This is not the point. I was planning on upgrading to Pro this year, but since you have chosen to gouge people for this, I will make the change elsewhere. Which in truth all we hear is sorry your leaving, which in my mind shows a lack of regard for longtime customers.
See this is a problem because I disabled printing on all of my galleries globally using SMs software.
And therein lies one of the many problems. Why does Smugmug think it has the right to sell and print my photos, when I pay for this service? And also does this also mean you can sell say digital copies under the same reasoning? You know I think I may double check DMCA at the Copyright Office and see if this is a back door violation. Because I did not see anything in the terms of use specifying that SM had riights to my work.
First I must Thank-You very much for showing that despite my having turned off printing did not turn it off in reality. When I complained about this and the Pic Collecting BS, I was told to opt out, and to pretty much get over it. I knew in my heart I should have left then. I will see if what they are doing is first legal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which I do not believe it is. They are clearly using their customers works to make money, but they claim to make nothing. Yeah and Santa is coming to my house in December. They and their printers make something from it or they would not do it. I have asked before and never received an answer as to how this is not a violation of my Copyright. Maybe now I can get one now, but I think I will once again hear crickets.
Suggest we all keep a very serious eye on this, and I'm sure we'd like clarification from SM management, yes?
Don't hold your breath. SM seems to be a bit light in the explanation department these days.
Exactly!
This will be the third or fourth time I have tabled the question. I have even put it on their FB site which I will see if I got it there yet. But I highly doubt it. If anything they may have deleted it in such a highly public area. My concern is valid, and I do not think I am over reacting. But the management may see it differently.
Exactly!
This will be the third or fourth time I have tabled the question. I have even put it on their FB site which I will see if I got it there yet. But I highly doubt it. If anything they may have deleted it in such a highly public area. My concern is valid, and I do not think I am over reacting. But the management may see it differently.
Joves - I've responded to your posts here as well as Facebook - they're not deleted and you can see them.
You've also posted several times that you're disatisfied with our response to folks that let us know that they are leaving, and that us saying we're very sorry to hear this is unacceptable. This makes no sense, what would you have us say?
And looking about your site, I'm not seeing any items available for sale - could you link a gallery where PRINTING is disabled but prints are purchasable? I'll be happy to take a look for you -
Joves - I've responded to your posts here as well as Facebook - they're not deleted and you can see them.
You've also posted several times that you're disatisfied with our response to folks that let us know that they are leaving, and that us saying we're very sorry to hear this is unacceptable. This makes no sense, what would you have us say?
And looking about your site, I'm not seeing any items available for sale - could you link a gallery where PRINTING is disabled but prints are purchasable? I'll be happy to take a look for you -
You people do not get the point at all do you? You do understand Copyright am I correct? You do understand the DMCA correct? I am asking why is it that SM even think it has the right to allow printing of other peoples materials without their knowledge? It is not like SM is a free site. You pay to securely store your photos for viewing nothing more. Allowing anyone who browses the site to print anyones photos without the owners knowledge is an End Run around the owners rights for that work. This is a matter of principle. While you may not have printed any of my photos how are we as customers to know that? Since the chain that initiates the whole process does not inform the owner of the work. The printing feature for non-Pros needs to be gone, if someones friends or family want a print then they will, or can contact the person, and then they can get it done through you. But the way this is setup anyone can order prints, and that is wrong.
You people do not get the point at all do you? You do understand Copyright am I correct? You do understand the DMCA correct? I am asking why is it that SM even think it has the right to allow printing of other peoples materials without their knowledge? It is not like SM is a free site. You pay to securely store your photos for viewing nothing more. Allowing anyone who browses the site to print anyones photos without the owners knowledge is an End Run around the owners rights for that work. This is a matter of principle. While you may not have printed any of my photos how are we as customers to know that? Since the chain that initiates the whole process does not inform the owner of the work. The printing feature for non-Pros needs to be gone, if someones friends or family want a print then they will, or can contact the person, and then they can get it done through you. But the way this is setup anyone can order prints, and that is wrong.
