Bluespruce-

Thanks for the fantastic photos! That C. l. 'Pina Colada' looks like a very nice cultivar.

I hope you keep posting pics here- these make up for the absence of your periodic updates to the BCS site, those were wonderful and I bitterly miss them.

thanks again,
shannon

Hi Shannon, Unfortunately the BCS website became a bit of a sore point for one reason and another, so I stopped posting on it.
Not too sure if I will continue posting photos here either, After bboy enthusiasticly pointed out the forum terms and conditions. I realize that by posting stuff on the Internet that you loose a lot of control of material posted, but I do take exception that GardenWeb seem to suggest that they have the right to sell your material on for profit if they wish to do so, I always thought copyright laws were there to protect against this happening, regardless of GardenWeb terms and conditions etc. looks like I was mistaken.
Anyway, I will be setting up my own website in the near future so I'm sure I will always be posting conifer photos somewhere on the internet.

Edwin, this is Mike Murphy, he will be on the Anglo/Dutch trip to the US, if you are interested ask him about the Picea orientalis M3 witches' brooms.
Also, do you or anyone have any info on the Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Pina Colada' (rooted a handfull this year)

Stephen,

Thanks for the nice photo's!
I met Mike when he visited my nursery during a trip in Holland with the BCS, you were also there and you were the first person who told me about the "wrong" Picea glauca 'Echiniformis', I still remember :0)
Later on Clément Anthoine and Bob Fincham told me the same story.

Mike told me about his Picea orientalis 'Murphy' which he found as a witches'broom.

He became the Platycladus orientalis 'Marjolein' from my nursery that same nice day.
This is a white variegated 'Aurea Nana' which was found by Nelis Kools and named it after his wife.

I never heard about the Chamaecyparis laws. 'Pina Colada' but I'm very interested to exchange one with you ;0)

Edwin,

That's my point, Mike Murphy never found a witches' broom on a Picea orientalis, some years ago he sent some material to Gordon Haddow at Kenwith from a plant he purchased from Hilliers labeled as Picea abies 'Knaptonensis'. Mike Murphy, in his own words says he was suspicious that the plant was really a Picea orientalis form, Haddow agreed, and renamed it Picea orientalis 'Murphy', propagated it and sold it under this name ever since. So now you know why it is that Picea abies 'Knaptonensis' and Picea orientalis 'Murphy' are likely to be the same plant.

I will hold a Chamaecyparis laws. 'Pina Colada' back for you, and for myself would be interested in a Platycladus orientalis 'Marjolein', did take some cuttings from Mike's plant, but all failed would you believe.

"Not too sure if I will continue posting photos here either, After bboy enthusiasticly pointed out the forum terms and conditions"

You can always rename your pics on photobucket, then the links here won't work any more and they'll have no more access to them.

The other option is to just post clickable links to your photobucket pics, rather than embedding the pics, that way the T&C clauses can't apply to them.

Resin

Stephen, we have a deal, I will hold a 'Marjolein' back for you.
This 'Pina Colada' looks like a witches'broom like the 'Rimpelaar' which is a witches'broom from the 'Ellwoodii'.

Edwin, bear in mind my 'Pina Coladas' are only rooted cuttings, so a cutting of 'Marjolein' will be fine.

Resin, thanks for the info, didn't realize you could do that.

I was hardly enthusiastic about it. Instead the approach taken by the site on this matter has had a dampening effect, as your own comments here show. I was thinking about getting a digital camera myself specifically for taking pictures of plants I encounter here that I thought of interest and putting them up on this site.

Then the proprietary announcement was made.

It's all ok now bboy, I just don't put my best photos here anymore - problem solved for me anyway.

I have a photo of the Cham laws Rimpelaar it's more Blue than the Pina Colada

Henk.

Thanks for the photo Henk, and while on the subject of small tight lawsons, here is another with a chequered history in naming the plant. Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Nymph', or 'Ellwood's Nymph' originally raised and named MacPenny's Gnome by MacPenny's Nurseries, Bransgore, Dorset, England, and still sold under that name by the nursery. Renamed 'Nymph' or 'Ellwood's Nymph' again by Haddow at Kenwith, to avoid confusion with the other plant Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Gnome'. just as a footnote, when I gave this information to Timothy Loundes the proprietor of MacPennys, he seemed quite bemused by the fact that his introduction was well known in the conifer trade under a different name than was originally given.

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Nymph' (Ellwood's Nymph)
throws up the odd reversion, which should be cut away, but still a good plant in my opinion.
{{gwi:832197}}

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Gnome'
{{gwi:832198}}

"I was hardly enthusiastic about it. Instead the approach taken by the site on this matter has had a dampening effect, as your own comments here show. I was thinking about getting a digital camera myself specifically for taking pictures of plants I encounter here that I thought of interest and putting them up on this site.
Then the proprietary announcement was made."

I missed this first time around. Exactly what is the policy we're talking about?

Stephen,
If I'm not wrong the 'Gnome' is an obtusa cultivar instead of a lawsoniana cultivar or do both species have this cultivarname?

Hello Edwin

The Gnome is not a obtusa cultivar, it is Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Gnome.

Henk.

plants77,

Apparently GardenWeb have the right to use any photos posted on this site, and sell them on for profit for example.

I checked about the 'Gnome' in the World Checklist of Conifers and both are mentioned.

