BMEWS
 

Discontinued Feature

 
 


Posted by The Skipper    United States   on 03/04/2006 at 02:52 PM   
 
  1. these people are so worried about their pictures being stolen why didn’t they make their own galleries instead of using a public domain site like photo.net? They’ll never see any money coming from me for their crap...or any publicity…

    Posted by Infinity    United States   03/04/2006  at  03:25 PM  

  2. Damn - I actually enjoyed a number of those shots.  What a shame.

    To the dimwitted refugees from a little, musty aired room who complained - GET A FREAKIN LIFE, LOSER!!

    Posted by T    United States   03/04/2006  at  03:49 PM  

  3. I got my lick in on their discussion.  Thank the Lord for yahoo disposable addresses, huh?

    There are other good photos, Cap’n, where the photographer doesn’t habitually have a sachet of shit in his pants.

    Posted by Oink    United States   03/04/2006  at  04:09 PM  

  4. Hmmm, those pictures were, all in all, rather easy on the old eyes.  Too bad asshats have a sh!t fit over what I would call fair use.  I went to several of the photographer’s home page to see what else he/she had done.  Won’t do that again.

    Too bad to see that the liberals/whiners/@sshats have claimed art as their dominion and are unwilling to allow conservatives to enjoy it as well.

    Posted by Kirk    United States   03/04/2006  at  05:06 PM  

  5. Dr. Saus says:
    Pent up bitterness in a self enclosed micro environment of self importance, common among the ignorant and or left. I prescribe a nice warm shot of J&B, and plenty NY times bed reading with rest.

    Artists and self promotion, I take it that is a primary reason mosts artists are flat out broke.. Please use all my art wherever and whenever possible in copious amounts, then apply some more if possible. It might help if I actually made art, but I’m working on the self promotion aspects first lol.

    Hmm.. So this is what happens when the people forced fed castor oil as children (like the little rascals in black and white) finally grow up.. I knew my generation was better off with GI Joe vs The Cobra terrorists cartoons, I just knew it!

    Posted by saus    Canada   03/04/2006  at  05:15 PM  

  6. I read the photo.net thread. “Anyone who I disagree with is pure evil and his every move is full of evil intentions,” seems to be the logic behind their every argument.

    Sorry for the length of this comment… Rovey, Cheney, and The Carnivorous Duck are sitting around having some fun and a couple Sam Adams after pheasant hunting (no quail this time!)

    I loved the one who said this site is “obviously financed by the Republican party.” Presumably because no private citizen could possibly have beliefs so antithetical to his own. Just like Nixon couldn’t have been elected because Pauline Kael didn’t know anyone who voted for him.

    Allen, you did a good thing introducing people to a place to find some great photography. I use some water droplet photos as my wallpaper because the photographer created a beautiful thing by capturing it in just the right way. But surprise, surprise; a bunch of spoiled little Nellie Olsons got their panties in a bunch.

    You ever notice they have to scream as loudly as they can that all non-lefties are evil, because they seem to confuse volume and shrillness for integrity and righteousness? (Hint to moonbats, you’re only fooling your fellow moonbats)

    HERE’S THE FUN PART:
    I, for one, am going to print out a few of Keith dickhead Turril’s photos and tape them on the business side of some local tavern bathroom stalls (or will I? Looks like Mr. Turrel will have to come and investigate himself if he wants to protect his intellectual property).

    Anyone who knows Dockside Murphy’s, Amber’s, or The Greystone Tavern in Salisbury, MD, pop on in for a leak and a laugh. If you come in for more than a leak, I’ll be removing the rolled up paper in the stalls, so dickheadTurril’s photo will be the only paper option open to you shit (Muhahahaha! That one was Rove’s idea)

    I might run a couple of dickheadTurril’s out to the range, too. My ‘42 Garand and the Kimber could both use some bench time. I hope I don’t get sued for copyright infringement :-(

    On a serious note, today I began looking into buying a new or used semi-auto Thompson. Anybody have any advice on make/model? Does anyone besides Auto-Ordinance/Kahr make the Thompson today? machinegun  machinegun

    Posted by Carnivorous Duck    United States   03/04/2006  at  05:26 PM  

  7. Uh, let me get this straight exactly what Michael Moore has made his money on and got applauded for (Fahrenheit 911: using clips from the internet without asking permission) now has this bunch at Photo.net wanting to join up with RIAA and their despicable (since they are the ‘agents’ not the artists) actions and designs???

    And these whinners who don’t want to be seen or associated Conservative website - claim that conservatives are the money grubbing corporate rich, narrow minded evil ones? What crap.

    Too bad, I enjoyed the photos, even if I rarely commented on them.

    Posted by wardmama4    United States   03/04/2006  at  05:38 PM  

  8. Skipper, I’d get them to pull the post that has your full name, address and phone number…

    Posted by Draven    United States   03/04/2006  at  08:35 PM  

  9. Skipper...what a bunch of fuckheads! I’m glad I don’t have an account there.

    Posted by Macker    United States   03/04/2006  at  09:08 PM  

  10. Hmmm, the rat-b*stards have deleted the “better get your suitcase packed cuz you’re going to soon travel to St Louis and it won’t be for pleasure” posting.

    Posted by Kirk    United States   03/04/2006  at  11:06 PM  

  11. Lemme see if I’ve got this right......
    They post their photos where anyone can download them.....
    and then bitch when a few of them show up on another web site?  With full accreditation and links?  I used to wonder if you were getting paid to promote them!

    If they really wanted to “control” their ownership, it seems to me that they wouldn’t place the photos where they could be downloaded at will by anyone who accessed the site.  Even to a non techie this doesn’t seem to hard to accomplish.

    Maybe there’s a technical violation of the law here, maybe there isn’t.  Most of their “discussion” sounds a lot like a bunch of shrill little children picking on someone they don’t like.

    Crap

    Skipper, of all you postings, I probably paid the least attention to the photos, but they were pleasant distractions.  Sorry to hear it’s ending.  Good luck with the assholes.  This kind of BS is what made me realize the neo cons (I hope that’s the right wording) were a lot more realistic and liberal in the classic sense, then those who claim the mantle of liberalism (or as I prefer to call them, neo fascists).

    Doc

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   03/05/2006  at  01:30 AM  

  12. Such childish behaviour, but its their loss. This site gets lots of visitors, and you would think they would be happy to have their work seen by as wide an audience as possible. I am like Dr. Jeff on this one. The photos were pleasant and I think it a shame it has come to this, but if they want to throw their toys out of the pram what can you do?

    Posted by LyndonB    United Kingdom   03/05/2006  at  02:51 AM  

  13. *shrug* the TOS over on Photo.net is pretty straight forward.  If you had posted a link to the photo instead of the photo itself you would have been fine.  Personally I think that anyone who posts full-resolution photos online expecting these won’t be reposted is an idiot.  But it’s still their intellectual property and they can be as prissy as they want with it.

    Posted by Orion    United States   03/05/2006  at  03:03 AM  

  14. Brian Mottershead (Editor In Cheif) contact phone number is 978-371-3960.

    I just called and some babe answered on Sunday morning.  I bet the number is a home phone number so you might want to call at 3:00 AM EST.

    Why does Brian hate Republicans so much question

    Is it that this so-called company is from the land of Ted Kennedy question

    Notice how none of the so-called artists or camera sellers there will NOT list their phone numbers.  How can they do customer service question

    That Keith Turrill from Iowa is a real piece of work, damn Liberal tongue

    Posted by Z Woof    United States   03/05/2006  at  09:09 AM  

  15. Keith Turrill
    127 Greenwood Drive
    Burlington, Iowa 52601
    E-Mail:
    Phone: 319-752-4372

    Posted by The Skipper    United States   03/05/2006  at  09:47 AM  

  16. OCM-Submit your head up ass photo for their consideration.

    Posted by Oink    United States   03/05/2006  at  10:07 AM  

  17. OldCatMan,

    Your bucks are both bigger with more symmetrical racks than dickheadTurril’s. Ha, dickheadTurril’s a loser chasehatchet.

    BTW, like your avitar, too. How’d you do it?

    Posted by Carnivorous Duck    United States   03/05/2006  at  08:22 PM  

  18. Ohh wow Keith has his self portrait on his home page..... I will just put the link to his page up since we wouldn’t want to have any of the asshat’s pictures on here… LOL

    http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1173340 But that’s giving a disservice to monkeys LOL

    Posted by Infinity    United States   03/05/2006  at  11:54 PM  

  19. Tragic. I’ll miss the hooters.

    >>Brian Mottershead (Editor In Cheif) contact phone number is 978-371-3960.

    Indeed Woof, it is the land of Teddy Kopechne. In fact, the number puts it in close proximity to yours truely. It’s a shame that didn’t remove what looks like their home phone number from a google search.

    Posted by tuffbeingright    United States   03/06/2006  at  06:52 AM  

  20. tuff, I got Brian Mottershead’s phone number from the “Registar of Copyrights.” (the irony) LOL

    Brian Mottershead
    118 Nowell Farme Rd
    Carlisle, MA 01741
    Phone:  978-371-3960
    Fax:  978-371-3962
    Email: 

    Stamped: RECEIVED SEP 29 2003 COPYRIGHT OFFICE

    Boston: Land of creeps and sloppy fat boys named Ted. crazy pig  crazy

    Posted by Z Woof    United States   03/06/2006  at  08:21 AM  

  21. It’s a shame when ART, which by definition is NOT commercial, becomes so distorted by greed and pride.  I wonder if DaVinci wants to sue Dan Brown for using his works in his book? 

    If a photographer shoots a beautiful sunset, can he legally sell it?  After all, the sunset was created, painted or whatever other artistic term you want to use, but GOD.  I don’t see them giving him credit for the subject in the photo.  As a matter of fact, that wouldn’t be limited to sunsets, but just about everything that those liberal artsy, fartsy jerks decide to capture in their lenses!

    Can I get an AMEN???????

    Posted by TANSTAAFL    United States   03/06/2006  at  11:44 AM  

  22. AMEN!
    Skipper, I read the forum link to the end. I am just so pissed, I have nothing to say at this time. I can’t even think straight! What a bunch of self-centered assholes!

    Posted by Carguy    United States   03/06/2006  at  01:09 PM  

  23. Old Catman…
    yes, I was referring to the Jerks… but the particular image captured in your camera is jsut that, CAPTURED in your camera. It had to exist in order for you to take a picture of it..  SO although you took the photo of it, someone else created it…

    Good thing Mother Nature (GOD) doesn’t believe in copyright laws… although you would think that might be the case in the large argument ensuing over Cloning.... smile

    Posted by TANSTAAFL    United States   03/06/2006  at  02:54 PM  

  24. Artistic Philosophy???  Isn’t that kind of an oxymoron?  I always believed that Art is a free form of expression, I am not sure you can attach a philosophy to it… But I am not an artist so I can’t really say that with any authority… Regardless, even if you are playing with F-stops, depth of field, focus, composition, exposure etc etc etc, you are still taking a photograph of something that is already there.  Photography, even with all its technology is still capturing an image in a specific format… even if the image photographed is manipulated to hell and back… Unlike creation of music, or a painting or a sculpture, where you are genuinely creating out of nothing, with photography, you merely modifying what is there to be photographed…

    PS, I miss Allen’s photos du jour… some of the images were spectacular, beautiful and magnificently composed....  Even if not actual creations but merely photographs of something someone else really should be taking credit for creating, whether you refer to the creator as God, Mother Nature, or a Big Bang.... smile

    Posted by TANSTAAFL    United States   03/06/2006  at  03:26 PM  

  25. A photographer friend once said it’s harder (in some ways) to create art by capturing what’s already there than to start from scratch and make something the way you envision it. Sounds like a fair assessment to me.

    Thomas Mangelsen is an incredible outdoor photographer. His site is called “Images of nature.” Look for the photo named “Catch of the day.” Wow!

    Posted by Carnivorous Duck    United States   03/06/2006  at  04:03 PM  

  26. I agree. I have tried my hand at photography, and truth be told, I SUCK at it.  It takes a special eye, talent, mindset, creativity, whatever you want to call it to take a great photo.  But the question around “copy rights” gets “out of focus” if you are arguing about who owns an image… Ansel Adams photos are absolutely beautiful, especially his photos of Yosemite… but he didn’t create the rock formations that he photographed, he merely positioned himself, made the camera settings and pushed the button.  Who should really get credit for the image?  The photographer or the landscaper?
    confused

    Posted by TANSTAAFL    United States   03/06/2006  at  05:40 PM  

  27. Yo Catman! 

    That’s the kind of reducto ad absurdum that professors love!  Quick, submit it as a PhD Thesis - any philosophy department will issue one on the spot.  Wonderful job of deconstructing primary reality.  Be careful of your ending though - it smacks of ordinary reality.

    clap

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   03/07/2006  at  10:19 AM  

  28. Rest easy Catman.
    I passed Philosphy I by reading the flyleaf of the textbook on the day of the final exam. 

    .......of course it’s George’s fault - the neo cons have been plotting since the fall of Adam to do it - who do you think taught Eve about good and evil?  hmmmmmm?  That’s certainly a judgemental lesson.  Sounds like someone didn’t care about her self esteem and now we’re stuck with generations of anorectic women!  See what you get from traditional values!

    Am I doing a good job imitating a “Progressive” yet?  Dang, it’s too easy.  All I have to do is turn off my brain and let my mouth take over.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   03/07/2006  at  01:08 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: A Monty Python Moment

Previous entry: Criminal Of The Week

<< BMEWS Main Page >>