PDA

View Full Version : Bad Form Eventing Nation... Blatant Copyright Infringement



Pages : [1] 2

Xctrygirl
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:06 PM
You know I realize of late I have been called, "snarky" and many other unflattering terms. Mostly because I see things and tell it like it is, in my opinion.

I have sat by and watched and watched as EN has grown from a fledgling eventing blog to a fully sponsored and Advertising Income producing popular site. And since it now has advertisers and regular traffic of amazing size it's time to start asking for the viewers sake and that of the advertisers to clean up your act.

Today you posted a blatantly infringed picture of Boyd and Neville. The photo, while lovely, is not yours to share. It belongs to Amy Dragoo, the photographer who shot it and owns the copyright to it. But you didn't even bother to include a photo credit. Now here's where it gets ironic. Amy has already commited to DONATING a portion of her sales for the rest of 2011 to the True Prospect Recovery Fund. So by stealing this image you just robbed Boyd and the gang of funds that could have gone their way if you had done, as is legally required, and paid for the use of the image.

Now clearly you haven't read Amy's own blog...specifically the entry about Copyright Infringement.. I'll link it here so all may understand:

http://akdragoophoto.com/view-all-posts/2011/6/27/062711-copyright.html

Now why I am saying something now?? Simple... Amy is a regular contributor to the Chronicle, Practical Horseman, Dressage Today, Horse & Hound, and many others. She recently won the Alltech A+ Award. She works to bring beautiful images of the top tier of our sport on down to the baby green grasshopper eventers home to us. And she does so with grace while watching as more and more people think it's fine to steal what she has done in the mud, rain, snow, heat and 23 hour days all through the year.

Shame on you. Shame on you for taking away from one of our own.

I am not surprised though. No, you have stolen images from Getty Images, who have a fleet of lawyers ready to make you pay. You have violated terms of use of websites from all sides of the globe as you simply right click a picture, save it and throw it on EN without a care in the world to the person who shot it and who works to pay for their lives and their families with the piece of work that was good enough for them to get paid in the first place where it was originally posted. But not good enough for you to respect their effort and ownership rights.

It's blatantly ironic that when I emailed you last week and asked how you verify that the sport horse nation ad pictures were properly licensed and paid for, you replied to me that
I have appreciated the concern you have shown for copyrighted material with respect to Eventing Nation on posts on the Chronicle Forums. Ultimately we are all working to coexist in this new media world together and we have a vested interest in protecting our copyrighted material as everyone else does.

Which side of your mouth are you talking out of now kids?

You cannot be the leader and a source for eventing enthusiasts of all ages and provide such a poor example of conduct in the new digital age. You're demonstrating, by example, why photographers are dissapearing from the shows. Why watermarks on proofs have gotten bigger and say things like "This image is stolen if not viewed on XYZ.com." And moreover, you're saying to the populous... it's ok to lie and steal if it makes you look better.

Well it's not ok. It's wrong, it's poor form, and thankfully for Amy, who copyrighted this image, it's illegal.

And though I haven't spoken to her yet today, I am sure she will be contacting you as well. And hopefully what fees for infringment that you will be ordered to pay will make a dent in the ego that has ruled your errant disregard of copyrights for too long.


For the rest of our forum members... please remember Amy is one of the few photographers out there still going to shows, still shooting in the elements and still willing to give you a nice pic for facebook when it's all you can afford after the entry fees.

Flame me if you want, but all of this is truthful and very easy to prove.

~Emily

LisaB
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:08 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?

snoopy
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:12 PM
You know I realize of late I have been called, "snarky" and many other unflattering terms. Mostly because I see things and tell it like it is, in my opinion.

I have sat by and watched and watched as EN has grown from a fledgling eventing blog to a fully sponsored and Advertising Income producing popular site. And since it now has advertisers and regular traffic of amazing size it's time to start asking for the viewers sake and that of the advertisers to clean up your act.

Today you posted a blatantly infringed picture of Boyd and Neville. The photo, while lovely, is not yours to share. It belongs to Amy Dragoo, the photographer who shot it and owns the coyright to it. But you didn't even bother to include a photo credit. Now here's where it gets ironic. Amy has already commited to DONATING a portion of her sales for the rest of 2011 to the True Prospect Recovery Fund. So by stealing this image you just robbed Boyd and the gang of funds that could have gone their way if you had done, as is legally required, and paid for the use of the image.

Now clearly you haven't read Amy's own blog...specifically the entry about Copyright Infringement.. I'll link it here so all may understand:

http://akdragoophoto.com/view-all-posts/2011/6/27/062711-copyright.html

Now why I am saying something now?? Simple... Amy is a regular contributor to the Chronicle, Practical Horseman, Dressage Today, Horse & Hound, and many others. She recently won the Alltech A+ Award. She works to bring beautiful images of the top tier of our sport on down to the baby green grasshopper eventers home to us. And she does so with grace while watching as more and more people think it's fine to steal what she has done in the mud, rain, snow, heat and 23 hour days all through the year.

Shame on you. Shame on you for taking away from one of our own.

I am not surprised though. No, you have stolen images from Getty Images, who have a fleet of lawyers ready to make you pay. You have violated terms of use of websites from all sides of the globe as you simply right click a picture, save it and throw it on EN without a care in the world to the person who shot it and who works to pay for their lives and their families with the piece of work that was good enough for them to get paid in the first place where it was originally posted. But not good enough for you to respect their effort and ownership rights.

It's blatantly ironic that when I emailed you last week and asked how you verify that the sport horse nation ad pictures were properly licensed and paid for, you replied to me that

Which side of your mouth are you talking out of now kids?

You cannot be the leader and a source for eventing enthusiasts of all ages and provide such a poor example of conduct in the new digital age. You're demonstrating, by example, why photographers are dissapearing from the shows. Why watermarks on proofs have gotten bigger and say things like "This image is stolen if not viewed on XYZ.com." And moreover, you're saying to the populous... it's ok to lie and steal if it makes you look better.

Well it's not ok. It's wrong, it's poor form, and thankfully for Amy, who copyrighted this image, it's illegal.

And though I haven't spoken to her yet today, I am sure she will be contacting you as well. And hopefully what fees for infringment that you will be ordered to pay will make a dent in the ego that has ruled your errant disregard of copyrights for too long.


For the rest of our forum members... please remember Amy is one of the few photographers out there still going to shows, still shooting in the elements and still willing to give you a nice pic for facebook when it's all you can afford after the entry fees.

Flame me if you want, but all of this is truthful and very easy to prove.

~Emily


Isn't this Amy's fight?

Xctrygirl
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:16 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?

Lisa you only own the print.

You would need to pay usage fees for an advertisement anywhere.

You are not within the laws of copyright if you scan an image and send a digital copy. That is a no no.

You must pay the photographers for usage outside of a picture hanging on your wall.

Snoopy.... Amy is a friend of mine. And a good one. Just as I would hope one of my friends would have my back in a similar situation, I have hers. And a much more thick skin.

I have watched EN steal pics since it's inception. This however was the last straw.

~Emily

RacetrackReject
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:21 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?

I believe you bought the photo, not the rights to publish said photo in an advertisement, and I believe that some photographers would want a usage fee. I could be completely wrong though.

snoopy
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:23 PM
Snoopy.... Amy is a friend of mine. And a good one. Just as I would hope one of my friends would have my back in a similar situation, I have hers. And a much more thick skin.



Okay, I see. Just wasn't clear as to why you were so upset over an IP that was not yours. :cool:

AKDragooPhoto
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:29 PM
Wow Em, thank you for your efforts.

You were correct in your assumption that I have not licensed this image to Eventing Nation, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I had actually already seen it and sent John an e-mail.

Copyright seems like a vague, elusive beast. Instead of hashing out every point, lets just leave it at, before you use an image you have not taken yourself for anything, it is best to check with the photographer about their terms first. DON'T ASSUME!!!

Amy

Beam Me Up
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:33 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?

It might depend on the rights you bought?

I've bought digitial pictures that specified either "personal digital use only, no printing" (so, FB, send to parents in email), others that were "unlimited personal use" (so blow up for my wall), others "unrestricted use" (put on my equine.com ad, maybe that would be ok for EN to publish?)

DiablosHalo
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:36 PM
Snoopy.... Amy is a friend of mine. And a good one. Just as I would hope one of my friends would have my back in a similar situation, I have hers. And a much more thick skin.

I have watched EN steal pics since it's inception. This however was the last straw.

~Emily

That's great that you have her back. If you were my friend, I'd be pretty upset that you took my fight public in such an ugly way. Being that you haven't talked to her today and the pic was just posted this morning ....

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 02:40 PM
You know I realize of late I have been called, "snarky" and many other unflattering terms

You definitely just earned a notch in the snarky column (and a few others) from me.

Given that you didn't even bother to contact John and/or Amy directly, prior to your multiple paragraph rant, you didn't leave me with a very good impression.

You state that you have received an e-mail about EN's commitment to copyrighted material. Did you even bother to point out this very specific incident directly to him as being in conflict with his stated policy and give him a chance to correct it? .... or did you just decide to write a HUGE rant on an internet BB?

I also have to be honest that you haven't done Amy any favors, IMO. I will try to remember that you didn't talk to her directly, prior to your rant and not associate your post with her image.

Why is it so hard to try to resolve something directly first, rather than starting a thread like this?

While I certainly support our photographers quest to protect their work product and agree that there is an issue needing corrected on EN, I think you have shown far more "bad form" than anyone else associated with this thread.

CiegoStar
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:12 PM
I don't want this thread to become a referendum on Xctrygirl. In this case, she is absolutely right about the "big picture" (pun intended).

EN is a wonderful site but has been loosey goosey with taking copywrited material since it began. In today's modern environment of blog proliferation it's all too common. John is a young guy and probably can't even remember when this was not the norm. People don't realize this, but on real professional websites, ALL PHOTOS ARE PURCHASED. That's why you see so many crappy stock photos (see Salon.com and Gawker.com for examples) - they are dirt cheap.

When EN was pretty below-the-radar I think they could get away with it. Now that it is selling ads I don't think the other publications and photographers - on whose backs EN is making its reputation and money - will tolerate it much longer.

I love EN and recognize that is comprised of a small, scrappy team, few members (if any?) are actually trained on these things. John is going to have to learn the life-lesson way.

rhymeswithfizz
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:16 PM
As someone who jumps through MANY hoops to obtain copyright permissions for images, I'm absolutely siding with the OP on this one. It's not that hard to follow the law, it just takes effort.

EN is an income-producing site, and sniping photos without permission is essentially making money from someone else's work. No different from stealing. But it's illegal whether or not you make money from it. I don't have any dogs in this fight and I still think it's appalling. Big Thumbs Down.

Is there some insider eventing buddy club that makes it okay to steal if it's someone you know on a first name basis, and that calling someone on breaking the law is now considered snarky?

ZiggyStardust
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:23 PM
I wouldn't call you snarky here, Xctrygirl. A fair amount of content on that site and the choices that the main author makes are in fairly bad form.

He wants to help companies sell things to people by posting ads, both outside and inside his content, but still uses the site largely for gossip, occasionally goes after people who make strong remarks that don't agree with his agenda, and is a hypocrite about criticizing people for being inflammatory, and then posting plenty of inflammatory information and opinion himself. It's like amateur hour over there. Some of it I enjoy, but a lot of it has bugged me for a while and I don't visit nearly as often as I used to.

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:25 PM
My point is and opinion is -- Have the guts and courtesy to GO DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON WITH THE ISSUE FIRST.

If you have done that and they don't fix it, then (AND ONLY THEN) is it appropriate to go public. It does not appear that the OP had the courtesy to contact John directly on this photo or even let Amy know and decide how to approach the issue.

Sorry, but I think the OP was WAY out of line and has earned some of her snarky titles over many posts.

DiablosHalo
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:27 PM
My point is and opinion is -- Have the guts and courtesy to GO DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON WITH THE ISSUE FIRST.

If you have done that and they don't fix it, then (AND ONLY THEN) is it appropriate to go public. It does not appear that the OP had the courtesy to contact John directly on this photo or even let Amy know and decide how to approach the issue.

Sorry, but I think the OP was WAY out of line and has earned some of her snarky titles over many posts.

THIS!!!!

tm
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:29 PM
where are we going, and why am I in this hand basket?

Rhymeswithfizz, your siggy about sums it up.

Bogie
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:33 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?

I wrote this article a while back after discussing the issue of copyright infringement with some photog friends. Maybe it will help clarify.

Who owns that photo of your horse? (http://equineink.com/2009/06/09/equine-photography-who-owns-that-photo-of-your-horse/)

It's oh, so easy to "right click" on an image and insert it into your blog. And I think there are lots of people who just don't know that it's wrong.

eloquence09
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:39 PM
This is disgusting.

putting the matter at hand aside, why would you think that it is your right or place to put this on blast on a public forum rather than contacting the parties involved privately?!

And for everyone who has such a strong opinion about copyright infringement on Eventing Nation, which of you have contacted John directly (recognizing that they are a small and inexperienced team) and offered to inform/educate/warn him about what the problems are??

I think that unless people are acually going to do something to help a situation, they need to mind their own damn business. But that's just me...

rhymeswithfizz
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:52 PM
This is disgusting.

putting the matter at hand aside, why would you think that it is your right or place to put this on blast on a public forum rather than contacting the parties involved privately?!

And for everyone who has such a strong opinion about copyright infringement on Eventing Nation, which of you have contacted John directly (recognizing that they are a small and inexperienced team) and offered to inform/educate/warn him about what the problems are??

I think that unless people are acually going to do something to help a situation, they need to mind their own damn business. But that's just me...

Ah, another first-namer. ;)
The law is the law. Sounds like the blogger has been contacted numerous times by the OP about copyright infringement, yet he kept on sniping photos. How many friendly reminders should a person get before being publicly outed? I wasn't aware that there was law-breaking-warning-ettiquette.

And just because I'm not the photographer, the rest of us who DO follow the law should mind our own damn business? Wow. Nice morals you got there.

CiegoStar
Aug. 5, 2011, 03:53 PM
And for everyone who has such a strong opinion about copyright infringement on Eventing Nation, which of you have contacted John directly (recognizing that they are a small and inexperienced team) and offered to inform/educate/warn him about what the problems are??

I think that unless people are acually going to do something to help a situation, they need to mind their own damn business. But that's just me...

LOL, I'm not the internet police, and it's not my job to educate random website owners! And honestly I kind of thought maaaaaaybe John might be getting his photos legally. I don't know the behind the scenes stuff. But apparently he isn't.

eloquence09
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:00 PM
Ah, another first-namer. ;)
The law is the law. Sounds like the blogger has been contacted numerous times by the OP about copyright infringement, yet he kept on sniping photos. How many friendly reminders should a person get before being publicly outed? I wasn't aware that there was law-breaking-warning-ettiquette.

And just because I'm not the photographer, the rest of us who DO follow the law should mind our own damn business? Wow. Nice morals you got there.

Unless you are going to proactively do something to help the situation, then yes I think you should mind your own business.

eloquence09
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:02 PM
LOL, I'm not the internet police, and it's not my job to educate random website owners! And honestly I kind of thought maaaaaaybe John might be getting his photos legally. I don't know the behind the scenes stuff. But apparently he isn't.

If you don't know then maaaaaaaybe you should get the facts before you start commenting on stuff, yes?

CiegoStar
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:05 PM
If you don't know then maaaaaaaybe you should get the facts before you start commenting on stuff, yes?

Pretty sure the photographer in question on the photo in question for this thread has confirmed ON THIS THREAD that it was indeed used without permission.

Per the other photos on EN, let's just say I was giving John the benefit of the doubt. Also, if you have problems with people giving opinions, maybe you should avoid blogs and discussion forums.

Janet
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:07 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?
You bought a copy of the picture. The potographer still owns the copyright.

You may have bought certain specific publication rights with the picture. But they probably are not transferable.
And the photgrapher still owns the copyright.

Only if the photographer signs a blanket release (like the one you have to sign before posting a photo on Wikipedia) is the image "available for everyone and anyone without paying."

CapturinYerRide
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:12 PM
Why I don't go to EN, and why I never follow links that so excitedly point to EN!

Bogie
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:17 PM
The Internet has made it way too easy to steal intellectual property. And probably more than half of the time, it's done unintentionally.

So yes, I do think that constant vigilance and education is important. Last I checked, ignorance isn't considered a valid excuse for breaking the law. It's particularly difficult for photographers because it is impossible to keep people from copying images.

When someone starts a business it is their responsibility to research what is legal . . . and what isn't.

I've noticed in the past that EN uses a lot of photos from Nico Morgan and they are flagged as "courtesy of". I've always been jealous of their relationship with the photographer because there have been times when I would have liked to snag those photos for my blog ;). Alas, I don't know the photographer!

Given that sensitivity, the folks at EN should know better. They snagged the image of Boyd Martin from www.PennsylvaniaEquestrian.com, based on their link.

rhymeswithfizz
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:24 PM
Unless you are going to proactively do something to help the situation, then yes I think you should mind your own business.

Perhaps you are assuming that the blogger does not KNOW that he is breaking the law. On the contrary, it sounds like he is quite aware of copyright laws, from reference to his response to the OP, and yet he keeps on stealing photos from photographers who make their living selling their work. Not OK.

Otherwise, what kind of "help" do you envision here? An illegal-website-content support group? Should I also look the other way when I see a shoplifter just because I don't own the store? After all, it's none of my business.

AKDragooPhoto
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:25 PM
Let me add, just because the image (or text for that matter) is on-line does not give you the right to commandeer it for your site. Nobody can stop you from linking to the source, but removing or copying the content is stealing/plagiarizing. It doesn't matter if you give credit or not.

Every photographer has different policies, packages and rates. I don't know a professional who doesn't welcome someone checking before usage.

I thank the number of people who all contacted me this morning to the photo on EN. I have had friends, other pros, pony club leaders, trainers, parents (of other children) and strangers all point out images they suspect are being used illegally. I have informed on people who have obviously stolen proofs.

I hate being the "baddie." But this is a business, and I wouldn't be a professional if all I did was push a button.

-A

rhymeswithfizz
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:27 PM
I wrote this article a while back after discussing the issue of copyright infringement with some photog friends. Maybe it will help clarify.

Who owns that photo of your horse? (http://equineink.com/2009/06/09/equine-photography-who-owns-that-photo-of-your-horse/)

It's oh, so easy to "right click" on an image and insert it into your blog. And I think there are lots of people who just don't know that it's wrong.

Great article Bogie!

westcoasteventer
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:27 PM
I don't think I'd call the OP "snarky", that usually implies some amount of cleverness. I think "tactless" is a better description. And if I were her friend, I'd be embarrassed at her ranting diatribe on my "behalf."

There are a million more tactful ways of handling this issue that may have actually brought people to your side."Outing" and shaming the supposed offender via a 15-paragraph rant on COTH doesn't resemble any of those.

Klassy.

vineyridge
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:30 PM
It's especially worrisome when it seems to be "good" people stealing from one of the sport horse world's own, who is practically a saint in my mind. AK Dragoo will be forever etched in my memory as having donated her skills to CANTER PA when it was getting started. Their listings had the most gorgeous photos to accompany the text when she was involved.

Photographing horses is an art and a highly technical skill. Although I don't agree with a good bit of current copyright law, unless you've personally bought and paid for or otherwise gotten the rights owner's permission to use a photo, it's not yours. Pure and simple. Theft is theft.

eloquence09
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:31 PM
Should I also look the other way when I see a shoplifter just because I don't own the store? After all, it's none of my business.



What?? If you were following my logic, then you should either confront the shoplifter yourself of notify the manager or authorities. Not go on some sort of public forum and talk about what a jerk said shoplifter is for knowingly breaking the law. See the difference?

eloquence09
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:36 PM
Perhaps you are assuming that the blogger does not KNOW that he is breaking the law. On the contrary, it sounds like he is quite aware of copyright laws, from reference to his response to the OP, and yet he keeps on stealing photos from photographers who make their living selling their work. Not OK.

Otherwise, what kind of "help" do you envision here? An illegal-website-content support group? Should I also look the other way when I see a shoplifter just because I don't own the store? After all, it's none of my business.

And furthermore, I wasn't trying to imply that I think EN is in the right, or necessarily unaware that they are breaking the law. I just don't agree with the manner in which this entire matter was presented.


And I agree with whoever said that if I were the photographer, I'd be pretty embarassed by my "friend" starting this thread. I, personally, would not want that type of attitude associated with my business.

CapturinYerRide
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:43 PM
As far as what individuals do with images, most of my efforts have been toward educating the community about my own policies, which Ms Dragoo exlains can vary from photographer to photographer.. But my own policy, explained
here (http://www.hoofclix.com/Street-Scenes/Copyright-Policy/14782008_g79Sp#1102293886_Y6zzA)
in a few examples, is simple and pretty similar to what most of us are doing these days.. I think if you as individuals follow my policy, you will be following the policy of most any photographer out there. Still, it is your responsibility to check with the appropriate photographer before you do any thing with their images!

