BIG RANT. My thread about CreamPhoto.co.uk

A disclaimer in the T&C's doesn't absolve us of responsibility when it comes to libel.
Also libel is very backwards in the UK, in that in a libel claim...damage is presumed, and the onus is on the defendant (in this case TP, and/or the member) to prove justification for the potentially libellous comment.

There are many defenses to a libellous comment, the two defenses relevant here would be truth, ie, "Is there any truth in the comment", and 'fair comment', ie, "Is it reasonable for this person to honestly hold this view without malice".

I think most if not all of the posts in that thread come under fair comment, we are a forum of photographers, and the posts were only giving opinion and comment on the like-minded topic (the photographs). The wedding pro mentioned his likeminded topic, the prices. All reasonable views likely to be held by their peers, which don't cast incorrect or unfair aspertions.

Anyway, we would defend any legal action vehemently, but it's not about bowing down to threats.
As matty has stated the thread wasn't removed because we agreed, it was removed because we didn't really like it in its current form, so we removed it to edit, and haven't decided to put it back yet ;)

Any damages that a claimant may be awarded are likely to be reduced and limited by good practise of the defendant.
Firstly, taking action when first notified of the libel complaint.
Secondly, editing and moderating procedures (We don't proactively moderate before posts appearing, we moderate retroactively...ie afterwards)

Anyway, I'm waffling now. If it isn't a bg show of chest puffing or peacock-like feather splaying to try and dominate by strongly worded (but empty threats), then we will see the solicitors letter on the doormat in due course. If that happens then we simply consult our media lawyer who deals with it ;)

So all's good :)

Thanks for the support everyone, and please remember, don't make any assumptions or cast aspertions when posting about Cream Wedding Photography Ltd or its directors. It's not nice and could be libellous :)

Cheers! All hail the good ship TP and all who sail in her!
 
canonrebel said:
What do I need to apologise for?

all I did in the original post was ask if anybody had used creamphoto, all further posts were by people who had looked at their website and made comments about what they saw, It was not my intention to have them berated by all and sundrie but that is what happened. All I wanted was some basic information on them.

I was not informed that my post was being locked or deleted, and made an assumption that possibly the mod that had deleted the thread worked for creamphoto (now known to be a wrong assumption).

MESSAGE TO MODS....PLEASE LOCK THIS NOW AT SEEMS TO SERVING NO PURPOSE NOW.
Click to expand...

matty said:
for suggesting that the thread was removed because one of us worked for the subjects of the thread. That was not called for, and I was offended in the extreme that you think that we would do something like that. Also, we dont have to notify anyone when a post is removed, the thread in question was out for cleanup only so was likely to end up back on the forum anyway
Click to expand...

It was also quite offensive to suggest that one of us would pass on information about you, even just an IP address, but no you are right, nothing to apologise for at all. We only do this for free, to keep the forum going and to help put something back inot this fabulous community, whilst taking the flak that is flung our way.





Good job we have huge big brollies and a sense of humour :p ;)
 
Marcel said:
A disclaimer in the T&C's doesn't absolve us of responsibility when it comes to libel.
Also libel is very backwards in the UK, in that in a libel claim...damage is presumed, and the onus is on the defendant (in this case TP, and/or the member) to prove justification for the potentially libellous comment.
Click to expand...

A simple question and certainly not doubting what has been said :) But ... has any Internet forum, or forum member ever been been found guilty of libellous remarks and? :shrug: (not talking about TP here, just in general) is it possible to identify a user from their IP address?
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'm rather supprised TP's folded so easily.
Click to expand...

Theres a big difference between "folding" and capitulating. If this sort of thinf g were to happen on my own forum (not a photography one) I would d the same thing. One thread is not worth getting embroiled in litigation for, life is too short and there's other, more pleasurable things the site owners can be doing with their time.

Just as an aside, I don't know what tracking software Cream Photography Ltd is using, but I''d like some. I only considered adding to the original thread and now I too cannot access their website. Powerful algorithms at work.
 
sheddy said:
Just as an aside, I don't know what tracking software Cream Photography Ltd is using, but I''d like some. I only considered adding to the original thread and now I too cannot access their website. Powerful algorithms at work.
Click to expand...

I would assume they have simply blocked all the ip addresses they had logged as visited via the TP link.
 
Splog said:
is it possible to identify a user from their IP address?
Click to expand...

Any time you visit a website your ip address is logged, this can then be used to find out your ISP and rough location...not much else.
 
Splog said:
A simple question and certainly not doubting what has been said :) But ... has any Internet forum, or forum member ever been been found guilty of libellous remarks and? :shrug: (not talking about TP here, just in general) is it possible to identify a user from their IP address?
Click to expand...

