Restaurant Diary

In my Jack and Grill post a few weeks ago, I mentioned I was going to try and blog occasionally about my trips to places I’ve seen on the Food Network or Travel Channel.  Jack and Grill was on a Travel Channel show from 2008, that I caught a bit of last night called “Extreme Pig Outs” .  Which reminded me go back over some places I’ve been.  I don’t have pictures or even extended reviews, but I thought it would be fun to list.

Lambert’s Cafe

The original home of “throwed rolls”, we’ve twice visited this “landmark” in Ozark, Missouri, on the way to Branson.  It was in the show “World’s Best Places to Pig Out“, which is on all the time on the Travel Channel.  I can’t remember if it was on that show or somewhere else where we first heard about it.

I think of Lambert’s as Cracker Barrel on steroids.  Everything fried and so much more.  Ok, there’s some stuff that isn’t fried, but it’s all that heavy, stick to your ribs, kind of food.  But, the waiters actually do throw the rolls to you, and it’s so much fun that my son now wants his bread tossed across the dining room at home.  I don’t remember what I had to eat last time, but I do remember several of the “pass arounds” being kind of bland and unimpressive, although, I found I do like sorghum and honey on my throwed rolls.

The first time we went, we discovered they only accepted cash, but at a subsequent visit they were now taking checks, as I remember.  Suprising the first time, rectified the second, but still dumb they don’t take credit.  Be prepared for a long wait on the chairs outside around mealtimes.  If you can’t wait, I remember there being some kind of cheese and sausage shop in another building next door.

Pointer’s Pizza

On the same show as Lambert’s, is Pointer’s Pizza.  Since we are living in St. Louis, once we saw this show again a few months ago, I made a point to head over there with the family for lunch one weekend.

Note, that this really is a take-out place.  There are two bar type round cocktail tables with high stools, and a pie will fit on the table, but if there’s already two groups eating (groups of 2-4), you’re out of luck, or taking the pie to the park.  The pizza was pretty good, and filling too.  We had a 1/2 cheese and half Mastadon (Sausage, Ham, Bacon, Pepperoni, Beef, Onion, Mushroom, Green Pepper, Black Olive, Extra Chees).  I filled up after a piece and a half, so it is unlikely I could eat the Pointersaurus without fasting for a few days.

Pappy’s Smokehouse

While in St. Louis in 2008, Adam from Man vs. Food visited Pappy’s BBQ .  Around St. Louis, there is a BBQ chain called Bandana’s.  Their pulled pork is pretty good, and I like it on their BBQ salad, but after drooling over some ribs on a Travel Channel BBQ show, I was disappointed by their Baby Backs.  So, when Man vs. Food showcased a local joint, we had to go.

First of all, if you go at lunch, don’t try to enter in the front door.  The place is L shaped, with the counter in the short part of the L.  The lunch line to order goes all the way around the long side, and out the door to the bathroom hallway.  We waited about 20 minutes to get to the order counter.  It only took about five minutes for someone to bring us our food though.

And the food was great!  For $12, I had half a rack of ribs, sweet potato fries (which I’ve never had), and coleslaw.  The slaw was not mayo based, and was very good.  The fries had a sprinkle of brown sugar on them and were great.  The ribs were the standout, though.  Coated in a great spice rub, the meat easily pulled off the bones and was delicious.  Got to get back there again.  I don’t think I’ll be able to eat the Adam Bomb they came up with for the show though:

• 6 oz brisket sandwich
• 6 oz Pork sandwich
• Frito Pie with a red hot
• 1/4 chicken
• Slab of Ribs
• 4 sides

Katz’s Deli

Back in 2003, I had planned a surprise trip with my wife to New York City around Christmas.  When Disney announced they were closing our studio in Orlando, I added an interview at Blue Sky Studios on the end of that.  Aside from musicals and statues, we had plenty of time to visit Katz’s Deli in Manhattan, recently featured on Man Vs. Food, also in Sandwich Paradise, but I don’t think that was where we got the idea to go, back then.

I remember the restaurant, I remember the sandwich being huge, but that’s about it.  Oddly enough, we managed to sit at the table that Meg Ryan sat at in When Harry Met Sally .  There’s a big sign over the table “Hope you have what she had“, which we didn’t notice until the end.  Very funny.

