Not meaning to be a bugbear but....

http://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/121/

My picture of Red-tipped Flower Beetle, Malachius bipustulatus has been used on this article, and without checking the laws of picture usage on DG I feel somehow a little bugged that I hadn't been asked permission to use it. I would have said yes, I have already given permission for free usage of other pictures to educational establishments.

Somehow, when someone is getting paid for an article, it just doesn't seem the same as using pics for other purposes such as linking to PlantFiles for Trading lists.

While the article is well written, funny in parts, entertaining, the pic was not of an undetermined flower bug species. Not being fuddy duddy here, but it did feel wrong. Sorry to the author if I am off the mark here, but I also found the tone at the end of the article not sympathetic enough to the lives that had been eradicated, to state that one is proud of wiping out life without a tinge of sadness to me is distasteful.

Perhaps I am being a little too sensitive as my pic has been used to illustrate this insesitive eradicaton, and perhaps I should have slept on it first, but if I felt it offensive then I also felt I should be heard. Easier to ignore, harder to voice my opinions, but that has never stopped me yet.

I hope the attitude of 'there's a 'bug' on my plant, spray it with poison' without determining if it's a beneficial species (which this is) is not something Dave's Garden wants to promote.

Exactly how I feel claypa, thanks for voicing your feelings too.

just read the article .... claypa said it best.
I found the article to be more about her 'fear of bugs' and the ease of which sevin was applied just to ease her fears. Applying chemicals that freely is just wrong IMHO. so is using your photo without permission wallaby1, you own it.

I agree Wallaby, there are far too many people who turn to the insecticide spray without bothering to find out what the insects are, whether they are beneficial or not, or what else they are killing at the same time, although they did try to blast them off with the hose first, which is more environmentally friendly than the poison. Your photo shouldn't have been used in this article either without your permission.

There is a space at the bottom of the article to start threads to share your opinion of the article's content if you want to.

As for the picture, even though she did leave the copyright on there, I also thought that if it's a copyrighted photo you are still supposed to get the owner's permission before you use it. I'm with wallaby, even if I'm still getting credit for the photo, if it's being used in a context where I don't quite agree with what the author of the article is writing, I might not want my photo used.

Again, thanks for the input here.

Yep ecrane3, opinions could have been aired at the bottom of the thread, but somehow it would have seemed rude to voice negative opinions there. I hate to be rude, and I am not trying to be rude to the author. I just don't like the way it was done, as if bugs are something to be pounced on regardless.

To use my picture, as you all rightly state, in a context which I find distasteful is wrong, and to do so without permission is hurtful. If asked I may have given permission, but really would have needed to preview the article and if able to do that I definitely would not have wanted it to be used.

I only hope the author is not terribly hurt, as she possibly has not been in a position to be able to appreciate nature as it should be. No hard feelings there, but I do think Admin. has mad a big mistake by using this article. It could well have been a good article if it had ended with a little remorse, and the author had gained insight through making a terrible mistake. It was the sheer disregard for nature which bothers me and this is not the place for such articles.

I agree about the photo use, but the article was funny - don't take the author too seriously. :-)

Seriousness is a tricky thing when it's on the internet, there are many thousands of people who don't know the author, perhaps a handful who do.

A good balance in anything is always advisable considering this, and a really good story should also have a good balance or it can offend. Even if it started out funny it did not end that way. We are not at the movies, we are on DG!

Well, we all have our opinions and are entitled to them, but I think expecting an author who is writing a humorous piece to please all those hundreds or thousands who read it is a bit much. We have gone way overboard, IMO, trying not to offend anybody in anyway. Now, I don't mean to be contentious, so please don't take it that way. It's just my opinion and I'll let it end at that. :-)

Granted, we are all entitled to our opinions. Which is why I believe, and do my darndest, to cater for everyone. Last I looked my sense of humour was still intact, but that is just IMO.

No, I don't believe we have gone way overboard in not trying to offend anybody, but there is a common code of conduct which I try to follow out of respect.

I think that DG is here to try to please the hundreds or thousands, which is why I posted this in the first place.

This message was edited Aug 26, 2007 9:35 PM

I think it is stated here that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and in this case if I may be honest I find the article very shallow and silly not worthy of DG!
I'm sorry if I don't sound diplomatic enough but I would be very upset if my picture was used for this article!
The attitude towards nature's creatures expressed in this article is really worrying!

