1bads4 - your sig is ready...
04-22-2004, 10:31 PM
#171
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: A few points...
I can only comment on what I see. I assumed that the file was greatly reduced in size from the original, but as it is (somewhat panoramic so as to accentuate the sense of speed) my critique is solid. To comment on the full shot I would have to see it. As far as the light goes, it still bores me, but as you say, that is my opinion. The weather was no doubt overcast that day, but that is just bad luck. The photographer was no doubt limited by this, but it is what it is.
BTW, are you a professional photographer? If you aren't, you might want to reconsider your statements about what I do or do not understand about photography. You couldn't possibly know that I've been doing what I do for over 25 years, but you seem to have no fear of making ignorant statements, so there you are. If you really want to discuss this particular photograph, let's make sure we are seeing the same thing, fair enough?
BTW, where this photo is hanging has absolutely nothing to do with it's actual merit. I don't need someone else's opinion to reinforce my own.
What exact camera or format was used to capture that image? How should I know? I would have to see the original file/film to have much of an idea of anything like that. Why do you ask?
BTW, are you a professional photographer? If you aren't, you might want to reconsider your statements about what I do or do not understand about photography. You couldn't possibly know that I've been doing what I do for over 25 years, but you seem to have no fear of making ignorant statements, so there you are. If you really want to discuss this particular photograph, let's make sure we are seeing the same thing, fair enough?
BTW, where this photo is hanging has absolutely nothing to do with it's actual merit. I don't need someone else's opinion to reinforce my own.
What exact camera or format was used to capture that image? How should I know? I would have to see the original file/film to have much of an idea of anything like that. Why do you ask?
04-22-2004, 11:45 PM
#172
Elder Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 12,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To sum up my opinions...
I discover my sig has been used for someone else's signature. Not happy with that. I assume either the Bollocks or 1badS4 took it from my posts. I ask for it not to be used.
I was met with responses of: "So?" And, "I'll still use it".
Me: (*disbelief*) are you serious? That's my signature. That's not your image to use. I would have appreciated if someone would have asked if they could use it first. (And as I said, I've allowed people to use this image for their personal use before.)
Yes, when my requests were met with dismissal, I became upset. The feelings were apparently mutual.
When I heard how the mistake was made by Bollocks assuming that was 1badS4s car in his picture poster, I softened my tone. Mistakes happen, I'm willing to forgive.
If there were a lot of fuzzies going around the story would have been different. And a post along of the lines, of "it was mistaken as my car, do you mind if I still use it?" and I probably would have given in and allowed him to use it. But being met with an onslaught of negative posts, that wasn't my reaction. Did I contribute to it, sure, I apologize for that. But they were based on assumptions that the image was stolen directly from my posts (at user ID #92, and 8000+ posts, I thought this assumption was safe), and my having been told to essentially screw off.
Trust me, getting into this is not my nature, and if you follow any of my post history, you'll see I try my best to avoid flame fests and any arguing, as it tremendously upsets me. I would have prefered if this not happen, but I had the choice to either speak up and let my wishes be known, or to be upset every time I saw the signature in the future.
Yes, I could have let it roll off my back from the beginning and let him use it, but to me using the same picture for two signatures, defeats the point of signatures, and can create confusion to someone who can only associate the picture and not the name to posts. That was my hesitation with it in the first place.
I'm sorry it has gotten to this. This will be my last post on this (hopefully). I'm going to be at the racetrack Fri-Sun, so I won't have access to a computer, hopefully all will have settled by then. If I had my way a different image would be used for the creation of 1badS4s signature. Will I or the photographer pursue legal action if he chooses to use it anyway? I recently had a suit with a bad landlord and that was no fun, I'd prefer to come to some sort of amicable agreement. The photographer, I assume, has a busy schedule and more pressing issues to attend to (but I can't speak for him for certain, of course). I do feel he has a right to control how his photos are used and I was sticking up for his rights as well.
I let my preference be known, and that request can either be respected, or ...not. :-\
I was met with responses of: "So?" And, "I'll still use it".
Me: (*disbelief*) are you serious? That's my signature. That's not your image to use. I would have appreciated if someone would have asked if they could use it first. (And as I said, I've allowed people to use this image for their personal use before.)
Yes, when my requests were met with dismissal, I became upset. The feelings were apparently mutual.
When I heard how the mistake was made by Bollocks assuming that was 1badS4s car in his picture poster, I softened my tone. Mistakes happen, I'm willing to forgive.
If there were a lot of fuzzies going around the story would have been different. And a post along of the lines, of "it was mistaken as my car, do you mind if I still use it?" and I probably would have given in and allowed him to use it. But being met with an onslaught of negative posts, that wasn't my reaction. Did I contribute to it, sure, I apologize for that. But they were based on assumptions that the image was stolen directly from my posts (at user ID #92, and 8000+ posts, I thought this assumption was safe), and my having been told to essentially screw off.
Trust me, getting into this is not my nature, and if you follow any of my post history, you'll see I try my best to avoid flame fests and any arguing, as it tremendously upsets me. I would have prefered if this not happen, but I had the choice to either speak up and let my wishes be known, or to be upset every time I saw the signature in the future.
Yes, I could have let it roll off my back from the beginning and let him use it, but to me using the same picture for two signatures, defeats the point of signatures, and can create confusion to someone who can only associate the picture and not the name to posts. That was my hesitation with it in the first place.
I'm sorry it has gotten to this. This will be my last post on this (hopefully). I'm going to be at the racetrack Fri-Sun, so I won't have access to a computer, hopefully all will have settled by then. If I had my way a different image would be used for the creation of 1badS4s signature. Will I or the photographer pursue legal action if he chooses to use it anyway? I recently had a suit with a bad landlord and that was no fun, I'd prefer to come to some sort of amicable agreement. The photographer, I assume, has a busy schedule and more pressing issues to attend to (but I can't speak for him for certain, of course). I do feel he has a right to control how his photos are used and I was sticking up for his rights as well.
I let my preference be known, and that request can either be respected, or ...not. :-\
04-23-2004, 05:39 AM
#174
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for explaining your feelings...
I'm glad someone around here can look at this situation with some clarity and honesty afterall. I apologize for calling you a ninny. I rarely flame either as anyone who knows me here can attest to. It seems that by not reading every single post, I have missed the exact point where things went bad. I'm sorry for that as well. This whole thing really never should have gotten to this point as you say.
Good luck at the track.
Good luck at the track.
04-23-2004, 07:04 AM
#175
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikey - check it out....
the link below started me off on this thread - read it carefully - please<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1622146.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1622146.phtml</a</li></ul>
04-23-2004, 07:26 AM
#176
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answers
I posted Leslie's firs tpost, and it it far from ugly. There was no bad blood, and Leslie's been on this forum far longer than any of the two offenders(user id of I believe "96") and is very respected. Lets not even get into Bollocks "respect" level on this forum, as he has been the catalyst of some of the longest and most angry strings since I've been on this site (1996).
Going into something without reading everything tells mewhy you aren't getting this. When someone politely asks someone to stop using an image and is rebuffed and slammed, they too will get frustrated. But Leslie NEVER slipped into name calling or slams. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME!
As for your preparing and giving away 180 free images, what does that have to do with this situation?
I have had Audi and VW corporately as a client for the past seven years and have given away full disks or ALMS FIA R8 images from LeMans and the US to countless people on this forum, as well as given away many normal stock images of audi cars. All I asked was for a photo credit. I was and still remain an "enthusiast" and give away many rights to my stuff, as does Leslie hers.
The issue here is that the image was taken without permission, not given away. It was Leslie's sig, and it was used in someone elses sig, which isn't too cool in itself. It was Leslie's car, and she promised the photographer who shot it to to distribute it. She also doesn't want Audi seeing their wall decorations all over the net or to allow the photograph to migrate without control.
This case was not a gift. It was taken, manipulated and displayed publically, and when the removal of it was requested politely, she was told to "not get her panties in a bunch" (quote) and it was "No big deal". She was told to even "mind her own business" and that it was a "public image". ALL ARE QUOTES!
You can have your opinion and I can have mine. But in the end, a controversial figure on this site took her photo, manipulated it, distributed and showed it publically, wouldn't stop using it, called her names and slammed her and just plane violated the law. Leslie did nothing wrong, period.
Bollocks and 1badS4 keep hiding behind their own logic(less) arguements and their belief that not knowing it was her image protects them. This is far from the truth. Do you get to keep a stolen item found in your possesion by the police? Well, in this case, a federally registered photo that is in Audi of America and AG's hands was used without permission. Ignorance of law is no defense, sorry.
Again. Show me ONE post where Leslie was rude or called one person a name. I've got 23 attacks on her linked, should you want to actaully read them.
The continued ignorant and meritless defense of this copyright violation and theft is obsurd. She has yet to be apologized to, and I know has had to notify the photographer (embarassed at the situation).
As a commercial photographer, I really thought you'd have a better grasp on copyright law. As a person arguing a link, I'd hoped you'd have read all of the posts. Without all the information, your arguements are meritless at best.
Mike S
Going into something without reading everything tells mewhy you aren't getting this. When someone politely asks someone to stop using an image and is rebuffed and slammed, they too will get frustrated. But Leslie NEVER slipped into name calling or slams. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME!
As for your preparing and giving away 180 free images, what does that have to do with this situation?
