Todd MacMillan, digitalimagecafe.com, macmillaninc.com
Owner of Photo Contest Site Blacklisted me for criticizing judging process, exposing favoritism, retaliated by cancelling my membership, keeping fee

On 2 occasions I was a member of the photo contest site, www.digitalimagecafe.com. My first membership was when the site was owned by Bob Hall - 2005 to 2006.

In the first 2 months I won the Photo of the Day contest 10 times. That's a pretty good win rate, however, in the context that I only submitted 12 photos over that time it's an exceptional win rate.

My 13th submission was rejected even though it was as good a work or better than any of my wins. When I questioned Bob Hall as to why the photo was rejected he alleged that I had resubmitted a photo that had already won. This determination made me question Mr. Hall's intelligence or possibly his ethics.

The photo in question was not a previous submission. If you have 2 photos of a hand - one clinched and one showing the peace sign - only a moron would see them as the same photo. This is exactly analogous to the difference between the photos in question.

When I protested Hall's decision he basically told me to keep my mouth shut or he'd cancel my membership. I was shocked by this unexpected suppressive mindset
and tyrannical approach to handling my dispute. I wondered if this was par for the course.

Nevertheless, I shrugged it off, kept my mouth shut and continued to submit works. Over the next 8 months I submitted over 60 works of photography and digital art without a single win. Over that time I became aware that one member, Heather McFarland, had amassed several hundred wins in 2 1/2 years. Some of her wins were clever and inspired and deserved to win, however, in my view, 90% of her winning works were well-done - and many not-so-well-done - cliches.

So, who am I to make such an assessment of the quality, originality, "win-ability"

Of a member's portfolio of contest wins? Simple. I've been a successful professional photographer, artist, independent filmmaker and developer of still and motion-based special effects since 1969. Twice, I've had films win in a major film festival; an independent documentary televised, done photography work for several best selling books, an article in the Sunday edition of the New York Times, taught photography courses in Hawaii, California and Minnesota, have had curated digital art exhibitions. I could continue but I don't need to take up more space when I've already made my point.

The real issue at hand is the appalling disparity in contest win numbers between a handful of members and the remaining membership (thousands). Most anyone with at least 2 brain cells firing would question the fairness of the judging process and, perhaps, like me, suspect that the judging process was not, in reality, as explained on the site. Questioning the judging process, even in a constructively written forum post, will get a member "black listed" and he or she can forget about winning after this happens.

I'll explain how I came to these conclusions in the next section which explains my experience with the digitalimagecafe.com after I, thoroughly disgusted, let my first membership expire and joined again a year later after finding out that the digitalimagecafe.com had come under new ownership.

I joined again in November for 2 reasons. First, to submit works into the photo contests and, second, to do a private investigation into every aspect of the operation of the site to see if I could find evidence of favoritism, unethical behavior, unfair contest judging practices, member abuse, and violations of FTC and Unfair Trade Practices regulations.

My second membership experience was pure deja vu. I won 10 contents within the first 8 or 9 weeks. Again, pretty good show. Then, consider I only made 10 submissions. Again, in this context, even more impressive. The judges liked my work.

My next submission, which was a satirical piece of digital art - a personal opinion of the state of world affairs and the human condition - was rejected. It contained images of Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, Richard Nixon and the 9/11 terrorists. The image of Richard Nixon I took myself when he visited Honolulu in 1975. I was a cameraman for the CBS affiliate there.

The other images I constructed in Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop while viewing photos. These images were conjured completely via my skills using these programs - in other words: created by ME.

I e-mailed the new owner, Todd MacMillan, and asked him why my last submission did not win. He stated 2 reasons. First, he alleged I was violating copyright law by using images I didn't have copyrights to. Second, he alleged that I didn't create the images myself therefore the work violated the judging rules.

I told Mr. MacMillan that any copyright issues, even though there were none, would not be relevant to this piece because if its satirical nature. Satirical works are protected from copyright infringement laws. However, the copyright issue was mute because I created the visuals myself which also made MacMillan's second allegation erroneous.

Again, as with the previous owner, I attempted to persist with my position, and, again, I was told I'd better drop the issue or lose my membership. I could smell what was coming next.

So what I did was post a criticism in my profile of the judging process suggesting that perhaps the owners had more control over the process than what is stated on the site.

I, also, asked in this profile post how it was possible for a handful of members to amass ridiculously high numbers of contest wins (Heather McFarland, for example, as of July 28 had nearly 700 wins - including a win on that day which was a knock-off of one of her own cliche themes: a doll or a child's stuffed animal placed in some trite setting.)

The issue of favoritism, suddenly, was no longer a question. But it did raise new questions: how and why? I posted these comments on my profile feeling pretty confident that MacMillan had devotee members who would eventually read my profile and "tell on me." As you'll learn further along, my strategy worked and my confidence was justified.

Before I explain that aspect I would like to let readers know that, as I did during my first membership, I continued to submit many works into the contests over the next several months, and, as I expected, without a single win. Blacklisted again.

But how could this favoritism of specific members and blacklisting of "problem" members be facilitated? The judges are members who have 20 wins or more and they don't know who the submitter is until a work wins. However, many members have a very recognizable "style" to their work. It's a virtual signature. My work is as easy to recognize as is Heather McFarland's.

However, even if this were not a factor that would facilitate choosing favorite members to win and rejecting "problem" member's submissions, MacMillan informed me in a heated e-mail exchange that he looks at all the winning works, including the NAME of the submitter, and has the final say in all judging decisions.

Actually, MacMillan stated he had the final say and total control in all decisions regarding the operation of digitalimagecafe.com, the contest judging, what is posted in the member forums, who is or isn't "in concert" with the mission of the site and the consequences for those members he deems are not.

So, I finished out the last 10 months of my membership submitting works consistently all to no avail. No more wins. Blacklisted. Then, I put into motion, what I had planned to do if the above scenario played itself out as before.instead of letting my membership expire, this time I renewed it.

Wouldn't you know. A few hours after paying for another year's membership, I got an e-mail from MacMillan in which he stated he would be glad to renew my membership if I removed the comments I posted in my profile that asked questions that he perceived had negative implications with respect to "the owners" of the digitalimagecafe.com.

Obviously, MacMillan's member devotees had, as I expected, at some point, read my profile and reported my comments to MacMillan. The truths being revealed to me through the course of this membership kept getting more ugly as the conflict boiled over.

I posted MacMillan's e-mail to me into the members forum along with my findings and criticisms and a deliberately extended version of my experience, qualifications and accomplishments as an artist and still and moving image maker.

My comments were removed within minutes after their posting - followed immediately by a barrage of vicious attacks by several members on my character, motives, intelligence - without one response addressing the issues I raised. It was like MacMillan had a goon squad whose job was to specifically attack and discredit members who dare to suggest "the emperor may have no clothes."

Shortly, after these suppressive and abusive acts by MacMillan and his minions, I received and e-mail from a member. It contained a post he made into the forum in complete support of my position, my conclusions and my suspicions. He sent it to me because he knew that MacMillan who see it and remove it before it would get posted for all to see.

This made MacMillan furious. So MacMillan sent this member who e-mailed me his supportive post an e-mail full of lies about me conspiring with this member to sue MacMillan. MacMillan reminded this member that he was already on shaky ground and was a hair away from losing his membership. It was a pathetic attempt by MacMillan to discredit me in the eyes of this sympathetic member and to scare him into submission. MacMillan's diabolical strategy failed.

However, MacMillan sent me an e-mail stating that he had cancelled my membership because I had threatened to sue him (a complete fabrication) and that, even though I had just renewed my membership, I wouldn't get a refund.

Then I began getting a flow of e-mails from other members who supported my position but wouldn't post their views in the forum out of fear of being blacklisted and/or being expelled. See what I mean about the revelations kept getting more ugly?

The final humiliation: Master Card would not reverse the membership charge on the grounds that it was for a service and that I would have to deal directly with MacMillan if I wanted a refund. I read the digitalimagecafe.com's "Terms of Use" when I first joined and was confused by the last paragraph: "Due to the availability of the open contents of the Digital Image Cafe, there is a 'no refund' policy in effect".

Although this statement is pure nonsense and garbage and would be judged to be a "bad faith" term in a court of law, it's obviously it was included as way to facilitate unethical policies and member abuse without loss of revenue. However, that's based on MacMillans assumption that no one would trouble themselves to go to Kentucky to litigate and seek compensation, both real and punitive, for such egregiously unfair and abusive way of running a business.

Company: Todd MacMillan, digitalimagecafe.com, macmillaninc.com
Country: USA
Phone: 5025420647
Site: www.digitalimagecafe.com

  <     >