Anti POTN Site

My son pointed this site out and it is the perfect place to go to learn what NOT to do.

http://youarenotaphoto​grapher.com/

I started feeling ill after skimmimg the first 9 pages, and had to quit.

Man, if feels like the quality of YANAP goes up a bit every time I go there. . . . . and by "goes up" I mean the images are even more outlandish.

I hate that site. They are using images to make fun of people, not nice or legal IMHO.

I suddenly feel very professional.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #15775771
I hate that site. They are using images to make fun of people, not nice or legal IMHO.

It looks in fact to be completely legal. The images they use are all public domain images such as samples or advertisements for some lessor skilled photographers. And all though they do seem to be making fun of people, the fact that some people actually think the images are good, scares me.

sirquack wrote in post #15776387
It looks in fact to be completely legal. The images they use are all public domain images such as samples or advertisements for some lessor skilled photographers. And all though they do seem to be making fun of people, the fact that some people actually think the images are good, scares me.

so if you post an image, I can remove your watermark and post it elsewhere? Sorry doesn't seem to legit to me

There is so much neg in the photography world, do we need more? I don't know, site rubs me wrong

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #15776451
so if you post an image, I can remove your watermark and post it elsewhere? Sorry doesn't seem to legit to me

There is so much neg in the photography world, do we need more? I don't know, site rubs me wrong

They're only calling out people who purport to be pros. It's the photographic equivalent of having a website that called out shoddy mechanics.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15776487
They're only calling out people who purport to be pros. It's the photographic equivalent of having a website that called out shoddy mechanics.

who's to say that though? Still a very neg site and if they ripped your image, blacked out your watermark and put it up, I bet you'd sing another tune!

Editorial comment is OK, they cannot make a profit off the photos themselves. You put it out there, it can be commented upon.

Is it right? Yes, I think so. Is it negative? Yes, could be less sarcasm and more corrective suggestions. But then I prefer constructive dialogue.

BTW, there are a few that show a creative bias of the blogger. OK technically but matter of choice and presentation. One man's art is another's trash.

If any of my products ended up on here I would be putting some extra time into my work and getting outside comments before posting!

Final note: The only opinion that counts is the customers.

I've visited before. It's funny! The photos they post are crap. The two women who run it are great!

And yes, it's rude, it's negative, but the photos are crap. If any of my photos were lousy enough to make it over there, then may I never shoot another fauxtograph.

Some photos are worthy of praise. Some are worthy of ridicule. C'est la vie.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #15776451
so if you post an image, I can remove your watermark and post it elsewhere? Sorry doesn't seem to legit to me

There is so much neg in the photography world, do we need more? I don't know, site rubs me wrong

I could see your point if they were ripping the watermark off and trying to pass them off as their work, but due to the nature of the work, they would not want to do that anyway. They are also not naming the photog either, which is likely in the photog's benefit after seeing some of the photos.

Yes they are being critical, but that is what happens when you put work out there. Everyone is a critic. As someone else said, as long as the customer is happy, it is really up to the customer to judge their feelings about the work. But these works were obviously published somewhere. That makes them subject to public scrutiny.

I would be against this, IF the images were somehow accessed illegally. But based on what I see on their site, these are all images that were available either on the customers pages, or in some cases the photographers to show off their work.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #15776451
There is so much neg in the photography world

The photos in there are legitimately awful. I dont know why anyone would defend them

its probably a better "what not to do" moreso that being negative

example:

sirquack wrote in post #15776387
It looks in fact to be completely legal. The images they use are all public domain images such as samples or advertisements for some lessor skilled photographers. And all though they do seem to be making fun of people, the fact that some people actually think the images are good, scares me.

Ehm, because an image is made publicly available it is not in the public domain. To be in the public domain it needs to be explicitly placed there or be out of copyright due to age.

However the question is whether such a site falls under fair use... ask the lawyers, you will possibly ask two and get three answers.
(If the site makes any money, chance is it is not fair use, even if the revenue if from advertising, if they do not make any money it favours the fair use argument.)

I did talk to an attorney that works on my floor out of curiosity. She thinks that this is one of those gray areas. As long as the images were on a site with no specific copyright indicated on the site or the image, there is not a lot the photographer can do. They could contact the site administrator and ask that their work be removed, but not much more than that if the images are on a public website.
So it is still up in the air. I think that the fact that the site at least censors the owners name, but does not cover say a copyright symbol, means the original site owner did not copyright their works.