George Tice - Lodima Press Edition

mmcclellan · Oct 21, 2005

Sean said:
Mike, I hope you realize that MANY people get sued for slander on the internet these days and you have totally opened yourself up for an extreme cut and dry case of slander. One of the more pure cases of it I've ever witnessed since I connected to the net.

"Slander" is spoken, "libel" is printed. "Defamation of character" is another option, but tough to prove.

Having just been through a legal issue involving the latter, I can tell you that truth is the ultimate determinant, so if what Mike says is backed up with evidence, then there's no defense.

Given the legal costs involved, prosecution is rarely worth it unless the target has really deep pockets. My lawyer told me to be ready to spend about $150,000 to pursue a libel case against an outfit that labelled me in print as a "flagrant racist" in print -- patently untrue, needless to say, but not worth pursuing in court.

Sean · Oct 21, 2005

some more info:

The increasingly common phenomenon of online forums creates the
possibility for you to reach large audiences, but it also creates the
ability for you to commit defamation or libel -- something that an
ordinary citizen didn't have to worry about in the past. Before the
growth of online communication, people who didn't work in the media
usually didn't have to worry about libel or defamation. "Libel laws apply
to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers and TV stations,"
explains former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas
Johnson, a professor at the Iowa University school of law. "The same
technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with
thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit."

Like a newspaper or TV station, you are responsible for making sure
the material you distribute -- or broadcast -- over the Internet is not
libelous or defamatory. Lani Teshia-Miller never meant to defame
anyone, but when she took over the distribution of a tattoo FAQ she
almost ended up in court. The rec.arts.bodyart FAQ she inherited
contained a lot of generalizations based on contributions from
unattributed sources. Although she listed her name on the FAQ, she
didn't edit out several defamatory statements. One review of a San
Francisco tattoo artist in the FAQ said, "He's getting old and having
problems with his eyesight. His quality is really bad and he hurts
people."

After the artist hired a lawyer and threatened to sue, Teshia- Miller
changed the FAQ's wording to reflect a more factually-based and
less-hysterical view. The review now says, "His eyesight is not what it
used to be."

After the FAQ was changed and Teshia-Miller apologized, the artist
dropped the lawsuit. "It turned out to be a good experience for me,"
said Teshia- Miller. "I'm a lot more careful about what I allow on the
artist list, and I now have a very long disclaimer at the beginning of the
FAQ."

Every person you write something negative about won't sue you for
defamation or libel, they might flame you or just try to set the record
straight by replying to the message. But if you post false information
about another user and disgrace them in public, they have the right to
take you to court -- and they could win a big settlement if they can
prove you were negligent. http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/defamation-in-cyberspace.html

Andy K · Oct 21, 2005

Having read all this 'he said, she said, blah. blah. blah...' over the last couple of days I'd like to check some of these repros out. It seems the quality is not what is in question here.

mikewhi · Oct 21, 2005

Sean said:
Mike, I hope you realize that MANY people get sued for slander on the internet these days and you have totally opened yourself up for an extreme cut and dry case of slander. One of the more pure cases of it I've ever witnessed since I connected to the net.

Like I said, I can provide e-mail threads and credit card receipts and invoices and UPS shipping info to prove what I say. I have an email where MAS admits the whole thing. I am the one with the cut and dry case.

-Mike

mikewhi · Oct 21, 2005

Andy K said:
Having read all this 'he said, she said, blah. blah. blah...' over the last couple of days I'd like to check some of these repros out. It seems the quality is not what is in question here.

Yes, I think the quality is universally agreed to be excellent. I recall stating early in the original thread that I liked them very much but that they weren't as good as original prints - a statement that I thought was rather obvious - but that one alone started a lot of controversy. The real controversy centers around the business practices surrounding the change in the publication of the limited edition to the detrement of the original subscribers.

-Mike

Michael A. Smith · Oct 21, 2005

I have ceased monitoring the APUG site, but someone alerted me that Mike Whiting called me a crook. And then I read what Sean wrote about libel and found it quite interesting. This has gotten serious and I may well pursue it. Whiting mentioned earlier that this was the "second time" I had cheated him. I had started to respond earlier, but I figured the hell with it as I did not really have the time to go into that, too.

But someone alerted me that he has just out and out called me a crook and I do have to answer. Here is what he is referring to: He had ordered Azo from us. We sent it. He called and objected to the shipping charge. (He is on the West Coast and shipping from here is quite expensive.) The total shipping, handling, and insurance, charge was $38 on a $322.95 sale. I admitted the charge can be considered to be on the high side (although I have often paid a far higher percentage of shipping costs to weight or price with many small items). I then explained, at length, as I tend to do, why the shipping charge was what it was. He ended our conversation with, "I still feel screwed." He was charged exactly what everyone else who orders what he ordered and who lives on the West Coast is charged. Now he claims I "cheated" him and that I am a crook. Nothing you can do with someone who is like that. He really likes the role of victim and does not listen.

Mike Whiting has not been cheated in this instance either. He was offered a full refund for the book, including shipping. So he would be out nothing. No loss of any sort whatsoever. He refused my offer.

If our decision to bind more hardbound copies of the Brett Weston book is met by other subscribers with the same reaction as the one Mike Whiting had, we will NOT do it. We will see what the reaction is.

Michael A. Smith

Michael A. Smith · Oct 21, 2005

To get back to the topic:

George Tice was so thrilled with the reproductions in his book that he said, " I can never look at a duotone again," and he has made sure that his next book will be printed with the same printer that printed our book of his work--Salto.

Mike Lopez · Oct 21, 2005

jdef said:
Hi Jorge.

You're right, and I'm sorry. I didn't mean it the way it reads. What I meant to say is that I would feel like a fool if I did business with someone whose ethics I question. I think your characterization of MAS is probably accurate, but it is the kinds of character failings you note that cause ethical problems, which can, in the worst cases, lead to criminal behavior. I think MAS has defrauded 100 people who bought "limited edition" books from his press, and no amount of equivocation is going to change that. I'll watch with interest to see how and if he can climb out of the hole he's dug for himself. In the meantime, he's earned all of the public scorn that will be heaped on him, and Davis and Lopez should keep that in mind.

Jay

Your scorn has been heaped for years, Jay. Long before this series was even a pipe dream.

Bill Mitchell · Oct 21, 2005

This has gotten silly. Time for a 30 day suspension for certain posters who hijack otherwise interesting threads.

matt miller · Oct 21, 2005

I agree 100%!

Andy K · Oct 21, 2005

Bill Mitchell said:
This has gotten silly. Time for a 30 day suspension for certain posters who hijack otherwise interesting threads.

Hear hear! All this kindergarten 'Push me! Shove you! But he took my lollipop! Wah wah wah!! I'm gonna tell my mummy!' bullshit, is now getting very tiresome.

jp80874 · Oct 21, 2005

George Tice books from other sources

Fields of Peace, A Pennsylvania German Album, George Tice, David R. Godine Pub, 1998
Seacoast Maine, People & Places; Dibner & George Tice; Doubleday 1973
Selected Photographs 1953-1999, George Tice, David R. Godine Publisher, 2001

John powers

PhotoManiac3000 · Oct 21, 2005

It is interesting...a site for likeminded people about analog photography, and most threads contain arguments..

Bob F. · Oct 21, 2005

PhotoManiac3000 said:
It is interesting...a site for likeminded people about analog photography, and most threads contain arguments..

Oh, no they don't...

Cheers, Bob.

Jorge · Oct 21, 2005

PhotoManiac3000 said:
It is interesting...a site for likeminded people about analog photography, and most threads contain arguments..

Is there something inherently bad about arguments?

David · Oct 21, 2005

Is there something inherently bad about kindness?

