Is that R. Kelly?

the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more.

Some comments from me about this matter. Yes, I also put logos on the pics I scan myself. If I know the photographer I always mention his/her name in the thread. So I give credit when credit is due. There are mainly two reasons why I use logo's:
1. I do the scanning. I search for pics all the time and it is quite annoying when something I did a lot of work for is showing up within minutes on other sites. I mean there are people who know that Housequake members put up nice stuff every now and then. They just checked Housequake and posted pics as if they found the pic of the century themselves.
2. To prevent that my webspace is used by others.


It took us quite some time to let people dig up their magazines and post the interesting pics. And it is too bad that people stop scanning again because they feel others are riding for free on their train (I hope this expression works in English ) I also try to tell people that they should mention where they found a pic. If I spot something on Housequake without proper credit I always make a comment about it.

Furthermore I think the Housequake logo's are quite modest. They never ruin the picture. Personally I'm not a big fan of the pics that have a big watermark in the middle of the image.

The web is for sharing. And that makes it so interesting. But sharing doesn't mean you can skip 'good manners'.

Now orgers: Warm up those scanners, dig up those pics. Let the scanning battle begin!
[This message was edited Fri Apr 23 3:08:46 2004 by dothejump]

Sorry, but u have completey missed the point my friend.

I could scan EXACTLY the same pic as any posted here or at HQ, and people could 'claim' that it was actually they who scanned it... the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more.

Ive scanned stuff before, and screen-capped 4 hours and hours 2 put stuff online, but I dont slap: 'bananacologne' across it. (I only placed 'www.prince.org' across the pix above 2 get my point across because there was a definate imbalnce across the sites that needed 2 be addressed).

It doesnt matter which way u look at it: because these pix aint 'yours' or anyone elses 2 claim apart from the original photographer. PERIOD.

I used 2 think this way, how things should be 'exclusive', but it's impossible 2 retain, regardless of how u think, or what u do 2 attempt 2 stop it outside of a court of law. So just why not just let it go? It's fruitless, groundless, and smacks of ego - and the ego is ugly. Sure, It maybe a thankless task, but the fact that u make someone smile should be more than enough.

People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online:

are they doing it 2 share...?

or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves?

let's face it, and be realistic here - we should be thankful we can see pics of P online still at all the way he's acted in a legal sense the past few years!

Hey - anyone remember sharing?

I'm very happy that there is no obligation to look at pics with tiny watermarks in the bottom corner.

Now I'm looking forward to see some rarely seen pics in this thread. And I don't care if there is a tiny little watermark at the side of the pic.

[img]