| 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
To all SportsShooter members: In the interest of fairness...
Grover Sanschagrin, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 5:59 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> The Administrators of SportsShooter.com have a responsibility to do their best to treat all members equally, and to maintain fairness within the community.
Your member page will never be deactivated, and your membership will never be terminated, without us contacting you. All members are given the chance to correct whatever situation may exist.
It is true that this website is privately owned, but that doesn't mean we're dictators and treat people unfairly. We do have rules, and every rule is there for a reason. In the interest in maintaining fairness, we cannot allow one person to break a rule, and then penalize someone else for doing the same thing.
You may think that a rule is unfair, and that's fine. But it is still a rule.
If you are a person worried about breaking a rule and angering the SportsShooter Admins, you need to understand that we work extremely hard to maintain fairness. You will always have the option to correct the situation. It's really your choice.
If you disagree with a rule, we have no problem explaining why the rule exists and exactly what we mean by it. We will listen to your reasoning with an open mind.
But in the end, the interpretation of a rule by the Admins is final. Why? Because this is the only way to ensure fairness across the community.
We deal with many member-related issues, and we know the rules and how we have historically interpreted them. When the Admins make a decision it is based in fairness, even if you don't agree with it.
If you treat the Administrators with respect, you will get respect in return. Challenging us, being hostile, telling us we don't know what we're talking about, calling us names, and other such tactics are not advised. |
|
Mike McLaughlin, Photographer
 |
Neptune City | NJ | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!
Hey, I didn't hear a Harumph! outta that guy!!! |
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
 |
Fayetteville, WV | Asheville, NC | | Posted: 6:43 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Ahhhh.... arcane references from Gov. Lepetomane and Hedley Lamarr. Love it!!! |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
 |
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 6:54 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Grover, most of us realize that.
Thanks.
Jeff |
|
Mike McLaughlin, Photographer
|
Neptune City | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:04 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> Grover - I think you knew where I was coming from, but in case not, I was in agreement and harumphing your statement.
Harrison - Seriously? You couldn't have thrown me the "Hedy" straightline? |
|
Joe Morahan, Photographer
 |
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 11:04 PM on 03.03.09 |
->> You all do a great job at keeping things fair!!!
Thanks so much- |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
 |
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 11:10 PM on 03.03.09 |
| ->> Yeah I get it and I can pretty much figure out what happened. But it is truly unfortunate. I think that it is good that you did this post. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
 |
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 1:15 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Hi To all
I would like to make a suggestion to all . If any time you are warned cross aline moderators and members alike should have a cooling off period where any contact will be ignored and deleted with out being read.Something like 2 or 3 days. Sometimes after and angry exchange there is no going back and we all lose out. I am not singling anyone out. just want the future to be as good as possible. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
 |
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 1:19 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Thank you Grover. Although something should have been posted earlier so everyone didn't get their undies in a bunch when speculation started flying.
And Mike, "that's Hedley." Too bad everyone had to go and work up a Number 6 on both sides. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 7:49 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> But in the end, the interpretation of a rule by the Admins is final. Why? Because this is the only way to ensure fairness across the community.
Only if the admins interpret the rule the same with all members, which was Walter's point in this entire debate.
"Interpretation" does not ensure "fairness". The two concepts are at odds with one another.
But Sports Shooter is not a court of law. It doesn't have to be fair. You guys have every right to terminate any user at any time for any reason.
If you wanted fairness, you'd have to open up the "interpretation" process to external critique, debate and appeal...with the people participating in the community having a say in the matter. You'd have to allow decisions to be made by way of vote or some other system. You would have to respect the results of THAT process, even if you didn't agree.
You're not going to do that because it would be way too much work and fraught with legal landmines. I wouldn't do that if I were in your position. You guys make the rules, and you alone decide what to do. It's not fair - it's just you guys deciding what is right and wrong. Just because you talk about it among yourselves and have your own standards doesn't make it fair. I've been in your position with sites many multiples the size of this one. Trust me, you can't be fair.
My point here is instead of saying it was "fair", just say you made a decision. It's your system, you can do what you want, and you guys decided to do it this way. I'm okay with that.