As for publications, when someone wants to be taken seriously, i.e. the way the host of this forum is taken, one would think that they would go out of their way to follow the rules....

vineyridge
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:44 PM
Well, I wouldn't. EN started as a small blog and is now a high profile (as far as anything in eventing is high profile) business with advertising, classifieds, and press pass credentials for international events. The founder was "sponsored" for a trip to the London Test Event. If it's going to be a business, it needs to pay for its merchandise. And if the owner knows that what he is doing with other people's work is illegal, he should be smacked down in public so his product is a bit less attractive and lucrative to his advertisers.

Shunning requires notice to potential shunners to be effective.


And furthermore, I wasn't trying to imply that I think EN is in the right, or necessarily unaware that they are breaking the law. I just don't agree with the manner in which this entire matter was presented.


And I agree with whoever said that if I were the photographer, I'd be pretty embarassed by my "friend" starting this thread. I, personally, would not want that type of attitude associated with my business.

TheBrightSide06
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:50 PM
I'm thinking maybe a public place such as this isn't really the best place to bash someone?

Maybe your photographer friend could chat with him and have him understand that there are rules, then nobody has to be slammed publicly before the given a chance to make right :)

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:53 PM
OP: I am curious about the beautiful photo on your COTH profile. It looks like a professional photo, but there isn't any watermark or credit. Do you have full permission for that photo and the photos on your blog? Even if you have permission, wouldn't it be customary to provide photo credits?

eloquence09
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:54 PM
Don't think that I don't see your point. I do! It's just not how I roll, I guess. I find this whole public spanking thing to be extremely offputting and not how I would ever choose to deal with an issue. :shrug:


Well, I wouldn't. EN started as a small blog and is now a high profile (as far as anything in eventing is high profile) business with advertising, classifieds, and press pass credentials for international events. The founder was "sponsored" for a trip to the London Test Event. If it's going to be a business, it needs to pay for its merchandise. And if the owner knows that what he is doing with other people's work is illegal, he should be smacked down in public so his product is a bit less attractive and lucrative to his advertisers.

Shunning requires notice to potential shunners to be effective.

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:56 PM
Don't think that I don't see your point. I do! It's just not how I roll, I guess. I find this whole public spanking thing to be extremely offputting and not how I would ever choose to deal with an issue. :shrug:

It's pretty typical of people that don't have the guts to deal with someone directly, and want to feel important.

I have no ties to EN... I don't know John -- have never met him and don't even know his last name. I think the issue of using copyrighted material without payment or permission is a very valid issue that needs investigating.

I just really dislike people that can't manage to deal directly with something.

westcoasteventer
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:59 PM
Nobody can stop you from linking to the source, but removing or copying the content is stealing/plagiarizing. It doesn't matter if you give credit or not.


Unless EN owns Pennsylvania Equestrian, they in no way copied, downloaded or removed the image. The image is a link to the image from a Pennsylvania Equestrian article. Maybe not as cut and dry as made out to be?

http://www.pennsylvaniaequestrian.com/news2011/july/boyd-and-neville.jpg

equinedriver
Aug. 5, 2011, 04:59 PM
Lisa you only own the print.

You would need to pay usage fees for an advertisement anywhere.

You are not within the laws of copyright if you scan an image and send a digital copy. That is a no no.

You must pay the photographers for usage outside of a picture hanging on your wall.


~Emily

Sorry, but you are the one that is wrong this time. All of the pictures that I have purchased from show photogs in the last 3 years come, automatically with ownership of the image and permission to reproduce, so I can send them to who ever I want and publish them any where I want.

Xctrygirl
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:09 PM
OP: I am curious about the beautiful photo on your COTH profile. It looks like a professional photo, but there isn't any watermark or credit. Do you have full permission for that photo and the photos on your blog? Even if you have permission, wouldn't it be customary to provide photo credits?

Funny you should ask. I do in fact have the rights to use that image as I like. See one of the benefits to having dated and lived with a world reknown equine photographer for 5 years, is that occasionally he comes and shoots you at your local events. Or at the Wood Memorial when you're doing your job. Or at the farm and you find yourself on the cover of a few magazines in the process. Or in his book. As has been the case with my life during the time we were together.

I do in fact have the rights to use every picture on my blog. And all the ones I have on my various online presences. See when you live the life in a household supported by photography, infringement hits home, literally. Thankfully he was tenacious about his rights and always went after every infringer we could find. Once I saw the effect infringing had on our bank balances, I would spend hours after work trying to find infringed copies of his work so we could get the people caught, and infringement fines collected.

And so as a result of this, I NEVER post an image that I don't have the rights to use. And if I like a picture from my past, I ask the photographers what it would cost to use said image. And some of the images on my site were shot by me. And while I am no pro, I have been taught well and occasionally have nice shots to call my own.

And you are correct Charlie didn't put his copyright on the image in my profile, he said he didn't care. And when we went our separate ways we drew up a contract. I have ALL rights to post what pictures I have that he shot of me. And he has the rights to sell any images that include me, my horses, my dogs etc to make money.

But thanks so much for asking. Good to see you're learning to be proactive about infringing also!

~Emily

emaren
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:10 PM
Just wait until Boyd copyrights his image as part of his brand and then Amy will have to get permission and pay to sell his photo, lol.

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:20 PM
Funny you should ask. I do in fact have the rights to use that image as I like. See one of the benefits to having dated and lived with a world reknown equine photographer for 5 years, is that occasionally he comes and shoots you at your local events. Or at the Wood Memorial when you're doing your job. Or at the farm and you find yourself on the cover of a few magazines in the process. Or in his book. As has been the case with my life during the time we were together.

I do in fact have the rights to use every picture on my blog. And all the ones I have on my various online presences. See when you live the life in a household supported by photography, infringement hits home, literally. Thankfully he was tenacious about his rights and always went after every infringer we could find. Once I saw the effect infringing had on our bank balances, I would spend hours after work trying to find infringed copies of his work so we could get the people caught, and infringement fines collected.

And so as a result of this, I NEVER post an image that I don't have the rights to use. And if I like a picture from my past, I ask the photographers what it would cost to use said image. And some of the images on my site were shot by me. And while I am no pro, I have been taught well and occasionally have nice shots to call my own.

And you are correct Charlie didn't put his copyright on the image in my profile, he said he didn't care. And when we went our separate ways we drew up a contract. I have ALL rights to post what pictures I have that he shot of me. And he has the rights to sell any images that include me, my horses, my dogs etc to make money.

But thanks so much for asking. Good to see you're learning to be proactive about infringing also!

~Emily

Perhaps what you say is true. It is hard to believe that not one single photographer (other than the photos currently at the very bottom of your blog) wanted even a photo credit.

It isn't very pleasant when someone assumes the worst about you (without complete knowledge) is it?

At least I asked you directly and gave you an opportunity to reply. Too bad you couldn't do the same.

Xctrygirl
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:23 PM
Just wait until Boyd copyrights his image as part of his brand and then Amy will have to get permission and pay to sell his photo, lol.

Gee... not if he signed a model release.

~Emily

wcporter
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:37 PM
It isn't very pleasant when someone assumes the worst about you (without complete knowledge) is it?

At least I asked you directly and gave you an opportunity to reply. Too bad you couldn't do the same.

While I don’t condone the tone the OP burst on this BB with, she did CLEARLY state that she had had an email exchange with EN/John the week prior in which she questioned his use of photos:

"It's blatantly ironic that when I emailed you last week and asked how you verify that the sport horse nation ad pictures were properly licensed and paid for, you replied to me that
Quote:
'I have appreciated the concern you have shown for copyrighted material with respect to Eventing Nation on posts on the Chronicle Forums. Ultimately we are all working to coexist in this new media world together and we have a vested interest in protecting our copyrighted material as everyone else does.'"

Suffice to say, she did IN FACT approach him prior to coming here and putting him on blast and he did IN FACT respond to her email.

What else should she be doing? Stalking him at home? Banging down his front door demanding answers? Calling the police?:rolleyes:

AKDragooPhoto
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:44 PM
OK people, let's not get so worked up over a specific situation that I am handling, and had already been addressed at the time Emily posted this thread, unbeknownst to her. I appreciate the well intentioned support, and can't do anything about free speech on my behalf.

What it does bring to light is an issue that keeps coming up. Emily even posted my blog post about it. http://akdragoophoto.com/view-all-posts/2011/6/27/062711-copyright.html

I can't speak for every photographer's policies/rights packages out there, only myself. That being said, unless you are 100% sure (and even then) it doesn't hurt to double check the rights. Considering all the interpretations of Copyright Law by those who don't deal with it directly, err on the side of caution.

-Amy

CiegoStar
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:45 PM
Unless EN owns Pennsylvania Equestrian, they in no way copied, downloaded or removed the image. The image is a link to the image from a Pennsylvania Equestrian article. Maybe not as cut and dry as made out to be?

http://www.pennsylvaniaequestrian.com/news2011/july/boyd-and-neville.jpg

What appears to have happened is that Pennsylvania Equestrian purchased or negotiated with Amy Dragoo to use the photo. See here, where the photo is properly credited: http://www.pennsylvaniaequestrian.com/news2011/july/Boyd-Martin-Looks-Ahead-After-Deadly-Barn-Fire.php

EN then linked to it on its page, without attributing Amy OR Pennsylvania Equestrian. Double whammy.

Again, I love EN. John has done a wonderful service for the sport. But it's time for the site to grow up and act like the business it actually is. The OP's tone was perhaps too aggressive but the issue is real.

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:48 PM
OK people, let's not get so worked up over a specific situation that I am handling, and had already been addressed at the time Emily posted this thread, unbeknownst to her.
-Amy

Perhaps it would have been wise for the OP to actually get the facts before going on some wild thread creating spree.

THAT, my friends, is why it always makes sense to go directly to the source with issues or concerns, rather than go on an internet binge. Seriously OP... try to think next time before you hit the "new thread" button.

texang73
Aug. 5, 2011, 05:49 PM
OK people, let's not get so worked up over a specific situation that I am handling, and had already been addressed at the time Emily posted this thread, unbeknownst to her. I appreciate the well intentioned support, and can't do anything about free speech on my behalf.

What it does bring to light is an issue that keeps coming up. Emily even posted my blog post about it. http://akdragoophoto.com/view-all-posts/2011/6/27/062711-copyright.html

I can't speak for every photographer's policies/rights packages out there, only myself. That being said, unless you are 100% sure (and even then) it doesn't hurt to double check the rights. Considering all the interpretations of Copyright Law by those who don't deal with it directly, err on the side of caution.

-Amy

Very well stated Amy. And something everyone should think about concerning the photos they purchase from a photographer. :yes:

And Emily, good on ya for supporting Amy and the rest of us photogs! :)

atheventer85
Aug. 5, 2011, 06:38 PM
Xcntrygrl- you always do a very good job of ruffling everyone's feathers.... John is a very good friend of mine. I have a feeling, he didn't do this to be deceitful in any way, shape, or form.... It was most likely an honest mistake. Frankly, it isn't your place to make him look like a crook on a public forum....

J3D1
Aug. 5, 2011, 06:46 PM
Goodness Emily, what happened to civility? The tendency for a few certain members of the eventing community to perpetually focus on the negative and complain while forgetting the big picture and any semblance of politeness is both saddening and a source of frustration for me. But, I appreciate your concerns no matter how impolitely they are expressed.

We made a mistake, plain and simple. Amy contacted me, I have apologized to her and we are working to resolve the issue. I am well aware of her efforts to help with the True Prospect relief, we consistently publicized those efforts and her business as a result in the weeks following the tragedy.

We publish on average 180 posts per month, 300 photos per month, and we have gotten no more than 2 complaints by photographers this year in an industry where photographers will contact you every time they find an issue. You have contacted me about general copyright concerns, but I wonder why I don't remember you ever contacting us about the improper use of one of your photos.

In the entire history of Eventing Nation, I would guess that we have been contacted less than 10 times about the improper use of a photo and you won't find a single photographer on the planet who has done so and not received an immediate apology and satisfactory resolution. In a new media world where anyone can republish photos, they often get recycled and reused without photo credit, which then makes it impossible for us to know their source. Our own photos that we have taken have been used improperly before without permission for profit and we handle that in the same way we we would appreciate it being handled when we are in the opposite position.

I wish I had seen this thread sooner, but better late than never.

westcoasteventer
Aug. 5, 2011, 07:15 PM
J3D1's entire post above makes me wish there was a COTH "Like" button.

runnyjump
Aug. 5, 2011, 07:28 PM
Makes me glad I'm in graphic design. It's cut and dried. Your client pays you for the image (or layout or design or typeset or whatever) and the client owns it, lock, stock and barrel! Once it is paid for by the client it is theirs to do with as they please. They can even send on the digital file to another designer for changes, etc.

J3D1
Aug. 5, 2011, 08:28 PM
And if I might be permitted to double-post, I should mention that I find the way this situation was handled deeply frustrating. Emily, you have my email and phone number, and so does Amy, and I'll bet you have Amy's contact info as well. We could have handled this situation painlessly and in the end much more quickly and therefore better for Amy by simply making a quick call or email today. Amy decided to handle this by sending an email, you decided to complain to as many people as you could.

You chose to publicly defame and discredit Eventing Nation on a situation in which you have no specific personal knowledge or involvement. You didn't notify me of your concern, ask for our story, or even tell me about your public post, and therefore it stood without a response from our side for many hours. In fact, it served your purposes for the photo to remain incorrectly posted without credit for as long as possible.

I have spent the better part of my life over the past two years trying to provide a completely free, positive, and supportive service to the eventing community and today you insulted me and that work.

I suppose there must be a certain sense of satisfaction (?) and self worth in publicly attacking others. And it must feel good to get the attention that comes with providing the first specific public attack of EN on these forums. That we survived for so long without such an attack is a source of pride for me.

Surely we all make mistakes and do things that embarrass us and upset other people from time to time. The interesting thing about attacking us is that, unlike most of the folks you target, we have a certain medium and method of response with a much larger audience than this forum. So my question for you is--and I promise I'm actually unsure of how to handle this--in light of your predisposition to bully, diminish, and attack others from behind the protection of a computer, should we do the same in response? Are you prepared to be held to the same high standards you demand from others and be subject to the same consequences you bestow?

MintHillFarm
Aug. 5, 2011, 08:39 PM
Wow Em, thank you for your efforts.

You were correct in your assumption that I have not licensed this image to Eventing Nation, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I had actually already seen it and sent John an e-mail.

Copyright seems like a vague, elusive beast. Instead of hashing out every point, lets just leave it at, before you use an image you have not taken yourself for anything, it is best to check with the photographer about their terms first. DON'T ASSUME!!!

Amy

I saw one photographer very cleverly stamp across their proofs
"Proof Stolen From ------"

That would be very interesting if someone tried to steal and publish that photo!

annikak
Aug. 5, 2011, 08:55 PM
John... As always, thank you for what you do. I understand the issue, and feel it sad that this public display came out on CoTH.

Amy, your pictures are amazing and I appreciate you photos whenever I see them.

Onward.

poltroon
Aug. 5, 2011, 08:56 PM
Unless EN owns Pennsylvania Equestrian, they in no way copied, downloaded or removed the image. The image is a link to the image from a Pennsylvania Equestrian article. Maybe not as cut and dry as made out to be?

http://www.pennsylvaniaequestrian.com/news2011/july/boyd-and-neville.jpg

This kind of hotlinking is actually even worse than copying the photo over - because it's the theft of the copyright AND the bandwidth from pennsylvaniaequestrian.com. It's okay to link over by having a hyperlink, so you view the photo in the full context of the page (including any ads). But using a silent link over to someone else's site - which costs them money while giving them no benefit - without permission is very, very inappropriate.

If you want to use a picture for commercial use - advertising or for your publication - you absolutely should expect to pay the photographer for that. And photographers are choosing to sell copyrights for online use of their images separately from the actual prints, even if all you want to do is email it to your dad or put it up on facebook.

Ask first. Maybe the price is workable and maybe it's not.

If you can't follow these rules, then take your own pictures so you have 100% rights to them.

poltroon
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:07 PM
Sorry, but you are the one that is wrong this time. All of the pictures that I have purchased from show photogs in the last 3 years come, automatically with ownership of the image and permission to reproduce, so I can send them to who ever I want and publish them any where I want.

If your photographer explicitly gives that deal, excellent! Sadly (IMHO) many do not allow even limited reproduction for personal use. Often now, it is the habit of the photographer to put a summary of the contract rights on the back.

I try to be very respectful of a photographer's precise wishes for their images, and follow them closely. I would also inquire separately before using them in an ad or publication if there was any question in my mind.

That said, I think photographers may be leaving some money on the table by pricing those rights very high, especially for images that aren't perfect. I think there may be a market opportunity for personal use of "factory seconds" - ie, the images where the horse or rider looks like a dork, or where the lighting sucked, or the like, maybe in a package deal with another image purchase. You could even make it extremely personal use - as in, you have a right to keep a digital copy but not to post it or share it or print it.

retreadeventer
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:08 PM
I am increasingly disappointed in many, many replies on the Eventing Board to current issues, questions, and posts.

Personal attacks seem to be absolutely the way of the world on here anymore and I really, really am tired of opening the board and reading YET another frothing-at-the-mouth flameout at the "way" someone put something they felt passionate about. Someone brings up an issue and other than a couple of contributing posts about the issue, most of the three pages tends to be about shooting the messenger.

Em's right, and you have to be careful when you are in the communications/media business these days, especially concerning information, images, designs, etc. that you are responsible for on a publicly accessible website. Searching the internet and grabbing photos will on occasion cause you some trouble if you're not careful and if you don't do your due diligence on the media provided to you. It's not enough to say, "oh, it's in the public domain." It's still made by someone, and belongs to who owns it or produced it.

I feel very concerned about photographers who are skilled, talented, and caring like Amy. The internet is quite literally gutting them. One of my favorite photos of me and Rug is by Amy. And EN is a money making venture, too. EN serves this sport incredibly well. And Xctrygirl is one of the FINEST eventers I know. I'm friends with ALL parties here.

Phones and digital cameras today allow ANYONE TO BE A PHOTOGRAPHER. And the proliferation of the internet muddies the waters for anyone owning a website, especially a public one. Lots of people let websites use photos for free and don't even ask for credit. Our hunt has a couple of people who take great photos and post them on public sites for us to use for free all the time, we trade taking pictures of each other, and all of us do that, don't we? And I sure don't make anyone sign a release or pay me money to use a picture I took of them, I'm just glad they like it. But not everyone feels that way. If a professional photographer wants releases signed and payment for published photos, then they should be treated as a business partner -- as they prefer, and not treated casually like a Facebook friend.

If you check the Chronicle, almost ALL the photos are credited, in fact, I can't find anywhere you don't know pretty much WHO took the picture, except paid advertising. I think the number of complaints one receives is not relevant to the issue. A "best practices" scenario dictates that art be credited; the Chronicle has followed this policy and anyone who has sent in a photo for the year-end awards issues knows you must be certain the photographer has released it for publication. If you don't get that release, they won't print the picture. I think doing the right thing IS relevant and important, and from what I can see, looks like it has been done or is in the process of being rectified. Lesson learned. And that's what Em was looking for. Look at the body of work that is the Chronicle, the awards and accolades, the industry acceptance, the reputation they've built over many decades. That diligence pays off and has made them THE incredible icon of horse sport. EN is only two years old and has gone through a phenomenal growth period, incredibly intense -- the cutting edge. We all have made the EN blog a daily ritual like coffee in the morning, we're not really awake until we've clicked in. That sort of loyalty in the internet world means influence and power, and for someone, incredibly long hours on the computer. Mistakes happen. We are all human.

As far as the vehemence of the OP's OP, well, you have to know Em. She's passionate and loyal to a fault, doggone it, the kind of person every single one of us as eventers WISHES they had for a friend. Anyone, in my opinion. that can ride with red coats in the long format, can post darn near anything they want on THIS board. Yes, they get a pass. This is the EVENTERS board last I saw. Eventers say what they think and then after the dust is settled we drink a little beer and dance on the picnic table after cross-country day and it's all OK.

DiablosHalo
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:24 PM
Anyone, in my opinion. that can ride with red coats in the long format, can post darn near anything they want on THIS board. Yes, they get a pass. This is the EVENTERS board last I saw.

I'm having a hard time searching results from 15yrs ago - but don't see anything above prelim. Did they give red coats for prelim back then? I was just wondering... being that I obviously never got one!

equinedriver
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:24 PM
These boards are the only boards I read that post anonymously. I find it very frustrating. Although everyone else seems to know the posters real identity I know about 5. On all the boards I read. I think the tenor and tone on these boards are a direct result of being allowed to hide behind made up names. If I could change one thing, it would be for the COTH policy to change and only permit posing by real names.

saje
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:26 PM
Anyone, in my opinion. that can ride with red coats in the long format, can post darn near anything they want on THIS board.


ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

poltroon
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:30 PM
We made a mistake, plain and simple. Amy contacted me, I have apologized to her and we are working to resolve the issue.

J3D1, if this is the worst thing that happened to you today, it's still a pretty good day. I'm sure your trainer has said much worse things about your character in the course of a typical lesson (certainly most of mine have at one time or another!)

You did make a mistake. I don't know if it's a frequent mistake or if it was one contributor who didn't understand the rules, but it was a mistake. Own it. Emily did not cause your mistake. We'll all get over it as long as you make it right with the photographer, as you did.

Yes, Eventing Nation is free to readers. So is the Los Angeles Times. :lol: By taking advertising, you're playing in the same legal space they are, and you need to step up and obey the same rules.

It's painful at first, because it takes time and money to source images, but I recommend that you create a behind the scenes written policy that is available to everyone who writes for you about how to source and then code images. It will save your bacon in the future and it will make it much easier for your contributors (who after all are mostly not coming from professional journalism) to understand The Way To Do Stuff. This is especially important to have for each time you bring on a new writer, who doesn't have the institutional memory you do.

The transition from a little blog on the side to a professional venture is challenging and there are always some growing pains. We forgive mistakes: there's no need to be defensive about it (I did SO have my heels down!!!! :lol:). But, learn from it, kick on, and make new mistakes going forward. :D

CiegoStar
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:41 PM
poltroon NAILS it. John, read that post over and over. Lots of value in there.

EN does a lot of WONDERFUL things, but now it's a business and not just a personal blog it has to act like one. It's not good enough to passively wait for photogs to complain.

I think this issue only came to a head because the personalities involved know each other. But EN has made a habit of using professional photographs from wire services (AP, Getty, etc) and it's gotten away with it because it's a smalltime website.

Take this Zara Phillips item: http://eventingnation.com/home/2011/07/zara-philips-sunday-links.html

The photo and bandwidth is owned by Time Inc., which no doubt licensed it from Getty or one of the other wires. http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/news/110815/zara-phillips-2-440.jpg

EN cannot simply continue to take photos casually like this. I too work in media and run an organizational blog. When we can't source photos or don't have a budget to buy them, guess what, we don't use them!

Consider it a lesson learned, perhaps a bit harder than it should have been.

Madeline
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:43 PM
....
In the entire history of Eventing Nation, I would guess that we have been contacted less than 10 times about the improper use of a photo and you won't find a single photographer on the planet who has done so and not received an immediate apology and satisfactory resolution. In a new media world where anyone can republish photos, they often get recycled and reused without photo credit, which then makes it impossible for us to know their source. Our own photos that we have taken have been used improperly before without permission for profit and we handle that in the same way we we would appreciate it being handled when we are in the opposite position.

....

You miss the point entirely. It is not the responsibility of the photographer to scour websites and print materials to see what has already been stolen from them, it is the responsibility of the person publishing the images to get permission/purchase rights before they publish the picture.

That you haven't been caught, or that you've come to an agreement after you've been caught, doesn't mean that it's OK to steal.

Jealoushe
Aug. 5, 2011, 09:52 PM
Exactly! I feel like if this were some other two bit website that people weren't crazy about they would rip the owner to shreds, since we all love EN, myself included, people are defending their blantent copyright infringement?

Or they are upset because EN got called out on a public board? Yet - its ok to discuss one young riders expensive new horse and whether or not she deserves it....

are things said on here only OK if they aren't hurting you or your friends?

Im happy EN came on to discuss this issue, but just berating the OP about not contacting you isn't really getting anywhere. This is a public forum, you run a public website. We ALL take risks for critisicm and put ourselves out there when blogging. It comes with the territory. Their concern is legit.

I think what needs to be heard is that you were in the wrong, you're sorry, and that it will not happen again. Ever. Make sure you own every photo that is posted.

Nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes. Ive taken proofs years ago off websites and now I realize how wrong it is. I see it everyday on Facebook and it just makes me kind of sad.

Always ask, always get it in writing.

IvyHall
Aug. 5, 2011, 10:17 PM
I agree with jealoushe.

I find it odd so many people are willing to defend this John person when he was doing something illegal but choose to berate Emily for doing something she is well within her rights to do.

You don't have to agree with how she handled the situation, but when it comes down to it, she is right.

Xctrygirl
Aug. 5, 2011, 10:20 PM
Anyone, in my opinion, that can ride with red coats in the long format

To clarify, I took it to mean that I rode alongside people who were team members. I never have said, nor intimated that I achieved a red coat. And Holley knows this.

I rode to the Intermediate level. And competed in 3 CCN*'s, including a top 10 finish at Radnor. (7th in '93) (Which are the same roughly as a CCI* nowadays) I would admit myself to being proficient at the prelim level, but I did compete at Intermediate with mixed results. (Success and not so much ;) )

~Emily

clm08
Aug. 5, 2011, 11:03 PM
Other than the photographer receiving fair compensation for the unauthorized use of her photos, the rest of you who are disgusted at EN for its unethical use of photos should boycott it. Hit them where it hurts the most: in their pocket. The less hits EN gets, the less sponsors they will get. Surely Em and others who caught them in a criminal act would not patronize them anymore, right?

TheBrightSide06
Aug. 5, 2011, 11:08 PM
I agree with jealoushe.

I find it odd so many people are willing to defend this John person when he was doing something illegal but choose to berate Emily for doing something she is well within her rights to do.

You don't have to agree with how she handled the situation, but when it comes down to it, she is right.


There are still much better ways to handle a situation such as this one...IMHO
Can it just be agreed that everyone makes mistakes, it was an accident, and move one with life?
Nobody should be getting bashed here. We are only human! Well, most of us anyway... ;)

SevenDogs
Aug. 5, 2011, 11:16 PM
Absolutely ridiculous.

Between this thread and the Nina Ligon thread, it appears there are certain people on this board that are green with jealousy over folks that have some success. Get over yourselves.

John: Congratulations on your success. You (and everyone else who tries a new venture) will make some mistakes along the way. It is the way in which you handle those mistakes that will define you. From everything I've seen, you handle your mistakes directly, honestly, and quickly.

I am sure you will continue to grow your site and be extremely successful. Unfortunately, success always comes with the requisite few bad apples, who are jealous of your success and desperate for attention.

ZiggyStardust
Aug. 6, 2011, 12:57 AM
You miss the point entirely. It is not the responsibility of the photographer to scour websites and print materials to see what has already been stolen from them, it is the responsibility of the person publishing the images to get permission/purchase rights before they publish the picture.


This was my reaction, as well. Seems odd that the policy is to use what they want until someone complains.

Then again, maybe I'm just jealous of a blog's success and desperate for attention :lol:

Ranger
Aug. 6, 2011, 01:32 AM
And if I might be permitted to double-post, I should mention that I find the way this situation was handled deeply frustrating. Emily, you have my email and phone number, and so does Amy, and I'll bet you have Amy's contact info as well. We could have handled this situation painlessly and in the end much more quickly and therefore better for Amy by simply making a quick call or email today. Amy decided to handle this by sending an email, you decided to complain to as many people as you could.

You chose to publicly defame and discredit Eventing Nation on a situation in which you have no specific personal knowledge or involvement. You didn't notify me of your concern, ask for our story, or even tell me about your public post, and therefore it stood without a response from our side for many hours. In fact, it served your purposes for the photo to remain incorrectly posted without credit for as long as possible.

I have spent the better part of my life over the past two years trying to provide a completely free, positive, and supportive service to the eventing community and today you insulted me and that work.

I suppose there must be a certain sense of satisfaction (?) and self worth in publicly attacking others. And it must feel good to get the attention that comes with providing the first specific public attack of EN on these forums. That we survived for so long without such an attack is a source of pride for me.

Surely we all make mistakes and do things that embarrass us and upset other people from time to time. The interesting thing about attacking us is that, unlike most of the folks you target, we have a certain medium and method of response with a much larger audience than this forum. So my question for you is--and I promise I'm actually unsure of how to handle this--in light of your predisposition to bully, diminish, and attack others from behind the protection of a computer, should we do the same in response? Are you prepared to be held to the same high standards you demand from others and be subject to the same consequences you bestow?

But this is EXACTLY what Emily does in 90% of her posts and thread topics. She is aggressive and rude and obnoxious - just recently to someone who accidentally double posted - and Emily didn't just berate the poster as a dumbzzz for doing so, but chose to self appoint herself the champion of the COTH Forums saying the post needlessly cost COTH bandwidth…. seriously?
And now she has taken a legitimate topic and used it as a justification for taking on "corporate eventing" (my term, please do not repost without permission!). She is always ready for a good fight or to stir up a controversy, and it is sad to see so many validating posts. Amy's responses have been thoughtful and gracious, and make Emily's ranting more embarrassing - she went off half cocked without all of the facts. As usual, it was NOT Emily's fight! And it is NO defense to decency and civility to say that the topic had been raised once to EN - this was a PRIVATE matter! And for all of you supporters of her, remember that when someone else recently posted an email they RECEIVED that revealed private information about a very (hot) topic on this board, Emily jumped in IMMEDIATELY and accosted that person for posting private information without that sender's consent! I do NOT want to link to it - I do not want to raise that thread for more discussion - but this is EXACTLY what Emily did in this case - and saying it was in defense of a friend would only begin to hold water IF Amy had been battling this for months and months to no avail….

Thank you sevendogs and Eloquence09 and Westcoasteventer for restoring my faith in people. J3D1 - your responses were eloquent, intelligent, and thoughtful.

Wits End Eventing
Aug. 6, 2011, 06:02 AM
Can it just be agreed that everyone makes mistakes, it was an accident, and move one with life?
Nobody should be getting bashed here. We are only human! Well, most of us anyway... ;)

The point is, yes we all make mistakes, but this is John's JOB. And, when it is your job, you have to do your due diligence. If you don't, you can't whinge about poor you when someone calls you on it publicly. John picked a job with a very public persona, no whining when you get pubicly called to task. Who cares how young he is? You get an F for plagiarizing on a thesis.....

And admit it guys. Both side are being nasty and calling names.


The interesting thing about attacking us is that, unlike most of the folks you target, we have a certain medium and method of response with a much larger audience than this forum.


p.s. I find this threat incredibly disturbing. Are you saying you are going to attack someone through your blog? Do I need to worry I will never get positive coverage for my horses or my farm for disagreeing with you?

hopashore1
Aug. 6, 2011, 07:14 AM
Wow, what really is a GOOD conversation has disintegrated, on both parties.

And I'm sad to see so many people seeing EN through rose-colored glasses. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Eventing Nation and all of John's work. To stay informed on current events in this sport is incredible, to get first hand information and interviews from events running half way around the world only serves to unite us as a group, which is a GOOD THING for our sport. But that doesn't mean EN is perfect, or can't be improved, or didn't make a mistake.

To those of you saying this is not Emily's fight...will you be singing a different tune when some of the best show photographers we have start going out of business? This is how they make their living! People stealing photos, which, yes is what EN did and has done, threatens that. If we, as consumers and customers don't protect the businesses we love, who will? I'm GLAD Emily brought this to the forefront. Was it perhaps a little aggressive and without all the facts? Yes, but let's face it, so are 60% of the posts on COTH! This is a legitimate issue. Maybe it got off on the wrong foot, but that doesn't mean we can't make it a productive conversation from here on out.

It's great to see EN stepping up to the plate and apologizing. But that can't be where it ends. EN is no longer someone's weekend project with a small following. It's become huge, as reflected in the increase in sponsor advertising. It's set a standard of blogging and communication and needs to be PROACTIVE in getting photographer permission. Yes, it takes time. Yes, it might mean we don't get photo follow ups for several days. But I'd rather that than the ethical problem of stealing a photographer's work, as I'm sure do the photographers.

Leprechaun
Aug. 6, 2011, 07:50 AM
I'm with SevenDogs.

I find it hard to believe that this is what has been transpiring on the forum while I was busy monitoring the melt down in Washington, our National credit down grade, the famine misery in Somalia and numerous wars & uprisings. I find it all rather pathetic.

Do we really want to ruin EN's ability to give us some relief and our eventing world fix? Does John need a "legal team" to post?!? Do we really want a dry, "PC" site that is unable fly by the seat of their pants?!? EN has been a FABULOUS addition to the eventing world and I for one am sorry that the litigious nature of this country will rear it's ugly head again.

There are so, so many truly meaningful thing to complain about and fight for. Really, pics and links on a little horsey site is a big deal?!? If people want to publicly flog someone why don't you start with your Senator and Congress Person (see how PC I am!).

I could also cross post this to the thread on Nina Ligon. This has always been a sport of deep pockets. Horses are expensive. Jealousy is an unattractive beast. There will always be people with more. Try to focus on how lucky you are if you even have the luxury to have horses, compete and know what the COTH is! Best of luck to Nina and her lovely string.

Yikes!

Go Eventing!!!

DLee
Aug. 6, 2011, 08:03 AM
I'm with SevenDogs.


There are so, so many truly meaningful thing to complain about and fight for.



Copyright infringement is pretty darn meaningful to those being infringed upon.

Bravestrom
Aug. 6, 2011, 08:29 AM
just wait until you need a subscription and $ to get onto eventing nation because all the photos have to be paid for - Yes I agree professional photographers should be credited and paid.

There are many sides to this issue - bringing the issue to the attention of en, en learning that the picture was copyrighted and all the issues involved with that and many things brought into this discussion that probably don't belong here.

What happens when an ammy submits a photo? They don't get paid or credited.

An issue long been on the back of my mind is the professional rider gets his photo taken - the professional photographer gets paid to sell the professional rider's image. But who really owns that image - if not for the rider the photographer would not have a subject - is the rider's image not his property? Just a thought - probably doesn't even belong here. Carry on.

westcoasteventer
Aug. 6, 2011, 08:46 AM
Wow, what really is a GOOD conversation has disintegrated, on both parties.

And I'm sad to see so many people seeing EN through rose-colored glasses. I don't see it through rose-colored glasses. I see it through 12 years of online (and other) business glasses, where people make mistakes all the time. They may be mistakes from carelessness, tiredness, lack of attention to detail, or just not knowing any better. The important thing is that when people make mistakes, they own up to it and correct it.

Which is exactly what John has done on this thread.

Emily was completely out of line, per usual. To retreadeventer's statement about how everyone would want Emily as a friend... no, not so much. I don't want someone "in my corner" who goes off on a half-cocked, half-facts shouting rampage on my behalf, EVER.

90% of any message is in the delivery, and her message was clearly lost in the delivery for anyone who wants a reasonable discussion. For those who just want to throw stones and excoriate someone regardless of facts, carry on.

magnolia73
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:22 AM
I haveto say, I don't think Emily did this out of spite. I had a post in HJ about a local trainer posting a stolen, watermarked photo from my friends business as an ad. I called him out and he rather sarcastically replied to me. I was mad- she works HARD and spends time away from her own horse and animals and home to take photos. Her intention IS to make money, not take photos to share. Her agreeing to shoot a show means taking a day in which she could enjoy her family OR make other money to shoot you- when you use those photos without permission, you STOLE from her and begrudged her what- $10? $15? It's no different than asking me to pet sit and deciding not to pay, stealing food from the food truck or swiping some reins from the tack trailer.

NO ONE SHOULD STEAL. It is WRONG. It does not make it OK if you are a kid, a small time blog or a local trainer. ANYONE in media KNOWS stealing photos is WRONG unless they lived under a rock. Glad the issue was resolved, but it's not a small deal nor a way to do business.

AT any rate, Emilyu supported me on that topic, so its not like she woke up with a grudge- obviously, she cares about the issue for some reason- maybe she too works all day taking photos to pay bills?

And the publishers of EN can argue and justify all day long- but I am assuming you are web savvy and media savvy and understand the concept of payment and permission. For christ sakes, my BF shoots jam bands and even the stoned hippie bloggers that report online between tokes off the bong understand the need to get permission and give credit. Are you saying you are less professional and aware than Stoner Steve and his girlfriend LSD Lisa?

Bogie
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:28 AM
The interesting thing about attacking us is that, unlike most of the folks you target, we have a certain medium and method of response with a much larger audience than this forum.

Ya know, this statement, which could easily be read as a threat, kind of tipped me over the edge from thinking it was an honest mistake. Maybe it still was and this was just a "go on the offensive" rather than apologize and move on kind of statement but it really rubs me the wrong way.

I enjoy EN but this really gave me pause. COTH is a bulletin board and you expect a certain amount of "heated" discussion; EN is presenting itself as a news source where personal attacks would be wrong.

Snaffle81
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:28 AM
I don't see it through rose-colored glasses. I see it through 12 years of online (and other) business glasses, where people make mistakes all the time. They may be mistakes from carelessness, tiredness, lack of attention to detail, or just not knowing any better. The important thing is that when people make mistakes, they own up to it and correct it.

Which is exactly what John has done on this thread.

Emily was completely out of line, per usual. To retreadeventer's statement about how everyone would want Emily as a friend... no, not so much. I don't want someone "in my corner" who goes off on a half-cocked, half-facts shouting rampage on my behalf, EVER.

90% of any message is in the delivery, and her message was clearly lost in the delivery for anyone who wants a reasonable discussion. For those who just want to throw stones and excoriate someone regardless of facts, carry on.

This - especially the part: "90% of any message is in the delivery".

And, while I LOVE LOVE LOVE EN because it makes me feel connected, I think it needs to lose the philosophy "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." I don't believe that mentality will work as a defense in a CR Infringement suit.

magnolia73
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:33 AM
I think it needs to lose the philosophy "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." I don't believe that mentality will work as a defense in a CR Infringement suit.

YES= when someone uses Brad's photos, they email him and ask permission- see it all the time! He works for a few larger online blogs and he shoots for them under a contract (they cover his expenses basically- often its through provision of media passes and concert tickets-some pay, some don't). EN could easily do the same.

magnolia73
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:44 AM
The other thing: EN is a successful blog and part of it is great photography. I used to work in design and marketing- photos are critical! Imagine his site with crappy pics shot with a camera phone. All the sudden that blog is likely not successful. So really, really wrong to have a fee site and not pay people who help you make that site successful.

I hope in the end, they figure out a way to make it work and showcase good work and make sure those people get credited and compensated *before* the blog post goes live, not after the fact when someone catches an error and emails.

Albion
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:52 AM
just wait until you need a subscription and $ to get onto eventing nation because all the photos have to be paid for - Yes I agree professional photographers should be credited and paid.

There are many sides to this issue - bringing the issue to the attention of en, en learning that the picture was copyrighted and all the issues involved with that and many things brought into this discussion that probably don't belong here.

What happens when an ammy submits a photo? They don't get paid or credited.

What a silly retort - MOST of the major blogs out there (and many of the not so major), at least the ones that don't want to be sued into oblivion, use PAID photo services (be it stock photo or otherwise), yet are still free to readers. It is a cost of doing business - otherwise, you risk running into a lawsuit. The rule when I was writing for a major blog was 'Follow our photo posting policies to the letter [which included services like Getty Images - which we had to credit even though we were already paying for them] or it's going to be YOUR pay getting docked when we get sued.' There is the other obvious option of posting fewer photos & only those you have permission to post without money changing hands. That would mean fewer pretty pictures, but better than having legal action threatened by a disgruntled photographer (and yes, it does happen).

If an ammy submits a photo, they damn well SHOULD get credit regardless of whether they're getting paid or not. That was ALSO policy, per our legal department (I assume a blog the size of EN does not have a legal department, in which case they would be wise to follow the lead of bigger sites that do have a fleet of lawyers making sure 'i's are dotted and 't's crossed). Photos on flickr and other photo sharing services that have Creative Commons licenses attached that allowed resharing/redistribution were fair game, but we always provided an ATTRIBUTION. That is PART of CC licensing, giving credit where credit is due & respecting the creator's wishes (e.g., some CC licenses don't allow any changes/derivations). Saying 'But that person is an amateur!' is no excuse.

barnworkbeatshousework
Aug. 6, 2011, 10:23 AM
Emily had a valid point, even if expressed quite strongly for some. EN was pointed out as apparently using photos, without permission. We all agree photo use without permission and compensation from the photographer is copyright infringement, whether intentional, or not. Are we all on the same page? Good. Learn, fix the problem, don't do it again, move on.

Now, everyone go work off the heated emotions: muck stalls, use the time to clear your mind (and if that doesn't work, haul hay or feed bags, pick a field by hand, and go clean tack as well). Then, go ride.

Ca dreamin
Aug. 6, 2011, 10:23 AM
.....and it applies to everyone equally.
Am confused about copyright "ownership" of photos however. Don't you have to actually apply for copyright protection before you can claim the legal benefits of ownership....image by image? Is it possible photographers don't do this but then claim they "own" the photos, even stating on photos that they are "copyrighted" when they are not? (when you stamp the photo the day you print it you obviously have not applied for a copyright on it yet.)
So this could be the "common practice" of photographers like it is the common practice of websites to just grab and post. Any of us, professional or not, could claim our own photos are protected when we have done nothing but click the shutter. This area of the law is confusing for sure and I don't know the answers, just raising the questions.

poltroon
Aug. 6, 2011, 10:38 AM
.....and it applies to everyone equally.
Am confused about copyright "ownership" of photos however. Don't you have to actually apply for copyright protection before you can claim the legal benefits of ownership....image by image? Is it possible photographers don't do this but then claim they "own" the photos, even stating on photos that they are "copyrighted" when they are not? (when you stamp the photo the day you print it you obviously have not applied for a copyright on it yet.)
So this could be the "common practice" of photographers like it is the common practice of websites to just grab and post. Any of us, professional or not, could claim our own photos are protected when we have done nothing but click the shutter. This area of the law is confusing for sure and I don't know the answers, just raising the questions.

