sure go ahead, they're just small .jpgs and I'm aware I retain the copyright? I wouldn't. I realize we don't have strict control over the images out there to begin with. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:17:33 -0500 Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Paul
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I think it was natural to think that since the person works for Pentax Canada and the photos were to be used by somone representing Pentax Canada at a trade show, that it was indeed Pentax Canada that using our photos and not just an individual. At least that was my perception. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:08:55 -0500 This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. Did I miss an email? I don't recall seeing an email from Pentax Canada soliciting images for their usage. I do remember seeing an email from a PDMLer relaying a request from a Pentax Canada employee. I never sent them anything but I would have if the request was made direct to this list. I'm not slighting any of the PDMLers that were involved with that request. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix But phrases just like that (or even opposite of that) are frequently used almost, if not every time I've seen an organization asking for photo submissions. Photo contests, Magazine articles, the photo gallery websites, you name it. Whether it's legally necessary or not isn't the point. I have a friend who came and told me he was going to use one of my photo.net images for something and then he read the copyright notice and didn't do it. This guy is, of course honest, it wouldn't stop other people. Of course then I told him to feel free to use them (mostly for home/computer made greeting cards, thank you notes, etc.). This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. As such, I think individuals naturally had an expectation that the whole thing would be handled in that corporate manner we all tend to expect. I's dotted and T's crossed. Marco did not even join the list and announce it himself, did he? That might have made a difference. Actually I think the fact that he was representing a corporate entitiy and we heard about the request third hand, albeit by people we already knew, lessened his credibility. Don't worry my fingers are starting to cramp... 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 19:42:20 -0500 Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yes I think the words Photographer retains all rights or something like that should have been used. There is no legal reason in the world why that is necessary. The whole thing was just sort of bungled from the Pentax side... Perhaps they should have been more prepared for suspicion and cynicism. I'd say they overestimated their audience rather than bungled. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I don't disagree. I feel it would have had more legitimacy if he had directly contacted the list on behalf of Pentax Canada. Why didn't he is the question. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix I think it was natural to think that since the person works for Pentax Canada and the photos were to be used by somone representing Pentax Canada at a trade show, that it was indeed Pentax Canada that using our photos and not just an individual. At least that was my perception. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:08:55 -0500 This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. Did I miss an email? I don't recall seeing an email from Pentax Canada soliciting images for their usage. I do remember seeing an email from a PDMLer relaying a request from a Pentax Canada employee. I never sent them anything but I would have if the request was made direct to this list. I'm not slighting any of the PDMLers that were involved with that request. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix But phrases just like that (or even opposite of that) are frequently used almost, if not every time I've seen an organization asking for photo submissions. Photo contests, Magazine articles, the photo gallery websites, you name it. Whether it's legally necessary or not isn't the point. I have a friend who came and told me he was going to use one of my photo.net images for something and then he read the copyright notice and didn't do it. This guy is, of course honest, it wouldn't stop other people. Of course then I told him to feel free to use them (mostly for home/computer made greeting cards, thank you notes, etc.). This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. As such, I think individuals naturally had an expectation that the whole thing would be handled in that corporate manner we all tend to expect. I's dotted and T's crossed. Marco did not even join the list and announce it himself, did he? That might have made a difference. Actually I think the fact that he was representing a corporate entitiy and we heard about the request third hand, albeit by people we already knew, lessened his credibility. Don't worry my fingers are starting to cramp... 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 19:42:20 -0500 Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yes I think the words Photographer retains all rights or something like that should have been used. There is no legal reason in the world why that is necessary. The whole thing was just sort of bungled from the Pentax side... Perhaps they should have been more prepared for suspicion and cynicism. I'd say they overestimated their audience rather than bungled. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
If someone wanted to download the PUG images, they wouldn't have to ask. All they would have to do is open the images and drag them to their desktop. That's the nature of the web, and anyone who contributes an image should know it. Paul -- Original message -- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul Stenquist wrote: Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Paul I don't believe that's the point though. We all tend to expect a certain type of behavior from a corporate entity even though it's made up of people. I think the issue is we wanted to know how the images are going to be used, and usually when some 3rd party entity is going to use or display our photographs, things are pretty much spelled out. After additional correspondence I was satisfied. If someone wrote the list saying Hey do you guys mind if I download and save around 100 PUG pictures for a photo presentation I'm doing... do you think the list at large would simply say Sure go ahead, they're just small .jpgs and I'm aware I retain the copyright? I wouldn't. I realize we don't have strict control over the images out there to begin with. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:17:33 -0500 Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Paul
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
That has been my feeling as well. If I was putting 2 + 2 together, I would guess that I percieved an official request being handled in an unofficial manner, when the reality may have been that it was an unofficial request. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:46:48 -0500 I don't disagree. I feel it would have had more legitimacy if he had directly contacted the list on behalf of Pentax Canada. Why didn't he is the question. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix I think it was natural to think that since the person works for Pentax Canada and the photos were to be used by somone representing Pentax Canada at a trade show, that it was indeed Pentax Canada that using our photos and not just an individual. At least that was my perception. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:08:55 -0500 This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. Did I miss an email? I don't recall seeing an email from Pentax Canada soliciting images for their usage. I do remember seeing an email from a PDMLer relaying a request from a Pentax Canada employee. I never sent them anything but I would have if the request was made direct to this list. I'm not slighting any of the PDMLers that were involved with that request. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:04 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix But phrases just like that (or even opposite of that) are frequently used almost, if not every time I've seen an organization asking for photo submissions. Photo contests, Magazine articles, the photo gallery websites, you name it. Whether it's legally necessary or not isn't the point. I have a friend who came and told me he was going to use one of my photo.net images for something and then he read the copyright notice and didn't do it. This guy is, of course honest, it wouldn't stop other people. Of course then I told him to feel free to use them (mostly for home/computer made greeting cards, thank you notes, etc.). This was the first time I know of that an individual representing a corporate entity came to the list looking for photographs to use in a trade show or for marketing purposes. As such, I think individuals naturally had an expectation that the whole thing would be handled in that corporate manner we all tend to expect. I's dotted and T's crossed. Marco did not even join the list and announce it himself, did he? That might have made a difference. Actually I think the fact that he was representing a corporate entitiy and we heard about the request third hand, albeit by people we already knew, lessened his credibility. Don't worry my fingers are starting to cramp... 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 19:42:20 -0500 Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And yes I think the words Photographer retains all rights or something like that should have been used. There is no legal reason in the world why that is necessary. The whole thing was just sort of bungled from the Pentax side... Perhaps they should have been more prepared for suspicion and cynicism. I'd say they overestimated their audience rather than bungled. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Paul Stenquist wrote: Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. Now that's being a little unfair because it wasn't just the PDML that was involved. But, yes, it was us rather than Pentax who bungled: Some people hit the send key without thinking. A moment's reflection would have revealed that even if *all* the suspicions about this matter were confirmed, the *worst* that would have happened was that someone would have received by email some low-res files that he could have downloaded from a web page. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Good grief Paul - I know that. You didn't read my last sentence? :-) Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:51:08 + If someone wanted to download the PUG images, they wouldn't have to ask. All they would have to do is open the images and drag them to their desktop. That's the nature of the web, and anyone who contributes an image should know it. Paul -- Original message -- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul Stenquist wrote: Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Paul I don't believe that's the point though. We all tend to expect a certain type of behavior from a corporate entity even though it's made up of people. I think the issue is we wanted to know how the images are going to be used, and usually when some 3rd party entity is going to use or display our photographs, things are pretty much spelled out. After additional correspondence I was satisfied. If someone wrote the list saying Hey do you guys mind if I download and save around 100 PUG pictures for a photo presentation I'm doing... do you think the list at large would simply say Sure go ahead, they're just small .jpgs and I'm aware I retain the copyright? I wouldn't. I realize we don't have strict control over the images out there to begin with. Tom C. From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:17:33 -0500 Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. Anyone who has ever sold a photo or even displayed a photo must know that. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. Paul
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I didn't hit the 'SEND' button without thinking. I asked perfectly legitimate questions based on the nature of the request. If other prople didn't think to ask, it doesn't make me suspicious any more than it makes them careless, does it? 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: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:13:28 -0500 Paul Stenquist wrote: Hmmm. I'd say the whole thing was just sort of bungled from the PDML side. Now that's being a little unfair because it wasn't just the PDML that was involved. But, yes, it was us rather than Pentax who bungled: Some people hit the send key without thinking. A moment's reflection would have revealed that even if *all* the suspicions about this matter were confirmed, the *worst* that would have happened was that someone would have received by email some low-res files that he could have downloaded from a web page. The photographer always retains all rights unless otherwise indicated. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:18AM -0700, Tom C wrote: My perception (probably incorrectly) at the outset and I think others was, that this was more or less Pentax Canada asking for these pictures. And that, I think, is where the root of the problem lies. I assumed that, as it *didn't* come wrapped up in legalese from a pentax.ca address, it was something far less than a formal arrangement. It sounded to me like somebody with the job of putting together a booth display who wanted to get a broad range of pictures to appeal to the widest audience. I don't think it was really well thought through before the request was made - the predictable touchiness about copyright and credit doesn't seem to have been anticipated - but I don't see it as anything more sinister than that.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:26:35 -0500 On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:18AM -0700, Tom C wrote: My perception (probably incorrectly) at the outset and I think others was, that this was more or less Pentax Canada asking for these pictures. And that, I think, is where the root of the problem lies. I assumed that, as it *didn't* come wrapped up in legalese from a pentax.ca address, it was something far less than a formal arrangement. It sounded to me like somebody with the job of putting together a booth display who wanted to get a broad range of pictures to appeal to the widest audience. I don't think it was really well thought through before the request was made - the predictable touchiness about copyright and credit doesn't seem to have been anticipated - but I don't see it as anything more sinister than that. Funny, I assumed that since it didn't come wrapped up in legalese, and knowing how much Pentax (acrros the board) communicates with it's customers, that it must be modus operandi. I saw nothing sinister either.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 2/7/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip. Frank's word is good enough for me. Words you may live to regret, Paul! LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 2/7/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip. Frank's word is good enough for me. Words you may live to regret, Paul! LOL -frank Just ask border patrol. Dave -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summing up: Yes, No, You haven't been actually *reading* this thread: There have been some very thoughtful discussions of copyright as well as the technical and legal limitations of what can be done with images posted on the web and sent via email. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Nobody's been reading anybody's messages. They just keep re-stating their own views. But it was ever thus. John On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:41:18 -, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summing up: Yes, No, You haven't been actually *reading* this thread: There have been some very thoughtful discussions of copyright as well as the technical and legal limitations of what can be done with images posted on the web and sent via email. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Feb 8, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Yes, No, Yes, No, ... [snip] ... Yes? No? Yes! No! ... [snip] Do go on... Makes more sense than the rest of this thread. ;-) I believe that this effort was a simple idea that Marco had, thought he could make work, and his management decided it was simply too much trouble given the response. Paranoids, whingers and whiners, and beyond, have now spewed as much nonsense about it as I want to bother skimming through so I've put the thread on my auto delete list now. Godfrey
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Yes, No, Yes, No, ... [snip] ... Yes? No? Yes! No! ... [snip] Do go on... Makes more sense than the rest of this thread. ;-) So Godfrey (and John) got my point. I believe that this effort was a simple idea that Marco had, thought he could make work, and his management decided it was simply too much trouble given the response. Paranoids, whingers and whiners, and beyond, have now spewed as much nonsense about it as I want to bother skimming through so I've put the thread on my auto delete list now. Me too. Dario
