lisy78 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: On
|
p.3 #4 · The Chain Studio Experiment | |
asimsoofi wrote:
Disclaimer Facts:
#1 - Copyrights for the images are owned by the company...not by me. I have no plans on violating any laws.
#2 - Photos posted on public forums or commercial websites can be in violation of copyright laws, even if "Fair Use" may be used as reason for education, news, or public interest purposes. I do not wish to take on any liability risks.
#3 - As clearly stated in the blog post, the photos have been posted on my "personal Facebook page" which technically meets the personal use terms by definition. This is similar to how clients are permitted to use their own images. This alleviates any liability risks by not having to post the images "publicly".
#4 - All have a right to add me as a friend on Facebook, view the images, and de-friend me. Simple enough.
#5 - Again, as clearly stated on the blog, the objective of the experiment was clearly defined and cannot be missed, overlooked nor read into. Going out for the experiment, writing the blog post, posting the images, and trying to raise money for charities cannot be construed into a conspiracy to gain Facebook friends. Come on guys....this isn't middle school.
Sidenote: If evidence exists to prove otherwise, kindly forward it to the hundreds of photographers who found the images helpful, informative, and most of all amusing. Also, please share the evidence with the editors at DWF, as they may want to hear of such a conspiracy and reverse their decision to publish such a story.
Lastly, if my intention was indeed to gain a ridiculous amount of FB friends I would've foregone the 2-3 hours spent for the session, pocketed the $70 spent, and changed my Facebook name to Gary Fong 
/asim
Interesting.
I'd be curious to know if you could have posted the photos on your own blog under the assumption that what you were doing is in essence investigative journalism. I don' tknow if one must be specifically credentialed in order to do such a thing but yesterday when I read a commend on DWF by someone who apparently was questioning wether you had the right to even post the photos I couldn't help but wonder... lots of time investigative reporters end up posting or airing stuff that the affected party would probably prefer not be posted/aired... I wonder whether your experiement carefully defined as it was would qualify as journalism.
And please enough of the demonizing what I thought was your primary goal with this exercise. Conspiracy!?!?! So what? SEO tactics are Conspiracies too? Or when photographers post shots from a wedding and ask guests to tag people they know... those are CONSPIRACIES?!?!
I guess you have explained why you posted them on facebook. I suppose it's a valid rationalization on your part. I somewhat doubt that in the event of a lawsuit a good lawyer wouldn't be able to nearly instantly dispatch your apparent belief that there would be a qualitative difference between posting the images on your public blog or posting them on your "private facebook" but then opening that up to anyone who wants to get it.
Not too sure how your distinction would be different than someone arguing that they were not naked IN a public place... they were naked inside their home ... after replacing all the outside walls of their zero lot McMansion with 100% see-through glass.
Did I understand correctly what Grits was saying? They asked you for $650 before negotiating down to $70!?!?!?!
Lastly, if my intention was indeed to gain a ridiculous amount of FB friends I would've foregone the 2-3 hours spent for the session, pocketed the $70 spent, and changed my Facebook name to Gary Fong 
It would be unfair of me to ask that it be applied to this specific thread, but I will present a motion for the creation of a special variation on Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) which would apply in Photography forums and which would state that instead of Hitler or the Nazi, a photography thread is over once Gary Fong is brought up, and the person who brought it up automatically loses the debate 
Ciao!
nOt Lisy
|