How Will The End Of Print Journalism Affect Old Loons Who Hoard Newspapers?

However, a major point that separates the photojournalist from a guy with a camera is the ability to tell a story with images. Not just tell the story, but to portray the story accurately without hyperbole, bias, or commentary. Additionally, professional photojournalists will always have a niche digging up and following an original story. To find an original story, do all the background research, photograph and write about the story is a full time job. Although fewer magazines are commissioning photojournalists to do these in depth photo essays, I believe that independently developed stories will always find a market. An advantage to freelancing a story is the freedom to pursue it on my own terms, or even just abandon it if it turns out to be a none story. Instead of negotiating a price prior to doing a story, by doing the story on speculation can reap much higher returns, although sans the security of a guaranteed paycheck.

CLICK HERE to view on the CBS website.

The first thing I need are hooks for holding a roll of seamless, or whatever it is I will hang from the ceiling. The photo above shows an empty roll core from a 9 foot roll of seamless paper. These cores are very handy for multiple uses. I rarely throw anything away. The idea is to make a hook that will slip into both ends. After poking around Lowe’s, I decided to make the hook from hardware angle brackets.

Each of these brackets are six inches on the side and made of zinc coated steel. I want the lift point to be midway along the horizontal arm. This way the hook is self balancing and will not try to torque from vertical lifting. To make this requires two brackets pieced together in a C configuration.

These are assembled using two 1/4-20 machine bolts with a washer on each side. I chose to use 3/4 long bolts. Lowe’s and Home Depot sell a package of bolts with nuts. I picked up a package that has 50 sets. Only costs a few dollars. You can also get for less than a dollar a package of 4 or 6 sets in those little plastic bags. I used a washer on both sides, the head and nut side.

I want the roll to self level and self align to pulling on the paper. To do this, I am using pulleys on each hook instead of attaching the rope directly to the hook. These cost about $5 each. The hanging hook swivels to allow the pulley to self align as the rope passes through.

I attached a pulley to the center hole of each C bracket.

The bracket inserts into the end of the tube.

A rope will traverse between the two pulleys, up to the ceiling. By having the ceiling pulleys mounted a little closer together than the width of the tube, the brackets will have a force pushing them into the tube keeping them from falling out. Additionally, the angle configuration, combined with the angular pull causes the edge of the bracket to press against the side wall of the tube. This will help prevent a runaway roll. A clamp should still be used to keep the roll from unraveling when hanging. Every photographer has experienced the runaway roll. This little trick should help prevent that from happening. Especially when some extra length needs to be pulled from the roll after hanging.

NEXT: Mounting the ceiling pulleys.

My solution is to rig up a mechanism in the ceiling with some pulleys and rope to raise and lower a roll of paper, curtains, fabric, muslin, or whatever I want to use as a backdrop. The idea is that mid-shoot I simply lower the bar down, swap out to the next backdrop, then raise it back up. No stands, no climbing ladders, simple. Sometimes my genius is amazing.

This is the first of multiple entries in my blog following the progress of this project. Below is a photo of my cove. The mechanism will be between the two rafters top-center.

Painting primer over repairs results in a kind of bluish white. I paint the cove with ultra pure white, which makes sense since I do photography and white should be white. I finished building the Cyc in April. The first time I painted it, I tried using commercial white. DO NOT USE COMMERCIAL WHITE. It is not white, but more of a yellowish white. For a couple days I looked at it trying to decide if it was white enough. No, it was not white enough. From that point forward, I decided to just use the good stuff that said it was pure white.

A large cost gap exists between the good paint and the commercial grade paint. Commercial grade paint is about $30 for a 5 gallon bucket. The good ultra white paint is $85-$100 for a five gallon bucket. After repainting the cove several times, I noticed that the expensive Behr Ultra Pure White paint I was buying from Home Depot was not hiding marks very well. I become completely disenchanted with the paint when painting over primer on repairs (primer is a bluish white), I could still see the primer after three coats of paint.

Besides the expense of the paint to apply three coats, I do not have the time to paint three coats, and still not be satisfied with the coverage. So, after a big shoot a couple weeks ago, I had to again repair the cove from high heel wholes and some other damage. I decided to change brands of paint. So I went around to the various paint stores asking about pure true white paint that covers well.

Frazee paint, they just could not get the concept that I need flat white that is a pure white. The last couple of times I went into their store, they try to sell me a product that is not quite what I want. I want flat white, not velvet white, not satin white, just flat white. I bought a quart of paint to try. Not good enough. Next.

Sherwin Williams is a well known brand name with well stocked stores. Unfortunately, the paint they recommended to me was worse at covering hiding marks than the Behr brand paint from Home Depot. Repeat this scenario at a couple other paint stores.

