Can you believe Adorama would post this?

[faberryman]

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.?

B&H settled for $3.22 million. I believe there were also allegations of gender discrimination for in-store positions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Very much off topic, the thread is about Adorama and its problem. We are not discussing every problem of every company ever made.

 

[removed account4]

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

 

[CMoore]

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

 

[klownshed]

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.

 

[klownshed]

...There are ways a less lazy (possibly more honest?) writer could have linked to the original article without it appearing to be his own work.

If you are linking to another article the source and link should be up front. The writer can easily discuss points from the original article with pull quotes. A tiny link at the end of the article is not enough.

I don’t give a monkeys about whether or not Resnick thinks film is a waste of time. I care not for ‘his’ opinions.

But dishonesty? Not cool.

 

[warden]

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.

Wow. It clearly states on JCH's page, "All images used with permission. No reproduction without prior consent." WTF?

 

[removed account4]

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 ?

 

[warden]

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 ?

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.

 

[David Luttmann]

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.

If this is indeed a regular occurance...and it appears to be so...then Adorama should delete the most recent post by Mason, and considering removing them all and cutting ties with him altogether.

I see Mason has been silent for nearly a week now.

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

 

[warden]

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 ...

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.

 

[removedacct1]

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 ...

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.

 

[klownshed]

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 ...

Resnick has taken the story researched and written by Bellamy and paraphrased it, adding the odd little embellishment here and there but effectively just re-writing it as if he was the story teller. In my view that's beyond "Fair use". I don't know if he intended to deceive, but based on the other article referred to in the OP* it appears he has a history of deceit. There's a big difference between using somebody else's photo in an article and taking an entire illustrated story and publishing it as your own. The photos in the original article on japancamerahunter are stated as being used with permission. Resnick can't claim the same.

"Fair use" is an interesting one. Context is important.

In the grand scheme of things this isn't a big deal. It just so happens this time Resnick is in the headlights. Next time it'll be somebody else. The Internet is an unforgiving environment. But I think he'd have been treated differently had he posted the article on a personal blog rather than on the pages of a relatively big camera shop's site. It also matters who you take your material from. Take a photo from my site and nobody will notice. Take one from the mighty Ken and lots of photographers will notice and call you out.

 

[Helios 1984]

In closing, I offer you the Judith Griggs story.

The entire response by Griggs D: *facepalm

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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 ...

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.

 

[removedacct1]

"Fair use" is an interesting one. Context is important.

In the grand scheme of things this isn't a big deal.

Actually, I would say instead that this is a big deal inasmuch as this is a "litmus test" for how things are on the internet: taken as a whole, safeguarding your work is nearly impossible and things are very much broken on the web. I'd say that's a big deal for photographers and other creatives who care to share what they do, online.

 

[David Luttmann]

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.

Helen, no offense, but I'm not sure what kind of backwater operation is being run at Adorama. It appears that Mason stole an entire article and images that was for some reason allowed to be placed on your site. This is now making the rounds amoung thousands on FB and the JCH site. I can say this much, if Mason's articles remain, I will not purchase anything further from Adorama. I will recommend the same to our Film FB page with nearly 2000 members.

Do the right thing and punt this fellow...and send him the bill for the Rockwell photo and the JCH article.

 

[HelenOster]

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.

 

[CMoore]

Japan Camera Hunter...??

The guy that was... "Going To Define The Future Of Film.?
He was a big part of marketing this.?
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-reflex-camera.154169/


It is lousy what Adorama has done or appeared to have done. Maybe they deserve our worst wrath, i don't know. They might lose hundreds or thousands of customers over this...time will tell.
But i do appreciate they have a Service Rep that is willing to take the heat and report to us.
Whether she becomes the Sara Sanders of Adaorama, or is an honest reporter of what the company plans to do to fix this remains to be seen.
I rarely (if ever) even buy anything from them, so i have no horse in the race. I would think we could wait a week or two and give Adorama a chance to do, or begin to do The Right Thing.
The ball is in their court so to speak.
Good Luck

 

[zanxion72]

Interestingly that link to Adorama's website delivers a 404 (page not found) error. It seems that they have been tickled by this and removed it.

 

[eddie]

But i do appreciate they have a Service Rep that is willing to take the heat and report to us.

Agreed. Considering how small we film users are to their business, addressing our concerns should be lauded.

 

[David Luttmann]

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 think you missed my point. The author stole images and lied about it. Adorama ended up footing the bill. The article about film with the stolen image was pure rubbish and devisive in your customer base. Despite this, you choose to leave it up. To me, that says it all. I will not support your store in the future, and will encourage others to do the same.

 

[eddie]

We’re quite a group... we get up in arms when a company ( Adorama) directly responds to our issues, complain that Ferrania doesn’t deliver quickly enough, still think Kodak owes us Kodachrome,and become incensed when Fuji doesn’t knock on our doors to inform us about dropping a product.
We should be thankful for what we have, in a diminishing market, especially to those representatives who take the time to visit here, and address concerns.

 

[removed account4]

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.

that wasn't good ... thanks for the post!