Images

[_Joseph]

I wrote: "Many, probably most would never file suit or a DMCA takedown notice. But, steal the work of the wrong person and you find out how serious the consequences may be.

Is it really that difficult to ask to use an image?"
**********************************

Dr Cam, is it that you don't, or won't understand what I wrote here?

We know most will never do anything to anyone who uses their images. But... all it takes is one like the porn writer.

Then, if you steal an image that the owner has registered and is regarded as worth the effort - Attorney Fees alone as an award can be a powerful weapon to hit you over the head. No registration, no attorney fees are awarded. Register the images and you have that clout on your side.

As for your 'stupid cow in the field', take a look at some advertising and realize some of those 'stupid pictures' of a cow in the field are used with licensing fees of $50,000 and under. Photographs have value. Few ad campaigns and publications would succeed without photographs.

That you think you should be able to use them without asking or possible penalty is telling boy.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Dr. Shades,

Clearly Mr. Agent Saboteur is messing with you.

You have nothing to worry about. Please reinstitute the ability to post pictures.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

Post Script- And in most incidents you'd be given notice by the proprietor to remove copyright materials they deem valuable enough to register.

[_Joseph]

Dr. Cam wrote: "Post Script- And in most incidents you'd be given notice by the proprietor to remove copyright materials they deem valuable enough to register."
******************************

Doc, this is true. Trouble is, the pornwriter did not do this.

On the poster I warned twice... she does not pay attention. That is her fault - that and being a thief. She could have checked and asked permission to use the image. The worst that could happen was the owner would have said no.

Why do so many persist in claiming honesty when they blatantly steal the property of others here?

Some whine more about being caught than OJ.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey ya big Dork,

EVERYTHING you look at you technically violate copyright laws because your computer has to image it on its hard drive. Hell, if you simply quote another person's creative text, even in some sort contextual argument, you've technically violated copyright law. What's next? We're going to get rid of the Quote feature?

Brother, you're an idiot. And you can quote me on that. ;)

V/R
Dr. Cameron "Please return the use of linking to cows" NC for Me

[_Joseph]

dr cam wrote: "Hell, if you simply quote another person's creative text, even in some sort contextual argument, you've technically violated copyright law. What's next? We're going to get rid of the Quote feature?"
**********************************

Your lack of understanding of "fair use" is your undoing.

Are you the kind of Dr who doesn't do anyone any good, like Paul Dunn was?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Joseph,

Yeah. "My lack of understanding." Got it.

Can't imagine why websites like this are still in business:

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/

You're probably the biggest, and you can fair use this one all you want, R E T A R D I have ever seen on the Internet.

That's quite an accomplishment. Back on Ignore you go, Little Man.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Joseph]

Well doc, it seems you can't understand reality.

All it took was one person who objected to the use of their photo without permission to shut down the site.

What would have happened if the Montana based photographer Sean Heavey had decided to do a DMCA complaint when someone on this site posted one of his excellent Summer Thunderstorm images - without permission? Go take a look at them: http://gallery.me.com/alconartz#100402

They are intellectual property and just what someone liked to show the point they were making. One big problem that could have been more serious than the pornwriter. Heavey has registered his copyright. He has a history of sales and publicatin of the images. He would have a case that could cost tens of thousands in attorney fees as well as damages.

The posting of the image did not fall under 'fair use'. You should read a bit about 'fair use' as it could come in handy even in your tightly controlled little universe with the imaginary schoolmarms and such.

Just follow the laws when you want to use the intellectual property of someone else. No worry on the Book of Morons before 1927 or so as none of those are protected by copyright as it has expired.

A bit of checking and you might even learn something - in spite of your bullheaded attitude.

[_Simon Belmont]

Just a reminder, we're ignoring the board dumb ass in hopes that he'll go away.

[_Bond James Bond]

and the introduction of flash.

Flash is evil. It's one of the biggest vectors of viruses nowadays--mostly because it is powerful and ubiquitous. If we allow flash, why not allow embedding javascript too? It's another great vector for viruses and besides it can do much of what flash can when paired with html 5.

(I've learned from the Republicans that if you ask for everything you might get something and it'll still be a victory.) :D