Jorge · Oct 21, 2005

YOu always answer a question with a question? tsk, tsk...

doughowk · Oct 21, 2005

Maybe Sean could institute a new rule for posting by some: verification of Prozac prescription renewal before submittal ;-) These threads on Lodima Press keep being hijacked by those with a grudge towards Michael Smith. They do a dis-service to the photographic community while engendering ill will among all. They certainly make me question my continued participation with APUG. I think I'll wander over to the AZO forum. Signing off!

Wayne · Oct 21, 2005

jdef said:
MAS has earned every word of it, so why would you deny him his due?

Jay

for the benefit of the 8508 APUG members who are either indifferent or tired of it?

Sean · Oct 21, 2005

Jay, I'd say 'critical' is not the right word with most of the situations I've witnessed recently, maybe 'brutal' would be a better word. It's sad to think that the demise of traditional photography may have nothing to do with digital, but everything to do with this kind of nastiness between traditional photographers themselves..

Wayne · Oct 21, 2005

Wayne said:
for the benefit of the 8508 APUG members who are either indifferent or tired of it?

oops, we gained a member since I wrote that, so 8509.

Jorge · Oct 21, 2005

Wayne said:
oops, we gained a member since I wrote that, so 8509.

The poor soul....

Shawn Rahman · Oct 21, 2005

I'll try to put all this junior-high school bickering aside and get back to my original post:

The Tice book is wonderful, and worth $25, which I would have paid whether it was an edition of 500, 1000, or 50,000.

jovo · Oct 21, 2005

jdef said:
Sean,

. MAS has blatently, and unrepentantly breeched common ethical standards, and then belittled and publicly scorned a customer for complaining about it.Jay

I agree...yes he has. But I refuse to continue to entertain the testosterone driven obsession to flog the skin off his back. The point has been made.....over and over and over again. Those who agree cannot agree more. Those who don't, never will. Our civilization has, thank heaven, moved a noticable bit beyond stoning the accused. May we agree to drop this embarassingly rabid attack. Hate or love the man and his work....download his picture and throw darts...write a check for one of his photographs and then tear it up....cut the map of Pennsylvania from your atlas...but....please!!! ... lets move on!!

Baxter Bradford · Oct 21, 2005

Why can't people manage to focus their energy on making positive images?

Frankly, this whole saga of the last few days has minded me to be wary of a once hospitable forum. Now it seems that pledging allegiance one way or another might land oneself in hospital.

With huge global issues currently going on and reeking massive devestation, loss of life and turmoil, it seems rather pathetic that such rage is being vented on a thing so insubstantial as photography.

Please put things into perspective, live and let live and frankly stop being so pathetically small minded.

I have no allegiance to anyone other than the APUG community, for whom I have a great desire to get back on track. Excellence for film based photography.

So why is it that those who tend to be amongst what I consider to be the more aggressive posters, choose not to share their own images? Is this a true love of the medium?

Of those that do post, why not channel this motivation into making better images than you do at present?

All in all a frustrating and disappointing week in APUG. The bottom line is that if APUG continues in this trend, I shall not choose to re-subscribe at any price. I think that Sean is doing an excellent job of treading a fine line. It cannot be easy seeing one's vision for a particular avenue of imaging, justified by now having over 8000 interested parties, being wiped off the map by those who would rather commit their energies to keyboard than camera. It just doesn't sit.

Where are the informed threads of discussion from a few months or weeks ago? I find it harder to find things of interest from an increase in actual site traffic. There is no way I feel that I have outgrown APUG, but all of the seemingly pre-adolescent noise is wearying and detrimental. What pleasure is there in expending leisure time fighting a virtual opinion in cyberspace?

George Tice - Lodima Press Edition

mmcclellan

Sean

Admin

Andy K

mikewhi

mikewhi

Michael A. Smith

Michael A. Smith

Mike Lopez

Bill Mitchell

matt miller

Andy K

jp80874

PhotoManiac3000

Bob F.

Jorge

David

Jorge

doughowk

Wayne

Sean

Admin

Wayne

Jorge

Shawn Rahman

jovo

Membership Council

Baxter Bradford

George Tice - Lodima Press Edition

Admin

Admin

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency