Something very different for you today in that I put myself on the line. In order to avoid any lead in to your thoughts, I will post this exchange unedited and you are free to offer your opinion regardless of which side of the fence that you sit on. Seriously, if your thoughts are the same as SpankBoss’then please feel free to say so, I have no problem with that.
SpankBoss and I have had a discussion this week and he stated that he has no problem with me posting this exchange on my site, and likewise I do not have an issue with it as well. It would be nice to hear the feedback of the readers though regardless of where you stand.
On Thursday SpankBoss made THIS POST in which he took an edited copy of one of my sorority pics and refused to acknowledge via a link that I had contributed the picture to the community because I had put my name on the pic. SpankBoss didn’t actually say that he was the one who edited it so I’m not sure if he got it from my site or if another website had done the editing. Now his post made Chross’Spankings Of The Week this week, when I posted it back in Sept of LAST YEAR it did not make spankings of the week. Chross has had my version of the copy in his Newspaper Articles folder since October of last year so while I didn’t get a direct link back, the pic was added unedited so therefore his viewers were still able to see that I had made the contribution.
So here is the deal. SpankBoss’point is that I do not own the pics so therefore I have no right to deface them and he will not provide a link to my contributions as he considers it ethically wrong. He may not be the only one who thinks this way as I receive little to no links back in this area.
My counterpoint is that I have invested an incredible amount of time on this project, as well as personal finance which is close to $400 at this point, that I feel that there should be some respect in the community when my contributions are taken. It simply isn’t given. My hard work has become a source of pictures being taken freely and the acknowledgements that I receive in return are next to nothing. As this happens regardless of whether I put my name on one of my finds or not, I go back and forth between putting my name on them to give myself the credit as the source before they are taken and edited.
So that is where we started our discussion and it is posted here in its entirety, unedited. Your opinions, whether for or against are most welcome. For the record, in my sorority folder, 12 pics bear my name and 32 do not. My Men Are Like Streetcars pics, which according to my data I have never received a link back to any single pic that was taken, 9 pics bear my name and 15 do not.
I want to stress very clearly, if your thoughts echo SpankBoss’, then I want you to feel free to share them. I’m not offended in the least by his opinion nor will I be by yours. We have differing thoughts on the subject, as I no doubt others will have as well. Here is our exchange starting with SpankBoss’original comment, and as I said, I have his permission to post this here. You are also welcome to add your comments, SpankBoss
By SpankBoss —It seems that this image may have been originally placed on the internet by that member of our community who is notorious for plastering his personal watermark all over spanking imagery he did not create (misbehavior that I have traditionally balked at encouraging, either by reproducing the wrongly-watermarked image or by link credit in those cases). Fortunately, I was able to come up with the watermark-less version you see here!
- Richard Windsor commented on July 11th,2013:
I don’t mind being called out on this issue if it is indeed me that you are speaking of. It is a double edged sword for me really, giving a preference I would rather not put any mark on any pic and bring to the community the 100?s of unique pics that I have collected through both my time and personal finance. In an ideal world I could post unmarked pics and fellow bloggers will respectfully share the love I am sharing with them by giving my efforts a nod of appreciation, but that doesn’t happen so I give my work my own nod. Now of course there are sites that deliberately will not give me a nod if I mark something, but I am okay with that and I respect that choice.
If you would like my thoughts on the topic though, I would prefer never to add my website address to any pic, but at the same time I would also love for my cost and time to be given some appreciation as a valuable contribution to the community. As much as I understand your dislike of people marking pics, hopefully you would have some understanding that just the smallest amount of appreciation for my efforts would be most welcome, but that of course is an ideal world.
If there is any pic that you would like unedited, just tell me which one and it is yours, and I wouldn’t even want a link back to it. After all, I am making this contribution to the community with kindness and a desire to bring joy to people’s eyes.
- SpankBoss commented on July 11th,2013:
Richard, I am sympathetic in one sense. I have contributed no few “original” scans to the web myself, and I frequently do a lot of work cleaning up found spanking artwork that needs help. I know the frustration that comes of having it spread throughout the web without any credit. Since I blogged for many many years using a standardized 320-pixel image size that was unique in the spanking blog world, it’s very easy for me to track the spread of many of “my” images without credit, and they are ubiquitous at this point.
Nonetheless, in my worldview putting your name on a thing is to claim that thing. And when you have no moral claim to that thing, it’s an ethical violation; one that actively detracts from and degrades the utility of the thing you say you want to share. It’s just not something I can support, no matter how much I understand the impulse that might lead a person in that direction.
I have enormous admiration for the library of vintage images you have brought to the web, and it is a source of abiding frustration to me that you’ve chosen to degrade so many of them contrary to all the ethics that I comprehend with regard to the use of other people’s content. It’s not about any one image, it’s about a valuable library that’s been vandalized by the man who created it. I can’t imagine using one’s own name as graffiti, but that’s what you seem to be doing, to me. To my mind the considerable credit that’s due you for surfacing these images is precisely counterbalanced by your choice to deface them, leaving nothing left in positive sum to acknowledge with a link credit. I know you won’t ever see eye-to-eye with me on this, but it’s where I stand.
- Richard Windsor commented on July 11th,2013:
You may be surprised that we may indeed see eye to eye with certain aspects of what you say, in fact I have debated it with myself many times. Should you visit my folders you will see as many unmarked as you would see marked. You are correct, I have no right to claim something as my own, even those pics that I purchased a single copy of for $20 and then shared with the community.
I’m sure that you do see my frustration and I think the frustration is valid. There may be some pics that took me four hours to find and that I paid to get a copy of, and I get a thrill making a new discovery, and that is really where my frustration lies. It can take me four hours to find one pic yet it would take one person mere seconds to come and raid my archives and not even so much as give me a friendly mention. You are probably right, I am depriving an audience of a clear image, but then the blogs that take the material that I post and don’t mention that fact are also depriving their audience of a pretty decent collection of pics by failing to share that information with their viewers.
It is a battle that I struggle with and I always welcome feedback, even if it goes against what my feelings might be. I also have pretty strong ethics though I guess mine center more around treating people decently. In fact today I thought it might be a good idea to make a point/counterpoint post on my site with your opinion versus my opinion, and done so in a way that wasn’t slanted. That of course would require your permission and it is just a thought.
Now I am fully aware that there are people such as yourself who will refuse to give me a link back should my name appear on a pic, and there are ten times more who won’t give me a link if my name is not on a pic, so it is a lose/lose situation all around for me. Believe it or not I agree with you, even if I have paid hundreds of dollars and invested more time than you can ever imagine on this project, I should have no claim to this material. Perhaps I am misguided but the stance that I take is that if people aren’t going to acknowledge me regardless of whether my name is on a pic or not, then I will acknowledge myself. As you will no doubt know, rather than plaster my name all over the pics, I always put them in a place where they can easily be edited out simply by cropping my name out, as this pic itself shows, my name was easily cropped out of the top left corner.
It is an internal struggle and I quite often revert back to why I do it in the first place, to share my collection with the community with pleasure. By revert back I mean that I will go weeks where I convince myself not to mark any pics and try and ignore the fact that I am being a supplier for other websites. I guess six to eight weeks go by and then I get grumpy and the lack of courtesy starts to bother me. In a nutshell that is what it comes down to for me, if I got just the smallest recognition for my efforts then I wouldn’t mark anything, but as I said I don’t get it whether I mark them or not so it is a moot point.
Anyway, I have taken up way too much of your time but don’t count your opinion out, this may just convince me to ignore what I perceive to be a lack of respect and revert back to giving to the community without any qualifications at all. It IS why I do it after all, I just have to convince myself that what I am doing doesn’t need any recognition. Yes, I even question my own ethics and have battled the thought that I consider myself to be greedy, as greedy as I consider others who take my efforts and present it as their own. Though I do consider myself a giving person though because if I was greedy then I wouldn’t share them at all, and that just isn’t going to happen. What I have in my collection yet to be posted is mind blowing and needs to be shared with the community. Anyway, thanks for your feedback, it was appreciated, even if it was to my own detriment
- SpankBoss commented on July 12th,2013:
Sorry about the 2500 character limit, it’s from the days when spam robots would post 10k word comments requiring mass scrolling in my moderation queue.
You’re more than welcome to take anything I’ve said here and re-post it on your blog in any format you like, as long as you don’t chop up the quotes so badly that they lose meaning (which I don’t imagine you would in any case).
If as a consequence of these discussions you were to stop watermarking vintage pictures, I’d be awfully glad. As I’ve said, I’m extremely familiar with the emotional place you’re coming from, and I’ve a ton of empathy for the impulse to mark your contributions to the community. In fact, one reason Bethie stopped working on her Vintage Spanking Photos site (where she put an enormous amount of effort into restoring degraded vintage spanking photography with painstaking pixel-by-pixel removal of offensive watermarks and all kinds of other visual damage) is that she grew tired of seeing her painstaking restorations all over the web with no source credit. I think the final straw was when several eBay sellers started printing her restored photos on mugs and mouse pads and other such stuff and selling them online. She just didn’t have the heart to continue after that. So it’s a real problem, no lie.
Still, at the end of the day, I just don’t think that degrading these images in order to mark them is justifiable when one’s contributions (however valued and substantial) are curatorial rather than creative. Possibly one reason for the difference in our outlook is that I value linking to the best, largest, most true-to-the-original format of anything that I find on the web. Cropping a picture for presentation is something I do all the time, but I usually try to include or link the closest-to-original, least-cropped, least-processed original as well. An image with watermarks is generally too degraded for that purpose, as is an image that’s been cropped just to remove a watermark (sometimes removing valuable detail). Silly example: we’re interested in spanking; somebody else may be interested in hair styles or shoe styles or wallpaper patterns. A crop that seems “harmless” to us (a bit of wallpaper gone, or somebody’s feet, or the carved wainscotting) may seem terribly destructive to somebody with other interests. So perhaps these watermarks and resulting crops seem more like damage to me than they do to you.
- SpankBoss commented on July 12th,2013:
- SpankBoss commented on July 11th,2013: