Michael

1.) I have never objected to CG , or for that matter anyone else, asking for credit to an image someone else uses. On the contrary, that is exactly what I want. For CG to credit a submission as “used with permission” or “ “photo courtesy of.” This acknowledges the submission as a courtesy by the submitter and not a donated gift. This DOES MATTER in the near future as monetization of images in the marketplace becomes more prevalent due to NFTs and other cyber trading. While it may not matter to most..it will certainly matter to the owners of one of a kind items that may look to jump into the block-chain.

2.) The suggestion of shutting down Chipguide is at a minimum salacious fear mongering. Why would that ever need to come to pass? If Chipguide would just conduct itself like every other printed or internet publication then this whole ridiculous back and forth could be over.

a.) Just acknowledge you are using a picture courtesy of someone else.

b.) Don’t make unsubstantiated claims that small photo edits constitute a new original work. And if you DO feel that way then why don’t you just watermark your new image? That would free up so much of Mr Kaplans time in policing every form of social media. It could be so unobtrusive a viewer would hardly notice. But again that’s only if your laying claim to a newly edited image as your own.

c.) There are many many images on CG that have been lifted from other sources. Every submission should be attributed to someone and if anonymous it should be able to be checked by a third party should the validity of that submission be challenged. Why do you condone policies that enable the very copyright infringement Charles is fighting against?

It’s ridiculous that I have to fight for what should be common place in an organization that has the scope of the CCA and MOGH. Perhaps had Charles not come out guns blazing about ethics I would not be so vigilant in retorts. I’ve said my peace on the matter.

E