So you want to be a Professional?

[bretts]

Ah thanks Vic. Yes I did miss it and thanks too Smoke.

I like all the seasons eaqually at the moment but Maybe that will change as I progress

I was worried I was a bit grumpy in the last post as it is my second day without the stupid fags again.

Sorry foir being a grump

 

[Victrinia Ensor]

No worries my friend... I didn't think you were being grumpy. And it sounds like you have extenuating circumstances... Good for you by the way...

 

[Yamadori]

I was a bit grumpy in the last post as it is my second day without the stupid fags again.

Do you mean cigarettes, firewood, or gay people? You must mean cigarettes.

 

[Anonymous User]

Happy Thanksgiving!


Thanks bwaynef for pointing this out, I wish you would have just done so instead of beating around the bush so much. I could go into a long-winded diatribe about public domain, or non-commercial use, or use for educational purposes, but the simple fact is one should always error on the side of caution and attribute sources. The image in question has been cited and in the future I will also search wikkicommons for images found in the public domain.

As Walter attested to in this thread, I am privileged with having carte blanche from a number of artists, organizations and associations as far as photographs and, in some cases, articles are concerned. Still I ask permission from them each and every time, to the annoyance of some, just to error on the side of caution. Beyond asking and crediting such, as Victrinia can attest to, I also credit help with galleries, profiles, or articles, even when told it is not necessary.

This does not in any way change my thoughts expressed in this thread that images used from another forum or web-page should at least have a link to the source.

This started when Red Truck posted a picture here from the AoB Awards. I explained simply that common courtesy and etiquette calls for at least crediting the source. A lot of garbage was thrown at this well known and widely accepted practice, including an image I adapted from the public domain. However, the fact that others, even myself, have erred does not in anyway change the fact that using photos or information that is not yours should be credited to at least the source, if not the source and author/photographer.

Instead of just simply crediting the source in his post, Red Truck has argued and let others argue everything but the simple fact that such should be credited.

The Ad hominem (tu quoque) practiced here arguing that a person does not practice what he preaches, simple avoids the main issue which is that such posts should be credited. A point that Red Truck still fails to grasp, as shown by the following PM sent to me in response to a polite PM sent to him right after he made his post.


Private Message: Re: credit
November 25th, 2009, 07:24 PM
Red Truck
Member Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 53

Re: credit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Heath
Red, you should have at least given credit to the artist/photographer and a link to where you got the picture.





I see Will. Better luck next time.

Truck


His lack of understanding is shown again in his last post here....

The point is don't give me a hard time displaying photos if you are going to turn around and do the same thing. And please do not take credit for a photo you overlaid.

The point is, you were still wrong, even if everyone else in the world is wrong as well, you were still wrong.

In both cases who cares. Will should have relaxed a little that the image has seen more views here than it ever would have at AoB.

The traffic at AoB has been discussed here in the past, Care to make a little wager Al?

 

[Anonymous User]

I think it's acceptable to show a tree anytime or in any leaf configuration.

It is winter though when a leafless tree can really be enjoyed. Some of my shohin naked.

Zelkova
Hornbeam
Hornbeam

Posting trees in a thread about the AoB Awards is somehow sad, especially when you can't post them in the actual contest. Kinda like posting pictures of a girl you never dated.

...Or screaming at the player from the bleachers.....


Will

 

[Rick Moquin]

Well we knew it was going to be amusing and it is

Regardless of who is right and wrong, would you have come forward with the truth wrt the photo in question if someone hadn't pointed out the obvious? It's a rhetorical question.

The use might be educational and non-commercial, but indeed unethical!

 

[Smoke]

Posting trees in a thread about the AoB Awards is somehow sad, especially when you can't post them in the actual contest. Kinda like posting pictures of a girl you never dated.

...Or screaming at the player from the bleachers.....


Will

Where I post my pictures of my trees is my business.

You whining about it is your business...besides I wouldn't flatter yourself too much, my trees were posted here in a response to displaying diciduous trees in leaf or not. Probably something you know little about anyway. Don't worry though I am here to guide you thru the process.

Have a happy winter, Al

 

[bwaynef]

Happy Thanksgiving!


Thanks bwaynef for pointing this out,

You're welcome

I wish you would have just done so instead of beating around the bush so much.

Now you know how we feel.

I could go into a long-winded diatribe

See my last comment

...about public domain, or non-commercial use, or use for educational purposes, but the simple fact is one should always error(sic) on the side of caution and attribute sources. The image in question has been cited and in the future I will also search wikkicommons for images found in the public domain.

The image cited was NOT public domain. It was released under a very specific license requiring attribution. The license may be lenient in affording others the use of its bearer, but under a very specific set of rules.I think a safer stance than searching wikicommons for images in the publc domain (which this one was NOT) would just be to attribute the source of the images you use.

As Walter attested to in this thread, I am privileged with having carte blanche from a number of artists, organizations and associations as far as photographs and, in some cases, articles are concerned. Still I ask permission from them each and every time, to the annoyance of some, just to error(sic) on the side of caution. Beyond asking and crediting such, as Victrinia can attest to, I also credit help with galleries, profiles, or articles, even when told it is not necessary.

Your use of Walter's tree in the illustration was never a question in my mind. The tree's owner (and presumably the photographer as Walter seems accomplished in this arena as well) was very clearly displayed. The confusion came after I'd pointed out that the image in question likely did not originate from you.

This does not in any way change my thoughts expressed in this thread that images used from another forum or web-page should at least have a link to the source.

This started when Red Truck posted a picture here from the AoB Awards. I explained simply that common courtesy and etiquette calls for at least crediting the source. A lot of garbage was thrown at this well known and widely accepted practice, including an image I adapted from the public domain. However, the fact that others, even myself, have erred does not in anyway change the fact that using photos or information that is not yours should be credited to at least the source, if not the source and author/photographer.

Instead of just simply crediting the source in his post, Red Truck has argued and let others argue everything but the simple fact that such should be credited.

Before we go much further, I'll point out to you again that this image is NOT public domain. That said, you're right. 2 wrongs would never make a right. If I implied I thought RT (or whomever he is) was in the right simply because you were guilty of doing the exact same thing you were accusing him of, then I was not clear in describing the issue to you.

The Ad hominem (tu quoque) practiced here arguing that a person does not practice what he preaches, simple avoids the main issue which is that such posts should be credited.

No attack, or logical fallacy here. See my last (counter)point. Consider it more of an exposé than a fallacious refutation of anything you've said.


I commend you for citing the source of the image, though I think everyone will admit the attribution is a little buried in the article. I wonder why you've chosen to attribute this image differently than all/most other images on AoB. Still, thank you for doing what is right. Artists everywhere are rejoicing.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Well the precise topic here is intellectual property. Does a "creator" have the right to retain control of his work? I believe that the only moral answer is yes. Human ingenuity and nature makes us creative and creators. But the only idea that will keep us striving to create is the idea that we can get credit for our ideas and that perhaps (but not necessarily) profit from them. The primary focus is not on profit to the thief per se. This is why sacred music publishers prosecute church choirs who do not properly purchase sufficient quantities of sheet music and instead make copies. Those churches are NOT profiting from the performance of that music. But they are depriving the artist who created that music from his or her due as the creative force behind it. If it's good enough to use, it's good enough to support the originator. If the artist only asks attribution, is it too much?

I am an intense believer in the right of intellectual property. If a person builds something from his own property and intellect, who can say it is not his to dispose of as he sees fit? For those of us who create bonsai and write about bonsai, who is to say we should no longer have control of our trees or our articles or our photographs? Walter prefers to allow his photos to be used generally as long as it's not for profit. That's his right as a creator of both great trees and great photos.

If I prefer to only allow my materials to be used subject to payment of a set fee, who is to argue with that? If the material is good enough to warrant the charge, folks will pay it and what's done is done. If I decide to spread it around freely without attribution, I will have the satisfaction of recognizing my own prose or images and that's that.

The key is acknowledging the creator's wishes and genius as they ask. It doesn't take much to attribute a photo, or article, or other work properly. I doubt most folks will go to extremes requiring attribution according to some style book or other. Good faith goes a long way.

So the question becomes one of the intent of the borrower or the intent of the scold. If I get crazy about someone using my image in a way that is unflattering to me and threaten lawsuits and who knows what other kinds of retribution, it kind of rings hollow when I scold others about using materials I hope to have some kind of control over. It's not ad hominem, it's not any kind of logical fallacy. It's simply a refusal be be blinkered by some false expectation that the past never intrude or inform the present.

My wish: that everyone would proffer the same kind of care for others' materials that they wish for their own. Unfortunately that is quite rare.

Edit: The claim of ad hominem attack is completely specious. To qualify as tu quoque, one would have to be trying to negate the point being made. For example, "Of course we should feel free to use anyone's images or text as we see fit simply because you seem to do so every time it suits your purpose." We do not make that argument. We agree that intellectual property should be respected, but wonder why not everyone who preaches it seems to practice it.

 

[bretts]

Thats Funny Chris I was sure you had sighted fair use policy before.
See here
http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1596

 

[Anonymous User]

Now if you use someone elses art work (photo) and do not give them credit but you use it to photoshop or alter and you put your name as the artist that is plagiarism, a totaly new and different matter.

1) As I said eariler, I will not dive into fair use, or non-commerical, or educational, or public domain arguements here, the image should have been credited since it was put up for public use provided the source was credited.

2) I never claimed ownership of the tree or the picture, only for the alteration, illustration, the work and idea of combining the two images. I cited one source but not the other, clearly a arguement of copyright infringement (not plagerism, sorry) could be made and quite possibly successfully defended against on the grounds of fair use on a non-commercial site, but the simple fact is that Wiki should have been credited, this I fully agree with and have said so in this thread.

3) This started when you failed to cite a source in this very thread, a slight you have failed to correct yet. You are very quick to toss stones here, but very slow to admit your own wrong, or correct it. How about it Red? Is it just wrong for me, or is it wrong for anyone?

Thats Funny Chris I was sure you had sighted fair use policy before.
See here
http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1596

Rats, you beat me to it.



Some other illustrations by myself, for fodder:


1) For "The Force" by Antoni Payeras, Bonsai by Walter Pall.

2) For "A Bonsai Epiphany" by Vance Wood, Bonsai by Vance Wood.

3) For "Blind In One Eye" by Walter Pall, Bonsai by Walter Pall.

4) For "It's All Mr. Yoshimura's Fault" by Vance Wood.

5) For "Classical vs. Naturalistic = Useless Debate" by Andy Rutledge, Bonsai by Dorothy Schmitz


All images below from the Eristic section at The Art of Bonsai Project

 

[bretts]

As I said eariler, I will not dive into fair use, or non-commerical, or educational, or public domain arguements here

Thats funny I was sure you where the one that brought it up?

 

[Chris Johnston]

Yes I have cited fair use before. Nothing in my post precludes fair use. As I said, if you are going to be a scold about it, you should strive to set the bar as high for yourself as possible.

 

[Smoke]

Yes I have cited fair use before. Nothing in my post precludes fair use. As I said, if you are going to be a scold about it, you should strive to set the bar as high for yourself as possible.

That is it in the nutshell...I've said a few times live by the sword , die by the sword.

Man..this is timely...I have not even had the time to talk about the huge glaring editing nightmare in "Mission of Transformation". I love it when someone makes themself such a target. Sometimes they just get lobbed to ya and you have no recourse but to take a swing.

ahhh..well it's a holiday weekend.


mmmmm...leftovers

 

[greerhw]

mmmmm...leftovers[/QUOTE]

pretty much like this thread.........

keep it green,
Harry

 

[Attila Soos]

I have not even had the time to talk about the huge glaring editing nightmare in "Mission of Transformation".

Why, what happened with the editing?

 

[Anonymous User]

That is it in the nutshell...I've said a few times live by the sword , die by the sword.

The actual quote you are butchering is “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." and the citation you missed while still harping on me for the same is - King James Version of the Bible, Gospel of Matthew, 26:52

Man..this is timely...I have not even had the time to talk about the huge glaring editing nightmare in "Mission of Transformation".

It took you long enough, I thought this would never be brought up, however I was sure Chris would be the first to jump on it. Bring it on Al, but may I suggest you gather all the facts on the editing first, as much as I, to quote you, "love it when someone makes themselves such a target" I think this will be much more interesting with a fair warning. Let's start with a hint, just to be fair, do you really think I would have put William Valavanis's name under my own picture? Also, please be careful you don't inadvertently drag someone else though the mud in your continued attempt to "target" me, as Chris recently did.

Since, Cris and Al and the regulars are here and lined up, it looks like we have another Will Bash thread and since you can't help but to study my works (which sure beats being ignored any day), bring it on.

Someday when you actually do something other than talk, maybe I can play the role of armchair quarterback and scream at the real players from the bleachers.....



Will

 

[Chris Johnston]

The actual quote you are butchering is “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." and the citation you missed while still harping on me for the same is - King James Version of the Bible, Gospel of Matthew, 26:52


It took you long enough, I thought this would never be brought up, however I was sure Chris would be the first to jump on it. Bring it on Al, but may I suggest you gather all the facts on the editing first, as much as I, to quote you, "love it when someone makes themselves such a target" I think this will be much more interesting with a fair warning. Let's start with a hint, just to be fair, do you really think I would have put William Valavanis's name under my own picture? Also, please be careful you don't inadvertently drag someone else though the mud in your continued attempt to "target" me, as Chris recently did.

Since, Cris and Al and the regulars are here and lined up, it looks like we have another Will Bash thread and since you can't help but to study my works (which sure beats being ignored any day), bring it on.

Someday when you actually do something other than talk, maybe I can play the role of armchair quarterback and scream at the real players from the bleachers.....



Will

Will,
I'm not sure what you think you are being targeted for or why you think I am doing so. Everything isn't about you and as I said before, it never crossed my mind that you were the "guerilla marketer" behind the bad taste. If you can leave me out of these things, I'd appreciate it. I said my piece on intellectual property. I never mentioned you nor did I make any baseless accusations such as you just did in this particular post.

It's been many moons since I partook of the dubious pleasure of Will Bashing. It's lost its savor. So I'd appreciate you leaving me out of this. I'm just enjoying your show.

 

[Anonymous User]

..... without credit or attribution.

You mean like this... http://bonsainut.com/forums/showpost.php?p=41494&postcount=148

 

[bretts]

Yes I have cited fair use before. Nothing in my post precludes fair use. As I said, if you are going to be a scold about it, you should strive to set the bar as high for yourself as possible.

I thought you might say something like that Chris

The problem is that your conclusion at the beginning of your post

Does a "creator" have the right to retain control of his work? I believe that the only moral answer is yes

And the reasons you give for this conclusion.

If a person builds something from his own property and intellect, who can say it is not his to dispose of as he sees fit?

If I prefer to only allow my materials to be used subject to payment of a set fee, who is to argue with that?

The key is acknowledging the creator's wishes and genius as they ask

Are in fact contradictions of the fair use policy