I've noticed that many on the European forum use the Kodak EasyShare gallery for their photos and saw this article today: Lawsuit filed against Kodak alleging the company altered millions of photographs stored by customers on the EasyShare Gallery Web site. Suite alleges Kodak compressed photos without customers' knowledge (which could irreparably damage the stored image). - Dow Jones News

Whatever the law may in due course determine, surely common sense alone says that no web hosting service is going to store images in anything other than a compressed and web-friendly format and that you should NEVER rely on a third party (especially a web-based one) as the primary store for your initial image files.

Hi M,

There are too many lawyers.

>Suit alleges Kodak compressed photos without customers' knowledge (which could irreparably damage the stored image). <

What hogwash.

Where's the article?

Amen, Patrick!!!

Hey, hey - don't get going on the lawyer bashing!

Hi, Ira! I read the article late yesterday and early this morning on the Dow Jones News Plus wire service. I don't know if any other wire services have picked it up yet. Kodak has now responded, saying the allegations are "completely false".

Old lawyer joke:

What have you got when you have a lawyer buried up to his neck in cement?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Not enough cement!
Ta-dum.

What do you call two lawyers at the bottom of a lake?
>
>
>
>
...a good start!
ba da bum!!!

Undoubtedly you have heard about the physician at a cocktail party whose conversation with an attorney was interrupted by an indivdual who wanted a clinical "curbside consultation" about his "medical problem."

After the person had departed the physician turned to the attorney and asked, &quot;How would <b>you</b> handle a situation like that? I am tired of always getting interrupted for stuf like this.&quot;

The attorney responded, &quot;Well, I would send him a bill for consultation services.&quot;

The physician responded, &quot;Wow! That's a great idea.&quot;

The next day the physician received a bill for services rendered from the attorney in the mail.

What’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? Well, one is a bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, slimy thing and the other is, well, just a fish….(cymbal crash!)

Looks like it presently happens only if you use the &quot;easy upload&quot; option. It appears Kodak was going to expand it but an employee blew the whistle.

Here is an article about a suit by the employee http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/20...0331kodak.html

bookmarking

Hey, katzen -

Just so the board doesn't get cluttered up with people marking their territory, why don't you right-click on the thread title at the top of the column and save the link on your very own Fodor's Favorites?

We should not tell lawyers' jokes for 2 reasons:

1. the lawyers won't understand them anyway

2. the rest of the population don't think these are jokes

Thank you, Keith.

We seem to have a &quot;wrongful termination&quot; suit.

Let's wait until we get an &quot;irreparably damaged the stored image&quot; suit.

My previous computer was manufactured by a firm that was sued because there was a glitch in the program that stored info from the hard disk to a floppy.

The plaintiffs did not claim that they had actually lost any data.

The computer firm settled for $1,000,000,000.

The lawyers got $25,000,000.
The plaintiffs (3) got $25,000 each.
I got $250, a CD writer, and a patch to solve the problem I didn't know I had.

(I'm not complaining. )

There are too many lawyers.

I saw this woman, a former employee, on our local SF news last night as she worked for Kodax in the SF/Bay Area. She did come across as a very intelligent, poised and calm woman that seemed concerned about Kodax customers &quot;losing&quot; their original photos that would be sentimental to them (the photos of family members etc.) Evidently Kodax fired her when she made public knowledge as to what the company was planning on doing without, in her opinion, giving proper notice to their customers.

So many people hate lawyers - until they need them.

Why would anyone upload their precious photos to a website without saving them on their home computer or a CD? Who cares if the photos are compressed on the Kodak site? They are not the originals. (Disclaimer: I have worked for lawyers for over 40 years.)

palette, the woman who is the &quot;whistle blower&quot; stated in the news interview last night that many people do not have the original photos and do not have them on CD's because they started using the Kodax gallery and were under the impression the photos would be there forever without Kodax making any changes to the photos. That is what caused her great concern. I too wondered why the Kodax site is the only place people have sentimental and precious photos but evidently that is the case with some Kodax customers.

&gt;...many people do not have the original photos and do not have them on CD's because they started using the Kodax gallery and were under the impression the photos would be there forever...&lt;

How can we keep these folks out of the gene pool?