Joves - I'm afraid I have to differ with your statements here. Simply put, YOU control the ability for viewers to purchase prints of your photos. YOU enable or disable printing.
If you disable printing, no one can order prints of your photos.
Joves, it's up to YOU not SmugMug if your images are available for sale. It's a simple gallery setting. If you don't understand how to set it, then do write the SmugMug heroes and ask for help.
Joves - I'm afraid I have to differ with your statements here. Simply put, YOU control the ability for viewers to purchase prints of your photos. YOU enable or disable printing.
If you disable printing, no one can order prints of your photos.
No you as a company decided that you could allow anyone to print someone elses work, without their knowledge. Also why is it that someone was able to load a cart with one of my images then for cards, if I disabled it? That feature should have never been created, because it allows anyone to print others work without permission and that is theft.
No you as a company decided that you could allow anyone to print someone elses work, without their knowledge. Also why is it that someone was able to load a cart with one of my images then for cards, if I disabled it? That feature should have never been created, because it allows anyone to print others work without permission and that is theft.
Sorry Joves, it's up to you as "shop owner" to set your stuff for sale or not. If you had a physical store, would you put stuff out there at no cost? I doubt it. Help is an email away. You can blame all you want here, but the responsibility is on you to set prices and make things for sale or not.
I disabled gallery printing and cannot order any prints in visitor mode. However, my Most Popular section had cards available for sale. I have since taken that section off my website.
So Smuggies, what's the deal in allowing cards to be printed?
As a side note .. I think when someone forgets to set their setting to 'No' smug should let them know:D I know .. we're all adults and should take care of that ourselves, but sometimes we make 'oops'.
If the company hosting y9ur images really cared about their clients the Print or no print would be an OPT in not an OPT OUT... ... ... that is a companies way way of saying YES we know we are cheating you and it is your fault, you should have opted out....
I disabled gallery printing and cannot order any prints in visitor mode. However, my Most Popular section had cards available for sale. I have since taken that section off my website.
So Smuggies, what's the deal in allowing cards to be printed?
Hi Joves - Another user was kind enough to link the gallery I'd asked about to me privately. And yes, that's your collected popular photos gallery - I'm looking into this for you now, but it may be a simple bug that's allowing the cards option (but nothing else).
Not sure, and since today's a holiday, I may not be able to get you an answer right away. But I'll get gack to you on this as soon as I can. Promise.
If the company hosting y9ur images really cared about their clients the Print or no print would be an OPT in not an OPT OUT... ... ... that is a companies way way of saying YES we know we are cheating you and it is your fault, you should have opted out....
Hi Art - just about any thing can be spun positively or negatively. I'm very sorry you feel the glass is half-empty, that was never our intention.
No you as a company decided that you could allow anyone to print someone elses work, without their knowledge. Also why is it that someone was able to load a cart with one of my images then for cards, if I disabled it? That feature should have never been created, because it allows anyone to print others work without permission and that is theft.
Hi Joves, I just browsed through your images and couldn't find any that allowed printing. I'm not sure how someone was able to load a shopping cart with cards that had your image on them unless you've since gone in and fixed the issue? All SM accounts do have the ability to turn off printing. I do consider it odd that the non-pro accounts can't see when their images are printed which I suppose could be construed as "without their knowledge" but as long as you've got printing turned off (and it appears you do) it shouldn't be an issue.
I did reply when someone asked about where the money goes when an image from a non-pro account is printed and answered with what I understood it to be: That the money goes to SM. I've since been corrected (I think) that it all goes to the print lab. Obviously the cost of the print itself must be re-couped, but I thought that there was a very small amount over printing cost that SM was getting from those, but I guess not.
**Edit... I just noticed the post about cards available thorough the most popular images. Looks like the SM team is on the glitch.
If the company hosting y9ur images really cared about their clients the Print or no print would be an OPT in not an OPT OUT... ... ... that is a companies way way of saying YES we know we are cheating you and it is your fault, you should have opted out....
Hi Art - just about any thing can be spun positively or negatively. I'm very sorry you feel the glass is half-empty, that was never our intention.
