If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I agree, although I'm beginning to think they should have just voted off one person each week to make the program last longer!
Yep, I agree! but I gues they have to make way for rubbish like Dancing On Ice which I have had to sit through this evening! <sigh>
I suppose Dancing on Ice is original though, I mean, its not like there is anything else like it on TV at the moment that has Judges one of which is nasty, who mark the contestants, and then the public get to vote off who stays until next week......
Yep, I agree! but I gues they have to make way for rubbish like Dancing On Ice which I have had to sit through this evening! <sigh>
I suppose Dancing on Ice is original though, I mean, its not like there is anything else like it on TV at the moment that has Judges one of which is nasty, who mark the contestants, and then the public get to vote off who stays until next week......
Same thing here. I guess that is Sunday nights taken up for the next few months . I also think they kept the two right people this week. They seemed to focus more on what was needed more then just what the other two wanted to show. As for the guy with the signs I was glad he went. What was that gay thing all about how does that show the sport of polo
Same thing here. I guess that is Sunday nights taken up for the next few months . I also think they kept the two right people this week. They seemed to focus more on what was needed more then just what the other two wanted to show. As for the guy with the signs I was glad he went. What was that gay thing all about how does that show the sport of polo
I have just watched part 2 - the show was much more balanced this week. I'm afraid I find myself mostly disagreeing with Mr.Proud (as does Mr.Parr).
I do concur that the girls were deserving to go through compared to the boys, but I wasn't overly in awe of anything that they produced this week. They have been unlucky with the weather, though.
Second impression is that you are basically handing over, not only the rights for Channel 4 to use your photograph where and when they like, but also the rights to use your name as a photographer where and when they like.
Second impression is that you are basically handing over, not only the rights for Channel 4 to use your photograph where and when they like, but also the rights to use your name as a photographer where and when they like.
Seems like it was written by a legal department underling.
There was a big discussion about this subject a while back concerning the BBC's Picture Britain series, with Tom Ang. The BBC imposed rather greedy terms as well, though I understand the feedback prompted a change of heart at the Beeb, but I don't know the details.
It's certainly a good way for the Channel (and any third parties authorised by Channel 4)[!] to gain access to plenty of royalty free images without any payment. It seems, looking at the site, that lots of people have been happy to sign up to the conditions.
Seems like it was written by a legal department underling.
There was a big discussion about this subject a while back concerning the BBC's Picture Britain series, with Tom Ang. The BBC imposed rather greedy terms as well, though I understand the feedback prompted a change of heart at the Beeb, but I don't know the details.
Ian
Yes Ian the BBC were being greedy, but this goes fare beyond greed, its simply a disgrace and should be totally boycotted.
It amounts to legalized copyright theft, and to submit a picture to Channel 4 under such terms would in my opinion be totally stupid.
It's certainly a good way for the Channel (and any third parties authorised by Channel 4)[!] to gain access to plenty of royalty free images without any payment. It seems, looking at the site, that lots of people have been happy to sign up to the conditions.
That may be so, but how many actually read the terms, and how many value their own pictures, or know the potential value of a picture.
Yes Ian the BBC were being greedy, but this goes fare beyond greed, its simply a disgrace and should be totally boycotted.
It amounts to legalized copyright theft, and to submit a picture to Channel 4 under such terms would in my opinion be totally stupid.
Patrick
As we have debated before, I don't personally believe that the BBC or Channel 4 would profiteer from the pictures submitted. If there is any evidence to that effect, then of course that's different.
The pictures are featured on a website - just like here and our gallery, for example.
As we have debated before, I don't personally believe that the BBC or Channel 4 would profiteer from the pictures submitted. If there is any evidence to that effect, then of course that's different.
The pictures are featured on a website - just like here and our gallery, for example.
Ian
1. I'm sorry Ian totally and completely disagree, you may think there is no intention to profiteer, but the possibility is still there and if they are so innocent why then put such stringent terms in place. With the recent account of TV scams & behavior from the last few months we can hardly trust anyone with contract terms like these to do the honorable thing. They wriggled and turned when breaking rules, they are not likely to turn a hair if the rules support them.
They may well be simply putting pictures in a gallery just like you are, but your terms don't ask the photographer to give way control.
Fare from being so laid back about it I should like to see someone in your position, a photographer with a web site & forum representing photographers, taking a stand and starting a campaign to get unjust terms like these changed.
I'd started entering my user name on the Picture This site before I saw the Terms and Conditions. There's apparently no way to remove your profile from the site once registered, and although I haven't uploaded any pictures, the way I read it -- I may be wrong -- Channel 4 seem to be claiming the right to help themselves to any images on my Flickr account marked as Public. (I may be being paranoid ;-))
I've emailed the administrator of the site, but have so far not received a reply.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment