And a signature from you. That way, it will go to my kids and grandkids and all. :)

That's a great idea! Paul I use your site as well, and would be sorry to see it go. I understand you gotta do what you gotta do, but will be sorry to see it go. It will be missed

So I think a book is a great idea as well. I would most definitely buy it! And get it autographed as Well! Mariannese said it Well!

Roselady I didn't think anyone's head was bitten off. I thought everything was just explained and let it be known about things that have happened with Pauls photos. Also I think Christopher meant we as the rose forum ,atleast that's what I think.

I wouldn't want a garden full of Gallica roses, no more than a garden full of Austin's, but for different reasons. However, in this one case, I wouldn't worry about planting your rose, just go ahead and enjoy it.

We don't tend to have the issues with suckering here on this due to it being grafted onto 'laxa' rootstock. We don't do 'own root roses', so the experience of American gardeners used to such suckering nightmares isn't that familiar to us, except in the case of Bamboo plants that get sold cheaply and are much planted along boundaries, to the horror of neighbours who might know better..

I would be quite happy to plant 'Charles de Mills' and not worry about it, it's much recommended, it has an award of Garden Merit, which hasn't been rescinded that I'm aware, which means it can be planted freely anywhere in the country and a good garden performance should be expected..

Whilst it's an idea to plant the graft union above soil level in this one and only instance [we would usually plant below], the problem with 'laxa' rootstock is that this in turn will encourage it to sucker. I also find the graft union the ugliest thing in the rose world, and refuse to look at it... so it would have to go underground in my garden regardless.. there is also the issue of windrock here, on this gale prone north Atlantic island, which can cause all sorts of problems with roses that are exposed like that.

A choice the gardener has to make in this case..

I don't know if Darren is still looking in but just to point out that the bare root rose you have, is a grafted plant. Where the canes join at the base is known as the 'scion', that is where it's been grafted onto a wild rose rootstock we call 'Laxa' which is all those roots at the bottom. I love this rootstock and don't want any other, but it has a character of its own. It doesn't sucker much in my experience. I've had just 2 suckers in the last 30 years...

If you've had enough of Gallica roses already and wish you never mentioned it, then try this sort of 'lookalike'... 'James L. Austin'... you get all the rose with none of the problems..

...blooms all summer too.... no messing about.. hope you like Darren...

I just wanted to add that I heartily sympathise with and agree with Paul Barden's feelings and echo everything he said. I am an author and so I make my living from intellectual property rights too - and it is heartbreaking to see a book that you have spent months slaving over being downloaded on pirate sites or even worse, being sold by someone else on Amazon as "their" work. Ebooks are easy to download, copy & redistribute. People think it is no big deal but it is a form of theft and it really impacts the creatives who rely on licensing their copyright for their livelihoods.

I'm new to the forum and I hesitated for a long time over sharing photos because of the kind of thing that's happened to Paul. I'm not a professional photographer so my photos are nowhere near his league, of course, but I have had the awful experience of images stolen from my site before and used for commercial gain. It's horrible. I know it's hard for some to understand since it's a non-tangible item but it's like someone breaking into your home to steal a sweater you have spent months knitting and then selling it themselves in their shop.

I wouldn't mind people keeping it for private enjoyment so much or for educational purposes but it's when businesses use an image without licensing permission, especially to promote their product or services (which I might not want to endorse or I might have an ethical problem with their company) - that is so sickening. There is a saying in creative circles: if it's good enough to be used, it's good enough to be paid for. There is no such thing as just being grateful that your work is good enough for people to want.

Anyway, sorry - this is totally off-topic - but I felt compelled to comment. I did decide to post my photos in the end as it's hard to share without showing visuals and I really wanted to show everyone my new garden. But I am doing so knowing that the images may very well be stolen & used without my permission (and the problem with watermarks is that they are either so big, they obscure the image and prevent enjoyment of the photo - or they are so small that it's easy to edit them out).

~ HY

"But there is no need to be so bloody sensitive in regards to posting up
images onto a forum. It’s borderline ridiculous. I meant no harm. I
wouldn’t care had it been my image."

As a photographer, who states that he understands the principles of Intellectual Property Rights, you are showing a remarkable lack of sensitivity, and in fact I find your "I wouldn't care so neither should you" attitude hypocritical and self-defeating. If you are going to give people a "watermark it or shut up" response, then be prepared for less than warm reactions. Its worth pointing out that you - a professional who makes money selling his photographs - took a photo from a commercial web site, without permission and posted it on another web site, knowing fully well that this action violated someone's copyright. And so your response is to suggest that those of us who care to defend Intellectual Property Rights are being "borderline ridiculous"! Astonishing.

