PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   35mm Photo Equipment (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   $500 reward for identity of image thief (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=59570)

Annika1980 April 3rd 06 05:23 PM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
OK, it was me. Now send me my money!


Slim Pics April 3rd 06 10:07 PM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
IAMAD by Moloko is on sale at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=glance&n=5174

It is probably the closest thing to reality you lot are going to
discover. It's rather a hoot that you all provide support to someone
who by his own admission stole photos off someones website. From this
side of the fence it looks like this group is made up of idiots who
actually believe the wanted person has done no wrong in stealing
someone elses pictures. Nice lot of twisted mind here.

IANAD or L


Jeff R April 4th 06 08:57 AM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 

"Slim Pics" wrote in message
oups.com...
IAMAD by Moloko is on sale at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=glance&n=5174

It is probably the closest thing to reality you lot are going to
discover. It's rather a hoot that you all provide support to someone
who by his own admission stole photos off someones website. From this
side of the fence it looks like this group is made up of idiots who
actually believe the wanted person has done no wrong in stealing
someone elses pictures. Nice lot of twisted mind here.

IANAD or L


Please define "stealing" in this context.

--
Jeff R.
IANAD



kosh April 4th 06 09:38 AM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
Ken Chandler wrote:
"Sam" wrote:

"POTD.com.au" wrote



I'm soooo confused!!! :-(



i know me too. who is who??



I knew this would happen one day.

May I suggest everyone adds an appropriate acronym in their .sig? Anyone
who isn't sporting a /IANAD/ .sig can then be assumed as one. Foolproof,
no?

--
KC
http://kenchandler.com

/IANAD/


unless you don't get involved in this stuff.... or try not to and
therefore do not have a IANAD

[email protected] April 4th 06 10:47 AM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
Off topic, in keeping with the entire thread...

"Slim Pics"* posted:
It is probably the closest thing to reality you lot are
going to discover.


So is that directed at everyone on this thread? I'll avoid return
insults. But perhaps you might like to reconsider your approach.
Especially seeing you don't have much of a posting history*, it seems
remarkable that you can make such generalisations. Isn't it *me* that
you are angry at? Why jump on everyone else? Stick to the topic, and
avoid insults. It will be a happier world for all...

It's rather a hoot that you all provide support to someone
who by his own admission stole photos off someones (sic)
website.


Please post where I admitted 'stealing'. I *reposted* his webpages,
after he posted them, made demonstrably false statements, and then he
*withdrew the pages*. I regard that sort of behaviour as
reprehensible. What do you think of it, 'Slim'? If other people do
it, I'll happily take the huge risk of prosecution (grin) again.

From this side of the fence it looks like this group is made up
of idiots


Again, an interesting generalisation. The style sounds eerily
familiar.

who actually believe the wanted person


I'm 'wanted'? Coool!!! Anyone seen the posters??? (O: I'd love a
copy for my scrapbook..

.. has done no wrong in stealing someone elses (sic) pictures.


I refer to the above point. If I 'stole', then so does Google when it
caches pages. So does www.archive.org (Wayback Machine)- which exists
solely for the purpose of reposting old webpages. Is Google also
wanted? Is the Wayback Machine?

Slim, I invite you to explain the difference. We're all ears. Go
visit www.archive.org, and see what they do, then think very hard. And
does your computer not 'steal' images every time it visits a site and
takes the images into a cache? Are you afraid of legal action because
of that? Do you understand any of these concepts at all? Perhaps you
have limited experience in the real world. But reposting (and caching)
webpages happens all the time. I have pages up, and you are absolutely
welcome to repost them, including my old and embarrassing ones (I admit
I once had posted that about 50Mp was needed to equal 35mm film! But
before you laugh, I was talking about Kodachrome 25, and a high quality
50mm lens.. I actually wasn't *that* far out..)

Nice lot of twisted mind (sic) here.


There you go again with the insults. The spelling is eerily familiar
too... Not of course, that I would suggest anything untoward, having
already wrongly thought *Poxy* was Doug... but it is worth noting that
Slim's entire posting history consists of:
- this post
- another where he calls me a troll
- another where he has a go at getting no service when he visits
Bunnings...

That's it. Fascinatingly - and in an amazing, some would say
*extraordinary* coincidence, the 'troll' post happens on a thread
called "Upsample without limits"... Yes, it's all about Dougie's
favourite subject - enlargement. (It was an April Fool's joke that
Slim apparently didn't 'get').

Slim also posts from a Telstra account.. Nothing unusual in all that,
of course, but it's a funny old world, isn't it... (O:

Be interested in your comments on the stealing thing, and the wayback
machine, and Google caching, 'Slim'. And I look forward to seeing lots
of helpful and informative posts from you in the future. Nice to meet
you.


And where *did* douglas go?

(O:


Fred April 4th 06 04:28 PM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 211.31.221.36
/How hard is it to find ffs?


wrote:
(Offtopic, like this entire posting. Just defending my name. I shall
not respond beyond this, except to Mr MacDonald's solicitors.(grin))

Firstly, it seems that Douglas is not quite getting the response he
wished. He is now recognised for the type of person he is.

A CASH REWARD IS OFFERED for information leading to the identity of an
Internet image thief, proven liar and stalker.


And good luck getting your money. Anyone who bites will have as much
hope as people like Avery, Annika, Rusty and others had, of ever
getting Douglas' free samples. And of course he has performed this
stunt before - a quick search will reveal very similar postings in the
past.

A person posting with the credentials of: and
Is engaged in theft of my photographs off my web site


'Theft' is stealing. I haven't stolen anything. Let me explain this
in words of less than two syl-lab-les.

1. Douglas posted images and text on the In-ter-net.
2. Douglas drew at-ten-tion to them in these groups.
3. People cri-tic-ised his images and in-fer-en-ces.
4. He (cow-ard-ly) withdrew the images and text.
5. People like me reposted the images and text so Douglas can't get
away with it.

That's not stealing. In fact, just about anyone with even a smattering
of legal training will look at that and laugh. 'Fair use', they will
chuckle.

and defamation of me and my family.


Nope. I've called him a liar, because he does lie. I've called him a
fraud, because he has used fraudulent means to try to promote his
business (although it seems his business is almost completely
non-existent - he certainly has no 'Techno Aussie Digital Print Centre'
franchise that he claimed in the laughable 'Graham Hunt' episode). The
difference here is that anyone can look up all those incidents. But
can Douglas post a nice clear simple link to where *I* have lied?
Defamation only applies if one utters untruths.

And of course I've called him a sockpuppet, because he has used many
identities (over 40 at last count) to pretend to be different people of
the same view, and to support his own posts.

I am now committed to pursuing and silencing him through the court
system, regardless of the cost.


So why doesn't he get off his arse and do it? What was this post
supposed to achieve? Make me tremble in my boots? Not gonna happen.

My name is Douglas MacDonald.
I run a number of web sites the most significant is photosbydouglas.com


Isn't that the one he pulled down and said he had completely abandoned
- along with digital photography - only a few months back? (refer to
"Digicams With MF Film Quality" in rec.photo.digital, which contains
more examples of his pulled webpages and ridiculous claims), and also
"Return to film... True!" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm

I offer now a NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED $500 AUD cash reward for information of
the real identity and residential address of the person using these
identities.


'No questions asked'? Let's read on...

The money will be paid by my lawyers at Eagle Street Brisbane on
successful service of summonses on this person.


Oh. So there are in fact quite a few 'questions' and conditions.
Here's a simple solution - if Douglas will post the name of his
lawyer/s, I will happily identify myself to them, and forward to them
every post I've ever made about him in full context. If he has a
problem with that (and he will!), I think we can say his bluff has now
officially been called.

