The Guardian Needs Your Butterfly Pics

charlychuckchuck said:
Well well at least one little furry thing has come out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...
Express or Mail reader? Of course, I'd hate to see any quality newspaper run into the ground, and there are precious few left. On the other side of the political spectrum, the Telegraph is making a go of it, though sadly it has found it necessary to put up a paywall, which will make most of its intelligent hard news content invisible to the casual browser. The Independent, no longer in print, still has an open access website, though it's getting dangerously close to tabloid territory. Incidentally, one other thing I'd say in favour of the Guardian (and its Sunday counterpart, the Observer) is its status as one of the last remaining UK outlets for (paid, professional) photojournalism. Pages like this are usually worth checking out, whatever your political leanings:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/series/twenty-photographs-of-the-week
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/picturedesk
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/series/guardian-picture-essay
 
charlychuckchuck said:
The charity doing the Butterfly count have not requested photographs (fact) they have requested that you send in sightings and locations of Butterfly's. They even offer identification and a chart download to submit your sightings. Both free of Charge

The Guardian however invite you to submit your photographic contribution by there community button. If you submitted your pictures this way I hope you read section 6 of the terms of use. I would suggest any photographer amateur or pro read the terms of use before you submit. I could have cut and paste section six but its not allowed. Basically it says that you own the copyright but give unfettered ROYALTY FREE rights for themselves and any third party to use you images through any medium they choose. Can you imagine the image bank if a couple of thousand images are submitted.

I intend to Take part in the count and by my own choice make a small donation to the charity.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the suggestion that the count is related to the photo request comes from - it's just one of several links in the article, and looks like a very worthwhile project.

Certainly anyone posting photos anywhere should check out the T&Cs, including those on popular social media platforms...
 
Retune said:
I'm not sure where the suggestion that the count is related to the photo request comes from - it's just one of several links in the article, and looks like a very worthwhile project.

Certainly anyone posting photos anywhere should check out the T&Cs, including those on popular social media platforms...
Click to expand...

It's good to remember Retune, that you're dealing with a very special little snowflake here, a sub species of the genus Photographer, characterised by its need to be offended by pretty much everything everyone else does while at the same time being highly hypocritical with an inability to see alternative view points. They seek to control the actions of others to fit in with their world view exclusively by the use of a keyboard, usually late at night.
  • The OP raised awareness of an article in a newspaper - that's all.
  • I'm sure most people either ignored it (because, they have no interest in butterflies), or read it and make their own decision on what to do next.
  • A minority decided to attack the OP in a sense of faux outrage for all the pro butterfly photographers who will now go hungry because of the OP and the Guardian's oppressive actions.
I am personally outraged that people on here are pushing and supporting a charity organising and providing material for FREE to undertake this butterfly count. My own commercial Lepidoptera census business just can't complete with these idiots giving away their time for free. Won't someone think of the children!

Chuck Norris once slammed a revolving door (fact).
 
charlychuckchuck said:
I could not care less that you have not posted for a long time.......what I do care about is that when you do post, you take one post, that may have an opinion that you do not agree with and accuse the forum of being unfriendly and restrictive. There are quite a lot of pro's on this forum, and they are entitled to have an opinion about news media paying for their material to fill their pages, I personally think that they should. It may also be that if and when you submit, the small print could give the licence to use your pictures as they see fit.
You say that you will not be posting again and that you have better things to do with your time. That's sad!!! can I suggest in stead that you reel yourself in and take part in the plenty of FRIENDLY and HELPFUL sections with the super people that participate in them......In all walks of life we do not agree all the time but life's to short
Click to expand...

charlychuckchuck said:
Please take your mug of hot chocolate down to your local food bank it will make you feel a whole lot better, social conscience and all. I know who you are, and please take your controlling mindset rabble rousing crusade to the ignore bin. :mooning::mooning:.........God that made me feel good :wave:
Click to expand...
Hardly friendly and helpful :(
 
Retune said:
Express or Mail reader? Of course, I'd hate to see any quality newspaper run into the ground, and there are precious few left. On the other side of the political spectrum, the Telegraph is making a go of it, though sadly it has found it necessary to put up a paywall, which will make most of its intelligent hard news content invisible to the casual browser. The Independent, no longer in print, still has an open access website, though it's getting dangerously close to tabloid territory. Incidentally, one other thing I'd say in favour of the Guardian (and its Sunday counterpart, the Observer) is its status as one of the last remaining UK outlets for (paid, professional) photojournalism. Pages like this are usually worth checking out, whatever your political leanings:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/series/twenty-photographs-of-the-week
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/picturedesk
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/series/guardian-picture-essay
Click to expand...