"And I know the huge write-up re: the issue wasn’t targeted at me, but, still, I get it nonetheless."

Actually, I don't think you do, or you wouldn't be so hostile towards other people in your profession, who have been doing this twenty or thirty years longer than you have.

"I’m a professional photographer myself. If you’re posting photos on-line
without watermark across the image, of course people will use your
shots. You’re giving them the opportunity to, without so much as a
credit."

And yetsurprisingly, most of your Flickr portfolio has no watermarking on the images whatsoever! I guess that means you are inviting people to use those photos, without so much as a credit?

One of these days you are going to find that someone (or multiple someones) have stolen your work and removed the watermarks (there's plenty of software to do that for you, effortlessly), and I will be curious to see how little you care then. Best of luck with that.

I have no intention of jumping into this hot bed, but I do want say that I’m sad for all the wonderful photos us “regular folks”( nonphotographers), are missing out on here, because of the theft for profit going on. It’s a doggone shame, in MANY ways. Lisa

I'm with you Lisa, but I don't understand why it seems like Paul is being I guess jumped on. I didn't see nothing said out of the way. He was just informing on the photo or at least that's how I read it. I'm glad you got your answers Darren and sorry to have hopped off topic, talking about the book and all we wished Paul would write. I do think things are being misconstrued and taken the wrong way. I pretty much get along with everybody, so peace!

Darren, you didn’t read it because you’re now on the defensive and you know you’ve done something you can’t logically defend. So be it.

"Then you made such a fuss over nothing."

A professional photographer who claims to understand Intellectual Property Law and - supposedly - respect it.

I know Paul's photo is a first rate photo.

Darren, you are being a troll.

Houzz has included mention of this issue in its TOS:

"As part of Houzz’s Acceptable Use Policy, you agree not to use the
information, services or any other part of the Houzz Platform to take
any action or actions that:

• infringe on our or any third party's copyright, patent, trademark,
  trade secret or other proprietary rights or rights of publicity or
  privacy"

• And:

• "Your Responsibilities for Your Content. By posting Your Content
  on the Houzz Platform, you represent and warrant to us that you have the
  ownership rights, or you have obtained all needed licenses or
  permissions from any necessary parties, to use Your Content in this
  manner. This includes obtaining the right to grant us the rights to the
  use of Your Content in accordance with this agreement. You are in the
  best position to judge whether Your Content is in violation of
  intellectual property or personal rights of any third-party. You
  accept full responsibility for avoiding infringement of the intellectual
  property or personal rights of others in connection with Your Content. You are responsible for ensuring that your content does not violate Houzz’s Acceptable Use Policy, Prohibited Products Policy, or Copyright and Trademark Policy
  or any applicable law or regulation. You agree to pay all royalties,
  fees and any other monies owed to any person by reason of Your Content."

• Taking a copy of a photograph from outside the Houzz properties and posting it on these forums is precisely what these paragraphs in the TOS are addressing. I'm guessing that most users have never read the full TOS and have not encountered these paragraphs.

I am not name calling, I am identifying a type of online behavior that is anti-social. You may not realize you are doing it. Of course this is not a playground, but it is a community, with real people involved -- people who respect and care about each other.

Emphasis on respect and care about each other.

Please don't be condescending to the members of our community, Darren. It is my opinion that you owe KS an apology for your rudeness. I don't care what you say to me, but you'd best not start attacking the people I care about.

"I am incredibly respectful."

"I didn’t fully read your last post because you’re talking complete and utter nonsense."

"You’re beyond ridiculous. Stop it! Get a grip."

These three quotes, minutes apart, seem to suggest something other than "respectful". I'm not even quoting your insulting comment about my "second rate" work, which in spite of its heinous flaws, you saw fit to steal and replicate!

I really think you must have taken something the wrong way Darren, Paul was never disrespectful to you. Maybe reread the post with fresh eyes. It does seem like Paul is being lashed out at, this my opinion. It seems to me like you are being sensitive to me. Paul even wrote he wasnt mad at you for using his photo, he was just making you aware of it, and was just frustrated at the companies who use his photos to sell product. I think a apology is in order. We are a family here on this forum I believe, and we do take up for one another. We are not singling you out either, you are very welcome here. But I really think rereading the post with some fresh eyes would be beneficial. This is however just my opinion.

