To Porteplume: the carper thing

[leo61]

The "Carper" thing again?????
Some members get 48 hours,some not....
Great job you moderators,you do it very consequent,HAHAHA!!!!!
And what about this:
copyright
copyright
copyright
Last year my photograh of the Bangkok post newspaer was deleted for this copyrightreason.
You can read long christmas or happy new year note but you don`t see ,looking at thumbnails that there is a violation of the TOS and copyright! Well done,moderators!!!
Leo

[Porteplume]

Leo,
You should not speak about "things" you don't know everything about...
This photo has been inactivated first, then Constantino has sent a Review Reply, so I re-activated his picture - read well what I wrote here - and now he can change his note.
Jaap never sent the Review Reply and it's impossible to re-activate when there is no such request sent.

Viviane

[carper]

Dat is duidelijk, het kan dus wel even een berichtje te sturen als een note niet goed is en iemand de tijd te geven om het te veranderen.
gr. jaap

[leo61]

Leo,
You should not speak about "things" you don't know everything about...

How can you know what I know and what I don`t know about what happened here?????
I can interact with members without the controll of TE.


And what about the three linked photos
Violation of the TOS,copyright?
please explain!
The TE photographers are definite not the copyright holders,of what they photographed here.
What is the differrence of photographing and uploading text and photo of a newspaper and photographing and uploading photos,photographed by somebody else??????
can you please explain why these three mentioned photos are still there.And there are so many more.
Have a nice Sylvester party,
Leo

[Porteplume]

Originally Posted by carper

Dat is duidelijk, het kan dus wel even een berichtje te sturen als een note niet goed is en iemand de tijd te geven om het te veranderen.
gr. jaap

Ja Jaap,
Maar het kan pas worden gedaan NA dat er een Review Request verzonden wordt...

[macondo]

Originally Posted by leo61

The "Carper" thing again?????
Some members get 48 hours,some not....
Great job you moderators,you do it very consequent,HAHAHA!!!!!
And what about this:
copyright
copyright
copyright
Last year my photograh of the Bangkok post newspaer was deleted for this copyrightreason.
You can read long christmas or happy new year note but you don`t see ,looking at thumbnails that there is a violation of the TOS and copyright! Well done,moderators!!!
Leo

I've had a look at the linked 'copyright' photos and I think Leo's possibly chosen poor examples. Two of them are close shots of assembled photos of victims of Pol Pot. There are so many of these on the walls (I've seen lots of other photos of these photos) that it would be hard to provide the 'context'. Second, they are most probably not subject to copyright as they were taken by the Kmer Rouge. Third, the notes are informative and in one case almost encyclopedic. I don't think these photos break the TOS.

Wolfgang's photo is obviously of a poster placed on a pole or column, and shows defacement by a graffiti vandal, defacement which turns out to be almost 'appropriate', given the subject. It's this which caught Wolfgang's eye and makes the photo legitimate, I think. Apart from the issue of copyright being highly dubious in this case, the pole and graffiti provide context.

But I haven't seen Leo's shot which was removed, so I won't comment about the possibility of inconsistency.