Use Their Work Free? Some Artists Say No to Google

[Howard M. Paul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/business/media/15illo.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

[David Sanger-3]

Howard.

On the other hand some photographers see the custom skins on home
Google pages as an excellent advertising opportunity.

http://www.google.com/ig/directory?type=themes&cat=naturecampaign

Ocean Blue by National Geographic - http://j.mp/4njGPj
Jim Brandenburg - http://j.mp/10Wb8M
Art Wolfe's Travels to the Edge - http://j.mp/o7LIa
Ansel Adams Gallery - Add to your homepage http://j.mp/1YFxO

-----
david sanger photography llc
travel ::  stock :: photography :: technology
updates at www.davidsanger.com
t   510-526-0800
m 510-526-2800


On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Howard M. Paul <hmpaul@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/business/media/15illo.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
>
>

[dawn-2]

Most people who use these wouldn't even know the name of the artist, so it's
a bit of an empty accolade, is it not?  As for Google, well, it was Google
images that really "legitimized" people "borrowing" images off the web so it
doesn't really surprise me they take this attitude.

Recently, I also found an addon being promoted on the Firefox site, the sole
purpose of which is to "lift" images off websites and save them as
backgrounds, files or copy them to other sites.  It's discouraging that
these kinds of tools get public endorsement and that large outfits like
FireFox fail to see anything wrong with that.

dawn

2009/9/14 David Sanger <ds@...>

> Howard.
>
> On the other hand some photographers see the custom skins on home
> Google pages as an excellent advertising opportunity.
>
> http://www.google.com/ig/directory?type=themes&cat=naturecampaign
>
> Ocean Blue by National Geographic - http://j.mp/4njGPj
> Jim Brandenburg - http://j.mp/10Wb8M
> Art Wolfe's Travels to the Edge - http://j.mp/o7LIa
> Ansel Adams Gallery - Add to your homepage http://j.mp/1YFxO
>
> -----
> david sanger photography llc
> travel ::  stock :: photography :: technology
> updates at www.davidsanger.com
> t   510-526-0800
> m 510-526-2800
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Howard M. Paul <hmpaul@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/business/media/15illo.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
> >
> >
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Picture Partners]

Dear listmembers,

We are busy with a big clean up of our analoge images. The paper shredder works fine for medium format,
but does anyone have a good idea how to destroy (cheap) about 100.000 mounted 35mm transparencies?
Thanks for any good idea in advance!

Frans Rombout
www.picturepartners.nl
 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[cgratsky]

Just toss them in a bucket of water.  In about three days the  
emulsion will fall off.

Best,

Chris
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Picture Partners wrote:

> Dear listmembers,
>
> We are busy with a big clean up of our analoge images. The paper  
> shredder works fine for medium format,
> but does anyone have a good idea how to destroy (cheap) about  
> 100.000 mounted 35mm transparencies?
> Thanks for any good idea in advance!
>
> Frans Rombout
> www.picturepartners.nl
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
>     Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
>   Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
>     STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
>      STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[jtf22001]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., David Sanger <ds@...> wrote:
>
> Howard.
>
> On the other hand some photographers see the custom skins on home
> Google pages as an excellent advertising opportunity.

Seems to me the fact that a large org such as Google paid for use of my image would make it seem an even more excellent advertising opportunity.

[Picture Partners]

Thanks Chris,

I started a test with 100 slides in a bucket of water yesterday!

Best,
Frans
www.picturepartners.nl





  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Chris
  To: STOCKPHOTO@...
  Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Clean Up


    Just toss them in a bucket of water. In about three days the
  emulsion will fall off.

  Best,

  Chris
  On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:19 AM, Picture Partners wrote:

  > Dear listmembers,
  >
  > We are busy with a big clean up of our analoge images. The paper
  > shredder works fine for medium format,
  > but does anyone have a good idea how to destroy (cheap) about
  > 100.000 mounted 35mm transparencies?
  > Thanks for any good idea in advance!
  >
  > Frans Rombout
  > www.picturepartners.nl
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  > ------------------------------------
  >
  > ----------------------------------------------------------
  > Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
  > Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
  > Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
  > STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
  > STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
  > ----------------------------------------------------------
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >



 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Paul Aparycki]

Drop them into a bath of good old h2o . . . the world's best, and cheapest solvent. In a day or so they will be worthless sludge.

