UnoMundo Photography wrote:

A New Yorker with attitude and delusions of grandeur; you think !  No !
bashing ?  evidence ? ...find it !

Another  "catty" photographer ?

You know you can go take a sugar frosted F@#@ of the end of my D@#*$!

Howard Garcia wrote:
You know you can go take a sugar frosted F@#@ of the end of my D@#*$!

Despite your desire to engage in homosexual activities, I cannot comply.
I am dedicated to camel toes and "outies."
However, I respect your rights to your sexual preference, which ever way it pushes  you.

Ched wrote:
The Internet was designed to link information. He doesn't have any right to expect that his content will not be pointed to by other websites. If he wants everyone to go in thorugh the front door then he should use a Flash-based system that funnels users through a regimental link structure. I would not have removed the links from the blog, I would have blogged about his boorish behavior.

(my $0.02)

50 points.

Chip Morton wrote:
Is posting a link a copyright infringement? Really?

If I'm walking down the street and I overhear two people say they are looking for a good martini, should I go ask my favorite barkeep if it's OK to send them his way?

Agree with the myspace comment, heck, look at mine  http://www.myspace.com/chipmorton
but really, maybe this guy should have a members only site.

Eff him.

totally, the guy is a twat. dario mentioned about not wanting 'people assocaited with being below your level' linking to your site etc, but i didnt know the general public were seen as 'lower' than fashion photographers? i have persoanlly asked sites which also contain links to porn to take off links to my site, as i do alot of art nudes and people do link me without asking, and that i dont find helpful, but apart from that, traffic is traffic, and people simply arent going to waste their time looking at sites that dont interest them. whoever this idiot is, should be happy that people have an ingterest in his work. one day when his ego gets the better of him and hes a washed up has-been, he'll be beggin for it!

Howard Garcia wrote:

You know you can go take a sugar frosted F@#@ of the end of my D@#*$!

My Angels are gonna beat your Yankees this weekend!!

Take that you New Yorker!!

Thermogenic Photography wrote:
The strangest thing just happened to me.  A well known photographer just called my cell phone.

Not too long ago I posted a blog giving all sorts of props to a very well known photographer and I refered people to his website.  There was a short list of links directing people to specific areas of his site.  In an effort to be helpful, I used this list of about 15 or so links to refer people to the specific areas of his site.  They were just links.  Thats it. Not the actual content they were referring to.

Keep in mind that I get several thousand visitors to my blog each week.  I'm sure because of this, he got a little bit of traffic from me.

To my surprise, I got a personal phone call from this photographer to my cell phone this morning:  "Hi Tony.  My name is ___________ the photographer.  You probably recognize my name. ..."  I was pretty pleasantly surprised to get a call from such a great photographer, but then to my astonishiment he went on to completely rip me a new a-hole about my blog referring traffic to his site.  I couldn't believe it.  This guy went through all the trouble of reading through the content of my MySpace profile (he quoted parts of it) and then must have put in a serious bit of effort to research who I was and find my cell phone number to personally call me and bitch me out.   And for what?  For complimenting him and referring traffic to his website.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????

To be fair, his argument was that I was infringing on his copyright by posting the links for his site and I didn't have the right to do it.  However, I pointed out that they were just links to his content and not the content.  It was barely 15 or so links.  Regardless, I sincerely apologized to him and said that I would immediately modify the blog or remove it alltogether and again I mentioned that I was just trying to give him props and refer him traffic.  He went on to imply all sorts of threats to me, including shutting down my site and so on and so forth.  I did what I could to apologize and I immediately modified my blog.

Wow.  I'm flabbergasted.  I'm just little 'ol me.  To have someone of this stature read through all my stuff, and painstakingly research me to find my cell phone number and then call me personally to rip on me - for publically giving him props and referring traffic to his site???  What was that all about???

That's probably the only and last time I will publically give props to a well known photographer.  Geeeeeez.

