BIG RANT. My thread about CreamPhoto.co.uk

I havn't read all the thread but they are probably just blocking any IP that is seen to be referred from this web site. That is, the IP logs also show if the person has clicked on a link from another web site (it will show the exact web address of the inbound link).

I'm just stating this in case anyone was wondering how they were probably doing it and it has not been addressed in the thread.
 
Marcel said:
As a further note. No we do not work for Cream Wedding Photography Ltd.
They threatened us with legal action over a thread containing criticism about their photographs.

We did not move the thread because it contained libel.
The thread was originally closed (before the complaint) because we felt it didn't reflect our ethos and good manners.
After receiving the complaint, the thread was drawn to our attention again and we decided with it being locked it served no purpose being there, easier all round to remove it.

Also :

I am also unable to access www.creamphoto.co.uk.
I believe my access to the website has been restricted by my current IP address, as I can access it from a different internet connection, or via other methods. (IE any method that doesn't involved my current ISP IP address).

We're not sure why they have taken such action, and cannot begin to guess to.
Click to expand...

i think their photo,s are ok :love: :D wonder if i,ll get blocked now :nono:
 
Having done a little google myself I found that no TP results came up when you search creamphoto, but they do when you type creamphotography ... I think it would be very unfair to leave the title (and any other reference) incorrect. :shrug:
 
I know the lady at 'cream photography' and she has a good reputation. A shame she may get linked.
 
Jo said:
Having done a little google myself I found that no TP results came up when you search creamphoto, but they do when you type creamphotography ... I think it would be very unfair to leave the title (and any other reference) incorrect. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Mods,
Any way you can change the title of this thread. It is unfair that Cream Photography should get linked to Creamphotos
 
Isn't this thread also kind of pointless now, the OP hasn't even posted another thread since the start -seems like someone just starting an argument for no reason to me.

The mods have explained why they did what they did, now potentially some other photography company could get negative effect from it.

This thread has done no good - I say delete it again.
 
Obviously we have no control over google results. They use their ever changing technology to index from certain keywords, so will probably have picked up on Cream, Photography, and to a lesser extent Wedding which makes the difference I think.
Therefore, as we don't want anyone getting any wrong impression, it is best to make the clarification and distinction that this has absolutely nothing to do with Cream Photography in Bradford (www.creamphotography.co.uk), who are a completely different company :)
 
joescrivens said:
Isn't this thread also kind of pointless now, the OP hasn't even posted another thread since the start -seems like someone just starting an argument for no reason to me.

The mods have explained why they did what they did, now potentially some other photography company could get negative effect from it.

This thread has done no good - I say delete it again.
Click to expand...

On the contrary I think it offers a good example and insight into why we moderate how we do and the the problems that are faced as site owners.

I like to think of this as us all learning something in what not to post :)
 
Maybe ... for the sake of anyone who may come by this thread via google ... it's a good idea to put that note at the top of the OP Marcel. I appreciate nothing can really be done now with regards to google. But at least if someone clicks on the link and ends up here, they will know that from the start. Instead of maybe reading page 1 and deciding not to use the other photographer and exiting without getting the clarification on this last page :shrug:
 
simple solution is to PM the irate parties involved...the OP etc
explain what's going on..and delete the thread

my view tuppence is that talk photography is an open forum...
but it's privately owned...
which means that we are all guests...
freedom of speech is fine, but open to litigation....
using someone else's venue for your own potentially litigious views is quite selfish (once highlighted) and opens up the TP owners/forum to attack from various solicitors.
that could mean the closure of TP...which would be a bad thing...

stick to helping people with their photography hobby on here...which is what TP is all about surely.
 
Marcel said:
On the contrary I think it offers a good example and insight into why we moderate how we do and the the problems that are faced as site owners.

I like to think of this as us all learning something in what not to post :)
Click to expand...

but you could achieve that same thing in another way - like a sticky or in the rules section etc.

why run the risk of affecting someones business who has had nothing to do with this?
 
Marcel said:
Just remmber, please don't make any assumptions about Cream Wedding Photo Ltd in this or any other thread, or about their motives or justification, as it may be misconstrued as libellous.

Cheers!
Click to expand...


You serious :thinking: we cant make an assumption based on what they put on a public website:nono:. Having looked at the site (and did so well before all this kicked off) i have made the assumption that i would not use them or recommend them for my or any of my friends wedding photography.

