|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Jun 15, 2016 10:49:36 GMT -5
I create this thread to discuss everything related to the Facebook Fanpage of 667. Just in case you didn't know, we have our own fanpage where we upload all the news of ASOUE, ATWQ, Lemony Snicket, Daniel Handler and 667. 667 Dark Avenue: The Facebook Fanpage
Right now, I'm in need of people to ACTIVELY collaborate with the fanpage, since I'm the only one who's been uploading stuff. I removed soufflé , Isadora Is a Door and Reba because they weren't really helpful (sorry guys I still love you tho). To help, you only need to have a Facebook account and upload interesting stuff as regularly as you can. If you see there's something new about the Netflix adaptation that hasn't been upload, do it. The images have a basic "667" watermark in the low right corner, and in the posts I try to tag actors, crew members, books and all the possible stuff to reach more people. Also, in the end of the posts I include the link to the Mega-Post thread. Volunteers, please comment here or send me a PM.
|
|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Jun 15, 2016 10:51:24 GMT -5
Sorry for the doble post, but I want to keep things separate so people actually read.
Starting this week, I'll be doing different daily stuff; for now, it'll be Theory Thursdays and Fanart Fridays,
If you have fanarts or theories, please share them here so I upload them.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jun 15, 2016 11:12:56 GMT -5
667 sold out with the logo on pictures and salsa... you took a leaf out of that brazilian group's book, who tout everything with a big watermark and no sources. i didn't help you out because it seems like you're commercializing the 667 name, brah
|
|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Jun 15, 2016 11:34:53 GMT -5
How's that selling out/commercializing the 667 name? Yeah, I liked how the pictures of DESB looked like with the watermark so I decided to do something similar. It makes the pictures to highlight and also is a good way to advertise the community when people share our pictures. And it actually worked with a couple of people who found the forum thanks to the Facebook Fanpage, including Ashley Macdonald.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jun 15, 2016 11:52:03 GMT -5
why are we advertising a forum? people will see the page that shared the photo, we don't need some sleazy watermarking like we're a brand or something.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 15, 2016 12:58:01 GMT -5
I must confess that I am somewhat concerned by the watermarking of images which we did not take and do not own - though the Facebook page is extremely transparent in attributing them to their proper sources, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 16:13:13 GMT -5
watermarking something you don't own is dodgy af unless the owner said 'hey zort you can watermark this and advertise your website'
|
|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Jun 16, 2016 0:19:50 GMT -5
I can see what you say, but I don't agree completely. Unless someone's taking credit for someone else's stuff, watermarking in a corner (but visible enough) is just another way to promote 667 via its logo since images are always more effective to that purpose than text. Also it's a good way to "decorate" the image; DESB does it in a more elaborated way, but I consider it's still pretty. Also I'd have liked you all to tell me that sooner to stop doing it or to discuss it instead of just letting it be and bringing it up now, especially you bear since you were supposed to "help" with the fanpage
|
|
|
Post by B. on Jun 16, 2016 2:25:40 GMT -5
The fan page looks really good, Zortegus. The watermarking is a bit iffy as technically the image is the property of the original instagram user who uploaded it. However since you aren't saying 'all images property of 667 dark avenue' or similar and actually mentioning the original posters, it should be okay. If I were you I'd just add an extra disclaimer somewhere on the page clarifying that no images are originally yours, unless stated.
Edit: Actually I'm not even sure if that counts as watermarking. Doesn't a watermark cover the image's centre and usually a large part of the image itself?
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jun 16, 2016 9:13:46 GMT -5
I can see what you say, but I don't agree completely. Unless someone's taking credit for someone else's stuff, watermarking in a corner (but visible enough) is just another way to promote 667 via its logo since images are always more effective to that purpose than text. Also it's a good way to "decorate" the image; DESB does it in a more elaborated way, but I consider it's still pretty. Also I'd have liked you all to tell me that sooner to stop doing it or to discuss it instead of just letting it be and bringing it up now, especially you bear since you were supposed to "help" with the fanpage i don't actually care what you do, i was just pointing out how you were developing your own way of doing things and it wasn't something i was interested in working on
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Jun 16, 2016 13:15:07 GMT -5
I think most of the time images are shared on the internet, it's a bit iffy legally. Zortegus is citing sources, which makes it perfectly ethical in my opinion. Maybe a specific URL link to the source rather than just a description of the origin, if possible, would be better, but that's not really an issue relating to the watermark. Just my two cents.
|
|