B&H settled for $3.22 million. I believe there were also allegations of gender discrimination for in-store positions.
B&H settled for $3.22 million. I believe there were also allegations of gender discrimination for in-store positions.I guess i only, ever, just give that a quick look.
Not sure of the Truth/Details/Outcome, but.......this is kind of disturbing :
"Additionally, these men allegedly had to use segregated restrooms and were often subject to verbal harassment, including racist comments, which went ignored by management."
Again, i am not hip to all the details, but i guess this was (Only/Mostly) at their warehouse and not at their retail store.?
yeah that is not good, but they were also sued for millions in discrimination case ...
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=JZXLWqOLCYvisAXL5Z_QCQ&q=b+h+lawsuit&oq=b+h+lawsuit&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13k1l2j0i22i30k1l3j0i8i13i30k1l3.2553.6732.0.8146.13.11.0.0.0.0.141.1146.4j7.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.11.1143.0..0j0i131k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.vk_8yuY7f3Q
B&H settled for $3.22 million. I believe there were also allegations of gender discrimination for in-store positions.
sirus glass said:Very much off topic, the thread is about Adorama and its problem. We are not discussing every problem of every company ever made.
not sure how that is every problem every company made. it relates to this thread
more than 4tran and ibm mainframes ... kind of pot+kettle
It would appear that this isn’t the first time Mason has ‘forgotten’ to replace the placeholder images in his articles for Adorama:
@Jpncamerahunter: @adorama Would anyone care to comment on why one of your writers decided to use my images and text without permission? Dead Link Removed Mason seems to have a habit of doing this.
I'm not an attorney, but I think in the US fair use would generally permit limited excerpts for the examples you gave, but Resnick took seven images from the article, which doesn't seem very "limited" to me, and clearly the original author is not happy about it. I don't know how issues like this get resolved considering the Japan/US laws would likely be different.i wonder how many people on the internet who put things on pintrist, or send someone a link to a product they like
or an article they "repost" cite where they got the images or the articles? there have been people on this website who have
written articles &c and not cited any information at all, they have uploaded images of cameras and lenses, other people's photographs &c
and not cited anything ... shouldn't EVERYONE be held to this high standard or is it just other folks ?
It would appear that this isn’t the first time Mason has ‘forgotten’ to replace the placeholder images in his articles for Adorama:
@Jpncamerahunter: @adorama Would anyone care to comment on why one of your writers decided to use my images and text without permission? Dead Link Removed Mason seems to have a habit of doing this.
You're making fair points and making me think - your last sentence might be entirely correct, at least from a legal perspective. I really don’t know. I imagine Adorama has a policy, and if Resnick is following it so be it.totally understood .. but my point is that EVERYONE should be held to the same standard
not just this guy ... hot linking to images or boilerplating text is as prevalent on the internet
as dirt in the woods, whether it is 7 images and text or 1 image and text or no text at all.
and unless something is actually copyrighted, with it being REGISTERED at the copyright office
images have no real protection, and being on the internet ... even less. what that guy did was wrong
and as a commercial photographer he should have known better. most people just claim ignorance
and say " i didin't know i wasn't allowed to do that" ... fair use is for educational purposes ..
i would imagine someone could suggest learning center = education ...
what that guy did was wrong
and as a commercial photographer he should have known better. most people just claim ignorance
and say " i didin't know i wasn't allowed to do that" ... fair use is for educational purposes ..
i would imagine someone could suggest learning center = education ...
totally understood .. but my point is that EVERYONE should be held to the same standard
not just this guy ... hot linking to images or boilerplating text is as prevalent on the internet
as dirt in the woods, whether it is 7 images and text or 1 image and text or no text at all.
and unless something is actually copyrighted, with it being REGISTERED at the copyright office
images have no real protection, and being on the internet ... even less. what that guy did was wrong
and as a commercial photographer he should have known better. most people just claim ignorance
and say " i didin't know i wasn't allowed to do that" ... fair use is for educational purposes ..
i would imagine someone could suggest learning center = education ...
In closing, I offer you the Judith Griggs story.
Mason appears to be wrong. But Adorama said they paid Ken $1000 after the fact to compensate him for the use of his pictures. So they did the right thing. I suspect Adorama won't be using Mason any more.totally understood .. but my point is that EVERYONE should be held to the same standard
not just this guy ... hot linking to images or boilerplating text is as prevalent on the internet
as dirt in the woods, whether it is 7 images and text or 1 image and text or no text at all.
and unless something is actually copyrighted, with it being REGISTERED at the copyright office
images have no real protection, and being on the internet ... even less. what that guy did was wrong
and as a commercial photographer he should have known better. most people just claim ignorance
and say " i didin't know i wasn't allowed to do that" ... fair use is for educational purposes ..
i would imagine someone could suggest learning center = education ...
"Fair use" is an interesting one. Context is important.
In the grand scheme of things this isn't a big deal.
There will be a Management review tomorrow - Monday. From a brief conversation with the Sales Director last night, I absolutely believe this is being taken very seriously at the highest level.
I hope you will all accept my sincere apologies on behalf of Adorama for this series of mess-ups, the result of which - leaving a part of our loyal customer base feeling insulted and disrespected - is a situation that I'm certain was not anticipated or intended.
But i do appreciate they have a Service Rep that is willing to take the heat and report to us.
Thank you, David, however it is common knowledge that once an article has been published online, other sites and writers are able to use that writing and reporting to inform their own. It is not usually necessary to request permission provided there is a link back and mention, so they get that credit. Peta Pixel reported the exact same story, as did many other photography and Leica blogs.
ALC articles are repurposed frequently without our permission, and similarly we always allow it provided it is credited with links back to us.
Japan Camera Hunter has been exceptionally hard on us with the Rockwell/ film story. Ken Rockwell (an Adorama affiliate who earns a six-figure sum from us every year) was very gracious and accepted a fee for the use of his image.
For reasons that are currently unclear, 'Japan Camera Hunter' has apparently decided to go after us......... and as an aside, PetaPixel has been targeted by this publisher frequently as well, for the same reason.
I've seen many people wave the "fair use" flag in protest when someone claims copyright infringement against them, and 9 times out of 10, they have no idea what the terms for Fair Use actually are. They simply assume they can do as they please as long as they aren't making $$ by doing so. (Surprisingly, eBay merchants do this too, in spite of their clear intent to make profit from it!) Two months ago I caught someone posting a copy of one of my photos on a garden discussion forum, and when I asked him where he got the photo (he simply said "google image search") he got hostile, and after a few exchanges in which I pointed out that I should be asked before people repost my work, he revealed to me that he was a professional photographer (makes his living at it) and that he believed he could take copies of my photos and claim "fair use". It just spiralled downwards after that and I had to contact the forum owners and file DMCA. I shouldn't have to do these things. Its frustrating and a waste of my time.
As for "EVERYONE should be held to the same standard": absolutely right, and legally, everyone IS held to the same standard, but enforcement is an issue. Essentially, if you have images out there on the web - copy protected or not - and someone takes copies for their own use, without attribution and without permission, odds are they are violating your Intellectual Property Rights. But people do it all the time. And here's the tricky bit: you have to catch them stealing your stuff, otherwise it goes entirely unnoticed. Infringers know this, so they are gambling that the copyright holder won't even see the theft. Usually, thats a worthwhile gamble, for them. When I have confronted companies that have stolen my photos from various public sources, they usually come back to me and say things like "If you don't want people to use your pictures, then you shouldn't put them on the internet". Seriously. I've heard that so many times, and this is coming from "professional" businesses! Until web browsers implement tools that allow publishers the option of blocking any and all methods of capturing someone else's content (yes, even screen capture) then this war on copyright infringers will never be won.
In closing, I offer you the Judith Griggs story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?