the greatest amazon desaster!
- Thread starter livebearerfreak
- Start date
- Status
They may have purchased the rights to use the photo. The © isn't directly on the photo. I know of a professional photographer who will license the use of a photo without credit being noted, for the right price. It's possible Geddes did the same.
But when I look at the similarities between the related articles, well it just doesn't look good.
But when I look at the similarities between the related articles, well it just doesn't look good.
photographers sell usage rights, but not copyright, check with your friend. ( I make my crust as a photographer in NYC)
DavidW;4737834; said:
I believe David is right. They sell usage rights, they may even sell patrimonial rights, but they do not sell ownership of the product.
“Heiko Bleher reports on an environmental disaster in the Amazon region that he says is far worse than we have been led to believe.”
What alarmist hyperbole!
How would he even know?
Climate scientists have been saying for years that 'it' is worse than we believe. What we are told by legitimate scientists is not the problem. How it is reported IS!
One of the biggest difficulties facing scientists in persuading people about the real problems arising from anthropogenic global warming is public skepticism started and fed by junk reporting like this article.
In some parts of the tropical fish world, for entry level hobbyists, Heiko Bleher is held in high regard. He certainly has an audience. Isn’t it therefore morally and ethically incumbent upon him to give accurate objective information in order not to misinform or mislead his readers?
Isn’t it especially important for him in particular NOT to feed public skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming and climate change?
Misleading information leads to misinformed readers and the propagation of misinformation.
Sr Bleher’s information is trawled from newspaper articles and so is not first hand, as he himself admits by quoting the BBC, and yet he also proclaims ( in an editorial comment at the bottom of the article's page in response to a post from a reader) that he only reports on what he himself has witnessed first hand.
Since his arrest and incarceration for smuggling in Manaus in 2008 Sr Bleher has not (at least legally) returned to Brazil . The drought talked about in his article occurred in 2010 and the photos he uses are not his own so these two statements are obviously in complete conflict with themselves, and this only feeds public skepticism in the worst way.
So who is it that’s leading us to believe what?
Bleher presents himself as a researcher but has no academic qualifications or university affiliation and has a record for smuggling wildlife. In his bio he claims to have studied night school classes in subjects in which the University he claims to have attended has never offered night classes.
There is no research in this article, only second hand anecdotes.
There was a time when what Bleher does was state of the art , but the Victorian age of discovery and its obsolete methods are 100 years gone and were obsolete before this guy could walk.
What alarmist hyperbole!
How would he even know?
Climate scientists have been saying for years that 'it' is worse than we believe. What we are told by legitimate scientists is not the problem. How it is reported IS!
One of the biggest difficulties facing scientists in persuading people about the real problems arising from anthropogenic global warming is public skepticism started and fed by junk reporting like this article.
In some parts of the tropical fish world, for entry level hobbyists, Heiko Bleher is held in high regard. He certainly has an audience. Isn’t it therefore morally and ethically incumbent upon him to give accurate objective information in order not to misinform or mislead his readers?
Isn’t it especially important for him in particular NOT to feed public skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming and climate change?
Misleading information leads to misinformed readers and the propagation of misinformation.
Sr Bleher’s information is trawled from newspaper articles and so is not first hand, as he himself admits by quoting the BBC, and yet he also proclaims ( in an editorial comment at the bottom of the article's page in response to a post from a reader) that he only reports on what he himself has witnessed first hand.
Since his arrest and incarceration for smuggling in Manaus in 2008 Sr Bleher has not (at least legally) returned to Brazil . The drought talked about in his article occurred in 2010 and the photos he uses are not his own so these two statements are obviously in complete conflict with themselves, and this only feeds public skepticism in the worst way.
So who is it that’s leading us to believe what?
Bleher presents himself as a researcher but has no academic qualifications or university affiliation and has a record for smuggling wildlife. In his bio he claims to have studied night school classes in subjects in which the University he claims to have attended has never offered night classes.
There is no research in this article, only second hand anecdotes.
There was a time when what Bleher does was state of the art , but the Victorian age of discovery and its obsolete methods are 100 years gone and were obsolete before this guy could walk.
interestingDavid, the article and pictures you linked to seems to support Bleher's statement that this is a great ecological disaster. Your most recent post, other than discrediting Bleher, and stating that the photo is possibly a copyright violation, contributed few facts. I would really like to learn more about drought in the Rio Negro. If it is garbage reporting, please cite useful resources.
- Status