The payment will be cash and you do not need to identify yourself


Hence my request. I'll give my details to an *unbiased* observer, but
I don't wish to be identified by Douglas because he is a *obsessed
borderline psychotic*. If you doubt that, from another post on this
topic, Douglas said, and I quote:

I'll find you soon enough...
Scum like you are the reason shopkeepers keep shotguns under
the counter.


Any questions, folks? That will be one of the first things I show his
lawyer...

just wait until your information is verified and the court papers served, to be paid.


But what if Douglas decides he won't proceed? (Gee, not that it would
be likely, I'm sure that any lawyer would *jump* at the chance to
represent someone like him..) But of course by then he would have my
address... Anyone else feel like giving him their address, after that
shotgun remark??

Anyway, these silly threats might work on someone with little
intelligence, and maybe Douglas thinks everyone thinks just like him.
But they ain't working on me. If he continues to post rubbish and then
withdraw it, I will continue to *repost* it for posterity, and to
ensure he doesn't get away with his ridiculous claims.

To prove that he won't stop me keeping him honest, here's another of
the Douglas classic posts, which deserves another showing:

http://www.geocities.com/chrlzs/flinders-20D

Herein Douglas tried to show how badly a Canon performs with shadow
detail. But take a careful look at the EXIF data which shows the
exposure mode he used (partial, which is similar to spot), and then
look at the histogram. Remembering, this is a sunlit beach scene, and
he effectively used spot metering off the guy's sunlit white pants,
shirt and beach sand, with no compensation...!!! Does anyone here
think the problem is the camera, or is it the photographer? I can post
more - is Douglas going to summons the Wayback Machine too? There are
many other ways to get cached data, so no-one can escape their history.
I'm happy for any of *my* work to be reposted, by the way - I'll be
flattered! And my old stuff is actually not that hard to find...

(O:

So remember - these are his *publicly posted webpages*, complete with
all copyright messages, reposted for educational purposes.

Contact me through my web sites.


Any takers yet? I hope no-one beats me to my $500.

(O:

I'm waiting for your lawyer's name, Douglas.


Scott W April 4th 06 06:39 PM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
wrote:
That's it. Fascinatingly - and in an amazing, some would say
*extraordinary* coincidence, the 'troll' post happens on a thread
called "Upsample without limits"... Yes, it's all about Dougie's
favourite subject - enlargement. (It was an April Fool's joke that
Slim apparently didn't 'get').


Yeah, what's with that? He called me a troll.

Scott


Mike Warren April 5th 06 01:30 AM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
D-Mac wrote:
Changing identities is seemingly not my domain alone. You interchange
at least 2, probably a lot more with your "googling". Instead of try
and turn the tables to suit your own dirty deeds, why don't you just
publish your identity like I did (which allowed you to discover so
much about me in the first place) and we'll start the party? Scared,
perhaps?


Doug,

Why don't you just post the name of your lawyers as he requested?
That will do no harm to anyone and may even help you.

-Mike




Pete D April 5th 06 11:18 AM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 

"Mike Warren" wrote in message
...
D-Mac wrote:
Changing identities is seemingly not my domain alone. You interchange
at least 2, probably a lot more with your "googling". Instead of try
and turn the tables to suit your own dirty deeds, why don't you just
publish your identity like I did (which allowed you to discover so
much about me in the first place) and we'll start the party? Scared,
perhaps?


Doug,

Why don't you just post the name of your lawyers as he requested?
That will do no harm to anyone and may even help you.

-Mike


That would pre-suppose that he actually had some lawyers.



Graham Fountain April 5th 06 11:37 AM

$500 reward for identity of image thief
 
Slim Pics wrote:
IAMAD by Moloko is on sale at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...=glance&n=5174

It is probably the closest thing to reality you lot are going to
discover. It's rather a hoot that you all provide support to someone
who by his own admission stole photos off someones website. From this
side of the fence it looks like this group is made up of idiots who
actually believe the wanted person has done no wrong in stealing
someone elses pictures. Nice lot of twisted mind here.

Actually, in the context these images are being used, it would come
under fair use for review purposes, which is allowable under copyright law.

IANAD or L



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com