| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Two Sides To A Story & Mr. Calahan's Departure
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:38 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> At this point I have read and reread Walter's side of his sudden departure from SportsShooter.
In the interest of journalism, I sought out the SportsShooter side of what has transpired and have been in contact with Grover. Grover presents the facts simply and straightforward as "Walt requested that his account be removed."
Grover also states that he was surprised by Walter's reaction to a 'simple request' to remove the photo of the First Lady as it didn't 'jive' with the SportsShooter rules.
So having now read both sides, presented as facts, I sit in the middle of this debate. I trust and respect both Grover and Walter, so I make no judgment on this.
On one hand, if Walter was ousted due to the First Lady photo, there needs to be a debate.
If on the other hand Walter requested his account be removed, including all his posts, then his departure was his own choice.
Both sides admit there was a heated exchange of words between three primary parties. Both sides of this admit the exchange, both sides seem surprised there was a heated exchange...so now it comes down to taking sides, and I choose not to take sides.
What I can say is this, Walter will be missed here, and I hope in the future a resolution can be found.
If the fragile egos involved can take a deep breath, have a conversation and find a common ground in their 25 years of knowing each other hopefully a positive and powerful voice in the education of young photos on SportsShooter can once again be heard in the future.
-Fish |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 1:42 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Thank you Fish! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:59 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Fish, well said. This is definitely a problem of some fragile egos being bruised, which escalated into Walter requesting to be removed from the site. Walter made some very concise and sensible arguments regarding his point of view on the matter. There seemed to be an "our way or no way" attitude towards Walter's POV. He reacted, SS reacted, over-reaction, bruised egos and name calling. Walter asks to be removed. He's a great guy with great institutional knowledge of this business and as others have pointed out often brings a sometimes wacky and refreshing opinion to these threads. It's really a shame. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:05 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Thank you for your update, Steven. Best wishes to Walter. I will miss his comments. |
|
Michael Fullana, Photographer
 |
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 2:14 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Thanks Fish,
I dont usually post much, but I enjoy reading the message board, very informative and often humorous....one of my favorite posters... for both info and humor was Walter... will definately miss his posts... |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
 |
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 2:39 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> I'm still trying to piece together what happened...
WHAT did he do?
I'd like to know if for no other reason than to avoid the same thing in the future; God forbid I or anyone else incur the wrath of the admin here, and I'm not being facetious.
Can someone please spell out exactly what Calahan did that started this little drama? From what I can gather, he posted a shot that wasn't his? Is this it? Did he put a moustache and a eye patch on the First Lady's shot or something? |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> I want to add my two cents to this discussion. I haven't really been following these threads that closely, but have gone back and read the posts.
Walter indicates he downloaded the photo and clearly made alterations to the images, neither of which belonged to him. And he posted them in a public forum for all to see.
I'm sure Walter intended to demonstrate what a little post production would do to improve the images. And this would have been more acceptable to most had the images belonged to him.
As I recall, there have been a number of heated debates on this site regarding photographers who altered images, one of which was an LA Times shooter who altered a war photo from Iraq and the other was former Toledo Blade photographer Allan Dietrich, both who were terminated for these actions.
So to me, a simple request to pull down these images which didn't belong to Walter was not unreasonable. After all, the photos were posted here without permission, were altered, and in my humble opinion, violates the code of ethics of photojournalists.
Since I don't know what was actually said between Walter and the site administrators, it's difficult to know what exactly transpired. I do wish Walter well. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
 |
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:36 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Jeff aren't the official white house images part of the public domain? I could be way off point here but isn't EVERYTHING created by federal employees automatically PUBLIC PROPERTY and thus aren't we all the owners of those works? |
|
Jacob Hannah, Photographer
 |
Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 4:02 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> From Wikipedia...
"The public domain is a range of abstract materials—commonly referred to as intellectual property—which are not owned or controlled by anyone. The term indicates that these materials are therefore "public property", and available for anyone to use for any purpose."
Walter absolutely had the right to post and alter the image according to public domain, but sportsshooter.com also has the right to control the content that is posted to their site. I don't know any details other than what has been posted here, but it seems like both sides agreed to disagree and Walter decided to cancel his membership. It's too bad they could not work things out. Walter's posts always made me smile. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:12 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Comparing what Walter did in a "teaching" situation using photoshop with ethics violations by photojournalist's trying to deceive the public is just plain wrong. This has nothing whatsoever to do with ethics. Please READ the thread before making such inflammatory and rude statements. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
 |
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 4:12 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Regardless of who made the decision, said decision has now been made. Now that we've taken the opportunity to put in our two cents, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that our former member's name is prominently associated with these discussion threads. What started out as a private decision between administrator and photographer has now turned into a very public discussion, the details of which could have a significant impact on said photographer's career.
