Message from IB and responses

What it amounts to is that the images can be used 'in house" like in the articles, or if someone creates a trade list from PF, an image is attached to the trade list.

I've got just as many images...if not more than most, here at DG, and it has never been an issue for me.

you can clearly use them, is anyone notified they are used? I understand that is not policy... but what I thought of as a neighborly site is quickly sounding like a ....

i thought - for no specific reason other than how the admin carried itself that everything is conducted in an honerable way,..

it sounds as though ( we understand you need a profit, and our submissions are open to the public to view) if you profit or push submissions elsewhere, it should either be more noticeable, and/or persons notified / and or a few cents off subscriptions... wouldn't that eliminate the suprise, come acrIoss as the honerable, admirable thing to do..

it is just so hidden. especially when the the doors are open according to the statement as the possabilities...

be different be open and trustworthy. I am sure you are, but it isn't coming across right.

I must say, many other sites would ban users for open criticism (and maybe bad spelling) for allowing us to express our concerns. Thank you melody for addressing them. I think I got my opinion across and will leave you to your business, thank you to all for your patience and allowing a reasonably new member to weigh in.
-joe-

No, it hasn't Melody. In part because of trust with Dave. But now Dave is out and money is going to be a deciding factor for the new owners as it should be in a business.

As I am reading this policy, Dave's Garden could extend PlantFiles to be anything they wanted. It could also have a dual purpose as being a photo selling site. Right now, I have sold my photos to plant tags, magazines, nurseries, and newspapers. Even a charitable plant sale bought a pic a couple of weeks ago to advertise their plant sale in the newspaper.


I am just trying to figure out that by posting all my work in PlantFiles what have I signed away. What are my rights. What are yours. How will my photos be used in the future.

And do I have the right to have my photos removed from this site and its use in the future if I decide to?

I am not trying to be diffcult, I just want to know where I stand here. Frankly, I should have been aware of all this long ago and had the same converstion then. But I was too busy posting my photos to PlantFiles. LOL

Our writers are instructed to ask before using as a courtesy...and we do insist that if someone objects, for them to find another image. We do use the PlantFiles images to create the Plant of the Week in the Newsletter, and up to this point, I've used images of members who I know consider it an honor to have their image spotlighted with the plant. (there's a bit more to selecting the POTW, but a selection of good images is the first criteria)

If we have a member who does object to their image used in some fashion here, we do try our best to accommodate their wishes, right up to re-arranging the order that the PlantFiles images are displayed in. The first image in the queue is the one that automatically attaches to a trade list. Sometimes there is only one image on the page, and we cannot over-ride for that, but if there is a choice, and someone insists, we'll see to it their wishes are respected.

Dave's Garden cannot sell your images anywhere. And I've sold as many as you have. Mine have appeared in books, on plant tags, ketchup bottles, and even in a museum or two. They are my images and I have the rights to them. I assure you if I felt that my images were in danger of being sold without my permission, they would have already been removed. As everyone can check and see on my profile page...they are still here and are not going anywhere.

Kell and I are in the HIGH numbers with PF photos submissions! Not as high as some but it's definitely been a labor of love. And we both do sell a few of ours so yes, it is a concern.

I'm in the same group with you gals, and our images are safe. (I've even sold a bug or two...)

^_^ thanks Melody!

That is so great, Melody. So what you have put in writing as a paid employee of Dave's Garden is that even though the written policy of Dave's Garden says they can sell our photos and use them off Dave's Garden in any way they want to, we are being guaranteed in writing that is not the case and will never happen. Our photos will remain in use in PlantFiles for the purpose we all posted them in there and not for any monetary benefit to Dave's Garden other than helping them get hits to increase their advertising rates. They will be used only as they have been used up to this point by Dave's Garden and only in PlantFiles as it stands now.

Sue is so right, it is a labor of love. We both have posted some 7,000 photos each. That took a lot of time and love for DG.

I do feel so much better for I never want my photos to be utilized by anyone else or for any reason other than what I want.

Thanks Melody for stepping up and making such a declarative statement. Perhaps the new owners will alter the written words to reflect this. That would be even better! LOL

I've sold the use of some of my plant photos here too. And I understand the concern. I was never concerned to share my photos or anything else that I contributed here, because I knew the people running the site were honorable. But let's face it, big business doesn't exactly have a good reputation these days.They've not always conducted their-selves, in honest ways in recent history. And that's where I think, the concern that so many of us have comes in.

On the other hand, I think if they didn't continue in the honorable ways that were set before them, they'd just be hurting themselves and this website. Because all of us who spend the time to add to plant files and bug files etc, would stop adding to them. And we'd all lose if these important resources didn't continue to grow.

