 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source...
In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> Now I see, that you deleted a photo that I uploaded.
> (http://www.neophilia.de/LEGO/yy_ich_und_mein_4105-Magnum.jpg) It's a
> manipulated photo. I took a German ice cream advertising ("Ich & Mein
> Magnum" = "Me & My Magnum" -- Magnum is the name of the ice cream) and
> replaced the ice cream by a LEGO replica in my Picture Publisher software.
> It's all in a folder tagged as a MOC. So why is this deleted without any
> comment? Is it because a moderator didn't look at the picture but only at
> the thumbnail?
I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times
and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very
pretty girl suggestively and lasciviously manipulating an upright round,
hard object with an expression of joy on her face just before she takes it
into her mouth is *not* porn. At least not these days it's not. It's just
commercial art. :-)
My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out for
stuff like that. So every time I looked at it, I ducked. I marked it unsure
and went back to moderating. By the way I walked your entire directory and
cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
If it was deleted, someone else deleted it but I don't know who.
There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. I
suppose that would be a good enhancement... would you prefer that BrickShelf
had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
> Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
> offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
> Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
> answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
> short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
> that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
> removing a file?
I suspect he's pretty busy. I hesitated to answer at all. I'm scared that I
am talking out my butt based on incomplete knowledge and worse, that I might
say stuff that might jog Kevin's elbow and cause problems. That,
regrettably, has happened because of stuff I said in the past, for which I
apologise.
++Lar (who is glad that the hippocratic oath does not apply)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Without knowing the details on how the moderating works, it does worry me a bit
that this image was visible on Brickshelf and accessible from the Recent folder
for some non-trivial length of time. In view of the massive unavailability of
folders long since uploaded, I was under the impression that that everything
was unsafe-until-moderated-otherwise, and it followed that new folders and
changed folders would also be non-public until moderated. Yet, in this
situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only then
gets removed. Hmm.
I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image other
than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent that
I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream manufacturer
and LEGO.
Constantine
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source...
>
> In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
>
> > Now I see, that you deleted a photo that I uploaded.
> > (http://www.neophilia.de/LEGO/yy_ich_und_mein_4105-Magnum.jpg) It's a
> > manipulated photo. I took a German ice cream advertising ("Ich & Mein
> > Magnum" = "Me & My Magnum" -- Magnum is the name of the ice cream) and
> > replaced the ice cream by a LEGO replica in my Picture Publisher software.
> > It's all in a folder tagged as a MOC. So why is this deleted without any
> > comment? Is it because a moderator didn't look at the picture but only at
> > the thumbnail?
>
> I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times
> and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very
> pretty girl suggestively and lasciviously manipulating an upright round,
> hard object with an expression of joy on her face just before she takes it
> into her mouth is *not* porn. At least not these days it's not. It's just
> commercial art. :-)
>
> My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
> people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out for
> stuff like that. So every time I looked at it, I ducked. I marked it unsure
> and went back to moderating. By the way I walked your entire directory and
> cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
>
> If it was deleted, someone else deleted it but I don't know who.
>
> There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. I
> suppose that would be a good enhancement... would you prefer that BrickShelf
> had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
>
> > Another point: Why all this mystery-mongering? When the server was taken
> > offline, thousands of LEGO fans all over the world wondered what happened.
> > Even in this thread you never told us the reason. Ok, eventually Larry
> > answered the repeated question -- after two days. Why didn't you place a
> > short note on www.brickshelf.com? Why don't you write at the same place,
> > that now uploads are moderated? Why don't you give us the criteria for
> > removing a file?
>
> I suspect he's pretty busy. I hesitated to answer at all. I'm scared that I
> am talking out my butt based on incomplete knowledge and worse, that I might
> say stuff that might jog Kevin's elbow and cause problems. That,
> regrettably, has happened because of stuff I said in the past, for which I
> apologise.
>
> ++Lar (who is glad that the hippocratic oath does not apply)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> Yet, in this
> situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only • then
> gets removed. Hmm.
The image was visible only to me and not public.
> I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> and LEGO.
Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
give each picture a comment I would have written that..
..oli
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > Yet, in this
> > situation, an image is uploaded and is visible on Brickshelf, and only • then
> > gets removed. Hmm.
>
> The image was visible only to me and not public.
That is not true, and is the point of my posting at all. I did see this image
in the recent folder at Brickshelf yesterday. It was public. This has more to
do with Brickshelf than with you...
