Lovely photos. I could look at them all day. Oh, I just did.
Here is a link that might be useful: Paul Barden's Web Site
I've visited there quite often, and it's a wonderful site, with detailed and practical information about the roses he discusses. My only hope would be that he would include more roses in each category as time goes on, but it seems that, except for his introductions, he's not added anything new for some years.
Me too, interesting reading. I hope he updates it:-)
Thanks for the kind comments.
Its true: I haven't added any new material to that site in years. Why? Because I got so tired of my photos being stolen and used on blogs, nursery Web sites and various other sites that I decided I wasn't going to do it anymore. It seems many people think that anything you put on the Web is public domain: free for anyone to use in any way they see fit. Its not true; that is why people (like me) put copyright statements on their work.
I just spend a day last week in "discussion" with several Web site owners and managers, requesting the removal of numerous of my photos from their sites. (Yes, even Rose Nurseries!) None of them asked permission to use the photos, and several of them were hostile when I requested the removal. I don't get it. If someone copies a chapter of a Steven King novel and posts it on their blog, without attribution and we all recognize this clearly as plagiarism, then why is taking photos or other art work different? Sadly, I have had to refrain from publishing new work because I don't see the point. Why put these images out there, just for unscrupulous jerks to take and, in certain instances, profit from?
Amen! I share everyones wishes for new content on Old Garden Roses and Beyond, BUT, I sincerely appreciate your efforts and completely agree with you about not appreciating anyone misusing your work. I'm glad it took as long as it did for them to steal your art so we could enjoy it as long as we did. Thank you, both for your photos, research, preservation and rose breeding as well as your friendship! Kim
How do you find out where your photos go?
There is some kind of a physical copy protection you can put on a website. Kitty Belendez uses it on the Santa Clarita Rose Society website -- when you try to copy anything from that website -- even the name of a rose -- you just get a copyright message.
Would that help?
Here is a link that might be useful: Santa Clarita RS website
Google is your friend ;-)
There is always a way to circumvent theft prevention tools, no matter what they are. Anyone who knows how to do a screen capture can take a photo from any Web site and save it for their own purposes. But hey, thanks for the info!
When I was last thinking about this awhile ago, I read on one of the online forums that it all comes down to this: if you don't want your pictures stolen, don't put them up on the Internet.
Yup, absolutely true.
PS to Kathy,
There does not appear to be any kind of copy protection on the site you provided a link to.
Hmmm -- when I put the cursor on something to copy on that website, and then right click it to do the copy/paste manuever, it refuses and pops open a box that says "all images and text on this website are copyrighted by the webmaster."
While no doubt there is always something that one could use to unencrypt or otherwise bypass any type of copy protection, it seems to me that even using some fairly basic form of protection -- like that right click disabling tool on the website I linked -- to make your point may be worthwhile. The more work a thief has to do, or the more knowledge he has to have to get around whatever barriers you do put up, the less likely he is to actually do it. And it makes it clear to thief that his copying is stealing, which also seems to be an education process with the web.
Maybe you could just put some basic protection on your old website and watch it for awhile to see if it deters the copying.
"Maybe you could just put some basic protection on your old website and watch it for awhile to see if it deters the copying."
That change would require dozens of hours of programming to accomplish, since that site was originally created by hand in basic HTML. When I abandoned the project in 2007, I was managing it with Dreamweaver, but even using that tool, it would require hours of redesign to implement basic java script copy protection. Not worth the effort, for me. Its a case of the barn door being opened years ago and the animals are long gone. *shrug*
And now that I know Paul B. can program I much more clearly understand his naming a rose "Si Plus Plus"........... :)
I think overall best protection is adding water mark on a photo itself, through the whole length of the photo - it looks less nice, but that makes photo practically useless for printing purposes, unless you want to spend hours photoshoping it out.
That, or just use secondary shots for the website, those that are not intended for sale. :) Works also quite well actually, since there often are plenty of those over the season, with less than optimal light, plant growth and so on. :)
um, don't want to be a killjoy here but aren't they just photos? Its not like anyone is nicking the actual plants. And what is wrong with free stuff. Haven't we all made use of freeware? Or are we in an age where we all expect payment for everything and no-one does anything for the sheer pleasure of sharing. So what if another nursery uses 'your' photos - the internet is a public domain and has proved very handy for advertisment and publicity when it suits the vendor. How about a little more generosity of spirit....or am I missing something vital here. How many of you have posted beautiful images for all our pleasure. Would it really bug you so much to come across these pics somewhere else.? Chill out please - surely not everything has to be for sale. But then, I am one of those greedy, irresponsible ba##**ds who believes in file sharing, public libraries, barter and exchange and just doing stuff for the simple joie de vivre of offering a hand.
Nothing's wrong with releasing something into public domain, but if you spend hours on the work why should you not get credit for that if you want it?
Credit does not have to be monetary either. Just a mention of who took the picture. I remember Niels saying here once that he came upon a lady's blog where his (stolen) picture of a beautiful boquet was displayed, and the lady boasted to everyone - look what wonderful roses I grew! It is about honesty, not gain.
I get fairly regular requests about sharing my pictures, and I always agree (in writing too) provided my name is mentioned. It seems fair to me. I have not received a penny yet:-)
It's true. If a for-profit rose nursery can't bother to attribute a photo even to the hybridizer and/or well-known rosarian, that's a little sad and boils down to basic honesty. It's a matter of taking credit that one doesn't deserve and giving credit to a colleague - and then to argue about it? Not a good thing.
Nothing is wrong with "free stuff". Shareware is intended to be free, to be freely shared. It includes programming which identifies it as such and carries the "credit" for those who created it. Photographs are NOT free stuff. Articles you have written are not free stuff. Nurseries and publishers, web designers, on line catalog creators, etc., should not consider YOUR efforts "free stuff" unless it is expressly identified as such. Yes, I too have received requests to use my articles and photographs and I most often agree to the requests. But, when someone simply steals your efforts without asking, that is theft. There is a terrible sense of entitlement in the world today. It is the rule rather than the exception on the Internet. If it's on line, it is free for you to use in any way you desire. That is not the case. Theft is theft, period. If photographers are not entitled to receive payment for their photographs, then those who desire to use them aren't entitled to their use. If writers aren't entitled to payment for their creations, publishers and web designers aren't entitled to their use, either. If a business would normally expect to pay a photographer for photos to illustrate what they will receive money to sell, why wouldn't the Internet photographer have the same right to expect payment for use of his/her photographs stolen on line? I agree that the only way to prevent someone from stealing your efforts on line is to simply not put them on line. If we all did that, this place would be a very boring, empty place to be and few of us would surf the Net.
Copyrights and trademarks are legal, ethical and moral. Intellectual property rights exist to foster creativity. Whether there are legal protections formally put in place to protect the photo, article, etc., or not, it is rude, arrogant and simply unethical to remove someone else's efforts from where they have put them and use them for other purposes elsewhere without permission. Take share ware that is identified as such and offered for your use. Don't take photos, articles, others' creations which are not and expect it to be OK.
