Out of date site photographs
I’ve read a couple of reviews lately which referred to site photos on the website not giving a fair representation of the site. I checked a couple I know well, Cirencester and Clumber and many of the photos seem to date from back when we joined in 2005. One of Cirencester shows a grass area that was long ago converted to hardstandings. At Clumber there don’t appear to be any of the site post the upgrade of a year ago. I suspect these two sites are not alone in the age and reliability of the site photos. Perhaps time for a general update. The club could request members photos, even run a competition with site night vouchers as prizes.
Comments
-
Thanks TimboC. Yes please report. I’ve not tried emailing as yet, although it may be worth it if this thread doesn’t get picked up.
When we joined in 2005 I seem to remember having to book our first few sites on the phone, as the web site was not up and running fully. I suspect some of the photos were put on at that time and have remained ever since. Given the ease with which photos can be taken and transmitted these days, it does seem odd no effort at a general update has been attempted.
0 -
Out of date photos have been raised before. In some cases you can tell they are old by the number of old caravans and lack of new vans. I would have thought that the Club would have renewed photos when it re did the web site. I would have also thought there would be a regular renewal on a rolling basis e.g. every three to five years.
0 -
It depends upon the site, on our frequent flyer sites some have stayed the same for years though others have new ones added, one warden said he had taken some of the newer ones when I asked where they came from, not that I'm saying that should be part of their job as well.
As to members sending in their photos, yes indeed, but I seem to recall a discussion some years ago about a photo competition run by the club but in the T&Cs the copyright was then transferred to the club and/or the club then owned the photos which would and did put me off. If however the photos were credited in some way and copyright remained by the photographer then yes for me. Quite a few I could send in.
The older outfits doesn't bother me but if new additions or refurbishments are done they should be there.
1 -
With the pictures being of a CAMC campsite, I can’t say retaining copyright bothers me particularly, it’s not as though it’s going to be particularly marketable. I would just be happy to provide a few up to date photos. As they would be for use on the web site, camera phone ones should be quite adequate, so most members should be able to contribute if they wish. Unlike those used for murals in new toilet blocks which required a high spec camera.
0 -
Unless I am mistaken, the Club used a good few of Member’s photographs in the upgrade of facilities at Clumber Park (and other refurb’s I think). Very good they are as well. Many of the photos that feature on the website were taken by Members as well, with the names credited. Does seem a bit strange that many photos of the sites are outdated though.
If I was being a tad harsh, I would say that a good few sites lack the individuality they once had, and the ongoing surge towards hardstandings does mean that from certain angles, most sites are simply posh parking spaces, and it’s a bit harder to tell one from another nowadays. It would be nice to see some drone photos of some sites, these would give a good first impression of the size of a site, and it’s overall layout. There might actually be some somewhere on website, not sure🤔
4 -
But if you assign copyright they can sell that photo on either as a one off or completely, and make money by doing that on 'your' photo. It is marketable, some of the photos of the sites have been used in other non club magazines espacially if it's about the site.
But they can also use it whenever and wherever they want, it all depends on how you view things but I treat all my photos as mine, and I'd be pretty upset if a photo of mine was used in the club magazine, another caravan/MH magazine or even in a national advert campaign without any credit at all to me. All you're doing is giving them free photos rather than the club paying for its own photography. I'm a club fan but that's too far, if you keep copyright you have control. I'm still getting the odd, very small payments from photos I took 20, 30, 40 years ago through an agency.
I mostly use my phone camera and unless I really blowing things up say way beyond A4 size I cannot see any difference between that and my 30+MP DSLR
Like I said if it was still mine and a credit then they can have all they want and free too!
1 -
I do recall that certain sites used to have a short video often with the wardens giving a voice over.
But also there are now plenty of youtube video of club sites to look at too so perhaps not needed?
0 -
Slightly off topic but it seems to be more of a problem with CLs, even to the extent of some owners not providing any.
I remember giving a review of one site and mentioned the upgrades and changes in my review. Pleased to say the owner changed the photos on the website.
Regarding club sites I see no reason why Ttda's drone suggestion shouldn't be adopted for all sites, regs permitting.
2
