1bads4 - your sig is ready...
04-23-2004, 07:50 AM
#181
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Answers
I think you need to read Leslie's summation . She does a pretty good job of describing her feelings on all this and admits to being partly to blame. My point all along has been that this whole thing never needed to happen if 1bads4 and Leslie had not been so defensive. Chris got caught in the middle and then, well ... Chris will be Chris.
You make some good points Mike, but I think Leslie has summed this thing up the best. :-)
You make some good points Mike, but I think Leslie has summed this thing up the best. :-)
04-23-2004, 07:56 AM
#183
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Leslie...
Even though I believe Leslie overreacted a bit to 1bads4 to this post, I can certainly understand why she did. 1bads4 probably felt a bit foolish for not actually giving Chris a specific image of his car to use and yet he didn't want to just throw the nice new sig away either. A more contrite response by 1bads4 would probably have gone a long way toward closing the door on a thread that never should have gotten so derailed in the first place. Unfortunately, these types of threads are far too common around here. :-(
04-23-2004, 08:05 AM
#184
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What color is the sky in your world, Bollocks (by the way, it's "people", just as it's Bollocks")
Let's make this simple for you:
-She did nothing wrong in post her photo on this site.
- 1badS4 took the photo without permission (and VIOLATED COPYRIGHT LAW)
- You used a photo, manipulated it and posted it on a public forum without obtaining a written release from the photographer and obviously not knowing the source of the photo. THIS IS WHERE YOU VIOLATED COPYRIGHT LAW.
- When you were notified you were not free to use the photo and that you should take it down, you did not do so (nor did 1badS4) but slammed her and made statements about putting so much time in and other unrelated statements.
- You and 1badS4 continued to keep the post up and to attempt to defend your actions (in direct contrast of the law) and slam Leslie.
Get it? If you don't understand copyright law, go to the link below and read up. But your use of the photo without knowing it's source and having a written release put you in jeapordy and violated the law. Because you did not know this law is no legal defense. Because the actual thief provided it to you is no legal defense, as you are required to obtain a release from the providor. Get it? That release is the only thing that exempts you and holds you harmless.
I know you did not intend to steal the image or use it without permission. But what you did is in direct contrast to the law. Photographers take copyright very seriously.
Let me give you a perfect example of something that happened to me in 1994. I sent (at their request) goalie shots of the US World Cup Team off to AT&T, a sponsor of the WC. AT&T told me they were not interested but had scanned the photos and passed them on to their ad agency. Four months later I am driving through Chicago and see my photo on a billboard, later finding out that there were multiples in each venue city of the WC. Well, AT&T is innocent, as their ad agency was the party who illegally used the photos, right? No, AT&T is required to obtain and verify a release for the photos used on tehir behalf, as is the ad agency.. The suit was filed against both AT&T and the ad agency for $400,000, and was settled for a little more than half of that 16 days from filing.
Do you see the comparison? You are the ad agency, AT&T is 1badS4. You were given photos you thought were ok to use, but didn't verify their source. 1badS4 copied the photos and provided them to another without my consent.
And please remember. Leslie never asked for money, she offered to put you in touch with the photographer and help arrange a fee (if necessary). She also never called you names or slammed you. You cannot say the same, nor can 1badS4.
Sadly for you and 1badS4, your responses are a matter of public record and could be used against you should the copyright holder decide to file. Whether you like it or not, this is serious business. I truthfully recommend removing all professional images and copyright protected logos from any of your sigs immediately, as I know the PPA (professional photographers association) and theFACT( The Federation Against Copyright Theft) has been made aware of this situation.
Good luck!
Mike S
-She did nothing wrong in post her photo on this site.
- 1badS4 took the photo without permission (and VIOLATED COPYRIGHT LAW)
- You used a photo, manipulated it and posted it on a public forum without obtaining a written release from the photographer and obviously not knowing the source of the photo. THIS IS WHERE YOU VIOLATED COPYRIGHT LAW.
- When you were notified you were not free to use the photo and that you should take it down, you did not do so (nor did 1badS4) but slammed her and made statements about putting so much time in and other unrelated statements.
- You and 1badS4 continued to keep the post up and to attempt to defend your actions (in direct contrast of the law) and slam Leslie.
Get it? If you don't understand copyright law, go to the link below and read up. But your use of the photo without knowing it's source and having a written release put you in jeapordy and violated the law. Because you did not know this law is no legal defense. Because the actual thief provided it to you is no legal defense, as you are required to obtain a release from the providor. Get it? That release is the only thing that exempts you and holds you harmless.
I know you did not intend to steal the image or use it without permission. But what you did is in direct contrast to the law. Photographers take copyright very seriously.
Let me give you a perfect example of something that happened to me in 1994. I sent (at their request) goalie shots of the US World Cup Team off to AT&T, a sponsor of the WC. AT&T told me they were not interested but had scanned the photos and passed them on to their ad agency. Four months later I am driving through Chicago and see my photo on a billboard, later finding out that there were multiples in each venue city of the WC. Well, AT&T is innocent, as their ad agency was the party who illegally used the photos, right? No, AT&T is required to obtain and verify a release for the photos used on tehir behalf, as is the ad agency.. The suit was filed against both AT&T and the ad agency for $400,000, and was settled for a little more than half of that 16 days from filing.
Do you see the comparison? You are the ad agency, AT&T is 1badS4. You were given photos you thought were ok to use, but didn't verify their source. 1badS4 copied the photos and provided them to another without my consent.
And please remember. Leslie never asked for money, she offered to put you in touch with the photographer and help arrange a fee (if necessary). She also never called you names or slammed you. You cannot say the same, nor can 1badS4.
Sadly for you and 1badS4, your responses are a matter of public record and could be used against you should the copyright holder decide to file. Whether you like it or not, this is serious business. I truthfully recommend removing all professional images and copyright protected logos from any of your sigs immediately, as I know the PPA (professional photographers association) and theFACT( The Federation Against Copyright Theft) has been made aware of this situation.
Good luck!
Mike S
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
OWDLVR
Audi 90 / 80 / Coupe quattro / Cabriolet
6
12-23-2005 07:25 PM
Rally_nutcase_1982
Audi allroad
9
05-27-2005 09:59 AM
Potomac2.7Tee
A6 / S6 (C5 Platform) Discussion
3
02-10-2004 11:58 AM
jussnb
A4 (B5 Platform) Discussion
0
01-28-2002 10:07 PM
Gorobei
A4 (B5 Platform) Discussion
6
04-04-2001 10:36 PM
