New system for images?

I was just wondering what the transition of author and venue images "to a new system" is going to mean for LTers.

Thanks.

And when it will come into being? I'm waiting to upload a couple of author images.

Sorry. Working on it now.

So, it's sort-of working now. We have a maddening problem between the development and main server here that requires me to make it live before everything is working—to see if it's going to work at all.

Anyway, I'm working on the rough edges now.

Thanks! Seems to work. It might be nice to have a link back to the author page from the gallery (although that may be one of the "rough edges" you are working on now).

They don't appear in the log for recently added pictures. That would create a problem for protecting against copyright violations and spam.

No, they don't. They're going to need to go in another page, I think. I don't want them mixed in with member images.

Also, I'm just about to give up on the whole copyright violations issue. We do nothing but hurt ourselves while our competitors and others merrily don't give a shit. I can't even get author-photographers to care about the topic.

I'm still considering it, but I'm beyond irritated at the whole situation. Nobody, from the publishers to Marion Etlinger, cares about this enough to support our position, or go after others.

Our main competitor freely sports an image of Shel Silverstein, without even a credit, and we, who asked to use one—any one—was threatened with legal action by his estate if we posted anything. We are actually WORSE off for asking, legally, since it may imply we're going to be vetting user content, thus removing our DMCA safe haven.

>7 timspalding: re: Shel Silverstein. But Simon & Schuster gave me permission to use his photo. Were they not in a position to give such permission?

I think it does speak to the legitimacy and tone of the site that you do have members flag for copyright violations. However, you and other employees are the ones in position to know how detrimental the policy is in comparison to the ill effects of letting it go.

Ha. I didn't even know we'd gotten permission. Well, in my other hand I have a note from his estate denying us the right to use a photo. Does the estate have say over that photo, or did Simon and Schuster have the right to let us use it? I have no idea. All I know is that, if another member hadn't politely asked, and been refused—and from their law firm no less—there'd be no doubt about the matter whatsoever: we'd be fine until the estate went after us, and fine then we'd be fine, provided we took in down then.

I don't know, does it speak for the legitimacy of the site? To most people it speaks to the emptiness of the site. We have fewer pictures, so we must have fewer passionate users. That the users are required to obtain LETTERS from authors for every picture we have, and have spent thousands of hours on it—who knows that and who the fuck cares? It just makes the site look sparse, and exposes the company to legal risk.

And it's a taste of what's the come; if nobody in publishing cares about author photo copyright, or even credit, doesn't it undermine the coming battle against piracy of the works themselves?

Can you tell I'm in a crappy mood?

And it's a taste of what's the come; if nobody in publishing cares about author photo copyright, or even credit, doesn't it undermine the coming battle against piracy of the works themselves?

I completely agree. And that's why I think it admirable that LT does take the stand it does on copyright. (Even if I do suppose that it is understandable if that changes due to business interests).

I don't know, does it speak for the legitimacy of the site?

Yes. :)

Longer answer--Yes, but how many users (casual or otherwise) even care about the legitimacy? This is nowhere near my field of knowledge, although I'm sure you all have some idea of that. How much do you care about it? Once again, nowhere in my sphere to guess.

To most people it speaks to the emptiness of the site. We have fewer pictures, so we must have fewer passionate users.

Empty? Sure there are many authors lacking pictures, but how many of those lacking pictures are popular authors? Ones that get pulled up on a daily (weekly?) basis? Looking at the top favorited. . . top by number of copies (okay, I found two missing--Bill Watterson and Madeline L'Engle). . . how many authors are really any lacking pictures when competitors have one?

I think it's fair enough for LT to abide by what seems to be the general policy regarding such things: don't police use-activity, including author pictures, but abide by take-down notices whenever they are given.

I think you're right that heavy requirements actually weaken LT's position in the long run. You most certainly /don't/ want to start looking like you police in any way, because you don't want to be held responsible for user content.

It doesn't hurt to have guidelines, I think, a quick, 'if you want to be a responsible image-posted, here are some resources on copyright'. But beyond that, I think you're actually better off with less official oversight.

In all seriousness, who are your competitors (I guess it's not a secret, I'm just ignorant)?

Shelfari
GoodReads
WeRead

And, to a lesser extent, using Amazon and Google to keep track of your library.

