| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2007 01:55:45 PM · #151 |
yeah they are in his ass. lol and the replacement for parrotheads photo looks like the same girl. well sort of. They both have butts. Now we are getting into the laws of likeness copyrights. no. i am just kidding please do not start a new war. It is passover right now we should be peaceful for a few hours prehaps resume the lynchings after dinner. hehe
Originally posted by dsterner:
The replacement photo has children as well. |
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 01:59:02 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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. |
You and Nick are both missing OUR point: those photos should never have been posted without permission in the first place, and everything offered up as an excuse has been just, well, excuses. Hide behind safe harbor if you like, but if things were being done legally in the first place, safe harbor wouldn't be necessary, now would it?
There may be something in a class-action suit, if pattern could be established, but not being a lawyer, I can't speak on that authoritatively.
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 14:01:42.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 01:59:42 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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. |
Mmmhmm, I think he was just responding to a side remark and wasn't making too big a deal of it.
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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. |
Uhm I love how there were at least two *other* sites mentioned in the thread in the same context as femjoy, that haven't been addressed... |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 01:59:49 PM · #154 |
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 no no....I'm not slamming Shannon at all! Its Nick placing the photo on his erotic website. It conveys a message that was not intended by Shannon. I'm sorry if I came across that way. I love the photo from Shannon.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:00:22 PM · #155 |
You ever hear of a class action suit? If a few more photographers who's copyrights have been violated on that site joined forces things would be totalled reveresed from the way you have worded it here. Seems to me like you just can not get over your quest for the ultimate loophole. Fact is. If you did not press the shutter button the photo is not yours to do what you please. Permission is required period. The world is not royalty free until proven otherwise. Stop stealing other peoples work for your own gain.
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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. |
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:01:48 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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. |
If the income is taxable then it doesnt matter if its a loss. Its still income. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:02:20 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
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. |
Thank you Rebecca and dsterner for seeing my point as well.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:03:19 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
...My post was in the same vein as not letting minor things get you incredibly upset so you'll go through life happier. |
This comment would seem to suggest that you earnestly believe that the aggrieved party cannot resolve this issue without getting upset... and that is debatable.
If all of us simply let persons of this ilk do whatever they please then I fear that in time we would discover that laws, mores and other forms of conduct regulating process would be for naught.
Just a thought.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:06:09 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by klstover:
... Uhm I love how there were at least two *other* sites mentioned in the thread in the same context as femjoy, that haven't been addressed... |
Yes. That's been dismissed quite readily by silence. Perhaps they are worried about further digging and having this issue brought to the attention of online communities outside of DPC?
Smooth operators for sure, but then if you're in the business of promoting/displaying pornography I think this is not the first, nor last, outcry they've had to "deal" with. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:12:47 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by levyj413:
...My post was in the same vein as not letting minor things get you incredibly upset so you'll go through life happier. |
This comment would seem to suggest that you earnestly believe that the aggrieved party cannot resolve this issue without getting upset... and that is debatable.
If all of us simply let persons of this ilk do whatever they please then I fear that in time we would discover that laws, mores and other forms of conduct regulating process would be for naught.
Just a thought.
Ray |
Ray, please read the entire thread and note my numerous posts besides the one you quoted.
I never said don't do anything. In fact, I said do something: send him a note.
I then posted a challenge to Nick similar to others' and even quoted the relevant piece of information from the US copyright office.
My point was, and remains, that there are thousands (millions?) of pages out there posting photos that belong to someone else. If you get hugely upset (not somewhat annoyed, but enormously angry as some posters here seem to be) every time, it's your health that's going to suffer much more than the people who own those pages.
Whereas getting a little annoyed and starting with a note to the page owner might get the end result you want and then you can enjoy the rest of your day.
Not: let anyone do anything they want with your work
But: accept that people are going to do things with your work without your permission, and for your own sanity, respond in a measured way.
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 14:17:19.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:18:37 PM · #161 |
I think that someone should print all of these pages with his replies on them quickly and I hope that the original pages where the pictures appeared included, not just links, actual hard copies.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:25:31 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by levyj413:
...My post was in the same vein as not letting minor things get you incredibly upset so you'll go through life happier. |
This comment would seem to suggest that you earnestly believe that the aggrieved party cannot resolve this issue without getting upset... and that is debatable.
