D-MAC'S NEW COPYRIGHT LAW !

This is the copyright disclaimer on D-Mac's annika1980 tribute site:
============================
About copyright of images on this site

All the images on this site are either © Copyright 1982 - 2007 to (me)
Douglas St James or have no copyright or the pictures have been
offered publicly for download by the photographer who took them (they
have passed into the public domain).
============================

Now obviously, D-Mac stole most of the pics from my pbase galleries,
and thus has no copyright on them. But according to D-Mac the fact
that the photos were publicly posted gives him the right to use them
as he sees fit. That's a pretty interesting interpretation of
copyright law. The truth is that he's just a common petty thief.
It's bad enough that he stole the images, but his poor Photoshop work
on them, like his reddening of my face in the first pic .... well,
that is downright criminal!
Poor Photoshopping should never be tolerated.

Of course, this isn't the first time D-Mac has had a brush with the
copyright statutes. One of his websites was taken down immediately
after he was busted for claiming to hold the copyright on an article
that he had stolen and posted on his site.
I guess he's a slow learner.

Annika1980 wrote:
This is the copyright disclaimer on D-Mac's annika1980 tribute site:
============================
About copyright of images on this site

All the images on this site are either © Copyright 1982 - 2007 to (me)
Douglas St James or have no copyright or the pictures have been
offered publicly for download by the photographer who took them (they
have passed into the public domain).
============================

Now obviously, D-Mac stole most of the pics from my pbase galleries,
and thus has no copyright on them. But according to D-Mac the fact
that the photos were publicly posted gives him the right to use them
as he sees fit. That's a pretty interesting interpretation of
copyright law. The truth is that he's just a common petty thief.
It's bad enough that he stole the images, but his poor Photoshop work
on them, like his reddening of my face in the first pic .... well,
that is downright criminal!
Poor Photoshopping should never be tolerated.

Of course, this isn't the first time D-Mac has had a brush with the
copyright statutes. One of his websites was taken down immediately
after he was busted for claiming to hold the copyright on an article
that he had stolen and posted on his site.
I guess he's a slow learner.

When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone accused of
"stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would need to do is cite
D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his own definition, it is
apparently darn near impossible to "steal" anything posted on the
internet...since ALL internet photos can be downloaded or copied, and...by
Doug's own definition...that makes them "public domain."

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On May 8, 12:25 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:

When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone accused of
"stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would need to do is cite
D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his own definition, it is
apparently darn near impossible to "steal" anything posted on the
internet...since ALL internet photos can be downloaded or copied, and...by
Doug's own definition...that makes them "public domain."

Oh no, you don't understand. The laws apparently do not apply to D-Mac
himself.
Just to other people who use HIS pics.

Here's an interesting hypothetical .....
Let's say someone fancied one of D-Mac's photos (yeah, I know it's a
stretch, but stay with me here .... its just a hypothetical). Anyway,
say this person prints out a photo of say, the Bridezilla shot. Maybe
the guy is into ugly brides or something. Now say the guy takes a
photo (using his 20D) of the picture he's printed out. Then the guy
registers that photo he has just taken with the copyright office. Now
he has complete copyright on the Bridezilla image, right?

Of course, in the real world D-Mac doesn't have to worry about
copyright protection since nobody would actually want one of his
poorly composed, badly exposed, mis-focused pieces of monkey crap.
All of his photos have a built-in foolproof copy-prevention
mechanism. They all suck!
But he meant to do that! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Mark² wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

This is the copyright disclaimer on D-Mac's annika1980 tribute site:
============================
About copyright of images on this site

All the images on this site are either © Copyright 1982 - 2007 to (me)
Douglas St James or have no copyright or the pictures have been
offered publicly for download by the photographer who took them (they
have passed into the public domain).
============================

Now obviously, D-Mac stole most of the pics from my pbase galleries,
and thus has no copyright on them. But according to D-Mac the fact
that the photos were publicly posted gives him the right to use them
as he sees fit. That's a pretty interesting interpretation of
copyright law. The truth is that he's just a common petty thief.
It's bad enough that he stole the images, but his poor Photoshop work
on them, like his reddening of my face in the first pic .... well,
that is downright criminal!
Poor Photoshopping should never be tolerated.

Of course, this isn't the first time D-Mac has had a brush with the
copyright statutes. One of his websites was taken down immediately
after he was busted for claiming to hold the copyright on an article
that he had stolen and posted on his site.
I guess he's a slow learner.


When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone accused of
"stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would need to do is cite
D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his own definition, it is
apparently darn near impossible to "steal" anything posted on the
internet...since ALL internet photos can be downloaded or copied, and...by
Doug's own definition...that makes them "public domain."

I didn't read it all but NO, posting on the internet does not permit
public domain status! In the real world, what constitutes justification
for a lawsuit is when someone is making (big) money from the picture.
Brett ain't doing that.

I've got a couple emails waiting for reply from some kinda non-profit
groups wanting to use my pictures... my bitch is "how are they buying
their groceries?" I want some of that action. I gotta buy groceries too.
Brett has a day job so he doesn't give crap but I gotta pay rent from
this stuff.

Paul Furman wrote:
Mark² wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

This is the copyright disclaimer on D-Mac's annika1980 tribute site:
============================
About copyright of images on this site

All the images on this site are either © Copyright 1982 - 2007 to
(me) Douglas St James or have no copyright or the pictures have been
offered publicly for download by the photographer who took them
(they have passed into the public domain).
============================

Now obviously, D-Mac stole most of the pics from my pbase galleries,
and thus has no copyright on them. But according to D-Mac the fact
that the photos were publicly posted gives him the right to use them
as he sees fit. That's a pretty interesting interpretation of
copyright law. The truth is that he's just a common petty thief.
It's bad enough that he stole the images, but his poor Photoshop
work on them, like his reddening of my face in the first pic ....
well, that is downright criminal!
Poor Photoshopping should never be tolerated.

Of course, this isn't the first time D-Mac has had a brush with the
copyright statutes. One of his websites was taken down immediately
after he was busted for claiming to hold the copyright on an article
that he had stolen and posted on his site.
I guess he's a slow learner.


When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone
accused of "stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would
need to do is cite D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his
own definition, it is apparently darn near impossible to "steal"
anything posted on the internet...since ALL internet photos can be
downloaded or copied, and...by Doug's own definition...that makes
them "public domain."

I didn't read it all but NO, posting on the internet does not permit
public domain status!

Of course not... This was, of course, merely commentary according to D's
declarations...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On May 7, 11:36 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On May 8, 12:25 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number

wrote:
When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone accused of
"stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would need to do is cite
D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his own definition, it is
apparently darn near impossible to "steal" anything posted on the
internet...since ALL internet photos can be downloaded or copied, and....by
Doug's own definition...that makes them "public domain."

Oh no, you don't understand. The laws apparently do not apply to D-Mac
himself.
Just to other people who use HIS pics.

Here's an interesting hypothetical .....
Let's say someone fancied one of D-Mac's photos (yeah, I know it's a
stretch, but stay with me here .... its just a hypothetical). Anyway,
say this person prints out a photo of say, the Bridezilla shot. Maybe
the guy is into ugly brides or something. Now say the guy takes a
photo (using his 20D) of the picture he's printed out. Then the guy
registers that photo he has just taken with the copyright office. Now
he has complete copyright on the Bridezilla image, right?

Of course, in the real world D-Mac doesn't have to worry about
copyright protection since nobody would actually want one of his
poorly composed, badly exposed, mis-focused pieces of monkey crap.
All of his photos have a built-in foolproof copy-prevention
mechanism. They all suck!
But he meant to do that! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Bridezilla, ugly in the eyes of.......who...?

On May 8, 9:59 pm, uw wayne wrote:

Bridezilla, ugly in the eyes of.......who?

Anybody with more than one of them.

On May 8, 9:59 pm, uw wayne wrote:
On May 7, 11:36 pm, Annika1980 wrote:





On May 8, 12:25 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number

wrote:
When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone accused of
"stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would need to do is cite
D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his own definition, it is
apparently darn near impossible to "steal" anything posted on the
internet...since ALL internet photos can be downloaded or copied, and....by
Doug's own definition...that makes them "public domain."

Oh no, you don't understand. The laws apparently do not apply to D-Mac
himself.
Just to other people who use HIS pics.

Here's an interesting hypothetical .....
Let's say someone fancied one of D-Mac's photos (yeah, I know it's a
stretch, but stay with me here .... its just a hypothetical). Anyway,
say this person prints out a photo of say, the Bridezilla shot. Maybe
the guy is into ugly brides or something. Now say the guy takes a
photo (using his 20D) of the picture he's printed out. Then the guy
registers that photo he has just taken with the copyright office. Now
he has complete copyright on the Bridezilla image, right?

Of course, in the real world D-Mac doesn't have to worry about
copyright protection since nobody would actually want one of his
poorly composed, badly exposed, mis-focused pieces of monkey crap.
All of his photos have a built-in foolproof copy-prevention
mechanism. They all suck!
But he meant to do that! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Bridezilla, ugly in the eyes of.......who...?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Anyone who hasn't been drinking for years straight. She might be hard
on the eyes, but I'ld bet she has a good heart.

On May 9, 9:12 am, Draco wrote:
On May 8, 9:59 pm, uw wayne wrote:





On May 7, 11:36 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

On May 8, 12:25 am, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number

wrote:
When/if D-mac ever actually goes to court with anyone over anyone accused of
"stealing his pictures," etc., -all the defendant would need to do is cite
D-mac's own definition of public domain. By his own definition, it is
apparently darn near impossible to "steal" anything posted on the
internet...since ALL internet photos can be downloaded or copied, and...by
Doug's own definition...that makes them "public domain."

Oh no, you don't understand. The laws apparently do not apply to D-Mac
himself.
Just to other people who use HIS pics.

Here's an interesting hypothetical .....
Let's say someone fancied one of D-Mac's photos (yeah, I know it's a
stretch, but stay with me here .... its just a hypothetical). Anyway,
say this person prints out a photo of say, the Bridezilla shot. Maybe
the guy is into ugly brides or something. Now say the guy takes a
photo (using his 20D) of the picture he's printed out. Then the guy
registers that photo he has just taken with the copyright office. Now
he has complete copyright on the Bridezilla image, right?

Of course, in the real world D-Mac doesn't have to worry about
copyright protection since nobody would actually want one of his
poorly composed, badly exposed, mis-focused pieces of monkey crap.
All of his photos have a built-in foolproof copy-prevention
mechanism. They all suck!
But he meant to do that! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Bridezilla, ugly in the eyes of.......who...?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Anyone who hasn't been drinking for years straight. She might be hard
on the eyes, but I'ld bet she has a good heart.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As a matter of fact, she is of Royalty. I wish my lady looked as happy
as her! It,s ok for Bret to attack the photography of a subject, but
not the subject. Lets see a pic of his lady and put her on for review.
If he did his marriage would end. If one talks the talk, then walk the
walk. I personally like Bret, but he goes over the line at times
insulting innocent people.