The article was a 'tongue in cheek' piece and I think some folks are taking it too seriously. I think we've all been in the position of "eeeeeeek!!! what is that and get it out of here!" as some point in our lives. And do we all react wisely? not hardly. The author even asks us in her member notes not to take her too seriously.

I am curious to hear about the legality of using other's pics in DG articles.

Generally speaking, the use of the images within the articles generally falls under Paragraph 3 of the AUP (which is pretty standard language, and has been in place for a very long time):

Well that makes sense - it's still on DG.

I agree with kooger's post ~ this writer produces humorous articles about the foibles of us sometimes less-than-superlative gardeners. (She's not the only one to have purchased plants and forgotten to plant them, ahem..)

Perhaps this story is not an exact depiction of actually events? Slightly embellished? Bugs don't bother me so much but there are other things (dead things) that cause me a great deal of consternation.

I read and very much enjoyed this article and, with the "disclaimer" in the member section, didn't take it too seriously. :)

Okay am I reading it right when I think its saying you can use it both internally at Daves or outside for commercial use?

If I understand it correctly (which I might not!), if Dave for example wanted to use one of your pictures in promotional materials, or make a calendar of Plant Files pictures and sell it, then he could do that. But if I ran an online nursery, I couldn't take your plant pictures and use them on my website without getting your permission first. It's DG that has the blessing to use your pictures as they wish, not individual DG members. Since the article in question is part of DG, that makes it OK, but if the person who wrote the article were to want to publish a book on their own which included that article, then they would need permission to use the picture.

Yes, Liz, that's correct. And it's important to note the photographer always retains their copyright. By uploading it, they give us license (permission) to use it within DG. But at the end of the day, our use of it is non-exclusive, and the image remains the property of the photographer, who can choose to post it to other sites, publish it a book, license it to someone else wanting to use it, etc.

As I stated earlier, I also found the article entertaining and funny, until I got to the end. There was no 'perceived' twinkle in the author's eye that they were pulling our legs, which to me left much to be wondered about.

If I felt, at the very end, not at the beginning, middle, but at the end, that it was distasteful and not likely to engender good practice, then there must have been something missing in the story to make me feel that way. If there had been a glimmer of remorse or having learnt something then I would not have been at all bothered by the use of my picture.

Yes, some will take it as it 'may' have been meant, and I did read the disclaimer, but a disclaimer is a good means of covering the truth.

I really do think that many people will have been left with a bad taste in their mouths by this article, and would urge DG Admin. to look a little more closely at what they print. A good proof reading and suggestions as to how the story could be turned into one which would be tasteful to most people would be a good idea.

All the story really needed at the end was to clarify the feelings of being proud was intended to mean of how the author had coped with the situation having had such fears. An additional mention of some remorse and sorrow at not having coped with a fear, and not having first determined what the best route may have been, would have endeared more readers to her plight.

I somewhat agree with some of your points. But I'm quite sure that the vast majority of people reading the article in question will understand that it was intended to be taken in a spirit of entertainment. The author had my attention.

I've read lots of things that the writer thought was funny, but I didn't. This was not one of them. I did not take offense at her obvious sarcasm concerning the insecticide. Whether it was a true story or just a fabric of her imagination, she did a good job of making it comical.

I've posted many pictures on DG, with the understanding that they may well be 'lifted' by people without my knowledge. You can't stop that. But I also always knew that Dave had rights to them to use as he sees fit, and if he uses any of mine then I would be proud, regardless of how they are portrayed.

Sometimes we can't find pix of iris we have for our NLRIS iris sale. No matter where we find pix we need (plantfiles or elsewhere), we always ask owner if we can use and cite the owner somewhere in our sales listing. So far we have never been denied permission. This of course, is a short term use for a non-profit society.

inanda

If it were my picture being used elsewhere on DG without my permission, (in this particular case) I would ask for a credit under the picture, or at the bottom of the article.

We had something like this a couple of years ago on DG and the thread was finally removed by admin.
inanda

Terry, Thanks for explaining that.

I still think that it is a matter of elementary courtesy to ask permission to the author of a picture to be used in a particular context.

I have to agree with that. Common Courtesy. They may not have to but I think it would be considerate to do so. I know I would feel slighted if it were done to me no matter whether I liked the article or not. I realize the site has the final say but to be shocked to see it without it being mentioned to me beforehand would seem quite rude to me.

I think its just very basic manners.