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Gnom':
In "Gard. Chron". Dwarf, very tight, congested foliage.
(I) D.W. Hatch, Heath End Nurs.Farnhem, Surrey.
(O)W. Hart, Warnhem Court, Horsham, Surrey U.K. (c 1950).
('Gnom, Ellwood's Gnome)

Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Gnome':
Green foliage; deminutive, bun forming.
Orginated and introduced by J.W. Springarn, Baldwin L.I., N.Y. (1966)

So both forms does excist.

Edwin - but it is 'Gnome' not Gnom.

"Apparently GardenWeb have the right to use any photos posted on this site, and sell them on for profit for example."

Well I wouldn't worry too much about that. As a practical matter I don't think they ever will. I can imagine a lot of different ways that could get them in big trouble.

For example, just becuase some anonymous person on the internet posts a picture on this website, doesn't mean they have the right to do so (even if, under the terms of the website they say they do). And if they don't have the right they cannot assign that right to gardenweb. If gardenweb subsequent uses or conveys the property they are subject to the claims of the rightful copyright owner for infringement. They don't have a defense againt him or her because they are not 'in privity' with him or her, meaning they have no contractual arrangement with them.

All they can do is ask the anonymous internet poster who wrongfully posted the pictures in the first place to make them whole, and good luck with that - That's a useless worthless remedy. You probably couldn't find them if that person was smart enough to register anonymously.

Just sign up and post anonymously, if they use your pictures say they don't have your permission, if they claim to have that permission ask them to prove it. How can they respond? "Well Joe Smith, screen name "treelover" said it was his and he assigned us his rights". To which you would say "I don't know who joe smith is - stop using my property or I'll sue you."

that's just one scenario. Lawyers are smart and draft things in such a way to confer every possible advantage to their clients, but ultimately it would be foolish to try and profit from using member's pictures, or excuse me, pictures that allegedly belong to the member that posts them ;)

By submitting content, which shall include your member name, to any "public area" of the GardenWeb Network, including, but not limited to, the forums and your personal website, exchange page and journal, you grant iVillage a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right (including any moral rights) and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, sublicense, assign, derive revenue or other remuneration from, communicate to the public, perform and display the content (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, for the full term of any Rights that may exist in such content. If you are not the creator of such content, you also warrant that the holder of any Rights, including moral rights in such content, has completely and effectively waived all such rights and validly and irrevocably granted to you the right to grant the license stated above. You also permit any visitor or member to access, display, view, store and reproduce such content solely for personal, noncommercial use

Here is a link that might be useful: TERMS OF SERVICE FOR GARDENWEB NETWORK

Stephen,

I just made a typo, both species do have a cultivar named 'Gnome' ('Gnom' was the typo).
I'm not so focused the last week, my father did have a hart attack and he's at the hospital now so I canceled my trip to the U.S.
It's the same reason I think with the Picea omorica 'Postorná', I did know it must be written that way but I mentioned 'Postarná' but the issue was that you wrote 'Postoma' and Henk 'Postorna'.

Very sorry to hear that. Best wishes to you and your father at this time.
Richard

Edwin
Also very sorry to hear about your father, hope he makes a speedy recovery.

RE: "you grant iVillage a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right . . . and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, sublicense, assign [etc.]

Yeah, thanks I found it and read it. Like I said as a practical matter I doubt they would sell someone's pictures. Becuase....

"you [the nameless, faceless, person on the web] also warrant that the holder of any Rights, including moral rights in such content, has completely and effectively waived all such rights and validly and irrevocably granted to you the right to grant the license stated above"

An anonymous poster's 'warranty' that they have the right to something does not amount to a hill of beans and they would be foolish to rely on that warranty because it could very easily get them sued in a scenario like the one I described above. The fact that gardenweb THINKS they have rights (based upon someone breaching a warranty to them) is not a defense against someone who actually owns the rights.

If I warrant to you that I own the golden gate bridge would you buy it from me?

Help! i think i have a picea omorica, the cones are producing a white glue like substance.Does anyone know what shrub this is? I have never seen anything like it before and cannot find it on any website, very weird it must be at least 20 years old.

I assume you are in England! Lesley, and that's why you posted here, would have been better to start another, as there is no connection between what you are asking and this particular thread. We cant tell what conifer you have unless you post a photo, or give some sort of description.....However,the white glue substance comming from the cones is resin, and is quite natural

Gee! Really two diverse topics going on here.

I really appreciate spruce posting photos of Mike,s rare conifers. 40 years of collecting you are bound to have some rare cultivars in your collection plus all the old school knowledge that is slowly vanishing from the trade. It would be interesting to spend a few hours with him.

I am kind of old school myself...only in age and still learning thanks to threads like this.

Concerning the other topic centering around who has the right or privilege to use personal photo,s placed in this forum. I personally never gave it a second thought and I see a lot of my plants while surfing the net. What I am growing is not that rare and most were purchased from a local nursery. So what should the concerns be? Nothing really. On the other hand if your concerns are protecting your rights as grower and owner of these cultivars probably this forum is not the place to display them.

Dave

A great example here on the pictures......

As new as I am to this site and conifers, last year there was a topic in which P p Slenderina came up and I posted pictures using Photobucket of my 6' plant I had just bought.

It was totally weird a few months later when doing a web search for something that I ran across my plant's photo on a vendor's website, using it as an example of what the one he was selling might look like.

mark