If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Paul Furman wrote:
Moose & Squirrel wrote: Nice Mice wrote: And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can tell him how innocent you are. Yawn You do seem to make a habit of threatening "legal" action against the denizens of the photo groups that you perceive as having a problem with... Do YOU ever actually follow through or do you just like to make noise? Yeah he actually paid a lawyer to file papers on my host in the US & I got an email with 24 hours notice to remove the files or they'd take down my whole domain. Oh well, delete 2 tiny jpegs & move on... this is per some clause in the digital millennium copyright crap law :-) It was a similar situation: some stupid example making some outrageous claim which turned out to be completely mistaken.. I posted a little crop & compare & he claimed IMAGE THEIF!, I say it was editorial/educational use, blah blah blah over a couple years time :-) Actually Paul, it was a lot more than that. I posted two processed image. One shot RAW and the other shot as JPEG (Panasonic jpeg - 60% compression) to demonstrate the **** poor quality of a Canon 20D image and question the value of spending 4 times as much as the Panasonic cost on an outfit that at best took marginally better photos. That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even tried to to have the pictures removed from your site. Even when I sent you a copy of the law saying what you had done was illegal and demanding you take my photos off your web site, you as much as told me to go **** myself. Arrogances in the extreme. The sorry part of this is that you claim to come from a heritage of professional photographers ...yet you have no value in the laws that allow professionals to say what and by whom their images are used for. You don't know how luck you really were. Moving the images elsewhere on your site was a really dumb thing to do. By just 12 hours you managed to avoid my lawyer putting a lien on your house and suing you for more money than you'll likely make before you die. Do not now make fun of it. Read this: " Although you gave us instructions to halt civil proceedings against Mr Furman, I urge you to consider that we believe you still have a solid case against him for damages. Before returning your funds, I urge you to consider continuing the case. Mr Furman appears to have sufficient identifiable assets to meet any award likely to made against him." Steal intellectual property from a working professional at your own risk. Common sense should tell you no business person can afford NOT to continue through with a legal case against an image thief. If they did, there might as well not be any copyright laws. Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the one who did it. Now we're about to see some home grown stalkers try and make out their disgusting and illegal behaviour is beyond reproach too. Oh well. At least it's a tax write off! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Moose & Squirrel wrote:
My email address hasn't changed in the last ten years... I've used three different names that go in front of the address (JT's Ghost, and two variations of Moose & Squirrel), you on the other hand change your sock names frequently. - JT thanks for playing, here is a copy of the play at home game you... It seems you arithmetic is a little out. That makes four! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Nice Mice wrote:
Paul Furman wrote: Moose & Squirrel wrote: Nice Mice wrote: And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can tell him how innocent you are. Yawn You do seem to make a habit of threatening "legal" action against the denizens of the photo groups that you perceive as having a problem with... Do YOU ever actually follow through or do you just like to make noise? Yeah he actually paid a lawyer to file papers on my host in the US & I got an email with 24 hours notice to remove the files or they'd take down my whole domain. Oh well, delete 2 tiny jpegs & move on... this is per some clause in the digital millennium copyright crap law :-) It was a similar situation: some stupid example making some outrageous claim which turned out to be completely mistaken.. I posted a little crop & compare & he claimed IMAGE THEIF!, I say it was editorial/educational use, blah blah blah over a couple years time :-) Actually Paul, it was a lot more than that. I posted two processed image. One shot RAW and the other shot as JPEG (Panasonic jpeg - 60% compression) to demonstrate the **** poor quality of a Canon 20D image and question the value of spending 4 times as much as the Panasonic cost on an outfit that at best took marginally better photos. That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even tried to to have the pictures removed from your site. Even when I sent you a copy of the law saying what you had done was illegal and demanding you take my photos off your web site, you as much as told me to go **** myself. Arrogances in the extreme. The sorry part of this is that you claim to come from a heritage of professional photographers ...yet you have no value in the laws that allow professionals to say what and by whom their images are used for. You don't know how luck you really were. Moving the images elsewhere on your site was a really dumb thing to do. By just 12 hours you managed to avoid my lawyer putting a lien on your house and suing you for more money than you'll likely make before you die. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read some of your BS. Your lawyer was about to put a lien on his house? How? A lien comes AFTER a SUCCESSFUL lawsuit, not before it. You have to prove a debt before you can attach property. Do not now make fun of it. Read this: No one can read anything you write without making fun of it. You are an idiot. " Although you gave us instructions to halt civil proceedings against Mr Furman, I urge you to consider that we believe you still have a solid case against him for damages. Before returning your funds, I urge you to consider continuing the case. Mr Furman appears to have sufficient identifiable assets to meet any award likely to made against him." A law firm 'urging' a client? Not likely, not if they want to stay in business. Steal intellectual property from a working professional at your own risk. Intellectual property? I thought you were whining about him misusing a photograph of yours. Where does the intellectual property come into it? Common sense should tell you no business person can afford NOT to continue through Continue through? with a legal case against an image thief. If they did, there might as well not be any copyright laws. Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the one who did it. You have an account with only $387 in it? Why bother, just keep it in your top pocket. Now we're about to see some home grown stalkers try and make out their disgusting and illegal behaviour is beyond reproach too. Oh well. At least it's a tax write off! No it isn't. You can't get anything right, can you? Hey, if I take some of your pathetic images and post them somewhere, modify them first of course, will you try to sue me? I'd really love to see you make an open idiot of yourself. We could sell tickets to the court case. How about this, it's a very public critical comment on your website. Wanna try to sue me for it? See: http://tinyurl.com/5rmov5 Cal |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Cal I Fornicate wrote:
How about this, it's a very public critical comment on your website. Wanna try to sue me for it? See: http://tinyurl.com/5rmov5 Cal Oh Lordy! My side is aching! My keyboard is soaked in coffee. My monitor needs a rinse, too. Who can I sue? -- Jeff R. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
... Atheist Chaplain wrote: "Indigo Blue" wrote in message ... Annika1980 wrote: Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more images. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original Considering the pasting (pardon the pun) you gave D-Mac over his seemingly slapped together example which I thought demonstrated the technique very well, this is an insult to a viewer's senses. D-Mac may very well troll these groups with an ulterior motive but at least he knew enough not to try the impossible: matching the tiles on a roof! You seem to have ignored every principal of creating one of these images and now wonder why it doesn't "look right". Back at the first post D-Mac made about it, he said using a telephoto lens, not a wide angle one was a key to successfully gathering images to work with. What did you use? 17mm? You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own attempt. Time to start over. IB. Hi Douggie :-) I thought you said you were not going to inflict yourself on the aus.photo news groups anymore. Interesting that so far as I've seen, no one has commented on the substance of the critique, several of which are valid. -- john mcwilliams true, but maybe you failed to notice, along with Douggie Boi the part of Brett's post where he said "It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially the sidewalk and the roof.", so I am cutting him some slack as he already knows there are problems in those areas, what about you?? -- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
On 7/16/08 3:13 AM, in article , "Nice Mice" wrote: Paul Furman wrote: Moose & Squirrel wrote: Nice Mice wrote: And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can tell him how innocent you are. Yawn You do seem to make a habit of threatening "legal" action against the denizens of the photo groups that you perceive as having a problem with... Do YOU ever actually follow through or do you just like to make noise? Yeah he actually paid a lawyer to file papers on my host in the US & I got an email with 24 hours notice to remove the files or they'd take down my whole domain. Oh well, delete 2 tiny jpegs & move on... this is per some clause in the digital millennium copyright crap law :-) It was a similar situation: some stupid example making some outrageous claim which turned out to be completely mistaken.. I posted a little crop & compare & he claimed IMAGE THEIF!, I say it was editorial/educational use, blah blah blah over a couple years time :-) Actually Paul, it was a lot more than that. I posted two processed image. One shot RAW and the other shot as JPEG (Panasonic jpeg - 60% compression) to demonstrate the **** poor quality of a Canon 20D image and question the value of spending 4 times as much as the Panasonic cost on an outfit that at best took marginally better photos. That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even tried to to have the pictures removed from your site. Even when I sent you a copy of the law saying what you had done was illegal and demanding you take my photos off your web site, you as much as told me to go **** myself. Arrogances in the extreme. The sorry part of this is that you claim to come from a heritage of professional photographers ...yet