I went into Pittsburgh Paints. The guy seemed to understand paint, versus the semi-knowledgeable, non-listening salesmen at some of the other stores. He opened a can and did a demonstration for me. Looked good. The price was a bit high at about $100 for a 5 gallon bucket. But if their paint could do in one coat what the other paints could not do in several coats, then the cost could be worth the higher price. Poking around Lowe’s Hardware, as I read the labels on the paint they carry, I noticed that both Olympic and Valspar brand paint they carry is made by Pittsburgh Paints. Additionally, the Valspar Premium paint states on the label that it is a thicker one coat paint with good hiding. None of the other brands say that on the label. What I routinely find is that if a label does not say it does something, then it probably does not do it. Better is that a five gallon bucket is $85, a few dollars cheaper than the Behr brand paint a Home Depot. I bought a five gallon bucket to repaint the cove with the Valspar Premium Flat Ultra White.

The Valspar Premium paint did an excellent job of covering over marks. One coat and I was done. I Highly recommend that paint when you want to paint something pure white. I also noticed that it is a slightly whiter white than the Behr Ultra Pure white that I was painting over.

My recommendation for Flat Pure White Paint is Valspar Premium Flat Ultra White which is sold at Lowe’s.

When the new TOC was put in place I took down a lot of my posts (many of the same ones at issue now) and replaced them with a statement of why. After the new version of the ToC was implemented, I went back and replaced a lot of that material because I was assured they would not continue to claim display rights to it if I took it down later.

UPDATE 11: To get back on topic, this issue revolves about what to do with copyrighted material, that is noted as such, that is quoted in a forum. Specifically if the member who quoted the copyrighted text is no longer a member and thus no other recourse exists to have the copyrighted material removed. One of the specific posts in question is HERE. The quote even includes the copyright notice. By simply stating his rights to have his copyright material removed from specific postings, Roger was banned from Modelmayhem. Banned not for making the request, but for stating he disagreed with a new interpretation of the terms of service which contradicts the TOS when the content was originally posted. Since MM decided to delete Roger’s account, the issue is whether Roger has the right to demand via a DMCA notice to have his copyright material also removed from the forums. MM claims that their new interpretation of the TOS, which was not so when the content was originally posted, gives them rights not agreed upon at the time of the posting. Since MM decided to delete his account because he does not agree with the new interpretation, a dispute exists over whether MM should also have to take down the material in question posted without agreement to the new definition, or does MM get new rights not agreed to by both parties at the time of the posting?

UPDATE 10:

Here is the actual text of the conversation that led up to Roger (Emeritus) being banned as posted by Roger HERE:

MiguelIB wrote:We provide each member the ability to edit and delete their own posts however once another member quotes such posts it is our belief that that quote becomes an archived version of that conversation which we maintain the right to utilize on the site.

Emeritus wrote:I disagree. The quotations are made pursuant to a display license granted by me to Internet Brands, and subject to their statement in the Terms that the license would terminate when I took down the original. To say that anyone may copy my intellectual property in its entirety and I lose any right to it flies in the face of the negotiations which resulted in the current Terms and Conditions. Please note that many of the articles in the list above have been registered with the US Copyright Office, and are incorporated in my books. I will file a DMCA takedown notice forthwith, and I expect it to be honored.

MiguelIB wrote:Please feel free to, however our terms of service are clear and our interpretation is that these are archived versions of your text. In the meantime I am going to be removing your profile from the site as I do not want any other material from you added to the site when your interpretation of our Terms is different than our interpretation.

Roger states: “I Did not say that I disagreed with the TOS. I clearly was stating a disagreement with his stated belief about the meaning of the TOS.”

UPDATE 9: Roger responds to the official response HERE. His response is quite detailed, analytical, and long. Therefore it is best for you to CLICK HERE to read his response.

UPDATE 8: Modelmayhem has posted an official response to this issue HERE. Note the bold text. According to MM, simply stating that you have an issue with a new interpretation of the TOS is grounds to be removed from the site. Roger did not violate the TOS, just stated that he disagreed as a matter of discourse that their new interpretation was problematic. The following is the their response:

Earlier today we were forced to remove a long time, active member of the site.  The removal was simply and purely due to the fact that this member explicitly stated his disagreement with the terms and services of the site. As all members of this community are required to agree to these terms, it was essential that this person no longer be a member.

The disagreement involved the use of the Model Mayhem forums and who retains the right to the comments of the members and who has the right to edit those comments.

Our view is this:  by taking part in an online discussion you are giving other participants in the discussion the opportunity to quote your statements to help them place their own statements in context.  This act of quoting is effectively making an archived version of your statement and is an essential aspect of any conversation.

