13 Comments to “The Mysteries of Chartreuse BETA”

1. April 14th, 2006 at 9:44 am
   John Gardner said

   I’m still disappointed that you do not acknowledge the source of your map. There is such a thing as plagiarism and copyright, you know.

2. April 14th, 2006 at 10:10 am
   ME Strauss said

   John,
   The source of the map is the same as the link that is in the first sentence. I’m sorry that you didn’t find that clear. I take copyright seriously.

   It bothers me that you would assume that I flaunt copyright laws, before asking.

   Do you know that I’ve gotten something wrong here. If so, would you please state what it is, so that I may correct it.

   Thanks.
   Liz

3. April 14th, 2006 at 10:13 am
   ME Strauss said

   And actually the map itself is a link to the source as well.

   Liz

4. April 14th, 2006 at 10:57 am
   John Gardner said

   What is wroing is that you have published someone else’s work without acknowledging the source.

   I note the links (if I look in the link bar at the bottom of my browser window when I hover the mouse over them), but they do NOT imply that the map is associated with those links, nor that the map is not your own work. Personally, I only publish someone else’s work on my web sites with their explicit permission, and when I do I make it quite clear who is the author of that work (see http://www.braemoor.co.uk/chartreuse/photos/demchartreuse.shtml) for an example).

   It is also considered bad netiquette to link directly to a graphic on somebody else’s web site without permission - it’s called bandwidth theft, as the owner of the graphic has to pay for the cost of it being displayed on your page.

   I’m not bothered by the bandwidth problem in this case as the volumes are small, but I would be grateful if I were to see an acknowledgement of the source of the map.

5. April 14th, 2006 at 11:07 am
   ME Strauss said

   John,
   As a publisher, who understands copyright, could I ask you not to reprimand, but rather to converse?

   Actually, I don’t know that I agree that it’s considered by netiquette to link to a site. It brings that site traffic, particularly when you let readers know what the site is before you send them there. This particular site is looking for visitors for it’s walking paths. I would think that they would be happy to have interested folks check them out.

   I’m more than happy to clarify that the map is part of the site. Though, I’m still a bit offend by your tone with me.

   To start with the premise that a purposeful theft was made and I should be put in my place seems to be, in your words, “bad netiquette..”

   smiles,
   Liz

6. April 14th, 2006 at 11:34 am
   ME Strauss said

   There you go, Mr. Gardner. The map is fully credited in detail. The theft has been taken care of. My apologies to the cartographer and all victims of my misbehavior.

   Thank you for helping me set things right again.

   I like things to be as they should in the world of intellectual property. It’s where I make my living and how my son’s school gets their tuition.

   sincerely
   Liz

7. April 14th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
   HART (1-800-HART) said

   * rolling eyes * //

8. April 14th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
   ME Strauss said

   EVERYBODY: HART
   Hi Hart!

   Remember now, I’m the nice one.

   I think it’s time for my nap, so that I can stay that way.

   grins,
   Liz

9. April 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
   John Gardner said

   “I don’t know that I agree that it’s considered by netiquette to link to a site.”

   With respect, Ms. Strauss, I did not actually say that it was bad netiqutte to link to a site. That would have been nonsense. I actually said that it was considered bad netiqutte to directly link to a graphic on someone else’s site.

   May I commend the following article : http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html for a fuller discussion on the subject. Others of similar ilk may be found on Google by typing in “bandwidth theft”.

   “To start with the premise that a purposeful theft was made”

   Nor did I state or imply that a purposeful theft had been made. In the first place, I did not consider that to be the case; in the second place, I would not to have laid myself so blatently open to accusations of libel. I simply said that what you were doing is known as bandwidth theft. That will be confirmed by the web article I have cited.

   I am quite happy to be criticised for being over-protective of my copyright; I am quite happy to be criticised for being picky about bandwidth theft. But I do find it somewhat interesting when I am criticised for saying things I didn’t say.

10. April 14th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
    ME Strauss said

    Mr. Gardner,
    I understand the concept of hotlinking, but thank you for explaining it for those who don’t. You might note that I didn’t link directly to the map, so that was not the case here.

    I’m sorry if I misinterpretted your writing voice and tone, and the sheer volume of content included to teach about copyright infringement to imply through intent or ignorance such as you described that you thought theft had occurred here.

    No worry about libel or slander from me. I’m a nice person. I see no reason to fight over simple problems. I like to leave people a place to stand. Your statement that about libel seems strangely revealing about who think I might have been though.

    Perhaps had you simply requested that I add a credit to your art, Mr. Gardner, it would have seemed more generous. Perhaps had you acknowledged the copyright was yours from the start . . . Silly me, at one point I thought you might have acknowledged that I went in and added the credit and thanked you for it in print.

    Guess I was wrong about that too.

    I can admit when I’m wrong, Mr. Gardner. I have corrected my error. I have apologized. I’m sorry for any perceived or real problem this caused you. I notice I misspelled your name, I’m going to fix that now.

    I hope this sets your world in order and offers some aid to your unhappiness.

    Sincerely,
    Liz

11. April 15th, 2006 at 1:00 am
    John Gardner said

    I’m sure that you’re right, Ms. Strauss, when you inform the world that you are a nice person. You may well be right when you imply that I am not. Frankly, I would prefer to keep personalities out of the discussion, but I respect your wanting to do otherwise.

    As far as I am concerned, this is a simple matter of copyright infringement, which has not been resolved. You have copied and republished an (albeit not very
    good) image without the copyright owner’s permission onto your site, and you have not acknowledged its authorship.

    Believe it or not, I am actually reasonably relaxed about these things providing either I have been asked for permission, or there is an obvious copyright acknowledgement.

    May I suggest as a simple resolution that if you wish to keep the image on your site you simply change the current five line caption to read:

    “Reproduced with permission from http://www.braemoor.co.uk. Click on the map to see more details of the Chartreuse area”

    Thank you for correctling the spelling of my name, although that is not something that concerns me.

    I trust that such a proposal meets with your approval, and that you have pleasant weekend.

12. April 15th, 2006 at 4:24 am
    ME Strauss said

    I’m only happy to do so, Mr. Gardner. Would that you had only stated your wishes so clearly from the start.
    It will be done minutes from now.

    I’m delighted that you have found a gracious way to resolve this scenario.

    Thank you for the wishes for a pleasant weekend. I extend pleasant weekend wishes to you and your too.
    Liz

13. July 19th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
    Rhetorical Question said

    Le Massif de la Chartreuse est aussi bien connu pour son eau de vie fortifiant que pour le bruit solonnel des paysans qui renflent…