King of the Letter L wrote:

It is awkward. I need to change the code to make it a default button or accept "enter" when the password field is in focus. I've added that to the to-do list.

Thank you kind sir.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

well he better find a way.....

Or what? He didnt put your name there. You don't want it on there then tell whoever did it to take it down and make sure you tell everyone else not put you on there as well.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
well he better find a way.....

rssphoto wrote:
Or what? He didnt put your name there. You don't want it on there then tell whoever did it to take it down and make sure you tell everyone else not put you on there as well.

by nature of my name being on that site, there is an implied endorsement of the site and philosophy...

well  i dont endorse the site..

the voucher could have been negative....fuck that..if the webmaster is going to put his neck out there and then hide behind a TOS that says he has no control of his members...

well that needs to be tested...

Doug Swinskey wrote:
no, i will be holding the site owner responsible...i didnt agree to be included on the site....and i dont expect to be...

it reaks of amatuer behavior and fyi, i could give a rats ass if anyone on mayhem knew i worked with anyone else on mayhem...

this is a social site..not a professional one...

I think you're missing my point 
You can & will be linked to anyone you worked with who credits you, in all sorts of ways.
They can say pretty much anything about you they want an any website & as long as the comments don't cross the line in to being illegal there's very little you can do or force the web master to do about it.
Your comment is analogous to a model you worked with having a MySpace page where she says "I think Doug is a jerk & don't recommend him" or "I think Doug is great & recommend him" and you approaching MySpace and saying "I didn't agree to be included on your site, I demand my name be removed or I'm holding you responsible!"

Doug Swinskey wrote:

by nature of my name being on that site, there is an implied endorsement of the site and philosophy...

well  i dont endorse the site..

the voucher could have been negative....fuck that..if the webmaster is going to put his neck out there and then hide behind a TOS that says he has no control of his members...

well that needs to be tested...

In point of fact, Suicide Girls set up a livejournal group account & several individual journals.
They added me as a "friend."
I can't refuse that or delete it.
I HATE SuicideGirls but anyone who cruises their LJ will see me listed as a "friend" of theirs.
I raised HELL with SixApart (LJ's parent) & they sent me several pages of legal doctrine backing up that basically my choice if I didn't like it was to leave the website & they weren't responsible.
All I can do (and what I have done) is to post disclaimers that I am not affiliated with them in any way.

King of the Letter L wrote:
Some of you will recall discussions about reputation systems. The open beta of ShootNotes.com is starting. Account activations will be online after the weekend, but if anyone wants to get an account and get your badge up now, please feel free.

Any problems, please drop me a private email. Bug reports and/or suggestions are more than welcome while I finalize the activation system and perform final tests on the editors.

I'm going to presume that everything is self-explanatory. Please let me know if it's not, so I can be more verbose in the instructions.

A reputation system is the core of ShootNotes, but I've actually started working on a ton of new features that have been requested.

It's free. I'll probably put Google ads on there at some point to make it help pay for itself, but not now.

http://www.ShootNotes.com

Questions?

I've registered, but I can't log in at all, it won't recognize me- and when I tried to re-register I got an error.

SLE Photography wrote:
All I can do (and what I have done) is to post disclaimers that I am not affiliated with them in any way.

and thats acceptable to you?

Doug Swinskey wrote:
well that needs to be tested...

It has been tested. Please ask your attorney about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act before you initiate any action.

Anyone can say anything they want on any web site. If it is libelous, you can sue them. A court can subpoena records if you require them for discovery, but sites are protected under section 230.

For this very reason, anything anyone says in their profile here at Model Mayhem cannot be used against Model Mayhem.

Doug, I like your work and respect you as a person - but I don't appreciate threats.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

Doug Swinskey wrote:
well he better find a way.....

by nature of my name being on that site, there is an implied endorsement of the site and philosophy...

well  i dont endorse the site..

the voucher could have been negative....fuck that..if the webmaster is going to put his neck out there and then hide behind a TOS that says he has no control of his members...

well that needs to be tested...

I suppose then if you feel that strongly about it you could try and test it in court. I suspect that you would not only lose the case but you would also lose bunch of money and the attorney would laugh all the way to the bank.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
well that needs to be tested...

King of the Letter L wrote:
It has been tested. Please ask your attorney about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act before you initiate any action.

so then you will not be providing feedback on other members?...and remember, you are a photographer...if another photog is dissed..it could be interprited as a conflict to section 230.....personally...a reputation reporting website in your own field (whatever that might be) is not such a bright idea...

rssphoto wrote:
I suppose then if you feel that strongly about it you could try and test it in court. I suspect that you would not only lose the case but you would also lose bunch of money and the attorney would laugh all the way to the bank.

if i had to pay for a lawyer..it maybe would be worth it...but if i had two immediate family members that provided that service, it might just be a sporting event...

and also..chris will have to defend himself..regardless of outcome...

Doug Swinskey wrote:
no, i will be holding the site owner responsible...i didnt agree to be included on the site....and i dont expect to be...

it reaks of amatuer behavior and fyi, i could give a rats ass if anyone on mayhem knew i worked with anyone else on mayhem...

this is a social site..not a professional one...

You're holding a site owner responsible, for what, exactly?

Doug Swinskey wrote:

and thats acceptable to you?

I'm not thrilled with it but legal precedent says they can do it.  Legally what I can do is post a disclaimer saying it's not true.
I don't have tons of money to pursue a legal action that'd pretty much doomed to fail fighting it, nor do I feel it's serious enough to do so, unhappy about it as I am.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
so then you will not be providing feedback on other members?...and remember, you are a photographer...if another photog is dissed..it could be interprited as a conflict to section 230.....personally...a reputation reporting website in your own field (whatever that might be) is not such a bright idea...

Any feedback that I provide that is found libelous would open me to liability for that feedback, not as the site owner, but as the individual who provided that feedback. I'm not worried, as I would never libel someone.

If there is a conflict-of-interest exemption to section 230, I'm not aware of it.

King of the Letter L wrote:
Doug, I like your work and respect you as a person - but I don't appreciate threats.

i like you too chris, but i dont agree with your site's philosophy..after the countless times i told people how stupid these feedback / rep sites are..to see my name there was troubling..

Doug Swinskey wrote:

if i had to pay for a lawyer..it maybe would be worth it...but if i had two immediate family members that provided that service, it might just be a sporting event...

and also..chris will have to defend himself..regardless of outcome...

Doug, I should hope that I know you better than to read this at face value: that you would pursue legal action maliciously for "sport." Courts don't look kindly to admissions like that.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

i like you too chris, but i dont agree with your site's philosophy..after the countless times i told people how stupid these feedback / rep sites are..to see my name there was troubling..

If you dont like these types of sites why were you there in the first place?

Dave Wright Photo SF wrote:
You're holding a site owner responsible, for what, exactly?

including my name and feedback on my reputation on his website, i didnt ask to be there...i didnt sign up...i didnt agrere to any terms..

rssphoto wrote:
If you dont like these types of sites why were you there in the first place?

i recieved a communication from a friend that i was listed there...

Doug Swinskey wrote:
if i had to pay for a lawyer..it maybe would be worth it...but if i had two immediate family members that provided that service, it might just be a sporting event...

and also..chris will have to defend himself..regardless of outcome...

That right there pretty much takes the life out of any action you file....

Dave Wright Photo SF wrote:
an opt-out feature would be nice - for him and people like him. not that you're legally required to build something like that, but it would be a nice present... and we all know the holidays are the season of giving!

And I might actually consider one. But threatening to sue me isn't a very good way to make me look kindly on a position, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the request.

I should hope that Doug would know, by now, that I know my ass from a hole in the ground, have consulted with council long before opening the site to beta, am comfortable in the advice said council gave me, and am also a reasonable person.

Seriously, Doug, why the venom and threat? Why not a PM with a calm, rational statement of your position and request?

King of the Letter L wrote:
Doug, I should hope that I know you better than to read this at face value: that you would pursue legal action maliciously for "sport." Courts don't look kindly to admissions like that.

someone with what appears to be no legal background suggested all i had to gain was a lighter pocketbook pursing a legal remedy...

my suggestion was that...everyone stands to lose...for no good reason..it just may cost me less..

for sport ..never...for my right to be left alone sure.....

not enough people fight for their rights...its a big problem in our country today..

Dave Wright Photo SF wrote:
You're holding a site owner responsible, for what, exactly?

Doug Swinskey wrote:
including my name and feedback on my reputation on his website, i didnt ask to be there...i didnt sign up...i didnt agrere to any terms..

He didn't include your name or any feedback on your reputation - Roger did. Perhaps you should sue Roger. Let me know how that goes.

PS: Not a good idea to mention that suing Roger would be "just for fun."

Doug Swinskey wrote:

including my name and feedback on my reputation on his website, i didnt ask to be there...i didnt sign up...i didnt agrere to any terms..

Doug, you didn't respond to what I said before:

SLE Photography wrote:
Your comment is analogous to a model you worked with having a MySpace page where she says "I think Doug is a jerk & don't recommend him" or "I think Doug is great & recommend him" and you approaching MySpace and saying "I didn't agree to be included on your site, I demand my name be removed or I'm holding you responsible!"

Do you think MySpace would tell those people to take it down because you didn't sign up or agree to any terms?

I'm sure you can see where it's a complete violation of someone's first amendment rights for you to say "You may not say anything in public about me unless I approve of the venue" can't you?  (Assuming the comment doesn't cross the slander/libel line.)

Doug Swinskey wrote:
not enough people fight for their rights...its a big problem in our country today..

Except the right you seem to be fighting for is to be able to control/limit someone ELSE'S rights. 

Doug Swinskey wrote:
if i had to pay for a lawyer..it maybe would be worth it...but if i had two immediate family members that provided that service, it might just be a sporting event...

and also..chris will have to defend himself..regardless of outcome...

rssphoto wrote:
That right there pretty much takes the life out of any action you file....

i am outraged that my name is on that site...if i told chris i was suing him just for fun..that would be a different story...

my stance is clear..i dont agree with the site, i dont want any affiliation with it what so ever...i want my name removed...

the ball is in chris's court..

Doug Swinskey wrote:

Doug Swinskey wrote:
if i had to pay for a lawyer..it maybe would be worth it...but if i had two immediate family members that provided that service, it might just be a sporting event...

and also..chris will have to defend himself..regardless of outcome...

i am outraged that my name is on that site...if i told chris i was suing him just for fun..that would be a different story...

my stance is clear..i dont agree with the site, i dont want any affiliation with it what so ever...i want my name removed...

the ball is in chris's court..

So are you going to demand that everyone you've ever worked with remove your name from any site you're not a member of or that you disapprove of?

What are you going to do if they refuse?

SLE Photography wrote:

Doug Swinskey wrote:
including my name and feedback on my reputation on his website, i didnt ask to be there...i didnt sign up...i didnt agrere to any terms..

Doug, you didn't respond to what I said before:

Do you think MySpace would tell those people to take it down because you didn't sign up or agree to any terms?

I'm sure you can see where it's a complete violation of someone's first amendment rights for you to say "You may not say anything in public about me unless I approve of the venue" can't you?  (Assuming the comment doesn't cross the slander/libel line.)

if myspace was unable to remedy the situation, i would close my account...once again..i agreed to be on myspace

Dave Wright Photo SF wrote:
Your honor, people said nice things about me on a website.
I demand this wrong be righted!

I would love to hear that argument... And see the reaction of the judge

rssphoto wrote:
I would love to hear that argument... And see the reaction of the judge

Here's an artists depiction-

Doug Swinskey wrote:
the ball is in chris's court..

No, it's not. The ball is in your court to sue, for libel, whomever said something libelous about you, if you feel that such a statement has been made.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
but if i had two immediate family members that provided that service, it might just be a sporting event...

You said it would be a sporting event.... It is very difficult to deny what you put in print for the world to see... You cant un-ring a bell.

King of the Letter L wrote:
Seriously, Doug, why the venom and threat? Why not a PM with a calm, rational statement of your position and request?

i did PM you asking if the website registrant was you..i demanded that my name be removed and suggested that if it weren't i would start proceeding..

yes, in my sarcastic manner..but i didnt curse..and a threat exisited only if you took no action..

Viktoria wrote:
damn... i can't believe that such a well intended idea can be a source of a fight and a lawsuit....
can't wait to see how this all turns out...

Some people like drama.