Whatever the final outcome, I hope these threads are soon locked, and eventually erased or at least "cleansed". |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 4:16 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Thanks, Curtis.
I'd like to respectfully address some glaringly obvious unanswered questions in this soap opera if y'all don't mind...
Did Calahan not say at the very beginning of his original post that he downloaded the PUBLIC DOMAIN image? My lightning-quick mind tells me that he addressed and checked copyrights BEFORE posting his changes. Did the SS admin subsequently learn that these were not public domain? If so, would it not resolve the conflict to call the friggin' White House or John Harrington (who certainly would know the answer to this question), to confirm that these indeed were public domain?
What am I missing? Seriously, there's something here that doesn't meet the eye.
What I'm driving at, and assuming I understand what's going on, which in-and-of itself is suspect, would it not be a simple thing for all involved to confirm the issue of public domain on the image in question?? And then upon clarification proceed accordingly with both parties using common sense?
Yeeeaaahhhh... one would assume, but apparently such was not the case. And this is where the drama begins to get murky. (REEEER!) God, how ridiculous. Somebody lost their temper; how sad. |
|
John Tucker, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Cordova | TN | USA | Posted: 4:35 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> "fragile egos" = a sad loss for the sportsshooter community.
Hopefully this can be resolved or else we all will lose. |
|
Colin Lenton, Photographer
 |
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 5:09 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Well this is a bummer, I always liked Walter's comments. |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
 |
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 5:44 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> In memory of the dearly-departed, I have changed my SS.com icon to a modified version of what this website calls it's "deleted member" icon. I have inverted it as a symbol of distress that things can come to this point. I hope I am not violating any rules by using/changing it; I am willing to remove it peaceably if asked. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
 |
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 6:15 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> ""fragile egos" = a sad loss for the sportsshooter community.
Hopefully this can be resolved or else we all will lose."
I agree. Hopefully the people in contact with Walter can convince him to agree to the rules sportsshooter wants to use and come back.
Everything so far, confirmed by Chuck, says it's Walter that refused to agree to the rules and left - it wasn't sportsshooter that banned him.
Hopefully after he calms down he'll reconsider. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:30 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> John, to be correct, it wasn't Walter refused to agree to the rules he disagreed with the rules and made an attempt to get SS to see his point of view. They didn't. He asked to have his membership waived. Didn't want to sound nitpickie but I think this sounds better than "refusing" to agree to the rules. |
|
Ray Anderson, Photographer
 |
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 6:55 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Thanks for the post Steven I have received e mails from both Walter and SS I am taking the middle of the road here but wish SS would invite Walter back.
I see nothing wrong with Walter posting and using photoshop to make his point about what could be done to improve the image.
He said the images was public domain the photographer had been given credit for the original image which Walter admitted to altering.
I hope SS might see the value in what Walter did and when tempers cool Walter will return and we will all be better because of it including SS.
Love,Compassion,and Understanding to all. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
 |
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 7:10 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> :*-(
Here's to one last "GRIN" for the road. Walter, you will be missed. |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
 |
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 7:41 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> */grin* |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
 |
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 8:06 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Eric,
To answer your question, official white house photographs may or may not be subject to copyright protection depending upon the relationship between the government and the photographer.
Under 17 USC 101 (definitions), works prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties would be considered a "work of the United States Government" (and under 17 USC 105, copyright protection is not available for works of the United States Government). However, contractors and certain categories of people who work for the government are not considered employees for purposes of copyright.
Thus, the question you first need to answer is whether the photographer is considered an employee or not. Once you have that question answered, you will have simultaneously answered your original question. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 8:15 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Jacob,
Respectfully, the definition of public domain is not helpful in this situation. Moreover, while Wikipedia may at times be a helpful starting point (as might any encyclopedia) for research (assuming, of course, that you are sufficiently astute and knowledgeable to recognize those times when the information appearing in Wikipedia may be wrong), resorting to Wikipedia for legal interpretation is, at best, foolhardy. |
|
Hal Smith, Photographer
 |
Sedalia | MO | USA | Posted: 9:19 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Well I'm sorry that I started such a big #$%^storm. The more I know the less I want to know. |
|
Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
 |
Brossard | QC | Canada | Posted: 9:30 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> There could be potential in flyingwithcalahan.com
Grab while it's still free.
