In a growing trend over the last several years, Puerto Vallarta is once again named as a top retirement destination by a travel magazine.
International Living’s list of best places to retire in 2015 says Puerto Vallarta’s expat community makes for an easy transition into international living while also offering real estate deals much lower than what you would find in the United States.
In May, CNN featured a story on expats living in Puerto Vallarta, estimated to be over 40,000 around the bay and over one million nationwide. That was shortly after US News and World Report named Puerto Vallarta as a top retirement haven for expats which they titled “an affordable and sophisticated haven for expats”.
Peddicord’s retirement index, a group that ranks the affordability and overall quality of life for retirees, named Puerto Vallarta among the best international destinations for retiring on a budget and high marks for quality of life.
With tourism on the rise in Puerto Vallarta and closing out one of its best years in 2014, more people are taking notice of Puerto Vallarta as more than just a place to visit.
International Living ranked Puerto Vallarta just below Ecuador and Panama which offer slightly lower cost of living due to smaller nation economies.
Puerto Vallarta offers a vibrant expat community and organizations that can help people interested in retiring to the area. Expats in Vallarta is an excellent source of information and also a great way to meet people in the expat community while in Puerto Vallarta.
No problem, I actually feel better knowing that your photos are creative commons because we qualify to publish those without first seeking your permission. You just didn’t understand we were independent and not for profit. We never want to misuse people’s work, we pay licencing for every story we publish or seek permission beforehand, and we use creative commons work all the time because of our status. So it’s a relief that we didn’t use work that we didn’t have the right to use without knowledge. :)
unfortunately, as far as I know, your site does not fall into the non-commercial part, you sell advertisement, you make a profit. I can see by all the ads in your site, and the link that SELLS advertisement space… so, you DO need to ask for permission, I really don’t see why you claim otherwise.
Shanti, you have no idea what you are talking about. Our expenses alone are over $7000 USD a quarter, our advertising generates $19,000 PESOS a year. Non-Commercial does not mean you do not sell ads, it means you are not in the business of making a profit. We are actually paying members of Creative Commons organization and you can verify our status with them. We have the right to publish your photos whether you like it or not, but we won’t because you requested otherwise. But don’t pretend that you know our business, because clearly you don’t know anything about us. Maybe you know a little more now. I will gladly meet with you and go over our books and accounting at your request. (sorry i had to make an edit, our cost is per quarter but originally I types per month… typing faster than your brain works is dangerous)
OK… For discussion sake, lets say.. (as you have rudely claimed here), that you are NOT a commercial site, you would still need to provide credit(attribution) and a link to the owners work website whether you like it or not.
“You must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material.”
have a nice day, hopefully this is cleared and we won’t have to discuss it again.
Seriously Shanti, I don’t mean to be a jerk, but it is obvious that you don’t understand creative commons fully and my comments are not to be argumentative, but you are the one who chose to have this public conversation that should have been handled with a private email or phone call. You are an extremely talented photographer and I hope that my comments serve as an education for you to learn how to protect your work, or control its usage on the internet.
Non-Commercial in terms of website based “businesses” is legally defined as a website that is owned by a single individual (me), not a corporation. The site’s purpose cannot be profit, but it is not restricted from making profit either. My site’s purpose is news publication and the news is offered free to the public without charge. No one is asked to buy, rent, or subscribe to any services provided by my website. Commercial comes from the word commerce, which is the sale of a product or service to the public for profit, it has nothing to do with advertising or the amount of profit (or lack of profit) the company makes. You are confusing non-commercial with non-profit and they are much different business models.
Listen, I am non-commercial by law, just like churches are considered non-profit. I don’t like that but it doesn’t change the law. So whether or not you don’t believe I should be classified as non-commercial doesn’t matter in the eyes of the law and you cannot pick and choose what non-commercial gets to publish your work when you assign creative common license to the work.
Now for the issue of using your image. Clearly I have deleted your image but I was not required to by law.
There are actually six different ways to attribute credit by CC guidelines, your quote deals with offering credit when you know the creator, which does not apply to this conversation. There are specific rules for publishing CC content when the creator isn’t known, that is what I followed and is in the terms of service on my website. This is what is legally required by Vallarta Daily.
You cannot have any expectation of receiving credit for your work when you publish it to the internet with billions of users but fail to apply your copyright or watermark to the image. We are not physic and creative commons provides ways for work released under their license without proper copyright notice to still be used non-commercially, and that is exactly what I did.
I stand behind my choice to use your photo and I had that right within the law and the guidelines you agreed to with the release of your work as creative commons and there really is no debating the facts. Your photo was creative commons, I am non-commercial by law, I had the right to publish without permission, and you failed to provide your credit on the work therefore I was only required to state how I came into possession of the photo, which is in my terms of where photos come from unless otherwise credited.
My only suggestion to you is to make sure you add your copyright to your photography before uploading to the internet and making available under creative commons. It’s the only way to make sure that people know who owns the work they are publishing.
Best of luck!
I do not need to put any marks on my artwork for it it to be copyrighted, nor protected, whether you think that, it’s different from the “law” (are we talking Mexican law or US law?) that’s your personal opinion. I have done my research on protecting my work. And I have my work properly registered. What you are implying means that just because you see a bicycle parked in the sidewalk if you don’t know who is the owner you have the right the use it as you please, this is not true, it is YOUR job to look for the owner, just asking and nobody knowing does not meant you are entitled to use it as you wish. And I was not the one that started writing on this website I even said you could delete the comment if you wished. I am glad we came to and understanding, you do not use my photos I do no bother you again, done deal.
I would really appreciate it if you at least ask my permission to use my photo in your website and in your social media.
Shanti we deleted the photo that you identify as being the owner. It’s important to note that first we shared the photo in question on our Facebook several months ago and asked if anyone knew the photographer so that we could credit. With thousands of followers no one knew, the photo was viewed on our Facebook by 10,000 people and still no one knew who the owner was. The photo has been used on hundreds of website and social media accounts. Now knowing the owner we were able to do research and you shared this photo on social media meaning you gave up all rights to require permission for the photo to be used for non-commercial, non-profit, and non-print environments. It’s etiquette to ask photographers to use their work on the internet when the use isn’t for profit.This is why we tried to find the photographer before hand. We would like to suggest that you watermark any images that you provide online and certainly that you share on social media where you are already agreeing to forfeit many of your copyright claims in digital media. Thank you.
wow, really? you think sharing your work means giving up rights??? please do some research, I released it under CC meaning no commercial use, your site IS commercial. I did not give up ANY rights because I shared my photo, or in this case someone else did on Facebook (as I do not have a Facebook account).
what you are saying is if someone (a writer, a musician, a photographer) shares his work on the internet he automatically forfeits his rights…think about that for a second, as a publishing company I would have think you knew that is not correct. I do not wish to enter in a discussion about this, especially on your site, nor do I wish to come out as rude, but just know that you are wrong and I am more than happy to let people use my photos, and share them, all I ask is credit.that is why I release my photos under CC license, but that does not include commercial sites as yours.
Puerto Vallarta was the best place I ever lived! I miss it so much!! I worked at Lindomar adventure club