Surly i can make up my own mind can i not
 
Blimey this is becoming an epic thread, one thing I am learning is, dont own a forum and dont become a Mod, its like walking on eggshells.
 
sbowler579 said:
Blimey this is becoming an epic thread, one thing I am learning is, dont own a forum and dont become a Mod, its like walking on eggshells.
Click to expand...

Believe me it's not that complicated - they're just faced with a company that can't take criticism and likes to label it with other names.
 
Cameraman said:
You serious :thinking: we cant make an assumption based on what they put on a public website:nono:. Having looked at the site (and did so well before all this kicked off) i have made the assumption that i would not use them or recommend them for my or any of my friends wedding photography.

Surly i can make up my own mind can i not
Click to expand...

You can make all the assumptions you like, you can even make you own mind up, just don't go thinking it is your right to post them here or wherever else you wish.
 
Below is a quote relating to the libel laws in the UK:

"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!"

Now, from my point of view, the comments made about this company were purely opinion and not a matter of truth or falsehood.

So, how can you argue in court that their photography is complete crap or if it's great? Isn't that completely up to each individual? I can understand if someone said that this company has poor manners (when they're actually very pleasant people), or if they have out of date gear and don't know how to use it - that would be defamation.

Saying that "I don't think their images are good", is an opinion of an individual, and should not be classified as anything more. If this was taken to court, I don't think they would win.

This is just my opinion from reading a bunch of articles related to libel in the UK.
 
Might be worth remembering that Cream Photos are not just one togger ... They have people in different areas of the UK! ... so generalised statements about their ability might be a bit ... errrm ....vague :shrug:
 
Splog said:
Might be worth remembering that Cream Photos are not just one togger ... They have people in different areas of the UK! ... so generalised statements about their ability might be a bit ... errrm ....vague :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's a 'personal' opinion of the quality seen on the website - that reflects the company after all.
 
xil3 said:
Below is a quote relating to the libel laws in the UK:

"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!"

Now, from my point of view, the comments made about this company were purely opinion and not a matter of truth or falsehood.

So, how can you argue in court that their photography is complete crap or if it's great? Isn't that completely up to each individual? I can understand if someone said that this company has poor manners (when they're actually very pleasant people), or if they have out of date gear and don't know how to use it - that would be defamation.

Saying that "I don't think their images are good", is an opinion of an individual, and should not be classified as anything more. If this was taken to court, I don't think they would win.

This is just my opinion from reading a bunch of articles related to libel in the UK.
Click to expand...

see thats OK, and don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying, but its not your forum, and it wouldn't be you taken to court so thats very easy for you to say.
 
boyfalldown said:
see thats OK, and don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying, but its not your forum, and it wouldn't be you taken to court so thats very easy for you to say.
Click to expand...

I agree - not sure how I'd react unless I was in that position.
 
xil3 said:
I agree - not sure how I'd react unless I was in that position.
Click to expand...

Possibly in the way that costs least - ie the one that doesn't involve any legal wranglings :)

I know I would (and did when I ran a forum)
 
ditchdigger said:
thank you for removing it
no need to call yourself a baby though,i allways respect someone who can own up.

cheers ditch
Click to expand...

I have not removed it, nor would I do so to appease you.
 
lol, for some reason I had in my mind that fracster was a mod, but then on reading some of the posts I thought he showed considerable unmod like behavior, lol.
 
joescrivens said:
lol, for some reason I had in my mind that fracster was a mod, but then on reading some of the posts I thought he showed considerable unmod like behavior, lol.
Click to expand...

Post of the day:lol::naughty:
 
I'm glad that this thread's been allowed to run, instead of being closed down half way down page one (which, let's face it, looked pretty likely back then :D). It helps people like me (i.e. ignorant about the law as it applies to Internet forums) to learn about potential problems and how to avoid them. Although the forum rules are designed to do that, it's much more relevant when an actual example like this comes along and shows us all just how those rules should be interpreted.

It also allows us to catch a glimpse of the thought processes, which our friendly neighbourhood Mods go through, in order to keep things running smoothly. It's not all about simply tossing a coin to decide who gets to say what, after all :D!!! (Yes, that last part was intended to be humurous, as opposed to a firmly held, libelous opinion ;)).
 
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. As far as I can gather the OP is complaining about being banned from going on a website that he probably doesn't need to go on at all. If creamphoto were slatted so much then why would he want to go back on?
 
off topic posts removed ;)
 
joescrivens said:
lol, for some reason I had in my mind that fracster was a mod, but then on reading some of the posts I thought he showed considerable unmod like behavior, lol.
Click to expand...

Now, is that just fair comment or could it be construed as being libelous? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top