About posting images

[The Situation]

It just seems the timing of the request from ppe-agency is so coincidental. The board have had those photos with the watermark posted for ages. So why now, what directed their attention to us, and why was only RD targeted then?  

Glad that I haven't posted any photos but thanks for taking all the photos down Thomas since PPE was apparently talking about legally pursuing all RD members if it wasn't done within 7 days.

Oh shit!

They can't possibly pursue legal action against everyone that has used their picture's? There are millions of individuals that have used their pictures legally and illegally? And the thousands of sites that use them? 

This sucks soooo bad. 

[royal observer]

Could Dishies who have access to the sugarboards please take note of whether and where PP agency is allowing its images to be used?

Very, very interesting, and media-worthy, if Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is attempting to censor one board in particular ... and the instruction does not extend to other forums ...

I've never believed that any of the royals are actually reading any of these discussion boards, including this one. As if we're important enough for them to spend any time or energy monitoring, plotting, censoring us!  IMO this is just a discussion/opinion board - let's not take ourselves soooo seriously!

Actually a couple of years ago the CoM were targeted by the Danish Royal family.  They claimed that the website had no right to use the name The Official Crown Princess Mary Message Board because Mosh and company were in no way involved with that forum.  It was a big scandal at the time.  Many newspapers in Denmark wrote about it... the DRF threatened to sue the owners of the site.  So, they freaked out, changed the name, and made the forum an approved members only site.  

It is also well known that Lotte from Danish royal watchers has deep connections to the Clown's and the rest of the DRF.  Second, many writers from Billed Bladet are members and participate often (or they used to.)  Several of them had said in the past that Mosh and company were still fully aware of the CoM and visit that site often.  Whether they still do to this day is unknown.

Every royal house knows about the Royal Stalkers Forum (TRF).  That is a fact.  Again if any of the royals read the site remains unknown, but many journalists copy and paste word for word comments from TRSF and use it in their writout royals.

 

Interesting Michelle - didn't know about all this activity. I don't even look at those other boards - who has the time? One board is already plenty for me!

I'm not surprised that the "official Crown Princess Mary " board attracted attention, any time that you use the word "official" when you're not is just asking for trouble. As for Lotte on the Danish royal family board, didn't she make a post last June and then nothing until Marge's 60th birday celebrations? So much for the deep connections to the DRF!

[Gwen]

Could Dishies who have access to the sugarboards please take note of whether and where PP agency is allowing its images to be used?

Very, very interesting, and media-worthy, if Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is attempting to censor one board in particular ... and the instruction does not extend to other forums ...

I've never believed that any of the royals are actually reading any of these discussion boards, including this one. As if we're important enough for them to spend any time or energy monitoring, plotting, censoring us!  IMO this is just a discussion/opinion board - let's not take ourselves soooo seriously!

Actually a couple of years ago the CoM were targeted by the Danish Royal family.  They claimed that the website had no right to use the name The Official Crown Princess Mary Message Board because Mosh and company were in no way involved with that forum.  It was a big scandal at the time.  Many newspapers in Denmark wrote about it... the DRF threatened to sue the owners of the site.  So, they freaked out, changed the name, and made the forum an approved members only site. 

It is also well known that Lotte from Danish royal watchers has deep connections to the Clown's and the rest of the DRF.  Second, many writers from Billed Bladet are members and participate often (or they used to.)  Several of them had said in the past that Mosh and company were still fully aware of the CoM and visit that site often.  Whether they still do to this day is unknown.

Every royal house knows about the Royal Stalkers Forum (TRF).  That is a fact.  Again if any of the royals read the site remains unknown, but many journalists copy and paste word for word comments from TRSF and use it in their writings about royals.

 

You are completely right about  the Royal Stalkers.  We saw an example of this when that stalker Guido wrote about the murder of Carina Axelsson's brother in law (without citing any sources at all).  Two days later, a couple of Swedish papers picked it up as well as Billed-Barf.  Completely irresponsible (IMO).  That douche never bothered to cite his sources.   

What are Lotte's connections?  Is she Smoody? 

Royals do know about the different message boards, and some posters are known by name. The women who run Nobiliana are well-known among certain royal circles, I've read their posts about it. During the Limburg-Stirum wedding in Belgium they were greeted by name by some of the guests when they were taking pictures outside the church, and wasn't one of them the owner of Royal Blue? That alone should tell us something.

[michelle j]

Could Dishies who have access to the sugarboards please take note of whether and where PP agency is allowing its images to be used?

