ksmahgrts wrote:
per the facebook write-up: he paid $70 for the package which was supposed to include all the high-rez digital images plus prints, and all reproduction rights.
he got home to discover that only the three files the he got prints of were in high-rez. bastards i was looking forward to a massive canvas of one of those "serious" ones
Seventy Dollarz?!?!?! What happened to the special?!?!?
lisy78 wrote:
Seventy Dollarz?!?!?! What happened to the special?!?!?
that's a big point of this entire experience - the $9.95 is of course too good to be true. the first number she hit him with for all prints/files was $650.
#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
#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
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
You know, while I think its funny and accurate, I think this "experiment" borders on unprofessional and tacky. Its one of those things where I would say "I'm glad someone else did it, but I sure wouldn't want my name attached to something like this."
I have no idea what your talking about.
I read the blog and the facebook text twice each and no where in it does he ever state what he actually got and for how much.. Where is this missing text?
Oh and what exactly did the families get for their $9.95 and what did you get for the $15. you initially spent?
I had no trouble friending Asim, and viewing the images. I agree that this seems like journalism, I always enjoy articles where the reporter tries a product/service and reports back on the results.
I think the most important aspect of the entire experiment is the fact that they baited people with a $10 special, and then tried to get many hundreds of dollars out of him. I do not think that this can be publicized enough. It's bad enough to get stuck with inferior images; it's horrible to try to save money, get stuck with bad photos, and still not haved saved any money!
I remember when my children were small, I carefully snipped the $15 coupon, waited in the department store while my adorable toddlers became deranged maniacs, then to have the only good images produced somehow not be part of the special, but cost many many times more. I'd slink away with my $15 worth of poor expressions, knowing they were going to shred the nice ones they printed up and were willing to sell me for more money than I had.
Digital has changed a few things, but the same basic mindset is still there.
Homey wrote:
I have no idea what your talking about.
I read the blog and the facebook text twice each and no where in it does he ever state what he actually got and for how much.. Where is this missing text?
Oh and what exactly did the families get for their $9.95 and what did you get for the $15. you initially spent?
For 9.95, customers would select one pose from the 50-60 poses (each shutter click basically) and receive about 40-some prints of various sizes.
For 15.00, I could receive 3 prints of 5x7 for one pose out of the 60-some poses (again, clicks). However, I had to spend $70 to get a disk of files, along with 3 poses and 3 sheets of any size prints for each. I was told I would receive all hi-res files for all poses for that price ($70) by the associate, even after I asked 3 diff times. At home, I discovered they only provided hi-res for the 3 poses they gave me prints for. Again, they had told me I would receive all. I did receive all web-ready of all poses though. This is where the close to $700 price they quoted upon proofing made sense afterwards if I had gotten all hi-res of all poses, even though I was told something different.
I do not believe the quality of service warrants even that price. So it's not even 'you get what you pay for,' it might be more accurate to say 'you get even less than what you pay for.'
asimsoofi wrote:
For 9.95, customers would select one pose from the 50-60 poses (each shutter click basically) and receive about 40-some prints of various sizes.
For 15.00, I could receive 3 prints of 5x7 for one pose out of the 60-some poses (again, clicks). However, I had to spend $70 to get a disk of files, along with 3 poses and 3 sheets of any size prints for each. I was told I would receive all hi-res files for all poses for that price ($70) by the associate, even after I asked 3 diff times. At home, I discovered they only provided hi-res for the 3 poses they gave me prints for. Again, they had told me I would receive all. I did receive all web-ready of all poses though. This is where the close to $700 price they quoted upon proofing made sense afterwards if I had gotten all hi-res of all poses, even though I was told something different.
I do not believe the quality of service warrants even that price. So it's not even 'you get what you pay for,' it might be more accurate to say 'you get even less than what you pay for.'
I haven't seen the specific photos in question but I'd have to say that if indeed for $9.95 the customer could choose ONE POSE and get some 40 prints of it then that would HAVE to qualify for "getting more than what you paid for" unless the person taking the photos was so experienced at EFFING A PHOTO UP that they couldn't produce ONE DECENT shot out of 50,60.... again ONE "DECENT" ... because $10 for 40 prints of ONE DECENT shot has to be a good deal.
i was looking forward to a massive canvas of one of those "serious" ones
