| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2010 09:47:32 PM · #251 |
L2 isn't saying "don't worry about it, let it go."
She is simply saying to ease off on the village burning. There are ways to go about stop people from doing these kinds of things (and they will have to be pursued by those artists she has stolen from). Cyber-lynching, though it feels good, really isn't going to accomplish anything. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 09:59:16 PM · #252 |
To add to that, The cyber-lynching has all but eliminated any chance of actually busting this chick. You have her hiding under a rock now and gave her plenty of time to rid herself of any incriminating evidence.
When I was in middle school some other kid stole some things out of my locker. I knew this because I seen the items in his locker. Instead of going to a teacher or other school official first, I confronted him about it, then I told a teacher. When they searched his locker the stuff wasn't there. Since nobody could prove he took my stuff, Nothing was done. No one was punished and I didn't get my stuff back. I should have went to the authority first and not confronted at all. I might have got my things back and he would have been punished.
Originally posted by karmat:
L2 isn't saying "don't worry about it, let it go."
She is simply saying to ease off on the village burning. There are ways to go about stop people from doing these kinds of things (and they will have to be pursued by those artists she has stolen from). Cyber-lynching, though it feels good, really isn't going to accomplish anything. |
Message edited by author 2010-01-18 22:00:03. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 10:01:00 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by L2:
... I'm pretty sure that no one on this site lost any significant amount of money ... |
Sometimes it's not about the money - it's about principle. It just doesn't feel right to let someone get away with blatent disregard for something that's not theirs (and happens to belong to you).
This whole situation saddens me on two points: First, that people are so dishonest to do something like this in the first place, and second, the attitude of "just let it alone, it's not worth the trouble to pursue it".
I think the second point propagates the first...if there's no consequence why should people worry about being honest and respectful. |
I did not say (nor do I mean) that legitimate copyright infringements shouldn't be pursued. The fact remains that there were people who might have had actual complaints that now cannot pursue those complaints because the mob reaction was larger than the offense, and largely borne that way by people who had no real ax to grind, no actual proof of wrongdoing, and way too much time on their hands.
Hypothetically, let's say there is an Internet user out there who has got 15 free minutes tonight and would like to suggest to your family and friends that you think cyberstalking and general harassment is perfectly defensible when, in your opinion, the target is guilty of saying something wrong on the Internet. I have only a screenshot to support my allegations. My second point propagates the first, no? Do you still think it is OK for some stranger to hunt you down and write to your family and friends to tell them what a jackass they think you are? With NO PROOF!!!!?! (Obviously the last paragraph is in jest, for those who are sardonically challenged.) |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 10:49:21 PM · #254 |
| Too many torches, not enough pitchforks. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 11:14:10 PM · #255 |
What is enlightening is just how few people around here actually truly know how to:
A) Copyright their work legally and properly to begin with
B) Do what they can to protect their images when they decide to put them online
and
C) Understand exactly what to do when and if their work is being compromised.
All that seems to happen is reaction and mock outrage, but when it comes to deciding exactly what can and/or should be done, we all just sit around shaking our fists and blinking our vacant little eyes. |
|
|
|
01/18/2010 11:15:42 PM · #256 |
Boy that concept of watermarks is nowhere near as fun as lynching someone huh?
Why is it unreasonable when people get pissed off for someone ripping off their images and not be pissed off when the site admins drag their asses when it comes to watermarking historical challenge photos? The "vigilante" flavor of this thread is a result of frustration toward this site and the arrogant attitude it upholds when it comes to image protection.
If the site is placed in peril because of this outcry, so be it. It may be time to wise up and take action when you are entrusted with the captivity of copyrighted property.
If I could remove my images from this site for no other reason than this, I would in a second. Unfortunately, I do not have the choice.
How about this, I cheated in all my challenges. Will you now erase my photos??
|
|
|
|
01/18/2010 11:40:46 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by L2:
... I'm pretty sure that no one on this site lost any significant amount of money ... |
Sometimes it's not about the money - it's about principle. It just doesn't feel right to let someone get away with blatent disregard for something that's not theirs (and happens to belong to you).
This whole situation saddens me on two points: First, that people are so dishonest to do something like this in the first place, and second, the attitude of "just let it alone, it's not worth the trouble to pursue it".
I think the second point propagates the first...if there's no consequence why should people worry about being honest and respectful. |
I agree. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 03:06:41 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Chinarosepetal:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ambaker:
According to eHow, the criminal offense is as listed below: (Bold added to text by me.)
Willful, intentional violation of copyright can be considered criminal infringement under three circumstances. The act is criminal infringement if it was for commercial or financial gain, if more than $1,000 in retail value was reproduced or distributed in a 180-day period, or a work being prepared for commercial distribution was disseminated on a public computer network. The penalties for criminal infringement are described in Title 18, section 2319 of the U.S. Code. These range from imprisonment of one to 10 years, plus fines, depending on the nature of the violation, the value of the infringing items and previous violations. |
Bango! 3 for 3. |
Read it carefully, only the first one possibly applies. |
Really? Looked to me like there was definitely more than $1,000 in retail value (each photo is potentially worth that much), and that site was over 10 months old... Oh, and it was being distributed on a computer network... Not sure what you're reading there, but to me I see, three for three... |
I don't think you understand the legal process and it's requirements fully, don't leap into anything as Bugzeye has cautioned. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 03:45:58 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Cyber-lynching, though it feels good, really isn't going to accomplish anything. |
Well now that's a bit of a self-contradicting statement. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 10:57:06 AM · #260 |
Just wanted to chime in that not all evidence is "lost". I've captured some of it, as well as did  YoSpiff. Whether it's admissible in court is a matter I can't answer.
However, if anyone wants to pursue this legally, I have most of the shots of her shows that I captured from her website.
For example, I have a nice shot of Alain's rabbit photo:
 ,
hanging in her (library?) showing and signed in big black pen by her.
I won't post it here, of course, because it's not my photo.
Message edited by author 2010-01-19 11:01:48.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 07:19:58 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Actually, speaking of people taking photos without permission, here's an interesting search result.
Just a search of all photos with out "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" moniker on PhotoBucket.
Note also that Photobucket allows these to be used to make/buy mugs, etc. |
After 2 e-mails to photobucket, mine were removed. I had to prove they were mine.... |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 10:32:53 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by liberty:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Actually, speaking of people taking photos without permission, here's an interesting search result.
Just a search of all photos with out "Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited" moniker on PhotoBucket.
Note also that Photobucket allows these to be used to make/buy mugs, etc. |
After 2 e-mails to photobucket, mine were removed. I had to prove they were mine.... |
They took mine down, too. Quite reasonable to ask for proof before taking action. |
|
|
|
01/26/2010 10:29:32 PM · #263 |
| has anyone done anything to make sure she doesn't start using other peoples stuff anymore? I did a google search and nothing new came up. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 09:30:45 AM EDT.