Walter ... while I've never met you ... I've spit some early morning coffee reading your stuff. You'll be missed. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
 |
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 11:44 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Well, as I told Walter, it is a damn shame that he won't be here anymore.
We all have varying degrees of value to this community. Walter's value was far greater than most. |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
 |
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 12:05 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Trying to stay neutral here,
public domain or not, I don't think that I would like to have one of my images dissected, redone, photoshoped, manipulated etc etc in a public forum without my knowledge or consent.
Talk about my picture fine, but change and alter it.....even for "teaching" without my approval - crossing the line. |
|
Scott Bort, Photographer
 |
Griffith | In | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Who is going to take over to post sarcastic comments about using film and make fun the digital diaper dandies?
The Day the Grin went away. |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Hudson | NH | USA | Posted: 12:56 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
GRIN
That's a 21 grin salute. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:44 AM on 03.04.09 |
| ->> scott, not to worry their are PLENTY of members to take care of that. Corey THAT should get you triple "funny" credits. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:22 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> CHris -
If you do work for hire, you forego the right to control "your work" - or more appropriately the work of your employer which you produced.
Why should one be expected to seek the approval of an individual who doesn't own the rights to the image? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:17 AM on 03.05.09 |
->> Using an image in commentary ABOUT that image is about as close as one can get to a textbook example of Fair Use.
--Mark |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
 |
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 03.05.09 |
->> "Using an image in commentary ABOUT that image is about as close as one can get to a textbook example of Fair Use." Hear hear, Mark.
Walter, come back! No one has to admit any wrong doing - just agree to disagree. It seems to me this is a clear case of both sides drawing a line in the sand, or winning the battle but losing the war. Except in this case, the collateral damage is on all of us who value your posts so much.
To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
:~) |
|
Jamie Roper, Photographer
 |
Portland | OR | United States | Posted: 3:14 AM on 03.05.09 |
| ->> Exactly as Loundy stated it. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:26 AM on 03.05.09 |
->> Operating a site like this is no trivial task. Photographers are particularly independent folks and do not take easily to rules. The folks running Sportsshooter have elected to run this site well clear of Fair Use uncertainty. That is their right.
While I may not agree with every single decision made here, I respect Grover, Brad and the rest of the SS staff as being among the best in the online business.
We can still discuss images by uploading them to areas outside of this site and linking to them. I've done so on a number of occasions.
--Mark |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 8:57 AM on 03.05.09 |
->> "by uploading them to areas outside of this site and linking to them. "
Isn't that just a case of cyber-semantics? (did I coin a new term)
IF it isn't kosher to put it HERE then it SHOULDN'T be kosher to host it somewhere else and link it from within here.... It would have been VERY interesting if Walter had put the photo in a PhotoShelter account and then linked it to the discussion. Then what?!
For that matter he could have put it in a PS account that was sales enabled and sold prints of the 'fixed' photo as a training aid. PS would have even made a (small) profit from each sale in the form of their fulfillment fees. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
 |
Dallas | TX | USA21 | Posted: 9:13 AM on 03.05.09 |
->> My oh my -- this has all been quite dramatic. For some reason, I keep getting this classic ender stuck in my head ...
http://tinyurl.com/atea6t
- gerry - |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:51 PM on 03.05.09 |
->> Eric,
This isn't about some sort of mythical "kosher." It's about The Sportsshooter team's preference to distance themselves from legal exposure. At least that's the way I'm interpreting the way they've approached this and similar situations.
--Mark |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
 |
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 03.05.09 |
->> Remember "Fair Use" is a defense. Meaning you can claim fair use in court... but you may still need to incur the legal fees to defend yourself...In the end you may be granted the "right" to use the image... but not ( usually ) without legal fees...
I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.... avoiding litigation in our litigious society can often mean the difference between staying in business and closing up shop.... and in the end was "this issue" worth the possibility of of going to court?
It's always easy to spend the other guys money... it's a little different when you are the one signing the checks... I mean we're not talking about the Pentagon Papers ( just to age myself... )
-- mike |
|
Dave Chidley, Photographer
 |
London | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 3:18 PM on 03.05.09 |
->> So when did everyone go outside for recess and start acting like little kids in the school yard???
Did I miss the bell?
I use what I call the "24 hour rule" Never respond, reply, post or email for 24 hours if you are angry. Let time transform your anger into creative debate. What ever happened to the art of debating?
Make your points, don't get heated and listen to the other side. If you are wrong admit it. If you can't sway the other side, life ain't always fair, boo hoo. Choose your battles. Or just hold your breath until it goes away, that will help. I'm taking all my toys and leaving.
Enough aleady, now go back to class. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 9:07 PM on 03.05.09 |
->> Mike,
Fair use is not a "defense" even though it is generally asserted as a basis for avoiding liability for copyright infringement. According to the statute, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, fair use "is not an infringement of copyright."
However, as Mark has already suggested, the fair use analysis is so rife with uncertainty that many prefer to avoid having to perform the analysis, much less get involved with the legal battle that often accompanies the issue. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
 |
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:38 PM on 03.05.09 |
->> Mike O'B... exactly right.
I can't fault the guys running this place if they don't want to screw with the potential liability.
Which reminds me to check and see how much personal exposure I'm carrying... too much in this day could be almost enough... |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 03.05.09 |
->> Samuel...
Not to become mired in a semantics debate... but
If SS.com had an action brought against them for the posting of the photo in question... what do you think there "defense" would be... they would site"fair use"... it would probably hold.
Fair use is not a copyright violation...only after the validity of the fair use defense has been upheld or agreed to in court or arbitration.
respectfully
mike |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
|
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 12:00 AM on 03.06.09 |
| ->> Enough is enough, he decided to leave, right or wrong. This is beating a dead horse. Move on |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:07 AM on 03.06.09 |
->> Chris people who don't want to see dead horses beaten shouldn't walk into the barn.
Seriously YOU actually clicked on the link and CHOSE to be here..... Telling others to move on rather than to let those of us who CHOOSE to continue a conversation is well... best reserved for the owners and admins.... AND un-American
Okotoks hmmmmm never mind........... |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 03.06.09 |
->> Mike,
Respectfully, my correction to your post is not a debate over semantics. From a legal standpoint, your statement is simply incorrect. While at one time, fair use was a defense, fair use is now expressly codified in the current enactment of the Copyright Act, and the statute provides that fair use is not an infringement (and nothing in the statute says that the fair use is not an infringement only after a court or arbitrator decide that fair use is valid).
In the legal context, an affirmative defense is an allegation that either 1) admits the allegations of the complaint but provides another reason why the plaintiff may not recover, or 2) concerns allegations outside of the plaintiff's prima facie case that the defendant cannot raise with a simple denial. If someone brought an infringement claim against SS.com, SS.com could simply deny the allegation.
At least one Federal Appeals Court has repeatedly expressed the view that fair use is better viewed as an affirmative right rather than a defense.
There has been considerable commentary about fair use, lamenting the fact that the factors enumerated in the statute don't translate well into real-world situations and/or don't provide any sort of bright-line test as to what constitutes fair use and what does not. While litigants may disagree as to whether a particular use is a fair use, there can be no serious debate over the validity of the right. |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 2:01 PM on 03.06.09 |
->> Samuel..
Then...legally I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it.
My guess is you have far more legal experience and expertise than I do... and I'm guessing I might have a bit more " real world " experience ... which is where I was coming from.
So... moving onward.... you were right and I was wrong
-- Mike |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
 |
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 03.06.09 |
| ->> Is this topic about photography or drama? Let's move on. |
|
Scott A. Schneider, Photographer
 |
Minneapolis | MN | USA | Posted: 4:01 PM on 03.06.09 |
| ->> Who's Walter? |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:08 PM on 03.06.09 |
| ->> The end? |
|
Mark Davis, Photographer
|
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 4:09 PM on 03.06.09 |
->> Scott,
We might as well start another thread to answer "Who's Walter?" |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 4:28 PM on 03.06.09 |
| ->> . |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Nikon D3 (refurbished demo!)
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $3799.00 |
Notes:
We have 15 refurbished demo Nikon D3 cameras available. First come, first served! Comes with a 3 month manufacturer warranty, and extended warranties are available. Send an email to samys@sportsshooter.com, or call 866-726-9463 and identify yourself as a person from SportsShooter.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
