DA Photo Contest Forum / Announcements / General Announcements / New Terms / Latest Posts

RE: New Terms

kendp — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:06:52 GMT

Cherry, in my opinion one of the major earmarks of a well run message board is the quick elimination or editing of posts that are abusive of other members in any way.

It is certainly not my intent to pick on our Administrator, but his statement that he was instituting this new rule because he was uncertain of laws in this regard also concerned me. To me, regardless of the laws, it is a matter of common decency, respect for the members, and a means of promoting a spirit of "family" of participants.

RE: New Terms

kendp — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:55:17 GMT

[quote][b]Admin (12/12/2006)[/b][hr]Additionally, the new forum policy will be to remove content that is written about other users if that user requests a removal of the post. As one former member has pointed out to me, the laws in this area are not clear yet (at least not in this country) so I will choose to stay on the side of caution until the laws are more firm.[/quote]

I don't think this is adequate. What you are saying is that if one poster slams another that nothing will be done until the person who was slammed reads the post, contacts that Administrator, then waits for the Administrator to remove the slam.

If something is said about another person that will obviously be upsetting to that person, it should be removed as soon as it is seen by the Administrator or moderator. What they don't get the person being slammed can bring to the attention of the Administrator or moderator, but the responsibility for removing it should not be totally in their hands.

There is no place, in my opinion, for personal attacks on other members on a message board. PM and email options are available for use by somebody who wants to say something negative to another poster. The only reason for posting a personal attack on a message board is to publicly wound or humiliate the person being attacked.

RE: New Terms

oboy — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:52:49 GMT

Do I have to delete the following photo, because I do not have a written permission?

http://www.dailyawards.com/image_viewer.aspx?ImageID=43810

I also wanted to upload a photo of two police officer sitting on there car and enjoying the sun in Long Beach. I don't have a written permission. The photo is about 12 years old. I only have to scan the slide.

In both places the persons where aware of been photographed. And I was not the only one that was taking photos.

RE: New Terms

NiKiMoTo — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:19:53 GMT

[quote]"You must have written permission to upload images with models or recognizable people."

Where should we submit this material? Would a scan of the document with signatures be needed? Or maybe this is just CYA and this proof would be needed only in the event of a complaint. Just wondering.[/quote]

I don't think he wants to see the permissions (which could easily be faked anyway). He's just letting us know that we are responsible for
for having them, when applicable.

It's kind of like saying "You must be 18 to enter this site" and, if you break this rule, you are responsible for it, not the site owner/operators.

RE: New Terms

gretchensteele — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:29:52 GMT

[quote][b]Zeke Smith (12/13/2006)[/b][hr]Actually, the only time (so far as I understand) a model release is required is when their likeness will be used to promote. Editorial rights allow photographs of people to be displayed (newspapers, art, etc..) without a model release. So this requirement is a little odd in my opinion...[/quote]

per my attorney's advice...model release is truly only needed if you intend to profit from the likeness, either in advertising, stock, or selling to greeting/poster/etc. Say you intend to sell the shot as an art print and make 500.00 on it, you'd probably better have a model release. Also, if folks are at a public event where there is no expectation of privacy...you can get by with them for editorial use. Print the release on index card size post card, and keep a few in your bag. Many people express to me that the one thing they don't want is their picture all over the internet...

Also, when the client signs the sales contract for weddings or portrait sittings, it includes a model release and a clause that I retain all rights and may sell, distribute, enter in contests etc.

hope this helps someone.....

RE: New Terms

Zeke Smith — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:50:10 GMT

Actually, the only time (so far as I understand) a model release is required is when their likeness will be used to promote. Editorial rights allow photographs of people to be displayed (newspapers, art, etc..) without a model release. So this requirement is a little odd in my opinion...

RE: New Terms

Petmagnet — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:29:59 GMT

Most sites require 'models release' on recognizable faces/portraits.

It's standard practice and a safety net for images posted of persons without consent.

This was one of the first sites I had seen without the 'practice', so I am happy it has been initiated here.

I know I would not want an image of one of my kids posted without my express consent.

Standard pre-written model release forms can be found online. You just have to find them, and make sure they are written for benefit of both you and the model, in case liabilty issues arrise.

I am sure some of the more well known portrait photogs on here could give some great links to this material.:)

RE: New Terms

Tonka — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:37:38 GMT

*chuckling*

Dont wander too far......;)

New Terms

Admin — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:27:23 GMT

The terms and conditions for the site have been updated to better protect this site and myself moving forward. You must [url="http://www.dailyawards.com/accept_terms.aspx"]accept these terms[/url] in order to continue using the site.

Additionally, the new forum policy will be to remove content that is written about other users if that user requests a removal of the post. As one former member has pointed out to me, the laws in this area are not clear yet (at least not in this country) so I will choose to stay on the side of caution until the laws are more firm.