• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kodak Story - I hope she gets everything she sued for.

kodak is correct that most consumers/customers are too ignorant of digital imaging technology to know the difference

and many of thier customers have crappy 15" monitors anyway, so they can't tell the difference

and they probably disclosed the compression in some mice type form that nobody read
 
What's wrong with compressing the photos? It's not like people don't keep a local copy. You'd be an idiot to upload your pictures to a website that you don't own and then just delete them from your computer.
 
As a lawyer, I'm ordinarily in favor of all lawsuits, largely due to sense of job security that I get from their mere existence.

However...

I don't see that Kodak is really destroying the customer's data. Kodak is merely providing a commercially viable forum where users can share photos. The data is never really destroyed, as long as the user does not delete the photos from his own media.

Kodak should disclose the fact that file compression may cause damage to the photo at some level, and encourage data archival on the part of their users.

What is the economic damage that customers "suffer?"
 
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
As a lawyer, I'm ordinarily in favor of all lawsuits, largely due to sense of job security that I get from their mere existence.

However...

I don't see that Kodak is really destroying the customer's data. Kodak is merely providing a commercially viable forum where users can share photos. The data is never really destroyed, as long as the user does not delete the photos from his own media.

Kodak should disclose the fact that file compression may cause damage to the photo at some level, and encourage data archival on the part of their users.

What is the economic damage that customers "suffer?"
Click to expand...

Well it sounds like she is suing for wrongful termination, not for poor image quality 😀

She was hired to design and implement an algorithm, not to do Kodak's marketing or planning.

Also, despite that the article makes it sound like she was the only person to lose her job, Kodak has been absolutely hemmorhaging employees lately.

That's not to excuse Kodak's intent, however. I have no question this is something they would do.
 
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
As a lawyer, I'm ordinarily in favor of all lawsuits, largely due to sense of job security that I get from their mere existence.

However...

I don't see that Kodak is really destroying the customer's data. Kodak is merely providing a commercially viable forum where users can share photos. The data is never really destroyed, as long as the user does not delete the photos from his own media.

Kodak should disclose the fact that file compression may cause damage to the photo at some level, and encourage data archival on the part of their users.

What is the economic damage that customers "suffer?"
Click to expand...

The customers don't suffer, but she certainly is. I think she was unethically terminated and having been terminated myself in the past, I can tell you it is a very unnerving and expensive situation (not that most people don't know that). However, she is probably better off in the long run leaving Kodak if there is truth to her allegations.

Edit: "Also, despite that the article makes it sound like she was the only person to lose her job, Kodak has been absolutely hemmorhaging employees lately."

Very true and this is one of many reasons they will probably get away with firing her. I'm sure their legal staff will be the last to get the boot.
 
Originally posted by: Golgatha
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: gilligans
i wouldnt want her to work for me. fire her hass
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Good to know you want a yes-man/woman to do your dirty work for you, never once questioning the ethics behind your decision.
Click to expand...

pretty much EVERY freakin company does crap like this (some more extreme than others)
 
Originally posted by: Golgatha
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: gilligans
i wouldnt want her to work for me. fire her hass
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Good to know you want a yes-man/woman to do your dirty work for you, never once questioning the ethics behind your decision.
Click to expand...

There is nothing unethical about compressing someone's photos that they uploaded to your service unless you tell them you're not going to do it. I'm not familiar with this service, but it sounds like a FREE photo sharing site like Photobucket or pics.bbzzdd.com. I don't blame them for wanting to compress the photos! The average noob computer user would take them right off the camera and upload them in all of their 5 megapixel high quality JPEG goodness. I see no problem with resizing those pictures to a reasonable resolution and lowering the JPEG quality level a bit - the difference would be barely noticeable if at all, and the storage space savings would be huge.
 
Maybe she should've kept her mouth shut. When you take a photo w/ a digicam, the image is compressed. Most people can't tell the difference between Super Fine and RAW. To save memory space, you're better off using Super Fine compression when taking digi photos. Now if Kodak has the technology to compress the photos where the average consumer can't tell the difference between a Super Fine or RAW photo, why should this lady car. This lady should've mind her own business.

Ps. Why would anyone backup their photos on an online storage facility? You don't keep a copy of the original photo on your computer or burn it on CD?
 
This topic seems really stupid. So Kodak compresses pictures to 1280x1024 or whatever, who gives a fvck, I doubt any of the users do.
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
kodak is correct that most consumers/customers are too ignorant of digital imaging technology to know the difference

and many of thier customers have crappy 15" monitors anyway, so they can't tell the difference

and they probably disclosed the compression in some mice type form that nobody read
Click to expand...

Heck yeah. At some forums I visit, people regularly post images in bitmap format, including simple Paintbrush drawings. For example, one file posted was nearly 700KB. PNG format - 12KB.
Some people have never heard of file compression at all. Some people probably couldn't describe exactly what a file actually is.
 
im with Kodak on this one. They are storing photos on their website. they can do with them as they please. and its not like they are destroying the only copy of the pic
 
If compression was no problem, then Kodak wouldn't so strongly deny that they've never unknowingly compressed customers images. Clearly it is a perceived problem for some users. I didn't see any explict mention of compression or image alteration in their terms of service.

The service is a storage service, and there is a cost associated with it, so it's paid, not free. The only escape clause I see for Kodak on this is that they bolded that the customer is responsible for making backups. However, the same users who supposedly cannot tell when their images are compressed are likely to not know or be able to manage their own backups, and I'm sure many are using Kodak as their primary storage.

I think smart lawyers and these users would have had a case should Kodak have irreversibly compressed their files without their knowledge. I think it's a sad sign that a giant like Kodak in this day of decreasing hardware costs was contemplating such an action using lossy compression. I think it's also a sign of poor management that such issues are dealt with with firing; it's the last resort of a tyrant short of execution. I further think that the engineer has a case for permanent damage to career, as evidenced by so many reports of firing her, etc.

 
Originally posted by: Aharami
im with Kodak on this one. They are storing photos on their website. they can do with them as they please. and its not like they are destroying the only copy of the pic
Click to expand...

Facebook does this too. They really squish images down. And who knows, maybe buried somewhere in the license agreements that no one reads, is a message that says "Kodak not responsible for lost or damaged images, etc etc, back up your own stuff."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top