• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

$5 or not?

Karl, the serious/intellectual one of the Marx Brothers.
 


As Jim Jones said, we are gifting it to others. Here's my analogy: You have something to contribute to another, paid or otherwise. If you were contributing in writing, would you expect some 3rd party to pay for the paper, ink, and postage? If contributing verbally, would you expect that 3rd party to pay for your long distance service?

What (to be more accurate) Photocentric Ltd provides is the vehicle to share useful content among a worldwide group of film enthusiasts. Some find that very useful and voluntarily pay for the privilege. Others find it only marginally useful and don't pay (or can't afford to pay). Some depend on others to pay for them.
 

Sounds an awful lot like Public TV to me... except without the government subsidies.
 


I see Apug as give-and-take.

(Concerning gifting our postings to Sean: In his Site Terms he claims ownership on the whole content of Apug. Thus including our postings and photo uplpoads.)
 
I typically don't donate to blogger-beggars, especially when the content they post is sloppy, and strictly exists to drive clicks on affiliate links, and to beg for gifts.

In my opinion, Ken Rockwell lacks the ability to provide any sort of discerning analysis. My distaste for his work is exacerbated by a friend who is constantly reading him and telling me "Ken Rockwell says it's the sharpest lens……". Everything that Mr. Rockwell has ever used is the sharpest/best thing there is. Same for Steve Huff and others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Even taken with a dose of hyperbole, your "Everthing" comment is grossly incorrect. Regardless of the accuracy of his reviews, he regularly comments on how equipment performs relative to another. And whether that performance is meaningful in the real world.

As to whether his content is there to strictly drive clicks on affiliate links, I suspect that's true but in the sense that he wouldn't bother to publish this if he wasn't in some way compensated for his time.
 
AgX said:
I see Apug as give-and-take.

(Concerning gifting our postings to Sean: In his Site Terms he claims ownership on the whole content of Apug. Thus including our postings and photo uplpoads.)
Click to expand...


There is a distinction between the website content and user content:

"The content included in the Services, including all Web site designs, text, graphics, photos, audio, video, the selection and arrangement thereof, and all software that are part of the Services (collectively, the "Content") is owned or licensed by PHOTOCENTRIC LIMITED and/or its licensors."

and

"By submitting any User Content through or to the Services, including on any User Tools or User Pages, but excluding any User Content you submit on PHOTOCENTRIC LIMITED Blogs, you hereby irrevocably grant to PHOTOCENTRIC LIMITED, its affiliates and distributors, a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, create derivative works from, transfer, transmit and distribute on the Services, in connection with promotion or elsewhere, such User Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. "
 

I don't find this accurate at all. After reading KR over the years in fact he goes out of his way In most of his reviews to say that sharpness isn't everything and even links to an article that discusses how sharpness should not be the end-all be-all of any lenses.
 
Reading KR got me to try Velvia 50. The inky blacks are magic. Velvia 100 is not like Velvia 50 in terms of the inky blacks, it's actually lower contrast compared to V50.
 
mgb74, thank you for correcting. (I had something on my memory but was negligent during re-reading Terms .)

So it is not "ownership" but "non-exclusive, unpaid copyright".
 
The site terms are protective.

They are there to prevent APUG from getting embroiled in litigation in case someone (not APUG) re-uses improperly content that is loaded here, and to permit APUG to take steps to protect the integrity of its site.

On their face they could be used to market members' photos and posts, but the protection against that is that if it happened without prior consent it would almost certainly cause a mass exodus from APUG.
 
AgX said:
mgb74, thank you for correcting. (I had something on my memory but was negligent during re-reading Terms .)

So it is not "ownership" but "non-exclusive, unpaid copyright".
Click to expand...

To be accurate, it's "license", not "copyright".

As Matt says, it's protective. Without such language I - at least in theory - could demand that all my posts be deleted. And the site could be liable if they missed a few.
 
I've donated to Rockwell, and Butkus, and a number of other people that supplied me with something I needed or wanted. Whether it be fact or opinion, if somebody takes the time and effort to do something that a lot of people find useful, they should be compensated.
I write articles for a car magazine. How long do you think I'd keep up the research, word processing and the taking and processing of pictures if they quit paying me?
I guess I've never been too much of a believer in something for nothing. It's why I'm a subscriber here and donate the PayPal fees, etc. I find this a very useful and entertaining site and I'm willing to pay for that.
 
I donated to Butkus a few years ago because he had two manuals I needed. I'm not disrespecting Rockwell by not donating. There's just nothing on his website that I need or am interested in but apparently he has enough there that interest other people if he can support his family with it.
 
Ken Rockwell's site led me to:

Buy the Ansel Adams books (the camera, the negative, the print)
Velvia 50
Large format.

Therefore Ken is great. The existence of Ken haters just proves his greatness and so the haters unwittingly boost the legend of the man. I think I sent him a few dollars a few years ago, not sure. I certainly sent some money to Butkus, that site is great. I have no problem with people providing information and asking for some money. I rather dislike sites that provide supposedly free services when in fact they are mining data from users left right and centre.
 
I was quite surprised and pleased that this thread hasn't turned into n "I Hate Rockwell" rant, or at least up until mrjr's last post.

I like Rockwell's website. It is a good read, and he has some interesting and insightful comments, though not all of it is interesting and insightful, but then who among us can claim to always be interesting and insightful?

P.S. One thing I don't like about Rockwell's site is his last name. I have spent my whole life being called "Rockwell". Sometimes I will even answer to that name.
 
hmmm rockwood ... rockwell ... bet you never see them in the same room together
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register