As a contributing writer for DG, I just felt I had to say something here. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But Lori was not in any way intending to be rude. We have been told that we can use the pictures in PF, and as one who has stuggled to get the pictures right and aligned and clear, I know that offending a reader was the furthest thing from her mind. She writes with a humorous slant, to give us all an opportunity to laugh at ourselves, and I for one enjoy her style completely. With so many different styles of writers involved here, I'm sure that Dave was striving to give information and interest and entertainment to as many of his over 300,000 members as possible. It is unreasonable to assume that all articles will appeal to all readers, and I'm sorry that the ending of this one did not please you. I can't imagine that she would have meant anything but shared laughter at a common human reaction to "icky creepy crawlies".

However, I very much feel that you should have shared your thoughts with her. To discuss the article in an area that she may not see, is very much akin to "talking behind her back". We need all the input from readers to discover what is of interest to the majority of folks on DG. Otherwise we are writing in the dark. So perhaps the two faux pas counter each other, and everyone can start fresh with no more hard feelings. Unless you want to be mad at me for saying my peace. If so, go ahead - but please, let me know.

Yokwe,
Shari

piece, perhaps, and peace

an intentional misspelling perhaps? ☺

It works. Let's get back to the garden and be good to one another.

Here, here!

There is an area after each article for comments pertaining to that article. There is a contact us link on every page for reaching admin. Even if they are being paid for their articles here, these authors are taking a big risk by sharing with such a large and diverse group. I acknowledge their bravery and commitment. I think we should always give them the benefit of the doubt. I also would personally always extend the courtesy of making critical comments to them or admin rather than the whole DG world.

As for what I wrote I was speaking in general not of the this particular person at all.

I still believe that someone (whether it be the writer or another person) should have the common courtesy to give the photo person a heads up of some sort.

I realize the legal stuff but that doesn't mean we should forget the feelings of other people.

I do agree this should have been dealt with privately but now that its out...

At least now some of us have more knowledge about it and maybe those writing articles in the future will write a short & sweet D mail to the photographer beforehand..hopefully. :-)
Okay I'm done. :-)

Private communication is the best first route, I agree.

Strange isn't it how people can be swayed so easily!

I maintain that this was a matter for all, and the author is not being talked about behind her back, she can come here to view it any time she likes.

I also reiterate that this was meant to point out that a little common courtesy would be appreciated when DG is using other people's pictures, and a chance be given to the owner of that photo to refuse use for a certain article if such an article was not felt suitable by them.

This is a matter for the DG Admin, not a private dmail, and others have every right to say their piece but let's not forget about the picture owner's feelings. My initial reaction was one of surprise, even before I had read the ending to see my pic there. Then the ending made me feel it was not appropriately used.

If I have no say in the use of my pics on DG (or elsewhere by DG), then at least the ownership of the pic should be clearly stated underneath, as the imprint on the pic is not visible at that size. It would also be a decent gesture to state that the owner of the pic may not share the views of the author.

Writers are paid for their article, put your head on the chopping block and expect to have it cut off. That's life, and if DG is to print articles it is their responsibility to make sure they are suitable. This is, after all, a business.

Hey folks, imagine if you have put some really good quality photos on here, and you see it being sold on the market for profits. This is no different.

Adios, ciao, so long.

Anytime I put a photo on the internet, regardless of what site I'm on, it is out there for anyone to steal. It's just the way it is. We have no control over it, so people need to understand that.

I do agree, Wallaby, that permission would have been nice, but Dave's policy states clearly that permission is not necessary. It may have been the writer, not Dave, who used your photo, but Dave must have given his blessing. The question is, if the photographer does not agree with the policy, or with the content of the article, does he or she have the right to refuse to allow the photo to be used?

You have a definitely valid suggestion about giving credit for the photo (regardless of whether your copyright is on it) . I think that should be a permanent policy. Just like it is in Bloom.com. Maybe some good will come of this, Wallaby.

I hope this doesn't stop either you or Bonitin from posting such great pics. It really makes a difference to be able to get such large close ups, since I can't find the Firefox add on that lets you zoom in. I relish such vivid shots.

I didn't know they were paid for writing articles - How much do they get, and where does it tell you how to go about it? I just thought they were having their say.

Hyblaean, my reason for being here is to be involved with other like-minded people, and to help others. I really don't know how I feel about being here at this moment, rather like living and dying. Tired of trying, scared of dying.

Life goes on (hopefully for some time yet!) but I have to feel happy about my involvement or it cannot be. I hope to be here for some time yet, but that depends on many things. Perhaps I can't live without helping people, I really do enjoy that, but I will not be kicked into the ground.

Pat, Dave posted on this forum a short time ago, they get $50 per article and I think write 2 (4?) articles per month.