Just don't try to wrap it in a big blanket of fairness and justness. It rings hollow. It wasn't a "fair" decision. It was a judgment call, that's it.
I respect that. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:57 AM on 03.04.09 |
| ->> And in the end we all lose. SportsShooter.com has just lost far more than one member's $25 per year. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 9:33 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Steve,
Not for nothing but I didn't lose. Walter is just one of many people I have met through this site and communicate with from time to time. We had a lively correspondence over this and actually spent more time talking about the current Robert Frank retrospective "Looking In" than what happened here. While I may no longer see a Walt push opinion on the message board, I can always seek out a Walt pull opinion in e-mail. Adapting to changing circumstances, no matter what the cause, is what we have always done in this business, no? Anyway, aren't members usually referred to as guests in most places? The hosts set the rules of membership and the dudes abide. |
|
Pete Souza, Photographer
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 9:48 AM on 03.04.09 |
| ->> What rule was broken? |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 10:01 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Pete,
I think it was this:
"[PLEASE NOTE: These MUST be YOUR images - where you have a legitimate copyright. Uploading an image that is not yours may result in the immediate termination of your membership.]" |
|
Felix Marquez, Photographer
|
Bethesda | MD | USA | Posted: 10:03 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> I am rarely in agreement with the powers to be at SS.com or "other superstars " when it comes to their choice to get involved or not in some issues; or their choices to self promote something or someone; or promoting equipment to others because it was originally used by a "superstar"; or the promotion of others within a selective circle. However, in this case I have no bone to pick with "The Admins". I am sure that their choice was well thought out, it was a majority choice; and they set the rules we like them or not. Popularity should not be an excuse to poor judgment. I am perfectly aware about " Public Domain", accrediting the rightful owner, and disclosing information related to alterations or changes to someone else's work. Walter P Calahan is a season photographer that should had know better than to get involved in something that in my opinion had nothing constructive to offer. We are all perfectly aware that in postproduction an image can be modified, change or improve anywhere between 0 and 100%. I am sure that the original photographer of the image in question could have very well made as many or as little change to the original. He or she chose not to do so. It is nobody's business to make changes of any kind to someone else's work. It is nobody’s business to criticized a photograph we know very little about (maybe it was the image of choice of Mrs. Obama). It is easy to be a “ Monday morning quarterback” it is another issue altogether to be the one on the spot.
Once again the above is only my opinion, it is not meant to point fingers or to offend anyone. Let’s be constructive and respectful of others and their work, rather than critical and destructive.
Felix A. Marquez
felix@feixmarquez.com
301.346.4807 |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 10:12 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Pete Souza wrote:
"What rule was broken?"
----------------------------
David Cantor wrote:
I think it was this...
"[PLEASE NOTE: These MUST be YOUR images - where you have a legitimate copyright. Uploading an image that is not yours may result in the immediate termination of your membership.]"
----------------------------
I ask the question more out of ignorance, but anyone who freelances for the AP or works for a newspaper - and is a member of this site - and posts images made while on assignment for their employer - would be in violation of the rule and MAY be terminated. Correct? |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 10:44 AM on 03.04.09 |
| ->> Never mind. I figured it out. No worries. |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
 |
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 11:12 AM on 03.04.09 |
->> Since Pete has entered this discussion, I'd like to know his thoughts on the issue. He no doubt knows the photographer of the portrait in question, and possibly the "deleted member". He is certainly in a position to offer an opinion on public domain photos and what was done to the portrait.
Walter Calahan merely posted an image to which he had APPLIED many of the Photoshop "fixes" other members had mentioned earlier in that thread. He did not claim it was his photo, and made no commercial gains. He is not Shepard Fairey.
David Harpe expressed it well: this was an SS.com administration decision that we need to accept if we choose to remain members; it was not necessarily a "fair and just" decision.
I encourage further discussion of this rule by members, and further consideration of this rule by administrators. If they truly believe the posted image created legal and/or ethical problems for SS.com, they did the right thing. If they merely reacted in a way similar to an upset member, they may not have done the right thing.
It is unfortunate that there wasn't a practical way for the membership-at-large to get involved earlier. I encourage all of you to make your opinions known now. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:08 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Dave, with all due respect I think this issue has already been discussed to death and frankly its not an issue that the membership-at-large needed to be involved with in the first place.
Its a very clear rule and it was broken. SS has said rule in place because they feel it is necessary. Anyone who's spent any time on some of the other photography forums out there knows all to well what an issue it is with photographers taking other peoples posted images, or images they find elsewhere on the web and PS'ing them or otherwise using them in post to show certain examples. It becomes a slippery slope to go down and while such behavior, well meaning as it is in most cases, does take place there are certainly plenty of legal and ethical issues associated with that.
Said member did not agree with that rule and in resulting discussion over that disagreement choose to cancel his membership. I really can't see how that involves anyone other than Walter himself and the SS admins. Why do we have such a hard time respecting not only the SS admin's decision, but that of Walter himself ?
If any SS member, in sound mind and body, makes a choice to leave this site, for whatever reason, I don't see how thats an issue that involves anyone else.
Walter was a popular member but life goes on, both for him and the rest of the SS community. He wasn't bannished to some remote island, he just choose to not be a member on this particular site anymore. He still has a website, blog, email address we can write him and so forth if we feel the need to get his opinion, viewpoint or advice on an issue.
While its a shame that this whole situation took place, I honestly think it would be a bigger shame if Walter was given different treatment than any other SS member on account of his being quite the popular guy.
Lets me frank and honest with ourselves here, if some other random SS member, who perhaps only posted a handful of times, wasn't well known or popular or funny et al, did the same action, and in resulting discussion with admins choose to cancel his/her membership, would we still be having all these threads about it ?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't. I actually feel this incident shows a great deal about the character and fairness of the SS admins to treat every SS member equal, regardless of a members popularity and not have double standards.
Thats simply the right thing to do for them as they choose to run their site, and in Walter's opinion, not being a member here anymore was the right thing to do for him.
I think we all need to just leave it at that and get back to business as usual for ourselves, the SS forum, and no doubt for Walter, who like the rest of us, also has a life he needs to get back to.
Cheers |
|
Robert Caplin, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Hi Pete,
As I scroll through the redundant threads about this soap opera, it comes down to this:
So there's this (former) member of the SS community who is best known for being the comic relief on nearly every message board thread on this site. His comedy is noted by the fact that he writes facetious messages and places the word "GRIN" after his "jokes". Funny huh?....
Anyhow, he is no longer a member of this site because he took one of your staff's photos, the official portrait of Michelle Obama, then photoshopped it because he felt it was a poor portrait of her. He attempted to make the portrait more appealing by using photoshop to alter the image. Then he took this photoshopped image and uploaded it to his member's gallery to further explain and share with the world why he think it was a poor photo. Now, a member's gallery is a place where you're only supposed to upload your own image (which is stated in the rules when you become a member), so the admins of Sports Shooter contacted him about the rule and asked him to take the photo down.
THATS where the soap opera love triangle begins!
So, the former member, who I will now refer to as GRIN from hereafter, got upset that he was asked to take the photo down from his member portfolio. He felt that he had every right to post the photo, so he opted to close his membership instead of taking his digitally altered portrait of the first lady down.
Now that GRIN has left the community, many members are sad to see him go. Instead of contacting the admins and asking questions and finding out the facts, they're publicly declaring a witch-hunt because they feel GRIN was wrongly terminated....
The funny part is....he WASN'T terminated! He was asked to take the image down, for which he refused. Then asked that his membership be cancelled.
Anyhow, Pete, all this really isn't worth your time. I promise. I'm sure you've got other, more serious issues you're dealing with... :)
Hope the new job is treating you well. I've been enjoying the new WH slideshows online!
Cheers,
Robert |
|
Bob Nichols, Photographer
 |
Tipton | IN | USA | Posted: 12:29 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Couldn't "GRIN" have avoided this whole mess if he had posted the photos in question on another site and then linked to them from his member's page or this message board?
Educational = fair use, but DON'T post someone else's photos on THIS site. Post only yours. Follow the rules. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Jeff,
With all due respect, I do not believe the rule is that clear in its actual application. This issue raises a very important question. A large number of members here indicate that they work for newspapers. It is reasonable to assume that some, if not the majority do so as staff members in a manner for which the arrangement is considered to be work for hire under the copyright statutes, and thus their employer owns the copyright. However, their pages display images which appear to have been taken in the course of that employment.
