The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Image of the Day (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Aug 21, 2009: Whale of a High 5 (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20883)

xoxoxoBruce 08-20-2009 11:07 PM
Aug 21, 2009: Whale of a High 5
 
OK, technically it's not a high 5, it's a high 1, but you get my drift. ;)

(pic removed)

Quote:
In the deep blue waters of the South Pacific, cameraman Marco Queral gets up close and personal with a humpback whale.

'They decide whether I can take pictures of them or not. They must be in a right mood to let me get into this position.'
With a playful flick of his colossal tail Queral could be dead. But instead this curious, intelligent humpback whale takes a shine to Queral, and the two end up drifting through the seas together. The astonishing contact between the 50ft king of the ocean and the minuscule human was captured off Hawaii in the South Pacific last week.
Queral said the jaw-dropping moment was all down to luck, and little to do with the skills he has mastered over 17 years.
He said: 'The success in getting these shots is pretty much always down to the whale.'
He better hope he doesn't run into that whale again, it might want to give him a hug. :eek3:

link

monster 08-20-2009 11:20 PM
the whale looks a little tough, but i'll take the diver crispy fried with a little horseradish.

ZenGum 08-21-2009 12:06 AM
Quote:
With a playful flick of his colossal tail Queral could be dead

Lucky Queral doesn't have a tail, then, eh?

Seriously, was that by a professional writer? :eyebrow:

Mind you, it was nothing to what would happen if the whale got really "playful". You guys know what I am referring to.

birdclaw 08-21-2009 09:19 AM
The problem with eating the diver is getting that rubbery cover off and even then there's hardly enough meat to make the effort worth it.

xoxoxoBruce 08-21-2009 09:37 AM
Can't you cut off one end and squeeze him out like toothpaste? ;)

dar512 08-21-2009 09:41 AM
Yeah, but those fins might tickle going down.


I'd be worried about getting diver-tickle-itis. :greenface

Shawnee123 08-21-2009 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 589171)
Yeah, but those fins might tickle going down.


I'd be worried about getting diver-tickle-itis. :greenface
:lol2:

newtimer 08-21-2009 11:04 AM
Is that Chito's brother?

"Sure these huge, untamed, deadly animals could easily kill me in half a second, but he would never do that to ME. We have a special, personal bond that joi....Aaaaaack!"

Slothboy 08-21-2009 11:24 AM
That is a really amazing picture.

Shawnee123 08-21-2009 12:23 PM
That is a stunning photo. I so want to be in that water.

dar512 08-21-2009 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 589249)
That is a stunning photo. I so want to be in that water.
Aren't you going swimming soon? Though I suppose no whales at your local pool.

Shawnee123 08-21-2009 12:39 PM
No, my town sucks. They won't stock the pool with whales, though I have repeatedly asked.

Oh to live near the ocean: I would scuba dive every chance I got. Sigh...

monster 08-21-2009 12:56 PM
maybe there are land whales?

Shawnee123 08-21-2009 12:58 PM
Candygram?

I'm off! Let it stay sunny for a few more hours! :)

monster 08-21-2009 01:00 PM
I'll see you in 2.5 hours then?

spudcon 08-21-2009 01:53 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster (Post 589264)
maybe there are land whales?

Derek 08-21-2009 02:06 PM
Well if theres * land whales * then there must be * sea-men*
I thank you

Shawnee123 08-21-2009 07:08 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster (Post 589268)
I'll see you in 2.5 hours then?
Ah well. By the time I got there the lady said they might not stay open much longer, not enough people there and it was too cold for most people. but I figured I'd stay until they decided to close. It was pretty chilly when I got out of the water, though the water was perfect, and when the sun went behind the big clouds I got chicken skin!

I did take a spin on the giant bendy slide, though.

Anyway, about the whales. There were none.

Diaphone Jim 08-21-2009 07:11 PM
I wonder who "took" the pictures and why he or she is not credited.
Perspective can be confusing at times, but I also wonder why the human figure is variously about half the distance between the nose and the blow hole, a sixth or so of the total length and between and half and a third of the total.
Pretty pictures, but not real.
And if they were real, would they be a violation of the marine mammals act?

Undertoad 09-03-2009 02:08 PM
Quote:
Dear Editor at The Cellar

Please confirm you have paid for the use of the picture(s) of the whale and diver. We believe that the use of this material has not been authorized by Specialist Stock (the copyright owner), our agents, or the law. Specialist Stock has no record of you paying us or our agents for the right to publish this material.

Use without prior agreement is a breach of copyright. This is an international law relating to rights managed pictures such as these. A license to publish these images is required, as well as a fee, whether the images appear in printed form and/or on associated websites.

Having published these images on your site, there is a license fee of £45. Since you may not have known about this breach of copyright, we shall accept £20 provided we hear from you within 24 hours.

We can prove that we represent the photographer, the picture(s) and the rights to sell it. The information in the notification is accurate and under penalty of perjury, Tom Walmsley of Specialist Stock is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

These pictures were not taken in Hawaii (as some bloggers linking to your site suggest) but in the South Pacific. There are no whales in Hawaii in the summer.

Yours sincerely,

Ruth Garner, Office Manager

SPECIALIST STOCK

Undertoad 09-03-2009 02:17 PM
Quote:
Hello Ruth, I am interested in making the Cellar's use of the image legal.

