|
Paragon8 posted:
I experienced something like this a year or two ago when seeing an unfamiliar site in my Flickr referral logs. Somebody had set up a front end real estate-oriented website that was pulling Flickr tagged items and presenting them at the bottom of a page that listed various facts about the city you had searched for. I had shot some abandoned grain silos in this small town and 7 of the 8 photos on the site were mine. I envision some poor fucker looking up where his company was moving him and seeing what must look like a nightmarish industrial hellscape of twisted, rusting metal covered in vile, racist grafitti and I laugh like a lunatic.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:They found one of my Iceland photos, I was glad it ended up in an innocuous subreddit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Worked for me! Albeit I linked back to the photo on Flickr: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/rrew0/my_friend_calls_him_mr_ridiculously_photogenic_guy/ I've pretty much accepted the fact that I'll probably never take another photo that'll have as much impact as this one. Direct link to the photo for those who prefer to avoid Reddit (I don't blame you):  Mr Ridiculously Photogenic Guy by King_of_Games, on Flickr Did we sneak in advice in the "No Advice" thread? Or does it not count if the advice is ironic? :O
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:I experienced something like this a year or two ago when seeing an unfamiliar site in my Flickr referral logs. Somebody had set up a front end real estate-oriented website that was pulling Flickr tagged items and presenting them at the bottom of a page that listed various facts about the city you had searched for. I had shot some abandoned grain silos in this small town and 7 of the 8 photos on the site were mine. This is the best story and makes me feel slightly less bad about the frequent theft of images. Also knowing I will never shoot anything anyone would want to steal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 08:14
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like instagram has recanted. Hopefully this sets a precedent in the future for TOS of web service companies to take in consideration the user and have clarified TOS that people can actually parse without leaping to conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
There's no leaping to be done when companies grab rights they have no reason to. Until we get infallible crystal balls we have to expect companies want to do what they try to get you to agree with. It's pretty simple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
There is a bit of a leap, maybe even a hop, to extrapolate some of the things that were circulating from the original TOS. Online stuff is a very immature field with not a lot of precedent so we don't even know how well these stand up in courts of law. Not to mention that a lot of people got bad information through linkbait blogs. No where did the TOS cede copyright which would have prevented a lot of what they were alleged to be able to do with it. It was a huge clusterfuck on both sides with the silver lining that they are going back and clarifying their terms and removing elements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Online stuff is a very immature field with not a lot of precedent so we don't even know how well these stand up in courts of law. Paragon8 posted:Not to mention that a lot of people got bad information through linkbait blogs. No where did the TOS cede copyright which would have prevented a lot of what they were alleged to be able to do with it. Paragon8 posted:It was a huge clusterfuck on both sides with the silver lining that they are going back and clarifying their terms and removing elements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
right but going from "hey there's some pretty vague things here" to "instagram is going to create a stock agency using YOUR pictures and you'll be seeing your faces on store shelves without compensation" is a leap. It's one thing for people to be stirred up and angry but you would hope that they'd know a bit more about what is going on rather than relying on a game of chinese whispers for information. Like this ended in a good thing but just the sheer amount of drama and vitriol that spilled out was astounding to me. Also Yahoo's TOS includes - quote:c. With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed. which is fact worse that instagram's sublicense as it allows Yahoo to modify the images as well. Google has a similar one with the clause that it'll only do this to "operate, promote, and improving their services, as well as to develop new ones." because that's pretty crystal clear right? The advertising one was a bit hinky on instagram's part but by large it is fairly standard alongside these other web services. The important thing is that none of them take away copyright which prevents a lot of things that the TOS implies it can do. It's one thing to see the TOS in a vacuum which seems like a crazy document but another one when you understand how copyright works with it and actually prevents it from going full crazy. Web based TOS as far as I know haven't been challenged in any court of law and I imagine wouldn't hold up if the company egregiously abused them. Hopefully instagram will respond and put out a great TOS that will lead yahoo/google/facebook into adopting that standard. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Both G+ and Yahoo/Flickr have completely reasonable terms. And I'm sure the 6 people left still using G+ will appreciate it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Google plus is stupid, but picasa is a great image host.  No slobbering idiots plastering sparkling gifs in my comments, and all I have to do to link to an image is right click and click copy image url.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:right but going from "hey there's some pretty vague things here" to "instagram is going to create a stock agency using YOUR pictures and you'll be seeing your faces on store shelves without compensation" is a leap. I was about to post this as well. I remember when it was first instituted by Yahoo back in what 2006/7 and there was an uproar, but mostly contained to Flickr groups. I think it's what lead to Flickr having different licensing types to make it clear what was available and what was not to the public and that it was only to alow the actual flickr service. (not that it stopped unscrupulous news orgs, ad agencies, etc. from using any image they drat well pleased, even if some people didn't realize what they were doing with the CC license). Flickr really didn't make it crystal clear until they posted this to their blog in 2011, which they should have done years prior. http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13/at-flickr-your-photos-are-always-yours/
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:I experienced something like this a year or two ago when seeing an unfamiliar site in my Flickr referral logs. Somebody had set up a front end real estate-oriented website that was pulling Flickr tagged items and presenting them at the bottom of a page that listed various facts about the city you had searched for. I had shot some abandoned grain silos in this small town and 7 of the 8 photos on the site were mine. "Enjoy Scenic Bummfuk!" *picture of melted doll head with swastika-and-mickey-mouse background*
