copyright image theft (re. spuriousmonkey)

[kazakhan]

Your wife took the photo, therefore she is the rightful and lawful owner.

Not necessarily if perplexity specifically commisioned the photo he might be the rightful copyright owner. It of course depends on what sort of agreement was made with the photographer.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

In case you missed the joke that started it all off:



I started off with this copyrighted avatar.

That in conjunction with the following post:

My ego doesn't fit in one thread.

reply

by the look of your avatar, it doesnt fit inside your head, either!

After which I changed the avatar to

In conjunction with the comment.

How very true.

A clear case of a joke.


sue me.

 

[Bells]

Not necessarily if perplexity specifically commisioned the photo he might be the rightful copyright owner. It of course depends on what sort of agreement was made with the photographer.

Yes. Now I'd be interested to see any proof of such a commission or of an agreement.

Lets face it, Ron is an attention whore. The poor girl he stalked and threatened finally got sick of him and stopped coming to this forum or changed her identity on this very forum and after seeing the extent of his obsession with her, I can understand why she may have left or gone into hiding under another name. So now that he no longer has her to annoy and stalk, he picks on other people in this forum. He has now resorted to using threats of bodily harm and death against other members, as well as legal action because someone reproduced his photo from an internet forum and used it on same said forum... Ah to be a fly on the wall when he took that claim before a judge .

Why he has not been banned for not only his stalking and now his threats is beyond me. But I guess that is another thread altogether.

 

[perplexity]

Hmmm.. So why are YOU threatening to sue? Your wife took the photo, therefore she is the rightful and lawful owner. Not you.

It was leopold99, not me who suggested to sue, in the second posting to this thread.

My original posting did not threaten to sue, nor should I have had to expect to make any more of it than that.

Has spurious profitted in any way by using your image in this forum?

If he gained nothing from it then there was no reason to abuse in the first place, was there?
It was presumably because of some sort of desperate need to gain attetion, no matter what.
I do not see that anybody else had seen it as a joke; they were rather inclined ask what the fool was up to.
He reminds me of a six year old nephew who cannot stand to be deprived of attention, not for one moment, spitefully jealous of anybody else who might instead be granted some, and willing to do anything, to attempt any sort of mischief in such a circumstance in the hope to gain attention, no matter what the result in any other sense.

Has the owner of this forum asked your wife permission to use the image on his own forum, since this is where your image is appearing and subject to copyright issues?

My wife does not and never did use my image as her avatar.
She should not otherwise be involved, and does not wish to be.
As I had explained before the image is mine.

Your comprehension is dreadful.

You do realise that courts hate spurious claims?

I have thoroughly researched the issue,
and I did not intend to seek any further advice in that respect.

instead of making a public fool of yourself and instead of threatening other members like a retard.

Who is the fool here is for anybody to judge for themselves.

If you think it OK for somebody such as spuriousmonkey to manufacture false evidence with what can only be construed as a deliberate intent to harm, that says more about you than it does about me.

I am guessing that this sort of thing happens to you often. I can see why.

Some people decide to stand up for themselves.

The only thing that too many of the rest understand is the derogation of others.
If you rather had something to say for yourself one might be that much more inclined to respect it.

Lets face it, Ron is an attention whore.

If you bother to actually read the thread you will find that every posting of mine beyond the original posting was obliged by direct questions, errors with regard to the law, or by deleberate taunts or sundry abuse from others.

Nobody should then be more pleased than myself to be relieved of the burden of responding to your sort of ignorant shit.

There are other things that I might rather have got on with.

Why he has not been banned for not only his stalking and now his threats is beyond me. But I guess that is another thread altogether.

That, for once is right: beyond you, beyond your comprehension, beyond your intellect, beyond your experience, beyond even any sense of decency, charity or jurisprudence that you might otherwise be blessed with.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about, way beyond.

--- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

Nowhere did I deny the content of the Berne convention James, just that it grants informal copyright, and the regulations of certain sites can override that informal protection.

The Berne Convention would seem to be denied by that very suggestion.

There is no distinction between an informal and a formal copyright; the rights are equal; there is no two tier system.

