To an Anonymous commenter
deleted. If that was yours, I want to
explain that I did not delete it because of the point you made – which I
actually think was a reasonable one deserving an answer – but because of the
unpleasant and hostile way in which you phrased it.
You suggested that I am putting the name of this blog on
every picture I find on the web. I
actually don’t think of that as what I’m doing when I put
contemplatingthedivine.com on them. I’m
putting that mark on captioned pictures, captioned by me. When I do occasionally put up a picture
without any caption, I don’t put the mark on it.
You see, this is not a photo-sharing blog. Originally, I started it to publish my
stories. I still write stories – there
are a few coming up soon, actually. I
soon started adding captioned images, which I think of as very very short
stories, in effect (and as a matter of fact, recently I’ve been trying out a
sort of hybrid – which could equally be called very long captions, or very
short stories themed around a single picture).
These are all things that I created.
There are a lot of them. I have just collected all the stories published here into pdf files, because I thought they might work well as books*, and they total over a hundred pages. And there are about a thousand captioned images so far.
A few months after I started, I saw a few of these captioned
images appearing elsewhere – which is absolutely fine with me. Sometimes they were attributed (most recently Pipinkos,
for example, started reposting some that he had brilliantly translated into Spanish, and
I’d like to thank him again for that).
But some were not attributed and while I don’t at all blame the
reposters, it did annoy me a bit, especially when they attracted favourable
comments from people assuming the reposter wrote them.
I do try quite hard to match up pictures and
words. I do think about and occasionally agonise over the words. I don’t just put up every sexy picture I
find, with whatever threatening phrase comes to mind scrawled across it. I’m not suggesting for a second that this is a particularly worthy, or
artistic activity but it is creative in its way, I am rather proud when I come up with a
good one (as I think I do from time to time), and I like to be recognised for
that. Hence the mark. I am not marking the pictures; my intention
is to mark the caption.
There is also a practical reason. I can see from site stats that I get traffic
when one of my captioned pictures is posted elsewhere without attribution,
presumably because someone typed in the name.
I like to have more traffic here (for purely psychological reasons,
obviously there’s no money involved) and if it helps someone find the blog and
they enjoy it, that’s good too.
captions and treat this site as a photo-sharing blog. Again, that’s absolutely fine with me, and I
hope you enjoy it. But I don’t see how
someone just looking for photos can complain about the unobtrusive
contemplatingthedivine mark (I never put it where it will obscure the image; if I can I put it on the frame). If you just
want the photo and the caption is worthless to you, then I’ve already defaced
the photo by writing the caption, right?
And if the caption isn’t worthless to you – well, then it’s not
unreasonable for me to add the mark, right?
Either way, I can’t see that you could object to the mark.
So….that’s how I would answer your sneering
question, Anonymous. I really don’t understand
why, in your first ever communication with me, you couldn’t have made your
point a bit more politely, but it was a fair point nonetheless. It’s an answer that makes sense to me.
bit uneasy. In retrospect I think
perhaps I have been too blasé about attribution. If I got a bit grumpy when I saw my
unattributed work on another site, how would a photographer feel about seeing
their own work, captioned by me, and unattributed here? Worse, if a pro-domme has gone to the trouble
of dressing up and posing or acting out a photoshoot, she’s done it in part
because she hopes for more traffic to her site or for new clients. Not very fair of me to use her lovely image, without even trying to identify her.
the images. It’s not very practical to
do much very quickly. For one thing, I
have a huge stock of downloaded photos and I don’t know the attribution (obviously I can recognise some). I also have a large backlog of captioned
photos – more than 300, all waiting to be posted…and I’ve even got blog posts
queued up to mid-May through the magic of ‘schedule’ (what, you thought it was spontaneous?). So this will be a gradual change.
places are find them are not the original creators. Most are from Tumblr, for example, and
although Tumblr has a neat system for attributing back, even the ‘original’
poster will rarely be the originator of the image, they’ll only be the first
person to upload it to Tumblr. OWK
doesn’t have a Tumblr, after all.
create new captions, and download new photos, and put up new blog posts, I will
attribute images if I can, and in particular if I can identify individual
dommes I will do so. Famous actresses can probably look after themselves.