 

BUT, before you do that, consider that the movie industry with resources that far outstrip your's or mine, go to great extremes to PRESERVE their film. Why? Because it is a solid, archival medium. In the world of BS digi-this-digi-that we have already gone through a series of "ultra reliable new age, whoop-de-doo, this is nirvana, mediums that are no longer readable . . . i.e. read WORTHLESS". Before you "clean" house, take some time to clean and clear your thoughts. You might be making a HUGE mistake.

 

good luck

 

Paul Aparycki
     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Picture Partners]

Hi Paul,
You're absolutely right. I've never used Kodachrome for instance,
but even most of our 20- or 30 years old Ektachromes are still looking pretty good.
But I am not intent to destroy my entire slide archive.
Just the ones that have no commercial- or creative value anymore.
We use to shoot extra film in the period we had about 12 or more agencies;
over- and under exposures, so called "in camera duping", etc., etc.
We will keep all the transparencies that are scanned, (a few thousend)
the so called 'highlights' plus our negatives, because yes, one never know...
Someone advised me (off list) about H2O, so I did a test with Fuji-film.
It worked more or less, although It took at least a week before the images started to fade.
 
Thank you for your warning!

Regards,

Frans
www.picturepartners.nl






  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Paul Aparycki
  To: stockphoto@...
  Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:43 PM
  Subject: RE: [STOCKPHOTO] Clean Up


   
  Drop them into a bath of good old h2o . . . the world's best, and cheapest solvent. In a day or so they will be worthless sludge.

  BUT, before you do that, consider that the movie industry with resources that far outstrip your's or mine, go to great extremes to PRESERVE their film. Why? Because it is a solid, archival medium. In the world of BS digi-this-digi-that we have already gone through a series of "ultra reliable new age, whoop-de-doo, this is nirvana, mediums that are no longer readable . . . i.e. read WORTHLESS". Before you "clean" house, take some time to clean and clear your thoughts. You might be making a HUGE mistake.

  good luck

  Paul Aparycki


  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sandra Nykerk-2]

Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water after you
soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a bucketful of
toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?

Sandra Nykerk

[Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock]

I'm guessing you've never processed your own film?

Stacy


On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sandra Nykerk wrote:

> Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water after  
> you
> soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a bucketful  
> of
> toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?
>
> Sandra Nykerk
>
>
> _.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Peter Bennett-8]

From: Sandra Nykerk <snykerk@...>
>
> Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water after you
> soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a bucketful of
> toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?
>
> Sandra Nykerk

Something to definitely be considered. I disposed of transparencies by
simply sticking a small Exacto blade through a stack of them at a time and
then taking them to the recycling center. Most plastic has a limited
recycling life and doesn't get turned into things like water bottles or
other consumable containers. Typically recycled plastic is turned into
things like furniture and other hard construction materials.

If your interested, you can see an example of some lawn furniture made from
recycled milk jugs I just shot.

http://tinyurl.com/ybmm38t


Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com





>

 

[Rick Boden-2]

You can get inexpensive shredders that do CD's, credit cards and such.  I
imagine they would do 35mm slides.  Here's an example:
http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/cat_sku.asp?CatIds=,&webid=740127

Rick

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Peter Bennett <pb@...> wrote:

>
>
> From: Sandra Nykerk <snykerk@... <snykerk%40mcn.net>>
>
> >
> > Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water after you
> > soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a bucketful of
> > toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?
> >
> > Sandra Nykerk
>
> Something to definitely be considered. I disposed of transparencies by
> simply sticking a small Exacto blade through a stack of them at a time and
> then taking them to the recycling center. Most plastic has a limited
> recycling life and doesn't get turned into things like water bottles or
> other consumable containers. Typically recycled plastic is turned into
> things like furniture and other hard construction materials.
>
> If your interested, you can see an example of some lawn furniture made from
> recycled milk jugs I just shot.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybmm38t
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> >
>
>  
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Sandra Nykerk-2]

Actually, I have. Which is why I posed the question.

[newuncleme]

FireFox is a Mozilla based project -- it's not actually a storefront so much as a collaborative, volunteer project.  If you use it you are using it for free, including all the work that has been donated.  It's an odd concept, no?  Except for how widespread it is.

I'm familiar with the addons and plugins that allow defeating simple javascript 'protections' against downloading, zooming (using another plugin), downloading images and other content to save, looking through the browser cache and saving files from it, etc. There are some that are designed to d/l flv files, and even decode them on the fly.  

