Jump to content
Brady Barrineau

Thank you for rejecting this image

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

You've made this personal in the way you've repeatedly asserted things about Brady he has repeatedly denied.  Yet you keep repeating your false assertions, dressing them in the veneer of "logic", as though mere repetition and your false pseudo-intellectualism gives them credence.  They do not. 

You accuse me of bringing Laurin into this when you tagged Grossinger in this first, as though his presence here will - in any way - add more light than heat to your false assertions???  LOL!

You're an arsonist in these threads, aggressively starting fires then standing passively by and asking, "What did I do?"  You know what you did, what you continue to do, and why you do it: you just can't help yourself.  So spare us all your righteous indignation for being called out - yet again - in another thread where you've spewed your falsehoods and spread your crap!  It's tiresome and we see through it!

Just sayin'.

Well, you keep going personal instead of sticking to facts. Ad hominem at its best.

Brady only denied facts. He has nothing to support that preposterous claim.

Why would someone upload stuff in order to get rejected? Does this even make sense to you?

Common man! 

PS. I dare you to give examples of the falsehoods you claim I spread. Nothing further from the truth.

I stand behind everything I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

You may shoot what you want but publishing it, especially for commercial use has limitations.

That's what I'm talking about.  Never once did I say that someone has the right to publish, broadcast or display whatever they want.  I said there is no law preventing someone from SHOOTING and SELLING whatever they want (with very few exceptions as noted in my earlier post).   But what the buyer can do with those images is another matter entirely.  I did not address that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

That's what I'm talking about.  Never once did I say that someone has the right to publish, broadcast or display whatever they want.  I said there is no law preventing someone from SHOOTING and SELLING whatever they want (with very few exceptions as noted in my earlier post).   But what the buyer can do with those images is another matter entirely.  I did not address that. 

Publishing means making it available on the web (including uploading to stock), not just writing an article.

It shows up on google and all search engines, everybody can take it, not to mention the free preview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

Publishing means making it available on the web (including uploading to stock), not just writing an article.

It shows up on google and all search engines, everybody can take it, not to mention the free preview.

I have no idea why you would quote me in your post because NOTHING that I wrote has anything to do with your reply. A total non sequitur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

Exactly ..👿

Good ol' Ole, I appreciate that you never miss a chance to honor me with your thourough and well documented arguments.

😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

I have no idea why you would quote me in your post because NOTHING that I wrote has anything to do with your reply. A total non sequitur.

It must be some misunderstanding, you quoted me in this post above, so I thought you are talking to me.

Never mind, it will not happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Well the two clips have finally been accepted without any changes and two re-submissions.

I have a friend who keeps resubmitting rejected clips until he gets rejected for the same reason twice.  Most clips go through on resubmission.

I've determined it's not even worth my time to resubmit unless it is a very special clip.  I move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

It must be some misunderstanding, you quoted me in this post above, so I thought you are talking to me.

Never mind, it will not happen again.

No problem.  I wasn't splitting hairs on what is considered publishing, as you seem to have thought.  I was just stating the fact that in the USA one person can sell anything they own to another person/company and it's not against any law.   What that other person does with the image/photo is another story.  And I agree with you that posting an image on SS for sale is a form of publishing.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm only talking about the act of making a sale which someone earlier said was sometimes prohibited by law, which it is not.  Unless it is kiddie porn or something like that that was illegal to shoot or have in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doug Jensen said:

I've determined it's not even worth my time to resubmit unless it is a very special clip.  I move on.

I agree 100%. I pushed for this one was it was special and know it will sell.

Personally, I feel it's important to highlight this sad reality instead of focusing on just pretty postcard -type scenes (which I have plenty). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 12:02 AM, oleschwander said:

Law and law - you’re right that it isn’t written clearly. At its most basic, the "right of publicity" is the right to prevent others from using you for commercial purposes without your consent. New York, for example, prohibits the use of a person’s name, portrait, picture, or voice for purposes of advertising or trade without first obtaining written permission.

Most other states have a similar law. Regardless of how a photographer in the US feels about the laws, we do well to accept that if we use a photo of an identifiable person commercially, or license it to be used commercially, we're probably doing something illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 10:58 AM, Phil Lowe said:

Couldn't have been a mistake of any kind if he was A: hoping it would be rejected and B: thanking the reviewer for doing so. 

I didn't think anyone could be this obtuse, but you're proving me wrong with every word you write here.

why would you post something hoping it gets rejected?  beyond the trollish using Tokyo tower that looks like Eiffel without any info so people would make a mistake on you can show them off... and surprisingly once this is pointed out, you delete the thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 6:37 AM, Laura Kneedler said:

I got this one rejected because of under or over exposure this weekend.

IMG_6061-2

 

Some absolutely horrific artefacts in the sky in the top left.  Its been pushed way way too far in editing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

To make a point.  Which he did. I got it with the very first post. 

 

The only point he made was after he got rejected, the second time, for the same rookie error.

The only point he made is obvious: SS is rather strict when it comes to trademark issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mandritoiu said:

 

The only point he made was after he got rejected, the second time, for the same rookie error.

The only point he made is obvious: SS is rather strict when it comes to trademark issues.

If you submit something knowing it should be rejected, then it is, how is that a mistake?

The mistake would've been the reviewer accepting the image, which is the case in any number of other submissions involving poor focus, exposure, lighting, noise, and composition!

You keep repeating the same nonsense as though repetition gives your view any more validity.  It does not.  But I'm done trying to talk you out of your willful delusion.

Have a better than average weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Some absolutely horrific artefacts in the sky in the top left.  Its been pushed way way too far in editing.

I barely edited it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laura Kneedler said:

I barely edited it.

Im seeing horrible artefacts in the sky highlights, its pink, there are halos and all kinds of things.

If its not editing (normally it is) then the camera sensor and/or lens has issues because thats not natural and normal.

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

To make a point.  Which he did. I got it with the very first post. 

make a point of what?  if it gets accepted he runs the risk of having a picture out there that breaks property rules, so what next?  I just don't get it.  To prove that maybe someone is Not doing their job properly?  Not really a nice way to treat lower rung workers to be honest, but if that's what make you feel better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

If you submit something knowing it should be rejected, then it is, how is that a mistake?

The mistake would've been the reviewer accepting the image, which is the case in any number of other submissions involving poor focus, exposure, lighting, noise, and composition!

You keep repeating the same nonsense as though repetition gives your view any more validity.  It does not.  But I'm done trying to talk you out of your willful delusion.

Have a better than average weekend.

sorry, but Barry has gone over and over after people who submit things that should be rejected as if They are in the wrong, so same should apply to him.  Also as i stated above, he is entrapping someone at the lowest level in the company into making a mistake, not really a proper way in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

If you submit something knowing it should be rejected, then it is, how is that a mistake?

...

"I did it on purpose". Lol. 🙄

That is a lame excuse for someone who made the same rookie mistake twice (including that Tokio tower with those forgotten hotel names) and doesn't have the guts to admit it. 

Moreover, he is using you, the on duty forum attorney, to defend his preposterous claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...