The glass is never half empty...the glass is ALWAYS FULL...it may be half empty of drink and 1/2 full of air but it is always full....to the brim.....yes you all do spin everything in your favor....if you all really cared for your clients this opt out for printing on any low tiered site would never have happened, if the lower tiers are strictly for photo sharing then that is how it should have been or at the very least this should have been an OPT IN.....but...it was not and that means that for those that over looked it or HAD THEIR MISGUIDED TRUST IN THEIR HOSTING COMPANY YOU PROBABLY HAS HAD MANY IMAGES PRINTED BY WHO EVER WANTED THEM AND THOSE SAME IMAGES COULD NOW BE SOLD AS STOCK ON OTHER SITES...all it would take is to copy theimage with a cheap low end DSLR (6mp or more) + Genuine Fractals for great up rezing....also the printed images does not retain any water mark that is put on via smugmug ... ... so for lower tiered accounts they really need to watermark their images well in their photo editing software to make sure the images are not printable
... ... ... ...
JUST EXACTLY WHAT WAS SMUGMUGS INTENTION WITH HAVING PRINTING AS AN OPT OUT INSTEAD OF AN OPT IN ITEM???
I did reply when someone asked about where the money goes when an image from a non-pro account is printed and answered with what I understood it to be: That the money goes to SM. I've since been corrected (I think) that it all goes to the print lab. Obviously the cost of the print itself must be re-couped, but I thought that there was a very small amount over printing cost that SM was getting from those, but I guess not.
.
Hi Plays - I think that there probably would be a small amount for SM, that's pretty much how business works, but the bulk would be the printing fee at the lab (paper/ink/printing/their profit etc etc etc) -
Hi Plays - I think that there probably would be a small amount for SM, that's pretty much how business works, but the bulk would be the printing fee at the lab (paper/ink/printing/their profit etc etc etc) -
[snipped ranting]....but...it was not and that means that for those that over looked it or HAD THEIR MISGUIDED TRUST IN THEIR HOSTING COMPANY YOU PROBABLY HAS HAD MANY IMAGES PRINTED BY WHO EVER WANTED THEM AND THOSE SAME IMAGES COULD NOW BE SOLD AS STOCK ON OTHER SITES..[snipped more ranting]
I'm only a customer, and not even a happy one right now, but seriously dude!? Get over it.
By the sound of it there's a NON-MALICIOUS bug which might allow images to be collected and printed as cards, but the CLEAR intention is to allow users to determine what images can be printed by others.
You're just making up stuff to get upset with now.
You're just making up stuff to get upset with now.
Cheers - N
Agree - seriously, people need to understand, an online store is no different than an physical gallery - YOU own your images - would you put them out on display for free? Of course not.
Now, if SM has a bug, they best fixify it. That's a different story. But the ranters about OH MY I AM A PRO but set up a non-pro account and left images at Original sizes, not protected, sharing on, ext links on, and PRINTING on, shame on them. Learn a bit or two about being in business and protect YOURSELF and take some responsibility - seriously.
Agree - seriously, people need to understand, an online store is no different than an physical gallery - YOU own your images - would you put them out on display for free? Of course not.
Now, if SM has a bug, they best fixify it. That's a different story. But the ranters about OH MY I AM A PRO but set up a non-pro account and left images at Original sizes, not protected, sharing on, ext links on, and PRINTING on, shame on them. Learn a bit or two about being in business and protect YOURSELF and take some responsibility - seriously.
I'd like to see the Image Protection features added to all accounts and set to default as well as the ability to only have the minimum size shown. Someone else said it better: let the village idiots disable all of the protection features on purpose. It would be better for someone to ask how to disable image protection features than for someone to realize who knows when..."oh shit, I should have done this from day one... no wonder I have no online sales!"
When is SmugMug going to be proactive in protecting photographer's rights just like they have been when encouraging photographers to shoot early and often with unlimited uploads?