I have had Audi and VW corporately as a client for the past seven years and have given away full disks or ALMS FIA R8 images from LeMans and the US to countless people on this forum, as well as given away many normal stock images of audi cars. All I asked was for a photo credit. I was and still remain an "enthusiast" and give away many rights to my stuff, as does Leslie hers.
The issue here is that the image was taken without permission, not given away. It was Leslie's sig, and it was used in someone elses sig, which isn't too cool in itself. It was Leslie's car, and she promised the photographer who shot it to to distribute it. She also doesn't want Audi seeing their wall decorations all over the net or to allow the photograph to migrate without control.
This case was not a gift. It was taken, manipulated and displayed publically, and when the removal of it was requested politely, she was told to "not get her panties in a bunch" (quote) and it was "No big deal". She was told to even "mind her own business" and that it was a "public image". ALL ARE QUOTES!
You can have your opinion and I can have mine. But in the end, a controversial figure on this site took her photo, manipulated it, distributed and showed it publically, wouldn't stop using it, called her names and slammed her and just plane violated the law. Leslie did nothing wrong, period.
Bollocks and 1badS4 keep hiding behind their own logic(less) arguements and their belief that not knowing it was her image protects them. This is far from the truth. Do you get to keep a stolen item found in your possesion by the police? Well, in this case, a federally registered photo that is in Audi of America and AG's hands was used without permission. Ignorance of law is no defense, sorry.
Again. Show me ONE post where Leslie was rude or called one person a name. I've got 23 attacks on her linked, should you want to actaully read them.
The continued ignorant and meritless defense of this copyright violation and theft is obsurd. She has yet to be apologized to, and I know has had to notify the photographer (embarassed at the situation).
As a commercial photographer, I really thought you'd have a better grasp on copyright law. As a person arguing a link, I'd hoped you'd have read all of the posts. Without all the information, your arguements are meritless at best.
Mike S
04-23-2004, 07:33 AM
#177
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Chrisy, what's your point? That is a polite and appropriate repsonse.
Especially considering that an image of hers was stolen by you and 1badS4.
She was totally polite. Never called you a name, never slammed you, period.
Very unlike your posts to her on this forum.
You just made my case. She writes you a polite note and you get all bent out of shape.
Thanks for linking the public to her secind note to you, you know, after you did not respond to her very polite first note!
Mike S
PS - By the way, the photo did cost far more time that you took (by your own statements) to arrange and do, and regardless, it is her image and she can limit it's distribution).
She was totally polite. Never called you a name, never slammed you, period.
Very unlike your posts to her on this forum.
You just made my case. She writes you a polite note and you get all bent out of shape.
Thanks for linking the public to her secind note to you, you know, after you did not respond to her very polite first note!
Mike S
PS - By the way, the photo did cost far more time that you took (by your own statements) to arrange and do, and regardless, it is her image and she can limit it's distribution).
04-23-2004, 07:42 AM
#179
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too funny. "More drama than the rest" and "Bad photo". Audi AG doesn't seem to think so
if it's so bad, why'd you use it over all the other photos out there? You obviously have no problem stealing photos from all over the net for your personal sig.
Bad photo. Hilarious. Do you normally choose to use photos you consider bad in your sigs? You are so grasping at straws.
The photo you call bad is used corporately by Audi and has been raved about on this forum in the past. Many people have used it, ALL but you asked for permission.
Your integrity that was damaged in your continued HP whines months ago and damaged again in this diatribe and is now going through the floor with this meritless post.
Sure, you deliberately chose the bad, but "dramatic" photo. Give me a break.
Keep destroying your own arguement and showing your immaturity.
Mike S
Bad photo. Hilarious. Do you normally choose to use photos you consider bad in your sigs? You are so grasping at straws.
The photo you call bad is used corporately by Audi and has been raved about on this forum in the past. Many people have used it, ALL but you asked for permission.
Your integrity that was damaged in your continued HP whines months ago and damaged again in this diatribe and is now going through the floor with this meritless post.
Sure, you deliberately chose the bad, but "dramatic" photo. Give me a break.
Keep destroying your own arguement and showing your immaturity.
Mike S
04-23-2004, 07:45 AM
#180
Elder Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 12,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry you're offended by that, but I was rather offended by the post I was responding to.
If you see beforehand, I posted that you do very good work, a compliment. (And, I think you have the best signatures on AudiWorld.) My answer was a response to 1badS4s justification that he should be able to use it because you spent a lot of time on it. I didn't think that was fair, what about the time I put into <i>my</i> photo? If it took me 2 minutes on a disposable camera in my garage, it still should be my decision. That's why I found his post to be ridiculous...<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/1623471.phtml">again (in case you missed my last one) 
</a></li></ul>
</a></li></ul>