Assignment for RITA !!!

Annika1980 wrote:
Hey Rita, how about posting a pic of your dog Remy posing with your
Nikon D3?
You can take it with your cell phone cammy, like the others you post.

D-Mac, you have already been challenged to provide some new photos
taken with your new D3.
Subject matter isn't important. We just want to see the pics. Full-
size is preferred.
Do it right now before you forget.

I've never seen a D3. I doubt these trolls have, either.

Stay out of aus.photo!

John McWilliams wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Hey Rita, how about posting a pic of your dog Remy posing with your
Nikon D3?
You can take it with your cell phone cammy, like the others you post.

D-Mac, you have already been challenged to provide some new photos
taken with your new D3.
Subject matter isn't important. We just want to see the pics. Full-
size is preferred.
Do it right now before you forget.

I've never seen a D3. I doubt these trolls have, either.

Stay out of aus.photo!

Having seen the way Annika1980 steals my photos and it's criminal
behaviour in altering them and many times in the past making out they
are his own work...

All you'll see from me in the future will be "pics" from my new Samsung
10 Mp "cell phone". Although I prefer to describe it as a camera phone.

They are on about a par with Canon 40D images for quality but have the
added advantage of using some of my own work in their capture
capabilities. It was free so I might as well use it. I just love the
zoom range! No need for all those costly "L" lenses that you have to buy
expensive software to post process images either.

D-Mac wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Hey Rita, how about posting a pic of your dog Remy posing with your
Nikon D3?
You can take it with your cell phone cammy, like the others you post.

D-Mac, you have already been challenged to provide some new photos
taken with your new D3.
Subject matter isn't important. We just want to see the pics. Full-
size is preferred.
Do it right now before you forget.

I've never seen a D3. I doubt these trolls have, either.

Stay out of aus.photo!

Having seen the way Annika1980 steals my photos and it's criminal
behaviour in altering them and many times in the past making out they
are his own work...

All you'll see from me in the future will be "pics" from my new Samsung
10 Mp "cell phone". Although I prefer to describe it as a camera phone.

They are on about a par with Canon 40D images for quality but have the
added advantage of using some of my own work in their capture
capabilities. It was free so I might as well use it. I just love the
zoom range! No need for all those costly "L" lenses that you have to buy
expensive software to post process images either.

I rather enjoy my L lenses, and have no idea why you think more post
processing is needed there than anywhere else.


You seem to use the phrase "steal" with abandon. I've seen images of
yours altered for fun or comment and reposted. That's editorial, not theft.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:


I rather enjoy my L lenses, and have no idea why you think more post
processing is needed there than anywhere else.


You seem to use the phrase "steal" with abandon. I've seen images of
yours altered for fun or comment and reposted. That's editorial, not theft.


I'm afraid you are wrong John.

It's called the "Digital Millennium Copyright act" and it protects
working professionals like me from dick heads like Bret Douglas and even
more moderate people like Paul Furman who claims he was not aware his
theft was a crime.

Highlights of the act:
In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright
infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the
Internet.

Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users'
web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.

Fines of up to $30,000 can be imposed on service providers who continue
to host stolen images when sent a take down notice.

FYI both Pbase and Aplus narrowly escaped those fines when they
buggerised around before removing my images from Bret and Paul's sites.
Paul Furman did himself no favours with Aplus when he moved the images
instead of remove them. His ISP had 36 hours to act when they gave him
24 hours notice.

There is no editorial use or fair use exemptions when the images are
altered or used to degrade, defame, slander or insult the owner.

I imagine after another case last year - unrelated to the Usenet crap
but equally important in this matter is the way in which someone who
thought they could reproduce my photos from one of my coffee table books
tried to shift the blame to a publisher, claiming it was the publisher's
responsibility to discover if the work he was using was copyright.

It didn't work. I got a settlement awarded to me but so far no payment.
I really couldn't care any less if I have to bankrupt the prick. I'd
hate it to get down to that but if he has the same pig headed attitude
as Furman and Douglas, that's what will happen. At lest now I don't have
to physically be in the USA to protect my interests.

D-Mac wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:


I rather enjoy my L lenses, and have no idea why you think more post
processing is needed there than anywhere else.


You seem to use the phrase "steal" with abandon. I've seen images of
yours altered for fun or comment and reposted. That's editorial, not
theft.


I'm afraid you are wrong John.

It's called the "Digital Millennium Copyright act" and it protects
working professionals like me from dick heads like Bret Douglas and even
more moderate people like Paul Furman who claims he was not aware his
theft was a crime.

Highlights of the act:
In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright
infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the
Internet.

Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users'
web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.

Fines of up to $30,000 can be imposed on service providers who continue
to host stolen images when sent a take down notice.

FYI both Pbase and Aplus narrowly escaped those fines when they
buggerised around before removing my images from Bret and Paul's sites.
Paul Furman did himself no favours with Aplus when he moved the images
instead of remove them. His ISP had 36 hours to act when they gave him
24 hours notice.

There is no editorial use or fair use exemptions when the images are
altered or used to degrade, defame, slander or insult the owner.

I imagine after another case last year - unrelated to the Usenet crap
but equally important in this matter is the way in which someone who
thought they could reproduce my photos from one of my coffee table books
tried to shift the blame to a publisher, claiming it was the publisher's
responsibility to discover if the work he was using was copyright.

It didn't work. I got a settlement awarded to me but so far no payment.
I really couldn't care any less if I have to bankrupt the prick. I'd
hate it to get down to that but if he has the same pig headed attitude
as Furman and Douglas, that's what will happen. At lest now I don't have
to physically be in the USA to protect my interests.

I believe the act you quote, the DMC one, will be largely overturned in
due course. It's pretty reviled in many quarters, but this is beside the
point.

However, the drift of what I say remains true: It really isn't theft as
is usually used in the Americas, as the "thief" gains nothing, except
perhaps notoriety and threats.

So, it might make you appear less strained if you'd drop the use of
thief and theft.

--
John McWilliams

D-Mac wrote:
I imagine after another case last year - unrelated to the Usenet crap
but equally important in this matter is the way in which someone who
thought they could reproduce my photos from one of my coffee table books
tried to shift the blame to a publisher, claiming it was the publisher's
responsibility to discover if the work he was using was copyright.

It didn't work. I got a settlement awarded to me but so far no payment.
I really couldn't care any less if I have to bankrupt the prick.

I'd love to see a citation for this case, Douglas. That would add to
your reputation for success in all your legal actions and help to
prevent further breaches.

I presume it must have been in an overseas court?

Feel free to explain why, if you won't supply it.

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
D-Mac wrote:
I imagine after another case last year - unrelated to the Usenet crap but
equally important in this matter is the way in which someone who thought
they could reproduce my photos from one of my coffee table books tried to
shift the blame to a publisher, claiming it was the publisher's
responsibility to discover if the work he was using was copyright.

It didn't work. I got a settlement awarded to me but so far no payment. I
really couldn't care any less if I have to bankrupt the prick.

I'd love to see a citation for this case, Douglas. That would add to your
reputation for success in all your legal actions and help to prevent
further breaches.

I presume it must have been in an overseas court?

Feel free to explain why, if you won't supply it.


he hasn't got the money to prosecute and according to his own abn, he
doesn't make enough money, hell even the ATO consider him to be nothing more
than a hobbyist photographer, after all how else can you explain the fact
(legally) that his ABN is not registered for GST.

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 28, 5:24 pm, D-Mac wrote:
There is no editorial use or fair use exemptions when the images are
altered or used to degrade, defame, slander or insult the owner.

http://www.annika1980.com/images/dufus.jpg

That "hand drawn caricature" as you call it looks remarkably like the
photo that you stole from my site on pbase.
http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/image/3151355/medium

I'm sure that any judge in the land (especially the ones I know
personally) would agree.

How can you expect anybody to take your accusations of image theft
seriously when you have just been shown to be guilty as sin of doing
the exact same thing yourself?

So file a DMCA complaint. Like I keep telling you... One of the blokes
you ****ed off big time gave me about 50 pictures of you, some where you
weren't even looking at the camera *WITH* a copyright release to use
them. Was that your camera that took the blue flame shot too? Oh man,
you sure have one ugly asshole. That's good, ugly asshole with an ugly
asshole! LOL.

Do some ferreting around mate. Ask Rita for a loan of Toby. Let's see
now... How many people did Bret Douglas **** off in the time between
when that photo was taken and now? Hmm. 100? Maybe 200? or perhaps just
the guy who you tried screwing with his wife? **** mate, you know better
than me who it was.

You better have a smart answer for how you get to own a picture someone
else took too! ROTFL.

"Yes Judge I only loaned that camera to my friend. True, it really was
me - plastic man who took the shots. Look my arm can stretch right up my
ass so I can pick my nose without anyone seeing.

He didn't really take the shot on my web site, they just look the same!
I swear judge ...it's mine just like all the shots of me in other
places that ******* D-Mac got hold of". The one getting the check for
all that money... Yes mate. That was only a joke, wasn't it? You didn't
REALLLY win that much money, did you? More ROTFWML from the gallery here.

You certainly know how to amuse me, young Bretski, I'll give you that
much. How's the cat going mate? It's pretty famous now, hanging on the
wall of: http://www.shangri-la.com.au/. Pity you didn't make it bigger,
it would have made a nice dart board for the kitchen hands I imagine.

Hey... You know that story about there being no cats in the
neighbourhood of a certain Chinese restaurant in down town Chattanooga?
Guess what mate? Mmm Yummy dim sims from the one just down the road from
me too.

Annika1980 wrote:
would have made a nice dart board for the kitchen hands I imagine.

Hey... You know that story about there being no cats in the
neighbourhood of a certain Chinese restaurant in down town Chattanooga?
Guess what mate? Mmm Yummy dim sims from the one just down the road from
me too.

Did anyone understand any of that babbling?

Here's the condensed version: GET STUFFED.