Anyone here every go to Rotocasted.com to check out the toys? Today, I get a "domain expired" page when I go there. That site was pretty active. I hope they really aren't down for good.
that site where users posted altered pics stolen from Moog, myself, & probably plenty of others here? can't say I will miss them.
I didn't know they stole pics. Still, they were plenty useful for finding out what colorways and editions of various figures had been done.
Sergey probably had some issue with hosting. give it a day or two. it should be back online. has happened a couple of times.
I understand that your images are your property and that it's your right to object when they are stolen, but I was wondering why, philosophically, do you object when they are stolen?
Really? Images aside, a lot of their info is/was just flat out wrong. I think that irked me as much as the unattributed use of my photos, to some extent.
Ahh you guys beat me to the punch! Stealing pictures? Yeah if you have to ask this sort of question and frame it in a cheeky "but philosophically" kind of way either your quite daft or just the kind of person who would do it and think it's right! Let's see 1) Did you take the picture? No Check 1 , 2) Are you using said picture to enhance your credibility on a shit site without giving the actual photographer credit? Yep Check 2 .Then bingo conclusion: it's stealing! I've had my pics removed from tumblr pages that people stole and posted as their own. It's disrespectful Rotocasted was a shit neo kaiju wanna be catalog site....
I asked because I've seen my pictures used without my permission several times and it never bothered me. That's all. The incorrect data is tough because the database is driven by the users. There are almost 50,000 entries which makes it hard for the mods to correct everything.
That's my main gripe about Roto... If it was on a wiki-model and everyone could update/correct it, I could see Rotocasted.com becoming an awesome database. A lot of work done in small increments and whatnot. Buuut it's not, and only a select few can edit it. Hell, you can't even edit the things you've added yourself. Honestly, I like Rotocasted but only because I can look up details of certain toys like year, sculptor, how many were released, etc etc. I also discovered some pretty neat pre-2010 toys on there.
Not trying to start something here, but do you all object when any pic you have taken is stolen, or just ones that are artful and not mere "show the toy" shots? I think many times people use a pic simply because they need an image of a toy they don't have, either to put on their want lists or show others what it looks like on rotocasted or other sites. I can see someone being annoyed by an artful pic being stolen and used without permission - one where you posed the toy in an interesting way or showed a whole collection. But I guess I can't see the harm in anyone using a plain old generic toy-standing-there shot.
I've seen only a few of my photos in other sites, including Rotocasted. I really don't give a shit. But I see why other people are upset about it. May be they should include an option to add a link to the original source. They don't really take credit for taking the photos, but they do post links to sales, so that might be a problem.
I've had so many pics used (without permission) for Rotocasted, eBay, webstores, etc. What peeves me is that it's not so hard to simply ask. Common decency. I think the consensus for wishlists here is to post credit and/or apologize and offer to remove if someone disagrees with having their picture used. Seems to be working ok, but we're not talking about a public database here... Actually, how do they survive? Donations? (And I commend Rotocasted for at least trying. I love me a good database.)
Sergey accepts $12/year donations, but there's not even a link on the site to draw attention to it. I'm not sure how someone would find it if they haven't already begun donating. It has always seemed weird that there's not a function for photo credit. It seems like it would be easy. It doesn't bother me when someone uses my picture for something like Rotocasted. Attribution would be nice, but I would rather it get used without my permission than not get used at all. It's not doing me and my seven Flickr followers any good. I just don't see what I'm losing.
I totally agree with this for the sake of SB or a database site like trampt or rotocasted. I'd be proud if my photo was being used toward the greater good. But if my photo got used for an ebay listed or in some other sales capacity without my permission I wouldn't be too thrilled. Rotocasted.com is back online, BTW.
Yeah but not everyone cares about that. You know what I use Flickr for? Online storage- so I can post pics here, or so SB'ers, my friends and family can see them. That's it. Flickr is not Facebook. 343 people follow me (who knows why?) and I've never waived a giant flag saying "look here notice me!" Personally I don't care who follows me or if no one even looks at my pics. I don't even care if people use them for want lists here or anything. When you start to use them on websites etc though- we got a problem. This is why I rail on millenials all the time. So self absorbed- hey look at me and all my followers. Also why I've NEVER (or ever will) be on Facebook. End rant...
I don't actually know how many people follow me on Flickr. I was trying to downplay the importance of that. I don't understand why it's necessary that "we got a problem" if a database uses your pictures. What are you losing?
For what it's worth (and probably not much) Google+ is an excellent way to back up all of your photos privately, share them on here and only with people you want to see them. Maybe Flckr has a privacy setting but I'm sure it's not the default. I think when we post things in the public domain, here, Flckr, etc. it opens us up for people to use our images without our permission. But this thread has completed been derailed, and I have certainly contributed to that. Rotocasted.com is back online, the end?
Shank if you can't understand why I'm offended someone is using MY pictures for THEIR website I'm done explaining. It's stealing. The pics are my property. Why should I let some lazy douchebag who can't be bothered to give photo credit (after all it's for a public site) or take his own pics (probably because they can't operate a camera or doesn't have the toy) use them without my permission? It's just laziness. Posting other peoples pics without credit is essentially saying online "I took this picture". I only don't mind here because it's a community and we all know each other. Even when I grab pics from known websites (rarely) for new things. I always say pics stolen from...Giving credit to photos you did not take is proper etiquette. You do realize you can set your Flickr to copyright control. It's not just a joke. You can enforce it. My g/f is a graphic designer/illustrator and she has had pics stolen from her flickr and used for commercial gain. She does routine searches and finds offenders and has them taken down. I applaud her for it. She also has had corporations approach her for pic use and has been paid. That's professionalism. Fuck lazy assholes who think the internet is ripe for stealing. Also one last thing. If someone steals your pic and doesn't give you credit or a trackback how are other people ever going to know it was you?
If it's a profit-making venture (which invariably all these sites are), then someone else is benefitting from using your intellectual property (I use that term in its loosest sense given these are pictures of dolly's for toy nerds). If you are OK with that, you are a sucker!
I hear you. And I agree a database like that should allow for credit to be given, but my guess is that you wouldn't want your pictures used on Rotocasted even if that was an option. Let me know if I'm wrong. There is a difference between someone using your picture on their blog without attribution, and using it on a database. The database is populated anonymously, so no one can claim they own the picture. The initial act of taking your picture without permission is wrong, I agree. A person shouldn't do that. But afterwards, thousands of people get to see a decent picture of the toy. That utility seems like a greater good than you protecting your picture, because I'm not sure what you're protecting it for. I'm not arguing that the rules should be changed to allow for pictures to be used wherever and whenever. I'm saying that for me, it doesn't bother me when those rules are broken regarding one of my pictures.
