I'm sorry - DID I GIVE YOU ******* PERMISSION TO RESHARE MY PHOTOS ON YOUR WEBSHOTS?
I suppose in Canada they don't have any Copyright law?
I didn't want to turn this into some stupid debate, and was even CONSIDERATE enough to edit and repost with nice 1024 resolution pics with links to the 4200+ resolution ones - which several people walked up to me and told me they were looking forward to after I posted the same size last year.
I'm really not going to debate photography - or even GPSs with you, in fact, you weren't at EOM so I don't know why you're taking over as it's photographer.
Please remove MY pictures from YOUR webshots and stop criticizing my work.
Thank you.
- Oh, and I'm sure you'll want to start arguing copyright, and yes I do know I didn't actually apply protection to them, but I may have to start looking into it now. Fortunately, Flickr isn't such a crappy site it can be done easily there.
To silence your immediate complaint, I have deleted your photo from the Webshots site.
My posts had nothing to do with the content of your picture or about EOM. Your work was never criticized by me, though I did make a suggestion about your presentation of it. That was the point of my post - to suggest and demonstrate that there is a bandwidth efficient mechanism available to display your pictures. If Flickr does support the mechanism and you were aware of it . . . .
Besides, some members could conceivably be constrained to 800 pixels across, depending on what they use for computers.
But did you get signed releases from every person in the (one) photograph I used for my example before publishing it in the first place?
I didn't think so.
And, you are quite correct - you never did declare the copyright, and I only used it in the same thread as you did to illustrate the mechanism by which you might have been more considerate of others' possible bandwidth restrictions - and to demonstrate how one can actually get people to click the link, by making the photograph itself the link, rather than have it hiding off to the side.
You'd have had a nice, valid point if I'd used the picture for something other than what I did - e.g. publishing it in a book, or using it on a different web site without getting the copyright holder's permission . . . . but who is that? Were you the event's official photographer? If so, then I believe that the event probably owns the rights, subject to getting specific releases from all of the people in the photo. I suppose you could have blurred each abstaining face out, but I see you didn't do that.
But you let the cat out of the bag, since
I saw your shots on Facebook, posted by someone else.
So, if you are through being anal about your 'work of art', I suppose we can all go back to the usual business of the day.
Edit: This is my last post in THIS thread . . .