Joy

There are alot of plants listed in plant files with no pictures and information. when I invite growers and photographers to look at this site to add their plant information and photos, they say "no thanks" because of the Acceptable Use Policy, I love DavesGarden, and find that sad that good pictures of plants can't be ID because of fear of copyright or whatever. *sigh*
Hey, everything still is working for me here, so that is good for me..

Well, that is what I was wanting to learn. I have no object of that. I will also stand corrected because yes, when we first signed to the site, an email address did have to be provided. My old brain just forgot on that. What I do not want to see in my email is clutter. Especially UNSOLICITED or unrequested CLUTTER. As it is I delete many unopened emails simply because I may not have time to do them and many end up as spam. However, I can honestly say I have not noticed any thing other that the weekly newsletter or an occassional reminder to tell me I have Dmail. That is fine. I cannot object to that!

I think this has all served as a notice that we all need to be aware of things we need to save and how to do it should the proverbial "lightning " hit any site we happen to entertain.

I am grateful this site gives us freedom of speech to say what we feel, bad spelling and all. After all, we is what we is.. we tauk funee sometime or not. But by doing so, it helps to know what needs are on both sides and then its up to those parties to decide what to do when one continues to go on its way as it has to.

I personally enjoy sharing my photos. If they are shared or sold, thats my choice. I am glad to have that choice. I am glad DG asks too.

Ok, I said I was going for a cup of tea. I willbe in the Cafe if anyone wants to yak there!

No one can sell your image but the copyright holder. Nothing in the policy means or says otherwise ;o)

I do understand that Debra. I know that taking photos for me is a way to express myself. It is a very personal thing. Most of my photos may suck, but more and more I am getting ones I so enjoy. It is an art form to me. I am spending hours a day taking shots trying to develop my own style. And then I have taught myself Photoshop to tweak them even more to remake them in my own vision.

I also love plants intensely so the 2 go hand in hand. I love to share them but do not want to lose control over them.

I know too that if DG would clearly state that photos submitted to all the Files (plant, bug and bird) remain totally under the submitters' control, so many more would love to display their great shots here. It would be a win win for all.

Kell and I are Kindred spirit's on this matter of the photos we have contributed here on Dave's Garden. I have given much thought about my contributions and will need time to see how this issue develops before I add anymore.

In my Heart I feel that what has been practiced in the past will continue in our future here at DG.

BTW
Nice to see you, Kell

That is so great, Terry. I so appreciate you also along with Melody taking the time to reassure me and actually all of us.

I have a set of pics of a Norfolk Island Pine that I came across 2 days ago that have been burning a hole in my picture pocket. It had female and male cones on 1 tree. It was a beautiful day and I got a beautiful blue sky in all the photos. I was so excited! Only I could get so hot and bothered over cones on a tree. Well that is not true, I know a few others here that do also! LOL I have so wanted to post them to PF!

Nice Cones

LOL Mr. Kin. You were one of the so special people here that I referred to for I know you too would so love a walk under a so blue sky and coming upon such great cones with your camera in the ready! LOL

You are always so kind and generous with your support!

*Grin*
I would have enjoyed the walk with you and share the experience with a fellow photographer!
I now wish I would have been out taking photos today instead of working in the Garden in our Record breaking 62 degree weather we had today!!!

I, too, am concerned about this, and was not aware of that '...and for commercial use' phrase. So what exactly does that mean?? It is clearly separated from 'internal use'. What is the commercial use it's referring to?

Having a blog that I use to post photos of my artwork, I make sure to use the absolute minimum number of pixels to convey the image. If the rather small image is enlarged at all, it blurrs to un-useableness.

You must "drive defensively" on the internet.

This has been in the AUP since day 1. How did it get there? I don't remember all the details (I have slept over 3,500 times since then), but when I first created the AUP, the text came from some other site, already written for me. I changed things around here or there to make it pertinent to DG, but I didn't change much. So the language about content licensing just came along with the AUP that I copied.

We have modified the AUP over time, but never considered changing or removing that sentence. It just never came up. As far as I know we never used that clause. We've always simply displayed the photos that were submitted to the site right here on the site, knowing that this is what the members expected of us. It has always been the case, however, that we have been granted the right to redistribute those images, but the thought never occurred to me that we would do so.

If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't have included that sentence in the AUP. But it's been there for over 9 years and, obviously, it would have been absurd in the extreme to use it.

But let's at least be honest with the facts. The AUP does say what it says, regardless of how anybody may misinterpret it. I think if IB struck that out of the AUP it would be a fabulous gesture, but the decision is entirely up to them.

