AustinMN
-
Posts
497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AustinMN
-
-
Some cachers take a few days to log their finds, so if it hasn't been long, it may still be "retrieved" from the other cache and "placed" in the cache where you found it.
Austin
-
I know both I and my bride logged a DNF. But now our log entries are gone.
I'll second what Team Dennis said. From your post it sounds like you discovered that your logs were missing, not that you were notified they had been deleted. If the CO deleted your logs, you should have received an email stating this fact. If you haven't received such an email (and it isn't in your spam folder), then I'd wager that somehow your DNFs were never actually logged in the first place. How this could have happened, I don't know, since we don't know your process for logging caches.
I logged it on Geocaching.com.
It was many months ago. and was my first or second DNF. I saw it in my log several times. I may have received an email, I don't know. The address I used is mostly a spam midden so it could have been swept away.
Austin
-
Hmm, I thought the watermark became a part of the image and would take some serious effort to edit out.
It does become part of the image, but that doesn't mean it's too difficult to edit out. The small text added to the corner can be cropped out, or if it's on a solid color or texture it can be covered with that same color or texture. Or someone stealing the picture can simply blur it out if they don't want to recognized who they took the photo from.
And that is why you use a corner to corner large watermark. Many people will put up a small, low res picture and when you click on it you get a larger higher res picture but it has a very large, corner to corner watermark in it.
I would rather risk someone stealing my image than to make it worthless for everyone. I put a fair amount of effort into my photos, and I would rather risk someone stealing them than destroy them.
And I am capable of removing a corner-to-corner transparent watermark, so I know it's not that hard to do.
Austin
-
I think the most important thing is that tracking numbers for trackables not be ledgible.
Austin
-
At a cache near us, we searched for a good hour and came up with a DNF. Admitedly, we're beginners and an experienced cacher might have found it in minutes. I know both I and my bride logged a DNF. But now our log entries are gone. Checking the cache's log shows that there are zero DNF's logged for this cache (with over 100 finds).
Is there a good reason a CO would delete all the DNFs?
Austin
-
On the flip side, there are a few caches I've found with a long string of DNFs to the point the cache was likely to be archived ... and one I actually tripped over the container (duh .. whoops!)
Sometimes wish there was a means of indicating the type of DNF -
Really Couldn't Find - We scoured the location with a party of 5, turned over every pebble and twig, couldn't find it.
Search Abandoned - We started to look, but it became Muggleville so search was abandoned.
Remains of probable cache found, but not cache - we found some toys, a piece of a container which may have been it. No actual cache found.
Didn't even try - Pulled up, saw swarm of bees - OR - Needle in haystack - OR - chased off by The Vicious Chicken of Bristol - OR - Flooded - OR - too many muggles - OR - construction - OR - security/police giving us the eye - OR - clearly on private property.
I once logged a DNF as "Beginner's Misfortune."
Austin
-
To the OP: I wonder if the FTF hounds were scared off by the 4.5 difficulty?
I log a DNF whenever I feel I've put in enough effort to make me think I should have found it. If it's a three-star and I look for five minutes, that's not a DNF, that's a DNL (Did Not Look).When I log a DNF, I note approximately how long I looked. The CO can use that information to determine how relevant my DNF is.
You just changed my DNF thinking. From now on, I'll DNF with the time I put into looking for it.
I have to agree with another poster about logging "Finally found on third attempt" without even a single DNF is an admission of less than genuine logging.
Austin
-
AustinMN, I would suggest you add a '©AustinMN' watermark discreetly in the corner of all your photos posted to the web, anywhere. Of course someone could trim that part off, so you would need a 'corner-to-corner' watermark to really stop unauthorized use.
If someone wants to use an un-watermarked photo, they can/need to contact you directly to get it.
Even with a full image watermark, the watermark can usually be removed. This is discussed quite a bit on Panoramio, and the reality is the only way to completely prevent image theft is to not publish the image.
Austin
-
Ethically, yea, they should have cited you as the source of the photograph. But, modern news outlets tend to take ethics with a grain of salt recently and only apply it when its to their benefit.
It has nothing to do with fair use; fair use has to do with whether the photo can be used at all. Citation of ownership is something else altogether.
Legally they have to site the owner even if the work is in the public domain. Since the web publication is copyrighted (an assumption of US copyright law even without copyright notice), it would be assumed that the photo is part of the web publication and therefore under that copyright. But moral copyright (this is a legal term) forbids claiming (or appearing to claim) something is under your copyright if it is not. The only way to escape from citing the owner is to not use the photo, fair use or not.
Austin
-
I log a DNF whenever I feel I've put in enough effort to make me think I should have found it. If it's a three-star and I look for five minutes, that's not a DNF, that's a DNL (Did Not Look).
Austin
-
The CO has taken down the photos, so this thread can be closed.
Austin
-
And there it is, "© All Rights Reserved by AustinMN"
Agreed. I'm not trying to say it's OK for people to use your photos without attribution, just clarifying that you aren't presented with the ToS before being able to view the photos.
I hope the CO is honest enough to do the right thing and add the copyright notice or remove the photos.
Isn't using copyrighted material without permission against the law? Therefore it would not matter what the ToS said, It's a violation of law not website rules. Though to be fair I actually had to look for the copywrite and it was at the bottom of the page, and not of the picture itself.
I could have the standpoint that the page is what is copyrighted, and the picture could have been a stock photo or something...who knows?
A number of Panoramio regulars have complained about the placement of the copyright notice. Some have gone so far as to add the "©" symbol to their user name, since that appears directly under the photo. I'm not there yet.
It should be irrelevant, though. Since some time before 1990 (I think it was 1989, but I am not sure) U.S. copyright law assumes that all intellectual property works are copyrighted, even without notice.
With honest people, it's mostly about education. Thankfully, most people have at least some degree of honesty.
Austin
-
I sent the CO a polite PM asking that he/she add a proper copyright notice and a link to each photo's page.
Austin
-
In order to use Panoramino services you must sign up for an account. You agree to abide by the terms of service...
Umm, no. To upload photos, you need to sign up. To view the photos, you don't need an account.
I've never created an account there, but I was easily able to find and view photos by the OP, like this one.
And there it is, "© All Rights Reserved by AustinMN"
It doesn't matter what the TOS say, you can't just use copyrighted work without permission, and for more than two decades, U.S. law has assumed that all work is copyrighted.
Austin
-
People would still use their gps.... But would take it out of the window and move it lower out of site. This would cause more accidents .
Before they ban GPS's they need to ban blondes in SUV's talking on the cell phone.
My own closest encounter was with the vehicle of a male driver in his 30's with black hair and a cell phone glued to his ear.
I have had close encounters (no direct contact yet) with a number of distracted drivers over the years. None was using a GPS, but one was using a mascara brush and another reading a newspaper.
Austin
-
P.S. - If the CO had asked, I would probably have let him/her use them (with proper copyright notice). Too late now.
Why is too late? (I suspect some CO don't read their logs)
But perhaps a short note directly to the CO explaining your concern and you might find they will fall over themselves with apologies and promises to fix the attributions.
After thinking about your question, the only answer I could come up with is because I'm being a **. After the site comes back from today's shutdown, I'll try contacting the CO privately, and see how that goes. In the end, I want to promote both caching and my photos.
Austin
-
First forum post, love to cache. But this issue has me riled.
While looking for new caches, I started looking at caches in a relatively nearby park I know. I know the park because I have taken a number of photos and posted some of them to my Panoramio account. I retain all rights to my photos (Copyright © by AustinMN All Rights Reserved).
I found two caches this evening (same CO) where my photos were lifted for inclusion in the cache description. By "inclusion," I mean my photos were about all there was to the description. Use of Panoramio photos is allowed if the use follows the TOS of the Panoramio API (essentially, the photo needs to show my copyright, needs to link to my page, and needs to be hosted on Panoramio). Instead, the CO illegally downloaded my photo and illegally uploaded it to Geocaching.com without mention of my copyright. Because the Groundspeak policy is that uploaded material belongs to the up-loader, he/she has also illegally claimed ownership.
In addition to my photos, the CO has included photos in other cache descriptions that are almost certainly copyright violations.
How do I go about having my photos removed from these cache descriptions? I have posted notes on the logs, but of course those can just be deleted. I will file a DMCA take-down order if necessary, but would rather not if I can avoid it.
Austin
P.S. - If the CO had asked, I would probably have let him/her use them (with proper copyright notice). Too late now.
Log your DNF please
in General geocaching topics
Posted
You look for a cache and find it and sign the log - found it.
Says who? You? I have yet to see anything on GS defining a DNF. It means what the logger intends it to mean. Using it in a way other than your strict definition is not prohibited. If someone wants to use it to track caches they intend to come back to and try to find again, fine. If someone wants to use it to track caches they have no intention of returning to, fine. About the only thing that I would find objectionable would be posting a DNF when you really did find it.
May I suggest that your position, while seeming obvious to you, is also just semantics.
Austin