Very, very interesting, and media-worthy, if Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is attempting to censor one board in particular ... and the instruction does not extend to other forums ...

I've never believed that any of the royals are actually reading any of these discussion boards, including this one. As if we're important enough for them to spend any time or energy monitoring, plotting, censoring us!  IMO this is just a discussion/opinion board - let's not take ourselves soooo seriously!

Actually a couple of years ago the CoM were targeted by the Danish Royal family.  They claimed that the website had no right to use the name The Official Crown Princess Mary Message Board because Mosh and company were in no way involved with that forum.  It was a big scandal at the time.  Many newspapers in Denmark wrote about it... the DRF threatened to sue the owners of the site.  So, they freaked out, changed the name, and made the forum an approved members only site.  

It is also well known that Lotte from Danish royal watchers has deep connections to the Clown's and the rest of the DRF.  Second, many writers from Billed Bladet are members and participate often (or they used to.)  Several of them had said in the past that Mosh and company were still fully aware of the CoM and visit that site often.  Whether they still do to this day is unknown.

Every royal house knows about the Royal Stalkers Forum (TRF).  That is a fact.  Again if any of the royals read the site remains unknown, but many journalists copy and paste word for word comments from TRSF and use it in their writings about royals.

 

Interesting Michelle - didn't know about all this activity. I don't even look at those other boards - who has all this time. One board is already plenty for me!

I'm not surprised that the "official Crown Princess Mary " board attracted attention, any time that you use the word "official" when you're not is just asking for trouble. As for Lotte on the Danish royal family board, didn't she make a post last June and then nothing until Marge's 60th birday celebrations? So much for the deep connections to the DRF!

Like you, Lotte is a well known journalist in Australia, and like you she doesn't spend much time posting on her  blog.  Furthermore, she is rarely seen on the CoM these days.  
 

[michelle j]

Could Dishies who have access to the sugarboards please take note of whether and where PP agency is allowing its images to be used?

Very, very interesting, and media-worthy, if Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is attempting to censor one board in particular ... and the instruction does not extend to other forums ...

I've never believed that any of the royals are actually reading any of these discussion boards, including this one. As if we're important enough for them to spend any time or energy monitoring, plotting, censoring us!  IMO this is just a discussion/opinion board - let's not take ourselves soooo seriously!

I also doubt that the royals themselves are reading this site.  If we are indeed being targeted, it's probably because someone who didn't like what we had to say about their fave royals reported us.  They need to learn the little concept of freedom of speech.  

I can understand the agencies' crackdown if they are contacting ALL boards.  If it's just us, then I think that is discrimination and hypocritical.

It's obvious to me that RD was targeted because attention was brought towards this site - that's another reason why we shouldn't take ourselves so seriously - demanding copyrighting of our material (especially since they're only OPINIONS). How soon do you think it was going to take  a photo agency or another publication source to start poking around and going, "Hey, they're using OUR copyrighted materials!" And that's exactly what happened. Our poor moderators then have to take all that time taking all those photos down. Let's just hope that this is the end of it and no other agency start making similar demands. Just goes to show, don't go opening up a can or worms - you have no idea how it could backfire on you.

ISSUE #1
These days many royal journalists have been blatantly copied and pasted written material from many royal message boards.
 
Is it ethical?  

Sloppy journalism?  

Are royal journalists so disinterested in their jobs, which is to cover royals for their publications, that they're so desperate they have to troll message boards for their work?  That seems to be the case for the past nine years.

Does copying and pasting really matter even if they are only an individuals opinion (or opinions)?  

I suppose it depends.  If a journalist doesn't have a problem using other peoples feelings and masking it as his/her own in an article then, no, I suppose it does not matter.

Here are two examples of sloppy journalism within the past month:

Example one: A well known journalist, Vincent Meylan, from the French magazine, Point Du Vue, decided to take a member's hard research and information, word for word, from The Royal Jewels Message Board.  He used this  information, about a rare jewels, for his article in the magazine.  Now, is that ethical?  No, it's not.  

Example two:  On the Royal Stalkers Forum (TRF) Billed Bladet recently reported about Carina Axelsson's sister.  The entire article was copied word for word from a member named, Guido.  Billed Bladet also used the exact same video, which is hard to find, and other material he posted a week and a half BEFORE Billed Bladet reported the news.  Again, is this ethical?  No, it's not.