*shakes his head in dismay*
This discussion makes me truly, deeply sad. I guess anything anyone creates now belongs to the whole world, to be "shared" and distributed in any and every way each individual sees fit, without attribution of any kind. (yes, sarcasm implied) I never said I expected to be paid for the use of my work, but it sure as h*ll would be nice not to have other people steal it and claim it as their own. There is a huge difference between placing a published book in a library for people to access, and having that book copied verbatim and republished under another author's name. I could find dozens of other analogies to illustrate the issue here, but I know in my heart that there will always be a percentage who feel that anything published on the Web is free to be used in any way people wish. I can't change that perception, but I can choose not to publish any new work. Surely the four years I spent in school studying to become a professional photographer ought to grant me some rights.
Yes, sharing is a good thing. Through my Web site, I've shared my view of my garden and my knowledge of roses. By placing the text and photos on the Web, I've granted you license to read and enjoy it. I didn't, however grant rights beyond that. I could have offered my work under a Creative Commons license like Wikipedia, in which case someone could copy my work for non-commercial use as long as they attribute the work. I didn't grant such a license.
"Haven't we all made use of freeware?"
Programmers, artists and authors all have the right under copyright law to control their creations. They can choose their terms in any way they see fit. Simply by placing content on the web the author is not abandoning his rights.
Here is a link that might be useful: Do content creators have ANY right to decide how their work is used???
Thanks for posting that, Paul. "Dog Poop Girl" indeed! LOL! Anyone who steals content for their use like that magazine did and offers it as "original" deserves the public humiliation and to be driven out of business in shame as they did. Now, that editor really has something for HER resume! Arrogant witch! Bravo!
This feels like such complicated territory, that I'm a bit leery of asking, but (and I think this is primarily directed at Paul himself, but ....) what about when someone asks about one of your roses and then someone else goes to your site, copies a picture and posts that picture for public edification? I would think (and I'm only asking, NOT challenging) that those situations would be generally beneficial by spreading the glories of your introductions. Does this sort of usage still comprise stealing? I see that it is a slippery slope for some of us who might simply want to share and aren't gaining in any way from sharing what are your pictures.
Respectfully (I hope) submitted
You'd be surprised how many good images you can find at Wikimedia Commons, where everything posted is either in the public domain or has a limited usage license that usually grants you permission to use the image provided you cite the image maker and don't use the image in a for-profit manner.
"what about when someone asks about one of your roses and then someone else goes to your site, copies a picture and posts that picture for public edification? Does this sort of usage still comprise stealing?"
Thanks for asking the question, as I think it helps us all understand what copyright and protection of intellectual property means in the digital age.
To answer the questions; its really simple: if I have not been asked to grant permission for any content I created, to be used on a Web site other than my own, then this is in direct conflict with my intent and violates my copyright. So, yes....that is "theft" of the content. (I don't like to use that word, preferring "misappropriation" or some such instead)
If you choose to "share" that photo (via email or the Web) with a friend, that is in conflict with my intended fair use of the work, and while not as egregious as someone using it on eB*y to flog their wares, it is not something I like to see people doing, simply because it is very easy for that photo to get passed on and on and then recipients have lost all knowledge of its provenance. Further, if you take a copy of a photo from my web site and save it on your local hard drive, that in itself isn't an infringement (in my eyes). But you have to be careful if you do that, because I have had emails on several occasions where someone posted a photo to a web site and it turned out it was my photo and they simply forgot where they got it from!
The great irony here is that if someone writes to me and simply asks permission to use the photo, I say yes 99% of the time. (assuming it is for not-for-profit applications) My Web site has contact information clearly visible on every page, so there is no excuse for not contacting me to request permission. None of these issues would have come up (for me, anyway) if only people had asked me first, rather than just taking the photos and/or text and done as they pleased with it.
I see that I had lost sight of the simple truth that if I didn't take the picture, it's simply not mine to do with as I please. I don't know exactly how it came about, but I suspect that the ease with which we can now access EVERYTHING makes it a bit harder to see the boundaries of what we can and cannot use/share/etc.
I visit your site often and with great pleasure and am sad that you can't feel comfortable adding to it.
It literally boils down to this, if it is listed as Freeware or Shareware, or otherwise says it is OK for you to "lift it", copy it, share it, go ahead. You are expected to remove it from where you found it. If it is not so listed, respect and integrity say you should not remove it for any reason without permission. If you encountered a fruit tree with signage saying "pick all you want", you would. Would you pick fruit from a tree which clearly did not belong to you? Would you remove a pie from someone else's window sill? Would you take a bicycle from a yard which you don't own? It's all the same thing. If you didn't create it and put it there, it does not belong to you and is not yours for the taking, UNLESS it is stated you may.
Please know that I admire your website. I have also purchased a few of your roses. I am not a website designer and so my suggestion may well be impossible. But know that it is from the heart as I would like to help.
There is another poster on this forum: Connie who owns Hartwood roses. I have noticed that she also uploads pics at helpmefind.com.
I see that the phrase: Hartwood Nursery is superimposed on her rose pictures. Is that something that you could do. Does that solve the problem?
I sure hope it does as I sure would love to see more of your photos and read more of your thoughts.
Just an idea, hope it helps.
Thanks very much, I appreciate that. To answer your question, yes, that would solve the problem for future postings. It is commonly referred to as "watermarking" your images. It would require a full days work to redo all the photos with a watermark and upload 'em all into the right directories to replace existing images. I'm not very interested at this point in doing all that work. As I said earlier, the barn door has been open on the Web without any copy protection. That's one of the facts in dealing with Web content: once you let it out there, its there forever and you can't take it back. Ask any teenage girl who ever emailed her bf a photo of her t*ts!
well sheesh, that's told me then. It just seemed a bit over the top to stop doing something you obviously enjoy because sometimes credit for everything is not always given. I mean, doesn't this exist in all parts of life. This is the internet and everyone is on it and it isn't even a photo but a digital image for everyone to see - what does it matter if people see it somewhere else. I guess you have to digitally take ownership of it by signing it in the first place. Also, I could see why you might get cheesed if someone actually claimed they had created the image but reprinting something already out there, well, I just can't still see it. I dunno...ah look, I am going to f*** this up even more so I am apologising for seeming mean or personal but there are many philosophical positions to stake out here......
I do not wish to belabor the point any further, so I won't. It seems to me that you just don't get it. I can live with that.
This is what I'll do with all future work, thus eliminating any problems:
Paul, I've never done this with any of your photos, but I have at times copied pictures on this forum that someone has posted of their garden and roses and put them into my permanent "gardens that I admire" file. Very rarely I've shown these pictures to another rose lover but that is the extent of my use. Do you or does anyone here object to this? It's simply for my private enjoyment. I've posted quite a few pictures of my garden and roses and feel honored if someone likes them enough to copy them for their enjoyment.
Unfortunately, that's what I suggested you do a very long time ago, remember, Paul?