Precedent has been set in both the U.S.A. and Australia but is yet to be set in the U.K. as far as I know. The U.S. and Au. cases were both about posts made on international usergroups and blogs to which there was public access.

At the moment, this forum is open to view by the public, you only have to join if you wish to post. It therefore would probably come under the heading of public, it is certainly in the public domain so I see no reason for it not to. The site owners bear responsibility for each an every post made regardless of who posted it and as such did the right thing in removing the offending thread as soon as they were notified that offence had been caused. They didn't want to become the U.K.'s precedent.
 
Whatever has happened the company has got a great deal of publicity through the various threads, whether that be good or bad.

In my experience, chosing something such a photographer for your wedding is very important and word of mouth is the best form of advertising. Would you simply google 'photographers in ....' if you were looking for your wedding, i doubt it. Although it may have put some people off using the company, the quality of their pictures should speak for themselves and any negative comments on a forum shouldnt matter
 
fracster said:
Sorry in advance......:)


[YOUTUBE]7GSgEf1BYro[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

i find it ofensive to use this as some comical reply
have you looked at the images of the dead in it?
it is not a joke nor should the sacrifice made be taken so lightly.
 
I a had a look at the Cream Photography website and thought the gallery images were excellent.
 
sheddy said:
Precedent has been set in both the U.S.A. and Australia but is yet to be set in the U.K. as far as I know. The U.S. and Au. cases were both about posts made on international usergroups and blogs to which there was public access.
Click to expand...

(responded to in general and not TP)
I suspect that any action against a forum would get quite expensive and someone such as Cream would not have a hope in hell of success :thinking: Although undoubtedly in the future it will happen :thinking:

Another general question! does the hosting company not also share a responsibility? as they are with regard to kiddie porn etc?

sheddy said:
At the moment, this forum is open to view by the public, you only have to join if you wish to post. It therefore would probably come under the heading of public, it is certainly in the public domain so I see no reason for it not to. The site owners bear responsibility for each an every post made regardless of who posted it and as such did the right thing in removing the offending thread as soon as they were notified that offence had been caused. They didn't want to become the U.K.'s precedent.
Click to expand...

Thank you ... I got that message earlier :D but I do agree :thumbs:
 
FAO Deasy

I think the mods would probably appreciate it if you edited your post and removed your comments about the site...it was requested to not post opinions any more on their site etc.
 
ditchdigger said:
i find it ofensive to use this as some comical reply
have you looked at the images of the dead in it?
it is not a joke nor should the sacrifice made be taken so lightly.
Click to expand...

Oh,okay,i`m real sorry.....:baby:
 
akr said:
FAO Deasy

I think the mods would probably appreciate it if you edited your post and removed your comments about the site...it was requested to not post opinions any more on their site etc.
Click to expand...

oops sorry have edited my post!
 
Splog said:
(responded to in general and not TP)
I suspect that any action against a forum would get quite expensive and someone such as Cream would not have a hope in hell of success :thinking: Although undoubtedly in the future it will happen :thinking:

Another general question! does the hosting company not also share a responsibility? as they are with regard to kiddie porn etc?



Thank you ... I got that message earlier :D but I do agree :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Splog, not any more. There is reasonable defense for ISP's now I believe, as they are merely facilitating the digital storage and method of delivery...something like that, and cannot be expected to be aware or party to any libel.

Sheddy, that's not technically true about libel (the public forum bit). It doesn't need to be public.

Infact if I were to say some untruths about my mother, in an email to you....she could sue me for libel. (Proving it, and damages aside though....but the principle of publication of libel to a third party, however small or private is still sound).
 
Deasy said:
oops sorry have edited my post!
Click to expand...

Thanks. There's no need to say theyre great if you don't think they are...just best not be critical about them at this time :)
 
Marcel said:
<<<<<<Sheddy, that's not technically true about libel (the public forum bit). It doesn't need to be public.

Infact if I were to say some untruths about my mother, in an email to you....she could sue me for libel. (Proving it, and damages aside though....but the principle of publication of libel to a third party, however small or private is still sound).
Click to expand...

I wasn't stating de facto, I was stating from the precedents that have been set in the U.S.A. and Aus. In both cases the posts that were deemed libellous were made on open, publicly viewable sites, one being a usergroup and the other being a blog. As far as I am aware there has been no precedent set anywhere in the world for a successful libel action over posts made on an internet forum.

My comments about the posts on here being in the public domain pertained to the fact that a non-member is able to view the majority of the posts without signing up.

All of this not-with-standing, the essence of the post was in the final sentence in that I would imagine that the owner and registrant of this site's universal resource location would not wish to become a U.K. law precedent when the simple remedy is to remove the post which cause the offence in the first instance.
 
