| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2007 03:00:43 PM · #176 |
| Mmm. Not to mention that "posting other people's pictures for personal gain" doesn't have to include monetary gain. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:01:05 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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. |
Looks like another village has lost its idiot!
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:03:09 PM · #178 |
I think the entire thread needs to be archived before Nick and Visitor go back through to edit all the damning content from their posts. I would do it, but I'm at work.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:03:09 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
Granted, but irrelevant. For that matter, you're infringing on my copyright by quoting my comments ... |
Not by quoting a comment you've made here -- you've granted the site a perpetual, royalty-free license to use any content you post here in its ongoing operation ... or didn't you read the Terms of Use (Section 6.2) when you registered? |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:03:34 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by a_visitor:
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? |
Not at all. I'm saying that quoting you in a conversation you're participating in is not in any way copyright infringement.
Originally posted by a_visitor:
The DMCA, in effect, creates the assumption that all material is public domain until the infringer is informed otherwise. |
You appear to have a poor grasp of DMCA. The reverse is actually true. What you seem to be referring to is that the service provider can't be held legally responsible for someone ELSE posting copyrighted matrials without permission, but in this case it's Nick doing posting... and he would be fully liable even if he later yanked the shots. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:04:24 PM · #181 |
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. |
Yes, all of us should follow your shining example. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:06:50 PM · #182 |
After reading this whole thread, looking at his site, I find the following quote underneath one of the photos in his POD archive particularly ironic:
Quote(typed originally by Nick Scipio on his website): "You have no idea what I'm talking about? You're just here for the pics? Don't be a leech, read my stories—they're far more interesting than T&A, if I do say so myself."
Bold face added by me. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:07:52 PM · #183 |
Wow, I absolutely can not believe that guys reasoning. WTF? lol
I believe Scalverts kid could actually sue this clown for defamation of character. no copyright law either way will protect him from that.
Shannon. I would contact a lawyer and have this guy taken down a step. At least talk to your wife about it and explore your options.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:08:31 PM · #184 |
I really needs to be said inside this context...
Don't be a dick. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:22:05 PM · #185 |
"well, go f*ck yourselves"
So eloquent. Looks like he wins...NOT! |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:24:53 PM · #186 |
As Nick said the image was sent to him with out copyright info, an easy way to resolve this would have been for the Author to watermark the image with the contact info before posting it to the internet.
Then he could of contact them and asked to use the image.
If I was posting my work on the internet it would be the safe thing to do.
And this is getting old...
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:25:00 PM · #187 |
| Alright, I think we can stop quoting the cursing now ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:26:23 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by another_visitor:
As Nick said the image was sent to him with out copyright info, an easy way to resolve this would have been for the Author to watermark the image with the contact info before posting it to the internet.
Then he could of contact them and asked to use the image.
If I was posting my work on the internet it would be the safe thing to do.
And this is getting old... |
Not being watermarked doesn't make it right!!!!
You can't go into a parking lot and take someone's car just because it's unlocked and has keys in it! Saying "oh I would have ASKED if there had been contact into sitting on the drivers seat" would NOT keep you from getting into trouble!
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:26:30 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by another_visitor:
As Nick said the image was sent to him with out copyright info, an easy way to resolve this would have been for the Author to watermark the image with the contact info before posting it to the internet.
Then he could of contact them and asked to use the image.
If I was posting my work on the internet it would be the safe thing to do.
And this is getting old... |
But not too old for you to make a copycat account so you could come online to stoke the fire? Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:27:02 PM · #190 |
Really dude, An easy way to resolve it is to not use images that you are not sure about in the first place. It is called common sense and you seem to lack it in a big way.
Originally posted by another_visitor:
As Nick said the image was sent to him with out copyright info, an easy way to resolve this would have been for the Author to watermark the image with the contact info before posting it to the internet.
Then he could of contact them and asked to use the image.
If I was posting my work on the internet it would be the safe thing to do.
And this is getting old... |
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:27:10 PM · #191 |
As I said when I asked you the question, there's nothing left to discuss. You and Nick both know the right way to behave, so it's your choice.
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 15:28:09.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:28:18 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by another_visitor:
And this is getting old... |
Old? It's your first post on your first day here, just minutes ago... |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:28:51 PM · #193 |
| IMO this is the third account. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:29:30 PM · #194 |
lol thats what I was thinking. If this guy wants to argue., Hey my memebership doesn't expire til July...
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by another_visitor:
And this is getting old... |
Old? It's your first post on your first day here, just minutes ago... |
|
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:29:33 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by another_visitor:
As Nick said the image was sent to him with out copyright info, an easy way to resolve this would have been for the Author to watermark the image with the contact info before posting it to the internet.
Then he could of contact them and asked to use the image.
If I was posting my work on the internet it would be the safe thing to do.
And this is getting old... |
You have no clue, whats getting old is 100's of sites ripping off thousands of people. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:31:39 PM · #196 |
ahhh...nevermind. :D
Message edited by author 2007-04-06 15:32:35. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:32:58 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by WickedB:
IMO this is the third account. |
Nah...I think the 2nd is smarter than the 1st - the 3rd is just playing d*** (don't want to say something TOO unpleasant). :D |
There all the same damn person. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:34:22 PM · #198 |
Thats what I'm saying!
...kinda sad. |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:38:16 PM · #199 |
| DANG!! This happened AGAIN!! With someone ELSE?? Jeeze, will it never stop?? |
|
|
|
04/06/2007 03:38:44 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by WickedB:
IMO this is the third account. |
Most likely, it's members of the other site responding here as some DPCers have apparently done over there. This is not appropriate, and discussions are best left to the parties directly involved. Nick has not only removed the image(s), but apologized repeatly and personally, which is more than we usually get.
There's no need to belabor this. Theft is theft even if you don't know who the owner is (you know it's not YOU), and people who continue such behavior tend to find out the hard way that ignorance of the law does not protect them from liability. Ranting about it from either side will not change anything. |
|
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 01:43:20 PM EDT.
