DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Another stolen DPC image (scalvert) - NotSafeForWork
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 207, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/06/2007 01:16:44 PM · #126
Originally posted by NickScipio:
Once I knew where the picture came from, and who was the copyright holder, I took it down within minutes.


your words, in general, are total bullshit.

there is at least one image in your PoD archive that has a label for "www.femjoy.com" on it. the FemJoy site states:
Copyrights
All content of this website is copyrighted by FEMJOY.
Reproduction in any way is prohibited without the expressive permission of the copyright holder.

so even when you have evidence of where the image originated and who owns it, you don't act.

Message edited by author 2007-04-06 13:17:06.
 04/06/2007 01:19:20 PM · #127
Nick you surely missed the the point. Let me try again.

I just stabbed you in the back but I got you a band-aid so we are good right?

Come on Nick stop being silly!

Message edited by author 2007-04-06 13:20:27.
 04/06/2007 01:20:31 PM · #128
Originally posted by NickScipio:
Originally posted by Qart:
What you do is develope a site on the backs of others and hope no one catches on. If they do, a simple 'oops' from you and the matter hopefully is closed with an added 'relax people, I didn't know' for good measure.


Sorry, Qart, but I'm not the horse's ass here.

My POD is secondary to the main purpose of my site.

I'm an award-winning author, with more than 15,000 daily visitors.

So I "develope[d] a site" on the back of millions of my own words, and thousands and thousands of hours of my own hard work. Can you say the same?

Nick


"Time to get edumacated"

and your wurds aint good enuff to sell themselves so you have to use other peoples images.

"Time to get real"

If you published a book with those exact images in the same manner that you did on your website. You would not be able to retract them and then would not be having a discussion with us about it, but a discussion with your lawyor about it.

The truth is while an internet publication is easier to retract the laws are the same. You just have a chance to retract the material now and in this case may not have made any money in the process further protecting yourself.
 04/06/2007 01:20:55 PM · #129
Originally posted by NickScipio:
I'm an award-winning author, with more than 15,000 daily visitors.

No offense intended, Nick, but I hardly feel Alt.Sex.Stories "Awards" would be received by the main stream as worthy of mention here. If you were a "Published on Paper" writer I'd be willing to concede the you ARE an author who understands the issue of copywrite.
 04/06/2007 01:21:19 PM · #130
oh, looky. there's one labeled "www.erotica-archives.com" let's see what their legal page says.


All information contained in this website, including site graphics, use of the errotica-archives logo, banner, background and site images, is the property of the authour and is protected by intellectual property laws. This information is for the user's personal non-commercial use only. Any production or reproduction of all or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, whether by paper, electronic or any other method, without the express written consent of the author, is considered infringement. All intellectual property rights are strictly enforced.

hm. seems pretty clear to me. for a writer, you see to have trouble interpreting the english language.
 04/06/2007 01:22:48 PM · #131
He did say he had contact with some of the sites which give him permission to use photos... not sure which ones, but DPC certainly isn't one of them.
 04/06/2007 01:23:24 PM · #132
"alexander verne (c) 2006" whoops. that one slipped through too.
 04/06/2007 01:24:29 PM · #133
Originally posted by Konador:
He did say he had contact with some of the sites which give him permission to use photos... not sure which ones, but DPC certainly isn't one of them.


I hope he keeps his permissions on file. This site will definatly never be on to give permission for such an instance. However an individual photographer might.
 04/06/2007 01:25:41 PM · #134
(c)mplstudios.com

Originally posted by mplstudios:

Except for electronic messages, all materials on this site are protected by Federal copyright and are protected under treaty provisions and worldwide copyright laws. Materials contained in any part of the site may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without the written permission of the sites owner. Except as expressly stated in the Limited License provision in these Terms of Use, no grant of any express or implied right to you under any of the trademarks, copyrights or other proprietary information are given.

You may not modify, use, or reuse the text or graphics of this site unless you obtain written permission from site owner allowing you to do so.


(emphasis theirs)
 04/06/2007 01:26:27 PM · #135
[quote]

Like I said, I'm not the bad guy here. I'm a responsible and reasonable guy, which is more than you're probably used to. So don't flame me for coming into your hostile lion's den and trying to make things right.