Does the £20 cover licensing for the rest of the life of the website? How do I remit payment?

As an aside, how much would it have been to license the image from the start? An image on our Image of the Day forum may get between 1200 and 10000 views. The whale page has been viewed roughly 2000 times so far.

Thanks,

Tony

classicman 09-03-2009 10:09 PM
Quote:
Dear Ruth,

I'm a fairly regular viewer of the cellar and I'd just like to say GO F*CK YOURSELF.

Have a blessed day.

Oh and Fuck Cancer too!
sorry, couldn't resist. delete if necessary
They should be payin you for selecting it as an IotD.

xoxoxoBruce 09-03-2009 11:02 PM
sigh:(

Undertoad 09-04-2009 08:19 AM
Quote:
HI Tony,

Thanks for your reply. The £20 offer was for the week that it has been in the news so far. Our yearly fee for worldwide web use is £120 but we could offer you £160 for ‘the life of the website’.

I will send you an invoice for the use you would like to purchase with payment details included.

Many thanks,
Ruth

Undertoad 09-04-2009 08:19 AM
Quote:
Ruth, I shall take up a collection amongst the regulars and we shall pay for the week. Please forward an invoice. We highly prefer Paypal. Payment by cheque will have to be in US$, so if you require a cheque, please send along a rate in this currency.

I do wish you, and similar rights-clearing folks, would come up with a business model to support non-profit organizations that aren't major money makers. We are a money-losing operation, just a forum that shares 2000 views of such things. We earn about $15/month through google ads and overall operation is about $200/month. Payment of this fee will be double our gross earnings for the month.

Nevertheless, we are happy to be legal. And we would get very serious about legal use... if you guys would get serious about a fee structure to support us. It would allow us to get the facts right as well -- and to better credit you, and the photographers. This would help preserve your fee structure, as people would notice that sites are working within it.

If you hosted the sold images as well, that would give you a true count of views, and complete control of use. You could easily find the sites hotlinking it, and either prohibit it (creatively, with an alternative image!) or send them invoice letters as you have done here.

One of our alternatives is to reduce the image size or crop it until it's fair use. Nobody wants that, although more and more profitable websites are doing it.

If you want to see what happens to copyable rights-held property when the businesses don't care to support a sustainable model, look at the recording business. They started to offer rights-free downloads only last year. That means they spent roughly a decade fighting the tsunami coming their way, instead of working with it. During that time, consumers' needs were not actually being addressed. This fostered a community of piracy that has now killed the industry entirely.

Don't be like that, is merely my suggestion to the winds.

Tony

xoxoxoBruce 09-04-2009 10:17 AM
Quote:
Payment of this fee will be double our gross earnings for the month.
Shouldn't that be gross costs?

Anyway, I'll reimburse you the £20, since it's my doing.

classicman 09-04-2009 10:21 AM
I'll put an extra five in the tip jar since I was rude last night....

Shawnee123 09-04-2009 10:22 AM
Oh crap, if we're doing Pay-per-Rude I'm going to be BROKE! :lol:

Undertoad 09-04-2009 10:27 AM
No that is a great idea!

Directly insulting a lurker: $2
Directly insulting a regular: $5
Not recognizing a regular: $10
Posting something NSFW and not labeling it: $10
Posting copyrighted material: £2
Posting copyrighted material that is then found by rights-holder: £20
Posting in RFN NSFW and admitting it's you: you receive $3
Posting a bathing suit model in RFN NSFW and passing it off as yourself: $50
Posting in IotD without using the right date format in subject: $10

Shawnee123 09-04-2009 10:28 AM
See, classic, we're geniuses!

monster 09-04-2009 12:58 PM
pay-per-penis would bring in some revenue, cock.

richlevy 09-04-2009 11:17 PM
After reading this, I edited and switched from linking to an image to just posting a link to an image in the WTF NSFW thread.

I'd like to see a legal opinion on the difference between.

Uploading a copyrighted image.
Embedding a link to a copyrighted image.
Posting a link to a copyrighted image.

I remember some legal fight over some site linking to images or content from another site within a frame without attribution or something.

Most of what gets posted to IOTD and the WTF NSFW threads is third party content. Unless fair use is explicitly established, I believe copyright is assumed. But I'm not a lawyer.

Griff 09-05-2009 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 592625)
No that is a great idea!

Directly insulting a lurker: $2
Directly insulting a regular: $5
Not recognizing a regular: $10
Posting something NSFW and not labeling it: $10
Posting copyrighted material: £2
Posting copyrighted material that is then found by rights-holder: £20
Posting in RFN NSFW and admitting it's you: you receive $3
Posting a bathing suit model in RFN NSFW and passing it off as yourself: $50
Posting in IotD without using the right date format in subject: $10
Looks like I'm into the Cellar for approx the difference between PA's income and budget this fiscal year.

Undertoad 09-05-2009 11:18 AM
You can make up for it in RFN NSFW.

richlevy 09-05-2009 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 592829)
You can make up for it in RFN NSFW.
That would be great if your intent is to drive everyone screaming from the Cellar. I'll save that option for when you're ready to retire.:D

lumberjim 09-06-2009 08:01 PM
did you just insult griff?

Griff 09-07-2009 12:32 PM
I don't think so. He may have a little man-crush...:)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.