photo credit problems

From: Andrew Marshall (
Date: Sun Jun 27 1999 - 11:15:22 PDT

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:15:22 -0700
From: "Andrew Marshall" <>
Message-Id: <aabcdefg2351$foo@default>
Subject: photo credit problems

Hi Stephan,

>Perhaps we're at a point where we need to continue this privately, but I
>will respond to this last letter.

    Something to have considered before posting to the list the first time.
There was no need that I can see to have taken this public at all.

>>I am terribly sorry if I used your >>photos.They were >mixed in with
>>what was
>>left of mine, salvaged from the >>barn.

>Yes, I recall reading about your >recent move and all your troubles >along
>way. I'm saying your mix up is >understandable.

    Thank-you!! This was not my impression though from the initial posting.
I had the impression this was a vile personal attack meant to embarrass me,
especially as it was done IN PUBLIC. Maybe I was mistaken and took it too
seriously, but since you have chosen to do this in public, I will continue
in it here. If this had indeed been friendly, it would have never occured
here in this forum at all.

>>Odd thing is I have negatives of
>>them as well, which was what led >>to think they were mine.

>Now this is interesting. I've sent you >about a half a dozen photos; the
two >you've displayed on your webpage, >long with some leuco photos from
>But the 2 photos in question went to >you, Dean Cook, Carl Mazur, Tom
>and Charles Brewer( sorry to bring >your names into this discussion). >Tom
Hanley has even made me a >mouse pad of the flava photo and, >like I've
>mentioned, Dean Cook has had >these photos on his webpage for >years.
>there is no mistaking these two >photos as something you've >photographed.
>Take a look at Dean's webpage >and compare for yourself.

  I have examined the photos and negatives again, and the web page very
closely for once. You are correct, these are distinctive photos of
distinctive plants. I admit in not more closely examining the negatives
before posting them I erred. The re-examination of the negatives which are
partly damaged, shows them to be similar, but not quite the same. It seems
I used the wrong photos and that more of my prints were damaged or ruined
then I thought. The mistake is an honest one though. I had no intention,
nor do I of taking credit where it is not warranted. Every one out there
who knows me will vouch that this is not one of my traits. I may be
disorganized and a bit of a space cadet, but I am no thief.

>>I have been on several field trips >>and taken many photos of many
>>In fact I have even been told >>where those probably were taken, >>and I
did visit there
>>several times and recall seeing the >>plants.

>Well, if you've taken the photos, why >do you need someone to tell you
>been there??

    I was told this information last week. The touring I did a few years
ago was whirlwind and notes were not very well written. My memories of it
are of one big Sarracenia bog, with all sorts of plants stuffed in together.
Sort of like my collection at times. The notes I took along with the
pictures survive as a pile of water logged, ink smeared wood pulp. I had
figured though that I would leave the question of where they were taken open
for some fun to be had by the visiting public. Perhaps a game sort of
thing. It had nothing to do with credit stealing as I honestly thought, as
they were in a kind of sequence that they were indeed the ones on the
negatives. And they do indeed cooincide with a very beautiful site in which
the three species occur together, and they illustrate what I was wanting to
show, that being what they really do look like. As inspiration to the
newbies out there.

>Besides, the location of these >plants in question isn't well
>known. Perhaps this is why, as the >photo shows, the plants are so

      But you are correct in stating that it is not a well known site and
the plants certainly are beautiful. I hope that they are still that way.

>>I shall, if you like remove the >>pictures and put up
>>better ones. It was
>>an honest mistake though, no >>thought of taking credit from >>anyone ever
occured to me.
>If you want to call these photos >your's, you should remove them. >Andrew,
>know your an educated man. >Having published material in >college, you know
>the formalities involved. That is all >I'm asking.

    Thank you for the flattery but it doesn't matter. I shall remove the
photos, in the interest of keeping my page distinct and not confusable with
the host of other websites out there.
    I apologize, publically for an honest mistake made in the heat of
excitment, late night in trying to provide as much information as possible
for the enlightenment of the visiting public, who may not know that such
places do exist, and such results are possible in cultivation as well. The
information I had was faulty and I did not examine it closely enough to
notice it. In case any one doesn't know by now, I really truely enjoy
talking about my plants, and teaching newbies about them. If I leave any
legacy behind, I want it to be in the minds of all the folk, new to the
hobby who are inspired to grow, and then also to protect these plants.
    I do not apologize however for defending myself in public, where this
was started. I would appreciate an apology here from you Stephan for
bringing here what could have been much more amicably sorted out privately,
and for the damage caused to my good name. You had no need to do this IN
PUBLIC that I can see except to try and humiliate me and ruin my credability
and business. Well, I will tell you, as any one who has recieved plants
from me knows that I deliver only the best if I can, or will do everything I
can to make them happy. I have been doing this for much longer then you or
Dean have been around and will continue to.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:00 PST