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Mark, I've carefully read all messages in this thread. To me, after a while it looked like running idle. My Yes/No contribution was as interesting as reading all those messages telling the same two concepts a zillion times. Those silly yes-no messages were just trying to point that out. Of course you, Tom C. and anyone else are free to resume writing your Yes, No forever. Sure I don't want to squelch other people's conversations on the list. I'm just killing this thread from now on. Dario - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summing up: Yes, No, You haven't been actually *reading* this thread: There have been some very thoughtful discussions of copyright as well as the technical and legal limitations of what can be done with images posted on the web and sent via email. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I'm saddened to hear that too. Since no one has come forward admitting to the jackass statement perhaps the PDML should send an e-mail apologizing for that statement and assuring that it is not the sentiment of the majority of the list members. Butch It is far from clear that a PDML member was responsible for writing that. When pressed, Aaron became a little vague and rather defensive. John I remember Aaron from my early days on the list and as such I have no doubt to his sincerity about the jackass statement. I can also understand a reluctance to name names given the litigious world we live in. Whether it is a current or former member is a valid question, as we have had a few loose cannons amongst us from time to time. My point is that the good name of the PDML has been hurt by this incident, whether caused by a current or former member or someone else. While there seems to be a widely varying opinion of the original request it appears that much, if not most, of the list does not approve of the jackass statement. I am a firm believer in when wrong, promptly admitting it, and making amends whenever possible. Hence, my suggestion for the e-mail assuring him that this was not the sentiment of the vast majority of the list members. Am I the only one who thinks an apology is in order? Butch
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember Aaron from my early days on the list and as such I have no doubt to his sincerity about the jackass statement. I can also understand a reluctance to name names given the litigious world we live in. Whether it is a current or former member is a valid question, as we have had a few loose cannons amongst us from time to time. My point is that the good name of the PDML has been hurt by this incident, whether caused by a current or former member or someone else. While there seems to be a widely varying opinion of the original request it appears that much, if not most, of the list does not approve of the jackass statement. I am a firm believer in when wrong, promptly admitting it, and making amends whenever possible. Hence, my suggestion for the e-mail assuring him that this was not the sentiment of the vast majority of the list members. Am I the only one who thinks an apology is in order? I've sent one on my own behalf. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I sent pictures and wrote to Marco on two subsequent occasions. I think it would be quite clear to him from these communications that I was not responsible for any abusive messages. Keith McG Butch Black wrote: I'm saddened to hear that too. Since no one has come forward admitting to the jackass statement perhaps the PDML should send an e-mail apologizing for that statement and assuring that it is not the sentiment of the majority of the list members. Butch It is far from clear that a PDML member was responsible for writing that. When pressed, Aaron became a little vague and rather defensive. John I remember Aaron from my early days on the list and as such I have no doubt to his sincerity about the jackass statement. I can also understand a reluctance to name names given the litigious world we live in. Whether it is a current or former member is a valid question, as we have had a few loose cannons amongst us from time to time. My point is that the good name of the PDML has been hurt by this incident, whether caused by a current or former member or someone else. While there seems to be a widely varying opinion of the original request it appears that much, if not most, of the list does not approve of the jackass statement. I am a firm believer in when wrong, promptly admitting it, and making amends whenever possible. Hence, my suggestion for the e-mail assuring him that this was not the sentiment of the vast majority of the list members. Am I the only one who thinks an apology is in order? Butch
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I don't feel the PDML owes an apology to anybody. We are not a collective consciousness or even an organization of sorts. I am not responsible for anyone's behavior just as they are not for mine. If anything Marco and/or Pentax Canada owes those who took the time to inquire and/or contribute an apology for not having their act together. Tom C. From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:01:00 -0500 I'm saddened to hear that too. Since no one has come forward admitting to the jackass statement perhaps the PDML should send an e-mail apologizing for that statement and assuring that it is not the sentiment of the majority of the list members. Butch It is far from clear that a PDML member was responsible for writing that. When pressed, Aaron became a little vague and rather defensive. John I remember Aaron from my early days on the list and as such I have no doubt to his sincerity about the jackass statement. I can also understand a reluctance to name names given the litigious world we live in. Whether it is a current or former member is a valid question, as we have had a few loose cannons amongst us from time to time. My point is that the good name of the PDML has been hurt by this incident, whether caused by a current or former member or someone else. While there seems to be a widely varying opinion of the original request it appears that much, if not most, of the list does not approve of the jackass statement. I am a firm believer in when wrong, promptly admitting it, and making amends whenever possible. Hence, my suggestion for the e-mail assuring him that this was not the sentiment of the vast majority of the list members. Am I the only one who thinks an apology is in order? Butch
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
In a message dated 2/8/2006 6:24:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anything Marco and/or Pentax Canada owes those who took the time to inquire and/or contribute an apology for not having their act together. Tom C. === You're beginning to approach JCO's record for remaking the same point over and over. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 8 Feb 2006 at 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/8/2006 6:24:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anything Marco and/or Pentax Canada owes those who took the time to inquire and/or contribute an apology for not having their act together. Tom C. === You're beginning to approach JCO's record for remaking the same point over and over. Except he's correct. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 8 Feb 2006 at 21:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/8/2006 6:24:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If anything Marco and/or Pentax Canada owes those who took the time to inquire and/or contribute an apology for not having their act together. Tom C. === You're beginning to approach JCO's record for remaking the same point over and over. Except he's correct. Unfortunately, Rob, Tom is not correct. With all due respect, and with the extra-added reminder that anyone on here is free to hold his or her own opinion, what some less-than-respectful members of this list have done is pretty much destroy what I, and a number of others here, have been working to achieve for several years now, which is a relationship with Pentax based on mutual respect and civility. I have personally visited Pentax headquarters in Colorado, and had conversations with many employees leading toward this relationship. I have sat at a conference table showing off the PUG on a big digital projector and talked up the list and its members as an invaluable resource of opinion, both good and bad, about the Pentax product line. I have considered it my honor to carry the PDML banner wherever I thought it necessary, from GFM to camera shops and workshops and into the Pentax USA offices. And I am not alone. Other members of this list have developed ties to Pentax reps and other employees, carrying that same banner. It has hurt me to read the hateful things that have been said about Pentax employees over my years here. These are hard-working, regular people with families, who are doing the best job they can, and when they are vilified, attacked personally, it's been all I could do to hold my tongue. I was here long before Aaron left. I remember his first faltering steps in his business. When Frank forwarded Aaron's email from Marco, I trusted that it was legit, and when the follow-up came, that any questions could be sent to Marco's direct email address at Pentax Canada, it sealed the deal. Here was a regular guy, asking other regular guys, to show off a few photos, at no risk whatsoever. And then, to have the whole thing blow up because some list members apparently don't have the good sense and respect to write civil inquiries just shocks and saddens me. Adding insult to injury, now there is a hue and cry that someone Pentax Canada owes them an apology. No. No. No. I don't call anyone a jackass and then demand an apology for my doing so. The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. Doug Brewer List Guy
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 9 Feb 2006 at 0:45, Doug Brewer wrote: The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. What pisses me is that as a member of the PDML I'm being bundled in with all this BS too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Rob. Well put. Hooroo. Regards, Trevor. Grafton AUSTRALIA -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 5:58 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix On 9 Feb 2006 at 0:45, Doug Brewer wrote: The actions of a few members have given the PDML a black eye, and I am ashamed of it. Someone owes the list an apology, and it damn sure isn't Pentax Canada. What pisses me is that as a member of the PDML I'm being bundled in with all this BS too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 3/02/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 3/02/2006
Re: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/02/07 Tue AM 04:37:00 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix The messages I'm referring to were vulgar and aggressive. If you want to know why the idea was canned, ask your brethren why they needed to write dear jackass letters. I didn't expect that from the PDML, so yes, I didn't think this through. Please now, I am aware of my mistake; let's move on. -Aaron As someone who queried the sensibility of what was proposed by Pentax, I have to say that I find the actions mentioned above disgusting. mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 11:23 pm Size: 479 bytes To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:25:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I too was surprised by the negativity and suspicion. You can't lose your copyright without expressly agreeing to the same. Paul Okay, read rest of thread. I shouldn't have said anything. But someone didn't think this idea through. Obviously people would worry about copyrights. And not everyone is informed about them, that there are inherent copyrights. Marnie aka Doe - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/6/2006 8:37:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The messages I'm referring to were vulgar and aggressive. If you want to know why the idea was canned, ask your brethren why they needed to write dear jackass letters. I didn't expect that from the PDML, so yes, I didn't think this through. Please now, I am aware of my mistake; let's move on. -Aaron Saddened to hear that. Actually, I think our number of jackasses are minimal compared to some lists/newsgroups. :-) Moving on... Doesn't take a lot of jackasses to make a loud, unpleasant noise. (One will do it all by himself, as a matter of fact.)
re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Godfrey, I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually with this message. Again, thanks to all who sent in images. Marco was very responsive when I corresponded with him, I submitted a gallery of 20 images for him to select from and he wrote back to thank me within an hour. It sounds like his project for the marketing department foundered due to a perceived negativism expressed in people's responses. I'd have cut it short as well. Godfrey
re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I think that if Aaron's comments about PDML members being rude and abusive are true, then the words more trouble than it is worth is certainly appropriate. FWIW, I believe Aaron based on some posts I've seen on this list at various times. A lot of people shoot their mouths off and act in a belligerent manner before knowing all the facts (and that sometimes includes me as well). Shel [Original Message] From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually with this message. Again, thanks to all who sent in images. Marco was very responsive when I corresponded with him, I submitted a gallery of 20 images for him to select from and he wrote back to thank me within an hour. It sounds like his project for the marketing department foundered due to a perceived negativism expressed in people's responses. I'd have cut it short as well. Godfrey
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
For my part, I was extremely polite and business like. I think it was the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) ) Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:53:13 -0500 not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal information The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would not be used on their website or in print ads. Marco is a close personal friend of mine and asked me if I thought the membership of the PDML would allow Pentax Canada to use a few images so that they could get rid of the boring, standard sample pictures they have in their slide show. I said that I thought they might, but directed him to Frank since I hadn't been active here for years. I'll just say that the nature of some of the responses sent to Marco really surprised and embarrassed me. -Aaron
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Those types of responses were definitely out of line. Why not just ignore those people instead of withdraw the request? Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:37:00 -0500 The messages I'm referring to were vulgar and aggressive. If you want to know why the idea was canned, ask your brethren why they needed to write dear jackass letters. I didn't expect that from the PDML, so yes, I didn't think this through. Please now, I am aware of my mistake; let's move on. -Aaron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 11:23 pm Size: 479 bytes To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:25:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I too was surprised by the negativity and suspicion. You can't lose your copyright without expressly agreeing to the same. Paul Okay, read rest of thread. I shouldn't have said anything. But someone didn't think this idea through. Obviously people would worry about copyrights. And not everyone is informed about them, that there are inherent copyrights. Marnie aka Doe
re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell cameras atincreasingly poorer margins. If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were disgusting. They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in a friendly, grassroots way, and for their troubles they were called things that would make Harvey Keitel blush. Why you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said because there wasn't a legalese paragraph at the end of the message is beyond me. As I said, this is on my shoulders -- my bad advice led them here. Please stop beating me up over this. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:36 am Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Godfrey, I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually with this message. Again, thanks to all who sent in images. Marco was very responsive when I corresponded with him, I submitted a gallery of 20 images for him to select from and he wrote back to thank me within an hour. It sounds like his project for the marketing department foundered due to a perceived negativism expressed in people's responses. I'd have cut it short as well. Godfrey
re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Shel wrote: I think that if Aaron's comments about PDML members being rude and abusive are true, then the words more trouble than it is worth is certainly appropriate. FWIW, I believe Aaron based on some posts I've seen on this list at various times. A lot of people shoot their mouths off and act in a belligerent manner before knowing all the facts (and that sometimes includes me as well). I'm not trying to make a major issue out of it. It seems to me that the jackass inquiries could just be ignored (i.e., punish the naughty children not the nice), or that an official statement coming firsthand to the list would have quelled much of the issues. Tom C.
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Tom, it's hard to ignore repeated insulting e-mails. They're not robots. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:49 am Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Those types of responses were definitely out of line. Why not just ignore those people instead of withdraw the request? Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:37:00 -0500 The messages I'm referring to were vulgar and aggressive. If you want to know why the idea was canned, ask your brethren why they needed to write dear jackass letters. I didn't expect that from the PDML, so yes, I didn't think this through. Please now, I am aware of my mistake; let's move on. -Aaron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 11:23 pm Size: 479 bytes To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:25:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I too was surprised by the negativity and suspicion. You can't lose your copyright without expressly agreeing to the same. Paul Okay, read rest of thread. I shouldn't have said anything. But someone didn't think this idea through. Obviously people would worry about copyrights. And not everyone is informed about them, that there are inherent copyrights. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
The fact remains that the idea was ineptly executed. It is surprising that a company operating in the imaging field didn't give full consideration to the question of copyright. And whilst the request to this list came via personal introduction, those sent to certain other lists did not - just a brief, bald, anonymous message asking people to respond to a GMail account. It would be interesting to hear whether the Dear Jackass message did really come from somebody on this list, or whether this is just a general slur. No need to name and shame, just confirm. And at least it gave Tom C an opportunity to show he can be polite and business-like. :-) Like the birdy, by the way. The doughnuts don't detract in my view. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:45:28 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For my part, I was extremely polite and business like. I think it was the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) ) Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:53:13 -0500 not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal information The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would not be used on their website or in print ads. Marco is a close personal friend of mine and asked me if I thought the membership of the PDML would allow Pentax Canada to use a few images so that they could get rid of the boring, standard sample pictures they have in their slide show. I said that I thought they might, but directed him to Frank since I hadn't been active here for years. I'll just say that the nature of some of the responses sent to Marco really surprised and embarrassed me. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Aaron, I'm not beating you up over this... please believe that. I understand what Pentax Canada does, they do however represent Pentax (the company that produces cameras and photography equipment). I just don't get how you're jumping to the conclusion that you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said. When did I say that? I never assumed that all. I did require more information, however. Lets face it. The whole thing was handled somewhat unofficially. In this day and age of legalese, things appear unusual when we *don't see it*. I'm not pointing fingers at you. You did exactly what I would have done in the same circumstances and Frank was passing the message along. I would assume that anyone truly interested in submitting photos, including myself would be thankful, and I am. In the end what I don't understand is the about-face that was taken. Why not just delete and ignore the e-mails from the jackasses and continue to engage those who responded in a sincere and civil manner? Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:56:00 -0500 Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell cameras atincreasingly poorer margins. If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were disgusting. They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in a friendly, grassroots way, and for their troubles they were called things that would make Harvey Keitel blush. Why you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said because there wasn't a legalese paragraph at the end of the message is beyond me. As I said, this is on my shoulders -- my bad advice led them here. Please stop beating me up over this. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:36 am Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Godfrey, I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually with this message. Again, thanks to all who sent in images. Marco was very responsive when I corresponded with him, I submitted a gallery of 20 images for him to select from and he wrote back to thank me within an hour. It sounds like his project for the marketing department foundered due to a perceived negativism expressed in people's responses. I'd have cut it short as well. Godfrey
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I agree. Thanks and glad you liked the birdy, :-) Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] The fact remains that the idea was ineptly executed. It is surprising that a company operating in the imaging field didn't give full consideration to the question of copyright. And whilst the request to this list came via personal introduction, those sent to certain other lists did not - just a brief, bald, anonymous message asking people to respond to a GMail account. It would be interesting to hear whether the Dear Jackass message did really come from somebody on this list, or whether this is just a general slur. No need to name and shame, just confirm. And at least it gave Tom C an opportunity to show he can be polite and business-like. :-) Like the birdy, by the way. The doughnuts don't detract in my view. John
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
BTW Aaron, it's nice to see you on the list again. I'm honestly not trying to get off on the wrong foot with you. Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:00:00 -0500 Tom, it's hard to ignore repeated insulting e-mails. They're not robots. -Aaron
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly laid out in the initial mail. -Aaron -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 12:03 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net The fact remains that the idea was ineptly executed. It is surprising that a company operating in the imaging field didn't give full consideration to the question of copyright. And whilst the request to this list came via personal introduction, those sent to certain other lists did not - just a brief, bald, anonymous message asking people to respond to a GMail account. It would be interesting to hear whether the Dear Jackass message did really come from somebody on this list, or whether this is just a general slur. No need to name and shame, just confirm. And at least it gave Tom C an opportunity to show he can be polite and business-like. :-) Like the birdy, by the way. The doughnuts don't detract in my view. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:45:28 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For my part, I was extremely polite and business like. I think it was the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) ) Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:53:13 -0500 not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal information The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would not be used on their website or in print ads. Marco is a close personal friend of mine and asked me if I thought the membership of the PDML would allow Pentax Canada to use a few images so that they could get rid of the boring, standard sample pictures they have in their slide show. I said that I thought they might, but directed him to Frank since I hadn't been active here for years. I'll just say that the nature of some of the responses sent to Marco really surprised and embarrassed me. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Maybe because some of us would have expected the word copyright to have been used? It's used just about everywhere else when it comes to photography. I understand inherent copyright... but that doesn't stop copyright symbols and statements from being plastered just about everywhere by the world at large. Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:33:00 -0500 Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly laid out in the initial mail. -Aaron -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 12:03 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net The fact remains that the idea was ineptly executed. It is surprising that a company operating in the imaging field didn't give full consideration to the question of copyright. And whilst the request to this list came via personal introduction, those sent to certain other lists did not - just a brief, bald, anonymous message asking people to respond to a GMail account. It would be interesting to hear whether the Dear Jackass message did really come from somebody on this list, or whether this is just a general slur. No need to name and shame, just confirm. And at least it gave Tom C an opportunity to show he can be polite and business-like. :-) Like the birdy, by the way. The doughnuts don't detract in my view. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:45:28 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For my part, I was extremely polite and business like. I think it was the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) ) Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:53:13 -0500 not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal information The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would not be used on their website or in print ads. Marco is a close personal friend of mine and asked me if I thought the membership of the PDML would allow Pentax Canada to use a few images so that they could get rid of the boring, standard sample pictures they have in their slide show. I said that I thought they might, but directed him to Frank since I hadn't been active here for years. I'll just say that the nature of some of the responses sent to Marco really surprised and embarrassed me. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Aaron, You knew the guy. Nobody else did. I first saw this request on another list where it just arrived, anonymous and unannounced. Everybody assumed it was some sort of con., and that feeling was reinforced by the lack of any connection to the Pentax Canada website. People were irritated because it was so badly handled. So some people may have over-reacted. That's a shame. But they would not have done if the thing had been handled correctly at the beginning. The idea clearly didn't have any support at the top of PCan, or the idea would not have been dropped. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:33:00 -, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly laid out in the initial mail. -Aaron -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 12:03 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net The fact remains that the idea was ineptly executed. It is surprising that a company operating in the imaging field didn't give full consideration to the question of copyright. And whilst the request to this list came via personal introduction, those sent to certain other lists did not - just a brief, bald, anonymous message asking people to respond to a GMail account. It would be interesting to hear whether the Dear Jackass message did really come from somebody on this list, or whether this is just a general slur. No need to name and shame, just confirm. And at least it gave Tom C an opportunity to show he can be polite and business-like. :-) Like the birdy, by the way. The doughnuts don't detract in my view. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:45:28 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For my part, I was extremely polite and business like. I think it was the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) ) Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:53:13 -0500 not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal information The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would not be used on their website or in print ads. Marco is a close personal friend of mine and asked me if I thought the membership of the PDML would allow Pentax Canada to use a few images so that they could get rid of the boring, standard sample pictures they have in their slide show. I said that I thought they might, but directed him to Frank since I hadn't been active here for years. I'll just say that the nature of some of the responses sent to Marco really surprised and embarrassed me. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
What other lists did it show up on? For the record, both Frank and Too Bald Dave had met Marco previously. Frank said so about eight times. -Aaron -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 1:03 pm Size: 3K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Aaron, You knew the guy. Nobody else did. I first saw this request on another list where it just arrived, anonymous and unannounced. Everybody assumed it was some sort of con., and that feeling was reinforced by the lack of any connection to the Pentax Canada website. People were irritated because it was so badly handled. So some people may have over-reacted. That's a shame. But they would not have done if the thing had been handled correctly at the beginning. The idea clearly didn't have any support at the top of PCan, or the idea would not have been dropped. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:33:00 -, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly laid out in the initial mail. -Aaron -Original Message- From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 12:03 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net The fact remains that the idea was ineptly executed. It is surprising that a company operating in the imaging field didn't give full consideration to the question of copyright. And whilst the request to this list came via personal introduction, those sent to certain other lists did not - just a brief, bald, anonymous message asking people to respond to a GMail account. It would be interesting to hear whether the Dear Jackass message did really come from somebody on this list, or whether this is just a general slur. No need to name and shame, just confirm. And at least it gave Tom C an opportunity to show he can be polite and business-like. :-) Like the birdy, by the way. The doughnuts don't detract in my view. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:45:28 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For my part, I was extremely polite and business like. I think it was the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) ) Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:53:13 -0500 not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal information The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would not be used on their website or in print ads. Marco is a close personal friend of mine and asked me if I thought the membership of the PDML would allow Pentax Canada to use a few images so that they could get rid of the boring, standard sample pictures they have in their slide show. I said that I thought they might, but directed him to Frank since I hadn't been active here for years. I'll just say that the nature of some of the responses sent to Marco really surprised and embarrassed me. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I think it was John who wrote the nasty remarks. He's even calling Pentax Canada a PCan . Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] The idea clearly didn't have any support at the top of PCan, or the idea would not have been dropped. John
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly laid out in the initial mail. Yep. And the followup did indeed list [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a reply address. I can't see why there was so much over-reaction to this. And I'm one of the people on this list who does shoot and sell images for income. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Mark, FWIW, I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. :-) Usually a corporate entity that wants to solicit for photograph submissions announces such in some formal way. I think that's the crux of the matter. I think most might have expected an announcement in a publication, on a corporate website, whatever. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, it was just rather unusual. It was the first time in my 8 years on the list that I recall anything like this happening. I didn't sense an overreaction on this list. I sensed a proceed with caution... check it out... everything's OK approach. The one question in particular I had, and no mention of this was made in the request I saw, was whether the photographer received credit for the image. Since Pentax Canada apparently wanted these images for free, the least they could do was credit the photographer, and Marco said the photographer's name could be at the bottom of the image. 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 15:10:47 -0500 Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly laid out in the initial mail. Yep. And the followup did indeed list [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a reply address. I can't see why there was so much over-reaction to this. And I'm one of the people on this list who does shoot and sell images for income. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I sent a few images. I told himm they could freely use these for INTERNAL purposes - for slide shows and presentations at business conventions, and they could publish these exclusivelye for promoting Pentax euipment, provided my name is mentioned as the author along with the image. I don't care that much about copy right - my images aren't that interssting anyway - as long as they are not used for any other purposes than promoting Pentax equipment. I probably won't sell less images for that reason- Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. februar 2006 18:15 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Aaron, I'm not beating you up over this... please believe that. I understand what Pentax Canada does, they do however represent Pentax (the company that produces cameras and photography equipment). I just don't get how you're jumping to the conclusion that you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said. When did I say that? I never assumed that all. I did require more information, however. Lets face it. The whole thing was handled somewhat unofficially. In this day and age of legalese, things appear unusual when we *don't see it*. I'm not pointing fingers at you. You did exactly what I would have done in the same circumstances and Frank was passing the message along. I would assume that anyone truly interested in submitting photos, including myself would be thankful, and I am. In the end what I don't understand is the about-face that was taken. Why not just delete and ignore the e-mails from the jackasses and continue to engage those who responded in a sincere and civil manner? Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:56:00 -0500 Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell cameras atincreasingly poorer margins. If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were disgusting. They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in a friendly, grassroots way, and for their troubles they were called things that would make Harvey Keitel blush. Why you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said because there wasn't a legalese paragraph at the end of the message is beyond me. As I said, this is on my shoulders -- my bad advice led them here. Please stop beating me up over this. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:36 am Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Godfrey, I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually with this message. Again, thanks to all who sent in images. Marco was very responsive when I corresponded with him, I submitted a gallery of 20 images for him to select from and he wrote back to thank me within an hour. It sounds like his project for the marketing department foundered due to a perceived negativism expressed in people's responses. I'd have cut it short as well. Godfrey
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On 2/7/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell cameras atincreasingly poorer margins. If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were disgusting. They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in a friendly, grassroots way, and for their troubles they were called things that would make Harvey Keitel blush. Why you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said because there wasn't a legalese paragraph at the end of the message is beyond me. As I said, this is on my shoulders -- my bad advice led them here. Please stop beating me up over this. Aaron, I realized that a mistake had been made within 15 minutes of posting Marco's request. The immediacy and negativity of the responses really surprised me - and those were the ones on-list; I didn't see any of the ones that Marco received personally. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I mostly agree with Tom C here, and I'm certainly not getting stuck into either Aaron or Pentax. In response to the thanks but no thanks email from Marco, I sent the following reply to him (note that I sent this message *before* most of the recent discussion and, in particular, before information about abusive messages): ---Message to Marco Hello You gave up too easily, I think! I saw several responses on PDML from people who thought it was okay, a few (including me) even thought it was fun to do. It was inevitable -- given the large number of internet scams running -- that there would be some doubt about the legitimacy of the request. Also, given the nature of the internet, there were always going to be some negative comments. To me, it seemed to be worst on the Pentax User Forum (which I visit rarely) than on PDML. On PDML (and I read the whole thread), the main issue was concern that it was a scam. Once that had been settled, several people indicated that they would give it a go. As a fan of Pentax gear for 20 years (although I've only recently taken up the *ist DL), if there is some reconsideration I'll happily take part. Keith McGuinness ---End message Tom C wrote: Aaron, I'm not beating you up over this... please believe that. I understand what Pentax Canada does, they do however represent Pentax (the company that produces cameras and photography equipment). I just don't get how you're jumping to the conclusion that you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said. When did I say that? I never assumed that all. I did require more information, however. Lets face it. The whole thing was handled somewhat unofficially. In this day and age of legalese, things appear unusual when we *don't see it*. I'm not pointing fingers at you. You did exactly what I would have done in the same circumstances and Frank was passing the message along. I would assume that anyone truly interested in submitting photos, including myself would be thankful, and I am. In the end what I don't understand is the about-face that was taken. Why not just delete and ignore the e-mails from the jackasses and continue to engage those who responded in a sincere and civil manner? Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:56:00 -0500 Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell cameras atincreasingly poorer margins. If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were disgusting. They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in a friendly, grassroots way, and for their troubles they were called things that would make Harvey Keitel blush. Why you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said because there wasn't a legalese paragraph at the end of the message is beyond me. As I said, this is on my shoulders -- my bad advice led them here. Please stop beating me up over this. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:36 am Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Godfrey, I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
It's people trying to defend PCan (TC pls note: this stands for Pentax Canada) who are dragging this out and making something rather trivial into a much bigger issue. Nobody cares anymore, except that some of us have been labeled whingers and worse for suggesting that it might have been handled better. An apology for that is in order (though perhaps not for Mr Jackass, who I suspect wasn't a PDMLer anyway). John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:38:42 -, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sent a few images. I told himm they could freely use these for INTERNAL purposes - for slide shows and presentations at business conventions, and they could publish these exclusivelye for promoting Pentax euipment, provided my name is mentioned as the author along with the image. I don't care that much about copy right - my images aren't that interssting anyway - as long as they are not used for any other purposes than promoting Pentax equipment. I probably won't sell less images for that reason- Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. februar 2006 18:15 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Aaron, I'm not beating you up over this... please believe that. I understand what Pentax Canada does, they do however represent Pentax (the company that produces cameras and photography equipment). I just don't get how you're jumping to the conclusion that you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said. When did I say that? I never assumed that all. I did require more information, however. Lets face it. The whole thing was handled somewhat unofficially. In this day and age of legalese, things appear unusual when we *don't see it*. I'm not pointing fingers at you. You did exactly what I would have done in the same circumstances and Frank was passing the message along. I would assume that anyone truly interested in submitting photos, including myself would be thankful, and I am. In the end what I don't understand is the about-face that was taken. Why not just delete and ignore the e-mails from the jackasses and continue to engage those who responded in a sincere and civil manner? Tom C. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:56:00 -0500 Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell cameras atincreasingly poorer margins. If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were disgusting. They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in a friendly, grassroots way, and for their troubles they were called things that would make Harvey Keitel blush. Why you assume they intended to steal people's images or do something different from what they said because there wasn't a legalese paragraph at the end of the message is beyond me. As I said, this is on my shoulders -- my bad advice led them here. Please stop beating me up over this. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:36 am Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Godfrey, I stated in my original post, that I had lost the original message. After reading your copy of it, I find that I insinuated nothing at all. The words more trouble than it is worth are hardly kind words for a business to use in any context when their customers are involved. Additionally I find it odd to the extreme that a company whose business is producing and selling products that allow people to engage in photography would have *any* trouble in having a coherent policy and procedure regarding copyrights of submitted photo. Likely any inquiries and perceived negativity would have been minimized if complete information was presented up front. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:47:35 -0800 Rather than present an insinuation about Pentax Canada's business practices by posting interpretations of the note, here is the text of the message sent to me on Saturday: Begin forwarded message: From: Marco Veltri Date: February 3, 2006 6:20:40 AM PST Subject: RE: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix Hello, Due to the negative response on the forums and all the questions people kept asking about copyright the powers that be have decided that we will use other sources to find images. We received great images but due to the problems it has been decided that it is more trouble that it is worth. Thank you to all the people who sent in images. There were about 10 people who sent in images and I will be contacting them individually
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Feb 7, 2006, at 4:56 PM, John Forbes wrote: An apology for that is in order (though perhaps not for Mr Jackass, who I suspect wasn't a PDMLer anyway). Far more than one person. A cursory search of the PDML archive shows that a few of them have posted to the PDML, though they are not names I recognize from the olden days. -Aaron
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
More than one PDMLer wrote: Dear Jackass? Are you sure? I think you should distinguish between people who wrote to say that the thing was not as well organised as it might have been, and those who were vulgar and aggressive. I think you should also recognise that the whole thing was badly handled, and stop defending it by claiming that people here were to blame for the scheme being abandoned. If it had been a good scheme, it would have sailed over a few nasty letters. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:05:44 -, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2006, at 4:56 PM, John Forbes wrote: An apology for that is in order (though perhaps not for Mr Jackass, who I suspect wasn't a PDMLer anyway). Far more than one person. A cursory search of the PDML archive shows that a few of them have posted to the PDML, though they are not names I recognize from the olden days. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:19 PM, John Forbes wrote: More than one PDMLer wrote: Dear Jackass? Are you sure? I think you should distinguish between people who wrote to say that the thing was not as well organised as it might have been, and those who were vulgar and aggressive. I am 100% certain that more than one person wrote nasty, mean-spirited, vulgar letters, and I am 100% certain that more than one of them has posted on the PDML in the past. One of them wrote many times. I am 100% certain that these letters were the cause of the abandonment of the project. Can I be any clearer than that? -Aaron
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you should also recognise that the whole thing was badly handled, I for one don't think it was badly handled. It was handled pretty much as I'd expect a casual photo display to be done, presented without promise of payment or request for copyrights, just for entertainment value and fun. Heck, one of the reasons I had no qualms about it from the word go was that there *wasn't* any legalese and fine print involved. Anyone who didn't want to participate could have simply ignored the whole thing. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
More than one person wrote nasty letters? Two, perhaps? And at least two people have posted on PDML in the past? Well, that's enough to damn the PDML isn't it? On behalf of the two past PDMLers who wrote mean letters, I'm very sorry. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:27:20 -, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:19 PM, John Forbes wrote: More than one PDMLer wrote: Dear Jackass? Are you sure? I think you should distinguish between people who wrote to say that the thing was not as well organised as it might have been, and those who were vulgar and aggressive. I am 100% certain that more than one person wrote nasty, mean-spirited, vulgar letters, and I am 100% certain that more than one of them has posted on the PDML in the past. One of them wrote many times. I am 100% certain that these letters were the cause of the abandonment of the project. Can I be any clearer than that? -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Mark, I've got a bridge for sale. Also a famous large iron structure in Paris. Contact me off-list. John On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:38:53 -, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you should also recognise that the whole thing was badly handled, I for one don't think it was badly handled. It was handled pretty much as I'd expect a casual photo display to be done, presented without promise of payment or request for copyrights, just for entertainment value and fun. Heck, one of the reasons I had no qualms about it from the word go was that there *wasn't* any legalese and fine print involved. Anyone who didn't want to participate could have simply ignored the whole thing. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
From a total stranger, claiming to represent a corporate entitiy, 3rd hand. It was handled in a manner that in normal business terms would be deemed unprofessional. The PUG operates in a more professional manner. If a personal aquaintance of mine (which I realize Marco was to some) came and made the request it would be one thing. But this was to be used by a large corporate entity, in an effort to market their products, I would assume, on numerous occasions. I'm not sure I would call that a casual photo display. If this was not Pentax Canada, but another entity making a similar request, would the reactions be the same? 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 17:38:53 -0500 John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you should also recognise that the whole thing was badly handled, I for one don't think it was badly handled. It was handled pretty much as I'd expect a casual photo display to be done, presented without promise of payment or request for copyrights, just for entertainment value and fun. Heck, one of the reasons I had no qualms about it from the word go was that there *wasn't* any legalese and fine print involved. Anyone who didn't want to participate could have simply ignored the whole thing. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a bridge for sale. Also a famous large iron structure in Paris. Contact me off-list. You've lost me here. There was no offer of remuneration involved as far as I can tell. In fact, the offer was not unlike what the people who run the Pentax Users Gallery do every month. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
