Listing on CAF

[comicartcom]

Bill is not only aware of the movie posters in my gallery, he has commented on them and he has wanted to have a conversation with me in forwarding Reelcollectors into the future & expanding it's membership.

 

as far as non-comic related movie posters - my thoughts are already here

on cars.. I don't have one with wild paint and I don't think CAF is appropriate to show my 3000gt VR4, but if I had it painted with Superman on the side, I have no doubt I would put a photo up. Though if I just had a cool painted hotrod with flames and the usual.. I'm not likely to show that.

 

There are degrees

[Child,pleeze-migration]

that may be but a lot of the "offenders" are people who certainly know better and who choose to ignore the rules. if a dealer wants to keep it on their website where they are paying for the bandwidth, then that is different.

 

I'm not arguing against your points in regards to rules and bandwidth. But this thread has been more about collectors who feel strongly annoyed about other people showing off art they no longer own. Do these same collectors get annoyed when dealers show art with a sold label?

[Mephisto]

I found it more inappropriate when people post images and titles and you click on them and they say wanted. The nice thing about sold art being listed is a lot of time it can help you track a piece down.I try not to post too much OT stuff. I have some Indiana Jones stuff that was used for trading cards and will probably add some of my Star Wars stuff later.

[Child,pleeze-migration]

Bill has been generous as to not call people on posting non comic book/strip artwork on his site (that I know of) so far. Let's be respectful of his site; his rules.

 

Going through Bill's Term's and conditions, and seeing other people's post's regarding artwork

no longer in their possession; it is only far to remove artwork that is no longer in one's possession .

 

 

CAF Terms and Conditions.

 

 

Personally, I think Bill has been a little too lenient. I wish he was able to better enforce the "nudity" policy. Some people have posted some very hardcore material viewable by everyone. Unfortunately, Bill is only one man wearing a lot of hats.

[rednalsram]

It's Bill's site, and I respect what ever he wants there. I've posted my opinions as well.

 

A hand painted comic book/strip image on a vehicle is the same to me as a re-marked

printed item.

 

Bill is not only aware of the movie posters in my gallery, he has commented on them and he has wanted to have a conversation with me in forwarding Reelcollectors into the future & expanding it's membership.

 

as far as non-comic related movie posters - my thoughts are already here

on cars.. I don't have one with wild paint and I don't think CAF is appropriate to show my 3000gt VR4, but if I had it painted with Superman on the side, I have no doubt I would put a photo up. Though if I just had a cool painted hotrod with flames and the usual.. I'm not likely to show that.

 

There are degrees

[mister_not_so_nice]

that may be but a lot of the "offenders" are people who certainly know better and who choose to ignore the rules. if a dealer wants to keep it on their website where they are paying for the bandwidth, then that is different.

 

I'm not arguing against your points in regards to rules and bandwidth. But this thread has been more about collectors who feel strongly annoyed about other people showing off art they no longer own. Do these same collectors get annoyed when dealers show art with a sold label?

 

Yes, but dealers are free to do as they please on THEIR website. It's just as annoying as "pLease Inquire" or "offers" but it's their business model. I speak with my wallet (as small as it may be)

And if anyone wants to make a website to display the art they used to own, they're free to do that as well.

 

Your site = Your rules

CAF = CAF's rules

[rednalsram]

I agree. I don't care if someone wants XXX material, However I don't

think CAF is the appropriate venue, or at the very least put a padlock

on that material. Not all XXX material on CAF is padlocked.

 

Bill has been generous as to not call people on posting non comic book/strip artwork on his site (that I know of) so far. Let's be respectful of his site; his rules.

 

Going through Bill's Term's and conditions, and seeing other people's post's regarding artwork

no longer in their possession; it is only far to remove artwork that is no longer in one's possession .

 

 

CAF Terms and Conditions.

 

 

Personally, I think Bill has been a little too lenient. I wish he was able to better enforce the "nudity" policy. Some people have posted some very hardcore material viewable by everyone. Unfortunately, Bill is only one man wearing a lot of hats.

[Mephisto]

Bill has been generous as to not call people on posting non comic book/strip artwork on his site (that I know of) so far. Let's be respectful of his site; his rules.

 

Going through Bill's Term's and conditions, and seeing other people's post's regarding artwork

no longer in their possession; it is only far to remove artwork that is no longer in one's possession .

 

 

CAF Terms and Conditions.

 

 

Personally, I think Bill has been a little too lenient. I wish he was able to better enforce the "nudity" policy. Some people have posted some very hardcore material viewable by everyone. Unfortunately, Bill is only one man wearing a lot of hats.

 

I won't really go on the site at work anymore for fear of what will pop up on the main page.

[Claudio]

Do these same collectors get annoyed when dealers show art with a sold label?

 

Not as much. It is their website and listing sales can be used to help promote their business. I would prefer it if they kept it in a separate area of their site, however. One that doesn't come up on CAF searches!

 

I guess I just feel like CAF is becoming more and more difficult to navigate through and all this clutter doesn't help. I think that is why I got annoyed.