No. Copyright exists the moment you capture the image in your camera. There is no need to file or to make any specific notice of it.

(This is actually creating a significant problem in places, because copyrighted works don't pass into the public domain unless they're quite old. Photographs in particular are unlikely to be dated or to have the name of the photographer on them, which can make it impossible to secure proper permission. )

With new images, the law is pretty clear: you need the photographer's permission.

Some digital image editors (like Photoshop) now make it possible to embed metadata into a photograph, like the photographer's name and contact information. This can make it easier to find and secure those rights for a random picture found online.

I admire Eventing Nation and the way they have used photographs to great advantage. If you don't believe the photographs add enough significant value to secure appropriate rights, then run the blog without them.

Ca dreamin
Aug. 6, 2011, 10:58 AM
Andrew Epstein provides a quick understandable summary at www.photolaw.net/faq.html/

He touches briefly on the concept of "fair use" which allows a "newspaper" to publish copyrighted photos without compensation to the photographer. Wonder how this would apply to EN use of photos?

annikak
Aug. 6, 2011, 01:01 PM
This is a sad thread for many reasons, and I find myself posting, which might be the saddest thing to me of all!

I actually DO look at credits- hence, when I saw that Shannon B was at Ocala, I made darn sure to get her photos- because they are (and still are) beautiful, and capture the moments as I felt them (okay, perhaps even better, LOL). I had a picture that I submitted to Smartpak for Taco, and we got approval for it's use. Some of the pictures I own outright (paid like 200 for a CD filled with them) and some I don't, but...seeing the name with the photo makes me aware of the photographer and their talent. So, in some ways, it's advertising for them to be on such a prominent web site I'd think....

The hotlink issue is strange to me- I think that, too, would be a good thing. But again, I don't know a darn thing about internet issues such as these, and at the very least, I will be more sensitive to them.

Amy, I hope things between you and EN work out. I know you sell a lot of your pics to practical horseman and other places. I am sorry you got dragged into this in such a way.

As far as riding with the red coats- several of us have ridden with the red coated riders, but it does NOT give us carte blanche to be rude, despite this being the Eventing Forum.

I have loved being a part of this online community, because it HAS been supportive and often a source of good information, as well as keeping us up to speed on certain hot issues. There are several savvy posters here that you know to listen to them, and hear them out, because they are in there, doing things that better the sport, and make it better for the horses and riders.

And for those that say 60% of what is here is often false, quite possibly. But, Em has posted several things over the years that are darn right NOT true and this has caused some to question what she says in her posts. In this case, there appears to be truth, and I am glad for that, but still....

Stay Classy...never goes out of style.

flutie1
Aug. 6, 2011, 01:43 PM
What I hate about this thread and the Nina Ligon one is that they both expose the very human and also very unattractive trait of "piling on." Of course copywrite laws are tremendously important, but Geez, guys, several of you have painted John as the next worst thing to Osama Bin Laden or Bernie Madoff. He's a good guy who does his best to run a good website. Is it perfect? No. I've had issues with his reporting in the past and have brought them directly to him. He's been nothing but gracious and responsive. Life is a learning curve, and he just banked into a big one. I have no doubt it'll get fixed.

Lighten up folks!

Jealoushe
Aug. 6, 2011, 02:37 PM
Well hopefully when something of yours gets stolen you aren't told to "lighten up".

No one is bashing John, whats being said is they need to get their act together.

this is like a new form of celebrity worship....eventing blog worship

GingerJumper
Aug. 6, 2011, 02:42 PM
This is a sad thread for many reasons, and I find myself posting, which might be the saddest thing to me of all!

I actually DO look at credits- hence, when I saw that Shannon B was at Ocala, I made darn sure to get her photos- because they are (and still are) beautiful, and capture the moments as I felt them (okay, perhaps even better, LOL). I had a picture that I submitted to Smartpak for Taco, and we got approval for it's use. Some of the pictures I own outright (paid like 200 for a CD filled with them) and some I don't, but...seeing the name with the photo makes me aware of the photographer and their talent. So, in some ways, it's advertising for them to be on such a prominent web site I'd think....

The hotlink issue is strange to me- I think that, too, would be a good thing. But again, I don't know a darn thing about internet issues such as these, and at the very least, I will be more sensitive to them.

Amy, I hope things between you and EN work out. I know you sell a lot of your pics to practical horseman and other places. I am sorry you got dragged into this in such a way.

As far as riding with the red coats- several of us have ridden with the red coated riders, but it does NOT give us carte blanche to be rude, despite this being the Eventing Forum.

I have loved being a part of this online community, because it HAS been supportive and often a source of good information, as well as keeping us up to speed on certain hot issues. There are several savvy posters here that you know to listen to them, and hear them out, because they are in there, doing things that better the sport, and make it better for the horses and riders.

And for those that say 60% of what is here is often false, quite possibly. But, Em has posted several things over the years that are darn right NOT true and this has caused some to question what she says in her posts. In this case, there appears to be truth, and I am glad for that, but still....

Stay Classy...never goes out of style.

^this.

Jealoushe
Aug. 6, 2011, 02:47 PM
yeah, and are they still taking images off the web? Was their Saturday Links picture taken off this website or did they buy the rights...

http://togethercanada.ca/en/?p=2273

Just asking....??

I just cant wrap my head around the fact that some posts on Coth are all about calling out riders who break rules at shows and this and that and the riders het ripped apart, yet this blatent copyright infringement is ok?

clearly I am missing something.

SevenDogs
Aug. 6, 2011, 02:47 PM
Well hopefully when something of yours gets stolen you aren't told to "lighten up".



The only person on this thread that *MAY* have had something stolen, has stated that the situation had been resolved to her satisfaction before this thread was even started.

If someone wants to start a general thread about use and/or mis-use of professional photos, feel free. There have already been multiple threads on the topic, and it is certainly a relevant topic in the digital age.

However, and as evidenced by the inflammatory title, this thread was started by someone as an attack on a specific person/blog, when she was not directly involved nor did she even have the facts straight.

paequest
Aug. 6, 2011, 03:30 PM
I am the person who actually paid Amy for the photo, and Eventing Nation essentially shoplifted it. It's wrong, and extremely unprofessional.

CiegoStar
Aug. 6, 2011, 03:47 PM
Well, I think this has been well-enough hashed over. I just have two last (promise) thoughts:

1. You think it would be a drag to have a paywall in order to see EN because the site has to pay for photos? Imagine what more of a drag it would be if EN was shut down to pay legal costs upon losing a lawsuit to AP, Getty, etc for misuse of photos. Now, I find it fairly unlikely that the site will get sued because it has such low readership in the big scheme of things. But I think the agencies are a much bigger threat than individual photographers. They have legal depts and a great desire to profit off their wire photos. So tread carefully, EN.

2. If you're going to continue to lift photos from news stories, etc., at least download it or screengrab it and upload the photo to the site, rather than just hotlinking - the hotlinking leads them directly to you!! haha.

Best wishes. I love EN and I hope John takes away a good lesson from this.

tres grey
Aug. 6, 2011, 05:18 PM
The hotlink issue is strange to me- I think that, too, would be a good thing. But again, I don't know a darn thing about internet issues such as these, and at the very least, I will be more sensitive to them.

Just wanted to explain the hotlinking issue for those that don't know.

Web hosters usually offer tiered packages with a certain amount of space for you to host your website on. These can go anywhere from a small personal site (like a stable) to a large e-commerce site, and obviously, reflects in cost. In your web space, you upload files for your webpages to reference by using HTML. When you write the link/picture code in the HTML file, you're actually telling the server to pull from the said files.

Let's use a 50KB (kilobyte) picture that you uploaded to your web space as an example. And let's just say, for whatever reason, you want to put the picture on the website twice. That 50KB doubles to 100KB of your web space. It's the same thing when an outside source uses your URL to post the picture on the website. They just stole a 50KB from you. And sure, 50KB isn't that much, but imagine someone did that 20 times over. They just stole a megabyte from your paid webspace... that space that you could have done something else with. And it doesn't even have to be the same photograph. They could have post 5 images directly linking from your site. And whats more is that people who visited those sites can take those images with your URL and post them on their sites. Then it just snowballs.

A better practice is to upload the photograph on your own webhost and link the photo from your space. For credit, give the original source a text link back to their website.

If you want a further explanation, let me know. I can talk web and design literally all day long.

atheventer85
Aug. 6, 2011, 05:24 PM
I don't care how loyal she is..... to bash someone on a public board like this is A) being a downright coward B) is the rudest thing to do. If she was a classy person, she would logically email John (he is always VERY quick to respond) and state the problem. She, on the other hand, posted here, and he didn't even notice it until hours later after she had blistered him in public. This type of behavior isn't becoming of anyone...

gold2012
Aug. 6, 2011, 05:25 PM
Few thoughts.

John saying that he has only had a few people contact him about this issue out of 300 photos a year, seems to say, it's okay to do as long as no one complains. Really?

If En is suppose to be a news organization, it needs to act like one. And cover USA news equally, anyone see anything about the Colorado CCi's on EN? No, because it was mostly smaller name people there. anyone know who won the Holling derby? It was covered, but didn't mention the two winners and who was there. I can for sure say, both winners could have used a bit publicity. So, EN really is mostly a blog about the red coats, those who are friends, and occasional smurf thrown in.

I am sorry, but I do think that EVERYONE should be made to follow the rules...not just a select few.

On to regular scheduled programming...and bet I don't see kids name on EN soon....

gold2012
Aug. 6, 2011, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't call you snarky here, Xctrygirl. A fair amount of content on that site and the choices that the main author makes are in fairly bad form.

He wants to help companies sell things to people by posting ads, both outside and inside his content, but still uses the site largely for gossip, occasionally goes after people who make strong remarks that don't agree with his agenda, and is a hypocrite about criticizing people for being inflammatory, and then posting plenty of inflammatory information and opinion himself. It's like amateur hour over there. Some of it I enjoy, but a lot of it has bugged me for a while and I don't visit nearly as often as I used to.

This!

VicariousRider
Aug. 6, 2011, 06:38 PM
I am hesitant to even post on this thread, but I want to say that it is these types of behaviors (cavalier mentality about copyright, biased reporting and advertorials in particular) that have kept me from really trusting EN from the get-go. I agree that it provides a fantastic resource for our sport but the lack of commitment to standard journalism practices has made me wary of its content from day one.

For this reason I HAVE continued to subscribe to the Chronicle of the Horse despite the very high subscription fee. EN provides lots of conveniences (links to scoreboards and recaps) and has a great sense of humor but I have never trusted the other content much at all.

I think it's important for John to know that and understand that an isolated copyright issue can really tarnish the site's image. The site is fantastic but it would be so much better, IMO, if I had the sense that they ran a tighter ship.

barnworkbeatshousework
Aug. 6, 2011, 07:57 PM
I am hesitant to even post on this thread, but I want to say that it is these types of behaviors (cavalier mentality about copyright, biased reporting and advertorials in particular) that have kept me from really trusting EN from the get-go. I agree that it provides a fantastic resource for our sport but the lack of commitment to standard journalism practices has made me wary of its content from day one.

For this reason I HAVE continued to subscribe to the Chronicle of the Horse despite the very high subscription fee. EN provides lots of conveniences (links to scoreboards and recaps) and has a great sense of humor but I have never trusted the other content much at all.

I think it's important for John to know that and understand that an isolated copyright issue can really tarnish the site's image. The site is fantastic but it would be so much better, IMO, if I had the sense that they ran a tighter ship.

yep, agree...In the beginning I was interested in the EN blog. I followed it almost daily within the past year, and it obviously gained a larger following. But some of the content I didn't enjoy...

Somewhat unrelated (ok, maybe completely, but while we're talking about EN...) thing I noticed as I read some of the EN posts in the past was that some posts had inside jokes and comments made me feel like an outsider glancing into a somewhat members-only clique. If you're not "in," you don't "get" the references. (High school was bad enough, don't need to be reminded of the experience as I try to enjoy my hobby/sport :lol:). I, too, have found myself visiting EN less and less these days, or at least, not daily, like I used to do. Some of the stuff was great, some of it too select-group-specific.

Is it a personal blog, or is it a news source? I don't know. Does it know? For me, I go to COTH for news, Event Entries for results, Horse & Hound for international coverage, and peek around else where for the rest. I'll still pop over to EN now and then, but not as much as before. As a horseless adult novice (who manages to ride somewhat, but hardly enough as I'd like to...), I just don't feel like EN speaks to me. A site I found lately that is more to my level of riding and circumstance is www.horsejunkiesunited.com.

Again, hope everyone can do what is right, learn from the constructive comments in this thread and move on for the better....

IronwoodFarm
Aug. 6, 2011, 07:58 PM
Agreed. I just renewed my COTH subscription. I would not want to depend on EN for my main news source until the professionalism improves. And I think they will get there eventually!

Ghazzu
Aug. 6, 2011, 08:18 PM
I think that the transition from "amateur" to "pro" has not been without its pitfalls for EN.
But if you want to run with the big dogs, you've gotta play by the rules.

OptimumTime
Aug. 6, 2011, 08:26 PM
I don't want to stir the pot, but in this post (http://eventingnation.com/home/2011/08/support-rebuilding-over-the-hill-farm.html) EN uses a photo from the Abington Journal (http://www.timesleader.com/AbingtonJournal/news/Hoping_to_heal_HEARTBREAK_07-26-2011.html). I assume that publication had to pay for that image either from a staff photographer or a freelancer. As far as I know, those images cannot be used on someone's personal site--even if it does say "via..." Just because you say where you got it, doesn't always make it ok. Unless it was an official press release, but I don't think that was the case with this instance, or with many others.

I do hate to use this one as an example, because I know they're trying to give some support to the barn fire. But it is very similar to the original scenario on this thread.

Through the Glass
Aug. 6, 2011, 08:31 PM
The only person on this thread that *MAY* have had something stolen


I beg to differ....


You were correct in your assumption that I have not licensed this image to Eventing Nation

According to the above, the image was, in fact, stolen. (or should I say "inadvertently obtained by means of right clicking whilst forgetting to ask for usage rights" for those that have trouble with the word stolen or happen to suffer from defectum moralis righteousism....)


The only person has stated that the situation had been resolved to her satisfaction before this thread was even started.


Am I missing something??... How could this issue have been resolved before the thread was started??? The thread was started AFTER the image was used without permission and BEFORE a resolution had been agreed upon between EN and Amy.

John

flyingchange
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:35 PM
Yall need to go ride XC and get laid. A lot. Who has time to worry about other people's stuff so much??? Sad.

annikak
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:50 PM
Yall need to go ride XC and get laid. A lot. Who has time to worry about other people's stuff so much??? Sad.
:lol::lol:
posting a thread soon that you all can really be concerned about.

seeuatx
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:53 PM
Yall need to go ride XC and get laid. A lot. Who has time to worry about other people's stuff so much??? Sad.

love it ;)

SRF1
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:54 PM
Flying change,

Completely agree!! :lol:

The only good thing about this thread is it took the focus off the Nina thread. ;)

Oh! But wait, now there is the Tiana thread which can do that, way to go Cothers, some of you NEVER fail to disappoint! :no:

GingerJumper
Aug. 6, 2011, 09:56 PM
Yall need to go ride XC and get laid. A lot. Who has time to worry about other people's stuff so much??? Sad.

:lol:

AEM74
Aug. 6, 2011, 10:34 PM
Yall need to go ride XC and get laid. A lot. Who has time to worry about other people's stuff so much??? Sad.

:lol: Love it. Reminds me of a thread on my FB wall the other day....folks getting all up in arms, name calling and making things personal over....wait for it....which Mexican restaurant was the best one in town. My suggestion to them was to go enjoy a margarita (at the Mexican dining establishment of their choice) and chillax.

LaraNSpeedy
Aug. 6, 2011, 10:44 PM
Gosh I wish people would assume the better in people first - I think this should have been handled in private first instead of the long rant here. It really sort of grossed me out. to be honest

SevenDogs
Aug. 7, 2011, 12:32 AM
Am I missing something??... How could this issue have been resolved before the thread was started??? The thread was started AFTER the image was used without permission and BEFORE a resolution had been agreed upon between EN and Amy.

John

Yes... you obviously missed post #47 from the photographer (who owns the image) stating that the issue had been addressed and resolved before this thread was even started (photographer's post quoted below with bold and underline added):


OK people, let's not get so worked up over a specific situation that I am handling, and had already been addressed at the time Emily posted this thread, unbeknownst to her.

The people directly involved (which did NOT include the OP) resolved the issue before this thread was ever started. Interestingly, the OP never showed back up after the photographer posted the above information.

NRB
Aug. 7, 2011, 01:01 AM
Yall need to go ride XC and get laid. A lot. Who has time to worry about other people's stuff so much??? Sad.

and drink more beer.

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 01:41 AM
It seems to me in my very humble opinion, that many people share the feeling, it's not my problem, or my business, or yours, so why bother?

Not in just this instance either. In quite a few posts, the eventing world is being sliced up, ammies, pro's, wanna be's, rich, poor, and lots of sub groups. But here is a case, that truly is about all of us. Because people blatantly steal, and really this IS stealing photos, photographers are having to charge to see proofs, charge for one pic and you get to see others...etc. Etc. Photographers are getting choosier and choosier about what they are going to cover. Is it worth going out in bad weather, for people who steal. A few are going to ruin it for the rest! Call me silly, but I like having pics to buy!

Emily was passionate in the op. She has been told she should have emailed John, but there was an email. On en, currently there are a bunch of new pics, lots of them look like professional pics. Has he contacted those photographers?

if we want a sport to survive, then small issues are OUR problem. Taking the It isn't my problem, fight, glad it wasn't my event approach....it's going to cause more of a downhill slide in the sport.

We, my daughter and I, are not part of the EN clic. Neither are we weekend warriors who work normal work weeks. Though, those are the people we talk to at the events, cause they are still the friendly ones. From our view, the rift is getting bigger, the problems worse, ad a whole lot of people are saying, " ain't my problem". Just food for thought.

poltroon
Aug. 7, 2011, 02:16 AM
Just wanted to explain the hotlinking issue for those that don't know.

Web hosters usually offer tiered packages with a certain amount of space for you to host your website on. These can go anywhere from a small personal site (like a stable) to a large e-commerce site, and obviously, reflects in cost. In your web space, you upload files for your webpages to reference by using HTML. When you write the link/picture code in the HTML file, you're actually telling the server to pull from the said files.

Let's use a 50KB (kilobyte) picture that you uploaded to your web space as an example. And let's just say, for whatever reason, you want to put the picture on the website twice. That 50KB doubles to 100KB of your web space. It's the same thing when an outside source uses your URL to post the picture on the website. They just stole a 50KB from you. And sure, 50KB isn't that much, but imagine someone did that 20 times over. They just stole a megabyte from your paid webspace... that space that you could have done something else with. And it doesn't even have to be the same photograph. They could have post 5 images directly linking from your site. And whats more is that people who visited those sites can take those images with your URL and post them on their sites. Then it just snowballs.

A better practice is to upload the photograph on your own webhost and link the photo from your space. For credit, give the original source a text link back to their website.

If you want a further explanation, let me know. I can talk web and design literally all day long.

This is actually only a portion of the issue.

Disk space for images is a small thing. Bandwidth can be a big thing. When you host a website, usually there's a cap on both your disk space and also the bandwidth, that is, the count of bytes requested from your site.

So that 100k image requested 1 time is a 100k bandwidth load. That 100k image requested 10,000 times is ~ 1 GB of bandwidth. Not only might that extra load cause the original site to have to pay an overage charge to their provider, but in some cases it could bring the original site down due to heavy load.

If this happened to you, the first thing you'd do would be to check your logs, at which point the offender is very obvious. And, you'd probably be pretty angry.

Image hosting services, like flickr and photobucket and the like, expect these kind of links and don't mind them.

magnolia73
Aug. 7, 2011, 09:27 AM
It's not the small issue some people make it out to be for the talented people who's work is being taken and not paid for. I don't think people realize that and everyone is like whatever, who cares.... except that people's incomes are impacted.

What if there was topic Bad Form - BNR walked off with bellboots from the tack shop without paying!! Would people be like, who cares- shoplifting happens.... or why not- I take bellboots too! Or mountain out of a mole hill- so what....

westcoasteventer
Aug. 7, 2011, 09:43 AM
We, my daughter and I, are not part of the EN clic. Neither are we weekend warriors who work normal work weeks. Is that your problem with EN not covering the Colorado CCI? Your daughter did well there and he didn't give her "much needed" publicity? Good PR doesn't just happen. It takes hard work, tact and strong networking, it doesn't just fall out of the sky. It might help to look at your own efforts before pointing the finger at others.

Also, it is spelled "clique."