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Another "best of 2012" compilation, but of the badass astronomy variety. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...rse.single.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I should post this here, as this video is full of very useful advice for the avid nature photographer like myself, and this thread isn't really for advice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wGAzTv1pM
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
I just found the best thing. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Holga-K-205-cat-sound-face-35mm-film-135-lomo-camera-/260565062383 It's a P&S that makes catte sounds when you take a photo. Pic for people too lazy to click through to ebay and buy THE BEST CAMERA EVER.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
I thought there was a flickr thread.. but I cant find it. Anyway flickr has a Christmas promotion at the moment and is giving away 3 months free of pro. I don't upload frequently enough to benefit from it - 82 photos total in 3 years - but still its pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
nubdestoryer posted:I thought there was a flickr thread.. but I cant find it. Anyway flickr has a Christmas promotion at the moment and is giving away 3 months free of pro. I don't upload frequently enough to benefit from it - 82 photos total in 3 years - but still its pretty cool. drat it I just renewed mine a few days ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:drat it I just renewed mine a few days ago. They will just extend your subscription by a free three months. You have to go to your Flickr homepage and click on the the banner to accept it though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
nubdestoryer posted:I thought there was a flickr thread.. but I cant find it. Anyway flickr has a Christmas promotion at the moment and is giving away 3 months free of pro. I don't upload frequently enough to benefit from it - 82 photos total in 3 years - but still its pretty cool. It died in May - if you have archives: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3181918
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:They will just extend your subscription by a free three months. You have to go to your Flickr homepage and click on the the banner to accept it though. Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
This is a pretty neat idea, but I much prefer the ones that don't really rely on any after-the-fact doctoring to be awesome. Also a bunch of these are hamfisted when they could have been really subtly done. http://fstoppers.com/actors-pose-as-some-of-their-most-famous-characters So I guess great idea, good execution on some, "meh" execution on others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This is a pretty neat idea, but I much prefer the ones that don't really rely on any after-the-fact doctoring to be awesome. Also a bunch of these are hamfisted when they could have been really subtly done. As far as I'm concerned these are loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 08:11
|
|
|
Didn't Morpheus have both feet in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Didn't Morpheus have both feet in the movie? Do you ever remember seeing both feet outside of the matrix. DO YOU?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This is a pretty neat idea, but I much prefer the ones that don't really rely on any after-the-fact doctoring to be awesome. Also a bunch of these are hamfisted when they could have been really subtly done. Saw the Sam Neill one as someone's avatar at least several months ago so these are pretty old. And yeah, it's a cool idea with a pretty lame execution. I do like the Sam Neill one, though. It's the only one with even remotely dynamic posing or lighting. The Gerard Butler one tries but sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Wow, f-stoppers is getting super lazy with its content and attribution - "I found this on Pinterest, of all places. Wasn't able to trace it back to one source." Is Google Image search still a mystery to people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
This time last year I had just gotten my 5D2 and had two weddings on the books for 2012. This year I've acquired a full set of gear, upgraded to a 5D3 and have just one wedding on the books for 2013. It's for double what the first two were! Progress, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:This time last year I had just gotten my 5D2 and had two weddings on the books for 2012. I would say that shooting fewer weddings is totally progress as a photographer. Weddings are awful. I say this having had the entirety of my income for the past 9 months be from wedding photography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I would say that shooting fewer weddings is totally progress as a photographer. Weddings are awful. We all do it, every photographer in the world has shot a wedding or two because they had to. They aren't that bad to me anymore, I'm just glad I have other photo work to balance it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
I like shooting weddings 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Quick question, y'all. I shot a family reunion type thing for my family last week. I'd love to put the photos up online somewhere in a gallery that let people order prints directly. I'm not looking to make any money off of this, just for a streamlined ordering process. Zenfolio and the like all seem to give me the $120/year options for that sort of functionality, which would be fine if I were running a business -- but I'm not. Anyone know of something that might work for this personal use-wise?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
SmugMug.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:SmugMug. Huh, for some reason, I thought Smugmug only allowed commerce on their expensive plans, turns out they do it on the cheap stuff, too. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
They went through this thing earlier this year where they were only going to allow print pricing on their brand new $300/year plan, but after a lot of complaining by people they re-introduced their $150/y portfolio level that doesn't have features like packages or coupons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:They went through this thing earlier this year where they were only going to allow print pricing on their brand new $300/year plan, but after a lot of complaining by people they re-introduced their $150/y portfolio level that doesn't have features like packages or coupons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Thought you might like this rather large, uncropped photo from Tieneman square
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
I've had a poster with a black-and-white version of the famous image for a long time, I never realized it was a tight crop. Also, holy poo poo, I had thought 4 tanks was impressive enough, he's facing down dozens!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I've had a poster with a black-and-white version of the famous image for a long time, I never realized it was a tight crop. Also, holy poo poo, I had thought 4 tanks was impressive enough, he's facing down dozens! If you think that's impressive you should watch the video. Those tanks were moving when he got in front of them. Then when they try to drive around him he runs back in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
I did my first real "UrbEx" today at an abandoned amusement park. It was creepy, but I was mostly afraid of running into a bum or drug addict or something. Shot 35mm and 120. I'll have it all once it gets developed. Here's a preview from my smartphone:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:00
|
|