>
> > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > and LEGO.
>
> Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> give each picture a comment I would have written that..
>
>
> ..oli
Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
Constantine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > > and LEGO.
> >
> > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> >
> >
> > ..oli
>
> Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and download)
the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
was in any way hurt.
FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise to
see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
brown shape?
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > > > and LEGO.
> > >
> > > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> > >
> > >
> > > ..oli
> >
> > Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> > inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
>
> I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and • download)
> the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> was in any way hurt.
> FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise • to
> see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
> to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
> Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
> behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
> brown shape?
>
>
> Pedro
Let's try that again:
Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead
of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the
copyright field)...
On the other hand, in view of the tangled multinational web of laws on
copyright and trademark infringement and potential rights of parody and satire
and exposure of the host to contributory infringement, there are two companies'
reputations at risk in this manipulation, not just one. Would I have clicked on
a thumb depicting a girlfriend fondling an ice cream bar MOC? Probably. So it
is not fair to say that trademark and copyright infringement is needed to draw
interest to a rendition in LEGO of a real-world object now made possible
through the wider variety of brown pieces.
Constantine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> > > In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > > > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > > > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image • other
> > > > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent • that
> > > > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream • manufacturer
> > > > > and LEGO.
> > > >
> > > > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > > > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ..oli
> > >
> > > Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> > > inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
> >
> > I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> > interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and • download)
> > the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> > concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> > was in any way hurt.
> > FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> > puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise • to
> > see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
> > to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
> > Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
> > behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
> > brown shape?
> >
> >
> > Pedro
>
> Let's try that again:
>
> Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead
> of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the
> copyright field)...
That I do understand, and agree. As an addition, it would definately make sense.
> On the other hand, in view of the tangled multinational web of laws on
> copyright and trademark infringement and potential rights of parody and satire
> and exposure of the host to contributory infringement, there are two companies'
> reputations at risk in this manipulation, not just one.
Yes, I realized that when I hit post - I keep forgetting LEGO is very
brand-aware... :-)
It might have been advisable to include a disclaimer, in tiny letters on the
bottom of the image (in such a way they would not be visible in the thumb,
perhaps?)
> Would I have clicked on
> a thumb depicting a girlfriend fondling an ice cream bar MOC? Probably.
But my point is, what if you *didn't* know it was an Ice-cream MOC? Would the
picture have called your attention? I would have bypassed it, as if it were the
original ad. After all, it was hard to tell that the Ice cream was LEGO...
> So it
> is not fair to say that trademark and copyright infringement is needed to draw
> interest to a rendition in LEGO of a real-world object now made possible
> through the wider variety of brown pieces.
Generically, I agree it is not *needed*. In this particular case, I'd say it
was *helpful* to call attention. In other words, it would be ill-advised to use
the logo in every single work, but given the specificities of this picture (1)
it might be excusable - I dunno, and quite frankly I'd LOVE to.
Pedro
(1) - the small relative size of the LEGO Ice-cream when it appears on the
thumb, that does not allow easy recognition of its true nature.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see
> (and download)
> the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> was in any way hurt.
You cannot say that for sure.
> FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad.
My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the
LEGO(r) logo on it.
I really don't want to see a huge debate break out about this. It's been
discussed in some depth before that LEGO does not like it when people apply
their logo to things that they did not approve the use of the logo in. Kevin
has in the past adhered fairly closely on that point as well as the rest of
the Fair Play policies (which are linked from the web front page of this
newsgroup by the way)
The Maxim ice cream company (or whoever they company is) may have similar
(and valid) concerns but they aren't quite as tightly "associated" with the
site.
I don't know who disapproved it. I don't care, really. It got resubmitted
and now it's approved, after a few more changes were made to the pictures in
the folder to elaborate. Kevin ought to make the final determination on this
one though... it's a case deserving of some concern.
All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
folders, by the way.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
<SNIP>
> My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the
> LEGO(r) logo on it.
<SNIP>
Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point, and maybe the images
were changed before they were uploaded. But the enhanced image that I saw (as
I did not look at these images until after they were re-uploaded) makes me
think that they have not been changed, except for the image labled 'for
blinds.' It seems the creator wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that
the LEGO logo was in fact NOT in the picture, but a parody of the LEGO logo,
with the word LOGO written in.
--Anthony
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Anthony Sava writes:
> Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point,
> and maybe the images
> were changed before they were uploaded.
Yes you are, and yes they were.
The original image had the LEGO logo in it not a parody. But even the parody
is a technical violation of the fairplay document... one that lots of people
do (similar parodies or distortions that is) but a violation nevertheless.
Stop nitpicking and stop badgering, that would be my request.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Anthony Sava writes:
>
> > Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point,
> > and maybe the images
> > were changed before they were uploaded.
>
> Yes you are, and yes they were.
>
> The original image had the LEGO logo in it not a parody. But even the parody
> is a technical violation of the fairplay document... one that lots of people
> do (similar parodies or distortions that is) but a violation nevertheless.
>
> Stop nitpicking and stop badgering, that would be my request.
Lar,
Less typing, more clicking. I want everyone to be able to see my pics soon. ;-)
Jude
FUT .o-t.debate cause it ain't worth it even though you are right
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> > interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see
> > (and download)
> > the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> > concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> > was in any way hurt.
>
> You cannot say that for sure.
Why would a company feel upset about free advertising? I mean, it is not as if
the picture was in any way an insult to the ice-cream...
I agree I cannot tell for sure that they *won't* feel hurt, but what I said is
*it is unlikely* they'll feel hurt - I admit they may find a reason to protest,
I (and "I" means just that, me) just can't remember any.
> > FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> > puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad.
>
> My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the
> LEGO(r) logo on it.
>
> I really don't want to see a huge debate break out about this. It's been
> discussed in some depth before that LEGO does not like it when people apply
> their logo to things that they did not approve the use of the logo in. Kevin
> has in the past adhered fairly closely on that point as well as the rest of
> the Fair Play policies (which are linked from the web front page of this
> newsgroup by the way)
I agree to that; in fact, in a different post in this thread I admit I had
forgotten about LEGO and was just considering the implications concerning the
Ice cream company.
> The Maxim ice cream company (or whoever they company is) may have similar
> (and valid) concerns but they aren't quite as tightly "associated" with the
> site.
True.
> I don't know who disapproved it. I don't care, really. It got resubmitted
> and now it's approved, after a few more changes were made to the pictures in
> the folder to elaborate. Kevin ought to make the final determination on this
> one though... it's a case deserving of some concern.
It is, IMO, a case which might benefit with clarification from LEGO (for future
reference). In any case, given that the "offending" part of the picture has now
been cleverly changed, it doesn't matter any more... :-)
> All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> folders, by the way.
Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
<snip>
That's all plowed ground, I am not going to debate it here.
> > All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> > folders, by the way.
> Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
If I understand your question the answer of late is:
Orbital - 2
Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust
Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport
or stuff from www.purerave.com (which Iain turned me on to, thanks!),
especially: Didymos - Epic Trance CD
If not, please ask again...
Jude: your folders are cleared, I think.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> That's all plowed ground, I am not going to debate it here.
I did not know that - please apologize the persistence :-(
> > > All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> > > folders, by the way.
>
> > Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
>
> If I understand your question the answer of late is:
>
> Orbital - 2
> Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust
> Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport
>
> or stuff from www.purerave.com (which Iain turned me on to, thanks!),
> especially: Didymos - Epic Trance CD
>
> If not, please ask again...
Huh... rythm, as in "the average pace in which you (reviewer) review files".
I should have used "review" instead of "analysis", but the first does not
exist in my native language with the same meaning. Hence your answer, I
guess :-)
(Good musical taste, BTW)
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> Huh... rythm, as in "the average pace in which you (reviewer) review files".
> I should have used "review" instead of "analysis", but the first does not
> exist in my native language with the same meaning. Hence your answer, I
> guess :-)
Ah. OK. The answer is it depends.
External factors: How fast does the page load? That's driven by the network
load. I have a cable modem connection to the internet and a 100 Mbps
internal network. During the day the network is loaded because my kids are
surfing and stuff, (that's noise though) and the cable modem connection is
slower since other people are placing a load. Best review time so far has
been about 2 AM when everything is fast
How many files are in the folder? Larger folders are slower.
Internal factors include:
Have I seen this folder before? If I remember seeing it (and I have a pretty
good memory and i hang out on Brickshelf a lot) I do not have to examine
each thumbnail closely, just look for pics I don't recognise.
Do I know the poster? If I know the poster well and trust them I don't have
to examine as closely either.