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:22 AM
Yes... you obviously missed post #47 from the photographer (who owns the image) stating that the issue had been addressed and resolved before this thread was even started (photographer's post quoted below with bold and underline added):



The people directly involved (which did NOT include the OP) resolved the issue before this thread was ever started. Interestingly, the OP never showed back up after the photographer posted the above information.

Hey SevenDogs, as usual you're off base. One email sent to John by Amy is NOT a resolution. It is the beginning of the process of the resolution. And believe me when I say that we all wish that resolutions, including payments for infringements, would be accomplished by sending 1 email from only 1 side of the issue. That's not how it works. Here's how it works..Since I have been through it (I am guessing) FAR more than you: (Note the following is how I have seen it done. There are many different ways for the many different photographers)

Step 1: Notify the infringer that you own the copyrighted material that they are infringing upon. Explain the terms for removing said image and the "fee" involved for such an infringement and ask that they contact you to start to resolve the matter.

Step2: (ideally) Infringer replies to copyright holder and agrees to fees and removal of image.

Step 3: Photographer: Acknowledge the agreement and send an invoice for the fee.

Step 4: Infringer:Send payment.

I have seen it go through many steps with a lawyer too as some people fight, but in the end do have to pay.


Let me clarify here what actually occured on Friday. I hadn't spoken to Amy when I posted, this is true. I had emailed her a link when I saw the EN page and I Said "Uhhhh did EN obtain usage for the pic of Boyd here.... That I KNOW you shot... http://eventingnation.com/home/2011/08/neville-bardos-takes-the-lead-at-millbrook.html." Then I saw that her photography Business facebook status from 9:30am was:
"I'm writing one of the those copyright infringement letters that I so hate to compose. #ithurtsmemorethanithurtsyou and I called and left her a voicemail.

I'd say some amount of common sense and logic and the fact that EN's copy of the picture didn't have a credit or her normal copyright logo led me to start this thread. And having read her blog post about copyright infringement and having discussed the issue at length with her.... well.... It wasn't a HUGE reach on my part to guess that EN was the perpetrator.

So as much as you can say that by her emailing the issue was "resolved"... uhh.. not so much. I can say with 1000% assurity that by Midnight on Friday it still wasn't "resolved."

And I know this because Amy was here, in my living room and we were discussing this thread and the issues therein.

Oh and get another of your "facts" straight. I have posted on this thread again. I clarified my level of competition history in response to Retreadeventer's post. But I guess because it didn't address the hotbed issue it didn't count in your mind.

You can get as hot and bothered as you want about HOW I brought this up, but it is a cold hard FACT that John and EN infringed Amy. And it's not a huge leap to wonder how many of the "300 pictures posted a month" are also infringed. And infringement my friends is ILLEGAL. So you can jump on me for the passion and the way I said it... but the facts of this case are clear. And I am sure that the other photographers whose work is on EN aren't all aware that it's there. And they too may have a problem with not being compensated for their work.

~Emily

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:29 AM
Is that your problem with EN not covering the Colorado CCI? Your daughter did well there and he didn't give her "much needed" publicity? Good PR doesn't just happen. It takes hard work, tact and strong networking, it doesn't just fall out of the sky. It might help to look at your own efforts before pointing the finger at others.

Also, it is spelled "clique."

Sorry for the misspelling! As for us doing well....Nuh uh. We did AWFUL. Fortunately it was BARELY a qualifying mark, but other than that it was NOT a good outing for him. So no, that's not my problem with EN. But I do think they should have covered it. The woman who owns that park was willing to spend a fortune holding that event, because we drove so far, and so many YRs needed it to qualify. On top of that, she had just had a major injury and was wearing a neck brace, so yes, I do think it's sad it had no coverage. I think EN has a primary focus to cover mostly UL eventers. Which leaves out 99% of the rest.

I also don't like his approach to UL horses and riders getting a break from the rules...

Now this. I find it unprofessional.

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:42 AM
For those who have strong objections to or feel alienated by EN, there is a simple solution. Don't read it.

I hate Fox News. I don't watch it - but I respect your right to do so.

Many of the names that one reads on EN day after day have strong PR people helping to keep these names in the public eye. It doesn't "just happen."

LisaB
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:43 AM
gold,
Why don't you or someone who lives out west apply for the guest blogger then? Put your money where your mouth is. It's a fledging website without much budget so they have to pick and choose which events to fly to because the founder is on the east coast. And he can cover the midwest as he's from there and probably bunks up with friends and family.
Jeez, people, whenever we have a lull in the competition schedule, this bull comes out.
Get out and ride!

clm08
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:49 AM
flutie, I'd love to know if those who dislike EN and follow the pile up mentality continue to read it. THAT would be talking out of both sides of the mouth! I'm like you, I hate Fox News and I NEVER watch it. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy.

Wait, unless some COTH'ers are the self appointed copyright police?

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:52 AM
gold,
Why don't you or someone who lives out west apply for the guest blogger then? Put your money where your mouth is. It's a fledging website without much budget so they have to pick and choose which events to fly to because the founder is on the east coast. And he can cover the midwest as he's from there and probably bunks up with friends and family.
Jeez, people, whenever we have a lull in the competition schedule, this bull comes out.
Get out and ride!

Hey Lisa, have you read my posts? Hello, girl, I CAN NOT spell. Seriously I would love being a guest blogger. But the few things I have sent to John, rejected, and what has some ole fart like me got to say? It's been 20 years since I sat a horse daily.

As for being there, I didn't say he had to be there. I just think that a bit of coverage, like who won, what the woman went thru to hold it, all would have been great. That facility has gone thru tremendous change. I think it would have been nice for people to hear about. Maybe that's the difference between me and EN? I like human interest stories, some of the behind the scene stuff...

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:53 AM
Wait, unless some COTH'ers are the self appointed copyright police?

There sure are a bunch of those out and about, eh?

lcw579
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:58 AM
I tried to refrain from posting but this is starting to read like a thread on the H/J Forum. Granted you aren't arguing about Jacket color but still...

I think we can all agree that EN did a bad thing and deserved a big old wrist slap. Hopefully a lesson was learned and things will be different going forward. Time will tell on that.

Hate the messenger or not it is a shame to see this board spiraling down into the personal commentary that can make the other forums so unpleasant.

It's Sunday morning, mix up a batch of Bloody Mary's and ride - in whichever order you prefer.

clm08
Aug. 7, 2011, 11:12 AM
gold, your daughter can send her eventing profile to EN to be published. It is specifically for the not famous UL riders.
Heck, even I had a "between the ears" pic published by EN! No copyright infringement there.

equinedriver
Aug. 7, 2011, 11:14 AM
Emily was passionate in the op. She has been told she should have emailed John, but there was an email. On en, currently there are a bunch of new pics, lots of them look like professional pics. Has he contacted those photographers?


Those pictures were taken by Samantha Clark, who is the one that wrote the article and covered the event, just like the coverage she did for Rebecca Farm. I would like to give her a shout out for naming the people pictured in this series. She posts ALOT of photo's and frequently doesn't label them which is frustrating for those of us peons that don't know. I emailed John asking him to please ask her to identify her shots. And guess what? This series was identified. Gosh.............contact the person directly and not rant elsewhere and obtained results..........who knew?????

TemJeito
Aug. 7, 2011, 11:15 AM
It's not the small issue some people make it out to be for the talented people who's work is being taken and not paid for.

This! Without knowing enough about the incident that provoked this thread to say anything about it, I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude some people have towards other people's creative product and livelihood. If I see someone stealing your car or saddle or bike and point it out, would that make me a "self-appointed police"? If I saw someone driving your stolen car or using your stolen saddle, am I a trouble-maker to call attention to it? It's mind-boggling that this is exactly the attitude people have when the product is intellectual property.

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 11:17 AM
Kids.... (or adults who are acting like kids)

Theft is theft.

Whether I witness a person trying to steal something from a store, or infringing a photo, both are theft. And both acts are commiting a violation of a law. And as many here know, the police and the people committing the crimes aren't exactly in equal proportions.

So just as I would step in and notify a manager or someone at a store if I saw a shoplifter, I will try to help a photographer too. The authorities can't be everywhere at once. And many photographers are out trying to make money while others are stealing it from them.

The fact that people are not willing to help police the world around us explains a whole lot about how eventing itself has hit a downward spiral.

There's a HUGE lack of personal responsibility in the sport and in the world today. And so it has fallen on others to try to make more and more rules to bring correct and right behaviors back. Why did we have to make a rule saying you shouldn't go too fast? Why did we have to make a rule saying that if your dangerous to your animal, other people are responsible for stopping you? Aren't these things logical? But no.... we stopped teaching and encouraging personal responsibility and threw it onto someone else.

If you see animal abuse do you turn the other way? If you see a man beating a woman or child do you turn away? It doesn't make things right if only you don't commit the crimes. In today's world sometimes it takes action on the part of others to try to bring back the conduct and respect that should never have left.

~Emily

equinedriver
Aug. 7, 2011, 11:22 AM
gold, your daughter can send her eventing profile to EN to be published. It is specifically for the not famous UL riders.
Heck, even I had a "between the ears" pic published by EN! No copyright infringement there.

Yes, and the one they published the other day said that they were low on them and needed more submissions, so there you go.

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 12:03 PM
Yes, and the one they published the other day said that they were low on them and needed more submissions, so there you go.

No thanks... But maybe I will call and interview the woman who was so kind to us in Colorado and held a fantastic event at huge cost to herself, and submit that!

Bloody Marys first plz!

MyssMyst
Aug. 7, 2011, 12:17 PM
This! Without knowing enough about the incident that provoked this thread to say anything about it, I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude some people have towards other people's creative product and livelihood. If I see someone stealing your car or saddle or bike and point it out, would that make me a "self-appointed police"? If I saw someone driving your stolen car or using your stolen saddle, am I a trouble-maker to call attention to it? It's mind-boggling that this is exactly the attitude people have when the product is intellectual property.

This! I am willing to bet, as mentioned in a previous example, that all hell would break loose on the boards if a BNR stole bell boots. My husband stopped doing photos for a local charity group because of their cavalier attitude towards respecting his rights as a photographer. It's not a little deal, it's big. This is someone's livelihood that is being threatened. Photographers graciously sit out in the rain, cold, heat, wind, etc to get us the shots we love. Stealing their work is a shoddy way to repay them.

LynLyn
Aug. 7, 2011, 12:28 PM
Usage rights are up to the photographer and they can go from use as you see fit to you only get the print/digital file.

Dakotawyatt
Aug. 7, 2011, 12:31 PM
No thanks... But maybe I will call and interview the woman who was so kind to us in Colorado and held a fantastic event at huge cost to herself, and submit that!

Bloody Marys first plz!

Myself being a VERY average writer, I too had a little blurb I wrote published on EN. It was about a vacation I had taken. I would be willing to bet that if you're passionate about your local HT's, and did a little write up and sent it in, that John would publish it. There are TONS of events that happen every weekend. You can't possibly expect EN to touch on EVERYTHING. Be proactive! Don't just sit back and complain.:winkgrin:

Reynard Ridge
Aug. 7, 2011, 12:35 PM
This! Without knowing enough about the incident that provoked this thread to say anything about it, I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude some people have towards other people's creative product and livelihood. If I see someone stealing your car or saddle or bike and point it out, would that make me a "self-appointed police"? If I saw someone driving your stolen car or using your stolen saddle, am I a trouble-maker to call attention to it? It's mind-boggling that this is exactly the attitude people have when the product is intellectual property.

Agreed and well said. I'll support Emily on this one.

TheBrightSide06
Aug. 7, 2011, 01:29 PM
Hey SevenDogs, as usual you're off base.

It's unprofessional to belittle somebody like this... :no:

SevenDogs
Aug. 7, 2011, 01:37 PM
It's unprofessional to belittle somebody like this... :no:

Thanks, BrightSide but I'm not concerned with Emily's rantings. I think she continues to support the statement she made in the first sentence of this thread:

You know I realize of late I have been called, "snarky" and many other unflattering terms.

I don't think I have read one single post on this thread that has advocated taking copyrighted material (or other intellectual material) illegally. I don't hear cavalier attitudes or disrespect for the photographer's time, skill, or property rights.

What I have seen, is people talking about the right way to approach an issue and the snarky, mean spirited, attention seeking way. Be your own judge.

subk
Aug. 7, 2011, 02:39 PM
I'm amazed at the cavalier attitude some people have towards other people's creative product and livelihood. If I see someone stealing your car or saddle or bike and point it out, would that make me a "self-appointed police"? If I saw someone driving your stolen car or using your stolen saddle, am I a trouble-maker to call attention to it? It's mind-boggling that this is exactly the attitude people have when the product is intellectual property.
Oh for crying out loud people.

It was a photo. It wasn't a $4000 saddle, a $20,000 car, or a $1500 bike. I would be stunned if anybody here had ever stolen one of those items. On the flip side I would be stunned if every single person who has read this thread hasn't at some time knowingly or unknowingly stolen intellectual property. It happens. All the time. Perhaps we could suggest those of you who are innocent throw the first stone?

As an artist myself I've had it happened to me. You deal with it, but no amount of gnashing of teeth, wailing and stoning of the guilty is going to turn it into grand larceny.

And for the record I haven't read anything on this thread that suggests that anybody thinks stealing intellectual property is ok. It's not, it's actually a serious issue. But the real question seems to be is eviscerating someone publicly and trying to damage their reputation when you aren't even a party to the situation and instead guessing at the facts over the top in relation to the crime?

tm
Aug. 7, 2011, 02:43 PM
This thread is starting to sound about as productive as a session of Congress.

grayarabpony
Aug. 7, 2011, 02:43 PM
I'm sure EN will be OK in spite of this thread. The blog author just needs to be more careful in the future!

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 03:28 PM
No thanks... But maybe I will call and interview the woman who was so kind to us in Colorado and held a fantastic event at huge cost to herself, and submit that!

Bloody Marys first plz!

Well then just do it! Helen is amazing and it would make a neat interview. She does a lot for the sport.
Things only happen to those who go out and make them happen. If you sit around moaning that you are one of the great "ignored," guess what. That's what you'll be.

atheventer85
Aug. 7, 2011, 03:42 PM
Xctrygirl- take a HUGE chill pill, and be polite to people. I understand this is a public forum, but it's easy to hurt people's feelings and ruin reputations on here. Whether you like EN or not, they have a right to use the internet as much as you. You seem to get your panties in a wad over EVERYONE'S business, and get so bent out of shape, and post HATEFUL things about them. Take a hint......

atheventer85
Aug. 7, 2011, 03:44 PM
Subk- your post is the most thought out post on this damn thread. Thank you!

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 03:56 PM
Well then just do it! Helen is amazing and it would make a neat interview. She does a lot for the sport.
Things only happen to those who go out and make them happen. If you sit around moaning that you are one of the great "ignored," guess what. That's what you'll be.

Yeah, am thinking good idea too! I agree Flutie w u. Perhaps part of the problem here, the author has tried to address it. Nothing happened, she tried again, brushed off. Then she does what she feels is a logical thing to do, and she is attacked. I find it hypocritical that she is called snarky, yet everyone dishing her for what she thinks is the right thing and is attacked? To me that is hypocritical. As for orbit being a big ticket item....I know photographers who are having a hard time making ends meet. The extent EN seems to be doing this is not small change.

Perhaps John needs to realize he needs to follow the same laws the rest of news orgs do. And we need to quit being mean spirited and realize the op is concerned about a very real problem!

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 03:57 PM
Ath sent you a Pm

Subk, tried to send you a PM. Your box is full.

SevenDogs sent you an email.

~Emily

old eventer
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:14 PM
If it wasn't for John at Eventing Nation, we wouldn 't know half of what is going on in the world of eventing, especially in such a quick time period. I get it that he should be asking for the rights before he uses the photos, but the amount of publicity that the photographers get, that he is using the photos of, i would of thought would be a huge plus for their business. There is no eventing site that gets such a huge amount of hits. Maybe they should make a blank agreement with him, use anything of ours as long as our name is on the photo. Go Eventing Nation, we love you.

Alagirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:16 PM
Yeah, am thinking good idea too! I agree Flutie w u. Perhaps part of the problem here, the author has tried to address it. Nothing happened, she tried again, brushed off. Then she does what she feels is a logical thing to do, and she is attacked. I find it hypocritical that she is called snarky, yet everyone dishing her for what she thinks is the right thing and is attacked? To me that is hypocritical. As for orbit being a big ticket item....I know photographers who are having a hard time making ends meet. The extent EN seems to be doing this is not small change.

Perhaps John needs to realize he needs to follow the same laws the rest of news orgs do. And we need to quit being mean spirited and realize the op is concerned about a very real problem!


It pops up in Off Course from time to time. It is not cool to swipe an image to put it on FB, let alone use it professionally/commercially.

Yes, there are good amateur shooters out there with good cameras, but we still need the pros. If they can't make money and have their product stolen all they time, they will go away.

While many have resigned to the FB thing or sell low resolution image packages, as somebody making money off the site, you have to expect to be responsible for your actions and pony up the cash for the materials you use.

There is no snark IMHO from the OP.
It's stealing. Like taking money out of your purse, or grain out of your feed room or using your horse in lessons without your knowledge.

The bare minimum in image etiquette dictates that the source must be given! Credit where it's due. And in case of the professional images, well, cash as well.

Old hat, not a matter that will go away any time soon, but right on, OP.

Alagirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:17 PM
If it wasn't for John at Eventing Nation, we wouldn 't know half of what is going on in the world of eventing, especially in such a quick time period. I get it that he should be asking for the rights before he uses the photos, but the amount of publicity that the photographers get, that he is using the photos of, i would of thought would be a huge plus for their business. There is no eventing site that gets such a huge amount of hits. Maybe they should make a blank agreement with him, use anything of ours as long as our name is on the photo. Go Eventing Nation, we love you.

well, hits = money, so why not pay the dues?

LLDM
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:39 PM
Thank you SubK!

Copyright infringement is not exactly the same as theft in a legal sense. In copyright infringement the perpetrator does not deprive the victim of use. ("Deprivation of use" is in the legal terminology as is "the taking away of".) So in that sense it is not the same as stealing a saddle or grain or a car. The victim still has their property, they just have lost the ability to ALL or the sole profits of it. They can, however, still sell copies themselves, or rights or whatever.

This of course does not make it okay to do, but it IS why the laws are not as harsh and why it is generally handled as a civil matter or through fines and restitution rather than jail time. Generally, people just sue.

But honestly, I don't think this whole thread is doing the eventing community any good in general. The OP would have done well to not come out with both guns blazing, esp. at a time where people are sick to death of extremism, personal attacks and a general mood of black and white, right or wrong, no compromise political correctness gone crazy. Really, do we need to keep doing this here too?

It IS a problem. But a problem more likely to be solved with education and understanding the ramifications to the victims rather than, well, this.

SCFarm

Alagirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:50 PM
It's not a problem of the eventing community, it's a problem of society.

And it is absolutely necessary that just because you can it is not ok to do it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you go x country or tame Guinea Pigs.

If you want to go cheap, you can purchase stock photos. Not sure how the usage regulation is for them in a commercial setting, but there you go.

Yes, I have right clicked on images before. and likely posted them here or there. But generally (as in never) I don't profit from doing so and if the originator of the image contacted me I'd be more than appollogenic.
Like I said, bare minimum is giving the due credit, but in dealing with somebody doing this for a living, you gotta at least inquire about the fees. If you do get it for free, send a thank-you note!

It's the same across the board, all pro photographers are hurt by such dealings! And you bet that doing so in a serial manner will not be forgotten.
There is really no reason to be so cavalier about it! (just search for all those threads when people find their horse pictures used in the online game world of SIMS...)

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:55 PM
LLDM has a fantastic idea....

Education...

So how shall we educate folks that any time you right click and save a photo that you didn't shoot, it's theft. Plain and simple?

What will help us to stop seeing friends and fellow horse folks with pics on Facebook, Equine.com, Dreamhorse.com and so on with Proof marks or no credits??

Would others be willing to help the photographers out by sending links of infringed photos and screen captures when they see a photo of theirs infringed?

Would you be willing to educate those around you NOT to steal but rather to pay for the picture you can afford and save up if you want one that's outside your price range?

Will you learn to take the next step to contact the photographer that shot the lovely picture of "fluffy the sale pony" and make sure you can use it in an ad and what that addtional use will cost?

Will you ask here when you don't know what you can or can't do with an image so those of us with knowledge can share it BEFORE you accidentally embark on an infringement moment?

These are some of the biggest issue in the person to person infringement issues.


But as far as EN goes, its a commercial site that as others have said, needs to step up and play by the actual copyright laws.

~Emily

magnolia73
Aug. 7, 2011, 04:56 PM
It was a photo. It wasn't a $4000 saddle, a $20,000 car, or a $1500 bike. I would be stunned if anybody here had ever stolen one of those items. On the flip side I would be stunned if every single person who has read this thread hasn't at some time knowingly or unknowingly stolen intellectual property. It happens. All the time. Perhaps we could suggest those of you who are innocent throw the first stone?