you have no value in the laws that allow professionals to say what and by whom their images are used for. You don't know how luck you really were. Moving the images elsewhere on your site was a really dumb thing to do. By just 12 hours you managed to avoid my lawyer putting a lien on your house and suing you for more money than you'll likely make before you die. Do not now make fun of it. Read this: " Although you gave us instructions to halt civil proceedings against Mr Furman, I urge you to consider that we believe you still have a solid case against him for damages. Before returning your funds, I urge you to consider continuing the case. Mr Furman appears to have sufficient identifiable assets to meet any award likely to made against him." Steal intellectual property from a working professional at your own risk. Common sense should tell you no business person can afford NOT to continue through with a legal case against an image thief. If they did, there might as well not be any copyright laws. Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the one who did it. Now we're about to see some home grown stalkers try and make out their disgusting and illegal behaviour is beyond reproach too. Oh well. At least it's a tax write off! Get a life, windbag! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
On 7/16/08 4:08 AM, in article , "Cal I Fornicate" wrote: How about this, it's a very public critical comment on your website. Wanna try to sue me for it? See: http://tinyurl.com/5rmov5 Cal "Now that's funny. I don't care who you are, THAT there's FUNNY!" *Larry the Cable Guy |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:13 am, Nice Mice wrote: Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the one who did it. Another lie from the Master. It must really suck to know that you even got bested by the idiot, Noons. There is no way you could have had my AOL account pulled. My mistake was hosting one of Noon's pics on AOL. Of course, I've already signed up again on AOL with another free account so if you wanna play some more just let me know. I'm sure there are some newbies here who would laugh their asses off at some of your godawful shots of ugly brides, one-legged grooms, kite surfers, and wedding cakes in front of filing cabinets. Sucks to be you-D-Mac, no matter which name you are using! You've made this point over and over and over and why not STFU? -- lsmft |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Nice Mice wrote:
That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even tried to to have the pictures removed from your site. I have no idea what you are talking about. Moving the images elsewhere on your site I didn't move anything. I did remove them eventually. My hosting company said they would not attempt to weigh the specifics of the case and would not listen to any fair use arguments (guilty till proven innocent). I rent a studio apartment. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Linear pano - halfway home!
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message ... Atheist Chaplain wrote: "Indigo Blue" wrote in message ... Annika1980 wrote: Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more images. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original Considering the pasting (pardon the pun) you gave D-Mac over his seemingly slapped together example which I thought demonstrated the technique very well, this is an insult to a viewer's senses. D-Mac may very well troll these groups with an ulterior motive but at least he knew enough not to try the impossible: matching the tiles on a roof! You seem to have ignored every principal of creating one of these images and now wonder why it doesn't "look right". Back at the first post D-Mac made about it, he said using a telephoto lens, not a wide angle one was a key to successfully gathering images to work with. What did you use? 17mm? You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own attempt. Time to start over. IB. Hi Douggie :-) I thought you said you were not going to inflict yourself on the aus.photo news groups anymore. Interesting that so far as I've seen, no one has commented on the substance of the critique, several of which are valid. s true, but maybe you failed to notice, along with Douggie Boi the part of Brett's post where he said "It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially the sidewalk and the roof.", so I am cutting him some slack as he already knows there are problems in those areas, what about you?? I've been cutting them all slack for years. I was hoping a real discussion would come out of this, but it's pretty much all flames and rehashing old stuff. I don't think there was a reply to my question about what lens was used. Elsewhere I see assertions that Bret straight out lied about the method used; I don't know how else the roof shingles came to such wierd layout except by combo shooting (part fixed, part walking). -- John McWilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
|GG| Linear pano - halfway home! | Paul Furman | Digital Photography | 4 | July 25th 08 03:40 AM |
Linear pano - halfway home! | Jeff R. | Digital Photography | 1 | July 15th 08 08:55 AM |
Linear pano - halfway home! | Troy Piggins[_15_] | Digital Photography | 0 | July 15th 08 05:06 AM |
Does it matter if you press the button halfway or instantly? | Newbie | Digital Photography | 24 | August 18th 06 04:35 PM |
Film is not linear ? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 24 | October 13th 04 04:19 AM |