Campanula, to your sensibilities, is there any difference between copying a song you heard on the radio and using it to play in your restaurant, bar, house or other place to enjoy it and moving a photo to use somewhere else without permission or compensating the creator of it? The entire issue is Intellectual Property. The person who wrote the song, performed the song, wrote the story or article, painted the painting or took the photograph OWNS the rights to that creation. Anyone using that creation for anything not intended by the creator and without his/her permission is misappropriating it. How would you feel if you went to a nursery site and found photos of roses you took being used to advertise the nursery's plants without them asking for your permission?
The only difference between Paul finding someone else using his photos without permission and pirating music, knocking off Gucci handbags or illegal DVDs of movies is the amount of money damages involved. It's still someone using another's creation without permission, and that is theft, no matter how much money is involved.
So its called a watermark...So what did I know from watermarks. Thank you for letting me know.
OK...I'm going to belabour this topic one more time and them I'll stop.
Paul you are a serious talent. You have hybridized many roses. I happen to own 3. One of the three is amazing. I am speaking of Treasure Trove.
To become a successful hybridizer lets say along the measurements of Vibert lets say everyone has to love your roses.
In this day and age the internet is the way to spread the knowledge of your talent. In Vibert's day word of mouth did it. I did not buy your rose Treasure Trove because I thought you were a great hybridizer...frankly I didn't know who you were. I hope that doesn't sound too rood. It's not meant to be. Labrea who posts on this forum spoke highly about that rose and I began to research your roses and you. So I purchase a few of your roses.
What else could you be spending your time doing besides watermarking your photoes that could possible help you to become a Vibert.
Please dont hate me for being so pushy. I just would love you to succeed and in this day and age a three year old website...come on you can do better.
Love your roses.
There are so many terms being bandied about here like public domain, copyright, intellectual property.
It really is very complicated and courts argue over them every day. There's always a battle between the rights of the creator and the rights of the user.
What's not being discussed are the concepts of fair use and right of first sale. Copyright was first put into place to protect the creator, not for the creator's sake, but for the greater good--the production and free flow of information. The theory was that if creators of works could expect to have a monopoly on their works for a certain period of time, it would encourage them and others to do the work, research, publishing, etc. Originally, though, the copyright term was pretty short, and authors/creators had to reapply for (and possibly pay?) to have the copyright on their works extended.
It has been lengthened several times through the years until now it's something like life of the author plus 70 years after death. Obviously money plays the biggest part in this--corporations, publishing houses, estates and descendants want to continue making money on the works of dead creators for as as long as possible. Many people argue that this is in opposition to what copyright was intended to do in the first place, which was to give creators exclusive rights for a short period of time, and then have works enter the public domain so that the free exchange of information and ideas can take place.
But "fair use" and "right of first sale" limit the rights of the creator. Right of first sale is what allows public libraries (and individuals) to loan materials to others. Basically, you can't buy a book and reproduce it for sale, but once you've bought it you CAN loan it to as many people as you like, and should you no longer want to own the book, you can resell it for whatever price you think you can get for it or simply give it away.
Fair use is a little more complicated, but it's what allows students (and others) to quote other works in their own research papers or borrow some images for their PowerPoint presentations. Basically, if only small portions of works are borrowed, the original creators are given credit for their work, the purpose of the borrowing is educational in nature, and the borrower is neither making money on the borrowed work nor cutting into the creator's ability to make money, then the borrowing probably falls under fair use and is legal.
But again, courts argue over this every day. They tend to favor the creator when money is involved and when proper credit is not given, of course. They tend to favor the user and consider it fair use when the original creator is given credit, small portions of work are reproduced and it's for educational purposes--no money involved.
In grad school, professors were always telling us, "When in doubt, cite, cite, cite!"
Bellegallica, what would you call a business, either an EBay retailer or an operating nursery selling roses, "lifting" someone's image without either permission, payment for use nor credit given the photographer, for use to advertise what their product looks like?
I think the watermark you added will do the trick. Good to see you have found a solution and are still able to share you work with people who admire it Paul, which is what it is really about anyhow, isn't it?
Roseseek, I would say that does NOT fall under fair use because it violates two of the criteria. They didn't give credit to the creator, and they're seeking to make money by using the image--either they're making and selling prints of the image or they're selling plants represented by the image.
I wasn't arguing that. I was trying to present the other side of the picture. Creators have limits to their rights as well. We don't want to live in a society where information belongs only to those who can pay for it.
There is a proper and legal way to borrow that is part of copyright law as well.
"I have at times copied pictures on this forum that someone has posted of their garden and roses and put them into my permanent "gardens that I admire" file. Very rarely I've shown these pictures to another rose lover but that is the extent of my use. Do you or does anyone here object to this? It's simply for my private enjoyment."
No, I don't mind someone doing this, but I say this with some caveats: its fine as long as the "keeper" of the work doesn't store the work "in the cloud". (online storage services.) I mention this because you, the customer of that service has had to agree to a TOS (terms of service agreement), and that agreement doesn't extend to me in any way; I have not agreed to any such TOS. Besides, all of these cloud services state in their TOS that the customer (you) has agreed by accepting the TOS not to upload any content that you don't have rights to. Secondly, I would object only if the "keeper" of the photos were to forget where the image(s) originated and accidentally post them on a public Web service or site. I mention this aspect because, well, it has happened to my photos on a few occasions: someone posts a photo of mine on Flickr or Yahoo albums, and having forgotten where it came from, they claim it as their own. This puts me in a position of having to make an official claim of IP rights filed with the Web service hosting the image. (Filing DMCA is a pain, I can assure you) Yes, it has happened. In some instances the person posting my photo knew where it was from and "forgot" for a time. Sometimes this happens when people share photos they acquired on the Web; once an image has changed hands three or four times, the end recipient not only doesn't know who was the original creator of the piece, but probably assumes it belonged to the immediate person who shared it with them. The final recipient may not even know any of the other people who traded the photos! Attribution is impossible if provenance has been lost completely.
The problem in this situation is that once a photo has "left" my Web site, then the attribution no longer follows the photo. Its way too easy to forget the origin of any given image stored on your hard drive, which allows for the possibility of redistribution without any attribution information following it to its destination. Its all too easy for such scenarios to play out this way, and in my experience, they eventually do.
That said, I can't say I object to local storage of my photos, but neither am I completely comfortable in condoning it either. But hey, they're just a buncha photos, right!? *laughs*
I am glad that they did not invent technology yet to ask for copyright fees for the things we remember in our head. :D
What amazes me in similar discussions is how greed and pride plays an important role in contemporary intellectual property mentality. Thing is by profession I am anthropologist and work a lot with the "intellectual property" created good 100 years back. Take for example music - random village lad good 100 years back creating a song for his lass did not exactly think about profit, that everyone in the village knew it is HIS song and so on. Now a lot of that sort of "artists" are online, squabbling over the IP rights and crying how much underpaid poor sods they are.
Personally I do not care if my articles or photos travel in the interwebs without my sticker attached to them. The content is important and it is important that the people get to know it, otherwise it is just pieces of virtual paper, not even useful to start a fire (or even less honorable application in the lavatory). As my professor used to say, never sit on the archive material, because it is useless while rotting in your drawers. It can be said about a lot of things really, as there is no point to take lets say 1000 pictures and sit on them not showing it to anybody, because somebody might not give a sh@t that I am a glorified author and actually just care about the shot itself. :)
Just my 2 cents.
Hah! How à propos:
Retired French electrician who worked for Picasso has 271 unknown works by the artist he claims were gifts. Picasso's family cries foul and files suit. Link below.
Here is a link that might be useful: Picasso trove
Well for 60 mil. the law suit is expectable. :)
Now when I had time to read the whole thread:
what would you call a business, either an EBay retailer or an operating nursery selling roses, "lifting" someone's image without either permission, payment for use nor credit given the photographer, for use to advertise what their product looks like?
That highly depends on a country. It also depends if the catalog is free or not, as sometimes it falls under the education/no direct sale rules. That's how often certain alcohol sale taxes are circumvented - first you buy a piece of paper with a picture, then you trade that piece for a bottle of beer - since there is no direct sale of alcohol involved, authorities cannot claim the taxes. A lot of similar things are valid with IP and use of the copyrighted material. You can of course sue the misuser, but it also isn't that easy to prove your copyright in digital age.
The problem is not a theft, as it is just merely a propaganda term, partly also to justify the bureaucratic apparatus which is supposed to combat "piracy". The problem is that whole IP law was created before Internet became reality. There is little difference if I lets say point at the picture in the book to my friend, or if I send it by e-mail: there is little chance that an author will be remembered, unless he/she is something that me and my friend like enough to care.
Bellegallica is right, copyright was not meant to be a jealous witch hunt for those who dare to make a copy of something, but rather the recognition of the authorship. It should not have ever extended beyond the initial publishing of the text, be that a book or publishing online. After the publishing is done, it should be free to use for everybody.
Prior the record era, each musician had to perform own music. Now they have convenience of not doing that, but greed eyes are big. :)
"copyright was not meant to be a jealous witch hunt for those who dare to make a copy of something, but rather the recognition of the authorship."
Agreed, and that is where my problem lies: my photos are routinely taken, without my permission, by dozens of individuals and companies every year and few, if any of them credit me as the creator. I'm not seeking financial compensation at all, I simply think it is reasonable that if you take my photo to use for promoting your own product/site, then you can at least credit me for the image! No reputable print publication would dare to appropriate a photo and not give attribution, or they would be sued. (Just ask the Cooks Source Magazine editor!) Publishing work on the Web should be no more risky than publishing in a book or magazine.
"it also isn't that easy to prove your copyright in digital age."
Not easy, but not impossible either, if you use some smarts. I can prove authorship of my work in two ways: 1) images found online are resized for Web usage, and a compression algorithm applied to limit file size. So, I can turn to my library of original images and show as proof the significantly larger originals, and 2) I always, always crop out some of the outer edges of the photo. That way, I can show that I "own" the original image because there is more of the image in my original file than the one online.
Case in point: in 2009 I encountered a copy of a photo of 'Basye's Purple' on a blogger's Web site. It was clearly my photo. I contacted the person and asked them to remove the photo from their blog, since I had not granted permission for that person to use it. The reply I got was galling, to say the least: I was informed that the photo was not mine, that the blogger was the author and could prove it. I was shocked at the nerve of the person. Long story short, I had to file a DMCA take-down request with the blog service to remove it. The blog service agreed with me, once I provided proof of authorship, that the blogger had appropriated the piece in violation of their terms of service, and it was removed. The blogger apparently had taken numerous photos from other people's Web sites and claimed all of them were his photos. Now, if you don't think that kind of thing would get under your skin, just try dealing with that kind of attitude for a decade, 8 or 10 times a year.
By the way, I am thankful to everyone who has weighed in on this discussion. It has remained civil and respectful of all viewpoints, no matter how we might disagree on some of the points. Its not like there are clear rights and wrongs in every situation; there are a lot of things to hammer out when dealing with this whole issue of who owns a piece of work, for how long, and under what conditions other people can make use of that work. These are very important issues going forward, because if it develops into a situation where artists, writers and illustrators refuse to put their best work out there for the public to enjoy for fear of misappropriation, then the Web will become a very content-poor place to explore.
I had to ask my husband what storing work "on the cloud" meant. I'm not comfortable with storing my pictures anywhere other than on my computer since that is the only way I can absolutely guarantee that no one else will use them. I think of it as my private picture album. Having said that, as I mentioned before I have never copied your work or pictures from any other web site since that's outside my area of interest and I'm also not completely comfortable with the idea. I especially think the idea of someone using your work and claiming it as their own is very odious and I'm surprised someone would stoop to that. I'm proud of the pictures I take, even if they're vastly inferior to the work of a professional, because they reflect ME and are a product of my creativity, which I do think is intensely personal and private. I completely understand why attribution is so important to you. Using someone's work without giving credit to that person does seem like stealing to me.
Paul, I am not really an expert at understanding all this legal stuff..what I do get is that you have an education in photography and you posted it on the web for us to see your beautiful roses..and cats..and other photo's I have seen of yours..and people take that photo and use it in ways that do not validate it is your photo..and in fact when you contact them they tell you to basically "shove it" is rude beyond belief. I don't blame you..See I am not creative..I can't make new roses..I am a lousy photographer..so I can appreciate what it is to make something of beauty..to grow it or photograph it..and to see it for the first time before anyone else and to know THAT YOU MADE THAT. The time, and the effort to make something beautiful and to have that product mistreated and stolen by someone else would piss me off. Thank you for the roses and the pictures. Karma my friend..karma
And now that you decided to watermark your pictures, perhaps you will update your website?
"And now that you decided to watermark your pictures, perhaps you will update your website?"
in 1998, it was a fun learning experience to hand code Web pages. WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver came along to assist in making the increasingly more complex task of managing a many-paged Web site less of a hassle. Even with tools to make it easier, the process became a chore and the tedium of it wore me down. I didn't want to be a Web technician anymore. Coupled with an increasing number of misappropriations of my content, by 2006 I was quite weary of all the work it had become. I wanted to redesign it (again!) for improved navigation and cleaner looks, but I kept procrastinating the work, knowing that it would take weeks to implement. One day I realized that I just didn't have it in me to take on such a project, so that was the end of new content.
I know, all this moaning about how much work it all is. Well, the time it took was impinging on my real work: looking after an ever expanding archive of roses and doing the work of breeding new generations. Most people don't realize that I grow between 2000 and 6000 new seedlings every year. I have to raise each one till they flower and cull the ones I don't have a use for. That, my friends, takes time, energy and money to do. I am constantly managing a frighteningly large archive of seedlings, making room in the test beds for one to two hundred new selections every year. I don't have time to sit at the computer and write HTML anymore. So, no.....I won't be reviving the old Web site anytime soon, if ever. It was a great project and some of it still has merit, so that will have to be good enough. But I appreciate you trying to twist my arm ;-)
Here is a link that might be useful: There's always my blog, ya know.....
No reputable print publication would dare to appropriate a photo and not give attribution, or they would be sued.
That is true, or at least they would bother getting copyright passed over to them, etc. Then again, there also is a group of people who have some sort of virtual kleptomania, in every community so now and then appears somebody who uses other people images as own, and it is not limited to plants, people show fake pics of their family, themselves, their house and so on. It comes out and burns in flames sooner or later and it is beyond me why people would go through so much effort to create the fake world of theirs, but oh well, some people are just crazy.
That way, I can show that I "own" the original image because there is more of the image in my original file than the one online.
I suppose it may be easier with the photos, especially of the own plant, however there are some gray zones regarding screenshots, as apparently one can in theory make a photo of the own screen, as well as use that photo for whatever artistic purposes. Usually webmasters are reasonable and do not make too much trouble out of it, but it can be a b1tch if the admins of the site are lazy, or have their ToS so that they are not responsible for the content of their clients. :)
I took about 3500 photos of roses this spring and posted a fair amount of them on HMF recently. Some of the photos took more effort than others and I had to spend about a month editing them.
All in all though....it's still just a picture of a rose. :) If somebody copies and saves it then so be it. I wouldn't be the least bit upset about it and in some ways would encourage it as it's a good source of information dissemination amongst the masses. If they claim it's their own work and whatever...I don't really care, because I'm operating under a E-alias anyways, so I don't realistically feel any repercussions of them doing that. It's just not a big(or small) deal to me.
You guys can copy, photoshop, or take credit for any of my photos.....I don't mind....it's all for the rose/photo admires or those seeking info so it's all good. ;)
I am not speaking on behalf of HelpMeFind, but as a person who has worked on the site for several years. We have worked diligently to avoid photo-theft from HelpMeFind as we want to encourage other site members who do not feel the same way you do about your photos to upload photos to HMF.
The software alters the photo file so that none of the photos on HMF can ever be used in print media, which was very important when the site was new as most nurseries sent out catalogs. There are other protections built in, too.
It's such a simple thing to ask for permission to use a photo and to give the photographer credit.
As for a nursery or a business like those on EBay to STEAL a photo, to me, it shows a lack of integrity and I would not want to do business with them.
Paul's photos are very high quality, and I presume took more trouble than snapping and some editing. His pictures are color accurate, perfectly exposed, sharp and aesthetically pleasing. I presume it takes a lot of skill, expensive equipment (and maybe software), talent, and time. Not everyone is capable of that, regardless of how many photos were taken. I can understand Paul's feelings very well.
Its not a matter of whose opinion is right or not, its about each individual deciding how they do and do not wish their work be used once it goes online. Jeff's choice is perfectly valid for Jeff, as much as mine is for me. :-)
And thank you for your kind comments, Masha.
Lyn, unfortunately despite the effort to protect copyright, photos on HMF are really easily copied for the small image use - simply take screenshot and crop it in any photo editing software. It is a bit of work-around, but users nowadays figure that much. It could be nice though to give the opportunity for the photo authors to choose for themselves if they want their photos to be copy-able, as in a way that sort of protections work against the effort to make certain kinds of roses more popular (as mouth to mouth (or e-mail to e-mail)) advertisement is very valid path of marketing or promotion.
As for the "value" of the artist work, I think it is somewhat not fair to say that Jeff's pix are somewhat of less value, because the color might be not perfect (which is ironic, as it will never be perfect due to the different screens displaying same picture differently). I find Jeffs effort and pics very valuable as they represent the plant very well - and imho that is more important than some fancy blur on the edges. As semi professional myself I admire work of Paul or Caroline Parker, but for the gardener part, I prefer Jeffs pics, as they tend to show all weird directions the plant can grow - which it probably will do in my garden also, and fancy blurs... well they happen on camera only. :)
But that's the difference really between documenting something and making art. :) One is for information booklet, another for postcards, both have their uses. :)
Leaving personalities aside, I wasn't speaking about "value", just skill of the photographer. To take a picture of which way a branch grows is perhaps valuable but technically easily achieved. Making color accurate and correctly exposed pictures is extremely difficult and very few people can do it. It stands to reason that differences in attitude are perhaps a function of the effort spent in making a picture. I don't know what "professional" means anymore, but I do know that I have tried and tried to take pictures and I am not there yet. As to making an "artistic" picture, that ability is priceless and probably cannot be taught.
Well it is kind of different kinds of technical difficulties. As anthropologist I worked with numerous photographers during field research and by far not always "renowned photographer" was a good choice, as when you need practical information rather than a nice shot it is different kind of judgment calls really. If you look at HMF, there is not that much of the whole bush shots, as well... they are just that, not always particularly pretty and it does not always occur to the people to take those shots, although information wise they are very important. From that point of view, taking yet another macro shot does not really add much new information, no matter how good it is.
As for the correctly exposed and color accurate, it isn't really that difficult, it comes with practice I suppose and experimenting with the light. Roses at least stand still while you take pictures (differently from fauna photography). ;) The more difficult thing is to capture the representation of the plant imho, as that is not merely a sum of technicalities. The most common shortcoming in that for example are macro shots of roses that generally have tiny flowers, so the viewer gets impression it is large blooming rose, making tiny roses look almost like a climber and so on. It is not always what can be achieved by just working longer on it, although practice helps of course.
But I think what it boils down in the end, it is ambition. If one is content to be just a gardener who occasionally takes a rose pic, it does not really matter that much, where that rose pic ends up. If one has an ambition to be "famous rose photographer" then of course copyright comes up in a different light, as you can't really achieve that without people knowing it is your work.
Then again, I can understand random lady saving some rose pics in her photobucket as some sort of virtual scrapbook/reference. If that lady bought a rose, all pics of it are pics "of her rose" - in a wide sense it is, as it is the representation of the breed, might even be propagated from the same plant. It is human nature not to give a rats @ss about an author of the every picture we encounter - some might care about roses, but random lets say... uhm... (insert something you really do not care about) - nope, we have no idea and do not even want to know.
interesting philosophical positions here on ownership, provenance, attribution. The internet has effected some quite profound changes. In the 1980's I worked with a photographer. We took black and white photos of rowing crews in various college races (Bumps, Head of River, Henley Regatta). The process involved setting up on the river with a cassette recorder (remember them?) and I recorded the name of each crew rowing past while Mike took the photos. We then rushed home to enlarge and develope them in my spare room, hang them up to dry, then send out a proof to every crew member at their colleges. Generally, the first proofs got the orders so we would be up all night quite often. When the orders came back, I would mount the photos on card and write the names of each crew member, college and race. You had to give something away for free (the proofs)to get something (orders) back. And boy, they were a vain lot. Every photo consisted of 5 or 9 little figures in a boat on the Cam...and every single photo looked exactly the same as every other one they had done, but I swear, they never missed a race and got one for all their relatives. I had a few fat years doing my calligraphy then. But anyway, a photo was a large shiny black and white picture, not a lot of pixels on a screen. Modernity and abstraction - confusing, no?