Except it happens ALL THE TIME and when added up probably is that kind of impact on revenue. And damn, if professionally run media can't follow the rules, why even expect 13 year old kids to! So while, no the photo was not $15,000- it was what- $20~$30... think of that times what- 10-15 taken per show on face.

It would be one thing if it seldom happened, and this really was a one off error. Sadly it isn't and hopefully people will start paying more respect to intellectual property and not eliminate yet another way to make a living.

Alagirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 05:13 PM
Actually, the COTH constituency has formed a FB group condemming the practice of stealing proofs.

It's been a while and probably back on page 200 of Off Course...

retreadeventer
Aug. 7, 2011, 05:18 PM
Peace out, peeps.
Solution:
Take thy own photographs for thine own blog.
(I've been reading my Sunday Quaker ministry stuff, can you tell.)

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 05:50 PM
LLDM has a fantastic idea....

Education...

So how shall we educate folks that any time you right click and save a photo that you didn't shoot, it's theft. Plain and simple?

What will help us to stop seeing friends and fellow horse folks with pics on Facebook, Equine.com, Dreamhorse.com and so on with Proof marks or no credits??

Would others be willing to help the photographers out by sending links of infringed photos and screen captures when they see a photo of theirs infringed?

Would you be willing to educate those around you NOT to steal but rather to pay for the picture you can afford and save up if you want one that's outside your price range?

Will you learn to take the next step to contact the photographer that shot the lovely picture of "fluffy the sale pony" and make sure you can use it in an ad and what that addtional use will cost?

Will you ask here when you don't know what you can or can't do with an image so those of us with knowledge can share it BEFORE you accidentally embark on an infringement moment?

These are some of the biggest issue in the person to person infringement issues.


But as far as EN goes, its a commercial site that as others have said, needs to step up and play by the actual copyright laws.

~Emily

And would YOU Emily be willing to write a nice POLITE article about photo infringement and copyright laws for US Eventing to further educate the eventing public? You do have a lot of knowledge about it, or so it would seem, so why not use it where it can do some good?

Joan from Flatlands
Aug. 7, 2011, 05:54 PM
I am part of a professional equine photographers group. A number of photographers are taking a different route to deal w all the online theft. There are lawyers who have had quite a bit of success filing suits for theft of property instead of copyright infringement. This is less expensive and time consuming than filing for copyright infringement which has to be pursued in federal court.

Joan from Flatlands
Flatlandsfoto.com

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 06:05 PM
Peace out, peeps.
Solution:
Take thy own photographs for thine own blog.
(I've been reading my Sunday Quaker ministry stuff, can you tell.)

Thine can tell....

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 06:12 PM
And would YOU Emily be willing to write a nice POLITE article about photo infringement and copyright laws for US Eventing to further educate the eventing public? You do have a lot of knowledge about it, or so it would seem, so why not use it where it can do some good?

I would absolutely be happy to help write an article about the topic. Though I am by far not the best writer for the job. I do know many equine writers and I would be happy to contribute to ensure that the writer refers back to a solid set of sources and lawyers. It needs to emphasize hard core facts so it's based on the sources that exist out there to educate the photography consumers and people from commercial companies or websites that may not know all the best information.


~Emily

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 06:30 PM
I would absolutely be happy to help write an article about the topic. Though I am by far not the best writer for the job. I do know many equine writers and I would be happy to contribute to ensure that the writer refers back to a solid set of sources and lawyers. It needs to emphasize hard core facts so it's based on the sources that exist out there to educate the photography consumers and people from commercial companies or websites that may not know all the best information.


~Emily

C'mon Emily. Put your computer where your mouth is. You write well enough on this site. One needn't be a budding Hemingway to write for that agazine. (i am an equine writer, but wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole because of an inferior background about the subject, but i'd love to read about it in a cohesive article by someone who claims to be the real deal.)

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 07:00 PM
Hey Flutie,

I am hearing that US Eventing's Magazine did an article within the last year about this topic. Am trying to verify. Amy was quoted in that article.

If anyone else on here can verify that would be great. I haven't renewed my subscription while I wasn't competing so I don't have the magazines to look through.

~Emily

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 07:42 PM
Hey Flutie,

I am hearing that US Eventing's Magazine did an article within the last year about this topic. Am trying to verify. Amy was quoted in that article.

If anyone else on here can verify that would be great. I haven't renewed my subscription while I wasn't competing so I don't have the magazines to look through.

~Emily

Oddly enough, this strikes a sour note. You come off as a self appointed expert in all things eventing - yet you couldn't be bothered t renew your USEA membership even on a non-compete basis. What's weird with this picture?

CapturinYerRide
Aug. 7, 2011, 07:45 PM
There was an extensive article on the subject written and published in Eventing 2.0 which came out about this time last year. It never made it into the ink issue. I can't find the archives online anymore. It was written by Leslie Threlkeld...

Xctrygirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 07:57 PM
Oddly enough, this strikes a sour note. You come off as a self appointed expert in all things eventing - yet you couldn't be bothered t renew your USEA membership even on a non-compete basis. What's weird with this picture?

Flutie my horse was away as well, because I couldn't afford him. 18 months he was gone and my last event was November of 2007. Forgive me if my budgetary demands didn't include a magazine or two. I had bigger bills to pay, like my mortgage.

My apologies Kate if 23 years of experience doesn't make me qualified to speak about this sport even when I am not actively competing.

I don't think I have ever come off as any kind of expert in eventing, mainly b/c I stopped at Intermediate and my Int horse got hurt prior to us doing the CCI**. Oh but I was an eventing journalist covering Foxhall, Rolex, Fair Hill. So maybe I do know something from an observers point of view. But hey go ahead... judge me for not subscribing to a magazine.

~Emily

flutie1
Aug. 7, 2011, 08:08 PM
It's not about a magazine Emily. It's about being involved with a sport Association that sets policy and taking an active role in its direction, not just carping from the sidelines. And hey, you say you were an equine journalist? Then write a constructive piece whch i think is what i suggested several posts ago. Time to step up from the confines of a chat forum.


(BTW, many people who don't actively compete anymore are still more than qualified to speak about the sport. Wofford comes to mind ....)

JWB
Aug. 7, 2011, 08:43 PM
Sorry guys - but can we please get a list of those who are above reproach? Seems like certain individuals are given a free pass, while others are fair game.

Stealing (or borrowing, or using without asking) images is wrong, whether you've been caught in it or not. Sounds like the OP had contacted EN and been brushed off repeatedly because she was not the photographer. So after getting brushed off again, she brought it here, and got results. Why is that a problem?

Seems many of you are upset because it was directed at EN. Sorry. EN needs to act like a professional news organization if they want advertising dollars too. This is NOT the same as a kid's FB page. This is a blog with a huge following and advertising revenue. Both are wrong, but one should DEFINITELY know better.

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 09:11 PM
Really guys. Emily you have both a knowledge base and skill to indeed write an article about this problem. So do it. Send it in to COTH, USEventing, and heck even EN.

I think that part of a problem with all this, is, several people feel she handled this wrong. Stop for a moment and think ofsomething you are passionate about, know something about, then imagine that something similar happens, you take steps to bring it to someone's attention, then get ignored. I suspect MANY of you would be upset and find a way to get it noticed.

John really didn't help himself either. He could have come on and just said, sorry folks, am I bad, and won't happen again!! He chose to come on, make excuses for what he did...

You remember statue gate? Same sorta concept bothering me here. If this wasn't a favorite blogger, I suspect many more people would be up in arms over this, because, sorry, it is wrong! But because it's John, many people are making excuses for him, and attacking Emily.

Because it was one of the countries favorite horses, the statue shouldn't been there. I don't think we need to make this into this big a deal. John needs to have his big news boy pants on, and if anything, maybe we should all be thanking Emily for going against the in-crowd. Although the majority of photographers are being pretty quiet, you can bet they are appreciating it. And so am I. I like having a photographer there! They work hard, and make little for it as it were! She has tried, hard, to be anything but snarky!

Flitue, maybe I should do a blog of people behind the scenes...organizers, photographers, announcers! I know a really great announcer who could be my first victim....errr...interview!

gold2012
Aug. 7, 2011, 09:12 PM
Sorry Flutie...I have got to learn how to edit the lower half of my messages with my iPad!

Madeline
Aug. 7, 2011, 09:48 PM
Someone please explain: I just went to the EN site. Lots of photos and no photo credits. How is that OK?

CapturinYerRide
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:30 PM
Good golly doodle y'all, let's all go watch a local horse trial this next weekend. I of course get special dispensation as I just got back from one! I can happily report that Bill took a weedeater to the famous River Glen Bog to clean up for this weekend's show... I'd put it in my own blog, but heck, I hardly have time to keep up with that, much less read up on EN... :lol:

But seriously, when I got back I was just a bit curious, so I actually went to EN and did a few searches, and clicked around. Lo and behold I found, well, I couldn't really actually "find" anything, because I figure, it's a blog... But I did run across some interesting things..

I ran across no less than ten images of mine that I had no idea were there! Every one that I found was submitted by someone who had bought the personal use rights from me, submitted it to EN along with an article, and each one actually credited to me. Now, in my release note that I put on every disc, I state clearly what can and can't be done with the images. What I don't give permission for is to put them in publications without the publication getting my permission and release, as quite frankly, some of them have the money to pay me a little extra for that.. Am I mad about this? Technically I have the right to be, but at this point it is just water under the bridge. I know now that I need to clarify this to those who buy my discs at a show. (Now, my policy is not Amy's policy is not Shannon's policy is not Brant's policy is not Joan's policy is not Pam's policy is no Jon's policy is not.... so check with them)

I also found some seven images that were hotlinked from various news agency web sites. I'm not going to link them here, as I am sure that there are many many more.. Do I care, not at all.. You know, I don't really know if hotlinking is illegal or against copyright law, or... That's the problem with the internet. What can be done will be done, legal or not. I really don't know what to do about this, with EN or any other site. It's kind of like my general irritation that I have had with my own local newspaper. Issue after issue I see my pictures in print, all credited to come guy called "Photo Submitted." Ten years of that, and I have pretty much given up..

So right now I am pretty much hitting the reset button on all of this, so let's everyone take a step towards the right, or left, whichever direction you need to take a step in..

And please, go visit your local horse trial at your earliest opportunity.. You'll catch up with the rider whose father just died and is out on a horse again.. with the grandmother hanging at the water whose granddaughter is leading the JN after day one.. meet the kid who is jump judging because her dad is the medic and he didn't know where else to put her.. (she now wants a horse and and xc vest... sorry dad!) ...who knows who else...

Alagirl
Aug. 7, 2011, 10:44 PM
Hot linking is generally speaking a no-no because it uses up bandwidth of the original site. Granted it is probably no longer a big deal but in the olden days with small memories abound every hot link would eat up the allowance.

Plenty of people wondered where their avatar pictures or signature images went when their bandwidth got tapped my rogue links


Anyhow the base discussion in a different arena:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?95587-Think-those-pics-on-the-internet-are-free-to-use-Think-again.&highlight=photos
The photographer got mad enough to make it a legal matter. You can look at a big bill in the end for playing fast and loose with other people's productivity.

Ranger
Aug. 8, 2011, 12:46 AM
I am not surprised though. No, you have stolen images from Getty Images, who have a fleet of lawyers ready to make you pay. You have violated terms of use of websites from all sides of the globe as you simply right click a picture, save it and throw it on EN without a care in the world to the person who shot it and who works to pay for their lives and their families with the piece of work that was good enough for them to get paid in the first place where it was originally posted. But not good enough for you to respect their effort and ownership rights.


~Emily

Ok. It is SO disappointing to see the death of civility in society based on the number of people who have supported Emily's OP - not the idea / issue it raises - but the rude, angry and agressive tone and way it was handled.

For Amy and all photographers, please continue your wonderful efforts and I am so sorry for the frustrations caused by people who knowingly "steal" your efforts (i.e. printing your images without paying). But for anyone who responds so quickly "ignorance is no defense" to the situation whereby a consumer PAYS for an image and then sends it to EN or any other source without contacting you again, get over it - unless you read the fine print of EVERY SINGLE receipt and form you sign or are given in all aspects of your life. I hope that all photographers continue to brainstorm and research methods of thwarting the stealing of their work (prints etc.), but refusing to do so - on principal - is just not a smart business model, like it or not. Do you think that Netflix and Blockbuster wanted to develop encryption methods to prevent the copying of their copyrighted media?

Now, for a troubling aspect just raised to me by an attorney friend - Emily's OP brought the topic of Internet Defamation to her mind immediately. Think about it. The title had a big red thumbs down, and she named the company in the title AND made a bold, absolute statement / accusation about a specific legal violation made by that corporation. Then read the quote above - it goes way beyond opinion and strays into the realm of "assuming facts not in evidence". While I was dismayed by the number of people who could not understand the issue of judgement (on so many levels) that were raised by her OP, this one should make you stop and think.

Clearly issues of digital media and the rights/ownership/terms of use in today's age are like trying to wrestle a marshmallow. But statements so readily embraced and encouraged by people on this board as "passion" can, potentially, go too far legally as well.

Beware.

Alagirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:12 AM
Ok. It is SO disappointing to see the death of civility in society based on the number of people who have supported Emily's OP - not the idea / issue it raises - but the rude, angry and agressive tone and way it was handled.

For Amy and all photographers, please continue your wonderful efforts and I am so sorry for the frustrations caused by people who knowingly "steal" your efforts (i.e. printing your images without paying). But for anyone who responds so quickly "ignorance is no defense" to the situation whereby a consumer PAYS for an image and then sends it to EN or any other source without contacting you again, get over it - unless you read the fine print of EVERY SINGLE receipt and form you sign or are given in all aspects of your life. I hope that all photographers continue to brainstorm and research methods of thwarting the stealing of their work (prints etc.), but refusing to do so - on principal - is just not a smart business model, like it or not. Do you think that Netflix and Blockbuster wanted to develop encryption methods to prevent the copying of their copyrighted media?

Now, for a troubling aspect just raised to me by an attorney friend - Emily's OP brought the topic of Internet Defamation to her mind immediately. Think about it. The title had a big red thumbs down, and she named the company in the title AND made a bold, absolute statement / accusation about a specific legal violation made by that corporation. Then read the quote above - it goes way beyond opinion and strays into the realm of "assuming facts not in evidence". While I was dismayed by the number of people who could not understand the issue of judgement (on so many levels) that were raised by her OP, this one should make you stop and think.

Clearly issues of digital media and the rights/ownership/terms of use in today's age are like trying to wrestle a marshmallow. But statements so readily embraced and encouraged by people on this board as "passion" can, potentially, go too far legally as well.

Beware.


Hmmm, well, if it was lies, I suppose she would be in trouble. but considering that the 'contributing' photographers were astonished as to how many of their images found their way on the blog, largely uncredited....I don't see there is a lot of wiggle room to cry foul there.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. So yeah, we all should pay more attention to the small print though I - personally - would be more forgiving of a paying customer using the image with back credit. A repeat offender though?
Like I said, it can add up and get expensive in a hurry should the matter be brought before a judge...

TBCollector
Aug. 8, 2011, 05:39 AM
For Amy and all photographers, please continue your wonderful efforts and I am so sorry for the frustrations caused by people who knowingly "steal" your efforts (i.e. printing your images without paying).

I too hope that other publications/websites don't suffer for the oversights of others.

As someone who regularly solicits photos from all of the photographers mentioned here (and a few others), here's how incredibly hard it is to work with these people:

- You email them and ask if it would be possible to use one of their photos with a credit (because very few print pubs and smaller websites can afford to buy such high quality art).

- They email you back, usually within an hour or two, and ask, "Which photo(s), and what resolution?"

I am frankly a little embarrassed sometimes because we can't pay these people what they're worth, and only hope that the exposure somehow winds up being good publicity for them. Nothing "classes up" a small publication/website more than the gorgeous photos taken by these people.

Seriously...these photographers couldn't be more helpful and accommodating. And most of the time they ask for nothing in return, except credit where it is due.

deltawave
Aug. 8, 2011, 08:55 AM
If nothing else this thread has brought home the fact, in exquisite and sometimes messy detail, that copyright infringement is pervasive, very real, and EVERYONE'S responsibility. I will admit to not having thought about it very much in the past, and am almost certainly guilty in some way, somewhere, since one of my favorite things to take home from a show is a nice picture. (more reliable than ribbons, hee hee)

Regardless of the personalities involved and the current tempest-in-a-teacup status of this thread, it's worth thinking about in each of our daily on-line endeavors. :)

I enjoy EN and hope that it takes a big step forward into the professional realm by immediately going forward with a proper photo credity policy. As someone else said, it's not FB or a kid's blog any more. We must be careful what we wish for. :)

VicariousRider
Aug. 8, 2011, 09:17 AM
I enjoy EN and hope that it takes a big step forward into the professional realm by immediately going forward with a proper photo credity policy. As someone else said, it's not FB or a kid's blog any more. We must be careful what we wish for. :)

In just the past few posts they have done an excellent job of sourcing their photos. Very refreshing! Keep it up, EN!! Professionalism will only bring you greater success, IMHO.

Also: We should all take time to remember that journalism is a very complex industry. Heck, Columbia even has a school of journalism given that there is so much to be imparted. Of course, this does not give anyone license to break those rules, but I hope that these learning experiences only make a great website stronger. Perhaps a fantastic journalistic mentor for EN will materialize?

omare
Aug. 8, 2011, 10:03 AM
pragmatically speaking why dont more photographers stamp the front corner of their pictures with their name--it would be right out there whose work it was and would make it easier for the picture owner who paid good money for it to track them down later if they no longer have the orignal.

(Is ii an asethetic thing not to do it?)

gully's pilot
Aug. 8, 2011, 10:54 AM
Honestly, copyright law is not complicated. John's a college graduate, and EN has been running ads for over a year now--EN is a business, not a hobby, and John has an obligation to know better.

I'm frankly astonished at the number of people who are more concerned about the OP's tone than the actual issue. Copyright infringement really is theft. I'm a writer, and if EN or any other website started putting up chapters of my books without written permission they would be in trouble not only with me but with my publisher.

My guess is that none of the people who are claiming this isn't a big deal make their livings producing copyrighted material.

LLDM
Aug. 8, 2011, 11:15 AM
pragmatically speaking why dont more photographers stamp the front corner of their pictures with their name--it would be right out there whose work it was and would make it easier for the picture owner who paid good money for it to track them down later if they no longer have the orignal.

(Is ii an asethetic thing not to do it?)

Good point. Everyone bears some responsibility to protect their own stuff. If you leave your keys in your unlocked car or your cell phone on a table in a restaurant, the cops have much less sympathy for you (and much less bandwidth to help you) than if someone breaks into your home to steal them.

All the photos I've seen on EN always looked to be high quality. It's not like they are blowing up low rez shots. Disabling right click isn't hard either. At least it takes some determined, specific effort to steal photos like that. Even other publications should be able to disable a direct link to a photo on their site without disabling a link to their full page.

I have no idea how professional news sites handle copyright for photos submitted by non-staff people. I am assuming they already own photos taken by their staff.

I admit I hate proofs with watermarks all over them. But I would have zero problems with a signature/logo/whatever on a lower corner. Surely there are ways these days to electronically mark these files? Even put an electronic beacon that "phones home" with their whereabouts? Maybe it could even generate an automatic use invoice! :D

If this is a problem affecting the bottom line of so many photographers, why not get together and develop some use standards? That way their photos could be found, used, paid for and credit given without all the fuss. Everyone would be happy.

As much as I appreciate professional photographers, they need to be proactive in the solution too. Esp. if it can improve their bottom lines.

BTW - I say this all the time about any professional group that gets all worked up about an issue but does nothing to really resolve it. This includes professional trainers and riders. Nope, it isn't easy, but most serious professionals create their own standards so everyone else knows how to deal with them. Reinventing the wheel for each photographer's policies is silly and puts them out of potentially getting paid for free advertising. There is so much potential to make it work for everyone. Really, this isn't China selling millions of bootleg movies and software programs every year. It can be solved with some effort from the people it will help.

SCFarm

gully's pilot
Aug. 8, 2011, 12:25 PM
I think photographers are working very hard to protect their rights, but it's difficult to do so when it's so easy for the photos to be spread all over the web. It doesn't really matter if the photographer tags the photo with his or her signature--that doesn't at all indicate whether the person posting it has the legal right to use it.

It's easy. When someone submits a photo to EN, or any other website, EN says, who took the photo? what rights to it do you have? If the person submitting the photo doesn't know, or doesn't have the right to post it, EN doesn't put it up. I've sent a few things to EN, and when I did I confirmed to them that either I took the photo myself, or that I had purchased all rights to the photo.

The world changed very swiftly and it's unreasonable to expect all photographers to handle the issue in the same way. It is reasonable for the people who run professional websites to understand the law and willingly follow it.

gully's pilot
Aug. 8, 2011, 12:28 PM
"All the photos I've seen on EN always looked to be high quality. It's not like they are blowing up low rez shots. Disabling right click isn't hard either. At least it takes some determined, specific effort to steal photos like that. Even other publications should be able to disable a direct link to a photo on their site without disabling a link to their full page."

What does this have to do with anything? It's very easy to scan and send images from home computers--anyone can send any image at all to anyone, right click disabled or not.