Nick [/quote]

No you're not being responsible and we aren't being unreasonable when we see our photos on a site that we didn't give permission to have on. I was sickened by the fact that Shannon's photo was on a site like your's!! There's a child in the photo....hello? McFly?? Don't act as we are the bad guys in trying to protect OUR work!
 04/06/2007 01:30:00 PM · #136
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by NickScipio:
Once I knew where the picture came from, and who was the copyright holder, I took it down within minutes.


your words, in general, are total bullshit.

there is at least one image in your PoD archive that has a label for "www.femjoy.com" on it. the FemJoy site states:
Copyrights
All content of this website is copyrighted by FEMJOY.
Reproduction in any way is prohibited without the expressive permission of the copyright holder.

so even when you have evidence of where the image originated and who owns it, you don't act.


Gee... perhaps it's because I HAVE EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM FEMJOY!

Did that ever occur to you? Or were you too fired up with self-righteous fury?

At this point, the idiots seem to outnumber the rational people on this thread.

Shannon, I apologize for unknowingly infringing your copyright. Please contact me off-thread if you'd like to discuss further options or reasonable compensation.

Parrothead (who hasn't even weighed in on this feeding-frenzy), I apologize for unknowingly infringing your copyright.

L2 and the other rational folks, I'm sorry the idiots finally shouted me down. I came here--an extremely hostile environment--and tried to make things right. I was honest and forthright and responsive. All it got me was more trouble. You know how to contact me off-list. I'll be more than happy to respond to any reasonable requests.

For the rest of you... try to be more polite the next time an outsider comes here. I'm not some faceless computer. I'm a guy, flesh and blood, with feelings and emotions, just like you. Mob rules and pitchforks don't help your cause.

Nick
 04/06/2007 01:31:18 PM · #137
Originally posted by NickScipio:

Parrothead (who hasn't even weighed in on this feeding-frenzy), I apologize for unknowingly infringing your copyright.


Some of us done spend everday on here. Some of us dont make a life out of the internet.
 04/06/2007 01:33:40 PM · #138
Just wanted to let you know. It was dead even until you showed up.
Originally posted by NickScipio:

At this point, the idiots seem to outnumber the rational people on this thread.


04/06/2007 01:34:35 PM · #139
sigh...
 04/06/2007 01:35:40 PM · #140
Shannon, I don't want to necessarily be involved in these negotiations, but I might suggest that one of his Golden Clitorides award statuettes might be a fair trade :)

Originally posted by NickScipio:
Please contact me off-thread if you'd like to discuss further options or reasonable compensation.
04/06/2007 01:38:51 PM · #141
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Shannon, I don't want to necessarily be involved in these negotiations, but I might suggest that one of his Golden Clitorides award statuettes might be a fair trade :)

only if it's not virtual...
 04/06/2007 01:38:56 PM · #142
Originally posted by NickScipio:
I'm sorry the idiots finally shouted me down. I came here--an extremely hostile environment--and tried to make things right.


I'd be way more convinced the "trying to make things right" was actually that and not trying to cover up things if there had been a response to the suggestions of how the copyright infringements could be minimised in future. Can't be all *that* worried about it if it's just going to happen this way again and again, right?
 04/06/2007 01:42:27 PM · #143
What even sickens me worse is that his POD is of kids in amongst all the porn he has on his site. He's the troll!
 04/06/2007 01:45:12 PM · #144
ho hum...sigh...

Shannon - glad you got the photo removed. Also sorry to see all your attempts at rational explanation of the facts seem to just go over this guys head. Especially since he clearly understands the law, just chooses to be selective about applying it to his own actions.


Message edited by author 2007-04-06 14:02:31.
 04/06/2007 01:46:54 PM · #145
Originally posted by NickScipio:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by NickScipio:
Once I knew where the picture came from, and who was the copyright holder, I took it down within minutes.


your words, in general, are total bullshit.

there is at least one image in your PoD archive that has a label for "www.femjoy.com" on it. the FemJoy site states:
Copyrights
All content of this website is copyrighted by FEMJOY.
Reproduction in any way is prohibited without the expressive permission of the copyright holder.

so even when you have evidence of where the image originated and who owns it, you don't act.