Journalists, and I'm not pointing my finger at you RO, tend to be extremely sloppy when it comes to their work.  Many blatantly copy information from the web without giving proper credit to their source (would you write a 330 page Ph.D Dissertation or Master's Thesis without giving credit to your primary or secondary source?  I think not.)  I suppose it all comes down to courtesy and proper journalistic ethics which seems to have been disappeared these past few years on royal message boards.  

Let me make myself clear, RO, I am NOT referring to you in any way when it comes to the question of copying and pasting word for word comments/opinions/whatthefuckever for your articles.  I've never read your work so... what ever.  

ISSUE #2
About posting images on royal message boards.  Most agencies prefer that people link to their site rather than posting the image directly.  I believe that is what PPE and BEW is asking RD members to do.  

It is best NOT to host images to Tinypic or Photobucket.  You will be in violation.   Link the image instead or if you found a link on another royal message board just link to their site instead.  Let them get in trouble (for example, on The Royal Forums.  Thousands upon thousands of photos, pre-Imageshack conversion, are still on The Royal Forums... PPE.  Many rare photos of royals are posted or used as attachments, illegally, on The Royal Forums... PPE.)


RO, you said that PPE will go after each individual member.  Not always the case.  Agencies will go after the owners of a site, and on extreme rare occasions they will go after an individual person or persons.  If you want to ask me detailed questions about Copyright Laws in the United States and International Copyright Law I would be more than happy to give you detailed information thorough a PM.

 

[royal observer]

Could Dishies who have access to the sugarboards please take note of whether and where PP agency is allowing its images to be used?

Very, very interesting, and media-worthy, if Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is attempting to censor one board in particular ... and the instruction does not extend to other forums ...

I've never believed that any of the royals are actually reading any of these discussion boards, including this one. As if we're important enough for them to spend any time or energy monitoring, plotting, censoring us!  IMO this is just a discussion/opinion board - let's not take ourselves soooo seriously!

Actually a couple of years ago the CoM were targeted by the Danish Royal family.  They claimed that the website had no right to use the name The Official Crown Princess Mary Message Board because Mosh and company were in no way involved with that forum.  It was a big scandal at the time.  Many newspapers in Denmark wrote about it... the DRF threatened to sue the owners of the site.  So, they freaked out, changed the name, and made the forum an approved members only site.  

It is also well known that Lotte from Danish royal watchers has deep connections to the Clown's and the rest of the DRF.  Second, many writers from Billed Bladet are members and participate often (or they used to.)  Several of them had said in the past that Mosh and company were still fully aware of the CoM and visit that site often.  Whether they still do to this day is unknown.

Every royal house knows about the Royal Stalkers Forum (TRF).  That is a fact.  Again if any of the royals read the site remains unknown, but many journalists copy and paste word for word comments from TRSF and use it in their writings about royals.

 

Interesting Michelle - didn't know about all this activity. I don't even look at those other boards - who has all this time. One board is already plenty for me!

I'm not surprised that the "official Crown Princess Mary " board attracted attention, any time that you use the word "official" when you're not is just asking for trouble. As for Lotte on the Danish royal family board, didn't she make a post last June and then nothing until Marge's 60th birday celebrations? So much for the deep connections to the DRF!

Like you, Lotte is a well known journalist in Australia, and like you she doesn't spend much time posting on her  blog.  Furthermore, she is rarely seen on the CoM these days.  
 

Is Lotte a royal journalist Michelle? My main focus is travel journalism, although of course, occasionally I do other types of lifestyle reporting.

[michelle j]

She is a journalist who also writes about royalty.  Yes.
 

[royal observer]

Could Dishies who have access to the sugarboards please take note of whether and where PP agency is allowing its images to be used?

Very, very interesting, and media-worthy, if Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is attempting to censor one board in particular ... and the instruction does not extend to other forums ...

I've never believed that any of the royals are actually reading any of these discussion boards, including this one. As if we're important enough for them to spend any time or energy monitoring, plotting, censoring us!  IMO this is just a discussion/opinion board - let's not take ourselves soooo seriously!

I also doubt that the royals themselves are reading this site.  If we are indeed being targeted, it's probably because someone who didn't like what we had to say about their fave royals reported us.  They need to learn the little concept of freedom of speech.  

I can understand the agencies' crackdown if they are contacting ALL boards.  If it's just us, then I think that is discrimination and hypocritical.