Somehow this thread has morphed into something altogether different from what I believe the original intent was. I can only hope that Paul will overlook some of these comments and continue to post here. His knowledge and input are very much appreciated by many of us.
Paul, I think people like hearing what you think about particular roses. I know I've gone back to your site repeatedly to see what you said about some rose I was interested in. It's too bad there's not some magazine or webzine where you could pop in periodically and talk about one of your favorite roses. I think that's part of what people really enjoy about your website. Of course, you can do that with your blog, and perhaps that's your solution. (I do think it would be fun to have articles from various rose-folks in one place though, wouldn't that be fun?) Anyway, re: your blog, thanks for linking to it!
Twice in my life I have run/helped-run massive websites archiving information about a particular subject/hobby I was interested in. Both ended up being the definitive websites on those subjects, so it was a lot of information! And I code/coded in HTML, too. :) GEEK! In both cases, I eventually gave them up... just too much work to keep up with all the new or changing information. So I can feel Paul's pain when it comes to keeping on with a website year after year.There's only so much time in the day and priorities change over time, too.
I'm a professional (drawn) artist, but I also enjoy posting drawings I do in my free time and (non-professional) photos I take online and sharing with other people with similar interests. While the information archive websites I ran for hobbies have moved on to other owners, I'll never stop sharing my artwork with people online. The positives for me, outweigh the negatives.
My work in various forms has been online probably since 94 or something... in that time period, I've had a lot of artwork stolen. Some of it by immature kids who put their name on the work for a lark... some by sellers in china who put my drawings or photos on purses and stickers. (I was never able to get a proper contact to request them to stop... they would end up on ebay from someone who bought them from someone...)
Thankfully, I've never had something stolen that effected me drastically.
I know some artists have just stopped posting online altogether because, yes, many people think that if it's online, it's free. I respect each artists choice, and you can't really blame someone for being discouraged by theft. Especially, repeated theft. I get frustrated when I hear things sometimes, along the lines of "the artist should just get over it".
My current stance for me, personally, is that I put my URL and signature on my artwork as a minor form of watermark. I probably should do that also on my photos, even though they are just a hobby for me... but right now I just can't be bothered. And I probably should put a stronger right-click protection on my website to somewhat deter theft. But as Paul said, if you're determined, you'll steal it anyway, and frankly, I get irritated by anti-right-click websites, since I tend to like to open multiple windows at the same time while browsing. And I have no reason to steal someone's photos or artwork. But what if I want to save a photo in my personal folder to look at later?
You know, we HAVE somewhere to compile a magazine with articles about roses, IF we'd use it. Help Me Find has the EZine section which I am positive, would be updated frequently if we send them things to put IN it. Want articles about your favorite rose, or what has proven good for your climate or touched you in some way? Create it and send it to roses@HelpMeFind.com . "Operators are waiting..." Kim
I was going to say the same thing Kim just said: HMF is the resource for all things roses. Write an article for HMF! I need be only two or three paragraphs. Tell everyone what you think about a favorite rose, why you like it, etc. HMF needs your support.
Here is a link that might be useful: HMF eZine for December
Great idea. Rose-related tasks can be scarce in winter:-)
Reading the threads here, I'm impressed how many who post here could EASILY write informative, educational and extremely entertaining articles which would suit the EZine perfectly. Anyone feel that shoe fits them? hehehe Get to writing! Kim
I generally give permission to anyone who asks...to use my photos of roses. I know some will be used at Brooklyn Botanical Garden a few have been used for non gardening advetising.
The site I post to Pbase makes clear that photos are mine and may not be used without my permission.
It takes time to take them an average after noon is 600 to 700 shots most of which i won't use & then they are edited & lastly batching and posting them to sites that I pay a modest amount of money to rent.
The least someone can do is say can I use that it's just what I was looking for the other experience feels like being mugged.
That is the whole point, labrea. Most of us, IF asked, permit use. It's not being asked that is offensive. I honestly see no difference between taking someone's clippers, wallet, shovel and "lifting" their photo, article, etc. If it isn't YOURS, leave it alone or ASK. It isn't less offensive for someone to take half of your lunch without asking than stealing lunch money from your wallet or purse. Kim
"It isn't less offensive for someone to take half of your lunch without asking than stealing lunch money from your wallet or purse."
It makes me wonder though, do you find it offensive then for someone to look at your garden? Or to take pictures of it? Same arguments apply really, you put a lot of work into it, it is in a way your views and likely you won't get any credit for it.
What I am talking about are lets say even pictures in HMF that are labeled "Private garden in...", or just lets say random tourist passing by and taking pics of the garden without asking for any permissions and later uploading them somewhere online.
No, it does not offend me for someone to look at or take photos of my garden. It did, however, offend me to catch the idiot running out of my garden with arms full of my roses he'd hacked my plants to gather. It has offended the daylights out of me for people to steal potted roses and even pull newly planted ones right out of the ground and steal them.
If you take a photo of my garden then return home and post it somewhere, and I find it, I would (and HAVE) thought, "How neat!
For you, or anyone else to steal the photos I took, post them somewhere else without asking, yes, that offends me.
My previous garden was in a planned community. It was 24 hour guard gate security. It was well known in the community and, though it was low budget, totally financed by my "hobby budget" and my labor, it was pretty spectacular just by the sheer size and scope of the place, not to be immodest. People would ASK for "tours" and I accommodated every one, whether I felt like it or had time to or not. I was gracious about it and loved sharing the place with anyone who was genuinely interested. One resident brought his father out to see it. The family was from another country, which one is immaterial. I spent two hours walking the father and son around the over 1200 roses there at that time, explaining what was what and why they were interesting or important. I answered all of their questions and they seemed to enjoy themselves. The son told me his father was very honored to have been so treated. Yet, the son was the SOB who returned without permission and STOLE armloads of blooms, even taking nearly entire plants so the stems would be long. He didn't ask, he hadn't been given permission. As I drove down the access road, I saw him RUN across the lawn to the parking area with his arms full of MY roses.
I have sent people visiting the place home with jars, even buckets of flowers. My sister's best friend lost her newborn and I striped the garden to make sure the child's funeral would be over the top with flowers. I have donated bucket loads to weddings, birthday parties, virtually any request made was fulfilled. Give me the opportunity to GIVE it to you. Steal it and you are dirt.
Listen, it is literally the issue of theft. Plain and simple. If it doesn't belong to you, leave it the devil alone. If it belongs to me, ASK me if you want to copy it, use it, have it, etc. If you can't/won't ask, don't touch it! The arrogance and misguided sense of entitlement people show today sickens me. It is disrespectful.
I will tell you, There is no longer free and easy access to my garden. It is walled and locked. Nothing is within reach to anyone who doesn't live here. No one enters unless I open the door. No one can even see it, unless I open the gate. I don't put things on line I don't wish to be misappropriated. I have learned to say "NO". I do not take things which do not belong to me. I ask if I wish to use something. I won't open myself up to that kind of disrespect further. What is on line, I have no control over. What I value most, won't show up anywhere else.
