a photo I recently posted, "Hard Rock Cafe -Orlando", just vanished. I didn't delete it, and it doesn't even appear as a listing in my Caedes Control. I sent IM's to Pierre and *Geri. Until I hear from one or both of them, does anyone have any serious suggestions as to where it went, or has anyone else had had this happen?

My guess would be .. a Trademark issue of the CoC

I considered that, but it's a public place, and shooting the building, with the surrounding locale hardly seems like infringement. besides, the b/w version was left intact.

*edit - I heard from Pierre, and that was why (CoC).

I'd really like to open some sort of discussion on that, though. Lots of copyrighted images appear in public, and some of them are universally (sorry) known. Remember that shot of the Fulton area? The top of one of the buildings prominently displays the Verizon logo. that logo is clearly visible over the Brooklyn Bridge. had I not removed the logo (for matters of taste and aesthetic) would that then disqualify images of the bridge for posting?

the problem with a policy such as this is .. it's open to interpretation .. I saw the image in question, I may have approved it, and I wondered if somebody else would have an issue with it .. I did not

the trademark issue isn't the issue that "I" feel we should be focusing on

snapshots, family images, and images that, just plainly, don't belong on a wallpaper site would get my vote

adding:

[x] this image will make a quality desktop\wallpaper image for MANY people (not just YOU) ..

to the image upload screen .. would be a friendly (cynical) reminder for what is desired in up'age

ummm.... "images that, just plainly, don't belong on a wallpaper site would get my vote"

that's a rather broad stroke you've applied. some of my work (using it as an example, not an arguing point) is of a more artistic bent. depending on the POV of a given individual, that mght apply. Perhaps some clarification to that statement?

I realize that "wallpaper" is an 'open-to-interpretation' concept .. and I keep that in mind whenever I cringe at an uploaded image

but .. I am not discussing anything with an artistic bent .. even a picture of your third cousin, twice removed, from the family member nobody mentions at the dinner table ...

so long as it was done creatively\artistically ..


I am discussing images that fall into the "photo-sharing" aspect, that the site is morphing into

and, yes, I could provide links .. but won't

I see it in your gallery now, it just needed an oil 'n' lube!!

The man sayeth (on the front page), "This means that you can now upload your widescreen desktop wallpaper as well as non-wallpaper 'artistic' images." So it's not really just a wallpaper site anymore...it's wallpaper / art. I too seem to be seeing lots more "snapshots" that really have no wallpaper worth nor are artistic. It's just "here's lil Jimmy picking his nose and eating an ice cream sandwich...ain't he cute". <<No, I don't believe that's an image, I just made it up as an example. I post mostly just "photos" tryin' on some to lend to a wallpaper aspect, yet some not and maybe some not artistic either...I'm looking for feedback to improve my photography. There's other sites out there for that I know, it's just the wonderful people here that keeps me here + I have learned a lot!! Thanks to all!!

Well Rob.. if they take that pic down because of the signage (which is very unfair cos it is a great pic).. there are a lot of other photos on here that should disappear too.. there are many images on here that have a sign or building name on it.. so if it's good for one to have their images on here with signs then it should be the same for everyone...

I agree also there is way too many snapshots getting through lately..

i think in this instance the use of the signage is incidental in that it is only a small component in a much broader piece and would normally be allowable as opposed to a shot where the sign would be the main focus of the shot which wouldn't be acceptable. if that makes any sense.

*follow-up

It had been removed for possible CoC violation (I understand, but disagree). Upon review, it has been restored by Pierre (thanks, btw).