What is the subject matter? Some subject matter takes more careful review.
If there is text in a pic I have to look at the pic to see what it says. If
there are flesh tones I have to at least glance at the pic instead of just
scanning it.
If everything is going really fast on the network I have achieved folder
review rates in excess of 15 folders/minute when I am walking the folder
tree of someone I already know and really trust, and whose tree I really
know well already because I have seen it recently.
Average is more like 20 secs per folder though.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Do I know the poster? If I know the poster well and trust them I don't have
> to examine as closely either.
Careful... How do you know that the name at the top of the folder is the
person who uploaded each file?
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Do I know the poster? If I know the poster well and trust them I don't have
> > to examine as closely either.
>
> Careful... How do you know that the name at the top of the folder is the
> person who uploaded each file?
Um, I'm assuming that I found the right person by looking their name up, and
I'm walking their tree. If the folders I see there when I start don't match
up with what I expect to see (because I know who they are and what they put
there before... when I say I hang out on BrickShelf I REALLY mean it... I am
in there all the time and have a pretty good memory of who has posted what
sorts of pics and even how their folders are laid out, in the "know it when
I see it" sense, not that I can recite folder layouts for random users...)
then I would get suspicious.
For example I walked Jeff Stembel's tree a little while ago... I've seen it
before. If I had not seen the wamalug layout pics and brickwars stuff I
expected to see I would have been suspicious that I hadn't really found Jeff.
For another example I was chatting with Troy C. in BL. I know it's him based
on what he was telling me about stuff that only he and I know related to the
Guild. He gave me the link to the top of his tree. I walked the tree,
clearing it fairly quickly. I'm pretty confident in that case that it really
was Troy's folder tree... (plus I found pics of me where I expected to find
them!) but if he's uploading pr0n, we're hosed because I let the whole tree
through quickly.
Remember I was talking about going and finding a person's folder tree and
walking it, not about random folders presented to me when I click on
moderate to start the process. THOSE are not to be trusted. Those are 90%
bionicle it seems, too. :-)
So far when walking I have not yet seen any folder trees that aren't what I
expected to find but I do know there are a couple of ringers out there
namewise. (where the same name is in there twice or whatever... I've avoided
those for now).
However if this methodology isn't a good one please let me know and I'll
stop clearing people's folders and go back to random folders, where I do NOT
trust the name I see...
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> gratuitous snip *
Since your doing some mammoth overhaul on Brickshelf right now, I was
wondering if you could implement a new browsing feature: by member number.
Is there some sort of privacy policy that would break if it was available? I
know I would be using that all the time, and have a half baked method of
doing so already. I edit the url path and tweak the numbers at the end which
sort of teleports me here or there through the gallery library. So just to
clarify, I'm NOT proposing teleportation ; some sort of method of browsing
the member list by their brickshelf number.
cheers, Joseph
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=silversmurfer (almost
unearthed too!)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in
news:GyF7IL.I35@lugnet.com...
> My issue with it was the trademarks and copyrights... Spoofing other
> people's ads may not be legal in the US and Kevin has said to watch out • for
> stuff like that.
Some of the best photos on brickshelf are (were?) spoofed ads or packages. I
wonder why someone can show splattered, blood covered bodies of minfigs in
his brickwars pages, but you may not show the LEGO logo together with
beatyful women. If I had omitted the logo, nobody would give it a close look
to search the bricks and the picture would have been removed because it was
supposed to be off-topic.
Whoever killed this file should have send a short message when he removed
it. Then I knew what the mistake was and maybe corrected it. And if it's too
much work to write a message for every killed file, because so many pictures
have to be removed, maybe the criteria are too hard. I am really afraid the
censorship is killing the community. I have to repeat this again and again.
Some of us are already thinking loudly about alternatives.
> There is no facility to cause a note to go to the submitter at this time. • I
> suppose that would be a good enhancement...
It would (s.a.).
> By the way I walked your entire directory and
> cleared everything else in it that hadn't yet been cleared.
Thanks for that. I hope Brickshelf will become a cozy place for me to store
newer pictures, again.
> would you prefer that BrickShelf
> had been off the air till Kevin got the entire interface perfect?
I would prefer to be treated in justice. "Everybody is unguilty until the
opposite is proofed." Make all old files available for public, verify them
and then deny access to those that are breaking your rules. And please: Make
those rules public.
Thanks for the feedback,
..oli
| | | | | | |