If a member of SS posts an image for which they do not own the copyright, are they in violation - even if they are the one that pressed the button?
It is my understanding of this that Walt viewed his posting to have no discernible difference from exactly that situation - an individual posting an image for which they do not own the copyright, but for which they had permission (in his case viewed as implicit as the image was a government work) to display.
I feel it would benefit this community for this issue to be clearly defined by the owners/moderators so as to avoid this situation in the future. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
 |
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 1:37 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> "Now that GRIN has left the community, many members are sad to see him go. Instead of contacting the admins and asking questions and finding out the facts, they're publicly declaring a witch-hunt because they feel GRIN was wrongly terminated...."
I'm one of the members who is sad to see him go, and I stand by what I posted. It's a shame that Walter won't be on here anymore.
Having said that, I have really no idea who is to "blame". The parties involved exchanged private discourse, and who said what, who did what, is between them. Certainly, the admins of this site do a great job and were within their responsibilities and rights to enforce the rules as they see them. I understand their interpretation and frankly believe they were right in asking that the image be taken down. That doesn't change the fact that I wish Walter were still a member.
In the end, the biggest shame is that derogative speech about the parties involved is being tossed around, while the parties themselves have kept those sorts of insults out of the public domain. Regardless of whom you agree with or disagree with in this situation, there is simply no reason to demean or degrade anyone here. |
|
Jared Dort, Photographer
 |
Yuma | AZ | usa | Posted: 3:19 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Give the Governor Harumph!
That's for you Mike. I guess the two "huh's" don't watch Blazing Saddles. |
|
Tom Davenport, Photographer
 |
Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Sam,
A number 6? I don't believe I'm familiar with that one.
Tom |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> no one has responded to the repeated questions posted by many regarding this thread---
STAFFERS do not own their copyright, and many post images they took on assignment to their members page without saying © their newspaper.
Why? How come they are allowed to do this, yet "GRIN" was terminated, and from what I understand, gave proper credit?
DLR |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:30 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Debbie
He gave proper credit and used an image that was released into the public domain, thus there was no copyright violation. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 4:30 PM on 03.04.09 |
| ->> Apply the rules evenly- that is Fair! |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:32 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> PS:
GRIN was not terminated. Grin did in fact that that his membership be closed and his posts be removed from the forum.
Just to clarify, his departure was by his own choice.
He was however challenged on using an image that is in the public domain and he gave proper credit...unlike staffers and WFH shooters who may have created the images, but have no copyright ownership of the images. |
|
Dianna Russell, Photographer
 |
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 4:51 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> I really am sorry the original thread (and those since) got so out of hand. I was hoping to hear what others thought of the portrait without taking criticism of that image too far.
It is *especially* unfair to the photographer because not only do we *not* know the circumstances behind how much time was allowed for the photograph, but she is unable to comment here.
I wish I had not even posted to the thread. I respect Walter so much and feel if I had not asked how others would have changed the portrait (in order to guide the discussion into a learning experience) he wouldn't have posted the photo link as a beneficial lesson. I honestly feel he was just trying to help others learn. So, Walter, I still feel badly about how this turned out. Please know your comments and sense of humor will be missed here.
This website has always been a great place despite the occasional squabble on the board. I, for one, would love to see all the petty sniping stop and have Sports Shooter return to the great resource it was intended to be.
The constant use of the negative post buttons to embarrass or hurt others is just ridiculous. Seriously!
I know I'm not the only member that did not graduate from a photojournalism school -- my degree was in journalism, not photojournalism. That's why I thought it would be interesting to learn how others view portraits. But maybe it's best not to ask questions here. Maybe it's time to hit the bookstore and just try to teach myself.
Peace.
~Dianna |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
 |
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 5:52 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> Dianna;
I hope you continue to ask questions. Learning from each other (including Walter) was and is the most important part of this website. You did nothing wrong Dianna.
Tempers and emotions got out of hand imho. I REALLY REALLY appreciate the fact that Grover took the time to respond. I was really concerned that no one would; in my not so humble opinion that would have been something "bad". By taking the time to respond, we get a bit of the other side of the story. Thank you, Grover.
