Ecolog: Well, I must say I'm shocked, if not surprised. Any "colleague" who filches photos and claims, overtly or by implication, that heshe was the photographer should perhaps be displayed (flaying is torture, and we are beyond that) in the public square? (To provide some perspective, an individual who used to be on this list skipped out on a six-figure contract, stole gear I loaned to help the individual get started in the business, and refused to even tell me what had happened to the archival material for the business that spanned over thirty years, and sits comfortably in a professorship at a US university. The individual has to live out hisher life, not only for having committed asocial acts of dishonesty, theft, and irresponsibility, but for having decided to avoid negotiating an honorable resolution. I presume, however, that the individual sleeps well every night. I would be twisting in the wind on my own moral petard.) So, even when there is harm, even considerable harm, the high road has the least traffic, and the drivers are a lot more courteous.
In addition to Bridgman's "no harm, no foul" mature attitude, she is wise enough to take the high road and leave the low and tortuous road to the plagiarists (let us not disparage innocent organisms like pond scum, snakes, skunks, and the like, or otherwise inflame the guilty--who always howl the loudest). She is better off without such collaboration . . . though, you know . . . such acts are often committed out of premature development, immaturity, and even honest mistakes. Each case must be judged by those who know it, and may answer to more than one principle. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cara Lin Bridgman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Correction >I would be flattered if people used my photos--but only if they > attribute the photo to me. They do not need my permission. Like other > photographers here, I'd like to receive copies of the page or the > publication or emails with links to the websites. I, too, am curious > how people want to use my pictures. Besides, if people like my photos > so much they want to publish them, then it's something I can add to my > brag book, if not my CV. > > The problem is, my photos have been published (online and in print) more > often without my name and knowledge than with it--and fairly frequently > under someone else's name. This really bugs me. I do consider it > stealing. Naturally, it reduces my respect for those copying my > pictures. Bottom line, it breaks trust and, when it is a colleague that > pinches my photos, it breaks the relationship and removes (for me) the > possibility of future collaboration or future research. > > CL > who really cannot call herself a professional photographer and who is > always using photos and figures from the net (with attribution) for > lectures and classes. > > Jane Shevtsov wrote: >> How do you define "stealing"? Is it only if the photo is not >> attributed to you? If the photo is attributed but used without your >> explicit permission, would you call that stealing? I'm just interested >> in how different people think about these issues. > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Cara Lin Bridgman [email protected] > > P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin > Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com > Taichung County 43499 > Taiwan Phone: 886-4-2632-5484 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.33/2120 - Release Date: 05/18/09 06:28:00