I doubt the features from agencies are supplied free of charge https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/series/from-the-agencies

It's also a good source of news on photography in general (outside of journalism) https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/photography
 
charlychuckchuck said:
The charity doing the Butterfly count have not requested photographs (fact) they have requested that you send in sightings and locations of Butterfly's. They even offer identification and a chart download to submit your sightings. Both free of Charge

The Guardian however invite you to submit your photographic contribution by there community button. If you submitted your pictures this way I hope you read section 6 of the terms of use. I would suggest any photographer amateur or pro read the terms of use before you submit. I could have cut and paste section six but its not allowed. Basically it says that you own the copyright but give unfettered ROYALTY FREE rights for themselves and any third party to use you images through any medium they choose. Can you imagine the image bank if a couple of thousand images are submitted.

I intend to Take part in the count and by my own choice make a small donation to the charity.
Click to expand...

Excellent news Charly ! :clap: I'm sure the charity will be very grateful for any help it receives from forum members. Others have offered to take part so even though my post caused controversy, I consider it was definitely worthwhile. Thanks again.
 
Well, it might have been worse - someone could have asked whether it was a good idea to take butterfly pics with a protective UV filter, or if it was better to edit them on a PC or a Mac...
 
Retune said:
Well, it might have been worse - someone could have asked whether it was a good idea to take butterfly pics with a protective UV filter, or if it was better to edit them on a PC or a Mac...
Click to expand...

What tyres for butterfly pics?

Oops, wrong forum. ;)
 
Retune said:
Well, it might have been worse - someone could have asked whether it was a good idea to take butterfly pics with a protective UV filter, or if it was better to edit them on a PC or a Mac...
Click to expand...
GIMP on Linux obviously, preferably on a Sun SPARC box you rescued from a skip and had to solder a few bits on. Extra points if you modified GIMP yourself to add enhanced butterfly processing and UV filter artifact removal.
 
Retune said:
It's owned by a trust, founded on a large donation, and doesn't have a proprietor or shareholders to satisfy - the profits,...
Click to expand...

It's owned by a Limited Company, not a trust, which was financed by selling off the family silver; ie the GMG's regional titles and Auto Trader.
 
DemiLion said:
It's owned by a Limited Company, not a trust, which was financed by selling off the family silver; ie the GMG's regional titles and Auto Trader.
Click to expand...
It is owned by the Scot Trust
 
The Guardian is a British daily newspaper, known from 1821 until 1959 as The Manchester Guardian. Along with its sister papers The Observer and The Guardian Weekly, The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by The Scott Trust Limited. The Trust was created in 1936 "to secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference." The Scott Trust became a limited company in 2008, with a constitution to maintain the same protections for The Guardian. Profits are reinvested in journalism rather than to the benefit of an owner or shareholders.[2]
Click to expand...

The Scot trust is a limited company, rather than a trust, but apparently re-invests profits in journalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
 
Does being a limit company stop it being a trust? I don't think so. Trust status is dependent on the trustees controlling property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Having limited liability does not prevent that.
 
john.margetts said:
Does being a limit company stop it being a trust? I don't think so. Trust status is dependent on the trustees controlling property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Having limited liability does not prevent that.
Click to expand...


Yes, being a limited company does prevent it being a trust, it doesn't stop it from holding a trust or being a trustee.
 