Pickle Guys

I think in the same show about Katz’s was a bit on the Pickle Guys .  I like regular supermarket refrigerated pickles as much as the next guy, but what I really like are “new pickles”.  Still green and snappy, yet lightly garlicky, these things are great, and the only place I’ve found them is at the Pickle Guys.  These guys have a bunch of barrels full of pickles at various stages, and olives and sauerkraut, and you just get to call out how much you want and they pack it into a plastic container and off you go.  I remember getting a quart of pickles to take back to Orlando for my parents, who were watching the kids.

Pommes Frites

Again, in the same NY themed show, was Pommes Frites, the NY home of “Belgian Fries”.  The place is tight and tiny, and all they serve is fries, but yum!  Thick cut, tossed with salt in a big metal bowl, and served in a paper cone, you get your choice of like 25 dipping sauces they have listed on the wall.

Ok, that’s enough typing for today.  I think I have one or two more in my head somewhere to dig out.  Another day.

Two Brand New Series

Since I’ve got some new work up, I thought I would post a portfolio update.

The first set, shot this week, is on the bleeding edge of topicality.  Sounds impressive, eh?   Anyways, we’ve all read about the Swine Flu virus that is cutting across all nationalities this week.  Hopefully, it will be eradicated soon, but until then, if you need some concept or science imagery to illustrate an article, or whatever, check out this Swine Flu stock photo series.

Also, two weeks or so again, I finally got to a series I’d been wanting to do for at least a year.  I was able to acquire usage of a storage unit at a local personal storage facility.  The weather held, after one cancellation, the models were available, and the series came off great.  I even managed a few concept shots of a displaced businessman.

Best Match 2.0 Awakens

Over at iStockphoto.com, ever since the Best Match sort algorthythm presented itself, we (the contributors) have been discussing the secret ingredients that make up the equation.  How does an image get presented on the front page of a search return?  Nary a week goes by without a debate on what is “best” when it comes to sorting results.

Now, the answer has arisen, and it’s name is “relevancy”.  Best Match 2.0 was announced back in December, but it has finally come to life with this announcement from Kelly Thompson yesterday:

After a long time in development and several months of internal testing, we’re happy to present our new default search sort: Best Match 2.0.

The algorithm takes many factors into account. One of these, keyword relevance, rates the importance of keywords in the files. Files can have up to 50 keywords, but normally only a few of those keywords describe the primary subject or concept.

We’re not quite sure of the magical mixture that determines a keyword’s relevancy for an image, but it does seem to work very nicely.  Even better, this attribute is adjustable.  Open up your advanced search options at the top of the page.  On the right, you will see the “relevancy” slider, which is only enabled if you have Best Match chosen as your search.

If the slider is moved all the way to the left, you will get a broad sort of the files returned from a search, where the relevancy factor is low.  In the following, I’ve searched on cheese, with a low relevancy factor of ‘0′.

Sure, all those things have cheese in them, and ‘cheese’ is a valid keyword, but is it the most “relevant”?  No, but low relevancy may be good for brainstorming about things with cheese.

Want to see some cheese?  Crank up that relevancy factor to ‘100′.

You actually get pictures of cheeses!  These images have been determined (somehow) to have a high relevancy factor when it comes to the keyword “cheese”.

Here’s something else neat.  You can get an idea of what keywords for an image are actually proving relevant.  For example, go take a look at my Red Carpet images or my Film Strip images.  Click on one of the files and if you look at the keyword listing, the keywords are listed in the order of most relevant to least.

The introduction of Best Match 2.0 should save you time searching, and we all know time is money.  Don’t forget to sort by age as well, to be sure to catch some fresh new stuff occasionally.

My “In Action” Page

Because I have such a large portfolio, with a lot of the same models, people (other contributors, buyers, friends) get to “know” my models and will send me examples they find of my work being used.  We’ve got websites like Forbes.com, Oprah.com, and Good Housekeeping, advertisements like Dell, newspapers and magazines using my work.  I’ve collected all these on my computer, and I’ve got a drawer full in my desk.

To put up examples for models to see, encourage sales of the images in these uses, and to show off a little, I’ve put up a page on my site with simpleviewer, that you can page through and see how my work has been used.  I hope you find it interesting, at the least.

http://digitalplanetdesign.com/index.php?page=tearSheets

Which Video Sharing Site?

Since I broke the news about Vimeo.com’s very flexible (for them!) Terms of Service a week or so ago, with regards to an iStock exclusive’s issue, I’ve had comments about how people are pulling out of Vimeo and looking for other video sharing services.

Looking just at the Terms of Service, let’s check out a few other video sites where you can upload your user generated content, and see if they are fair for you.

YouTube.com

YouTube seems to have a fairly tight legal wording in their TOS restricting their usage just to facilitating the website, and terminating usage and their rights after removal of your content.

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Website.

Even though written by a lawyer, this legalese seems pretty clear that their rights and usage are restricted to those needed to run the sharing website.  There is no right for them to redistribute your content for any reason they like in these terms.  This seems like a fair contract.

blip.tv

blip.tv has slightly looser wording in their initial paragraph, although it seems to be refined later on to restrict their license just to services provided by blip.tv .

… you are granting Blip.tv, its affiliated companies and partners, a worldwide, revocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that content for the purposes of displaying that content on Blip.tv and on other Web sites, devices and/or platforms…

Again, that last, loose bit about “other” sites seems to be tightened up here:

When you upload or post content to the Blip.tv site, you grant Blip.tv a license to distribute that content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download it through the Blip.tv site or for purposes of other services provided by Blip.tv and to display such content on Blip.tv affiliated sites.

So, if you are ok with the services provided by blip.tv, this seems fair.  Also, they have a termination agreement, although to finalize it, you need to send an email.

When you delete content from Blip.tv, such deleted content, while not available to the viewing public and other Blip.tv users, will remain on the Blip.tv server until such time as you make a specific request to Blip.tv for permanent deletion of such content from the Blip.tv server. Such requests must be made in writing, via email…

Again, as a regular consumer who likes to read these things, I’d say this agreement seems pretty fair.

ovi.com

Users of Nokia’s ovi.com will find the TOS a little light in the legalese.  They don’t claim copyright, as is usual, but they certainly do want very flexible terms of your uploaded content.

However, by submitting Material to the Service you grant Nokia a worldwide non-exclusive, assignable, fully paid, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable license to use, copy, publicly perform, display, distribute and modify the Material, and to prepare derivative works thereof, or incorporate the Material into other works as well as sublicense the same.

This smacks of Vimeo’s over reaching terms.  They aren’t restricting their usage and rights to the facilitation of the site.  There is also no mention of removing material, and they may “modify the Terms at any time without prior notice”.  I’d say to avoid ovi.com at this time, until they find they have to work a little more on their terms.

facebook.com

Well, we all know the flack facebook got for their overly flexible terms of service a month or two back, but let’s check in anyways to see what ther terms say currently.  Right now, they don’t seem that bad.

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

That is one long sentence, but everything seems to be tied to “on or in connection with the Site”.   Which is good.  Their use is restricted to the workings of the site, including “sublicenses”, which is what they grant to other users to be able to watch your material.  And their removal terms are back, currently:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire..

As is, currently, facebook.com looks ok to share on, with a fair contract.

smugmug.com

In their TOS, smugmug.com definitely steps away from any nuance that they might want to exploit your works.

You retain the copyright in any User Content you post on the Site. SmugMug neither has nor wants any ownership of your Content. However, by uploading and/or posting any User Content to the Site, you grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive and royalty-free right to use the User Content and the name that is submitted in connection with such User Content, as is reasonably necessary to display the User Content, provide the Services and to facilitate, at Content Owner’s direction, the license of Photos or the sale of Products on the Site.

No mention of a removal policy, and the typical “we’ll change things without notice” mention:

SmugMug reserves the right at any time, in its sole discretion and without notice, to suspend, modify, discontinue or permanently cancel the Hosting Services, or portions thereof; and the Subscriptions and Subscription Plans, including making changes to any policies, features and terms applicable thereto.

Overall, this looks like a fair place to store your videos.

Conclusion

Hopefully this will give you some things to think about as you look at the terms for your next sharing site.  Look, I’m not saying Vimeo or anyone else is purposefully trying to take control of your work with an intentional rights grab, or intending to profit from you without compensation.  However, isn’t it better to work with people who have taken the time to craft a fair and responsible contract, with provisions for both sides?  Loose terms, minus intent, just seems to indicate laziness to me ( insert famous “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on TV” line here).

Spend your “content investment” somewhere where you feel safe, and somewhere that you feel treats you fairly.