Ping duende

R

Richard

Read 'em and weep bubba.
the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
court.
Now I'd like to see you walk in to a court, in front of a judge and jury.
"What evidence do you have that you created this image sir?"
"I don't have any real evidence. But I created it."
"Your honor, we make a motion that this case be dismissed on lack of
evidence."
"Granted".

Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site, you
will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the work
MUST be registered.
Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.
 
W

Wÿrm

..
the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
In short, they don't care.

Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get lost
because of too much text in there.

"person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using the
content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "

See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you have
REFUSED to take image off :) As simple as that.

<SNIP>
 
C

CarolW.

Read 'em and weep bubba.
the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
court.

That is NOT what they said at all.

The Forum Admin stated:
"If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
content."

Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared in
response to his and the subsequent threads you started.

The forum admin also said:
"If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."

Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.

[snip]
Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site, you
will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the work
MUST be registered.
Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.

It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
it is true.

Carol
 
R

rf

Wÿrm said:
.

Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get lost
because of too much text in there.

"person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using the
content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "

See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you have
REFUSED to take image off :) As simple as that.

I don't think that Duende even needs to provide any proof on this matter.
RtS has quite publicly in this newsgroup many times stated that he stole the
image from Duende's site. He has also publicly stated something along the
lines of "So what, I stole it, it is now up to Duende to prove he owns it".

If I owned batcave this dipstick would be out the door as soon after receipt
of Deunde's complaint as I could press the delete key.
 
R

Richard

Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get
lost
because of too much text in there.
"person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
the
content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "
Hello ding ding
ding...........................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I own the copyright" ain't good enough.

See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you
have
REFUSED to take image off :) As simple as that.

You fail to understand their standing in this issue. "It's a picture of an
eye. So what?".
Proof Bubba.
To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
No number? No proof.
 
F

Fat Sam

<snip>

Are you still going on about this?.....Jeesus, don't you ever shut the hell
up?
 
R

Richard

That is NOT what they said at all.
The Forum Admin stated:
"If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
content."
Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared in
response to his and the subsequent threads you started.
The forum admin also said:
"If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."
Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.
[snip]
Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site,
you
will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the
work
MUST be registered.
Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.
It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
it is true.


_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
"I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
I can make the same claims.

For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the negative.
As the negative can only be owned by one person.
 
F

Fat Sam

Richard said:
That is NOT what they said at all.
The Forum Admin stated:
"If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
content."
Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared
in response to his and the subsequent threads you started.
The forum admin also said:
"If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."
Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if
he so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof
should be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would
help back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.
[snip]
Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office
site, you
will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law,
the work
MUST be registered.
Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.
It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even
though it is true.


_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
"I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
I can make the same claims.

For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the
negative. As the negative can only be owned by one person.

It isn't difficult to prove when Duende first published the image to the
net, and when you published it.....That would constitute "sufficient
proof".....Is the chronological concept of linear time too complicated for
you to understand?.....
 
F

Fat Sam

Wÿrm said:
Bollocks. If you do not understand plain english from

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

(here's little snippet for you)

"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

you really should ask some adult read/explain that text to you. Ask
from copyright office if you do not believe :)

I suggest you BOTHER read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
to get SOME grasp of things instead of making false claims.

I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of 1 or 2
syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....
 
W

Wÿrm

To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
No number? No proof.

Bollocks. If you do not understand plain english from

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

(here's little snippet for you)

"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

you really should ask some adult read/explain that text to you. Ask from
copyright office if you do not believe :)

I suggest you BOTHER read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html to get
SOME grasp of things instead of making false claims.
 
W

Wÿrm

I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of 1 or 2
syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....

True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed. And seems
that these problems are involved in pretty much everything he does, kinda
sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas of understanding ;)
 
R

rf

Wÿrm said:
or

True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed. And seems
that these problems are involved in pretty much everything he does, kinda
sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas of understanding ;)

We may be through with the dipstick thief for a while. He is over in the PHP
groups trying to convince them to tell him how to convert it to PHP :)

Of course I suspect he has no idea what PHP actually *is*.
 
F

Fat Sam

rf said:
We may be through with the dipstick thief for a while. He is over in
the PHP groups trying to convince them to tell him how to convert it
to PHP :)

Of course I suspect he has no idea what PHP actually *is*.

I doubt it...As we speak, he's probably scrabbling frantically round google,
trying to find more snippets of copyright law that he can mis-quote and fail
to understand.....I suspect we'll see another new thread from him
shortly.....
 
F

Fat Sam

Wÿrm said:
True, he seem to have some serious comprehension problems indeed. And
seems that these problems are involved in pretty much everything he
does, kinda sad thing how someone can be lacking in so many areas of
understanding ;)

I say one thing for him.....He's entertaining.....So much so that he forced
me to de-lurk in this newsgroup....
 
C

CarolW.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:55:55 GMT CarolW. wrote:
[snip]
The forum admin also said:
"If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."
Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.
[snip]
Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site,
you
will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the
work
MUST be registered.
Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.
It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
it is true.


_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
"I created that image" is not sufficient proof.

More than what you can offer to the otherwise in defense of refusing
Duende's reasonable request to remove the image, regardless of what it
is an image of, from your site.
I can make the same claims.

Not likely as you really don't know what proof Duende has on his side;
all you know is that he didn't rise up to your baiting of him.

After all, why should he when you have already admitted that YOU
_lifted_ the image _from his site_, At no time - in any of your posts
on this topic - did you refute how you came into possession of the
image or the source of where you acquired it from [Duende's site]. You
have only tried to erroneously interpret copyright and fair use
thoughts and topped that with a liberal, but equally erroneous,
thought of "what is public domain".
For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the negative.
As the negative can only be owned by one person.

Sorry, but that is not correct.

Carol
 
W

Wÿrm

I say one thing for him.....He's entertaining.....So much so that he forced
me to de-lurk in this newsgroup....

hehe :) In some sense yes, but he seems to have habit of repeating same
mistakes or false asumptions again and again, so I guess it gets boring soon
:)

I am getting bit worried though, he seems to appear several newsgroups I
typically lurk in, might be boring future if pay too much attention on his
insane ramblings :/
 
C

CarolW.

I say one thing for him.....He's entertaining.....So much so that he forced
me to de-lurk in this newsgroup....

*chuckle*

It does boggle the mind on how far left field he will go to develope
some of his thoughts.

Carol
 
D

Duende

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:
We may be through with the dipstick thief for a while. He is over in the
PHP groups trying to convince them to tell him how to convert it to PHP
:)

Damn, you mean I have to change chanels just to keep up with this cartoon
show?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,733
Messages
2,569,440
Members
44,831
Latest member
HealthSmartketoReviews

Latest Threads

Top