| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2005 11:04:35 PM · #151 |
| But stealing (and then returning) a photo from a restaurant wall would probably be petty theft in any case. However, I was only referring to the copyright infringement use -- not to how they obtained the goods in the first place. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 11:05:19 PM · #152 |
Given the thread I find this line from www.mobilemediaph.com/escape2004/live/11.08.paler.html
kind of ironic. Thanks to Beagleboy for the links.
"What Ed and Gigi enjoy the most is gathering images from hard to reach places"
Guess hard to reach would be that 'poor dial up connection'that was mentioned earlier.
And back to my friend for a second, when he asked the restaurant owner his reply was; "I wonder what else has walked out of here." The graphics guys apparently went back the next day at breakfast and put the photo back without anyone really noticing, which really bothered my friend (Ben, BTW) more than the stealing image. "I would like to think people would remember if one of my pictures vanished in the middle of the night." I told him he was lucky, at least it was in a booth and not in a toilet stall. For some reason that didn't perk him up at all.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2005 11:10:32 PM · #153 |
OK;) And as he intended to return the picture I suppose it wouldn't be theft - in the UK anyway I think as there was no intention to appropriate.
Guy had some nerve though!
Message edited by author 2005-06-30 23:11:02. |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 11:19:39 PM · #154 |
| Is this what they mean by "taking photos"? |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 11:45:55 PM · #155 |
Just as a reminder- gathering further information is fine. Please, please, please DO NOT try to take matters any further. Kiwiness has requested that he be permitted to deal with the situation as he see's fit.
So please, no harassing commments to the photographer in question. Let's make sure that we do not complicate the situation. If you have uncovered accounts on DPC that you find suspicious please use the Contact Us form to make sure SC gets the information.
As always, we really appreciate the effort you guys put into making this site a great place. :)
Clara |
|
|
|
06/30/2005 11:47:09 PM · #156 |
Taken down further comments per Clara's suggestion.
Message edited by author 2005-06-30 23:48:07.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 01:39:41 AM · #157 |
Very entertaining reading through this thread. You are all a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’ I see. How do you find all this information in such a short time? Amazingâ€Â¦
Anyway, just to update you. I wrote to gigi yesterday and told her that I am very disappointed that she used my image under her own name. I also wrote that I wouldn̢۪t take the matter any further if she wrote me an explanation and an apology, which I am still waiting for. I hope she has learnt a lesson from this will never do anything like that again. |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 02:20:18 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
...
Anyway, just to update you. I wrote to gigi yesterday and told her that I am very disappointed that she used my image under her own name. I also wrote that I wouldn̢۪t take the matter any further if she wrote me an explanation and an apology, which I am still waiting for. I hope she has learnt a lesson from this will never do anything like that again. |
That is cool and very nice of you. Something tells me the embarrassment of exposure for her is enough punishment.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 02:28:06 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Very entertaining reading through this thread. You are all a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’ I see. How do you find all this information in such a short time? Amazingâ€Â¦
Anyway, just to update you. I wrote to gigi yesterday and told her that I am very disappointed that she used my image under her own name. I also wrote that I wouldn̢۪t take the matter any further if she wrote me an explanation and an apology, which I am still waiting for. I hope she has learnt a lesson from this will never do anything like that again. |
That's a nice way to handle things cause really we all should feel pitty for the individual ( no need for pitch folks lol) |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 03:20:51 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Very entertaining reading through this thread. You are all a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’ I see. How do you find all this information in such a short time? Amazingâ€Â¦
Anyway, just to update you. I wrote to gigi yesterday and told her that I am very disappointed that she used my image under her own name. I also wrote that I wouldn̢۪t take the matter any further if she wrote me an explanation and an apology, which I am still waiting for. I hope she has learnt a lesson from this will never do anything like that again. |
Good poise kiwi! Take the high road buddy! Good for you. |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 03:26:17 AM · #161 |
I remember putting in a DQ request for one of gigi922`s 3rd placed photos a while back.
I found the photo on her website dated a few month before the challenge started.
It was DQ`ed i believe.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 05:52:16 AM · #162 |
Let me put things in perspective so that we don't form a lynch mob and, worse, lynch the wrong people.
PhotoWorldManila.com is not Photoworld Cup. The former is the site managed directly by the Federation of Philippine Photographers Foundation. This Foundation is run by responsible, respected photographers. It was formed to uplift the art and status of photography in the Philippines, and to protect photographers (like Gary, yes, even if he isn't a resident here) from unscrupulous practices of companies--and other photographers.
Photoworld Cup is a monthly competition among Manila camera clubs, with no prizes except medals and small trophies, plus $450 cash to the best camera club, not to the photographer, at the end of the year. Upon the request of the clubs, the contest is directly run by the clubs themselves, rather than the FPPF as it had been years ago. Whether handing off the contest to the participants themselves was a bad decision or not is something that inhabits our nightmares.