--- Ron.

 

[imaplanck.]

Nice avatar monkey, you actually made me laugh for once.

 

[Shaitan]

anybody want my avatar I dont like it

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That is simply not true.


Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it.

Copyright protection begins when any of the above described work is actually created and fixed in a tangible form.

http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

Copyrights and the Internet.

Public domain - not! When visiting a web site, it is so easy to click and save with a mouse button when one sees a graphic image that one likes, or to view the source code and copy part of or all of the HTML coding because one "likes the way this or that was done" or one "wants a similar layout", or to copy original writings because "that person expresses this or that so well". The general (and incorrect) notion is that anything that is on the internet is public domain and may be taken without permission from the creator/owner. Some people actually think (incorrectly) that just because bits of web pages may be stored in one's cache, or because certain browsers allow one to do "file save as" moves or anything similar one may use such material as one wishes. This is false.

--- Ron.

Actually quoting from other websites is also not allowed.

 

[phlogistician]

Ron, yes there is a two tier system. The server that hosts Sciforums is in the USA, and when the USA signed up to the Berne convention, only misuse of registered works could be pursued for damages in court. Therefore, you could not sue Spurious for this breach, as you could if the server (and perpetrator?) was in Europe.

That notwithstanding, I refer you to my previous point, that there is only one copyright notice on this site that covers it's entirety, and David Watanabe owns that copyright. You have submitted artistic material under this copyright, and have yet to present any evidence that works created on, or submitted to this site by an individual remain under that individual's copyright. I suggest you start by looking in the registration terms. Other sites I have already mentioned cover this angle, and some take ownership, others convey works into the public domain if they are uploaded. Like I said, this is not clear cut.

Anyway, despite all your groundless moaning, you forget that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

 

[Stryder]

Theres people in the world suffering from Human rights violations and all you lot can argue about is a few poxy little avatars and whether you're right/they're about copyright.

Live with it, it's the net. Copyright's are about protecting an Individuals right but a right to do what? Earn money for the most part, Since nobody has been making money there isn't much you can do. If spurious had started trying to sell "Ron" mugs then you could get all hept up, especially if he was making a profit or making Perplexity have a loss in his own sales.

Although some people do take it to heart to have their Avatar "cloned", such cloning was an initial problem when people also created similar names in the attempt to fool the posters. Thats where any real transgression would be seen, all I see here is Spurious having a laugh and Perplexity just getting a little too over serious about it.

If anything, if you class yourself an artist Perplexity you should realise that you will be subjected to scrutiny and "There is no such thing as bad press", in otherwords does it not support you as an artist to have "Fan boys"?

 

[invert_nexus]

Nobody should then be more pleased than myself to be relieved of the burden of responding to your sort of ignorant shit.

Ah ha!
I was right.
You do want to be banned.
Even more pathetic.
Just leave, Ron.
You know you're sick of being seen as such a pathetic old twat anyway.
Maybe you can find respect elsewhere.
A hint. Avoid stalking people and public death threats. That might increase your popularity in your next internet home.

 

[imaplanck.]

Theres people in the world suffering from Human rights violations and all you lot can argue about is a few poxy little avatars and whether you're right/they're about copyright.

Live with it, it's the net. Copyright's are about protecting an Individuals right but a right to do what? Earn money for the most part, Since nobody has been making money there isn't much you can do. If spurious had started trying to sell "Ron" mugs then you could get all hept up, especially if he was making a profit or making Perplexity have a loss in his own sales.

Although some people do take it to heart to have their Avatar "cloned", such cloning was an initial problem when people also created similar names in the attempt to fool the posters. Thats where any real transgression would be seen, all I see here is Spurious having a laugh and Perplexity just getting a little too over serious about it.

If anything, if you class yourself an artist Perplexity you should realise that you will be subjected to scrutiny and "There is no such thing as bad press", in otherwords does it not support you as an artist to have "Fan boys"?

This is a very serious issue, especially for Ron. It would be helpful if you didn't belittle what this king among men so adamantly stands for.

 

[perplexity]

Live with it, it's the net. Copyright's are about protecting an Individuals right but a right to do what?

It was already clear from previous events here that it is not in order to reveal personal details without express permission: Whether or not somebody had previously decided for themselves to do so; one owns the right to object.

A photo of a person is a personal detail, typically intended to identify the person and the person's postings, and before this thread I had consciously resisted the temptation to engage in discussions about what I look like or whatever sundry variety of vanity.

The abuse was thus objectionable on those grounds alone.

If anything, if you class yourself an artist Perplexity you should realise that you will be subjected to scrutiny and "There is no such thing as bad press", in otherwords does it not support you as an artist to have "Fan boys"?

I made no claim to be an artist, nor is it my intention to advertise myself, nor any business.
If it were the intention you might have seen links to a web site, threads designed to suit the purpose or whatever else during the course of discussions.
There was and is no such agenda.

--- Ron.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So why did you keep bitching although the picture was taken down immediately after I saw the thread?

 

[Stryder]

I apologise there Ron, I suppose I must of jumped to a conclusion from your original mention of "The Berne Convention for the Protection Literay and Artistic Works" considering that Artists and Poets are usually those that feel that the value of there work makes it something worth stealing.

 

[perplexity]

Did you just threaten to murder me, Ronnie old bean?

A threat would have been defintely phrased as "if you .... then our ways must part", or something similar.

It had not actually occured to me to expect you to be vain enough or disingenuous enough to take it as you chose to, so I am sorry for that; with hindsight I should have known better; that I concede.

As it happens I had merely put a question, in some considerable difficulty to comprehend your philosophy, what it should take for you to deign to afford a genuine respect.

On one thread you purport to castigate abuse and then on another you appear to prefer to side with an abuser, according at least to the moderator's opinion.

You would thus appear to me to be an idiot unfortunately short of integrity, comprehension, reason and intelligence, afflicted by some sort of emotional undertow that you have yet perhaps to account to yourself for, let alone to anybody else.

You remind me of my father, who was similarly keen to bully and belittle at the slightest opportunity, while possibly making sense to himself but scarcely to whoever he picked on, nor to bemused onlookers.
In his case it was mostly about being out of his depth, conditioned to exceed his capabilities to a foolish extent.

Ah ha!
I was right.
You do want to be banned.
Even more pathetic.
Just leave, Ron.

Given the choice, I would rather that you did.

--- Ron.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You remind me of my father, who was similarly keen to bully and belittle at the slightest opportunity, while possibly making sense to himself but scarcely to whoever he picked on, nor to bemused onlookers.
In his case it was mostly about being out of his depth, conditioned to exceed his capabilities to a foolish extent.

Like father like son.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It is not so easy to see the joke in this

That's because you have no sense of humour.

nor did I yet see the apology.

sure you did. First page.

Sorry, didn't know this was you

In the mean time then I call you a crook, spuriousmonkey, a liar and a cheat, a disreputable creep.

That sounds like an ad hominem attack to me. Better apologise.

My postings responded to provocation.

I do happen to know from previous experience what to expect when the subject of copyright comes up,
but the expectation of ignorant abuse shall not deter me, nor shall it temper my reason.
I am not so weak.

--- Ron.

Is that what you told your wife? That she provoked you?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Anyway. From your own link:

Copyright theft
Piracy is a crime
Report it : 08456 034 587

just do it and stop moaning.

 

[perplexity]

That notwithstanding, I refer you to my previous point, that there is only one copyright notice on this site that covers it's entirety, and David Watanabe owns that copyright. You have submitted artistic material under this copyright, and have yet to present any evidence that works created on, or submitted to this site by an individual remain under that individual's copyright. I suggest you start by looking in the registration terms. Other sites I have already mentioned cover this angle, and some take ownership, others convey works into the public domain if they are uploaded. Like I said, this is not clear cut.

My original posting was perfectly clear cut and correct, as was the Moderator's subsequent clarification to confirm it.

Your disposition is and was therefore argumentative, not helpful.

The need was to clarify the issue, not to confuse it.

--- Ron.