Photo Net doesn't sell your images. Of course they can be downloaded by anyone who so chooses. But I don't loose any sleep over someone using my Photo Net photos. I just make sure that some are posted with stock houses as well, so I at least have a chance at selling some. In fact, I've had stock houses request high res copies of images that they saw on Photo Net. But I would rather have them put to use without credit or payment than have them languish in a drawer or on a hard disk. Paul
> Ever since there was an issue with Yahoo taking images and/or designs off of > peoples freebie web sites, which if you read the fine print was legal for > them to do, I have been nervous about posting on any web space other then my > own. That doesn't mean folks can't still attempt to steal my images, but at > least I haven't given up my legal rights in any way. All these networks > being discussed, do they guarantee the owner they won't sell them to someone > else without you getting credit? > > I realize these sites give you more exposure then I'm going to get on > private web space, but it would really piss me off if I found my work used > commercially without my being credited, royalty etc. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:14 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Photo.net Changes the Rules and a Question > > > > > > I think Photosig is pretty good. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 16 November 2004 15:10 > > To: PDML > > Subject: Photo.net Changes the Rules and a Question > > > > Again, Photo.net pisses me off. > > > > Under the "old" rules, a non-member (in other words, someone who > > doesn't want to pay an annual fee, like me), one could post up to 99 > > photos in their gallery. If one went over that amount, the post would > > still go through, but any of your photos could be arbitrarily deleted > > without notice, to get your number down to 99. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > Yesterday, when I posted my most recent PAW (which only Cotty liked > > <g>), a big red notice is on my screen that I'm over my limit of ~47~ > > photos. > > > > Huh? > > > > Well, it seems that "guests" (which is what they now call me, since I > > won't pay) now have a limit of 5 photos, plus "extras". The number of > > extras one is allowed is determined by some arcane and undisclosed > > formula that has to do with how many viewings one's photos have had, > > along with how many photos one has posted. The number of extras can > > fluctuate without notice. > > > > Okay, I know, I know, I'm a cheapskate looking for freebies, and I > > have no right to complain, right? > > > > Wrong! > > > > Seems to me that changing the rules mid-stream, without notice, is > > entirely unfair. At least they could have a Sunset or Grandfather > > Clause (or whatever they call them) wherein the new rules only apply > > to new members (sorry, "guests"), and anyone who's been around for a > > while still has the same old guidelines applied to them. > > > > So, again, I'm looking for a new place to put photos. My searches in > > the past didn't prove fruitful, because anyone who wanted to view at > > those places had to sign in (don't like that). I see Boris is using > > Web Aperture, but folks don't like the resized window. > > > > Who's Amita with? Mug-something-or-other? Anyone have any thoughts > > on that place? Is it free? I really don't want to have to pay for > > this - having to put up with ads, and having my name and info go into > > a databank to be used for who knows what is about all I'm the payment > > I'm willing to make. > > > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts. > > > > cheers, > > frank > > -- > > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > >
