1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice
Severe ongoing issues and concerns with Dollshe Dollshe Ban

how uncomfortable would this make you?

Apr 14, 2012

Page 5 of 14
    1. hmm you guys just put a doubt in my mind...! I am honestly not sure if this option is default or not O.o

      vonbonbon: the sharing option will always be open for the owner of the account. so if you want to be sure you need to log out or check your settings
       
      #81 sahoma, Apr 15, 2012
    2. Oh yeah, all sharing-services & online accounts are rife with sneaky automatic-opt-ins that they KNOW you don't really want. Facebook & Google get nabbed for this every month, it seems. You have to jump through hoops on the Settings page of every account you own, just to make sure that you haven't automatically agreed to allow the site to share your name, personal data, location, picture, web history, etc. at random.

      And just because you've set your privacy once, that doesn't mean it won't change again, the next time they go & update their privacy-policy or sharing setup.... so you have to keep going back in. I routinely go into my Photobucket & Gmail settings just to make sure they haven't added yet another checkbox to the "share" or "contact me with" settings. And the bitch of it is, they expect us to do all the digging to find what we want to opt out of, instead of making everything automatically-opt-out. It's in their best interest to do it that way, though-- the better to harvest your data for marketing metrics & ad serving ('best interest' = $$$).
       
      #82 JennyNemesis, Apr 15, 2012
    3. If it IS the default setting, there's probably something about it in the ToS. Most people don't bother to read the ToS, but if you agree to them, it's the same as saying that you read them and agree to them... So if it is the default setting and something about it is in the ToS, the assumption is that you know about it and agree to it.

      So in that case, as far as the law is concerned, you DID make a conscious decision to allow others to share your work.
       
      #83 Quetz, Apr 15, 2012
    4. Exactly -- it's sneaky because they know nobody reads or understands the TOS. And every time they publish a new "we've made changes to our TOS/Privacy Policy" thingy, the changes are in there, but they don't always tell you what changes were made, and if they do it's not always highlighted (or even written in plain language that laypeople can understand). They know that you just want to get on with using your account, so you'll check the "I agree" checkbox and agree to all of it. While it's not illegal, it is sneaky, which is why Facebook & Google get front-page news hullaballoos about it (usu. thanks to watchdogs such as Gawker) every time they try to pull another fast one.
       
      #84 JennyNemesis, Apr 15, 2012
    5. this is so wrong >.<
      I just noticed photobucket is giving out my location D:

      we should share this info!!
       
      #85 sahoma, Apr 15, 2012
    6. I don't see why we should. People should READ THE TOS before agreeing. If they don't, it's their own fault and not my problem.
       
      #86 Quetz, Apr 15, 2012
    7. JennyNemesis is completely right. I read that in the Facebook terms of service, there's something about them being able to use YOUR personal picture on ads they publish if they so wish (know all of those advertisements on your sidebar? chances are the person who owns the photo didn't agree to it being used for that purpose consciously. It's sneakily added in.)

      Photobucket, last I heard, has the same policy. They can use your images you upload for their purposes in their terms of service. :/ I don't know if there is an opt-out of that or not.

      I'm not sure about Flickr's TOS, though. I don't really use it.

      I don't know, I wouldn't care whether or not someone asked me (not that my photos are good enough to ever be used XD). It'd be nice, but as long as credit's given and it's not being used for propaganda, slander, or debate... I'd just see it as harmless free publicity. But, if I ever wanted to use someone's picture of a doll for something... I'd ask them first, just out of common courtesy.
       
      #87 pinksugar, Apr 15, 2012
    8. Basically, if one knows about the Berne convention's automatic copyright being the default on all works... from the moment of creation...

      but still blogs and uses other people's words or images without prior express permission, they ought to expect the "hate mail", the take down notices, and to be reported to whatever hosting service (blogger, wordpress, tumbler) and have the violation of the TOU for that service result in the loss of their blog.

      Saying "well people put it up there, they should expect it..." means the blogger shouldn't be surprised when it the results bite the blogger in either an emotionally or an economically painful way.

      (as an example, Disney has won damages, even when the user of the images wasn't using the images in any commercial way... even when specific "damages" to Disney corp haven't been demonstrable... and it's been big bucks. It's not just Disney that can do this, but it's Disney that has been able to set the legal precedents.)

      the creator of a work, even a collaborative work (which individual dolls might be considered), has rights about the context of where their written, musical or visual art is shown, the context of where it's used, and by whom it is used. If an artist gives blogger X the right to use photo A, it doesn't mean that blogger Y can also use that photo... it means that blogger Y should ask on their own if it's ok, and expect to explain exactly how and in what context that photo will be used.