This act of shameless piracy has embarrassed the Photoworld Cup and PhotoWorldManila.com, not to mention other Filipino photographers as a whole. We are thankful for the diligence of photographers like Gary in helping spot online thievery. One of the contest committee members of the Photoworld Cup, himself a regular participant/winner of online contests, similarly spotted another instance of plagiarism in the Cup a few months ago, and so did I.
As I write this, the camera club that Gigi belongs to is discussing the matter, and so is the organizing committee of the Photoworld Cup as well as the FPPF/PhotoWorldManila.com, and, I expect, the site displaying the contest winners.
As I said at the start, let's not take our pitchforks to everyone involved in the contest--not Photoworld Cup, not the Internet site displaying the Cup winners, and not PhotoWorldManila.com (which by the way ceased displaying the Cup winners years ago).
The proper sanctions are being put in effect now, and Gary's rights are being protected.
My apologies for the long post. |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 05:57:05 AM · #163 |
But a Lynch mob would have been so much fun!
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 06:49:33 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by efxgfx:
Let me put things in perspective so that we don't form a lynch mob and, worse, lynch the wrong people.
PhotoWorldManila.com is not Photoworld Cup. The former is the site managed directly by the Federation of Philippine Photographers Foundation. This Foundation is run by responsible, respected photographers. It was formed to uplift the art and status of photography in the Philippines, and to protect photographers (like Gary, yes, even if he isn't a resident here) from unscrupulous practices of companies--and other photographers.
Photoworld Cup is a monthly competition among Manila camera clubs, with no prizes except medals and small trophies, plus $450 cash to the best camera club, not to the photographer, at the end of the year. Upon the request of the clubs, the contest is directly run by the clubs themselves, rather than the FPPF as it had been years ago. Whether handing off the contest to the participants themselves was a bad decision or not is something that inhabits our nightmares.
This act of shameless piracy has embarrassed the Photoworld Cup and PhotoWorldManila.com, not to mention other Filipino photographers as a whole. We are thankful for the diligence of photographers like Gary in helping spot online thievery. One of the contest committee members of the Photoworld Cup, himself a regular participant/winner of online contests, similarly spotted another instance of plagiarism in the Cup a few months ago, and so did I.
As I write this, the camera club that Gigi belongs to is discussing the matter, and so is the organizing committee of the Photoworld Cup as well as the FPPF/PhotoWorldManila.com, and, I expect, the site displaying the contest winners.
As I said at the start, let's not take our pitchforks to everyone involved in the contest--not Photoworld Cup, not the Internet site displaying the Cup winners, and not PhotoWorldManila.com (which by the way ceased displaying the Cup winners years ago).
The proper sanctions are being put in effect now, and Gary's rights are being protected.
My apologies for the long post. |
And I commend you on the swift response and sound judgement. |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 07:55:14 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Very entertaining reading through this thread. You are all a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’ I see. How do you find all this information in such a short time? Amazingâ€Â¦
Anyway, just to update you. I wrote to gigi yesterday and told her that I am very disappointed that she used my image under her own name. I also wrote that I wouldn̢۪t take the matter any further if she wrote me an explanation and an apology, which I am still waiting for. I hope she has learnt a lesson from this will never do anything like that again. |
A level headed response to say the least. Gary, you're a true gentleman for proceeding this way and for this I truly commend you.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 10:54:51 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Very entertaining reading through this thread. You are all a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’ I see. How do you find all this information in such a short time? Amazingâ€Â¦
Anyway, just to update you. I wrote to gigi yesterday and told her that I am very disappointed that she used my image under her own name. I also wrote that I wouldn̢۪t take the matter any further if she wrote me an explanation and an apology, which I am still waiting for. I hope she has learnt a lesson from this will never do anything like that again. |
Okay, so that is a cancel on the 747 charter, which is good I have no idea how we would've ever gotten through airport security with pitchforks and torchs.
Does anyone know how well torchs will sell on ebay- maybe about 278 of them. I'll hold onto the pitchforks- just in case.
Seriously- very classy how you handled this. I probably would've been calling in some "favors" from some New York friends.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 11:12:22 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, now that could have been intersting. I personally think your friend should have gone for more money. If the person he gave the picture to said he didn't give it out. It means that they "stole" the image from the wall and scanned it without the owners knowledge. Criminal charges could have been filed.
He thought is was fair, they only made $500 for putting the ad togther.
The advertising agency may have only made $500, but how much money did that ad generate the business it was for?" End of quote!
In the end you have to ask yourself, If they approached you before hand, what would you have charged? This and a fair penalty fee would seem appropriate.
Message edited by author 2005-07-01 11:17:29.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2005 11:18:16 AM · #168 |
sounds like its about time to lock this thread.
James |
|
|
|
07/01/2005 11:22:40 AM · #169 |
Yer a member - ignore it. :)
|
|