"Listen, it is literally the issue of theft. "
There is a group of people that feel that way about taking a picture of their garden, that's why asking. They feel it to be intrusive in their privacy, when the random person comes and takes a pic of whatever they are growing and well not everyone likes to have their house displayed online for everyone to see.
The point also is that we are often rather touchy about "our stuff", but really do not consider the issues of privacy when taking pictures lets say on the holiday trip, mostly because it is "normal" to take pictures when on your trip, we feel, as you say, entitled to capture those views and if the people do not have their garden walled, it is their own fault.
Ownership of online material is less established, with digital reference habits and offline copyright rules conflicting with each other. I do not think that it is "the sense of entitlement" when it comes to copying the the image for private use (business use is different kettle of fish), but rather a way to communicate in images rather than descriptions. If for example I see a nice arbor, there are two ways how I can possibly tell about it to somebody, either try to describe it in words (with a high chance of misinterpretation and generally failing in good description), or link to the photo. When a site does not permit direct linking to photos (like HMF for example), the user is faced with a choice, to either try that description with words, or take screenshot, upload it somewhere and link to it.
The point is that most of the time there is no sinister intention behind it all, other than just show what you really mean, using images instead of words. Of course, occasionally there is someone who would pretend it is his/her photos, but for most people those are just pictures, no more different than the letters we use to write. Pictograms if you will. In those cases I do not think that any respect/disrespect issues are involved at all, it is just communication shortcut.
Amazing thing is that all what it takes is to copyright laws to change so that non commercial use is permitted (which is likely to happen, considering that sharing methods become smarter and smarter, to the point that it won't be possible to control it anymore) and whole sense of entitlement that you own intellectual property will become void. :)
"I do not think that it is "the sense of entitlement" when it comes to copying the the image for private use (business use is different kettle of fish), but rather a way to communicate in images rather than descriptions."
I can attest to the fact that 90% of the misappropriations I encounter annually are businesses taking my "stuff" with the sole intent of profiting from the inclusion of my photos (e*ay merchants used to be a big offender, but I sense that management has cracked down on such matters). The other 10% are bloggers and newsgroups writing about roses that are taking and displaying the photos. Its not the bloggers and newsgroups using the images that has made me "touchy" about the misuse of my work, its the profiteers. The nurseries and various services that steal my photos, without attribution and certainly without seeking permission are not spared my displeasure. Its not like there isn't information on every single page of my sites that tells a visitor how to contact me, so by not asking permission, they are telling me that they know the material is copyrighted but they just don't care. Some of the individuals I have dealt with have clearly displayed through their correspondence an attitude of "well, I did it because I figured the odds of getting caught were very low." I don't think that can be called simply "a communication shortcut". And you wonder why I have become "touchy" about the misappropriation of "my stuff"!
I don't expect everyone to share in my opinion about what is fair and what is an infringement in such matters. If you want to post your photo library online and feel flattered when someone regards your work worth using, regardless of the purpose, then great. Go for it. For me, the experiences I have had are much more akin to Kim's: some people are simply exercising their grotesque sense of entitlement, and I find that offensive. I don't put my writing and photos online for those people to take and abuse. Like Kim, I no longer give tours of my collection, because potted specimens have magically vanished from the greenhouse after tours. Every nursery owner you care to speak with can tell you unbelievable tales of theft of merchandise. Sadly, it ended up being the "one bad apple" principle, for me. I've chosen not to put anything out there that I care about if it ends up being used in ways that violate my intent. I recognize that it means many people won't get to benefit from my work, but tough. I'm under no obligation. For over a decade I have hosted my work online, paying out of my own pocket to provide that service free of charge and free of advertising. If my reward for that kindness is to have to deal with unscrupulous creeps who feel entitled to do as they please with my work, then something needs to change.
"how I can possibly tell about it to somebody, either try to describe it in words, or link to the photo. When a site does not permit direct linking to photos (like HMF for example), the user is faced with a choice, to either try that description with words, or take screenshot, upload it somewhere and link to it."
There is an error in the logic of that last sentence; you have omitted a third option for sharing that information: send your friend the URL of the page where the photo/content lives. Yes, even HMF allows that. There is no reason to have to limit yourself to the taking of, and redistribution of the content when simply sharing the URL does the job.
If the infringements were all simply about sharing information rather than businesses appropriating someone else's work without compensation or attribution, I wouldn't feel as I do. But as I say, 90% of infringements are by companies that ought to know better or just don't care that they are using someone's work in violation of the creator's wishes.
And you wonder why I have become "touchy" about the misappropriation of "my stuff"
As I said, commercial use is a different kettle of fish, as it is appropriate to pay for the images used for commercial use. It also involves not only copyright maters, but also cutting down on expenses and prices in rather unfair way, as paying for a full catalog of pictures is quite an expense (and if too many businesses circumvent that part, those that play fair feel forced to resort to the circumventing as well, to stay competitive.)
There is an error in the logic of that last sentence; you have omitted a third option for sharing that information: send your friend the URL of the page where the photo/content lives. Yes, even HMF allows that.
HMF allows linking, but not direct linking to the image (which means you can embed url, but not actual image, but ok, one can do that). There also are protections when you cannot direct link in any way, apart of site bringing to the main page, or viewing requires registration, etc. That's how the habits develop, to re upload and share that way.
Just to make it clear, it is your choice to share pics or not, I have no issue with that whatsoever, also I am usually rather pedantic about references (being a scientist that works with archive material tends to do that to the people).
What I do not share though is the demonizing the whole free sharing of intellectual property. It also is in a way a fight with windmills, as it is not possible to stop the process.
you have omitted a third option for sharing that information: send your friend the URL of the page where the photo/content lives.
But Paul, isn't there a fourth option ... that the user can take their own *%@# picture, especially those who have pointed out how very easy it is to do so.
Of course they can and they most of the time do. In fact I can't recall even considering linking any of photos of the site in question, as they do not show the whole plant and there are plenty of the bloom pics to choose from even if I do not have my own, which indeed are easy to take.
Oh but of course, they are not perfect, as they do not have a brand attached, ya know, like Adidas, just more rosy pink. People can be such snobs at times, luckily we have google images to ignore them. :)
As a thread progresses, I even start to believe that people actually deserve their pics to be "stolen" for all the snobism of their attitude.
I actually don't think this argument deserves a continuation but I happen to be pedantic about references too. All references, not just those I choose to see.
Here is a link that might be useful: Gallicandy on Paul Barden's site
Darn you Mashamcl.....there goes another rose onto my want list !!!! :-))))))
I'm just now reading Nancy Steen's book, The Charm of Old Roses, and thinking I have to have room for more Gallicas....