I'm of the school that if you put it on the web, you should reasonably expect people to hang onto it if they like it.  Post low-rez, watermark, stamp © (c) symbol and statement, submit your work for copyright protection, etc.  Seriously, the old argument stands that if you leave the key in the door, it's hard to have any credibility whining about people entering ....

/..


--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., dawn <dawn.campbell@...> wrote:

>
> Most people who use these wouldn't even know the name of the artist, so it's
> a bit of an empty accolade, is it not?  As for Google, well, it was Google
> images that really "legitimized" people "borrowing" images off the web so it
> doesn't really surprise me they take this attitude.
>
> Recently, I also found an addon being promoted on the Firefox site, the sole
> purpose of which is to "lift" images off websites and save them as
> backgrounds, files or copy them to other sites.  It's discouraging that
> these kinds of tools get public endorsement and that large outfits like
> FireFox fail to see anything wrong with that.
>
> dawn
>

[Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock]

Hey Sandra,

I suspect most old school photographers who are comfortable with  
photographic chemistry like Bleach/Fix, Selenium, Potassium  
Ferrocyanide, Sulfuric Acid,  Acetic Acid, or that old carcinogenic  
Kodak Film Cleaner, aren't going to think twice about a little  
emulsion sludge. They'll probably dispose of it the same way they  
dispose of the rest of their by-products of the photographic process,  
which often means not flushing it down the drain, all at the same time.

Those who came to photography after the digital transition or have  
their film processed by a lab, and are more accustomed to a green  
working environment, might be inclined to treat it as toxic waste. I  
often re-wash old film and dump the Photo-Flo down the drain. My  
understanding is that it's no more harmful than dishwashing liquid and  
there's certainly less fixer in there than the first time I washed it.  
On the other hand, when I want to dispose of old negatives,  
transparencies or prints, I use a table-top shredder I bought at  
Staples. It also does credit cards, CDs, DVDs, and junk mail.

Stacy




On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Sandra Nykerk wrote:

> Actually, I have. Which is why I posed the question.
>

>

>

> I'm guessing you've never processed your own film?
>
> Stacy
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sandra Nykerk wrote:
>
>> Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water  
>> after you
>> soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a  
>> bucketful of
>> toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?
>>
>> Sandra Nykerk8934

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[wareham2006]

These people used to get my chemical waste from developing:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemokar
I would imagine that the OP would have a similar service in their gemeente which they may very well be making use of.
regards,
Richard Wareham

> Those who came to photography after the digital transition or have  
> their film processed by a lab, and are more accustomed to a green  
> working environment, might be inclined to treat it as toxic waste. I  
> often re-wash old film and dump the Photo-Flo down the drain. My  
> understanding is that it's no more harmful than dishwashing liquid and  
> there's certainly less fixer in there than the first time I washed it.  
> On the other hand, when I want to dispose of old negatives,  
> transparencies or prints, I use a table-top shredder I bought at  
> Staples. It also does credit cards, CDs, DVDs, and junk mail.
>
> Stacy
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Sandra Nykerk wrote:
>
> > Actually, I have. Which is why I posed the question.
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> > I'm guessing you've never processed your own film?
> >
> > Stacy
> >
> >
> > On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sandra Nykerk wrote:
> >
> >> Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water  
> >> after you
> >> soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a  
> >> bucketful of
> >> toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?
> >>
> >> Sandra Nykerk8934
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Paul Aparycki]

Sandra, a good point, but unfortunately a little too much hindsight. The manufacture of film, and all it's nasty bits, then the processing of film, which washes away x amount of the emulsion within a bath of alkalis, then possibly some really juicy acids, ALL of which are/have been flushed down the drain with water . . . well, you get my drift. As for the digi gurus, well all those circuit boards (trillions by the day) are made using heavy metals which are even worse for the enviroment than the old film/soup combo ever was. The only enviromentally friendly photography was practised by Fred and Barney who used polarock, . . . you know, that little bird that whittled away the image on a stone slab. A little rock dust, AND an image that would last for tens of thousands of years with no chemical treatment . . . ahhhh, those were the days ;-))

 

enjoy your day,

 

don't drink the water, don't breathe the air


all the best

 

Paul Aparycki


To: STOCKPHOTO@...
From: snykerk@...
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:12:18 -0600
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Clean Up

 



Just wondering what kind of chemical soup ends up in the water after you
soak transparencies . . . would you not then end up with a bucketful of
toxic waste that needs to be disposed accordingly?

Sandra Nykerk








     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]