If Ron has what I need, I will buy it.

I am happy that his focus is on gear. His history and reputation are far larger than this honest mistake.

>>That means I guess I won't buy anything from SMD.<<

340 posts in one month. How do you have time to actually use hiking gear?

I'm guessing that Ron will continue to produce great UL gear, and that many of us will continue to purchase said gear.

>Ah yes, the litigious USA.

+1. We're so quick to defend and iterate what's MINE MINE MINE!

Whatever. Personally I could care less. If Ron were using the picture for direct profit, then MAYBE I'd take an issue with it--as in, he passed it off as his shot and is now selling posters of that picture. Not the case. If I post something online, without explicitly stating my copyright intentions then I forfeit my rights. I know that's not how the law is written, but we all know the workings of the internet. If I want to protect something, I don't put it on the internet, OR I do a darn good job of copyrighting it.

As it is, we all know it's hard to get a real perspective on cottage manufacturer's products simply because we can't go to REI and look at one. So, pictures are some of the best things we have to help us decide.

I'm in the camp that it was in the name of customer service, and nothing else.

Bob Gross might consider going decaff. Ron acknowledged, Ron removed, Ron apologized.

Edited by jshann on 02/09/2010 09:31:11 MST.

I would be honored if a cottage manufacturer used one of my photos of their gear in action.

I have a friend that is attempting to break into the media business, and has Trademarks and Copyrights slapped all over his photos...even his personal social networking site (Facebook) photos. It's not like anyone really cares or he will ever be "famous".

Ron explained everything. Took the right actions and the issue should be over. I'm not sure why it was an issue to begin with anyway or why it was handled the way it was? Can this thread be locked?

Ron apologized to me personally and on the web, and removed the pics. Ok.

Feel free to roast me (as some above has done), I guess you have little care for respecting authors', musicians' and filmmakers' rights too. Ok. But the thing is, if he'd asked and given me credit, I'd have agreed immediately. But, sorry, not being able to contact the photographer does not mean that the photo is free for use.

According to a friend of mine who is a professional photographer, a standard settlement for this kind of action in Sweden would be about USD 550 plus about USD 300 per year of use -- per picture.

As to why I decided to go public, the copyright issue is less important than the fact that two of the pictures were labelled as being from Alaska. Why this? I can only see one reason, and that would be to boast about the performance of the tent. A kind of false marketing, thus. I assume correct information about the performance of a tent is of some relevance to this community.

+1 on the concept of talking with Ron first before posting about it on a message board.

why not give him a chance to rectify it prior to creating an issue about it publically? (e.g. don't make the complaint thread and THEN email him about the problem)

Edited by DaveT on 02/09/2010 10:23:47 MST.

My reasons for going public was stated above.

How about everyone just giving this thread a rest? Johan and Ron already have their issue resolved!!

> My reasons for going public was stated above.


Okay, but I still don't understand. Couldn't your email to Ron (prior to "going public!") simply include TWO points instead of one:

1. Hey those are my pictures... can you either credit me or remove them (my decision)?
2. If we agree for you to keep them up (credited), they are not from Alaska, they are from (insert proper country here).

@Benjamin: I just emailed Ron and stated that very thing. Thus I'll stay away from further discussions here unless direct questions are asked.

@Dave: As for the public issue, not going public in order to resolve an issue in the public space seems a diversion to me.

Edited by Gilrandir on 02/09/2010 10:32:41 MST.

"I guess you have little care for respecting authors', musicians' and filmmakers' rights too"

You are lumping a picture of a tent that you posted to the web in with the work of authors, musicians, and filmmakers?

Clearly.

>A kind of false marketing, thus. I assume correct information about the performance of a tent is of some relevance to this community.

Not tryin' to start any argument, but I'm just saying that Ron knows that we know about the performance of his shelters. It's well documented here many, many times what these shelters are good for and not so good for.

I believe that trying to deceive this community with a picture would be akin to trying to sell a Wiggy's sleeping bag to someone with a Western Mountaineering bag. It just doesn't make sense. It'd be REALLY tough to pull the wool over the eyes of this entire community. Some have tried--just doesn't work. There's too many smart and observant people here.

Check this link out, about 1/3 down the page. Ron says of the picture of the Gatewood Cape "Interesting though not recommended."

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=21527

You do have your rights, and reserve the right to protect them to whatever degree you wish. Maybe Ron should have secured permission with the owners of the pictures first. I'm just saying that there wasn't any ill-intent or deception going on.

I agree, far too many times it's hard to make a determination on a product because there just are not good photos of the product.

I have a few pictures of my Wild Oasis and Lunar Solo. I guess I'll need to send them to Ron to see if he wants to use them on his site.

+1 to Tom C

+1 to Dave U

I would think its cool that a manufacturer used my pic.

Artist and musicians et. al use their art for their livelihood. I presume this is just some pic you took of your campsite.

I see where you're coming from, but... its just a photo album pic.

This is pretty funny having a Swede complaining about Copyright on a US forum after what they have been doing to US copyright holders for the past 10 years. Pirate Bay anyone?

As for Bob, he is a photographer in his current vocation?

DMCA sucks. Law sucks. Bob educating people about DMCA takedowns was good. Him throwing a hissy after educating someone and then seeing them admit to not knowing the law - lame.

"You are lumping a picture of a tent that you posted to the web in with the work of authors, musicians, and filmmakers?"

That's copyright law, yes.

"This is pretty funny having a Swede complaining about Copyright on a US forum after what they have been doing to US copyright holders for the past 10 years. Pirate Bay anyone?"

*started to write something sarcastic, but realized the quote actually stands quite well for itself*

"That's copyright law, yes."

+1.