Aga Khan Foundation: Islamic Community Center

[rechlin]

It's a difficult situation.  I have spent a small fortune on photographic equipment and my income relies on copyright protection, and I understand the situation there.

But at the same time, when someone posts photos here and then later deletes them, it's harmful to the community.  A big feature of this site is serving as a historic record of construction projects and their progress.  You can't just go out and take a photo to replace one that someone else deleted, because things have changed since then.  So the photos are irreplaceable.  At the same time, I don't know about anyone else, but for me, if someone has already taken photos of a project at a given point in time to post here, I'm not going to waste time doing it again, since someone else already did it.  I already lost a lot of interest in taking time to post photos here after an earlier incident where a moderator deleted a bunch of threads made by someone else, some of which had many photos that I had taken and didn't want removed, so I'm certainly not going to take pictures of a construction project the same week someone else did, since there is minimal extra value in that -- and when I do post photos here I generally only use quick cell phone shots because I don't want to put much effort into something that someone might delete.

But when someone deletes photos they have taken, that removes it from the historic record, and there's no way anyone who was dissuaded from taking the photos can go back in time to that point to retake them themselves.  It's better to have never had the photos taken in the first place than to have them taken and then deleted, gone forever.  IMHO if there is going to be a rule against reposting deleted photos, there should also be a rule against systemic deletion of one's own photos due to how much it breaks the social contract.  With social-media sites, it's pretty much universal that posting content grants an irrevocable license to the site to continue to distribute that content in perpetuity, and that probably should be the rule here too (admittedly, this site does not mention anything about this in its well-hidden terms-and-conditions page), which would allow lost photos to be restored.  If one doesn't want their photos to stay on this site, in my opinion, they shouldn't post them to this site in the first place.

The Wayback Machine already keeps these photos and publishes them online for anyone, if it crawled the thread in time, so reposting deleted photos is no more illegal than what the Wayback Machine does.  I don't know whether that means it's illegal or not.

[hbg.50]

49 minutes ago, rechlin said:

It's a difficult situation.  I have spent a small fortune on photographic equipment and my income relies on copyright protection, and I understand the situation there.

But at the same time, when someone posts photos here and then later deletes them, it's harmful to the community.  A big feature of this site is serving as a historic record of construction projects and their progress.  You can't just go out and take a photo to replace one that someone else deleted, because things have changed since then.  So the photos are irreplaceable.  At the same time, I don't know about anyone else, but for me, if someone has already taken photos of a project at a given point in time to post here, I'm not going to waste time doing it again, since someone else already did it.  I already lost a lot of interest in taking time to post photos here after an earlier incident where a moderator deleted a bunch of threads made by someone else, some of which had many photos that I had taken and didn't want removed, so I'm certainly not going to take pictures of a construction project the same week someone else did, since there is minimal extra value in that -- and when I do post photos here I generally only use quick cell phone shots because I don't want to put much effort into something that someone might delete.

But when someone deletes photos they have taken, that removes it from the historic record, and there's no way anyone who was dissuaded from taking the photos can go back in time to that point to retake them themselves.  It's better to have never had the photos taken in the first place than to have them taken and then deleted, gone forever.  IMHO if there is going to be a rule against reposting deleted photos, there should also be a rule against systemic deletion of one's own photos due to how much it breaks the social contract.  With social-media sites, it's pretty much universal that posting content grants an irrevocable license to the site to continue to distribute that content in perpetuity, and that probably should be the rule here too (admittedly, this site does not mention anything about this in its well-hidden terms-and-conditions page), which would allow lost photos to be restored.  If one doesn't want their photos to stay on this site, in my opinion, they shouldn't post them to this site in the first place.

The Wayback Machine already keeps these photos and publishes them online for anyone, if it crawled the thread in time, so reposting deleted photos is no more illegal than what the Wayback Machine does.  I don't know whether that means it's illegal or not.

You make good points. 

[IntheKnowHouston]

8 hours ago, rechlin said:

But at the same time, when someone posts photos here and then later deletes them, it's harmful to the community.  A big feature of this site is serving as a historic record of construction projects and their progress.  You can't just go out and take a photo to replace one that someone else deleted, because things have changed since then.  So the photos are irreplaceable.  At the same time, I don't know about anyone else, but for me, if someone has already taken photos of a project at a given point in time to post here, I'm not going to waste time doing it again, since someone else already did it.  I already lost a lot of interest in taking time to post photos here after an earlier incident where a moderator deleted a bunch of threads made by someone else, some of which had many photos that I had taken and didn't want removed, so I'm certainly not going to take pictures of a construction project the same week someone else did, since there is minimal extra value in that -- and when I do post photos here I generally only use quick cell phone shots because I don't want to put much effort into something that someone might delete.

But when someone deletes photos they have taken, that removes it from the historic record, and there's no way anyone who was dissuaded from taking the photos can go back in time to that point to retake them themselves.  It's better to have never had the photos taken in the first place than to have them taken and then deleted, gone forever.  IMHO if there is going to be a rule against reposting deleted photos, there should also be a rule against systemic deletion of one's own photos due to how much it breaks the social contract.  With social-media sites, it's pretty much universal that posting content grants an irrevocable license to the site to continue to distribute that content in perpetuity, and that probably should be the rule here too (admittedly, this site does not mention anything about this in its well-hidden terms-and-conditions page), which would allow lost photos to be restored.  If one doesn't want their photos to stay on this site, in my opinion, they shouldn't post them to this site in the first place.

