CinemaTour
Cinema History Around the World
 HOME ·· CINEMAS ·· FORUM ·· LINKS ·· BOOKS
 Contact Cinematour ·· Help & Hints ·· About Cinematour
Cinematour Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Cinematour Forum   » Cinematour Discussion   » Overwhelming Newsroom Inbox (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Overwhelming Newsroom Inbox
Scott D. Neff
Tour Guide

Posts: 661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Feb 2003


 - posted April 14, 2005 10:47 PM      Profile for Scott D. Neff   Email Scott D. Neff         Edit/Delete Post 
Yesterday I had a chance to sit down at Adam's computer and take a peak through the Cinematour inbox.

While doing so I convinced Adam to let me spend upwards of 5 hours sorting the inbox by State, Provence and Foreign Country. I'm hoping this might help Adam systematically attack those areas that don't have insane amounts of submissions.

One thing I did come across were many duplicate submissions. Rest assured if you've e-mailed something in over the past few years, Adam has it. Hopefully he can also weed through the duplicate e-mails and realize he only has 1500 e-mails instead of 3000.

Also -- look forward to some revised submission rules when and if the newsroom ever truly reopens. Many of the submissions I was leafing through were e-mails containing links to now dead websites, or photos that legally belong to a museum or newspaper collection.

But I wanted to take this time to thank everybody who has been waiting patiently for their updates to make it onto the site. I saw some excellent submissions that I was really excited about and I hope you'll all be seeing them soon.

 |  IP: Logged

William French, Jr.
New Member

Posts: 22
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted April 15, 2005 07:18 AM      Profile for William French, Jr.   Email William French, Jr.         Edit/Delete Post 
Sometimes it is hard to know when a photo belongs to a museum or newspaper collection. The other issues is about the age of an image. I am not sure what the exact date is, but if an image is older than the late 1920s, it is in the public domain and thus belongs to everyone. Many museums try to stop people from using images that are this old, but they have no legal ground to stand on. They own the paper the image is on, but not the image itself.

One idea for making images more usable for CinemaTour is a write-in campaign by members to museums (like the Library of Congress) urging them to allow CinemaTour to use their images. With the proper credit, which is always given, they might be willing. I am not sure how this could work, but a letter with everyones name on it might do the trick. You might even find that museums will be willing to submit photos themselves.

Thanx,
William

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Newman
Member

Posts: 145
From: Somerville, MA
Registered: Jan 2005


 - posted April 15, 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for Ron Newman   Email Ron Newman         Edit/Delete Post 
From the Library of Congress American Memory FAQ:

Because the Library of Congress is a public, federal institution, anyone may link to American Memory without permission from the Library.

The Library of Congress likes to hear how its site is being used. The Library also requests that links not give the impression that the Library of Congress or American Memory expressly or implicitly endorses any particular product or service.

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Keillor
Member

Posts: 125
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Registered: May 2003


 - posted April 15, 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for Ron Keillor   Email Ron Keillor         Edit/Delete Post 
"Yesterday I had a chance to sit down at Adam's computer and take a peak through the Cinematour inbox."

Surely it was not that stimulating. I think you meant "peek".

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
Administrator

Posts: 1090
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Feb 2003


 - posted April 15, 2005 07:09 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin         Edit/Delete Post 
No, I assure you that Scott "peaked". [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged

Scott D. Neff
Tour Guide

Posts: 661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Feb 2003


 - posted April 16, 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Scott D. Neff   Email Scott D. Neff         Edit/Delete Post 
It was quite exciting actually. I was giddy and excited the entire time I was doing it cause I got to see sooo many pics of theatres that I've always scrolled the site hoping to see.

Especially old GCCs. MMMMMM General Cinema.

