I have to ask, how can you have the onerous "All content copyright 2008-2012 by Mark A Clark" when nobody in their right mind would think you actually own the copyright to any of these? I admire, respect, and adore the images you bring to a greater audience, but I find it borderline crazy that you pretend you have any special right to keep these pics from being spread further. If I'm out of my league and you can tell me you own the copyright to more than 25 pics on the site I'll rescind this comment with full apologies. But the only content I can see you've produced here is headlines, content tags, and the TRULY original concept that you own photos taken long before you had opinions on composition or F-stops. And for the record: I'm not criticizing anything other than the copyright notice you've added to this content. Otherwise this site represents the better things on the internet.
Obviously, I do not mean to imply that I own the rights to the images themselves, and I have neither the ambition nor the intention to prevent the images from being disseminated. As I state just below the copyright notice, anyone is free to grab the images and use them in any way they wish. If they wish to credit this blog as where they got the image, I am appreciative, but I do not even insist on that.
My intention is to make it clear that folks are NOT welcome to take an RSS feed from my blog, post it verbatim, including my titles and my captions and my comments, to their blog with no indication at all of where it actually originated. In case you think this is unlikely, I can show you multiple examples of people who are doing exactly that. I recently began tagging my pictures with titles, as you probably noticed. Obviously, if you download the picture and post it elsewhere, the title will not show up, because it's not part of the picture, but part of the text. If you were to import an RSS feed and post that, it will show up, since you are grabbing all the text along with the pictures.
When I started this blog several years ago I had no copyright notice at all. The first person I found purloining my material informed me indignantly that I had no right to complain about him re-posting everything on my blog as if it were his because I had no copyright notice on the blog. I admit that I am not very happy with the wording of the notice I have now because, as you say, it implies that I own the rights to the images, which is silly, but I don't know how else to say it other than to copyright all the content and follow that with an immediate disclaimer providing an exception to the copyright for the individual images. Any suggestions as to a more elegant way to express this intent is more than welcome.
Perhaps it's foolish of me to even worry about it, but damnit, I do put some small amount of effort into this silly blog and it's annoying to have some bozo that can't think of anything to blog about just decide to use my content instead of coming up with his own.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoy the blog and I'm sorry that the copyright thingy annoys you. I'll think about it some more and maybe I can come up with a better way to make my intent clear.
I have to ask, how can you have the onerous "All content copyright 2008-2012 by Mark A Clark" when nobody in their right mind would think you actually own the copyright to any of these? I admire, respect, and adore the images you bring to a greater audience, but I find it borderline crazy that you pretend you have any special right to keep these pics from being spread further. If I'm out of my league and you can tell me you own the copyright to more than 25 pics on the site I'll rescind this comment with full apologies. But the only content I can see you've produced here is headlines, content tags, and the TRULY original concept that you own photos taken long before you had opinions on composition or F-stops. And for the record: I'm not criticizing anything other than the copyright notice you've added to this content. Otherwise this site represents the better things on the internet.
ReplyDeleteHi Nate:
ReplyDeleteObviously, I do not mean to imply that I own the rights to the images themselves, and I have neither the ambition nor the intention to prevent the images from being disseminated. As I state just below the copyright notice, anyone is free to grab the images and use them in any way they wish. If they wish to credit this blog as where they got the image, I am appreciative, but I do not even insist on that.
My intention is to make it clear that folks are NOT welcome to take an RSS feed from my blog, post it verbatim, including my titles and my captions and my comments, to their blog with no indication at all of where it actually originated. In case you think this is unlikely, I can show you multiple examples of people who are doing exactly that. I recently began tagging my pictures with titles, as you probably noticed. Obviously, if you download the picture and post it elsewhere, the title will not show up, because it's not part of the picture, but part of the text. If you were to import an RSS feed and post that, it will show up, since you are grabbing all the text along with the pictures.
When I started this blog several years ago I had no copyright notice at all. The first person I found purloining my material informed me indignantly that I had no right to complain about him re-posting everything on my blog as if it were his because I had no copyright notice on the blog. I admit that I am not very happy with the wording of the notice I have now because, as you say, it implies that I own the rights to the images, which is silly, but I don't know how else to say it other than to copyright all the content and follow that with an immediate disclaimer providing an exception to the copyright for the individual images. Any suggestions as to a more elegant way to express this intent is more than welcome.
Perhaps it's foolish of me to even worry about it, but damnit, I do put some small amount of effort into this silly blog and it's annoying to have some bozo that can't think of anything to blog about just decide to use my content instead of coming up with his own.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoy the blog and I'm sorry that the copyright thingy annoys you. I'll think about it some more and maybe I can come up with a better way to make my intent clear.
Thanks,
mark-