From what Walter sent me in a email, this may or may not have been the first time there had been some discussions in the background. I repeat what I said in a earlier post - the people who own this get to make the rules. It's their game. If we don't like it, then we don't have to play. No one puts a gun to your head (or mine) and forces you to send in the $25. I don't see Bert, Brad and Grover buying mansions with all of the excess profits from Sportsshooter.
I don't want this discussion to continue forever; but I hope that *IF* there are any issues that they be discussed NOW so that any future crisis can be avoided. In other words, what gets someone in trouble in here?
Lord knows,this industry has more than enough other truly serious issues to contend with. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
 |
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:40 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> I am not a lawyer.
But - when a public domain image is modified in a meaningful way, as I believe was the case with Walter's "improved" versions - isn't it then a derivative work and thus actually able to be copyrighted by the one doing the modification? Could Walter have indeed uploaded a NEW image that he did not "take," but in fact owned the copyright to due to his "improvements"?
As for the general case that Grover makes, I agree 100% with everything he has said. My one problem is with this paragraph:
"We deal with many member-related issues, and we know the rules and how we have historically interpreted them. When the Admins make a decision it is based in fairness, even if you don't agree with it."
The admins appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner when "how we have historically interpreted" the rules is known only to them. If a rule has an "historic interpretation," that interpretation deserves to be made public. In other words, UPDATE THE RULES. So if uploading a photo YOU DID NOT PRESS THE BUTTON AND "TAKE" is against the rules, even if it is a derivative work of a public domain image - PUT THAT IN THE RULES. If you can upload an image that you "took" but that your employer owns and has given you permission to post - PUT THAT IN THE RULES.
Seems pretty simple to me. If you want to be perceived as fair, don't hide rules interpretations in the smoky backrooms. Put them in the rules. |
|
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 7:44 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> You can't possibly write rules for every possible scenario. So, whatever administration is in charge is always left to "interpret" on some level. You can choose to respect that interpretation and abide by the decision or not. If you chose the "not", then you gotta go.
It's like when I go to my friend's house. They ask that you leave your shoes at the door. SO I can either take off my shoes or miss the party. I'm willing to take off my shoes because those are my friends, that's a great party, and I respect other people's rules.
You have to pick your battles. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
|
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 8:43 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> We can't wear our shoes now?! Geez.
Grin |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:45 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> I would have to think that the copyright rule is basically saying only post images you yourself have taken. If your a staffer or in a work for hire situation where you don't retain copyright, yet your employeer allows you to use your images for your own portfolio or peer review purposes that is fine.
Thats at least the spirit of the law, if not the letter.
I think its more or less saying only show your own original work. Even if its a public domain image, or perhaps images taken by someone else that you actually hold the copyright for as you might of employed them, you shouldn't use those on your member page because you didn't create them.
I've done tournaments before where I've hired additional shooters and had them agree I retain copyright for what they shot. Even though I hold the copyright I obviously shouldn't be using those images in my member gallery as thats assumed to be represtative of my own work and it would be unethical to show something thats not.
Thats just my $0.02 on the subject and we live in a world where the penny is pretty obsolete so take it with a grain of salt.
I suppose if anything, some further clarification and review of SS membership rules by the admins would be in order as there certainly are some valid questions and gray areas that members like Debra and Mark Peters have brought up. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
 |
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 9:51 PM on 03.04.09 |
| ->> Is the "GRIN" now public domain? it seems quite a few were just waiting in the wings to be able to use it. |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
 |
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 10:08 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> one of the skills I wish I had mastered in my youth... was the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
as I progress to back nine of my life I have a greater appreciation for rules... and the need for rules.
when I don't agree I vote... I change the channel... I shop elsewhere.... or I don't rejoin that particular club... association... or online forum.
It's not a crisis... it's life
-- mike |
|
Wally Skalij, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA. | USA | Posted: 10:41 PM on 03.04.09 |
->> So would this drama continue with a "less" popular sportsshooter member?
Walter didn't follow the rules and he chose to quit so why is this thread continuing?
If I was the photographer of the portrait and Walter posted what he thought would be a better version of it on a public forum I would be upset.
Let's move on!!!!!!!
Cheers |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|