If all of us simply let persons of this ilk do whatever they please then I fear that in time we would discover that laws, mores and other forms of conduct regulating process would be for naught.
Just a thought.
Ray |
Ray, please read the entire thread and note my numerous posts besides the one you quoted. |
Seems I jumped the gun on this one... my apologies. Rather sad that I didn't read your other submissions as it would have certainly changed my outlook.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:27:26 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
You and Nick are both missing OUR point: those photos should never have been posted without permission in the first place, and everything offered up as an excuse has been just, well, excuses. Hide behind safe harbor if you like, but if things were being done legally in the first place, safe harbor wouldn't be necessary, now would it? |
Granted, but irrelevant. For that matter, you're infringing on my copyright by quoting my comments; you're relying on safe harbor just as much as Nick is (and I am). Everyone is guilty if you look closely enough.
Originally posted by Rebecca:
There may be something in a class-action suit, if pattern could be established, but not being a lawyer, I can't speak on that authoritatively. |
A class requires that the members have valid suits and that it's easier for the court to handle them as one case instead of individual ones. A "pattern" is irrelevant if all of the cases in that pattern would be frivolous. Sorry.
Originally posted by klstover:
Uhm I love how there were at least two *other* sites mentioned in the thread in the same context as femjoy, that haven't been addressed... |
There are twelve sites in that category, and Nick has stated he's negotiated the same deal with all of them: free advertising of their site in return for the use of a few of their pictures.
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Stop stealing other peoples work for your own gain. |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
If the income is taxable then it doesnt matter if its a loss. Its still income. |
Same response to both: Nick has absolutely zero income from his site and pays its substantial expenses out of his own pocket. He makes no gain at all, just a pure loss. If you want to get mad at someone, first go after all the folks that actually charge to see your stolen pictures. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:27:47 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Seems I jumped the gun on this one... my apologies.
Ray |
No problem. :)
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:29:48 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
you're infringing on my copyright by quoting my comments; you're relying on safe harbor just as much as Nick is (and I am). Everyone is guilty if you look closely enough. |
Completely untrue. You were quoted with attribution. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:32:06 PM · #166 |
come on people we are losing the battle here. the idiots are 2 up on us rationals now. someone please come over to our side....
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:32:35 PM · #167 |
a_visitor: here's the nugget of the problem:
Facts
1) Nick claims he didn't know that the pics he uses are copyrighted.
2) Now he knows they're all copyrighted from the instant they're created. He probably knew all along, but I'll ignore that.
Only relevant question remaining:
3) How does he, or you, justify continuing to post known copyrighted images?
Please ignore all the other talk and respond to that one question directly.
If your response is some legal loophole, then we're done discussing it, and it's clear that you're not going to do the right thing. Maybe we'll get lucky and Nick will change his behavior. But there's nothing left to argue about.
If you have some other argument, then I'd like to hear it.
Thanks.
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 14:33:23.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:38:11 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
You and Nick are both missing OUR point: those photos should never have been posted without permission in the first place, and everything offered up as an excuse has been just, well, excuses. Hide behind safe harbor if you like, but if things were being done legally in the first place, safe harbor wouldn't be necessary, now would it? |
Granted, but irrelevant. For that matter, you're infringing on my copyright by quoting my comments; you're relying on safe harbor just as much as Nick is (and I am). Everyone is guilty if you look closely enough. |
Ahh, but I credited the source. And I believe that's addressed in the forum rules somewhere, anyway. Nice try.
Originally posted by a_visitor:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
There may be something in a class-action suit, if pattern could be established, but not being a lawyer, I can't speak on that authoritatively. |
A class requires that the members have valid suits and that it's easier for the court to handle them as one case instead of individual ones. A "pattern" is irrelevant if all of the cases in that pattern would be frivolous. Sorry. |
I'm doubtful that a pattern of continuous, repeated and knowingly committed copyright infringement would be viewed as frivolous. I wouldn't presume to know for sure, however, without consulting a copyright lawyer - which, by the way, I'll be more than happy to do if/when I discover any of my own images stolen, whether on your site or someone else's. I'm not the sort to be bullied by site owners and their cronies in such a manner, and neither are most of the folks here. You and Nick have both certainly posted more than enough damaging material in this thread should anyone be feeling litigious, so you should probably stop talking before a subpoena shows up at your door.
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 14:41:46.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:41:19 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by a_visitor:
you're infringing on my copyright by quoting my comments; you're relying on safe harbor just as much as Nick is (and I am). Everyone is guilty if you look closely enough. |
Completely untrue. You were quoted with attribution. |
Isn't that laughable? I bet he thinks he can use copywrite law to keep a reporter from quoting him. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:44:02 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
The DMCA specifically grants safe harbor to ISPs until a "take-down" notice is received, and under the specific definition in the DMCA, Nick qualifies as an ISP since he operates the server containing the content. That means he cannot be sued for any infringement that occurs before the copyright owner (not a random third party) sends him that notice and he has a reasonable opportunity to comply. That's the law, folks, whether you like it or not. |
Sorry, but I'm afraid your knowledge of DMCA is incomplete. The DMCA sets a number of conditions which must be met to qualify for the safe harbor provisions. One of those is that the safe harbor does not apply to the person who posts the material, but rather to hosts of material posted by third parties.
Nick: I'm struck by the fact that you will take photo submissions anonymously, but will not take removal requests anonymously. Surely you can see the inherent contradiction in this? A wiser move may be to require an email address with submissions, and to confirm that address with a challenge/response (confirmation email) before allowing the submitter to upload. That way, if an infringement does happen, you can identify the offender for the copyright owner.
Regards,
~Terry
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:51:52 PM · #171 |
| Or you could just use your own photos or buy them from a stock site. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:56:44 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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.
|
Not true. Once infringement occurs, in this case by posting the image online without express permission, simply stopping use does NOT absolve the infringer from liability. The creator of the infringed work is entitled to compensation for the infringement.
The so called "safe harbor" clause of the DMCA does not apply to the infringer, only to those unknowingly hosting such work, i.e. the ISP or site host. They have a certain period to remove the work, but the infringer remains liable for the illegal use, even though the image has been removed from use. In this case Nick may also be the host of the site, but, he's also the one knowingly infringing on copyrights of others and would not be able to claim "safe harbor". |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:57:32 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Completely untrue. You were quoted with attribution. |
So you are saying that if Nick had posted your copyrighted work with attribution, it would have been okay? Either stealing is wrong or it's not; you can't claim it's only wrong when someone steals your stuff, but not when you steal someone else's stuff.
However, I personally don't care if anyone uses material I own the copyright to as long as they don't try to make a profit off it without fairly compensating me. That includes any photos I may take and publish on the Internet, like most other amateur photographers. The DMCA, in effect, creates the assumption that all material is public domain until the infringer is informed otherwise. If you don't like that, bitch at your Congressmen, not me.
Originally posted by levyj413:
Facts
1) Nick claims he didn't know that the pics he uses are copyrighted.
2) Now he knows they're all copyrighted from the instant they're created. He probably knew all along, but I'll ignore that.
Only relevant question remaining:
3) How does he, or you, justify continuing to post known copyrighted images?
|
I don't claim to speak for Nick, but my general sense of his comments is that he knows the works are/were copyrighted (after all, he is an author and is knowledgeable about that) but he is unsure if the owner granted a license to distribute it and/or put it in the public domain. He clearly stated he'll take down any pictures where the author lets him know that his assumption is incorrect, and he's demonstrated that he follows through on that quickly when it happens.
As I said, you have the moral high ground, but he has the law on his side.
I'm done arguing here; a few of you raise good points, and I'll concede they're morally correct, though legally immaterial. Most of you are idiots and your blathering no longer interests me, right or wrong. All of you should consider how the way you come across and how polite you are affects how much people care about what you think. A few of you get it, and I wish you luck in life; to the rest, well, go f*ck yourselves. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:59:22 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
All of you should consider how the way you come across and how polite you are affects how much people care about what you think. A few of you get it, and I wish you luck in life; to the rest, well, go f*ck yourselves. |
You might consider taking your own advice. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 02:59:39 PM · #175 |
Anyone else find it kind of hard to believe that someone would take a personal loss just to show off other peoples photographs on the web?
Either Nick has alot of money to burn. Or Nick is full of shit.
Some one here should contact a media agent. Mention to them that this guy has pictures of kids on a website that is mostly adult content. Also tell them that a good portion of the photos on the site are probably there against the copyright holders will. Contact a Fox agency. They are always fighting copyright battles they love that sort of thing.
|
|