How professional sites handle getting photos from non-staff people is, they get permssion from the photographers, they credit the photographers, and, usually, they pay for the images. It's the same rules for web use as it is for newspaper or magazine use. Again, this isn't difficult. EN had an obligation to know it.

Bogie
Aug. 8, 2011, 12:35 PM
It's not like they are blowing up low rez shots. Disabling right click isn't hard either. At least it takes some determined, specific effort to steal photos like that. Even other publications should be able to disable a direct link to a photo on their site without disabling a link to their full page.


It is dead easy to capture a shot from a page, even if the right click option is disabled. It requires no more determination than simply downloading it.

Alagirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 12:44 PM
It is dead easy to capture a shot from a page, even if the right click option is disabled. It requires no more determination than simply downloading it.

<capture screen shot>
one handy button on the keyboard, then past into paint, crop, done....

Alagirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 12:47 PM
pragmatically speaking why dont more photographers stamp the front corner of their pictures with their name--it would be right out there whose work it was and would make it easier for the picture owner who paid good money for it to track them down later if they no longer have the orignal.

(Is ii an asethetic thing not to do it?)

It might take a little time, but photoshop rocks that way. you can add and remove just about anything, even stamps, watermarks etc if you are inclined to do so. Or simply crop it off.

But that is actually not the point. The point is people being cavalier about the intellectual property of others and basically their pocket books.

Chart that under entitlement.

LLDM
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:13 PM
Of course it isn't right to take and use other people's intellectual property. I am not proposing that it is.

However, this doesn't actually solve the problem at any level. A) There will always be unscrupulous people who won't care. B) Photographers have it in their best interests to have their photos seen and attributed to them. C) Photographers want their photos to produce income for them. Finding common solutions that make A harder and B & C easier would be a better priority IMHO than chasing down every illegal use of every photo themselves. Their time is valuable, why not use it to make the whole industry better than protecting each individual photo?

I know that it is easy to defeat basic safeguards on photos. However, by making it a process, not a simple click of a mouse, you signal to people that they are in fact stealing from you rather than simply picking up a twenty out of the middle of the street. Couple that with an easy, standard way for any news source to use for photo automatically with the use of a simple fee structure, it would be great for the photographers and the media people for the photos to be used. News happens pretty fast - if they can't use your photo NOW, it may not have the value to them it has now and not 2 days from now when you all have communicated properly. They are less likely to wait for permission than to just pass on it. That isn't the optimum solution is it? Isn't the optimum solution to have the photos seen, credited and paid for?

I'm just sayin'

SCFarm

gully's pilot
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:24 PM
LLDM, I don't see where you're coming from. If you post a photo without permission, that's illegal. Nobody should need a watermark to "remind" them that it's illegal. It's a very straightforward law.

And while I'm sure that most photographers can't spend buckets of time chasing down unauthorized use, EN is a big-time site with tons of viewers--it's not some back-alley blog nobody ever reads.

LSM1212
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:33 PM
http://eventingnation.com/home/2011/08/photographer-love-and-a-new-en-series.html

Alagirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:40 PM
Of course it isn't right to take and use other people's intellectual property. I am not proposing that it is.

However, this doesn't actually solve the problem at any level. A) There will always be unscrupulous people who won't care. B) Photographers have it in their best interests to have their photos seen and attributed to them. C) Photographers want their photos to produce income for them. Finding common solutions that make A harder and B & C easier would be a better priority IMHO than chasing down every illegal use of every photo themselves. Their time is valuable, why not use it to make the whole industry better than protecting each individual photo?

I know that it is easy to defeat basic safeguards on photos. However, by making it a process, not a simple click of a mouse, you signal to people that they are in fact stealing from you rather than simply picking up a twenty out of the middle of the street. Couple that with an easy, standard way for any news source to use for photo automatically with the use of a simple fee structure, it would be great for the photographers and the media people for the photos to be used. News happens pretty fast - if they can't use your photo NOW, it may not have the value to them it has now and not 2 days from now when you all have communicated properly. They are less likely to wait for permission than to just pass on it. That isn't the optimum solution is it? Isn't the optimum solution to have the photos seen, credited and paid for?

I'm just sayin'

SCFarm


You keep making excuses.

I don't see much of a selling venue for picture of other people (who are not BN riders) on a website.
Seems like crediting was a problem, and frankly, you put it up, you are using it, be prepared to pay for it.

Consider this:
You have pictures of your website swiped and they appear in sales ads all over the net as reference to the horse for sale, or hot linked, using the band width you are paying for.
You would be outraged. Rightly so. And there have been enough threads on COTH were people found their horses on some SIM site. Most were pretty miffed about it.

It's a) business etiquette to pay for what you use, and b) good manners to ask permission to do so.

Images can be had for cheap or free on the net. Some of those are really good, too, but if you want the top notch people, you have to put out the $$$ As simple as that.

Xctrygirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:40 PM
I just saw John's response on EN.

I am updating my position because I missed a vital piece of wording in my first 2 read throughs. I see it now and I withdraw my previous comments.

This is a nice thing to do for Eventing photographers.

~Emily

gold2012
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:41 PM
To tell you how bad this is getting, here what happened at Walmart in Ocala the other day!

I wanted to print out some pics we bought. I sent them to Walmart via the web. When we went to get them, they wouldn't give them to us!

They said, these look professional, if you don't have a signed release, we will NOT let you have them! Ahhhhh, wha, 45 minute drive each way! So, indeed on the disc, a letter stating that I had bought rights to have them printed...and Walmart would accept nothing less then us going home and getting the original Disk, and bringing it, AND a printed copy to the store! So....that's what we had to do! I wasnt happy about the whole thing as hubby took pics of computer w disk, disk, screen w menu, actual letter, nope didn't work.

Do you know why this didn't work? Because Walmart could end up having to pay a........drumroll please.........10,000 dollar fine PER COPY, of each pic. Someone mention a saddle earlier? So....while the general population may not take this seriously, the government is! And the fine can be heftier for a business using photos illegally.

LLDM
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:42 PM
LLDM, I don't see where you're coming from. If you post a photo without permission, that's illegal. Nobody should need a watermark to "remind" them that it's illegal. It's a very straightforward law.

And while I'm sure that most photographers can't spend buckets of time chasing down unauthorized use, EN is a big-time site with tons of viewers--it's not some back-alley blog nobody ever reads.

My point is that there are plenty of illegal things that go on that don't get prosecuted or punished. There is no glut of law enforcement officers, money and resources to enforce this and many other non-violent, non drug related offenses. Which means the photographers are pretty much on their own to track this stuff down and deal with it, or let it go and suffer the lack of income and recognition. It has nothing to do with EN specifically - but the problem in general and how it might be solved - pragmatically.

The OP is technically correct. But no matter how vehement her delivery, it solves nothing but MAYBE solve one particular incident. It does not really do anything tangible for the issue in general.

Like in any aspect of life, you can't rely on the law to protect you from all evils. You protect yourself to, by being wise and proactive. If the situation has a potential up side - which this one does (after all, no one steals crappy photos) - then why not try to maximize potential advertising and income by making it easier to buy the use rights than to steal the photo? Why not profit from the people who actually LIKE your work?

SCFarm

SevenDogs
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:48 PM
Emily:

You are clearly on some sort of personal vendetta.

It is clear that EN is trying to admit their mistake, correct it, and go BEYOND to try to promote photographer's interest through free promotion and advertising as way of making amends.

Read for comprehension -- he is not looking for free photos to use in his stories. He is offering photographers to take photos of anything they would like, write up a promotional story, and be featured as a way to grow their business. Stop with the conspiracy theories -- you are sounding more and more crazy.

By the way, the e-mail that you sent to me was sent to an inactive mailbox. I can no longer check or retrieve messages from that address. If you have something that you would like to say to me, feel free to do it publicly.

Molly Sorge
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:51 PM
For all those discussing an article about photographer's rights and copyright infringement, please read an excellent piece about the topic written by a horse show photographer, Shawn McMillen, for the Chronicle. It ran in our May 23 print edition, and online on our website...

http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/horse-show-photographers-are-facing-crisis

Xctrygirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 02:58 PM
Ok Sevendogs,

Here's what I sent to your inactive address. (Which didn't bounce by the way. )

The topic was: Lets get some of the issues cleared up here.

The body said:

Here's my email (Which was sent from emily.daignault@gmail.com)

301-455-1649 here's my cell.

Use either.

~Emily

~~~

This offer is extended to anyone else who wants to communicate with me directly. I have no vendetta's. And I will gladly take the time to speak to anyone who wants to share their thoughts, even if you think I am the devil incarnate.

~Emily

SevenDogs
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:12 PM
Emily:

This is a public discussion that *YOU* started. I have no desire to take discussion off-line with you. You wanted a public discussion and we are having one.

Sending me a PM stating stating that you are trying to help me "grasp the situation", is laughable. I assure you that I fully grasp the situation.

Going further to say that I "keep avoiding direct contact but berate you in front of all" is equally amusing, given the inflammatory way in which you started this thread.

For full disclosure, here is the entire unedited PM:

Funny how I have reached out to you to help you grasp the situation, yet you keep avoiding direct contact but berate me in front of all.

I think you like poking me as much as you think I enjoy talking about EN.

LLDM
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:34 PM
With all due respect to the talented professional photographers out there Molly, they need to adapt to survive just like everyone else. In no profession does straight talent enable anyone to make a living anymore. It doesn't work for professional riders either. Or really, anyone else I can think of off the top of head.

If they want to survive these hyper-connected, turbulent times, they need to get together and rethink how they market and sell their work and how to protect it as well as they can without making it impossible to see or to buy.

The security paradox hasn't ever changed - perfect security is quite possible, but NOTHING gets in or out. Everything else is a compromise between access and risk.

FWIW - I just saw ENs response. At least he is willing to be proactive and find a way to make the site work for everyone.

SCFarm

DiablosHalo
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:39 PM
^^ Oh good Lord.... you have got to be kidding me!

westcoasteventer
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:41 PM
But remember that by giving away pics, it makes it harder for the full time pros to get paid for their work. Always has, always will. So first you were screaming about copyright infringement, and now you are upset that hobbyists provide their photos at no cost, which makes it harder for those who choose to be professional photographers? So you are against *any* kind of behavior that might put a dent in the pro's business, even if completely legal? Are you for real?

In any business, there is competition, and you have to adapt/grow/evolve to survive. The onus should be on the pros to differentiate their product from the parent/spouse/friend who can take nice photo with their digital camera, not on the hobbyist who just wants to share the great photo he took, and has no interest in compensation. And if they can't do that, perhaps they should find another line of work.

LLDM
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:41 PM
^^ Oh good Lord.... you have got to be kidding me!

Would you care to be specific?

SCFarm

poltroon
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:46 PM
It seems to me that Emily's post was fairly effective, caused no harm, and was no more harsh than the kinds of corrections we all expect every day from the trainers we ride with when we make mistakes.

I doubt there's any one of us who hasn't been called a 'drunken sailor' or worse, and even sometimes in public with friends and family watching. :lol:

(I admit, one of my favorites was "Those dressage judges get older every year and they don't see as well as they used to! You've got to SHOW MORE DIFFERENCE!"). Alas, those poor unnamed judges weren't even their to defend themselves with their latest optometric results! :lol:

Go Eventing.

Xctrygirl
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:54 PM
I have corrected my first post about EN's response.

I missed "one time use" in the first and second read throughs. It is there and as such it's my official position that I think this is a nice thing they're doing.

I read to fast and judged too quick. I am a big enough person to admit that. My apologies to all for the rush to judgement.

Carry on.

~Emily

poltroon
Aug. 8, 2011, 03:58 PM
Being a photographer is hard and always been hard. Being an equine photographer especially so, because so much is out of the photographer's control. They don't control your horse's behavior, his jumping style, your position, or the weather.

Organizers can help too. For example, I recently showed at a venue with an indoor and an outdoor. They chose to have the tests in the indoor and to have the warmup in the outdoor. Problem is that an indoor is deathly difficult for good photographs - the lighting is terrible, especially on dark horses. Another venue uses the indoor for warmup and the outdoor for the competition area. This show's photographs are uniformly excellent (aside from the dorky moments of horse and rider).

Most photographers are happy to take special requests - for example, for a headshot or other posed/special moments in between classes. Take advantage of these. They have excellent equipment, a great eye, you'll pay no travel fee, and you have a chance to get the best possible images from situations like that. It's especially a good idea when you're at a venue with pretty backgrounds available.

Of course, with finances tight for everyone, photographs are often an extravagance that is hard to justify. But I can't tell you how much I regret not buying some of the pictures taken of me as a junior. Unfortunately the photographer is long gone, and I assume the negatives were destroyed. I saved $20 then but I'd pay $100 for some of those images now. At least I have the negative-sized proofs, which I treasure.

snoopy
Aug. 8, 2011, 04:22 PM
EN is a big-time site with tons of viewers--it's not some back-alley blog nobody ever reads.
:lol::lol::lol:

DiablosHalo
Aug. 8, 2011, 04:26 PM
Would you care to be specific?

SCFarm

Sorry I should have quoted, but didn't want to quote personal info in case op found/saw the need to delete it - being that it is posted on the internet. For the world to see. And stalk. And harass.

My comment was aimed at the op's posting of her personal info and pm/emails to SevenDogs.

snoopy
Aug. 8, 2011, 04:32 PM
Actually I am surprised that this thread has not been pulled. John is laughing all the way to the bank for the publicity and the chronicle is using up bandwith helping to cross promote what could be seen as a rival site....at their own expense. John should be paying Emily for all this publicity.

ZiggyStardust
Aug. 8, 2011, 06:33 PM
Actually I am surprised that this thread has not been pulled. John is laughing all the way to the bank for the publicity and the chronicle is using up bandwith helping to cross promote what could be seen as a rival site....at their own expense. John should be paying Emily for all this publicity.

I don't know. This has highlighted for me the distinction between the Chronicle as a more mature news source, with news being news and opinion pieces pretty clearly marked as such. The Chronicle is a niche news site, and the other is an opinion-y site, posing as a news site, that places a big emphasis on scooping inside, "big", or clique-y info, like posting who's on the such and such list first, or what horse just died. That's fine, people like gossip, but own up to that as an identity. The Chronicle has the BB for the latter kind of stuff.

I don't think all publicity is good publicity.

Bravestrom
Aug. 8, 2011, 06:44 PM
But the hits will show as hits nonetheless - in any event - I believe john has come up with a brilliant solution and it is on another thread

DressageOP
Aug. 10, 2011, 12:37 PM
If I bought the picture and I sent it to EN, it's mine, isn't it? Or would I need approval to send it from the photographer?

No. The photograph forever belongs to the person who took it.
The terms for your using the photo should be clearly stated by the photographer. I have "usage rights" agreements which state exactly how a photo may be used. If you purchased from one of the "all photos on a disk" photographers, ask the photographer what the limits of usage are. The market is so depressed, that some photographers are indeed selling photos with no restrictions.

KayBee
Aug. 10, 2011, 03:35 PM
As someone who jumps through MANY hoops to obtain copyright permissions for images, I'm absolutely siding with the OP on this one. It's not that hard to follow the law, it just takes effort.

EN is an income-producing site, and sniping photos without permission is essentially making money from someone else's work. No different from stealing. But it's illegal whether or not you make money from it. I don't have any dogs in this fight and I still think it's appalling. Big Thumbs Down.

Is there some insider eventing buddy club that makes it okay to steal if it's someone you know on a first name basis, and that calling someone on breaking the law is now considered snarky?

I've done both text and photo permissions and, yes... it ain't rocket science. And it's THE LAW. The digital age has made it FAR too easy for people to plagiarize and steal copyright. It's not right. Frankly, bad publicity on a board such as Chronicle of the Horse is deserved, whatever the OP's motive.

smokygirl
Aug. 10, 2011, 03:41 PM
So first you were screaming about copyright infringement, and now you are upset that hobbyists provide their photos at no cost, which makes it harder for those who choose to be professional photographers? So you are against *any* kind of behavior that might put a dent in the pro's business, even if completely legal? Are you for real?

In any business, there is competition, and you have to adapt/grow/evolve to survive. The onus should be on the pros to differentiate their product from the parent/spouse/friend who can take nice photo with their digital camera, not on the hobbyist who just wants to share the great photo he took, and has no interest in compensation. And if they can't do that, perhaps they should find another line of work.

It depends. Some shows the official photographer is the only one whom is supposed to have professional equipment and sell the photos. Get this.. They pay to be there to do it. It's not right that someone with a very good camera can come in, not pay a fee, and pass the photos around (possibly and probably getting reimbursed for it) and not have the overhead.

J3D1
Aug. 11, 2011, 10:04 AM
If I might be so bold as to disagree with snoopy, I think this thread has been bad publicity, and very disheartening. The positive thing is that this thread, along with Amy's private communications, have brought about a good change in EN policy and hopefully some great opportunities for photographers on Eventing Nation. Eventing Nation is already stronger and better for it, we have apologized both to Amy and publicly, and more importantly we have corrected the policy for eventing photographers moving forward. Could that have been accomplished without negativity? Sure, but as we all know life doesn't work like that. Other than momentary lapses of frustration, I wish to bear no ill will towards detractors and I genuinely believe Emily is defending something that she is very passionate about. I respect that a great deal. Everybody gets their turn on he forums and this week it was our turn, and the only hope is that something good comes of it.

snoopy
Aug. 11, 2011, 10:25 AM
John

I think you did not understand the spirt of my post. Whilst I do not condone the use of someone else's IP without permission, I was however looking at the silver lining. We all make mistakes and there is no shame in learning from them. The upside of this learning exercise is that Emily in her anger and haste may have helped drive up the hits to your site (which could be used to your advantage). In the end you just may benefit from a mistake. Try not to see the bad side of this situation but make lemonade from lemons. You learnt something, you received cross promotion. and you came up with a great idea in helping to cross promote photographers (and use their submitted photos).

I hope I have made my pervious post a bit clearer. I would like to think in the end that everyone wins here....and of course no hard feelings when the dust settles. :)

snoopy
Aug. 11, 2011, 10:26 AM
If I might be so bold as to disagree with snoopy, I think this thread has been bad publicity, and very disheartening. The positive thing is that this thread, along with Amy's private communications, have brought about a good change in EN policy and hopefully some great opportunities for photographers on Eventing Nation. Eventing Nation is already stronger and better for it, we have apologized both to Amy and publicly, and more importantly we have corrected the policy for eventing photographers moving forward. Could that have been accomplished without negativity? Sure, but as we all know life doesn't work like that. Other than momentary lapses of frustration, I wish to bear no ill will towards detractors and I genuinely believe Emily is defending something that she is very passionate about. I respect that a great deal. Everybody gets their turn on he forums and this week it was our turn, and the only hope is that something good comes of it.



Hitting the "like" button!

deltawave
Aug. 11, 2011, 11:34 AM
Yep, lots of obvious growth going on as this thread progresses. :yes: Growth and change aren't always pain-free and it isn't always easy, but it is necessary.

smokygirl
Aug. 11, 2011, 01:19 PM
According to one of your earlier posts John, you said you've had this happen, probably.. 10 times.. out of all the photos you've posted.

I just want to know, are you always so slow to learn stuff? I would think after the first time or two, most people would double check stuff like that.

poltroon
Aug. 11, 2011, 04:28 PM
According to one of your earlier posts John, you said you've had this happen, probably.. 10 times.. out of all the photos you've posted.

I just want to know, are you always so slow to learn stuff? I would think after the first time or two, most people would double check stuff like that.

Smokygirl, I don't think that's productive. I think the lesson is learned.

And... as far as slow of mind, when I was talking with my coach at WEG and expressing my sadness that I hadn't gotten to him for a lesson in a long time, he grinned and said (paraphrased), "Don't worry. I'd probably just say the same things you've already heard from me a zillion times. You could probably just play back a recording of one of your old lessons and be good to go." :D

westcoasteventer
Aug. 11, 2011, 07:14 PM
John, I don't know you, and actually have no idea who you are. I only read EN on occasion. But I become a bigger and bigger fan each time you post.

As for the rest of the posters who continue to to be nasty (errr, smokygirl, super klassy), all I'll say is "people in glass houses."

westcoasteventer
Aug. 11, 2011, 07:34 PM
It depends. Some shows the official photographer is the only one whom is supposed to have professional equipment and sell the photos. Get this.. They pay to be there to do it. It's not right that someone with a very good camera can come in, not pay a fee, and pass the photos around (possibly and probably getting reimbursed for it) and not have the overhead. We travel to shows with a barn mom who is a professional photographer. She takes reservations and a fee ahead of time from people who would like to have her shoot them or their horses. She does not take photos of non-contract horses while at the show. She is an exceptional, exceptional photographer, and takes much better photos than most the equine photographers out there, and is without doubt FAR better than the ones who regularly shoot the horse shows in our area.

So should we be handcuffed to using the subpar photographers, just because they might pay the show a fee? The photos the "show" photographer took of my horses last year were awful, not something I'd ever pay for, and at one show there were only 3 of them, even though he jumped 8 rounds over 3 days.

We aren't trying to get around paying, in fact, we pay her quite a bit more than the regular photographer, because she is that much better, and we want fantastic photos as a memory, considering all the money we pay for horse shows.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure you realize you are being condescending, but most people on this board are actually NOT idiots. So phrases like "get this", or the nasty thing you said about John being slow, are really not appreciated and don't contribute to the positive sharing and discussion of thoughts.

gully's pilot
Aug. 11, 2011, 08:17 PM
It's possible this happened 10 times? No offense, but EN ought to feel a little ashamed. This isn't something complicated like "use your outside rein to control his shoulder," it's more like "always jump with the red flag on your right." If you didn't know the rule to start with, getting it wrong once ought to be enough to make you do it correctly forever.

I don't think we need to use offensive language. But I do wish that the majority of the people on this board would understand that for those of us whose livelihoods depend in part on copyright law, this is indeed a very big deal.

smokygirl
Aug. 11, 2011, 11:54 PM
Smokygirl, I don't think that's productive. I think the lesson is learned.

And... as far as slow of mind, when I was talking with my coach at WEG and expressing my sadness that I hadn't gotten to him for a lesson in a long time, he grinned and said (paraphrased), "Don't worry. I'd probably just say the same things you've already heard from me a zillion times. You could probably just play back a recording of one of your old lessons and be good to go." :D

Well then lets release all law breakers so they can rape, murder or steal 10+ times before realizing the law applies to them. I mean, telling them once won't make them remember..

It's not illegal to ride a horse and not do what your coach is telling you (most of the time).

It is ILLEGAL (very black and white, no grey area) to steal photographs.

He did (by his admission), 10 times.

If it was a DUI, people would be .. lock him up and throw away the key, he can't learn his lesson.

Duckz
Aug. 12, 2011, 12:00 AM
I'm so glad that we're comparing theft of an image to rape and murder. Super productive. Thanks.

gold2012
Aug. 12, 2011, 01:02 AM
I am really having a hard time here, forgive me, I turned into an old lady today....but he has said sorry, he is now trying to credit the photographers, he has had less pictures, so obviously TRYING to be more careful. :D

I think most of the people on here realize how wrong this is, but there are always going to be people who think it is ok to right click, nab a grape at the store, use someone else's shampoo at the barn, or heck, steal equipment from events now. :no:

I was thinking today, earlier, that computers, the Internet, and anonymity are forging a different path for mankind. It is not a kindler, gentler humanity that is developing, but one where being human has become more.....you can fill in your own blank.

John admitted he was wrong, has attempted to rectify it, and we can only hope that the people stealing at events will follow suit. I think that to keep pounding this into the ground, is detrimental, to the sport, to ourselves, and to the unity of the sport. Emily did her best, John is doing his.....now for gosh sake Young'ns hug and play nice!

smokygirl
Aug. 12, 2011, 02:04 AM
I am really having a hard time here, forgive me, I turned into an old lady today....but he has said sorry, he is now trying to credit the photographers, he has had less pictures, so obviously TRYING to be more careful. :D

I think most of the people on here realize how wrong this is, but there are always going to be people who think it is ok to right click, nab a grape at the store, use someone else's shampoo at the barn, or heck, steal equipment from events now. :no:

I was thinking today, earlier, that computers, the Internet, and anonymity are forging a different path for mankind. It is not a kindler, gentler humanity that is developing, but one where being human has become more.....you can fill in your own blank.

John admitted he was wrong, has attempted to rectify it, and we can only hope that the people stealing at events will follow suit. I think that to keep pounding this into the ground, is detrimental, to the sport, to ourselves, and to the unity of the sport. Emily did her best, John is doing his.....now for gosh sake Young'ns hug and play nice!

Trying isn't good enough. We aren't talking about someone whom is 12 and swiping a pack of gum here. This is a professional site. He has put himself out there as a PROFESSIONAL.

If your trainer was known to swipe shampoo out of other trainers tack boxes, would you be okay with it? ofcourse not. Would you give her 10 chances to do it, so she really remembered?

He is the one whom said he's had 10 complaints about this, not anyone else. IF you have 10 complaints, and you still aren't correcting the issue.. that is a major problem, imo.

Duckz
Aug. 12, 2011, 07:34 AM
Trying isn't good enough. We aren't talking about someone whom is 12 and swiping a pack of gum here. This is a professional site. He has put himself out there as a PROFESSIONAL.

If your trainer was known to swipe shampoo out of other trainers tack boxes, would you be okay with it? ofcourse not. Would you give her 10 chances to do it, so she really remembered?

He is the one whom said he's had 10 complaints about this, not anyone else. IF you have 10 complaints, and you still aren't correcting the issue.. that is a major problem, imo.

What do you suggest he do?

Bogie
Aug. 12, 2011, 08:08 AM
What do you suggest he do?

Stop using other people's photos without permission. That's an easy one.

DiablosHalo
Aug. 12, 2011, 08:32 AM
Stop using other people's photos without permission. That's an easy one.

Let's move FORWARD. The past is the past. If you want to be the photo police -then by all means take that on. From today FOWARD. Leave the past be. Your rolling over cold stone here - really. Some of you are just embarassing yourself.

gully's pilot
Aug. 12, 2011, 08:33 AM
What do I suggest he do?

Quit making bland irrelevent comments like, "we love photographers on Eventing Nation!"

Recognize that nothing about the OP's attitude or anyone else's attitude changes the fact that what he did was wrong, and that he should have known this from the outset.

Realize that it's his responsibility to play by the rules.

Understand the law and follow it.

Honestly, the more I think about John's casual admission that this may have happened 10 times before, the more appalled I am. I can't get over the feeling that he thinks he and his website are above the rules. I don't see that he's handled it well, and I don't see that he's learned much. I hope he has, but I don't see it.

gully's pilot
Aug. 12, 2011, 08:40 AM
Or--here's a thought--he could pay those 10 photographers for the work he stole.

magnolia73
Aug. 12, 2011, 08:52 AM
So should we be handcuffed to using the subpar photographers, just because they might pay the show a fee? The photos the "show" photographer took of my horses last year were awful, not something I'd ever pay for, and at one show there were only 3 of them, even though he jumped 8 rounds over 3 days.



Not at all. You should have a choice, IMO! However, even if the pics are ugly and you don't want to pay for them, you do not have the right to steal them. It's different to not purchase pics or have a friend take pics- but you should not steal them without paying. No matter how bad they are.

Doing his best would be setting up a system of contracts and payment system for contributing photographers.

starfish
Aug. 12, 2011, 08:57 AM
I realize I'm a bit late to the party but, like gully's pilot, I'm a bit surprised by the cavalier attitude here and the willingness to rip on the OP. While I wouldn't have taken the same approach/tone, it would appear that she got results.

EN has itself admitted that infringement has happened on at least 10 prior occasions. That doesn't include infringement where the photographers hasn't complained (and I know of at least one such incident, so there must be more)d. So, in truth, there may have been many more incidents. And EN clearly didn't fix the problem after those 10 reported incidents. It looks to me like it actually took having the issue raised in a public forum for EN to take the matter seriously and put measures in place to prevent infringement.

And amazingly, I can be of that opinion while still liking EN, appreciating the website and hoping them success in the future!

westcoasteventer
Aug. 12, 2011, 09:12 AM
Not at all. You should have a choice, IMO! However, even if the pics are ugly and you don't want to pay for them, you do not have the right to steal them. It's different to not purchase pics or have a friend take pics- but you should not steal them without paying. No matter how bad they are. Do you even read what people are writing, or are you reading things in their statements that aren't there? Nowhere did I say anything about "stealing" photos. I was talking about using an entirely different photographer because I didn't want the product the show photographer produced.

DiablosHalo
Aug. 12, 2011, 09:14 AM
Actually - it took Amy calling him in private to resolve the matter. This time. I have no personal knowledge of the other times, so cannot pretend to know what went on behind closed doors.

It is very poor business etiquette to come on a public bb to resolve your problems. If my "friend" came on here and started a thread like this - I would be reconsidering our friendship. In my opinion (which is all but worthless) - this made Amy look bad too by her "very close friend" seemingly doing her dirty work. I say seemingly bc the rant was posted with no knowledge that Amy/John were already in contact with eachother to come to a resolution- so Amy was taking care of the situation herself but her "friend" comes here? This specific thread had nothing to do with helping the situation and everything to do with bashing another business in public.

Who is to say that both businesses were harmed here? Maybe potential customers might remember this thread and not want to buy Amys photos? It may be a long shot but definitely something to consider. A lot of posters are defending the OP's actions. In reality (those who OWN a business will understand this moreso) would you want your business remembered this way?

Who really won here?

magnolia73
Aug. 12, 2011, 09:39 AM
Do you even read what people are writing, or are you reading things in their statements that aren't there? Nowhere did I say anything about "stealing" photos. I was talking about using an entirely different photographer because I didn't want the product the show photographer produced.


Yes, I did read, and I read your post, and agree- bring a friend to shoot you if you have a one that is good. But I have heard a lot of people justify stealing photos because they aren't that great- not you at all, and not on this post- this is about stealing good pics for a blog.

Your post was also unrelated...

And I think in your post, you see the value of good photography- you value it enough to pay a premium for it. A lot of people do. Some don't. But paying for it, whether a print for your home, photo for your blog or pic for facebook is not optional (which you understand). Unfortunately, some people don't understand or even care. LOL, a local trainer justified not paying for a pic he was using to market a horse because 1. it was the only good pic he had and 2. who was going to come get him.

You're fine- you pay. You own. You enjoy. Hopefully the Blog will now choose to pay. own and profit. Before they were choosing not to pay.

Because if people keep choosing not to pay, whether competitors, pony kids or media outlets, you will be stuck with the photographers that suck.

BestHorses
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:10 AM
What's funny now is how many times EN is posting that same soapy horse image instead of stealing other pics.

And slightly off-topic, but I'm amazed at how many people are jumping at the chance to write for EN for free!

NCRider
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:23 AM
It's not free. It's publicity. And very smart on their parts as it raises their profiles. For other's it's a forum for presenting their ideas about something. No different than a blog. Except it's widely read.

Alagirl
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:33 AM
Actually - it took Amy calling him in private to resolve the matter. This time. I have no personal knowledge of the other times, so cannot pretend to know what went on behind closed doors.

It is very poor business etiquette to come on a public bb to resolve your problems. If my "friend" came on here and started a thread like this - I would be reconsidering our friendship. In my opinion (which is all but worthless) - this made Amy look bad too by her "very close friend" seemingly doing her dirty work. I say seemingly bc the rant was posted with no knowledge that Amy/John were already in contact with eachother to come to a resolution- so Amy was taking care of the situation herself but her "friend" comes here? This specific thread had nothing to do with helping the situation and everything to do with bashing another business in public.

Who is to say that both businesses were harmed here? Maybe potential customers might remember this thread and not want to buy Amys photos? It may be a long shot but definitely something to consider. A lot of posters are defending the OP's actions. In reality (those who OWN a business will understand this moreso) would you want your business remembered this way?

Who really won here?

It was because as friend she was familiar with the work.

I don't know if the pro who came to state her observation about how many of her pictures she found on the block - almost all uncredited, all unpaid - was Amy or not.

If somebody sees something unlawful go down, do you suggest they just turn and walk?
bad things happen when good people do nothing.

In this case somebody had the integrity to call the party in the wrong out on it. Apparently though it took some more urging than that, but in the end all is well.
The OP didn't make anybody look bad. And if I had to reevaluate a friendship because the person was strongly in my corner and looked out for my best interest....I think I would not deserve such a friend.

gold2012
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:36 AM
First let me say, I am NOT in agreement with what John did. I absolutely was one of the first to agree that it was wrong. BUT, I am very GLAD to notice he is TRYING to do right now. So rehashing it over and over really isn't doing anything for our community.

And I also don't agree with his tone, but I have, on more instances than not, disagreed with his tone. It is called being an individual. Do I think he was wrong? YES. Do I think he should offer some renumeration to the photographers, YES. But that isn't something I can make him do, or should! The photographers are on here with us, they have the same ability to speak as we do, they have far more rights to having a resolution with him. I rarely even go on En much these days.One last thing, about friendship, and loyalty. How many people on here, in their everyday life, lament about how civility is going away, how the world seems to be getting harder and harder? How can we complain about this, and then complain when a good friend sticks up for another? How can we right wrongs, if we sit on a log, and say nothing...as illustrated by below?I went a few months ago to a camp, eventing. There they had an instructor who had several Beginner Novice kids, on green horses, horses just bought, or were just starting out. I was there cause I had sold one of those kids a horse....and was watching.

This instructor was having them do drills that were way above the horse or riders ability. Several parents were VERY upset, and yet, said nothing. Myself included. Finally my horse tried desperately to do the exercise, he knew it, the young rider did not. She almost came off, and instead of lowering the exercise, or removing the almost 90 degree turn out of it, she has them come do it again. They barely muddled through it, as did the other kids...then they went to do something harder. they hadn't even gotten close to mastering the first thing. That was it...I went to the instructor and said something. She toned it down, and they went on. After, almost every parent said something to her about the inappropriateness of the lesson. Someone could have been seriously hurt, but no one wanted to say anything...

If the history of the US was built on sticking our head in the sand....where exactly would we be today?

Beam Me Up
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:38 AM
We travel to shows with a barn mom who is a professional photographer. She takes reservations and a fee ahead of time from people who would like to have her shoot them or their horses. She does not take photos of non-contract horses while at the show. She is an exceptional, exceptional photographer, and takes much better photos than most the equine photographers out there, and is without doubt FAR better than the ones who regularly shoot the horse shows in our area.

So should we be handcuffed to using the subpar photographers, just because they might pay the show a fee? The photos the "show" photographer took of my horses last year were awful, not something I'd ever pay for, and at one show there were only 3 of them, even though he jumped 8 rounds over 3 days.

We aren't trying to get around paying, in fact, we pay her quite a bit more than the regular photographer, because she is that much better, and we want fantastic photos as a memory, considering all the money we pay for horse shows.


This situation (contracting your own photographer) was discussed at length in the photographers thread on h/j. Most of the pro photographers felt it was ok, some felt you should clear it with them and the show office first. They might chime in over here too.

smokygirl
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:45 AM
What do you suggest he do?

Go through all of his photos, find the ones that he used unlawfully (because if 10 complained, you cant bet there were a lot more who didn't, or never saw it), and apologize to them for using there work, pay for it, and move on :)

Alagirl
Aug. 12, 2011, 10:47 AM
First let me say, I am NOT in agreement with what John did. I absolutely was one of the first to agree that it was wrong. BUT, I am very GLAD to notice he is TRYING to do right now. So rehashing it over and over really isn't doing anything for our community.

And I also don't agree with his tone, but I have, on more instances than not, disagreed with his tone. It is called being an individual. Do I think he was wrong? YES. Do I think he should offer some renumeration to the photographers, YES. But that isn't something I can make him do, or should! The photographers are on here with us, they have the same ability to speak as we do, they have far more rights to having a resolution with him. I rarely even go on En much these days.


Hmm, the point constantly missed is that somebody had the integrity to speak up even without being in the position to receive or expect compensation.

The style of blogging has nothing to do with it, the style of how to deal with it when caught swiping pictures does.

This is a wee bit bigger than eventing or even the horseworld.

westcoasteventer
Aug. 12, 2011, 11:39 AM
Sorry Magnolia, didn't mean to jump down your throat. I thought for some reason you were insinuating that I was taking/using proofs. I normally 100% agree with you on almost all of the subjects we discuss, so I'm going to chalk it up to some serious PMS on my part. That, and this subject that seems to get nastier and nastier as time goes on.

KayBee
Aug. 12, 2011, 04:05 PM
Who is to say that both businesses were harmed here? Maybe potential customers might remember this thread and not want to buy Amys photos? It may be a long shot but definitely something to consider. A lot of posters are defending the OP's actions. In reality (those who OWN a business will understand this moreso) would you want your business remembered this way?

Who really won here?

I sit next to the art buyers at my agency (not mine, personally, the one where I work). Frankly, this isn't something that would be likely to come to their attention and if it did, their sympathies would be with the photographer.

Say, for example, my neighbor "I" (with whom I just finished chatting about this very post) knowingly allowed our agency to move forward with work that contained an unlicensed photograph: firstly, she'd be exposing the company to being successfully sued for huge amounts (potentially into the millions). Secondly, she'd be fired. Thirdly, she'd be unlikely to get a position as an art buyer for an ad agency EVER AGAIN.

Granted the million-dollar price tag is because our agency, and our clients, have much deeper pockets than EN, but let me repeat:

The art buyer responsible WOULD BE FIRED.

So, John at EN is somewhat protected because he's a small fish. Also, he's operating in a world where he's providing a "service" to the same industry that these photographers do. But in real world stakes this practice is both illegal and a fireable "mistake."

As others have said, doing it ONCE should have been a lesson. The fact that the he has suffered no real consequences meant that he was willing to risk it again, and again, and again (to the tune of at least 10x)..

PonyGal08
Aug. 12, 2011, 04:49 PM
First let me say, I am NOT in agreement with what John did. I absolutely was one of the first to agree that it was wrong. BUT, I am very GLAD to notice he is TRYING to do right now. So rehashing it over and over really isn't doing anything for our community.

And I also don't agree with his tone, but I have, on more instances than not, disagreed with his tone. It is called being an individual. Do I think he was wrong? YES. Do I think he should offer some renumeration to the photographers, YES. But that isn't something I can make him do, or should! The photographers are on here with us, they have the same ability to speak as we do, they have far more rights to having a resolution with him. I rarely even go on En much these days.One last thing, about friendship, and loyalty. How many people on here, in their everyday life, lament about how civility is going away, how the world seems to be getting harder and harder? How can we complain about this, and then complain when a good friend sticks up for another? How can we right wrongs, if we sit on a log, and say nothing...as illustrated by below?I went a few months ago to a camp, eventing. There they had an instructor who had several Beginner Novice kids, on green horses, horses just bought, or were just starting out. I was there cause I had sold one of those kids a horse....and was watching.

This instructor was having them do drills that were way above the horse or riders ability. Several parents were VERY upset, and yet, said nothing. Myself included. Finally my horse tried desperately to do the exercise, he knew it, the young rider did not. She almost came off, and instead of lowering the exercise, or removing the almost 90 degree turn out of it, she has them come do it again. They barely muddled through it, as did the other kids...then they went to do something harder. they hadn't even gotten close to mastering the first thing. That was it...I went to the instructor and said something. She toned it down, and they went on. After, almost every parent said something to her about the inappropriateness of the lesson. Someone could have been seriously hurt, but no one wanted to say anything...

If the history of the US was built on sticking our head in the sand....where exactly would we be today?

The thing is, you knew no one said anything. You actually witnessed what happened. Here, the OP did not have actual knowledge of what happened. She had a hunch, whether it was right or not is irrelevant. She should have confirmed with the photographer/friend. Even if the situation was resolved (or close to), the OP still could have started a thread about this issue and not drag her friend's name into it.


This by no mean excuses violating copyright law. But it's still not helpful when someone starting a thread like this without the facts. I believe that leads to a lot of bickering and taints the sport.

gully's pilot
Aug. 12, 2011, 05:04 PM
But it's still not helpful when someone starting a thread like this without the facts. I believe that leads to a lot of bickering and taints the sport.[/QUOTE]

Why? The facts here seem to be clear. What everyone is bickering about seems to be a) the tone of the OP; b) whether or not the facts matter; c) what the appropriate response to the facts is.

Do you really think that bickering on the web, no matter what the reason, taints the sport of eventing? I don't. I don't even think that the bickering taints the people involved in it. I do think that some of the facts might taint my opinion of some of the people involved--but honestly, none of that will change the sport of eventing one whit.

Let's not take ourselves too seriously.

Duckz
Aug. 12, 2011, 05:07 PM
Go through all of his photos, find the ones that he used unlawfully (because if 10 complained, you cant bet there were a lot more who didn't, or never saw it), and apologize to them for using there work, pay for it, and move on :)

I find this very reasonable. Especially the moving on part :)

SGray
Aug. 12, 2011, 05:34 PM
I am the person who actually paid Amy for the photo, and Eventing Nation essentially shoplifted it. It's wrong, and extremely unprofessional.

did I miss the apology from EN to the paper? shouldn't that be forthcoming? forgive me if I skimmed over it

PonyGal08
Aug. 12, 2011, 11:29 PM
Why? The facts here seem to be clear. What everyone is bickering about seems to be a) the tone of the OP; b) whether or not the facts matter; c) what the appropriate response to the facts is.

Do you really think that bickering on the web, no matter what the reason, taints the sport of eventing? I don't. I don't even think that the bickering taints the people involved in it. I do think that some of the facts might taint my opinion of some of the people involved--but honestly, none of that will change the sport of eventing one whit.

Let's not take ourselves too seriously.

Why? Because those irrelevant facts didn't contribute to a productive discussion. In fact, those excess facts and tones took focus away from the main issue. You even outlined that (see bolded).

I don't think the bickering on the web necessarily taints eventing as a sport, but it says something about its participants.