What did you pick? (poster/art of the year)

[talevine]

for any other dummies that could not figure out where to vote, you have to click on 'Home' in the upper left to get the vote icons to show up. Can't be in 'My Page'.

[alteridiom]

for any other dummies that could not figure out where to vote, you have to click on 'Home' in the upper left to get the vote icons to show up. Can't be in 'My Page'.

I feel like an idiot. Took me about 3/4 the day to finally notice that up there. I always just jump right in to the forum. I though it would be under here somewhere.

[ColdSoreSuperstar]

man you're dumb, todd.

[bosephus]

This:


and this:

[mistersmith]

I sold my Horkey Conchords to a friend's girlfriend basically, for less than face, and feel like I really screwed up.

[aahnutz]

Sure were a lot of art prints in the poster category. A mod should have checked all that out...I guess they were probably added incorrectly when submitted to the database - poster vs. art print - but still.
...For all the "non-profit information resource" claims the site makes when challenged with copyright info from members, it sure does a good job laying down for bands they like (and Bill Graham).

Wow! Criticize much? Really some unwarranted comments there.

It's an art site, so, don't use "criticize" like it's a bad word. And before I air all this out, really, big thanks to everyone at EB. Because it's got to be a ton of work. But...

What was unwarranted? There were art prints in the gig poster category. That's a pretty big mistake, I mean, there are only two categories of voting, only one distinction made, it oughtta be pretty important, no? It's not like stating the fact was an insult -- I even went so far as to explain that I understood where the initial mistake came from, and how easy it was to make, and how it's the collective fault of everyone, not just the mods, and not whoever was reponsible for the voting setup pages. But, you know, how would it look if an art print won "Poster of the Year?" Pretty goofy. But I guess pointing this out is "unwarranted."

And in a "best of" art vote -- an ART vote -- one of the entrants was omitted. "Image not Available." But the image is available, and easily. EB let a band and their lawyers say "we have rights to that and we don't want you to use it" while always claiming to act in the interest of preserving the art, educating people, etc. The comments section for that print is still closed. Why? And it's true that when members say "I own that image and want it taken down" EB says too bad...even in the case of high-profile members with lots to contribute and a long history of doing so. So what's the difference? Phish is Phish, and EB likes Phish, and Phish has lawyers. Likewise, all the Fillmore stuff has Copyright info from Bill Graham listed. Money and lawyers. Well, which is it then, is the site a non-profit that can do what it wants with any and all imagery under the umbrella of education, Wikipedia-style, as it asserts to its members, or is that not a sure thing, and members aren't receiving the same respect as bands and promoters? Not to mention the artists themselves, I'm sure Jeral would rather people that can't own a print have access to the image so they can appreciate the work for the work's sake. The above has nothing to do with holding an image back pre-show/pre-release...that's different, and that's a good idea.

None of this is unwarranted. I'm not the only one bugged by this, just the only one that talks about it. It's the obvious flaw in an otherwise awesome system. Well, that and LOST fans.

This (art print vs poster) was addressed on page one if you took the time to read it.

mistersmith: 4426 posts and 865 points
Thanks for the contribution to the site.

[turnJBup]

Nobody?

[Codeblue]

It was in my top 5. Just wish it was about 10 inches bigger. That's what she said.

[jamesgunter]

.....Just wish it was about 10 inches bigger. That's what she said.

I feel the same way


*** (addressing aahnutz's comment) what are some ways to get EB points other than uploading pic and new stuff?

[maxine]

.....Just wish it was about 10 inches bigger. That's what she said.

I feel the same way

Oh boys...size is overrated. I promise.

[jamesgunter]

.....Just wish it was about 10 inches bigger. That's what she said.

I feel the same way

Oh boys...size is overrated. I promise.

I'll take your word on it

[bicyclejoe]

Sure were a lot of art prints in the poster category. A mod should have checked all that out...I guess they were probably added incorrectly when submitted to the database - poster vs. art print - but still.
...For all the "non-profit information resource" claims the site makes when challenged with copyright info from members, it sure does a good job laying down for bands they like (and Bill Graham).

Wow! Criticize much? Really some unwarranted comments there.

It's an art site, so, don't use "criticize" like it's a bad word. And before I air all this out, really, big thanks to everyone at EB. Because it's got to be a ton of work. But...

What was unwarranted? There were art prints in the gig poster category. That's a pretty big mistake, I mean, there are only two categories of voting, only one distinction made, it oughtta be pretty important, no? It's not like stating the fact was an insult -- I even went so far as to explain that I understood where the initial mistake came from, and how easy it was to make, and how it's the collective fault of everyone, not just the mods, and not whoever was reponsible for the voting setup pages. But, you know, how would it look if an art print won "Poster of the Year?" Pretty goofy. But I guess pointing this out is "unwarranted."

And in a "best of" art vote -- an ART vote -- one of the entrants was omitted. "Image not Available." But the image is available, and easily. EB let a band and their lawyers say "we have rights to that and we don't want you to use it" while always claiming to act in the interest of preserving the art, educating people, etc. The comments section for that print is still closed. Why? And it's true that when members say "I own that image and want it taken down" EB says too bad...even in the case of high-profile members with lots to contribute and a long history of doing so. So what's the difference? Phish is Phish, and EB likes Phish, and Phish has lawyers. Likewise, all the Fillmore stuff has Copyright info from Bill Graham listed. Money and lawyers. Well, which is it then, is the site a non-profit that can do what it wants with any and all imagery under the umbrella of education, Wikipedia-style, as it asserts to its members, or is that not a sure thing, and members aren't receiving the same respect as bands and promoters? Not to mention the artists themselves, I'm sure Jeral would rather people that can't own a print have access to the image so they can appreciate the work for the work's sake. The above has nothing to do with holding an image back pre-show/pre-release...that's different, and that's a good idea.

None of this is unwarranted. I'm not the only one bugged by this, just the only one that talks about it. It's the obvious flaw in an otherwise awesome system. Well, that and LOST fans.

This (art print vs poster) was addressed on page one if you took the time to read it.

mistersmith: 4426 posts and 865 points
Thanks for the contribution to the site.

You're a little cranky lately

[boatingbenny]

and

[bicyclejoe]

Poster -- Emek Spoon
Art print -- Fairey Burmese monk (even though I wanted Blanket, but it was in the poster category).

[Raztus]

Art Print: Dan McCarthy "The rain had a sound"
Gig poster: EMEK Horkey “Decemberists Northwest 09”