AVOID Pepper Joe's AT ALL COSTS!

[Rockporter]

I have been reading this thread and didn't want to get involved in the controversy but I have seen a photo on Penny's website that looked quite familiar to me of an upside down tomato handmade bucket. I remembered seeing this bucket when I was first trying to decide how to grow tomatoes here in the high winds and heat of the Coastal Bend.

The photo on her page is from this site and the photo is about half way down the page, orange bucket hanging upside down.
http://gretschpages.com/forum/rumble...p/50321/page1/

Penny's page has the exact same photo here on her page
http://www.pennystomatoes.com/Upside...o-planter.html

I find it disturbing that someone would go through the internet and find things to use on their own website to benefit for themselves without permission from others. I don't know if the photo I just posted about is being used without permission but it sure looks like it to me.

Edit: Upon further reading there is a possibility that the photo in the first link is someone elses photo and could possibly be Penny's photo.

[FILMNET]

Yup Its the same shots Rockport, i put both into photoshop looked under file info, no trademark or watermark on both, on the first website the photo is 72 dpi and 6" tall file, Penny's is 94 dpi 1" tall, Metadata is what photographers and others use for files. My file will have my camera name, how big the file is, the day and time, i can put watermark and trademark on each file.
Now her website is really nasty, all shots have all different , backgrounds, the light, and all are small files under 1-2" that's why they look nasty.

[remy]

The upside down tomato photos in question come from Kathy Kimpel and her Flicker photos in 2008.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kkimpel...57606442634299
I found them because after a search I found a site that used another one of her photos(very distinctive with the white rimmed bucket and siding that runs vertical) and gave her credit.
Remy

[FILMNET]

I gave Tatiana's use of my Paul Robeson tomato, looked at penney's now, Its not P. Robeson at all. As you all know i post nice shots every summer here, i don't see any of mine there thank goodness.

[Worth1]

Maybe we should post pictures of our tomatoes with the wrong names tagged to them.
Then have a secret code so we can correlate the right picture to the right name.
We can even have a cyber hand shake and a secret club that doesn't exist.

I think it would be fun, we can even have annual meetings in a castle in the Rhineland and eat sausages and rindsrouladen.

Worth

[FILMNET]

That a great post Worth, every time i look at her website the shots are so terrible, I am a pro so maybe i should tell her i can help her with new or old files. I would need the original files to get the background out.

[greentiger87]

What an odd website. Aggressive marketing is one thing.. out and out lying is another.

I recognized the Chayote squash instantly and was very confused as to why she was calling it a tomato.

I think Laurel's website is a great example of "fun" and not so modern/polished website that still exudes professionalism and integrity.

[Worth1]

Why dont people just do like (Dave's Garden) does.

I dont know how they do it but you cant get a picture from there and post it some place else.
You get a warning.

I have never tried to save a picture on my computer rename it and post it again, that might work.

I wont do it because they ask not to and have the warning.
That is good enough for me.

It should be good enough for other people too.

Worth

[FILMNET]

Kurt I have been a professional photographer for 20 year, I am pretty sure copyright laws were straighten out 10 years ago for us. We do not have to get a copyright for any files. We must have the first file. If some one cut out the background out of my file for $ like Pennys is doing, I can call a lawyer.

[Redbaron]

Originally Posted by FILMNET

That a great post Worth, every time i look at her website the shots are so terrible, I am a pro so maybe i should tell her i can help her with new or old files. I would need the original files to get the background out.

That's a very good point FILMNET. As I went through this thread something struck me. This is a tomato grower. She is one of us. Maybe misguided. Maybe not educated in the ethics of the industry. Maybe taking poor advise from others. But in the end she is a tomato grower with a sense of humor.

It seems to me that instead of being angry and critical, those who are better educated in these subjects might do better offering genuine friendship and genuine help? I mean the old saying goes, "You attract more bees with sugar than vinegar." And every gardener knows that trying to force a bee to pollinate a flower in your garden is likely to get you stung. But even if not stung, you'll end up driving the bee away. That doesn't help either the bee or the gardener. But plant flowers and the bees will come on their own, on their own schedule.

It seems to me that if the people angrily trying to force her to conform to a set of standards (you know who you are) were to plant a flower instead, you never know what changes might happen. Women generally love flowers! I am continually amazed what you can get a woman to do by simply giving them a flower!

For example, if you see a photo that is "stolen", and grow the variety yourself, then take a better picture and offer it freely.

Just a crazy idea I had.

[remy]

Worth!
Remy

[Sun City Linda]

Redbaron - It is my recollection that quite a few folks from TVille have offered to help Penny previously.

[FILMNET]

BTW I have seen other websites with her telling this tomatoville is terrible, Flame Throwing now!!!!

[Tania]

Originally Posted by Sun City Linda

Redbaron - It is my recollection that quite a few folks from TVille have offered to help Penny previously.

I did help Penny last year to review the catalog and correct the names. She was doing her best to make corrections. I appreciated Penny's attitude and was happy to help. At that time I also mentioned to her about the copyrighted photos. It really bothers me when people use someone else work without permission and/or without giving an appropriate attribution. Even if 'someone else' is doing it, it is still illegal - and if you don't care about law - it is not fair or professional.

I looked at the website yesterday I still see a wrong name there - i.e. 'Penny's Persimmon Tomato'. I'd guess this is a well-known Persimmon tomato. Perhaps she forgot to change it online?

I still see lots of pictures which originals I have seen at other places.

My personal opinion - this is not an acceptable business practice. And this alone would stop me from recommending such business to anyone. I think Mischka has his very good reasons to remove the website from the list of recommended vendors, and he has full right to do so, as Tomatoville is his baby.

I also completely understand Ted and how he feels about seeing his photo at Penny's.

Will people continue to buy from Penny? I'd think so. Especially with all the attention she is getting now.

I also think that this discussion here will gladly be used by some other 'competitive' forums to pour more dirt on Tomatoville. Any means will do, right?

I am so sad.
Tatiana

[bwaynef]

Originally Posted by kurt

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. From what I gather if the "pirated"photos don't have a copyright originally then Moneypenney can do whatever she wants.

I'm supposing that you copied this from a website and pasted it for all of us to see. While the information is somewhat applicable to the discussion, the failure to attribute from where the information originated is akin to exactly what Penny is being accused of. That there is any mention of Peer-to-peer only goes to complicate/confuse the discussion, as that is entirely NOT where Penny is being accused of getting her images. (Also, there are PERFECTLY legal uses for p2p.)

Also, your last sentence, which does seem to be your original work, is wrong. Copyright is owned by the creator the instant there is a creation. Copyright CAN be registered to make legal proceedings move in a more timely fashion, but is not completely necessary. Copyright belongs to the creator until such time as the creator grants it to someone else.

A side note: metadata is routinely stripped by photographers and websites for sundry reasons ...and most photographers are rethinking the legal route for protecting copyright in lieu of adopting a stance wherein they're willing to give up any losses incurred by the use of a small file that might be stolen ...as well as stringent watermarking to promote their brand even when use in a fashion that abuses their copyright. (i.e. Attaching their brand to an image that is only useful for presentation on the web due to its small size, such that if it is used without authorization, it is immediately obvious where the picture came from.)