Images on this board

[_Yoda]

Which should be evidence that this hostility has nothing to do with his opinion. ;-)

And...it really does not. There are folks on this board who agree with many of Joseph's points.

The hostility comes from the precarious state that his policing has left the site in.

eeehhhh...what can you do? He's a puppy dog. I don't know why I'm defending him, but it seems this is getting blown out of proportion.

Actually, Shades and Joseph had come to, what I thought was a very civilized agreement. Joseph promised that if he saw any other copyright infringements, rather than running directly to our host, he would email Shades, and allow Shades the opportunity to handle the situation.

However, every time Joseph has an issue that doesn't go his way, he is now using that agreement as a "club" to swing in order to, in essence, blackmail everyone to meet his terms, or run the risk of him going back on the agreement that he made.

It is Joseph that has caused this scuffle...not the other way around.

[_Yoda]

There is a simple way to resolve this.

If Joseph would publicly come forward, and agree that he will not EVER use his agreement with Shades as a bargaining chip, then I think the situation could go back to status quo.

I would also like to see Joseph state that if he did ever again use his agreement with Shades as a bargaining chip, that Shades would have HIS FULL PERMISSION to ban him.

At that point, I think that the Image code could be reinstated. Joseph could remain a member of the board, and things continue running as normal.

[_Joseph]

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/articles/314

If I were here to shut the site down... it would have been down long ago. Would have been very easy when so many photos were posted before.

As for fair use, all of us fall under that umbrella in posting/quoting when we follow the law on it. No problems there at all.

Can you really thing l-dsinc would not hesitate to hit this site like a hammer - just like they did with the Tanners over posting one section of the church handbook? The Tanners could have easily done an article on the chapter, quoting and commenting and it would have been 'fair use' and l-dsinc would have had nothing to complain about. Yes, l-dsinc could have continued the legal process and most likely lost though it might have taken years of appeals and a few hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees. That could happen here. Even if you win in the end the toll of years of depositions, up front costs and appearances and hassling makes you frustrated. In the Tanners case, they threw in the towel and removed the information.

Now, you don't see l-dsinc going after the other sites that still have the information up, do you? They hate the tanners, they don't care much about anyone else.

Do you really want them, bsspace, bumnuts and pawhore to have that kind of thing to hold over this site? Any of them could easily post photos they know are copyrighted and let the owner know and urge them to file the DMCA notice - and this place is shut down.

Face it, you let people continue using intellectual property without a licence to do so and it will end up being the end of this place. We have already seen that after the porn writer a number on here posted photos knowing they came from publications of l-dsinc. Just asking for trouble. You are lucky they were caught and taken off before any problems could come up. The Mormon porn writers photo was up less than 20 minutes.
Saddest of all, he never registered any copyright formally and, in reality, does not own copyright to the photo, his brother does. Want to bet his brother never filled out and gave to him an assignment of copyright? Want to bet if it is brought up now he will get one - backdated to cover his pornobutt?

Complain all you want and point out all the other sites who use material without permission. Most will never let you know when they are hit with a DMCA notice or billing for unauthorized use. Stealing is stealing even with th excuse of 'everyone does it'.

[_3sheets2thewind]

then it seems pretty clear that joseph provides nothing useful to the board and needs to be banned and his return will be deemed criminal/civil trespass.

Make sign-in required to read the boards, and to see images. Have credit card or other verification for new registrants.

make it a hassle for him to return, which would be a criminal offense if he is told not to return. but by virtue of being banned there is grounds that banning means do not return, thus, if he does it is trespass.

[_Yoda]

There is a simple way to resolve this.

If Joseph would publicly come forward, and agree that he will not EVER use his agreement with Shades as a bargaining chip, then I think the situation could go back to status quo.

I would also like to see Joseph state that if he did ever again use his agreement with Shades as a bargaining chip, that Shades would have HIS FULL PERMISSION to ban him.

At that point, I think that the Image code could be reinstated. Joseph could remain a member of the board, and things continue running as normal.

I would also like to add here that since Joseph seems to have problems with me, personally, if Joseph would agree to what is stated above, I would stay completely out of moderating any posts that Joseph made. We have five other moderators who could handle his posts. I would not touch anything he posted.

[_Joseph]

lz wrote: "rather than running directly to our host".

I have never done this. Once again you get your panties in a twist feeding your own paranoia girl.

[_stemelbow]

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/articles/314

If I were here to shut the site down... it would have been down long ago. Would have been very easy when so many photos were posted before.

As for fair use, all of us fall under that umbrella in posting/quoting when we follow the law on it. No problems there at all.

Can you really thing LDS Inc. would not hesitate to hit this site like a hammer - just like they did with the Tanners over posting one section of the church handbook? The Tanners could have easily done an article on the chapter, quoting and commenting and it would have been 'fair use' and LDS Inc. would have had nothing to complain about. Yes, LDS Inc. could have continued the legal process and most likely lost though it might have taken years of appeals and a few hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees. That could happen here. Even if you win in the end the toll of years of depositions, up front costs and appearances and hassling makes you frustrated. In the Tanners case, they threw in the towel and removed the information.

Now, you don't see LDS Inc. going after the other sites that still have the information up, do you? They hate the tanners, they don't care much about anyone else.

Do you really want them, bsspace, bumnuts and pawhore to have that kind of thing to hold over this site? Any of them could easily post photos they know are copyrighted and let the owner know and urge them to file the DMCA notice - and this place is shut down.

Face it, you let people continue using intellectual property without a licence to do so and it will end up being the end of this place. We have already seen that after the porn writer a number on here posted photos knowing they came from publications of LDS Inc.. Just asking for trouble. You are lucky they were caught and taken off before any problems could come up. The Mormon porn writers photo was up less than 20 minutes.
Saddest of all, he never registered any copyright formally and, in reality, does not own copyright to the photo, his brother does. Want to bet his brother never filled out and gave to him an assignment of copyright? Want to bet if it is brought up now he will get one - backdated to cover his pornobutt?

Complain all you want and point out all the other sites who use material without permission. Most will never let you know when they are hit with a DMCA notice or billing for unauthorized use. Stealing is stealing even with th excuse of 'everyone does it'.

pep pep...Is this site seriously kowtowing a bit to this guy? that's too bad.

[_stemelbow]

lz wrote: "rather than running directly to our host".

I have never done this. Once again you get your panties in a twist feeding your own paranoia girl.

Why does everyone keep saying you have?

[_Yoda]

Complain all you want and point out all the other sites who use material without permission. Most will never let you know when they are hit with a DMCA notice or billing for unauthorized use. Stealing is stealing even with th excuse of 'everyone does it'.

Joseph--

You are REALLY missing the point!

It's not the reporting that we are upset about!!! It is the threat of going back on your word to Shades every time you don't get your way that is the problem!!! Please read my above posts!!

Quit using this DMCA thing as a bargaining chip every time you feel that you are unfairly moderated, or every time someone disagrees with you.

THAT is what you have been doing!

KNOCK IT OFF AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM!!

AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT USE YOUR AGREEMENT WITH SHADES AS A BARGAINING CHIP EVER AGAIN!!!!

[_Morley]

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/articles/314

.... Do you really want them, bsspace, bumnuts and pawhore to have that kind of thing .....

Emphasis mine.

Please use their names, as they represent them.