Interestingly enough, when double-checking my list I came across an old post of Tim's from 2006: http://www.librarything.com/blog/2006/01/competitors-bokhyllancom.php#1138170160...

1. Reader2.com
2. ConnectViaBooks.com
3. Bibliophil.org
4. StuffWeLike.net (neé BooksWeLike.com)
5. Ning.com (bookshelf)
6. Stuffopolis.com
7. Mediachest.com
8. Douban.net (neé Beantal.com)
9. ChainReading.com

I'm not sure how many of those are even around anymore. And no one on my list was even on the radar back then.

>13 brightcopy:

I track some 40 of them. Only about five are important.

I'm sorry we're caught between the two systems. Nothing new can be added to the old system, and flagging there has no effect. I was caught suddenly with having to take Liam for two days, and abandon the project. I'm back on now and working at it.

No worries. Anything for your Liam. ;-)

I notice we can't change default / primary author picture (whatever it's called, the one that shows on the author page) anymore. Not that I desperately want to, but...

As far as I can tell, new images are no longer showing up in the author gallery.

> 21

It's possible that the person deleted their comments.

I think it's actually working now, except that the "system" message isn't worded right and the email link doesn't including the full URL. Working on it.

Sorry. I'm working on it.

Having read #7 and #9 (perhaps "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"-like-comment) I entered a small group of back cover scans from old Penguins. One - so far - has been flagged -

http://www.librarything.com/pic/176691

I wrote the following to the flagger:

"The image of Joan Haslip from the Penguin printing of Lady Hester Stanhope is one of a handful of similarly sourced author images I recently entered. Having read Tim Spalding's comments on the thread to which I referred, I thought it worth testing opinion. I am no copyright lawyer and I suppose that an internationally accessible site has to consider the whole range of different copyright regulations but it seems that different sites take different attitudes: "hang the picture up until/unless asked to take it down" seems to suit some.

Penguin Books in the 40s and 50s often had an author photo and brief biography on the back page and AFAIK this was written by Penguin and was not used in other editions or reprints - after the 60s the photos mostly disappeared. The selection I made were all over 50 years old. Some photos (Ludwig Bemelmans, W N P Barbellion, Lytton Strachey) have no attribution. Joan Haslip's (a rather more elegant image than most) comes, as you remark, from a named professional studio. Oliver St John Gogarty's picture is noted as being from a painting by Augustus John. Robert Lynd's photo is attributed to 'Tangye Lean'. I presume this refers to Edward Tangye Lean (1911-1974), a brother of the film director David Lean. Lean and Lynd both worked on the News Chronicle and, as Lean was not a professional photographer, the image was, I imagine, a snapshot of a friend/acquaintance.

Of all these pictures, unless Penguin Books wanted to make a fuss, the most contentious is the one you have picked out - the Harlip archive is still actively managed.

I am not sufficiently driven to spend time seeking permission to use these images and if general opinion is against using them, so be it. I suppose that the questions that need answering are 1. Is the scan of the back book cover any more usable that the cut-down photo? and 2. Does the attribution, or lack of it, make any difference?

This bear will happily return to his cage if asked, but if not I can provide quite a few images of older and perhaps more obscure authors that are unlikely to appear from other sources."

Any advice here?

I am officially neutral on all these questions. The system is automatic, and LibraryThing staff does not review images—rejecting or approving them in anyway. We built a feature to handle users flagging content. And we respond to legal take down orders.

A number of the items on the "removed" page are still out there on the author pages. Is there some sort of time lag?

Also, it looks like an image has to have a difference of 6 votes between "remove" and "keep" before it is transferred to the "removed" page. Is this correct? Somewhere, not sure where, I seem to remember reading that the margin would be five votes.

27 - I was just about to post about the same thing. What does "removed" mean, since I'm still seeing these images on the authors' pages and in their galleries?

Any hope there will be work on this feature again? I have several photos of venues ready for upload for months, but every time I check I still get the message from February that it will be reactivated shortly. If I understand the above discussion, the reason for the new system was copyright problems - but for photos of venues which are easily done by any user with a camera this should be much less of a concern than for authors who only rarely show up in public to be photographed, and where an official press photo would be the best choice anyway (if they would allow its usage).

I have 25 pics in my gallery. I can't upload author pics. I get the 25 pic message. Any chance of fixing this?

>30 MaewNam: - Ditto - I have at least 10 venue photos pining away in my collection, now.