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Member

Posts: 82
From: Mobile, AL
Registered: Mar 2003


 - posted April 18, 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for William Hooper   Email William Hooper         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sometimes it is hard to know when a photo belongs to a museum or newspaper collection. The other issues is about the age of an image. I am not sure what the exact date is, but if an image is older than the late 1920s, it is in the public domain
1923. After that, if its copyright wasn't renewed after the initial 28 year period, it also was in the public domain. But it's more complicated; over the years revisions to domestic copyright (some of which was just to conform with GATT) have extended the 2nd period from 47 to 67 years at the recent Sonny Bono /Disney law.

quote:
I am not sure what the exact date is, but if an image is older than the late 1920s, it is in the public domain and thus belongs to everyone
That is not true, & can be quickly seen as a nice generalization. If it's public domain & you've got a copy of the original work, you are free to publish it. It does not belong to everyone.

quote:
Many museums try to stop people from using images that are this old, but they have no legal ground to stand on. They own the paper the image is on, but not the image itself.
No, those works (scans, etc.) made by them from public domain materials are new works & are theirs. You cannot copy images from their website, scan pictures from their catalogs, etc. companies which spend a lot of money putting out video releases of PD titles from original materials aggressively pursue bootleggers that just dupe their work, so don't get in a crack! Provenance comes down to the material the new work was produced from, & companies that put out coffee table books of Matthew Brady photographs, dvd's of silent movies that have become PD, etc. produce the sources for their original materials, agreements (often for substantial leasing fees) for use from the materials holders, etc.

quote:
One idea for making images more usable for CinemaTour is a write-in campaign by members to museums (like the Library of Congress) urging them to allow CinemaTour to use their images. With the proper credit, which is always given, they might be willing. I am not sure how this could work, but a letter with everyones name on it might do the trick. You might even find that museums will be willing to submit photos themselves.
It won't work because it ignores the fact of cost of acquisition & storage of original materials, & the cost of restoration, & publication of works from them. That cost of acquistion, storage, restoration & publication is why copyright is controlled. Musems & newspapers have them as operating costs, & even hobbyists have money tied up in it.

The photos Adam takes are his, the copyright is his, permission must be granted by him for someone else to use them. He may if he likes recoup & finance his gas money by running ad banners on his page. He may if likes place them explicitly in the public domain, as is sometimes done. The LOC does this with some things, but warns on its website that there may be applicable copyrights on some items restricting their use by others who would copy them from the LOC site. Adam is not only considerate enough but legal enough to get permission to use other folks' pictures.

Cinema Treasures originally presented itself magisterially as a "non-profit website dedicated to saving classic movie theaters" although it looked more like a promotional device. The "About Us" section no longer says that (although it's still cached everywhere: http://mokolabs.com/cinematreasures/ I'll bet $2 the book they put out after creating buzz with the website isn't nonprofit, or at the very least like other nonprofit organizational constructions it's arranged that the executives of the organization get hefty chunks of money from it. The photos in the book are copyrighted, those on the website are PD or are photos supporting the site submitted by web users who turn all the usage benefits over to Cinema Treasures:

http://www.cinematreasures.com/legal/

quote:
Upon submission of User Content, you grant, or where appropriate, may grant, Cinema Treasures and its affiliates the following:

A. For all non-photographic material:

• a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such non-photographic User Content and all rights appertaining thereto both online and offline;

• the right to sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the non-photographic User Content;

B. For all photographic material:

• a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such photographic User Content and all rights appertaining thereto as needed for (i) Cinema Treasures website and services on the World Wide Web and Internet, each as commonly understood; (ii) press, marketing and publicity purposes relating to Cinema Treasures and/or theater preservation;

• the right to sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the photographic User Content;

C. Optional rights with respect to all photographic material:

In addition to the foregoing rights you have granted Cinema Treasures, you may also grant them the following rights by clicking the 'Yes' button associated with the question “Would you like to give Cinema Treasures additional usage rights?”:

• a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such photographic User Content and all rights appertaining thereto both online and offline for any theater preservation-related purpose;

• the right to sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the photographic User Content;

The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, Cinema Treasures will not compensate you for Cinema Treasures' use of such User Content. Cinema Treasures is under no obligation to post or use any User Content and may edit or remove such User Content at any time in Cinema Treasures’ sole discretion.

You are entitled by law to be able to give away what you own, others are entitled to take what you give away. Copyright protects those who have investments of materials, time, & work, from those who would take it for their own without compensation.

 |  IP: Logged

Jim Rankin
(Jim passed away in December 2006)
Posts: 123
From: Milwaukee, WI
Registered: Oct 2003


 - posted April 18, 2005 06:53 AM      Profile for Jim Rankin   Email Jim Rankin         Edit/Delete Post 
The quotations above from Cinema Treasurs did give me pause when I first encountered them years ago myself, but lest we surmise from them that it is a case of villany, I propose that it is at best a way for them to avoid nagging litigation from any who may think that they have legal standing to attack Treasures, but who in fact do not. I ascribe some of their boilerplate to naivete as to the very complex statute law and case law as it applies to them and any contributors. While the law does imply a certain due dilligence be excercized in determining the true ownership of an image before it can be used, they can be forgiven if they post or use a photo donated to them in good faith. There is a book at the library here by a lawyer who purports to explain the hundreds of pages of law that now apply to copyrights, and his prose is perforce as dense as the laws he tries to explain. I doubt that any of the CT guys are lawyers, but even if they were, they would need our best wishes to figuring out this matter 100%!

It is highly unlikely that their recent book will yield any where near lots of money for the authors or even the publisher, given the narrow subject interest area. I will be surprised if they get any royalty beyond three figures over the years, after the publisher/distributors take their cuts of the sale price. Regular book sellers will probably remainder the book after about a year, and that means that the cover price will be slashed by at least half, and their royalities correspondingly.

 |  IP: Logged

William French, Jr.
New Member

Posts: 22
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted April 18, 2005 07:52 AM      Profile for William French, Jr.   Email William French, Jr.         Edit/Delete Post 
When talking about public domain, I was talking about the image itself, not the paper it is printed on. The new laws are confusing but I will include what the US Copyright Office has to say about images created before 1978 at the end of this reply.

If the image (in the US only, there is no actual international copyright protection {you have to apply for protection in each country}) and was created before 1978, but not registerd or published before December 31, 2002, and its author/creator died before 1933, it is in the public domain. This means that many images that are in library archives but never published/registered, are in the public domain. The paper the images are on belong to the library/collector but the image itself belongs to the public. For works that were created before but not registered or published by January 1, 1978, but were published on or before December 31, 2002, protection will not expire until at least December 31, 2047. Again, if the the work was not published by December 31, 2002, and the author/creator died before 1933, the work is in the Public Domain.

Many films and TV shows from before 1964 are in the public domain because their protection was never renewed and renewal is not automatic unless it was created between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977. For works after January 1, 1978 the law changed considerably. You will find that "It's A Wonderful Life" is in the Public Domain.

You will also find that art books publish images of artwork that has been published before, so they do have copyright protection. Vintage postcards also have copyright protection for 95 years after being published if they were renewed.

Originally (1909 Copyright Act) copyright lasted for 28 years after registration or publication. It could then be renewed for an additional 28 years (for a total of 56 years). The renewal period was extended to 47 years in 1976 and then 67 years in 1998, for a total protection period of 95 years. Disney was facing a possible disaster because Mickey Mouse's first picture, "Steamboat Willie", was nearing the end of its protection. They lobbied Congress hard for changes in the law, and got that protection. It was to expire in 2003 (75 years after initial protection), but under the Sonny Bono Act it will expire in 2023 (95 years after initial protection). They will probably get the law changed again before then. If Mickey were ever to fall into the Public Domain, his image could be used by anyone at anytime for any reason and Disney would be ruined.

Under the Sonny Bono Act rules, protection expires this year for works created and published/registered in 1910 and renewed in 1938, a total of 95 years of protection. Anything that was published/registered before 1910 is in the Public Domain (protection laws were not even adopted until 1909). It all depends on if the protection was renewed or not after the initial 28 years of protection. I was not aware of the Sonny Bono Act and my training on Copyright law was done in 1997.

By the way, the commonly used word "copyrighted" is not proper. Copyright is not a verb, it's a noun. You are not copyrighting something, what you are getting is a Copyright for something.

Simply copying a work that is in the Public Domain is not the same as making a new, protected, work. A person, or company, must modify the original work substantially for them to be able to place protection on it. If a company puts out a DVD of silent films and adds new music to them, the music has protection, not the images themselves, seeing that they did not create the images. Only the original creator/owner of the material (unless they have legally transfered protection to someone else) has the right of protection. Libraries that hold materials that do not fall under protection rules do not have the right to claim protection and can only claim protection of works that fall under protection if that protection has been transfered to them. They own the paper the image is on but not the image itself. It is all about knowing of the image actually has protection or not.

Here is the official government site:
http://www.copyright.gov/

HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date
These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.

Certain Unpublished, Unregistered Works Enter Public Domain
Certain works that were neither published nor registered for copyright as of Jan. 1, 1978, entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2003, unless the works were published on or before Dec. 31, 2002.

Under the 1909 Copyright Act, works that were neither published nor registered did not enjoy statutory protection, although they were protected under common law in perpetuity as long as they remained unpublished and unregistered. But under section 303 of the 1976 Copyright Act, works that were created but neither published nor registered in the Copyright Office before Jan. 1, 1978, lost their common law protection and acquired a statutory term of protection that was the life of the author plus 50 years, amended in 1998 to life plus 70 years.

As a result of the 1976 Copyright Act, any of the works in question whose author had died over 50 years prior to 1978 would have entered the public domain after Dec. 31, 1977. To provide a reasonable term of copyright protection for these works, and in light of the fact that these works had enjoyed perpetual protection under common law, Congress extended their term by at least 25 more years. Congress also encouraged publication by providing an additional 25 more years, extended in 1998 to 45 more years, of protection if the work was published on or before Dec. 31, 2002.

That first 25-year period expired on Dec. 31, 2002. Any work that was neither published nor registered as of Jan. 1, 1978, and whose author died before 1933 entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2003, unless it was published on or before Dec. 31, 2002. If the author died in 1933 or later, the work will be protected for 70 years after the author’s death, due to the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998.

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Member

Posts: 82
From: Mobile, AL
Registered: Mar 2003


 - posted April 19, 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for William Hooper   Email William Hooper         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
lest we surmise from them that it is a case of villany, I propose that it is at best a way for them to avoid nagging litigation from any who may think that they have legal standing to attack Treasures, but who in fact do not.
"At least" is the proper term! "At best", it assigns the rights to them to do all the things listed. It deflects "nagging litigation" even from people who would have legal standing, by describing all those rights which are transferred to Cinema Treasures. That's the purpose. To avoid "surmise", look at what it actually does.

quote:
I ascribe some of their boilerplate to naivete as to the very complex statute law and case law as it applies to them and any contributors.
Does the language of their agreement look "naive"?

quote:
When talking about public domain, I was talking about the image itself, not the paper it is printed on.
The problem is the point at which you are trying to separate the two. The copyright information that's added is historical & correct, but it does not deal with the source of acquisition for publication of material assumed to be in the public domain. That's what usually winds up in court, or stops with a C&D.

quote:
You will find that "It's A Wonderful Life" is in the Public Domain.
You will find that it is not. You will find Republic's lawyer's *all* over you if you bootleg it. It is a good example of a work that was presumed & asserted by many to be in the public domain, but no more because underlying copyright on its music was asserted & aggressively enforced, & all those grainy bootlegs were chased from the market by its owners. It *is* a good example of how copyright is an incentive to put out the best possible examples of a work, as opposed to public domain removing the incentive & resulting in a proliferation of poor quality dupes.

It's also a good illustration of how underlying copyrights & usage agreements complicate things for those who publish. The agreement may allow only *their* publication.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
"With few exceptions, the Library of Congress does not own copyright in the materials in its collections and does not grant or deny permission to use the content mounted on its website. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item from the Library’s collections and for securing any necessary permissions rests with persons desiring to use the item. To the greatest extent possible, the Library attempts to provide any known rights information about its collections. Such information can be found in the “Copyright and Other Restrictions” statements on each American Memory online collection homepage."

quote:
You will also find that art books publish images of artwork that has been published before, so they do have copyright protection.
I'm not sure that I'm reading this right, but it's a good example of copyright of an image. A Degas may not be under copyright, but the museum (or person who loaned it to the museum) may make some money by publishing a photograph of it in a book. That photo is under copyright protection.

quote:
Simply copying a work that is in the Public Domain is not the same as making a new, protected, work. A person, or company, must modify the original work substantially for them to be able to place protection on it. If a company puts out a DVD of silent films and adds new music to them, the music has protection, not the images themselves, seeing that they did not create the images.
This is often applied to restorations, since the work is a substantially new work if existing elements are incomplete or damaged. Even before the Sonny Bono extension, Blackhawk used to go after bootleggers infringing on their copyright. God help you if you duped one of Raymond Rohauer's. It still boils down to acquisiton of the material *presumed* to be in the public domain. If you've got an original release print of a 1922 silent & transfer it to video, you're safe. If you've entered agreements (for money or not) with the owners of such materials to use them, you're safe. If you start cooking DVD's of Kino's early silent releases, they will send you mail.

I'm not a big fan of current copyright law for some reasons, but its basic function is still to protect property. It falls down in many ways, & museums & archives see the worst of it: donations of copyrighted materials with usage restrictions, basically just foisting the storage costs on the archives & museums, while the copyright owner does not publish & the work is unavailable to the public. However, as was the case of It's A Wonderful Life, a lack of copyright protection is a disincentive for the owners of the best materials to put out the best versions, since the market is flooded with cheap, poor bootlegs.

One proposal has been made that the renewal period should include a "Use it or lose it" provision in that the title must be published (or periodically published) & available to retain copyright. Disney may be vilified for the current extension by folks who don't like the current copyright law, but the fact is Disney is really the best out there for making older titles available to the public, which is the point of public domain. They wouldn't be issuing DVD's of black & white Mickey Mouse cartoons if a bunch of nickel-picking bootleggers were out there flooding the market with crappy videos of those title. Someone also mentioned that book publishing has some provision like this, though, which some publishers have found a way around, just by being able to say a title is in print by keeping a box of unsold volumes in storage & not offering them for sale.

 |  IP: Logged

David Wodeyla
Member

Posts: 65
From: Natick, MA
Registered: Jun 2004


 - posted April 20, 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for David Wodeyla   Author's Homepage   Email David Wodeyla         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yesterday I had a chance to sit down at Adam's computer and take a peak through the Cinematour inbox.

While doing so I convinced Adam to let me spend upwards of 5 hours sorting the inbox by State, Provence and Foreign Country. I'm hoping this might help Adam systematically attack those areas that don't have insane amounts of submissions.

One thing I did come across were many duplicate submissions. Rest assured if you've e-mailed something in over the past few years, Adam has it. Hopefully he can also weed through the duplicate e-mails and realize he only has 1500 e-mails instead of 3000.

Also -- look forward to some revised submission rules when and if the newsroom ever truly reopens. Many of the submissions I was leafing through were e-mails containing links to now dead websites, or photos that legally belong to a museum or newspaper collection.

But I wanted to take this time to thank everybody who has been waiting patiently for their updates to make it onto the site. I saw some excellent submissions that I was really excited about and I hope you'll all be seeing them soon.

OK, so to make the story shorter, are the CinemaTour owners being careful with the 1500 submissions in order to be assured there's no copyright violations? Or was there another reason for ignoring the hundreds of photos that enthusiasts so eagerly and faithfully submitted?

 |  IP: Logged

Scott D. Neff
Tour Guide

Posts: 661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Feb 2003


 - posted April 20, 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for Scott D. Neff   Email Scott D. Neff         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
are the CinemaTour owners being careful with the 1500 submissions in order to be assured there's no copyright violations?

Receiving suspected copyrighted photos is definitely something that raises an eyebrow and would delay a photo from making its way onto the site... especially when we have received the same photo from ten different people and nobody explains where they got the photo.

quote:
Or was there another reason for ignoring the 1500 photos that enthusiasts so eagerly submitted in hopes of improving this website?

From another thread, posted by Adam Martin on 3/9/05
quote:
Quite simply, I'm the only one here able to perform any updates. I've been working on several very large projects, including converting the 20,000 photos on the site to the new database as well as cross-referencing a couple of other sites that we partner with.

Another project involves Scott Neff and myself dealing with several theater circuits who have given us temporary permission to photograph their theaters. It's important that we get this done while we are still able to do it.

There's also a major project being developed that will significantly increase the photographic coverage in the southern states.

These large projects have become so overwhelming that I had to take down the email links from the site because my inbox had become ridiculous. Emails take a lot longer to process because the information needs to be verified before it can go on the site, and often further in-depth research needs to be done.

And then there's my regular day job that pays my rent.

So, as you can see, my little hobby has grown (at least temporarily) out of control. Unfortunately, there really isn't a good way to implement a method for someone else to help me out with the site updates. So you're just gonna have to cut me a little slack for a while longer and lay off the "inner circle" comments.

Photos and updates can still be emailed to newsroom@cinematour.com, but it's honestly going to be a while before I can start processing email submissions. In the meantime, the emails will queue up and continue to be backed up regularly so that they don't get lost.

Hopefully that explains it all for you David.

By now I would hope that it would register to everybody that this website is not something that Adam or I take lightly. Sitting on 1500 submissions is not something anybody chose to do. We have each invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on research trips, website upgrades, fact checking and every other thing that is needed for Cinematour. We each have our regular jobs and regular lives that unfortunately do not always allow for spending 4-12 hours in front of a computer verifying facts and editing photos for the site. We do what we can, when we can.

Please respect that and don't insult anybody's commitment to this project by suggesting otherwise.

Lastly, I really really really don't want to come across as ungrateful. I am sure I speak for Adam as well as myself when I say that we are extremely appreciative to all Cinematour members for their submissions. There has never been any intent to make people feel as though their input was not welcome, but unfortunately because their updates don't get posted IMMEDIATELY, they think that we're snubbing them. This just simply is not the case.

All this being said, Adam and I are working on reorganizing how submissions are handled, and hopefully I will soon be able to process some of the more mundane updates which should allow Adam to work on the more involved and sensitive issues.

I don't know how many more times I can say it... but please everybody -- just be patient.

 |  IP: Logged

Eric Hooper
Member

Posts: 107
From: Santa Clara, CA
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted May 02, 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for Eric Hooper   Email Eric Hooper         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Especially old GCCs. MMMMMM General Cinema.

Yes..GCC's! Post those first. [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
Administrator

Posts: 1090
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Feb 2003


 - posted June 18, 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin         Edit/Delete Post 
For those of you on the edge of your seat, I've been wailing on my inbox and have completed all email updates for the following states:

Yesterday: TN, KY, OH, IN
Today: ID, WY, UT, NV, OR, CO, ND, SD, NE, KS, MN

Now I'm being dragged out to see two movies.

 |  IP: Logged

The Evil Sam Graham
Member

Posts: 85
From: Des Moines, IA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted June 19, 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for The Evil Sam Graham   Author's Homepage   Email The Evil Sam Graham         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm shocked.

Not to see the updates, but to see there's actually cinemas out there I've taken pictures of and you haven't. [Cool]

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

© 1995-2013 Vision Entertainment Services. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2