Well I'm looking forward to Spring! I think we all are, and I'm sorry you felt criticized. Happy Gardening everyone!

And enemies.

"I’ve made some lovely new friends on here."

I'm not one of them.

"I’m happy for you all to think what you like about me."

You've painted a picture of your persona, I'll grant you that.

What about fair use? Does it not apply? https://youtu.be/MrIKDMKZe_E

The reason I assumed fair use would apply is because Darren posted it, to comment on, and research about. Is that not the definition of fair use?

witchygirl asks: "What about fair use?"

Doesn't apply here. See: https://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

About halfway through the document, read what is stated under "Q: What is "fair use"?

"The “purpose and character of the use” is considered one of the most
important indicators of fair use. Courts determine whether the
copyrighted work has been used to create a new work (often referred to
as a “transformative use”) instead of simply copied and/or placed into
another work."

Darren has taken the entirety of a copyrighted piece and placed it into "another work" (meaning, this forum)That isn't "fair use".

For a photograph to fall under the heading of "fair use" it must be limited to a partial representation of the work (an excerpt) or as (for example) a backdrop in the creation of a new and derivative work.

I must be interpreting it incorrectly or something. This-

Specifically, Section 107 of the Copyright Act states that:

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified
by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include –

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of
the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.

I thought placing into another work, meant like drawing on it, or mixing it with something else? Regardless, I'll be sure to only use my own pics on here. I honestly don't know if I've copied a picture from somewhere else, but I collect internet memes, so I wouldn't have even thought about it.

Darren...I'm an Aries with Scorpio rising :)) I understand where you're coming from with your passionate response.

I did a little bit of googling and discovered that this topic has been hotly debated before in these forums....with the same protagonist(s).

Each of us has a different view of what's kind, respectful, fair, and socially acceptable. After all, each person's reality is based on their own perception.

I am here because I adore roses. I want to feel comfortable expressing myself here and sharing my passion...not feeling nervous that I'm going to be stepping on people's toes.

My husband works in IT and my sister-in-law is a digital artist and professor. The topic of intellectual property on the internet if frequently discussed amongst us.

It's not an appropriate topic to be discussing in depth on the Antique Roses Forum.

Paul, I understand and sympathize very much with your plight, but maybe you should be directing your comments to the French nursery who stole your image.

namaste

@Rosylady

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Rest assured, as of this morning, I have filed DMCA on several of these entities.

I would have dropped this discussion ages ago if it weren't for the escalating, repeated rudeness of the OP.

Ok I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with Paul on this. I have done stated my opinion. I'm not saying anything else. I hope you all enjoy a great Spring.

Darren, My Charles de Mills is in quite a bit of shade. It has limited the size of the plant I'm sure though it still suckers moderately. It blooms where it is but like most roses it has declined in too much shade. I like how tough it is, the thin wiry canes, and relatively healthy leaves. It's more purplish than the pictures you posted, Marlorena, though that is a pretty rose.

Erasmus I love those purple edges. If I were to grow it, I'd aim for a shady spot just to get that color.

I haven't read all the posts here. But I can understand why Darren had posted a photo of Charles de Mills on here. Its because he had found a really nice looking rose and wanted to share the excitement with the rest of us.

I would do the same thing too. But what Darren had forgotten to do was mentioned where he obtained the source at the beginning of the post.

However it looks as if Paul and other members are still not happy. I was unhappy when I found out that a nursery in Germany used a photo of my Tea Clipper to advertised their roses. They are freaking lazy to take their own photos.

But then I looked at another perspective:

1) When I post a photo - whether its mine or other people's - the real purpose is to share my excitement. Isn't gardening and this community forum all about loving, sharing, helping, and reaching out?

If Darren hadn't post that picture I would have completely forgotten how beautiful Charles de Mills is. In fact I'm now considering in buying this rose because Paul had captured it beautifully.

2) Sometimes I post other people's instagram photos here because I am helping to bring awareness. Not many people use Instagram or Youtube. A lot of great rose photos or videos are available there. On a brightside - the owner will also benefit when more people are subscribed to their channels or follow them.

Links are a great way to connect to rose photos as well as other intellectual property! We all work hard at our vocations, and nothing is more personal or owned than products born of our sweat, our valuable time and our unique and creative energy. Please just post a link if you spot something as gorgeous or helpful as Paul's photos. We'll find the image. Aside: I'd buy a bound book of Paul's words and images many times over, one to keep and several to gift! His website rivals the most magnificent and cherished collector's books in my rose library.

I am a purple Gallica fanatic and will probably grow Charles de Mills again someday, but my garden is tiny, so I plan to pot him up in a 25 gallon nursery pot, a heavy injection molded one. I'll have to stay on top of slicing his offshoots!

Erasmus, how old is your CdM? Is it grafted? I wish I could just tuck CdM into a shady bed and grow it like your lovely specimen! He runs like an Olympic medalist, even in my heavy Portland clay.

Carol

I'm not sure how old my plant is...probably between 15 and 20 yrs old. It's own root. It used to get more sun but my trees have grown. I planted a couple more plants of him in sunnier spots last fall because I do like him a lot. After reading this thread I'm rethinking that. Maybe a big pot grown on top of a saucer would be best. In my garden Shailer's Provence is by far the worst suckerer followed by Banshee. They're thugs and I don't like thugs. I've been putting thuggish plants in tough spots, hoping they won't be too happy but will have the energy to make it there when some other plant might not. I put a Mme. Plantier under a tree, where it has done ok but not gotten that big. A visitor to my garden said " That's the smallest Mme. Plantier I've ever seen." and that is just fine with me. I'd like to see a 40' Charles de Mills and failing that I'd like to see a picture of such a plant.

I grow CdeM in a big nursery can, after blooming, knock him out every other year or so, cut off the ‘shoots’ Circling around the inside of the can, pot them up if I feel like it, slide what’s left of the plant back into refreshed potting soil and off he goes again, no suckers have tried to escape so far. A rose I would not want to be without! When it gets too tough to deal with him that way, I will plant in a circle of sheep fence out in the pasture, and my sheep will see that he stays inside it! They love roses as much as deer do, actually as much as we on the forum do. Just from a different aspect...yummy!

Paul, you have every right to defend your copyright and protect your work, I am sorry your efforts were not as well or civilly received as they should have been. Never a bad idea to respect other people’s property, always a mistake not to!

hope you all can get out and work in your gardens today

claire

Erasmus, I am impressed that you've kept an own root CdM in the garden! I believe John posted a photo of his CdM grove on a past thread. I can think of worse invasions than a world conquering purple Gallica! My garden is microscopic, so I am too cowardly to try him in the beds, even in shade with root competition. I love the "smallest Mdme. Plantier" comment. I hope mine doen't overgrow her space. I should have wedged her big self under a mature tree!

Claire, you are managing your CdM exactly as I plan to manage mine someday. I have planted a number of other spreaders in huge nursery containers, too. This pot and slice method has worked for me in the past, so here's hoping we can corral our precious, historical and determined Gallicas indefinitely! Carol

Darren, I recommend Charles as one of the most beautiful of all OGRs, but I also recommend taking the "running bamboo" characteristic seriously. He is the wisteria of the earth. Mature wisteria can rip the siding off a house and squeeze a delicate structure into nonexistance. Picture roots of that caliber next to a crack in a foundation or racing through a bed of dainty perennials and polite shrubs. CdM is a force of nature! To my knowledge, only Erasmus has managed to tame his wild and wooly inclinations, and she is an experienced gardener who surely has the skills of a rose whisperer! :-) With this emphasized, I'll confess that I still must grow him again someday...in a very big and very durable nursery pot. He's that splendid! Carol

Good advice to keep in mind about CdeM, and a few others too! I never fail to be amazed by folks asking for advice on forums (especially speciality plant forums it seems) and then, when advice is offered by a rich in activity years, and experienced individual, the original poster kicks up their heels, and announces that they will do as they like...and damn the torpedos. If they don’t want to learn, why ask?

hope you all got into the garden today!

cheerio

claire

Other issues aside,...just to say the member who started the thread is in England, and probably chose the very worst rose to ask a largely American audience for advice on, as he wouldn't have been aware that you grow own root roses and the havoc this particular one causes. Because of our grafted rootstock it's less of an issue here.

I recently spoke to David Austin's about it, and they said the same thing, that it's generally a problem in countries where they have own root roses, such as the U.S.

We have enough problems with rose replant sickness...

" Because of our grafted rootstock it's less of an issue here."

Less, but not a non-issue: as many of us have discovered, it can easily escape its graft when the bud union is planted at or below the soil surface, and lets face it - most people do that.

I don't know if this link will work, but it should be a photo [a public image], from Jon in Wessex's garden, a former member here, where he grows this rose amongst many others.

I found it on a resurrected thread of his beautiful garden of roses. It doesn't look as though he has a great issue with this variety...

Jon Dodson's 'Charles de Mills'

Yes, you would have more experience of this rose, and most others, than I do, I've never grown it, but I wouldn't be afraid of it here...

I think the advice to plant the graft slightly above soil level is sound, Austin's told me that too. It might need a more sheltered site though, away from the worst of gales..

I might have to put something in front of it..

Some people on here say the CdM sucker badly like bamboos...I have grown bamboos and made the mistake to plant them on the ground. But since CDM is a rose I'm sure it can be pulled out very easily compare to bamboos right? Growing bamboo is a nightmare - they are solid like a rock and hard to be pulled out. If CDM is tender and easy to be pulled out, I'm tempted to get it.

Tell me about it Tangles... I had a Fargesia bamboo, now this is a clumper not a runner, it was in the ground some 8 years, before I decided I needed the spot for roses.... it took 3 burly men to get that out of the garden, and disposed of... the root ball had spread to such an extent and in such a tight clump, it took them about an hour's hard labour getting it out...

Never again. Roses are a doddle in comparison...

The hole it left was like an asteroid hit...

Nope, bamboo is easy compared to Charles de Mills. The roots are much closer to the surface, and you stand a chance of getting most of them.

The spreading of 'Charles de Mills' made me think of the photo below from HelpMeFind. I'm sure the entire expanse of the plant wasn't captured in this shot.

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.74538

:-)

~Christopher

One thing to be gleaned from this thread I think, is that different things happen in different countries, and one size of advice does not fit all, everywhere..

Clearly certain roses are more problematic than bamboos in some areas, where over here the opposite would be the case...

The same would be true of something like Japanese Honeysuckle...

@Christopher:

That's about what Chuck-The-Thug looks like in my garden - bullying his way across the landscape.

Marlorena, I agree. As I mentioned in my first post, getting a budded CdM and planting it with the bud union above the mulch line would avoid all this. The UK simply doesn't get as cold as it does where gardeners are advised to plant the bud union below the mulch line, which would set Chuck free. Elsewhere, Gallicas are popular in areas with Winters too cold for many other roses, and that's where running problems can occur if the bud union gets enough soil contact for the rose to go own-root. I suppose one could cover them for Winter, then uncover after the last hard freezes in Spring, as a compromise. I kept mentioning its potential spread as a warning to make sure to leave the bud union uncovered since Darren is kinda new to old roses.

Paul, I remember you mentioning the expanse of your CdM before, and it brought that picture to my brain. It's why any own-root Gallicas at the cemetery will be in island beds around high-limbed trees, surrounded by turf and/or paved paths. I'm looking to try budding as well for roses notoriously difficult to root, but I'm afraid that it may get too cold here to leave the bud unions above the soil line through Winters, so I won't rely upon that to make any Gallicas "safe" enough for mixed beds. 'Charles de Mills' may just have to be planted in a trench dug between wild shrubbery/trees and grass in the background. There are quite a few spots like that there.

:-)

~Christopher

Thanks for the picture, Christopher. It is a big plant but doesn't look that pretty.

My plant is not exactly tamed, it is stunted due to shade. Still blooms though. Mine's about 4.5' tall and about 5' wide. Have been digging up suckers around it and potting them up. If I didn't do that it probably would have spread more.

I grow 30 gallicas, 8 are own root and sucker, although my 3 Marianne from RVR in 2011 haven't started to sucker yet. I hope they will. Of the 22 grafted gallicas from nurseries in Sweden, Germany and France, only Charles de Mills, Belle de Crécy and Gloire de France sucker. All my roses are planted with the bud union well under ground. My most recently planted gallicas are from 2007 so they've had time enough to show any tendency to sucker.

‘Marianne’ won’t sucker. At least, I seriously doubt it will, as my original plant has never done it in the 18 years since it was born. Not enough Gallica genes in it to prompt that behavior.

My Mariannes (in my garden and planted in others' gardens) have not suckered either. I would be pleased with just a little sucker here or there in order to pot them up for back-up. This rose is becoming an obsession! Carol