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
uest
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
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 r
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
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,
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 excep
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, Pastich
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
_
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
_
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
> - 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
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 limitat
- 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
it unusual.
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
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
- 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 cop
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:
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:24:29 -0600
- O
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 copyri
;
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
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.
t 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 -
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:
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
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
ph
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
>
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
w
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
sug
>
> 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 mee
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
On 2/9/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> Thanks Doug. I think this last
Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Thanks Doug. I think this last thought is what's been subconsciously
bothering me without m
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
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
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
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:
>
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
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 apol
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.
>
> To
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 rem
ire 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:
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
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 ja
"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
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
rom: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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 hav
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 Mar
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
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 *rea
"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.
> On 2/7/06, Paul Stenquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . Frank's word is good enough for me.
>
> Words you may live to regret, Paul!
>
> -frank
Just ask border patrol.
Dave
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
On 2/7/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. Frank's word is good enough for me.
Words you may live to regret, Paul!
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
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
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* co
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&#x
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 i
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 r
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
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.
Kenn
uot; 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: Penta
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 You
.
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
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 photo
t;
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.
An
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,
N
al Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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 phot
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.
hat'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]>
Rep
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
>
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/02/08 Wed PM 12:42:21 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digi
- 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
- 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
- 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'
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
On 8 Feb 2006 at 10:31, Keith McGuinness wrote:
> ...And anyone who didn't want to do it, could just ignore the
> whole thing.
And some did and are still trying to.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distud
- Original Message -
From: "John Forbes"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
I take your point, William. It seems that some people have no sense of
proportion and are likely to call other people names and use foul language
at the least provocation. I feel very
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
They may have been spelled out (not as precisiely as I would have wished)
but numerous other things were not. And yes I think the words
"Photographer retains all rights or something like t
"John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All that Tom and I and various others are saying is that it wasn't very
>well handled. The indisputable proof of that is the fact that so many
>people questioned it, and some even apparently went so far as to write
>rude emails about it.
If you th
Yes, Paul, I agree, but Frank didn't reassure people on other lists that
the guy approached without an introduction.
All that Tom and I and various others are saying is that it wasn't very
well handled. The indisputable proof of that is the fact that so many
people questioned it, and some
Frank assured us that this guy was legit, and that the request was from
Pentax Canada. Frank's word is good enough for me.
Paul
On Feb 7, 2006, at 8:01 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[snip history 8-)]
Not everything has to be formal and overly legal. Sometimes a few
people
from the Pentax side...
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:15:54 -0600
- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Di
e
gmail address did not help his cause either.
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:59:31 -0500
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
tsburgh didn't deserve to win. :-)
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 19:46:57 -0500
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don
Keith McGuinness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I did want to be assured that it was coming from Pentax (because
>I get dozens of scam email messages daily and it was going to
>take a little time to pick and downsize the photos) and the way
>the request was conveyed was a little odd.
>
>BUT, once
Well said. That summarizes my feelings. I thought it was nice that
Pentax Canada even bothered to ask us. Heck, all of the photos I sent
them are shots that are currently for sale as stock. Never gave it a
second thought. And although I didn't bother to ask, I'm sure my stock
house would feel t
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't disagree with what you've stated except for the spelled out part...
>for example WHAT screen size 1024x768, 800x600?
They specified 500k file size.
>The other key thing, I think, is that as far as I know, the contributors
>were not even going to rec
t
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:55:35 -0500
"Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not everything has to be formal and overly legal. Sometimes a few people
>can just agree on what they want to do, and go about the business at
ate
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: R
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[snip history 8-)]
Not everything has to be formal and overly legal. Sometimes a few people
can just agree on what they want to do, and go about the business at hand
like friends and people who trust one another. If you don't like the
format, then don't play. Go sign docu
"Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not everything has to be formal and overly legal. Sometimes a few people
>can just agree on what they want to do, and go about the business at hand
>like friends and people who trust one another. If you don't like the
>format, then don't play. Go sig
ntax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:32:53 -0800
Last year Dario asked the list for a few Pentax Pics from the sixties. No
copyright nonsense, no legalese, no payment, promised or implied, etc.,
etc., yada yada yada, was discussed that I can r
"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 hav
at's the part
I disliked.
All that could have probably been avoided if the thing was officially
announced by Pentax Canada themselves.
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital
William Robb wrote:
[big snip]
"...and we'll get a few apes to go out and take some
pictures instead?"
Just a minute there!
As a biologist, I take offense to the suggestion that we are NOT
apes!
Keith McG 8-)
: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 2/7/2006 2:37:16 PM
> Subject: 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
AIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
- Original Message - From: "John Forbes"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Everybody of sense expects rules and contracts where multi-national
corporations are concerned.
The guy was asking fer a few bloody screen sized jpegs for trade show
..
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:15:54 -0600
- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Point ta
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Point taken,
>
>But why then is any size image copyrighted?
Now *that's* one I can't answer. I put a copyright notice on all my
online photos even though there's almost no way to catch an infringer
and an insignificant amount of money to be gained from doing so
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:04:00 -, Butch Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[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
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree. I think the difference is that we proactively go in with that
>knowledge (to PUG, photo.net, etc.) and accept the risk up front, whereas
>here people were being asked to "trust" this person they didn't know and who
>provided less than complete infor
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Point taken,
But why then is any size image copyrighted?
I just have to say this one more time... it's not that a nefarious purpose
was suspected... it's that having a little pri
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
You guys don't have an overabundance of lawyers up there?
What number of lawyers *doesn't* count as an overabundance? ;-)
More than the number it takes to plug the hole
ss did not help his
cause either.
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Digital Pix
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:59:31 -0500
"Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
[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
Good point. :-)
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>You guys don't have an overabundance of lawyers up there?
What number of lawyers *doesn't* count as an overabundance? ;-)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