I think Elemire has been trying to make some clear distinctions about the nature of intellectual copyright, private use of photos displayed in a public forum, along with commercial uses of individual work. Like plant breeding, the rules are clear, if difficult to enforce. That is, I can propagate any plant I like,as much as I like, regardless of where it came from or who bred it, as long as I do not sell these plants as either my own or without paying some extra commission to the breeder. Well, use of material on the net - a public forum, is much the same. I would happily print and enlarge any image which took my fancy and put it anywhere I want. So what. There are also issues of value - ie. who decides what value to something as ephemeral as a set of pixels on a screen. Are Trospero's photo's better than someone who is not a Very Important Rose personage? More valuable? The whole issue of ownership is developing in some quite disturbing ways - what if someone printed a photo of a plant which was not theirs? Taken without permission of the owner? Look, I am not being facetious here - Elemire did point up some of the pitfalls of taking photos in public, for instance and then placing same photos on net with someone else's grandaughter displayed to the world.Consider, for example for example, the proposals to copyright genetic information. How can you have it every way - to advertise on the net for free, to a potential market of millions of other net users, then to place exclusivity demands. As has been seen, there are ways to make your pics specific to you, by effecting a digital signature. The other solution, I believe eventually embraced by trospero, to remove their work from the net. So, what's the huge fuss. I download music from P2P sites and am used to accusations of piracy and stealing but fortunately, sharing and cooperative impulses are thriving and hopefully are unstoppable.
I am not being provocative and would have liked a debate concerning some of these confusing and by no means clear, issues but I feel that it has been a little sidelined by tender sensibilities and misplaced loyalty. Witness the tedious Vintage debates - again, as example of personal loyalties censoring the possibilities of either dissent or innovation.
Susan/landperson: please email me in private, when you have a moment, Thanks!
paul at agora dot rdrop dot com
I actually might be offended at some of you looking into my garden at some of the roses I grow after reading some of this.
I might stand in front of them or suggest that my roses benefit from good company so please leave.
I feel that it has been a little sidelined by tender sensibilities and misplaced loyalty. Witness the tedious Vintage debates - again, as example of personal loyalties censoring the possibilities of either dissent or innovation.
Exactly, those Vintage threads most of the time show what is wrong with this forum - you can discuss things, as long as the loyalties of a few people are not touched, otherwise it is a huge drama. The same people won't stop for a moment trashing another nursery, people, whatever, that is not on their friends list. They would make a fuzz about David Austin mentioned on the forum, as zomg modern rose invasion alert, but when it is their fellow breeder... nah, it is all fine. It is disgusting to say the least.
This thread is not much of an exception. Most are not even interested in general issues of IP, they interested in sobbing about own glorified IP (which is not even that great to be honest, so the fuzz is even more pathetic) and their little clique IP, ignoring any larger picture. If anyone has a horrible sense of entitlement, that are those people, who think their little creation is worth world recognition.
If you are good enough, people know your work without copyright attached. If you are not that good, well, then good luck suing 10 year olds for putting your IP on their facebook.
well, these issues have been hotly debated since the net appeared, unfortunately using terms such as ontological, hermeneutics, epistemiological la la la. As a bit of a web dimwit (I don't have a digi camera for instance and wouldn't know what to do with one if I did), I hover on the fringes (no social networking, no blogs or websites and I wouldn't have a clue how to do a screen capture) and wonder about how such issues of access and use are being resolved. These are interesting times as technology is evolving faster than our ability to contextualise it within a wider and looser framework of everyday life. Hey Trospero, they are still lovely pics, by the way and you seem to have resolved things to your satisfaction by separating the website (business) from a blog (pleasure)...or have i got that wrong?
I would echo Paul's request for civility. Having had the pleasure of seeing a few of my amateur snapshots share a couple of publications with Paul's highly professional work, I respect his ability to produce accurate photos of roses where the emphasis is on points of identification. I could not do that. I respect his right to handle the publication of his work in any way he thinks fit. I have less regard for the sensibilities of blurry amateurs like myself:)
I would also remind Europeans of the differences in both law and practice between the US and Europe - and even between the countries of Europe. campanula's propagating example illustrates just that - plant breeder's rights and patent law are not the same in the US.
As for the apparent feeling of alienation from the US antique rose community - yes, it is a tight knit and supportive community and I regret we have nothing so active. I would suggest taking the time and making the effort to get to know some of these people - write to them, visit their gardens, invite them to yours, join in with the Heritage Rose groups, go to international conferences, write articles for the many journals on your own experiences. Over the dozen years I've been on this Forum I have been able to get to know so many of the gardeners here - many of them travel and would be delighted to be able to meet up with you at your own garden or a public garden. I know several of the nurserymen/gardeners who receive support from their fellows on this forum, and how important that is to them. I wish we supported our struggling English nurseries with the same passion. This was once the greatest rose breeding and rose producing nation in the world, now we are down to a scant half-dozen viable nurseries.
Thank you Jon.
I'll bet Jon's pictures have been stolen countless times. I wouldn't call them amateurish at all. They are true works of art.
"If my reward for that kindness is to have to deal with unscrupulous creeps who feel entitled to do as they please with my work, then something needs to change."
But, it really is the bad percentage that we often react to, isn't it.
I'm sure you've had a ton of profiteers stealing your work, but are they really the majority of people using your work? (and by using, I mean, visiting your site, reading your site, looking at your photos.) I would guess the majority, were people who -didn't- take your stuff, and just really enjoy your website. (How many hits does your site get and how many instances of copyright violation are there?) I can totally see how you'd get tired and frustrated from having to protect your copyright. Your site was one of the first that I found when I was looking for more information on Old Roses. (Google quite likes you as I'm sure you know.) And it's your choice. So please don't think I'm blaming you.
But something doesn't necessarily "need to change". It has to change for you because that's where you're personal line of "enough is enough" is, but it's a choice. All the emails I've gotten over the years, and the friends I've made from being online and the unusual opportunities,... those to me outweigh my personal profiteers. Everyone has to make their own choices as to where that "worth it" line is. Like I said before, I have friends (who are artists) who don't post their work online for these reasons.
campanula - I think if someone owns the copyright to something, it should not be stolen, according to the legal rules of copyright (whatever that is in each instance). I don't think that it's related to how famous or even how talented the owner of the copyright is. I don't really understand why we even have to argue the worth or how "professional" something is. If you create a work of art, you own the copyright. Even if it is hideous or amateurish.
on the notion of taking photos of people's private gardens without permission. I must admit that over the past few months, when I drive by a house with a particularly beautiful garden, I stop and quickly take a photo. I've been saving these photos in a private folder on my computer. At one point, I'd thought about posting a thread sharing the photos so that other people could admire or be inspired by them, but then, I was also worried that perhaps by chance, one of the garden owners might see the thread and somehow be annoyed that I'd posted a photo of their garden without permission. So I haven't, and probably wont.
Back to Renee's initial post, thank you for keeping the site online. As aimeekitty mentioned in her post above, your site was one of the first roses sites I visited when I started growing roses. I still go back and read what you have written about various roses and the articles.
Yes, I am reading your blog, too, but I would hate to see the old site disappear ... it is a treasure.