I wouldn't even attempt to voice an opinion about the quality of creamphoto images as I do not feel qualified to do so. However, I have no reason to believe they are anything but "professional." They use that description of themselves eleven times (if I have counted correctly) on the home page alone, so it must be right!
 
goldenlight said:
I wouldn't even attempt to voice an opinion about the quality of creamphoto images as I do not feel qualified to do so. However, I have no reason to believe they are anything but "professional." They use that description of themselves eleven times (if I have counted correctly) on the home page alone, so it must be right!
Click to expand...

Definitions of professional on the Web:

engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood; "the professional man or woman possesses distinctive qualifications ...
a person engaged in one of the learned professions

- it doesn't say they have to be good or bad, just doing their business (profession).
 
daugirdas said:
Definitions of professional on the Web:

engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood; "the professional man or woman possesses distinctive qualifications ...
a person engaged in one of the learned professions

- it doesn't say they have to be good or bad, just doing their business (profession).
Click to expand...

Absolutely. :)
 
They are probably more miffed now becuase when you google there name this thread comes up aprox 7 results down! (company name, UK only search).
 
Gaz81 said:
They are probably more miffed now becuase when you google there name this thread comes up aprox 7 results down! (company name, UK only search).
Click to expand...

So, if I were to make a wedding photographer review site, then I'd risk being taken to court?

I just find that law ridiculous - if I was shopping for a wedding photographer, I'd like to find out some accurate information about their services, not just some bs spewed on their website.

Whenever I want to purchase something, I usually tend to read reviews (good or bad).

Am I missing something here? Product or service, I think it should be reviewed/critiqued, for the benefit of other customers.

And I haven't mentioned any names here!
 
xil3 said:
So, if I were to make a wedding photographer review site, then I'd risk being taken to court?

I just find that law ridiculous - if I was shopping for a wedding photographer, I'd like to find out some accurate information about their services, not just some bs spewed on their website.

Whenever I want to purchase something, I usually tend to read reviews (good or bad).

Am I missing something here? Product or service, I think it should be reviewed/critiqued, for the benefit of other customers.

And I haven't mentioned any names here!
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything mate, just saying thats what happens when you put it into google.
 
Oh I know, I was just replying in general to the whole ordeal...
 
Gaz81 said:
They are probably more miffed now becuase when you google there name this thread comes up aprox 7 results down! (company name, UK only search).
Click to expand...

When you google the whole web, 3 results down is "Cindy Crawford Nude Shaving Cream Photo." It sounds much more interesting than this thread but my security software warns that it high risk so best resist temptation! :suspect:
 
goldenlight said:
When you google the whole web, 3 results down is "Cindy Crawford Nude Shaving Cream Photo." It sounds much more interesting than this thread but my security software warns that it high risk so best resist temptation! :suspect:
Click to expand...

haha... what the worse that could happen!
 
Gaz81 said:
haha... what the worse that could happen!
Click to expand...

My bank account gets emptied? Oh, it's empty already! No change there, then. :'(
 
Splog said:
A simple question and certainly not doubting what has been said :) But ... has any Internet forum, or forum member ever been been found guilty of libellous remarks and? :shrug: (not talking about TP here, just in general) is it possible to identify a user from their IP address?
Click to expand...



sheddy said:
Precedent has been set in both the U.S.A. and Australia but is yet to be set in the U.K. as far as I know. The U.S. and Au. cases were both about posts made on international usergroups and blogs to which there was public access.

At the moment, this forum is open to view by the public, you only have to join if you wish to post. It therefore would probably come under the heading of public, it is certainly in the public domain so I see no reason for it not to. The site owners bear responsibility for each an every post made regardless of who posted it and as such did the right thing in removing the offending thread as soon as they were notified that offence had been caused. They didn't want to become the U.K.'s precedent.
Click to expand...


Yes a president has been set here in the UK, a couple of bloggers were held to account.

I cant remember the exact details of the cases, maybe Google will throw up something?

Splog said:
(not talking about TP here, just in general) is it possible to identify a user from their IP address?
Click to expand...

Yes it is possible
 
goldenlight said:
When you google the whole web, 3 results down is "Cindy Crawford Nude Shaving Cream Photo." It sounds much more interesting than this thread but my security software warns that it high risk so best resist temptation! :suspect:
Click to expand...

Are you claiming Cindy Crawford shaves? Now that sound like libel ;)
 
boyfalldown said:
thats OK mate, but libel in the UK is expensive to defend and is pretty much the only part of UK law where the defendant has to prove innocence, rather then the claimant proving guilt. Its expensive and messy and for the sake of one dubious thread best avoided

Hugy
Click to expand...

Apart from speeding allegations obviously ;)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Are you claiming Cindy Crawford shaves? Now that sound like libel ;)
Click to expand...

I think it would be more libelous if I claimed she doesn't shave - hairy armpits, uurghhh! :gag:
 
Deleted due to second thoughts about content
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top