Gee... perhaps it's because I HAVE EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM FEMJOY!


so you must understand some of the fundamental copyright principles. my question is, why do you only have "express permission" from some of the copyright holders? did they catch you in the act too?
 04/06/2007 01:47:32 PM · #146
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
What even sickens me worse is that his POD is of kids in amongst all the porn he has on his site. He's the troll!


To everyone who keeps making this point, let's remember that Shannon took the shot of his own kid and DPC rewarded it with a blue ribbon. It's a very cute shot about kids walking in on their parents, with nothing even remotely racy showing in the photo.

So let's save the upset for copyright infringement, unless you want to take Shannon to task for shooting it in the first place.
 04/06/2007 01:50:49 PM · #147
Originally posted by NickScipio:
Please contact me off-thread if you'd like to discuss further options or reasonable compensation.Nick


No need for compensation, Nick. I'm more interested in you understanding the need for proper permission before posting images in the first place. As MK pointed out, if some third party sent me all your stories and I posted them to an inappropriate web site (say... a hate group, cult or radical religious web site) with MY copyright notice on them... then I think you're smart enough to understand that this is illegal and not excused by ignorance.
 04/06/2007 01:51:42 PM · #148
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
What even sickens me worse is that his POD is of kids in amongst all the porn he has on his site. He's the troll!


To everyone who keeps making this point, let's remember that Shannon took the shot of his own kid and DPC rewarded it with a blue ribbon. It's a very cute shot about kids walking in on their parents, with nothing even remotely racy showing in the photo.

So let's save the upset for copyright infringement, unless you want to take Shannon to task for shooting it in the first place.


The replacement photo has children as well.
 04/06/2007 01:54:52 PM · #149
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Buckeye_Fan:
What even sickens me worse is that his POD is of kids in amongst all the porn he has on his site. He's the troll!


To everyone who keeps making this point, let's remember that Shannon took the shot of his own kid and DPC rewarded it with a blue ribbon. It's a very cute shot about kids walking in on their parents, with nothing even remotely racy showing in the photo.

So let's save the upset for copyright infringement, unless you want to take Shannon to task for shooting it in the first place.


No offense, but there's a huge difference between posting that photo here and posting it there. It changes the context. It puts a thumbnail of a child next to those of extremely explicit pornography. When you dabble in porn, you shouldn't even think about posting any image of any child. It changes the context in which the image is expected to be viewed. It leads to serious questions about the poster's intentions.

Message edited by author 2007-04-06 13:55:52.
 04/06/2007 01:55:16 PM · #150
Originally posted by hankk:
A court battle will be costly for the thief; since Shannon is an experienced photographer I assume he has registered his copyright and so the thief will be responsible for both Shannon's and his own legal bills.

You folks seem quite obsessed with the Berne Convention, but that's not the only law on copyrights. The DMCA also applies, and if you talked to an actual lawyer you'd discover that you have absolutely no case because Nick replaced the picture down as soon as he received a take-down notice, so the safe harbor clause applies. If you tried to file a suit over this matter, it'd be dismissed with prejudice in short order, you'd be required to pay Nick's legal fees, and your lawyer would most likely get a contempt charge for the frivolous suit. Judges hate stuff like that clogging up the system.

There is no debate that you guys have the moral high ground here; Nick writes smut for a hobby, so he already conceded that long before he thought up the POD. However, he does have the law on his side, and you guys are throwing away what moral ground you have by inciting felonies against him, frivolous lawsuits, etc. when obviously all it took was a quick email from Shannon and the infringement was over. All this rage, especially after the fact, just makes you look like idiots.

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
And if your making a living off your site and call it your profession your in even more trouble.

If you bothered to do a bit of research, you'd see that Nick pays a substantial amount to publish his works out of his own pocket and refuses all donations, which means he loses money on his work, not that he is "making a living" off it. And, as much as you may dislike the content of his writing, it's protected under the First Amendment and he has tens of thousands of loyal readers.

Originally posted by muckpond:
there is at least one image in your PoD archive that has a label for "www.femjoy.com" on it. ... so even when you have evidence of where the image originated and who owns it, you don't act.

Again, if you'd bothered to do a bit of research, you'd see that Nick has obtained licenses for that content in return for free advertising of the copyright owner's site.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 03:11:10 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 03:11:10 PM EDT.