Our terms of service clearly state that we retain the right to hold an archived version of content.  This is in place for a number of reasons, one of which is to maintain the integrity of the website so the broader community can still find value in it. (I like the example posted in a separate thread of a quote archived in a newspaper)

Right now we give all members the right to edit and delete their own posts.  We also gave this specific member the opportunity to reach out to those that had quoted him to ask them to eliminate his words from their posts.  We (MM Moderators or IB) do not edit people’s posts.  If a post is deemed to contain material that is the copyright of others and we receive a proper DMCA take-down notice we will comply, as we do with all proper DMCA notices.

In order to have a valuable community forum it is imperative that some degree of trust be maintained, that the community feel comfortable that their words will not be edited and that one member cannot indiscriminately censor another.  Creating this trust and defending this trust is exactly why we have our terms of service as well as our site rules. If we feel someone is in violation of these or is in explicit disagreement, then it is important that they no longer take part in the community.

UPDATE 7: A moderator on MM posted the following HERE in a MM Site Related forum about the DMCA issue and getting banned for doing so.

I don’t know IB’s (Internet Brands, owner of Modelmayhem) thoughts. I’m not speaking for IB, and this is all supposition. But if I had someone who was threatening me with an expensive lawsuit if I did not remove things that they had voluntarily put up on my web site. And that person was taking an adversarial attitude with me. Why would/should I allow them to continue to post things on my site that they may or may not want to make me remove at a later time? That would cost me money and time. Now personally, I’m a bit upset about some recent happenings around here…but there are two sides to each argument. I’m also quite concerned about the rights of people who may be forced to have their own postings removed because they were discussing things with another member who wishes to have all of his/her words wiped from the site. It seems to me that the relationship, as all relationships, must be based on trust. If neither party trusts the other than the relationship must end. It’s better for both parties in the long run. And for those who are comparing to OMP, I was an early member of both sites. The comparisons are really pretty far fetched at this point. The fact that you are free to discuss things here is some proof.

Of interest is the statement in bold about the freedom to discuss issues on MM. If that is the case, then why was my post hidden that simply linked to the back story that was being discussed? Several other people had post, threads, and other references hidden/locked/deleted from just simply mentioning Roger’s name, or even inferring the topic of this issue. I would have posed this question in the forum, but it would just be deleted, so I am posting my question here.

UPDATE 6: With permission of the author, the following is a comment about this situation made by Modelmayhem member Greg Kolack in THIS thread on the MM site.

Word on the street is also that there is a MM “hit list”, and that many vocal members are on it. I know many people who think they are on it simply because they are vocal.

I don’t see how this can be a productive site if everyone is thinking the site wants them gone. The general thought is IB truly doesn’t care about the members – only the bucks. Now this can be denied, but that won’t stop the way people are thinking. Right now there is a feeling that MM has no respect for the membership, and it started when Tyler sold. If this isn’t true, don’t say it’s not true, show us it’s not true.

The circumstances may not be the same, but there was a time when OMP (One Model Place) was the top, and in a very short time, it took a massive nose dive because of frustrated members. It doesn’t matter why they were frustrated, but what mattered was the fact people left.

If people stop telling newbies they need to “Join MM”, that’s where the downfall will begin.

UPDATE 5: SLE Photography, a member of both Modelmayhem and the site host for Model Insider makes the following comment about this situation:

Roger has been battling with the Mods (at MM) for some time over them allowing KNOWN bad sources to routinely post false (not misleading or mistaken, but knowingly false) information in the industry forums.

The recent upshoot of this was the Mods essentially telling Roger they weren’t going to do anything about it & that he really isn’t here to help anyone but only to puff up his own ego, so he’s no longer welcome to post.

His response was to start pulling his threads & to let some of us who direct people there for good info know to not send people there any more.

He then asked for his copyrighted info to be removed and they refused… and now we’re here.

UPDATE 4: Roger is discussing the situation on a competitor website Model Insider. CLICK HERE to follow that discussion.

UPDATE 3: In the thread mentioned in UPDATE 2, I posted a simple comment that for those who were not aware of what was going on, that I am tracking the story here on my blog. That is all I stated knowing that if I mentioned any details my post would be hidden. Three minutes later, my post was hidden. SLE Photography commented that by simply linking to any information about the situation could get that thread locked. That is all he said. His post was also hidden.

MM hides my post

UPDATE 2: As of this writing, a new thread in the Site Related Forum is running where the OP of one of the hidden threads reworded to avoid getting locked. The thread questions the new TOS that is the core issue of this situation.  MM seems particularly sensitive to any criticism. CLICK HERE for to read that post.