It's obvious to me that RD was targeted because attention was brought towards this site - that's another reason why we shouldn't take ourselves so seriously - demanding copyrighting of our material (especially since they're only OPINIONS). How soon do you think it was going to take  a photo agency or another publication source to start poking around and going, "Hey, they're using OUR copyrighted materials!" And that's exactly what happened. Our poor moderators then have to take all that time taking all those photos down. Let's just hope that this is the end of it and no other agency start making similar demands. Just goes to show, don't go opening up a can or worms - you have no idea how it could backfire on you.

ISSUE #1
These days many royal journalists have been blatantly copying and pasting written material from many royal message boards.
 
Is it ethical?  

Sloppy journalism?  

Are royal journalist so disinterested in their job, which it to cover royalty for their publication, that they are so desperate they have to troll message boards for their work?

Does copying and pasting really matter even if they are only an individuals opinion (or opinions)?  

I suppose it depends.  If a journalist doesn't have a problem using other peoples feelings and masking it as his/her own in an article then, no, I suppose it does not matter.

Here are two examples of sloppy journalism within the past month:

Example one: A well known journalist, Vincent Meylan, from the French magazine, Point Du Vue, decided to take a member's hard research and information, word for word, from The Royal Jewels Message Board.  He used this  information, about a rare jewels, for his article in the magazine.  Now, is that ethical?  No, it's not.  



Example two:  On the Royal Stalkers Forum (TRF) Billed Bladet recently reported about Carina Axelsson's sister.  The entire article was copied word for word from a member named, Guido.  Billed Bladet also used the exact same video, which is hard to find, and other material he posted a week and a half AFTER he posted his information.  Again, is this ethical?  No, it's not.

Journalists, and I'm not pointing my finger at you RO, tend to be extremely sloppy when it comes to their work.  Yes, many blatantly copy information from the web without giving proper credit (would you write a 230 page Ph.D dissertation or Master's Thesis without giving credit to your primary or secondary source?  I think not.)  I suppose it all comes down to curtosy and proper journalism ethics which seems to have been disappeared these past few years.  

Let me make myself clear, RO, I am NOT referring to you in any way when it comes to the question of copying and pasting word for word comments/opinions/whatthefuckever for your articles.  I've never read your work so... what ever.  

ISSUE #2
About posting images on royal message boards.  Most agencies prefer that people link to their site rather than posting the image directly.  I believe that is what PPE and BEW is asking RD members to do.  

It is best not to host images to Tinypic or Photobucket.  Link the image instead or if you found a link on another site just link to the site where you found them.  

RO, you said that PPE will go after each individual member.  Not true; in fact, just the opposite.  Agencies go after the owners of a site NOT the individual person or persons.  If you want to ask me detailed questions about Copyright Laws in the United States and International Copyright Law I would be more than happy to give you detailed information thorough a PM.

 

First of all, I was not the one who said that PPE was going after all the member personally, only that someone had indicated previously that that's what they were threatening to do so if the photos are not taken down within a certain time frame. I agree that if there is a legal issue, that they can only go after the boards' owners and not each individual member. Besides, it's just a legal scare tactic - nothing more.

Regarding journalists copying material word by word from royal threads, I agree with you absolutely that is NOT okay. First, let's clarify something. In your first example, the information regarding the "rare jewel" is considered public domain, and so even if a royal board member does all the research to "uncover" the information, it does not make it theirs! I mean, we are NOT uncovering the Lost City of Atlantis here! There is no such thing as "exclusive" information. All the journalist had to do was use the same info about the jewel and put it in their own words. If he really just copied and pasted it word by word, then of course, that's wrong. Same with the second example. If that journalist in question (let's assuming he's using a message board as part of his "research") just takes the information about Carina's sister and puts it in his own words, then that's okay as well.

I venture to say that either one of the journalists in your examples are active members and participants on those message boards that they have taken information from. So if I copied my OWN opinions that I've posted here myself, then I can certainly take that and use it in a story, if I so choose. I KNOW that you were not talking about me, since I have NEVER taken what someone else has written word by word on this board and used it in my story, despite the slanderous accusations by someone on the board. More to the point, when I challenged that person as well as anyone else on RD to find me the actually sentences that I allegedly "copied word by word", they started back-peddling and said that, oh no, there wasn't anything copied word by word after all! There was a specific reference to the speculation that Victoria will wear the cameo tiara to the wedding. That info has been all over the internet and through hundreds of other sources, and even Hello magazine in their June 21 issue (which came out BEFORE the wedding) made that same speculation! So it is certainly NOT exclusive knowledge or an original thought by anyone on RD! I don't see anyone making the equally ludicrous accusation that Hello magazine is also copying and stealing content from this board!  

Lastly, if a journalist browse through these royal sites to get an idea of what the general opinion is out there towards a certain royal or royal to be like Kate Middleton, for example, and found that people are critical of her lack of work ethic, etc and then reported these general opinion and feelings in their story, there is nothing wrong with that. They certainly do not need to quote or credit the board where they got the impression from. As long as they do not just copy and paste things word by word,it's fine.

[pixiecat]

She is a journalist who also writes about royalty.  Yes.
 

 slightly
OMG....I just noticed the wording under your gorgeous pic of Aunt Magda!   Loves it

[michelle j]

First, I'm sorry that I mis-quoted you.  I thought you said that PPE will go after individual members (I thought that is what you wrote in the post which you edited after I read it.)  

In your first example, the information regarding the "rare jewel" is considered public domain, and so even if a royal board member does all the research to "uncover" the information, it does not make it theirs! I mean, we are NOT uncovering the Lost City of Atlantis here!

I understand that.  However, I suppose I am "old school" when it comes to proper citation.  Whether one finds it on the internet or in an archive in Bethel, New York.  Proper citation is one of the key rules for all journalists.  If a lazy journalist wants to use a persons opinion or research for his/her article is it that fucking hard to paraphrase?  No, it's not.  Fucking paraphrase, people!

There is no such thing as "exclusive" information.

Well, duh!  Come on, gurl, we all know that already.    

All the journalist had to do was use the same info about the jewel and put it in their own words. If he really just copied and pasted it word by word, then of course, that's wrong. Same with the second example. If that journalist in question (let's assuming he's using a message board as part of his "research") just takes the information about Carina's sister and puts it in his own words, then that's okay as well.

I agree with you.  Paraphrase!  It really isn't that hard.  

I venture to say that either one of the journalists in your examples are active members and participants on those message boards that they have taken information from. So I KNOW that you were not talking about me, since I have NEVER taken something word by word on this board and used it in my story, despite the slanderous accusations by someone on the board.

Indeed they are.  

None of those journalists in my examples are members of this forum (that I know of.)  They may lurk, but to my knowledge they are NOT members of Royal Dish.  Second, I know the flak you receive here on RD, and again, I have never read your writings prior or after these allegations.  So I am in the dark.  

   

Lastly, if a journalist browse through these royal sites to get an idea of what the general opinion is out there towards a certain royal or royal to be like Kate Middleton, for example, and found that people are critical of her lack of work ethic, etc and then reported these general opinion and feelings in their story, there is nothing wrong with that. They certainly do not need to quote or credit the board where they got the impression from. As long as they do not just copy and paste things word by word,it's fine.

ITA!   

[royal observer]

We are in agreement Michelle! Paraphrasing - fine, copy word by word - not fine!  

And you are more than welcome to read my stories (if you wish) and see for yourself all the flak and accusations are complete bulls**t!

By the way, as much as I adore your avatars, I really can't look at Magda's face for that much longer!   Maybe it's time for a change?

[pixiecat]

We are in agreement Michelle! Paraphrasing - fine, copy word by word - not fine!  

By the way, as much as I adore your avatars, I really can't look at Magda's face for that much longer!   Maybe it's time for a change?

Oh...I don't know about that.  It makes me think of leather bags and shoes and jackets...

And it reminds me to put on some sunscreen.  

[michelle j]

We are in agreement Michelle! Paraphrasing - fine, copy word by word - not fine!  

By the way, as much as I adore your avatars, I really can't look at Magda's face for that much longer!   Maybe it's time for a change?

   

Aunt Magda may stay on RD for a wee bit longer, RO.  Maybe next week I'll change it to another close-up of Mags, NOT FROM PPE, or another avi similar to this one (which is public domain, PPE:)


   

[Michelle]

I kinda like Aunt Magda!  She's growing on me

[michelle j]

We are in agreement Michelle! Paraphrasing - fine, copy word by word - not fine!  

By the way, as much as I adore your avatars, I really can't look at Magda's face for that much longer!   Maybe it's time for a change?

Oh...I don't know about that.  It makes me think of leather bags and shoes and jackets...

And it reminds me to put on some sunscreen.  

Which it should!  It is Summer afterall... and fifty years from now none of us want to resemble Aunt Magda, now do we.    

OMG....I just noticed the wording under your gorgeous pic of Aunt Magda!      Loves it 

Thanks!  A  for you, PC!