 

And for anyone who said that the collectors may not even know about the rules, keep in mind that I did notify this particular individual.

[Dumur]

I usually take my sold pieces down as soon as I receive feedback (for an ebay sale) or as soon as the owner let's me know they have it for a private sale. I then use the "favorited" option on CAF and have a section for when I see pieces that were mine show up in other galleries. I like having a little record for what I used to own...not as "trophies" but I just find it interesting. But I don't need to repeat images on the site.

 

I personally am not a fan of people keeping the pieces up on their pages, unless they aren't anywhere else on CAF. I thought that's what CAF was for, to be able to see original art in it's original form. So if there are pieces that people no longer own, but it is locked up in someone else's personal collection who won't post it, then I am glad it is still up on the site so I can at least look and appreciate it.

 

The photo's bug me as I don't feel like it should be a personal MySpace page.

 

In the end, it's not my site, so it doesn't really matter what I like or don't like. I'm just glad the site is there at all.

[CollectingFool]

So if someone has a folder showing off art no longer in their possession, then they're being selfish?

 

Yes. It costs money to store the files. It's been provided cheaply/free by Bill and to exceed the parameters he's given for using his site is selfish and abuses the generosity he's extended. I would think most people who have these "sold" folders never had a website of their own and if it weren't for Bill never would. Never went through the trouble of designing, building and maintaining one. Never got calls at 2:00 in the morning when a server crashed or a drive needed to be replaced. Never offered a valued service to someone else for free only to see their generosity abused or had their own leniency used as proof that they really must not care their guidelines are being ignored.

 

I've told Bill this before but waaaayyyy back when the Comicart-L was in it's original state before Yahoo I toyed with the idea of creating a similar site. Actually, I more than toyed with it. I consulted the phone company about having high speed lines installed. I bought a server and configured it for what I needed. I started designing the site. Then the prices the phone company had quoted me for the lines went up by about double. I had to scrap my plans. I didn't have the infrastructure I needed already in place the way Bill did. Maybe I'm more sensitive to this because I know what goes into building and maintaining the site. Bill would likely never say it but it is selfish. If you aren't aware of the guidelines and you do it you may plead ignorance instead. If you know you're violating the guidelines and do it anyway you're selfish. I can't make it clearer than that.

[*paull*]

I'm bothered more by the endless pictures of comic book covers, signed prints, signed comics, and autographs. I wish all that stuff would be removed from the site.

[batman_fan]

Well I am happy to announce I have made all of my "sold" items are now hidden.

[bocaratondefense]

I am with the majority on this one. If I have already sold a piece, I take down all images out of respect for the person who purchased from me. Whether the new owner wants to share the page for the world to see is his perogative.

[Child,pleeze-migration]

So if someone has a folder showing off art no longer in their possession, then they're being selfish?

 

Yes. It costs money to store the files. It's been provided cheaply/free by Bill and to exceed the parameters he's given for using his site is selfish and abuses the generosity he's extended. I would think most people who have these "sold" folders never had a website of their own and if it weren't for Bill never would. Never went through the trouble of designing, building and maintaining one. Never got calls at 2:00 in the morning when a server crashed or a drive needed to be replaced. Never offered a valued service to someone else for free only to see their generosity abused or had their own leniency used as proof that they really must not care their guidelines are being ignored.

 

I've told Bill this before but waaaayyyy back when the Comicart-L was in it's original state before Yahoo I toyed with the idea of creating a similar site. Actually, I more than toyed with it. I consulted the phone company about having high speed lines installed. I bought a server and configured it for what I needed. I started designing the site. Then the prices the phone company had quoted me for the lines went up by about double. I had to scrap my plans. I didn't have the infrastructure I needed already in place the way Bill did. Maybe I'm more sensitive to this because I know what goes into building and maintaining the site. Bill would likely never say it but it is selfish. If you aren't aware of the guidelines and you do it you may plead ignorance instead. If you know you're violating the guidelines and do it anyway you're selfish. I can't make it clearer than that.

 

Ok. The site costs a lot of money to operate and Bill works hard to maintain it. I don't disagree with any of those facts, but I also don't see how any of that is relevant to judging any end user's personality. Whether the effort of maintaining CAF was small or large, one's selfishness on the site is solely reflected by their willingness to abuse their privileges.

 

Anyways, I guess we'll agree to disgree on how we choose to describe people. While you choose to label all "offenders" as either ignorant or selfish, I see most (but not all) offenders as just people making innocent mistakes. Is that still considered ignorance? Possibly. Mistakes will happen when people aren't constantly aware of the playground rules. It's why many big companies require annual ethics training for their employees. I think it would best serve CAF if Bill sent a periodic reminder to everyone about the "Rules of Behavior", but that is a decision for him to make.

 

[Coach]

My opinion is that if a person has gone through the trouble to set up and maintain a site, users should do their best to adhere to any of his or her rules as common courtesy. To do anything less would seem to be inconsiderate. Would it be selfish? Perhaps or perhaps not, but it definitely wouldn’t be unselfish. Also, if users do not adhere to a site’s rules who's at fault? Is it the users who do not follow the stated rules or the person who set up the site for not enforcing the rules? I would lean towards the users.

 

Darren

[buyatari]

So if someone has a folder showing off art no longer in their possession, then they're being selfish?

 

Yes. It costs money to store the files. It's been provided cheaply/free by Bill and to exceed the parameters he's given for using his site is selfish and abuses the generosity he's extended. I would think most people who have these "sold" folders never had a website of their own and if it weren't for Bill never would. Never went through the trouble of designing, building and maintaining one. Never got calls at 2:00 in the morning when a server crashed or a drive needed to be replaced. Never offered a valued service to someone else for free only to see their generosity abused or had their own leniency used as proof that they really must not care their guidelines are being ignored.

 

I've told Bill this before but waaaayyyy back when the Comicart-L was in it's original state before Yahoo I toyed with the idea of creating a similar site. Actually, I more than toyed with it. I consulted the phone company about having high speed lines installed. I bought a server and configured it for what I needed. I started designing the site. Then the prices the phone company had quoted me for the lines went up by about double. I had to scrap my plans. I didn't have the infrastructure I needed already in place the way Bill did. Maybe I'm more sensitive to this because I know what goes into building and maintaining the site. Bill would likely never say it but it is selfish. If you aren't aware of the guidelines and you do it you may plead ignorance instead. If you know you're violating the guidelines and do it anyway you're selfish. I can't make it clearer than that.

 

My opinion is that if a person has gone through the trouble to set up and maintain a site, users should do their best to adhere to any of his or her rules as common courtesy. To do anything less would seem to be inconsiderate. Would it be selfish? Perhaps or perhaps not, but it definitely wouldn’t be unselfish. Also, if users do not adhere to a site’s rules who's at fault? Is it the users who do not follow the stated rules or the person who set up the site for not enforcing the rules? I would lean towards the users.

 

Darren

 

 

Where is this? I looked at the CAF FAQ and didn't see anything about this. It did say "artwork" but says nothing of ownership of the piece. So going by this a movie poster or photographs of people at a convention should be out but posting original art and saying you want it or that you sold it isn't.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/site-faq.asp

[Claudio]

 

 

Where is this? I looked at the CAF FAQ and didn't see anything about this. It did say "artwork" but says nothing of ownership of the piece. So going by this a movie poster or photographs of people at a convention should be out but posting original art and saying you want it or that you sold it isn't.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/site-faq.asp

 

It's here:

http://www.comicartfans.com/signup.asp

[buyatari]

 

 

Where is this? I looked at the CAF FAQ and didn't see anything about this. It did say "artwork" but says nothing of ownership of the piece. So going by this a movie poster or photographs of people at a convention should be out but posting original art and saying you want it or that you sold it isn't.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/site-faq.asp

 

It's here:

http://www.comicartfans.com/signup.asp

 

Well there it is.

 

As a Gallery Owner, you can only post the images of a piece of artwork in your possession. The only exception to this rule is if you are the Original Creator of the artwork and are displaying this artwork as a reference to past work you have done

 

I guess we better tell all those guys with stolen art to take em down as it no longer in their possession.

 

So as it is written that would mean pieces you would like to have, or once owned but no longer do are all out. Posters and prints and comic books are all out. Photos would be out be out but he goes on to say this.

 

Posting Photographs - Photographs are allowed to be posted to a Comicartfans.com Gallery Room if they are related to comic art. We encourage all Gallery Owners to take digital pictures at Comic Conventions of Artists that they meet. You may not post photographs that you have not taken yourself.

 

This isn't very specific so just about any photograph should fit under this as long as it is related to comic art.

[Child,pleeze-migration]

My opinion is that if a person has gone through the trouble to set up and maintain a site, users should do their best to adhere to any of his or her rules as common courtesy. To do anything less would seem to be inconsiderate. Would it be selfish? Perhaps or perhaps not, but it definitely wouldn’t be unselfish. Also, if users do not adhere to a site’s rules who's at fault? Is it the users who do not follow the stated rules or the person who set up the site for not enforcing the rules? I would lean towards the users.

 

Coach, should MLB share responsibility for the steroid era?

 

I think we agree that the users bear the greater responsibility in ensuring that they comply to policies. But when it comes to ensuring a controlled environment and deterring further violations, I think Bill holds that responsibility. I'm not at all implying that Bill has done a bad job in policing. We see minor "selfish" infractions here and there, but major problems (like conflicts) are rare at the site. I think that is credited to Bill's watch over the site. It's understandable that Bill doesn't have the time to run a tight ship and monitor every user and uploaded image.

 

Users are responsible for their own actions. Bill is responsible for the overall culture on CAF; similar to how the moderators are responsible for the culture on the CGC forums. If users are, in fact, rampantly violating his policies, then I think Bill should do something about it.