UPDATE 1: After posting on the General Interest forum on MM a matter-of-fact statement about Roger’s situation, the post was locked and hidden in 45 seconds (I timed it). The original post in Site Related Issues by Roger, and a follow up post by someone else, was also locked and hidden. As of this writing, no forum (visible) topics are discussing this issue.

ORIGINAL POST:

Many photographers and models are aware of the model/photographer website Modelmayhem (MM).  MM has the largest community of photographers and models on the internet. Ranked 371 in traffic volume in the United States (10/14/2009 Alexa ranking), MM is also one of the most heavily used website in any category.  One of the original members of MM, and a highly respected authority about the entire modeling industry and photographer rights, was kicked off MM in a dispute over MM’s rights to photos after the copyright holder deletes the images from their profile. Roger’s user name on MM was TXPhotog and recently changed to Emeritus. Roger Talley was a former owner of R&L Model Management in New York, a retired USAF Colonel, and an all around expert on the modeling industry and photographer rights issues. Roger posted the following notice after being removed from MM. The notice explains many of the issues.

Some months ago there was a large flap when Internet Brands (the new owners of MM) chose to impose a new Terms and Conditions, which caused something of a revolt among the membership.  After a good deal of acrimonious discussion on the forums, it was changed to something that appeared to me to be acceptable.

It is not, and the other members now need to know why it is not.

One of the primary sticking points was the issue of a non-perpetual grant of rights.  We all know that MM needs to be able to display content posted here, to archive it, and make other uses of it.  That was understood and agreed to.  But other sites had claimed a perpetual license, and the Terms IB tried to put in place also claimed a perpetual license.  That was not agreed to.  Finally, after a lot of negotiation, IB agreed that their usage license would terminate when the member removed their content from the site.  Here is the wording of the Terms, which is still in effect:

“When you post content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the content on the Site. Through the action of posting such content (images, text, video, etc) you are also granting the Site a non-exclusive worldwide license to use, copy, publicly display, publicly perform, reformat, translate such User content (in whole or in part) and distribute such content in connection with operation of the Site. This limited license does not grant Model Mayhem the right to sell or otherwise distribute your Content outside of the Model Mayhem Services without the express permission of the rights holder(s).

“You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. This Site does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.”

Clearly the site needs to be able to archive copies of the site and all the material on it.  The place crashes often enough that we all understand the value of a backup archive copy.  So that seemed reasonable.

However, it turns out that’s not what they meant.  Now, if you post anything to the site and another member makes copies of it and puts in on the site, that copy becomes, in their interpretation, “an archive copy”.  They will not remove it, and claim they have a continued right to display and use it, even though you remove your original and ask that the copy be removed.

How do I know this?  It just happened to me.  I removed some of my original content from this site, and sent a CAM asking for removal, providing URLs to the content to be removed.  This is the answer I received from MiguelIB, speaking for the corporation:

“We provide each member the ability to edit and delete their own posts however once another member quotes such posts it is our belief that that quote becomes an archived version of that conversation which we maintain the right to utilize on the site.”

As a practical matter, this gives MM and Internet Brands the perpetual license we all agreed they would not have when we put material on the site.”

Modelmayhem retaliated by deleting Roger’s profile from the website. Roger wrote:

The material above was posted to the Model Mayhem Site Related forum and promptly locked and hidden by them.

It appears that their interpretation is that anything posted by another member on their site is a part of “their archive” and thus immune to deletion, even with a DMCA notice.  When you state that you disagree, your profile is removed.

This information as written by Roger Talley is re-posted here with permission of Roger Talley.

After having his profile removed from MM, Roger proceeded to list all improper posting of his images on a competing website called Model Insider. CLICK HERE to read Roger’s post on the Model Insider website.

I will post more information as it becomes available. I am about to create a new forum topic on MM about this situation. I fully expect the thread to be locked and hidden shortly thereafter. Updates will be posted here.

…Contacting ±15 photographers worldwide – every issue – is a very complicated thing. We’ll get photographers wanting a say in the text we write, wanting to supply us with their own text, diverting us to their gallery, who are on assignment abroad, not reachable etc. etc. etc. We work deadlines….

Oh boo hoo. Just because you are too lazy to contact the creator of an image does not give you any right to use that image because you are too lazy to get proper permission. If contacting 15 people in a months time is too difficult then get out of the business. If you do not get permission to use a photo, you cannot use the photo. It truly is that simple. This mindset of people that everything should be free makes my head feel like it will explode. Unfortunately, too many photographers and artists let these people get away this thievery. Register you copyrights and defend them.

CLICK HERE to view the movie