Michael Markey
Veteran
The early cameras had "Buddha" ears .
My `55 M3 has them ....don`t know when they converted to conventional lugs.
My `55 M3 has them ....don`t know when they converted to conventional lugs.
jawarden
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Whole books of mine have been stolen and put up on the web, and the fence (website) holding the thefts refuse to take them down unless I jump through a lot of American legal hoops, referring me to their "Terms and Conditions" which of course I never signed, because I have no desire to deal with someone who plays host to a nest of thieves.
You'd think it would suffice that I can prove I'm Roger Hicks and that I wrote the books, but no. They're called issuu and they are no better than the thieves they shelter. Their so-called Help Page is at https://help.issuu.com/hc/en-us and you'll see that they make no provision for those whose copyright has been stolen.
Cheers,
R.
mich rassena
Well-known
I found the reaction to the author's words to be way overblown. I guess film users feel attacked on all sides these days, so I've seen several people promising to boycott Adorama over this opinion piece.
I dislike the sense of entitlement people are showing. People act like they're personally offended, betrayed even. I'm sure if the shoe was the on other foot, digital users wouldn't be reacting the same way. "Why I'm going back to film and ditching digital" just wouldn't raise any hackles even though Adorama must by this point sell mostly digital products by volume. Maybe it's because film users are part of a small minority of photographers now that the feelings are especially acute. Adorama and other sellers can cater to the digital majority and ignore the rest and not have it significantly hurt their bottom line.
Now the misuse of the M3 image can't be called a mistake, because of the removal of the watermark, unless that image is found elsewhere without the watermark, and that's the image that was used. This really crosses the line and undermines my sympathy for the author of the article, if he was the one that furnished the image.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Why go to all the trouble of downloading an image, removing the watermark, and inserting the image in the article as a place holder. Why not just type "[insert M3 image here]". The excuse is simply not believable. I also cannot believe Adorama bought it. It is so laughable it makes them culpable.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Few years ago I asked M. Resnick's permission to translate and publish his article about Winogrand. In 2017 I asked permission from author of "Class time with Garry Winogrand". It took me some time.
Yet, I have my online pictures and my own articles stollen. I also never have intention to sell them... Just ask. But only old-style Cosmopolitan asked me officially for publishing rights.
I wonder if new EU regulation for protecting of personal data online which will be effective on May might help you. Yours books is your personal data and they are using it without permission online. In this new regulations stealing of personal data is upto 25 millions in fines.
hendriphile
Well-known
I'd be willing to let him use the image of my 1960 M3 for much less than $1K!
Last edited:
Photog9000
Well-known
What angers me about what Resnick stated was that the image was just used as a "placeholder". If that was the case, you would want to remind yourself that it was a purloined (love that word!) image that needed replacing BEFORE publishing. I really have trouble believing Resnick's response as the truth.
Photog9000
Well-known
TOTALLY AGREE!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks for the idea. That would be nice! I'm not terribly fussed by my own financial losses, which possibly were not all that great. But I'd like to see those thieving swine* stopped in their tracks and heavily punished.
*EDIT: Sorry, that was unfair to swine. But then, there are always some people in any group who are irreproachable.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
Well... Gosh.... You mean there are other people on the internet who do this sort of thing too? I always thought that everyone on the internet was always totally honest!
Cheers,
R.
Bille
Well-known
Uncalled for generalization.
rjbuzzclick
Well-known
I saw something that said that the reflections on the front lens element were the dead giveaway.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
I am really upset that the guy did not stole the image from me. I have so many photos of the M3 and I could use $1,000. Somehow, I do not like Adorama and BH forcing me to observe their Sabath. While they are closed, I have been buying from Freestyle. And it seems that that is the way to go. They do not discriminate between digital and analog photography users.
aizan
Veteran
people seem to be assuming one particular sequence of events and motivations when the reality could be many other things. the dastardly version of events goes like this: resnick is writing the blog post, and when he gets to the part about his m3 (because he's lazy and conniving), he does a google image search, downloads the first image, opens it in photoshop and erases the watermark, then uploads it to wordpress, adds it to the post, finishes writing the post, then clicks publish.
i doubt that's what happened. first of all, ken rockwell's photo is the top search result in google image search, and it's easily recognizable to just about anyone in the online rangefinder community (who the heck hasn't googled 'leica m3'?). if resnick was trying to be sneaky, he would have looked for a more obscure image. and why would he steal an image if he had written an article about it and it's a professional concern of his? it's a real stretch of the imagination to believe that resnick had bad intentions.
second, when you're writing a rough draft, you do what resnick did: get one of the top search results and stick it in. later on you prepare illustrations for the final draft. there's nothing unsavory about using a placeholder. that's just the writing process. why not just type in [insert M3 image here]? because people do things differently, of course.
we can only speculate on how the watermark was removed and who did it. maybe resnick did it, or maybe it was someone else at adorama (such as the current editor, who probably would have been the one who did the final review and clicked the publish button, or maybe an intern who didn't know any better). ever think of that? they never say by whom the image was altered.
x-ray
Veteran
I have several hundred documentary images of the legendary moonshiner Popcorn Sutton that I registered the copyright on that have been repeatedly stolen. The chinese have filed them off, produced Tshirts and put them on sale on Amazon. I've filed complaints no less than 5 times and each time they've been removed but in short order they're relisted under different suppliers names. Finally I succeeded in breaking their spidti and they gave up.
In addition I caught one well known country musician using three of the images in a country music video. This one almost sent to court to get them removed.
I've sold these images many times to quiteca few major magazines and they've been published in both print and on line. On line has made it easy for them to be ripped off. I've even caught people photographing my images with their dslr and cellphones during gallery and museum shows.
Over the past 9 years I've busted copyright violaters from the US to Norway.
A couple of years ago my daughter in law contacted me with Etsy links of people ripping off my x-ray art. The one notable offender was an art instructor at the Art Institute In Chicago. She was producing cards, buttons and other items not only from my art but from Disney art. It was pretty easy to get that one stopped.
I even caught one guy on eBay that deals in vintage prints selling copies of my documentary images that he'd put his own copyright mark on. When I contacted him I asked why he did that because it's a major violation of copyright laws. His response was he didn't want anyone to steal it. Go figure.
The KR thing is minor. He did wrong but it was small potatoes and KR was compensated $1000 for something that might have brought $100 if bought from a stock agency if he'd been lucky.
The lesson, pick your fights when they're worth fighting otherwise you'll drive yourself nuts. This one wasn't worth getting your panties in a wad over it.
In addition I caught one well known country musician using three of the images in a country music video. This one almost sent to court to get them removed.
I've sold these images many times to quiteca few major magazines and they've been published in both print and on line. On line has made it easy for them to be ripped off. I've even caught people photographing my images with their dslr and cellphones during gallery and museum shows.
Over the past 9 years I've busted copyright violaters from the US to Norway.
A couple of years ago my daughter in law contacted me with Etsy links of people ripping off my x-ray art. The one notable offender was an art instructor at the Art Institute In Chicago. She was producing cards, buttons and other items not only from my art but from Disney art. It was pretty easy to get that one stopped.
I even caught one guy on eBay that deals in vintage prints selling copies of my documentary images that he'd put his own copyright mark on. When I contacted him I asked why he did that because it's a major violation of copyright laws. His response was he didn't want anyone to steal it. Go figure.
The KR thing is minor. He did wrong but it was small potatoes and KR was compensated $1000 for something that might have brought $100 if bought from a stock agency if he'd been lucky.
The lesson, pick your fights when they're worth fighting otherwise you'll drive yourself nuts. This one wasn't worth getting your panties in a wad over it.
Huss
Veteran
They are not forcing you to observe their religious practices.
You do know Freestyle is closed on Sundays, don't you?
mich rassena
Well-known
I agree, just because the author's name is attached to the article does not mean that the author had full responsibility for all of the content on the page. It's just as likely the author handed the text off to someone else. The only sticking point is the claim that the image was of the author's M3, when that wasn't the case.
Clearly, someone messed up, and Adorama took responsibility by paying $1K to the Rockwell. We'll see how this plays out. If Adorama doesn't run any more pieces from the author, we'll have an answer.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
And they’ve done it again, ripped off a Japan Camera Hunter article and photos about an old M2...
https://www.adorama.com/alc/the-inc...r-photographer-sean-flynns-long-lost-leica-m2
https://www.adorama.com/alc/the-inc...r-photographer-sean-flynns-long-lost-leica-m2
Huss
Veteran
"It was offered to used camera expert Bellamy Hunt, who lives in Japan and blogs as Japan Camera Hunter. “I have been very lucky throughout my career to have found some amazing cameras,” notes Hunt on his blog, “but every now and again you come across something that sets itself apart. This is one of those cameras.”"
"Read the entire story on Japan Camera Hunter."