I had a large adult web ring put up a nice  comment about one of my gallerys containg nudes. I got over three million hits in the next three months, and these hits used up a lot of costly band width.  I had to shut down the gallerys to stop the hits. If your blog affects his business in any way he has the right to ask you to stop.   

He could have been nice about it.

Maybe the guy does not want your traffic.

Thermogenic Photography wrote:

I have hundreds of models and photogrphers in my network there.  This guy is trying to sell his books.  So my answer to you would be "Sure.  They are potential buyers."

Aaaah, but screw it.  I deleted the blog altogether.

Ouch!

That's exactly the kind of chill (apologetic, self-censoring, BS, and I'm not talking Bobby with the stripes either) the public does not need.

So he's a Big Name with a book and quasi-celebrity status--i.e., a public figure. 

Who is he?

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
I am dedicated to camel toes and "outies."

Oh well ...that explains your bitterness towards the NYC photographers.
While you're shooting camel toe and "outies", these guys are shooting good reputable work.
Go crawl back under that rock you came from you GWC.
I'm done with you.

Howard Garcia wrote:

Oh well ...that explains your bitterness towards the NYC photographers.
While you're shooting camel toe and "outies", these guys are shooting good reputable work.
Go crawl back under that rock you came from you GWC.
I'm done with you.

OK . going crawling to my rock !  One day I will get to be a reputable photographer like you, and move to NYC.    No ! psyche !

Matt the Viking wrote:
direct linking to images or displaying images hosted on his server is bandwith theft ...

No it isn't.

Bandwidth Theft is me jacking a free ride on your wireless router - I got bandwidth without paying for it.

Hotlinking is posting a photo via HTML code in a forum outside the original hosted location of the photo in question.  If I were to post an image file that I have stored on one of my domains, that would be hotlinking.  If I posted a link to the page where that image is displayed on my website, that's just a link.

Posting a link is neither bandwidth theft nor hotlinking.  It's a text link that when clicked on either opens a different page or downloads specific content.  If the link was setup to download a photo without going to the HTML page that photo is stored, then yes, that would be an asinine thing to do.  If the link directs to an HTML page where the photo can be viewed, that's just old fashioned linking.

Matt the Viking wrote:
Its possable to prevent hotlinking but the java script tends to make the website unstable beside it impedes acceptable usage such as linking to banners on the server

Maybe I'm wrong, but judging from the tone the OP presented in not naming the photographer but mentioning his reputation, I highly doubt his website has banner ads on it.  If it does, then he should be happy - each page viewed is a banner click, and that's revenue.

Matt the Viking wrote:
how would you react if this photographer had taken $100 out of your wallet and told you he would tell his gran about your website? ....

It's pure hypothesis at this point.  The photographer in question didn't mention anything about excessive bandwidth usage or bandwidth overdrafts charged by his hosting service, so the money issue may not even be pertinent.  I'm tending to agree that the guy was just a prick who didn't appreciate the 'unwashed Myspace masses' converging on his site to peek at his work.

Class Act Photography wrote:
I just want to make it clear for the record, that everyone here can link to my site
www.ClassActPhotography.com and pay as much homage they want to me.
I won't mind at all. Thank you.

Only if you provide enough blubber for all my Eskimo friends!

Ched wrote:
The Internet was designed to link information. He doesn't have any right to expect that his content will not be pointed to by other websites. If he wants everyone to go in thorugh the front door then he should use a Flash-based system that funnels users through a regimental link structure. I would not have removed the links from the blog, I would have blogged about his boorish behavior.

(my $0.02)

Finally a response I like.  Put up a blog about what an asshole he is and then call him back and tell him about it.

Or.. contract me to shut down his site by force

Evil programmer for hire here...  "We do revenge".
-D

oldguysrule wrote:
to my mind it would be more instructive to attempt to see why this might simply appear as an attempt to elevate one's own position on the back of another? and if that is a possible read, would it not have been prudent to ask first?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.  Are you saying that everytime someone gives you a compliment and a referral that they are trying to elevate their position on your back??   Excuse me if I have interpreted that incorrectly.  It seems like a silly statement, if I have it right.

Thermogenic Photography wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.  Are you saying that everytime someone gives you a compliment and a referral that they are trying to elevate their position on your back??   Excuse me if I have interpreted that incorrectly.  It seems like a silly statement, if I have it right.

if i link to mario testino in a myspace page, what is the point? am i delivering clients (art partners would be responsible for that) or name dropping?

oldguysrule wrote:

if i link to mario testino in a myspace page, what is the point? am i delivering clients (art partners would be responsible for that) or name dropping?

Aaaah.  I see what you are saying.   So based on that same logic, if I were to post a blog saying "Hey.  I like this new Tom Cruise movie.  Everyone, you should go check out Tom Cruise's website and maybe go see his movie too.",  you would consider that name dropping and I'm just trying to elevate my position on Tom's back.  Therefore, I deserve it if Tom Cruise then calls my cell phone to bitch me out for it as well.  I don't agree with your logic "oldguysrule".

oldguysrule wrote:
if i link to mario testino in a myspace page, what is the point? am i delivering clients (art partners would be responsible for that) or name dropping?

I have a deviantART page.  On it, I regularly post information and links to size positive artists and photographers and models around the world.  I do it because I appreciate what they're about, and because I want to increase their visibility.  As a direct result (because I have a fairly popular gallery on dA), several of these artists have received paying jobs and commissions.

I think that's pretty much the same situation as what happened here.  If one of the photographers/models/artists asked me not to do what I can to promote them, I would certainly respect their wishes and take down the links.  But if they approached me all mean-like I'd be as taken aback as the OP was.

I want to understand, Rich, but I really don't.  How is giving a "kudos" to someone the same as trying to ride their coattails?

oldguysrule wrote:
not my logic per se. just offering a view for discussion. i make it useless to link to me precisely so i have less internet issues. that solves it for me more or less.

myspace is evil in the view of many. and just as an aside... tom cruise movies require far more attendance than I do projects. the last full year before my move toward retirement, i was involved in some major way with 12 campaigns, 20 look books, and a dozen or so major editorials. referrals would have been more nuisance than anything else. i was swamped as it was. a movie, on the other hand, 'can't have' too many viewers. so thats sorta apples and oranges.

i totally get that the internet is a free for all, and i love anarchy. hard to bitch about a bloodied lip while celebrating anarchy though, no?

Can't argue with that..

If the glass is half full, everyone's right..

If the glass is half empty, everyone's wrong.

And I just ran out of milk.

marian lane wrote:
WTF?? DUH!!

ahh goodie. first post and already a calm and witty style.

oldguysrule wrote:

Hey . . . ahhh . . . does this mean that the bloodied lip of an anarchists enthusiasm is the alchemists equivalent of fashion photography? Maybe it's possible the catty photographer has received said bloody lip but lacks the awareness of it's value?

Possibly that kudos and coattails, like blur and out-of-focus, depend on intent and context?

(amateurish regurgitation, I know)

marian lane wrote:
he should not even bother putting up a website in the first place as most everything on the internet becomes public domain.

Hey Genius,
Just because you post a pic on the net does NOT mean that eventually it becomes Public Domain.  Duh! 
Read up on your copyright laws so the next time you actually sound like you know what you are talking about.

Chip Morton wrote:

Hey . . . ahhh . . . does this mean that the bloodied lip of an anarchists enthusiasm is the alchemists equivalent of fashion photography? Maybe it's possible the catty photographer has received said bloody lip but lacks the awareness of it's value?

Possibly that kudos and coattails, like blur and out-of-focus, depend on intent and context?

(amateurish regurgitation, I know)

lol... without doubt. now where are my links!?

oldguysrule wrote:
keep in mind the outrage you all express when someone/anyone shits in your pool legally but without specific consent.

I don't believe anyone has a right to shit in my pool though.

DigitalCMH wrote:

I don't believe anyone has a right to shit in my pool though.

Oops!

*runs*