Couldn't have said it better myself., @rechlin.

It's disappointing Cityliving chose to delete all the great photos he shared. His dedication in documenting many of this city's new development and buildings were and still are invaluable. I hope he will continue to do so, even if he decides to publish his photos elsewhere (I know he'll see this because he still visits this forum several times almost every day, but chooses not to contribute as he did before.)

However, Cityliving's constant deletions - which seem to come across as revenge for not receiving as much praise or likes as another user - are problematic for the reasons you described. I realize the revenge motive is speculation on my part. Still, it appears to be a pattern. He'll post something negative about another user's drone photos or not feeling appreciated. Afterwards, he goes on a mass deletion spree as if it's his way of punishing the entire forum.

Furthermore, I agree with your position regarding "a big feature of this site is serving as a historic record of construction projects and their progress." Sure, many of us like visiting the site to post or view recent content relating to current project. But that's only one of this forum's driving forces.

There are just as many people who visit this site to see developments from their planning stages to their construction phase, and the completed project. Some also find it interesting seeing what may have been planned for a property before or previous occupants. This is why older content, be it posts, PDF files, and photos, are as important as current content on this forum. I don't get why certain members of this site refuse to see the value in that (I'm saying this based off another topic on the forum where some complained there is no need for older content.)

Lots of people use this forum for many reasons. From what I've observed, there are many who utilize this forum as a reference tool or an archive. I've come across countless social media posts and online forums sharing older content from this forum. The content is used to highlight what may have been built before, previous occupants, demolitions, construction phases, and so forth. 

Also, let's not forget, many of this city's journalists, bloggers, or those whose social media focuses on architecture, construction, transportation, and real estate (like WalkingHouston) constantly visit this forum. Many of them use current and past content in their research or report what has been discussed or shared here.

Edited April 15 by IntheKnowHouston

[editor]

A few points:

• Cityliving is within his rights to delete his images.  They're his.  Yes, it harms the community, but the law doesn't recognize harm to HAIF.  It does recognize copyright infringement.
• Yes, it is possible for a photographer to get money out of an organization for infringement.  I've paid the rent a number of times that way.  You just have to know how to do it.  Complaining on social media is no different than going into your closet and shouting at your shoes.
• Cityliving doesn't have "constant" deletions.  He  hasn't posted anything since February.  His black boxes will be memories soon enough, as the threads move on.
• I'll let the moderators know they can remove the images if they come across them.  But there's over half-a-million posts on HAIF, so a dragnet is not reasonable.

 

[urbanize713]

Can his posts also just be banned moing forward to save us all the trouble? Seeking unbridled adulation is not the same as other members that are trying to add to the site with pictures, information, and even heated deates at times. 

Been on HAIF for over a decade and can't recall another member acting in such a childish manner. 

[editor]

20 minutes ago, urbanize713 said:

Can his posts also just be banned moing forward to save us all the trouble? Seeking unbridled adulation is not the same as other members that are trying to add to the site with pictures, information, and even heated deates at times. 

Been on HAIF for over a decade and can't recall another member acting in such a childish manner. 

There's no need to ban him from posting, as he hasn't posted anything since February.  He's self-censoring.

[IntheKnowHouston]

8 hours ago, editor said:

Cityliving doesn't have "constant" deletions.  He  hasn't posted anything since February.  His black boxes will be memories soon enough, as the threads move on.

With all due respect, Cityliving does constantly delete his images. Constantly, as all of us know, is defined as "with regular occurrence." The person does exactly this.

It's not only my observation, but @rechlin's, and several other members who have posted about his actions in a number of topics where there are pages filled with Cityliving's deleted images. You may not be aware of it, but it doesn't make it any less so.

Many of us regulars see this pattern of his over and over: Makes rude comments about one specific user's drone shots, complains about not being valued when he receives backlash for his comments or not enough likes, then deletes his images from Imgur. Rinse and repeat.

To that point,  Cityliving is free to do whatever he wishes with his photos. Many members appreciate his contributions. However, we also feel shafted each time he takes his anger out on the entire forum by removing his photos en masse whenever he feels unappreciated. To my understanding, that's not the spirit of this forum. 

I'll leave it at that and won't derail this topic any further.

Edited April 16 by IntheKnowHouston

[editor]

I received this message from Cityliving this morning, and asked me to share it:

Quote

My photographs are copyrighted and anyone who copies them or posts them without my permission will be fined, my lawyers will be notifying anyone who does so, I work with construction companies who have projects on this site who asked me not to post my drone photographs on this site because they pay me to do work for them and that is why I removed my photographs.

 

[MidCenturyMoldy]

OK. This works. 

[MidCenturyMoldy]

😆 at the private message I just received. 

[004n063]

So this is gunna be a pretty neat building, eh fellas?

[astrohip]

On 4/16/2024 at 5:55 PM, 004n063 said:

So this is gunna be a pretty neat building, eh fellas?

I drove by it Saturday going to the Art Car Parade, first time I'd been by it since maybe last year's parade? Wow, what a magnificent edifice! Can't wait to see it.