      Can the "confessions" bloggers imagine a situation where they'd be VERY unhappy to see one of their photos (a photo of anything, not necessarily your doll, but maybe a pet or a family member) used with credit and a link back from a site that you'd find completely reprehensible? Not just "harmless free publicity" but something really violent/gross/abusive/reprehensible...

      the creator of a work being used innocently has just as much right to Basic Human Decency (thank you for the term whoever used it first in the thread)... as you would to have your doll photo, or the photo of your puppy, or your child NOT show up on a Racial Supremacy site, or a "how to beat your wife" site, or an animal abuse site.
       
      #88 trinlayk, Apr 15, 2012
    9. exactly... and the criminal at that point will have no excuse arguing "well it was posted on the net...they should just expect that..."

      we wouldn't expect ANYONE to be ok with "but she was just walking down the street and it was after 10pm, she should have EXPECTED me to take her purse,
      if she didn't WANT her purse stolen, she should never leave the house..."
       
      #89 trinlayk, Apr 15, 2012
    10. But sometimes the ToS is written in a confusing way. No one is probably going to go and check what every word means before they agree to use a photo sharing site - probably because they're just trying to get through the clutter of creating a user account and getting their pictures somewhere where they can easily access them.

      I actually have started looking at the ToS of sites I'm interested in before joining because I later learned about what some of these sites do. Unfortunately, for most of these sites - I believe Photobucket is included - the only way one can opt-out is to either delete their account or don't sign up...and, as with FB, sometimes deleting your account isn't even enough.

      Come to think of it, I recall people being really up-in-arms about Pintrest because people were unknowingly doing the same thing we're talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ght-concerns/2012/03/15/gIQAijAFES_story.html
      Apparently Pintrest lets you take a bunch of pictures and organize them based on your interests; many people who have no knowledge of copyright law or what that entails just don't know that they're doing something wrong.
       
      #90 writerm, Apr 15, 2012
    11. But by leaving the house with her purse she is accepting the risk that her purse might get swiped. Just like every time you get into a car and start driving, you accept the risk that some idiot that doesn't pay attention to the road may crash into you.
       
      #91 ZennoSaji, Apr 15, 2012
    12. But if someone decides to steal her purse, that individual risks having someone else notice, or find that this woman can chase him down, and apprehend him.

      It's true, they say it's 'defensive driving', but you accept the risk that someone out there is just not up to par skill-wise or ability-wise and will scratch or collide with you. It doesn't mean you are the one in the wrong for just being there if someone comes and collides into you. It isn't my fault that I'm not going the speed the tailgater behind me thinks I should be going, and when I break, they crash into me. They were in the wrong, not me.
       
      #92 writerm, Apr 15, 2012
    13. Not so much, because flicker or my own blog or my own 'art site" would be my own personal portfolio,
      the TOU is very very limited on how flickr for example can use my work. Flickr can put my photo in their "explore" gallery to show people what's been posted recently on the site, but it can't use my photo in a book or tv/magazine ad without my express permission.

      As the "artist's own account" that means I as the artist still has 99% control over that image, I can limit how it's downloaded (I could choose to limit how much is visible to people outside of a particular circle... a prospective client could be given temporary "family access" to see photos that are limited to just that circle... on an account that's set up as Just the Serious Art/Event photography. ) I can also use flickr to show people generally what's up (community events, personal blogging, parking photos for blogging and forums to indulge hobbies) <the account in my sig is my "social account" it's not the one with the "serious photos", but if my snap shot of my doll or my cat is worth "borrowing" for a blog, it might also turn out to be a photo that later may have been sold. >

      If a prospective client would fall in love with a photo in the social flickr, they could buy it, and I'd turn that photo to private. if they wanted, but usually there's an exception for "the artist's portfolio" which my flickr would be serving as.

      If I'd be taking your wedding photos, I could show my copies of those photos, in an album or my own site as "here's an example of what I do", but I couldn't sell the photos I took of your wedding to a card / catalog company or a magazine, without getting YOUR permission. Not just as the model, but because what you bought with the photography service, is the rights to your photos. (things get a little weird though when maybe you'd want to publish those photos, since it's a different kind of rights than publication or exclusive publication rights.)


      If someone wouldn't scan a photo from a book for a blog, why do it with something from another source?


      A photo getting to the point of "passed around in emails" or passed from blog to blog, I can't promise someone who wants to publish that photo as a greeting card that it won't suddenly show up in the catalog of a competing company... The publishing company that bought an image would be justifiably angry if the artist sold (or seemed to have sold) the same work to a competitor.

      yes, but imagine the police dragging in the purse snatcher who is trying to argue that it's not his fault... the purse was RIGHT THERE, on her arm... not his fault... yeah... still going to jail dude.

      and every time you get in the car = taking measured risk, (as is posting art/photos on line, I'm not saying their isn't a risk...) but that even being as safe as you can be, and having insurance... when the speeding drunk slams into your car the suggestion that 'well they were on the road... " isn't going to go over with the judge at all.

      Just as behaving like a jerk on line about intellectual property IS going to result in "hate mail" and eventually reports to the blog-host, and possibly the blog getting shut down or fined...

      If Tumblr would be getting semi regular reports of "my images are being used without my permission" complaints: "It takes too much time to get permissions" isn't going to convince Tumblr that it was an accident, or that it's OK. In fact an excuse like that might get a warning once or twice, but then that blog might get flagged as being an issue.
       
      #93 trinlayk, Apr 15, 2012
    14. According to the situation, I know that it's illegal and if it happened to me, I'd feel really awful, but the thing is, once you post something to the internet, chances are, its going to end up on "google images".
      Once it ends up on google images, it might as well be a free for all buffet. People will use your images without permission (and chances are, you've done that before as well. perhaps with something else).
      So whilst it does bother me, I just take it as it is. Badmouthing whilst immoral, is not illegal.

      Unfortunately, this is not a case of principle. The internet has become its own jurisdiction. Because its so fast and universal, you can only count on the morality of the individual. You can't bring in cases of other crime because it does not connect as well.
       
      #94 HoushiChan, Apr 15, 2012
    15. Actually, I think I heard that you can email Google and ask them to not index your site or anything involving your site, and I'm sure you can do that with most major search engines like Yahoo and Bing. Some websites even let you opt-in to letting search engines index your site in searches.
       
      #95 writerm, Apr 15, 2012
    16. Google also now has a function (still developing, it's kinda wobbly yet) where you can put in your photo (or a photo you've found) and see where else that photo is posted.

      It will soon be VERY easy to find out the point of origin of a photo, or where else your image (painting, drawing, as well as photos) might be turning up.

      I've used it on at least one occasion to track down the source of a "ghost photo" from a ghost story site (and yeah the person posting it thought it was an ACTUAL ghost photo!!!) ...and I was able to find and talk to the artist who made the photo. He meant it as an art piece and never intended to trick people, but once he lost control of the photo (it really was gorgeous, and more so after he discussed the photo as being about a personal loss) it WAS being used to trick people.

      you can click and drag the photo in question into the google search bar and it will find other places where that photo is posted... though sometimes the 'find similar photo" function gets some really funny results.
       
      #96 trinlayk, Apr 15, 2012
    17. No, that does not mean it's okay to share . . . this has nothing to do with the law -- this is just an effort by Flickr to make it easy to share BUT it's putting the burden of getting permission (if all rights are left reserved) on the person doing the sharing.

      Here's the LEGAL part on Flickr: (under defaults for new uploads)

      What license will your content have All rights reserved ©

      Simply stated: Flickr can NOT take away your copyrights without your permission (and they're not trying to.)
       
      #97 mojomaca, Apr 15, 2012
    18. This is why I don't join sites like face book and don't put any works or photos I actually care about on Photobucket. I just put my artvomit in there and on my dA. I won't be posting any of my real work on the internet until I have my own site to host it.

      Yes the ToS is usually written in convoluted legal jargon and no most people don't want to read through all that shit, but by hitting "agree" they are saying that they DID and that they agree to all the terms set, so it's their own fault if they're agreeing to something they really don't want to agree to just because they couldn't put in the effort to check things out. If you're going to post works that really matter to you, you should know what rights you're giving that site in regards to your works before you post them.
       
      #98 Quetz, Apr 15, 2012
    19. i was just looking at my account on flickr and it looks like the default is that you allow your stuff to be added to flickr galleries but you DON"T allow anyone to "share" them (i've never changed my preferences) it is also automatically all rights reserved unless you change it.

      if i don't want other people to have access to my pictures i mark them as private, and if i really don't want access i don't upload them at all. i would like to think that people would respect copyrights and i never add links to my blog without popping the person a note and telling them i have done so and that "i hope that is ok" so they have the option of asking me to remove it. i don't ask prior permission, but so far everyone has been ok with that, as i would be. on the other hand i'm not using anyone's pictures out of context so to speak and would be upset if people used mine that way or without credit, but i know it happens.

      i am really careful that what i put up i don't mind others seeing and yes possibly borrowing without permission, because right or wrong it is possible to copy anything that is out there if you know how. there is still a balance between trusting other people's morality and protecting yourself against their lack thereof.
       
      #99 auntbear, Apr 15, 2012
    20. Wasn't suggesting anything to the contrary; indeed, there are people out there that will do bad things, like steal our images. The law, when given the chance to be enforced, will not stand for the perpetrator's argument of the victim accepting the risk, but it is still a risk that was taken, and the law will not always be able to save the day. This is also a risk that must be accepted. In California, Pedestrians have the right of way on the road. That's not exactly a handy law when you are run over and killed by the driver that wasn't paying attention. The driver will still be prosecuted if he's caught, but you're still a deceased victim of risk.
       
      #100 ZennoSaji, Apr 15, 2012
Page 5 of 14