As I understand it, the Scott Trust has existed in three forms since it was founded in the 30s, based on a bequest from the family of legendary editor CP Scott. The original trust status gave it protection from inheritance tax, as did the successor trust set up in the 40s. It converted to limited company status in 2008, again apparently to ensure that its assets were protected. All its incarnations were charged with keeping the Guardian afloat without editorial interference, and the fixed constitution of the limited company prohibits dividend payments or individual beneficiaries. The Guardian Media Group's involvement in car sales adverts began in the 80s, and ended a few years ago. Their involvement in regional titles like the Manchester Evening News goes way back, but they were sold off to Trinity Mirror in 2010. Whether these divestments were sound financial decisions or 'selling off the family silver' is left as an exercise to the reader. They have at least secured the short to medium term future of The Guardian, which was always the main purpose of the Scott Trust. But we're now drifting so far off topic it might have been better if we'd gone with the UV filter thing!
 
DemiLion said:
Yes, being a limited company does prevent it being a trust, it doesn't stop it from holding a trust or being a trustee.
Click to expand...
So the Scot Trust Ltd holds the assets of the Guardian group in trust for the beneficiaries. The presence of the limited liability does not affect the trust status of the ownership.
 
sirch said:
GIMP on Linux obviously, preferably on a Sun SPARC box you rescued from a skip and had to solder a few bits on. Extra points if you modified GIMP yourself to add enhanced butterfly processing and UV filter artifact removal.
Click to expand...
Even now my GIMP-Perl extension with enhanced Great Spangled Fritillary / B+W MRC support is being uploaded to the repositories!
 
john.margetts said:
So the Scot Trust Ltd holds the assets of the Guardian group in trust for the beneficiaries. The presence of the limited liability does not affect the trust status of the ownership.
Click to expand...


Well in so far as a trust is legally bound to iot's beneficiaries whereas a limited company is at the beck and call of it's shareholders; sort of.
 
Retune said:
The Guardian Media Group's involvement in car sales adverts began in the 80s, and ended a few years ago. Their involvement in regional titles like the Manchester Evening News goes way back, but they were sold off to Trinity Mirror in 2010. Whether these divestments were sound financial decisions or 'selling off the family silver' is left as an exercise to the reader.
Click to expand...


Auto Trader has propped up The Guardian's overspend for more than forty years, financed the purchase of The Observer and basically kept things pretty much hunky-dory at Guardian Towers.

In 2014 GMG sold off their 50.1% share to Apex (who they'd previously sold 49.9% to for £674m) for £619m - hence devaluing the Trader Group.
In 2015 Auto Trader Group launched on the stock market at £2.50 a share giving a £2,000,000,000 valuation. The share price is currently £3.80.
It regularly turns a profit in excess of £150,000,000.

I don't think that 'the reader' needs to ponder those figures too much.
 
DemiLion said:
Well in so far as a trust is legally bound to iot's beneficiaries whereas a limited company is at the beck and call of it's shareholders; sort of.
Click to expand...
A limited company is actually bound by its Articles of Association. The shareholders have little or no scope to go beyond those.
 
Ignoring the technical BS (An Ltd gives the owners far more flexibility, which is why they opted for it), the fact remains that the Grauniad is own by an Ltd not a Trust!
 
DemiLion said:
I don't think that 'the reader' needs to ponder those figures too much.
Click to expand...
Easy to say that in 2017. At the time of the sale, the financial press were saying that GMG had got a pretty good deal, especially since the purchasers were also taking on half a billion of debt, which rose to nearly a billion when the cost of refinancing was taken into account. But the purchasers' high stakes gamble paid off when they did a deal with a rival buyout group and financed a lucrative floatation.
 
charlychuckchuck said:
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:;);)
Click to expand...


How rude Charly From Chadderton ! A man of your venerable old age should have at least learned a few manners as you struggled your way through life. You actually seem to be smiling ever so slightly on your profile photo and give the impression of possibly being a pleasant individual. Photoshop can be such an effective tool though in the right hands. Who processed the photo for you Charly ? :):):)
 
Last edited:
I did not miss it (fully) but my two brain cells had autocorrected the comment to be "loving a squat" the first time round. Wait for the brigade to tell us we can only love a squat if it has photographers living in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top