It's worth pointing out that I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody except myself as a person and a member of DG...

Dave

thanks Dave. I also wanted to chime in:


Actually that clause is quite different to how we treat copyright material submitted to all of our other photo-related sites. As we get time to digest things and I get the time to dig into the AUP, it is very likely a clause that will be changed.

Typically, the way we look at copyrighted material like photos is: you own and continue to own it. However, in submitting it to here you give us the right to use it, but only for here on the site. If we want to use it off the site (for what ever purposes - commercial or not) we'd need to ask your permission. Having worked with thousands of photographers on these terms through our other sites we've found that a principle like this sits well with all involved.

Of course (and here is the legal voice in me, sorry), until the actual AUP is changed, it is still the document of record for DG.

Hope that makes sense.





This message was edited Feb 5, 2010 5:03 PM

This message was edited Feb 5, 2010 5:09 PM

Ugh.

Whoa - where did that go?

Whenever you post anything here you grant Dave's Garden a

This means they can sell products, create banner ads, produce print catalogs, or even mail out flyers using your materials. It is common to put should far-reaching language into website contracts to cover all of the ways in which website content may be viewed. I wish Dave had limited the scope here just to the reproduction of your posts on the forums, or just to the PlantFiles, but as it stands, no such language exists in the contract.

In practice contract law is a murky thing, and all kinds of factors enter into the interpretation of such things. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, your mileage may vary, etc. And don't blame IB for this, Dave is the one who claimed these rights on behalf of Dave's Garden.

Don't kid yourself about the rights you give up when you publish here, though. For the most part they can do anything they want with what you contribute, except claim ownership of your work. The phrase "reproduce, and re-distribute" is very troubling though, as these are the two rights in copyright law normally used to allow a company to sell a product on your behalf. I wonder why the contract avoids the terms display or publish?

More reading:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html

[Edit: It looks like Dave weighed in while I was typing this to say almost the same thing. Sorry about the redundancy.]

This message was edited Feb 5, 2010 5:11 PM

You don't have to wonder. I explained above where the language in the AUP originated from.

Sorry, Dave, I was still composing when you posted.

:tiphat:

Michael, when can we expect the AUP to be modified? Speaking personally, this trumps every other issue discussed so far. Unless the policy actually states that photos cannot be sold or used on any site other than DG, I will no longer post photos. I have 'only' a bit over 1000 photos in PF, but have posted thousands more on threads.

This message was edited Feb 5, 2010 8:45 PM

Victor, again I'm unfortunately going to hold back from making any commitment just yet until I get my feet a little more wet.

However, please feel free to take a look at the terms on TrekEarth (link below) and send me some direct thoughts via dmail. The terms there are our more generic term set.

http://www.trekearth.com/tou.php

Listen ... I hate to sound like the Balloon boy, but who or what is IB?
lost Sylvia

Sylvia, found further down Dave's Forum:
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1073132/

Terry - Are you there? There is a problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. Can you help?

Elaine and Otis

Thanks Sue, that helped me out a whole lot!

I hate to be the lone voice crying in the wilderness, but this sale could be a wonderful thing for the site. NM never did anything to improve the site, no money invested as far as I could tell. IB has the resources and expertise to really improve this site. I think it is wonderful that Michael is taking time from his busy schedule to talk with us and answer questions. I hope the dialog continues.

NameMedia gave 3 people full time employment with amazing benefits during the time that they owned DG.

They gave me everything I ever asked for.

They bought very expensive servers for us to make sure that the site was as fast as possible.

They gave me free range to develop the site however I saw fit. During the time we were with NameMedia we launched many major new features (including the articles and Marketplace, BirdFiles, Bug Files, Go Gardening) and improved all the other features.

NameMedia invested tens of thousands of dollars into just the articles alone.

You guys will never know how good NameMedia treated us. Yes, I don't like how they sold the site out from under me, but they've been the best company I've ever worked for, and they were an excellent "parent company" for DG. I can't imagine any other company doing more for DG than NameMedia did.

Dave,
Thank you for that. My respect for you and your principles continues to grow.

Michael,
Thank you too, for trying to answer all these questions!

Sashagirl

Dave - Thanks. We don't see what goes on behind all the wizardry and have become spoiled by the family atmosphere.

Thanks for being up-front. Can always count on that.

Hugs Elaine and Otis

I kinda figured that NM gave Dave and his staff free rein to develop the site even further because I saw all the additions and improvements. And I know they were employed by NM.

I am at a loss as to why they did NOT give Dave the heads up about the sale of DG. It really stinks how all this went down ... :-(

You may notice that lots of companies do that, sell to someone else before they tell the employees.