Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FHCNET] Fun new feature on FS Photos

Expand Messages
  • Sue-smaxwl
    I m really struggling with the attitudes about my tree vs our tree from some users of FS. This also applies to photos. What s difficult about all this is
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm really struggling with the attitudes about "my tree" vs "our tree" from some users of FS. This also applies to photos. What's difficult about all this is the cousins and siblings who did not inherited any pictures. The only time they see a photo is when someone else posts one. I could care less if someone wants a copy of a photo I have. I hope they get to know their ancestor well.

      But the thought of someone "creating" a persona of a person by using someone else's photo is unbelievable.

      I am happy to see my ancestors anywhere I can.

      Sue

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Jun 24, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Russell Hltn <RussellHltn@...> wrote:

      > Using "my" photo isn't my concern as much as placing the face of
      > an ancestor on someone else's name. As such, I'd probably put text on the
      > bottom of the picture with the ancestor's name. That should eliminate
      > honest mistakes and hopefully send the collectors somewhere else.
      >
      > Sure, it's easy to defeat by cropping, but at a later date it should help
      > prevent someone claiming that my Uncle Smith's photo is really their Uncle
      > Brown's and that I should remove mine.
      >
      > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:33 AM, David J. Wardell <
      > fhc_lists@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Unfortunately,
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > People are very inventive about collecting pictures from The Internet-and
      > > believing that anything they find there automatically belongs to them to
      > > use
      > > as they see fit.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Among my varied professional experiences has been photography and
      > > videography. Excepting images that are already public domain or that I
      > > created with no expectation that I would retain control of them, I always
      > > attach a watermark. It's at the bottom of the image and usually not
      > > especially large, but it's there.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > My reasoning is that I can't necessarily stop people from using images that
      > > belong to me (they'll just edit the image and cut the watermark off), but,
      > > if it comes down to it, I can demonstrate that I did try to establish
      > > ownership and control.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Why is that important? Because you can't predict what potentially thousands
      > > of people might do with the images years into the future. Also, to be
      > > frank,
      > > FamilySearch itself hasn't proved to be a rock of consistency.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > We just don't know, and on that basis alone (there are others), it's
      > > appropriate in my view to add a modest watermark. Other users can and do
      > > deal with the slight inconvenience.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Best regards,
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > David Wardell
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.