Hi Joves, I just browsed through your images and couldn't find any that allowed printing. I'm not sure how someone was able to load a shopping cart with cards that had your image on them unless you've since gone in and fixed the issue? All SM accounts do have the ability to turn off printing. I do consider it odd that the non-pro accounts can't see when their images are printed which I suppose could be construed as "without their knowledge" but as long as you've got printing turned off (and it appears you do) it shouldn't be an issue.
I did reply when someone asked about where the money goes when an image from a non-pro account is printed and answered with what I understood it to be: That the money goes to SM. I've since been corrected (I think) that it all goes to the print lab. Obviously the cost of the print itself must be re-couped, but I thought that there was a very small amount over printing cost that SM was getting from those, but I guess not.
**Edit... I just noticed the post about cards available thorough the most popular images. Looks like the SM team is on the glitch.
As was said it is in the most popular section. Which I guess does not count as a Gallery. Also does the printlab do the prints at cost? See this is where you are not understanding Copyright. If anyone makes a profit from a persons work without that persons knowledge, then it is theft or a Copyright Violation. What part of this do you not understand? Also so now you are going to tell me that I have to eliminate the Most Popular now. So how many other parts of SMs features do I need to eliminate to be sure my images will stay where I put them? Seems as though the usable features are not so usable if you want complete security here.
As was said it is in the most popular section. Which I guess does not count as a Gallery. Also does the printlab do the prints at cost? See this is where you are not understanding Copyright. If anyone makes a profit from a persons work without that persons knowledge, then it is theft or a Copyright Violation. What part of this do you not understand? Also so now you are going to tell me that I have to eliminate the Most Popular now. So how many other parts of SMs features do I need to eliminate to be sure my images will stay where I put them? Seems as though the usable features are not so usable if you want complete security here.
1. I don't think you read my entire post. See edit regarding the glitch.
2. I understand copyright just fine, and aside from a glitch that is being worked on as we speak, I'm not sure what your beef is.
3. I may be off base here, but your reply had me feeling a bit like you were addressing me as if I worked for or represent SM in some way. I do not. I just answered you with what my understanding of the situation was. I'm a SM customer just like you.
Also does the printlab do the prints at cost? See this is where you are not understanding Copyright. If anyone makes a profit from a persons work without that persons knowledge, then it is theft or a Copyright Violation. What part of this do you not understand?
The printlab makes a profit. You don't want them to? How democratic socialist of you. Shall they be a non-profit with employee salary caps at the minimum wage to please you too? What should SM or any other website do to justify free uploads, allow you to make prints at a low cost, roll out new features or products and keep their doors open? Do you really think SM is making a profit off of your site even with the one cent it may have made if a photocard was printed?
Seek out the Terms of Service please and read:
"You retain the copyright in any User Content you post on the Site. SmugMug neither has nor wants any ownership of your Content. However, by uploading and/or posting any User Content to the Site, you grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive and royalty-free right to use the User Content and the name that is submitted in connection with such User Content, as is reasonably necessary to display the User Content, provide the Services and to facilitate, at Content Owner's direction, the license of Photos or the sale of Products on the Site."
Further on it states:
"SmugMug will not be responsible or liable for any third party access to or use of the User Content you post. SmugMug provides many security options and settings for your content and you should read and understand them all."
Still think you have a copyright claim? Please read the rest of the ToS to find the line that says... "oops, you can't hold us liable for products sold due to technology errors" (I'm sure there's probably something like that in there) and more importantly before ranting and raving... make sure that any of your photos were printed in the first place. I'm pretty sure at cost sales can be tracked after a certain date thereby making the one penny above cost a moot point for tracking sales. If not, SM might know.
If sales were made, just simply ask SM for their share of the profits. I'm sure they'll be happy to credit your annual fee the pennies they legally obtained from you with your permission until they can can fix the bug affecting your images.
When is SmugMug going to be proactive in protecting photographer's rights just like they have been when encouraging photographers to shoot early and often with unlimited uploads?
They are. I know this because I was the guy that specifically changed the terms to state in no uncertain terms that your photos are yours.
If you as an account owner allow for photo sales at cost, then shame on you. No different than renting a gallery and putting $0 pricetag on a print. Be responsible and take care of yourself. Don't slam your landlord for your sloppiness and not putting prices on your photos.
They are. I know this because I was the guy that specifically changed the terms to state in no uncertain terms that your photos are yours.
If you as an account owner allow for photo sales at cost, then shame on you. No different than renting a gallery and putting $0 pricetag on a print. Be responsible and take care of yourself. Don't slam your landlord for your sloppiness and not putting prices on your photos.
Preaching to the choir Andy. Let's look at the Image Protection features which should really be available to all SM subscribers:
Disable downloading/viewing larger sizes
Disable print purchases
Right-click protect
Custom watermarks
then there's the Sharing section:
embed flash slidewshows in forums & blogs
share via twitter, facebook, friendfieed, tumblr & whatever else
and then there's the Commerce section:
Enable/disable product sales from any gallery
---
You might know this off the top of your head but I would have to create a trial account to verify this but all settings mentioned above should be set-up site wide and for any new galleries made (with no custom settings) with a default that proactively protects photographer's rights.
That means, let the village idiot switch the button on to allow viewers to:
download images / view larger sizes including the original size
purchase prints and products (the new price-list system is a + in this area for control)
right-click-save to their computers
view images with no watermarks (are basic watermarks available to all since the village idiot wouldn't have custom watermarks?)
click the button to share photos
click the button to have exit links
enable product sales from any category (what is there to do with accounts with no ability to markup photos as the new pricelist system is very helpful in empowering the PRO (business) customer?)
If I'm preaching to the choir as to what SM already does for all new customers... awesome. If not, SM should consider becoming proactive with new customers and protecting their photographs as well as implementing these, if possible, with current customers.
Catching my drift? Protect the village idiots from day one and then if they complain down the line after changing the settings simply say... "(HEY IDIOT!) You turned that feature off. We protected your photos the best we could from day one but you chose to disable right-click protection, watermarks, etc., etc."
1. I don't think you read my entire post. See edit regarding the glitch.
2. I understand copyright just fine, and aside from a glitch that is being worked on as we speak, I'm not sure what your beef is.
3. I may be off base here, but your reply had me feeling a bit like you were addressing me as if I worked for or represent SM in some way. I do not. I just answered you with what my understanding of the situation was. I'm a SM customer just like you.
I argued this when this feature came out, that first you even instituted it, and second that it was up to use to opt out. I was basically told I was over reacting, or really just shut up. I should not have renewed after last years deal over Pic Collecting which has all sorts of back doors, and the printing option. As I said the print feature needs to be eliminated as it is, and allow the people who own the photos do the requesting for their friends and family.
Lets just play a fun game here of scenarios. Some Mom&Pop store owners looking for thing to sell in their store, come upon this site. They like johndoes photos and have some cards printed of his images. One day one of john's friends stop in the store and recognizes john's image, buys one and sends it to john. John being righteously angry gets a lawyer, the lawyer finds that the store owners got the cards from SM from john's photos. So when it comes time for the suit who do you think will be co-plaintiffs in the case with the store owners. Thats right you and your print lab, because john did not know you were printing his photos without telling him.
Preaching to the choir Andy. Let's look at the Image Protection features which should really be available to all SM subscribers:
If you want to be in business, you shouldn't need to be wet-nursed by a company. The company provides TOOLS. Use them in a smart way. Everything on your list is something that is set and chosen by the account owner, either by account settings or the level of plan chosen.
You're just making up stuff to get upset with now.
Cheers - N[/QUOTE]
making nothing up...simply making a point that forever how long this printing fiasco has been happening that there could be millions of images bought as cards...copied....uprezed and being sold as some other person art work.....not making anything up....it is a very viable scenario whether you, Andy or any other person at SMUGMUG wants to admit to it and as pointed I have taken some of my older film work that was 4x6 inches copied with my 8mp Konica Minolta A2 and printed fantastic 40 x 60's that have a ZERO need for viewing distance as they have no noise in the image that was uprezed with Genuine Fractals......so I am not making up anything to just get mad about...there is absolutely no need for that....but ai am putting a scenario out there for any of those this might have affected to let them know what could have been happening with there images and unfortunately if the one selling these images did it right he/she will have shot the copy in raw and at a very low iso and very large aperture so the pores of the paper is not pick up by the sensor..... there is enuff crap in this world that one can upset over without me having to make things up....just off the top of my head those crappy pricelist, the foreign currency offering....no Paypal intergration.....
Comments
Suggest we all keep a very serious eye on this, and I'm sure we'd like clarification from SM management, yes?
http://www.despatchesgallery.com
Don't hold your breath. SM seems to be a bit light in the explanation department these days.
This will be the third or fourth time I have tabled the question. I have even put it on their FB site which I will see if I got it there yet. But I highly doubt it. If anything they may have deleted it in such a highly public area. My concern is valid, and I do not think I am over reacting. But the management may see it differently.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
Joves - I've responded to your posts here as well as Facebook - they're not deleted and you can see them.
You've also posted several times that you're disatisfied with our response to folks that let us know that they are leaving, and that us saying we're very sorry to hear this is unacceptable. This makes no sense, what would you have us say?
You posted an incorrect response to your question about 'who gets the money' rather than the one I posted for you - please see here : http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1812539&postcount=14
And looking about your site, I'm not seeing any items available for sale - could you link a gallery where PRINTING is disabled but prints are purchasable? I'll be happy to take a look for you -
You people do not get the point at all do you? You do understand Copyright am I correct? You do understand the DMCA correct? I am asking why is it that SM even think it has the right to allow printing of other peoples materials without their knowledge? It is not like SM is a free site. You pay to securely store your photos for viewing nothing more. Allowing anyone who browses the site to print anyones photos without the owners knowledge is an End Run around the owners rights for that work. This is a matter of principle. While you may not have printed any of my photos how are we as customers to know that? Since the chain that initiates the whole process does not inform the owner of the work. The printing feature for non-Pros needs to be gone, if someones friends or family want a print then they will, or can contact the person, and then they can get it done through you. But the way this is setup anyone can order prints, and that is wrong.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
Joves - I'm afraid I have to differ with your statements here. Simply put, YOU control the ability for viewers to purchase prints of your photos. YOU enable or disable printing.
If you disable printing, no one can order prints of your photos.
Joves, it's up to YOU not SmugMug if your images are available for sale. It's a simple gallery setting. If you don't understand how to set it, then do write the SmugMug heroes and ask for help.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://joves.smugmug.com/
Sorry Joves, it's up to you as "shop owner" to set your stuff for sale or not. If you had a physical store, would you put stuff out there at no cost? I doubt it. Help is an email away. You can blame all you want here, but the responsibility is on you to set prices and make things for sale or not.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
So Smuggies, what's the deal in allowing cards to be printed?
If the company hosting y9ur images really cared about their clients the Print or no print would be an OPT in not an OPT OUT... ... ... that is a companies way way of saying YES we know we are cheating you and it is your fault, you should have opted out....
Hi Joves - Another user was kind enough to link the gallery I'd asked about to me privately. And yes, that's your collected popular photos gallery - I'm looking into this for you now, but it may be a simple bug that's allowing the cards option (but nothing else).
Not sure, and since today's a holiday, I may not be able to get you an answer right away. But I'll get gack to you on this as soon as I can. Promise.
Hi Art - just about any thing can be spun positively or negatively. I'm very sorry you feel the glass is half-empty, that was never our intention.
Hi Joves, I just browsed through your images and couldn't find any that allowed printing. I'm not sure how someone was able to load a shopping cart with cards that had your image on them unless you've since gone in and fixed the issue? All SM accounts do have the ability to turn off printing. I do consider it odd that the non-pro accounts can't see when their images are printed which I suppose could be construed as "without their knowledge" but as long as you've got printing turned off (and it appears you do) it shouldn't be an issue.
I did reply when someone asked about where the money goes when an image from a non-pro account is printed and answered with what I understood it to be: That the money goes to SM. I've since been corrected (I think) that it all goes to the print lab. Obviously the cost of the print itself must be re-couped, but I thought that there was a very small amount over printing cost that SM was getting from those, but I guess not.
**Edit... I just noticed the post about cards available thorough the most popular images. Looks like the SM team is on the glitch.
The glass is never half empty...the glass is ALWAYS FULL...it may be half empty of drink and 1/2 full of air but it is always full....to the brim.....yes you all do spin everything in your favor....if you all really cared for your clients this opt out for printing on any low tiered site would never have happened, if the lower tiers are strictly for photo sharing then that is how it should have been or at the very least this should have been an OPT IN.....but...it was not and that means that for those that over looked it or HAD THEIR MISGUIDED TRUST IN THEIR HOSTING COMPANY YOU PROBABLY HAS HAD MANY IMAGES PRINTED BY WHO EVER WANTED THEM AND THOSE SAME IMAGES COULD NOW BE SOLD AS STOCK ON OTHER SITES...all it would take is to copy theimage with a cheap low end DSLR (6mp or more) + Genuine Fractals for great up rezing....also the printed images does not retain any water mark that is put on via smugmug ... ... so for lower tiered accounts they really need to watermark their images well in their photo editing software to make sure the images are not printable
... ... ... ...
JUST EXACTLY WHAT WAS SMUGMUGS INTENTION WITH HAVING PRINTING AS AN OPT OUT INSTEAD OF AN OPT IN ITEM???
Hi Plays - I think that there probably would be a small amount for SM, that's pretty much how business works, but the bulk would be the printing fee at the lab (paper/ink/printing/their profit etc etc etc) -
That makes sense and is totally reasonable IMO.
I'm only a customer, and not even a happy one right now, but seriously dude!? Get over it.
By the sound of it there's a NON-MALICIOUS bug which might allow images to be collected and printed as cards, but the CLEAR intention is to allow users to determine what images can be printed by others.
You're just making up stuff to get upset with now.
Cheers - N
http://www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com)
Agree - seriously, people need to understand, an online store is no different than an physical gallery - YOU own your images - would you put them out on display for free? Of course not.
Now, if SM has a bug, they best fixify it. That's a different story. But the ranters about OH MY I AM A PRO but set up a non-pro account and left images at Original sizes, not protected, sharing on, ext links on, and PRINTING on, shame on them. Learn a bit or two about being in business and protect YOURSELF and take some responsibility - seriously.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Just an update, yup - its a bug. Verified. We'll get right on it -
I'd like to see the Image Protection features added to all accounts and set to default as well as the ability to only have the minimum size shown. Someone else said it better: let the village idiots disable all of the protection features on purpose. It would be better for someone to ask how to disable image protection features than for someone to realize who knows when..."oh shit, I should have done this from day one... no wonder I have no online sales!"
When is SmugMug going to be proactive in protecting photographer's rights just like they have been when encouraging photographers to shoot early and often with unlimited uploads?
http://joves.smugmug.com/
1. I don't think you read my entire post. See edit regarding the glitch.
2. I understand copyright just fine, and aside from a glitch that is being worked on as we speak, I'm not sure what your beef is.
3. I may be off base here, but your reply had me feeling a bit like you were addressing me as if I worked for or represent SM in some way. I do not. I just answered you with what my understanding of the situation was. I'm a SM customer just like you.
The printlab makes a profit. You don't want them to? How democratic socialist of you. Shall they be a non-profit with employee salary caps at the minimum wage to please you too? What should SM or any other website do to justify free uploads, allow you to make prints at a low cost, roll out new features or products and keep their doors open? Do you really think SM is making a profit off of your site even with the one cent it may have made if a photocard was printed?
Seek out the Terms of Service please and read:
"You retain the copyright in any User Content you post on the Site. SmugMug neither has nor wants any ownership of your Content. However, by uploading and/or posting any User Content to the Site, you grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive and royalty-free right to use the User Content and the name that is submitted in connection with such User Content, as is reasonably necessary to display the User Content, provide the Services and to facilitate, at Content Owner's direction, the license of Photos or the sale of Products on the Site."
Further on it states:
"SmugMug will not be responsible or liable for any third party access to or use of the User Content you post. SmugMug provides many security options and settings for your content and you should read and understand them all."
Still think you have a copyright claim? Please read the rest of the ToS to find the line that says... "oops, you can't hold us liable for products sold due to technology errors" (I'm sure there's probably something like that in there) and more importantly before ranting and raving... make sure that any of your photos were printed in the first place. I'm pretty sure at cost sales can be tracked after a certain date thereby making the one penny above cost a moot point for tracking sales. If not, SM might know.
If sales were made, just simply ask SM for their share of the profits. I'm sure they'll be happy to credit your annual fee the pennies they legally obtained from you with your permission until they can can fix the bug affecting your images.
They are. I know this because I was the guy that specifically changed the terms to state in no uncertain terms that your photos are yours.
If you as an account owner allow for photo sales at cost, then shame on you. No different than renting a gallery and putting $0 pricetag on a print. Be responsible and take care of yourself. Don't slam your landlord for your sloppiness and not putting prices on your photos.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Preaching to the choir Andy. Let's look at the Image Protection features which should really be available to all SM subscribers:
- Disable downloading/viewing larger sizes
- Disable print purchases
- Right-click protect
- Custom watermarks
then there's the Sharing section:- embed flash slidewshows in forums & blogs
- share via twitter, facebook, friendfieed, tumblr & whatever else
and then there's the Commerce section:---
You might know this off the top of your head but I would have to create a trial account to verify this but all settings mentioned above should be set-up site wide and for any new galleries made (with no custom settings) with a default that proactively protects photographer's rights.
That means, let the village idiot switch the button on to allow viewers to:
- enable product sales from any category (what is there to do with accounts with no ability to markup photos as the new pricelist system is very helpful in empowering the PRO (business) customer?)
If I'm preaching to the choir as to what SM already does for all new customers... awesome. If not, SM should consider becoming proactive with new customers and protecting their photographs as well as implementing these, if possible, with current customers.Catching my drift? Protect the village idiots from day one and then if they complain down the line after changing the settings simply say... "(HEY IDIOT!) You turned that feature off. We protected your photos the best we could from day one but you chose to disable right-click protection, watermarks, etc., etc."
Lets just play a fun game here of scenarios. Some Mom&Pop store owners looking for thing to sell in their store, come upon this site. They like johndoes photos and have some cards printed of his images. One day one of john's friends stop in the store and recognizes john's image, buys one and sends it to john. John being righteously angry gets a lawyer, the lawyer finds that the store owners got the cards from SM from john's photos. So when it comes time for the suit who do you think will be co-plaintiffs in the case with the store owners. Thats right you and your print lab, because john did not know you were printing his photos without telling him.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
If you want to be in business, you shouldn't need to be wet-nursed by a company. The company provides TOOLS. Use them in a smart way. Everything on your list is something that is set and chosen by the account owner, either by account settings or the level of plan chosen.
Village idiot? Hm.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
You're just making up stuff to get upset with now.
Cheers - N[/QUOTE]
making nothing up...simply making a point that forever how long this printing fiasco has been happening that there could be millions of images bought as cards...copied....uprezed and being sold as some other person art work.....not making anything up....it is a very viable scenario whether you, Andy or any other person at SMUGMUG wants to admit to it and as pointed I have taken some of my older film work that was 4x6 inches copied with my 8mp Konica Minolta A2 and printed fantastic 40 x 60's that have a ZERO need for viewing distance as they have no noise in the image that was uprezed with Genuine Fractals......so I am not making up anything to just get mad about...there is absolutely no need for that....but ai am putting a scenario out there for any of those this might have affected to let them know what could have been happening with there images and unfortunately if the one selling these images did it right he/she will have shot the copy in raw and at a very low iso and very large aperture so the pores of the paper is not pick up by the sensor..... there is enuff crap in this world that one can upset over without me having to make things up....just off the top of my head those crappy pricelist, the foreign currency offering....no Paypal intergration.....