Taking Photo's of brands/Copyright etc

[TomB]

Stugster,

I have to agree with you, i can't see anywhere that Matt actually calls this guy what he is claiming he did.

I have to comment as well:
"Can you tell me what "legitimate academic institution" endorses language like this from one of their lecturers because I would like to discuss this with them?"

I do find that comment slightly childish, sort of I'm telling on you mentality, but that is just my opinion

Beedee can I ask the picture that you refer to on your FSB post, you say you used it but you never got it from a Getty website and you can't remember where you got it from.

Did you pay for this icon?

 

[beedee]

Matt hasn't actually explicitly stated that he was talking about any person or individual.

Are you condoning his behaviour then?

His comments are obviously directed at me. Of that there can be no doubt and whether or not you are willing to accept it is not really important. He hasn't denied it and I think I can prove it. I am currently seeking advice.

I must also say that you do the credibility of your forum no favours by allowing people to get out of control and to use language like this unchecked. My own experience tells me that you will eventually have to remove the threads but it doesn't matter to me now. His comments about me have been publicly displayed. The damage has been done and I have saved all of the information within this thread for future reference.

 

[Brian McIntosh]

From what I've read, Matt is alluding to the fact that, if you do receive a letter from G&C it is probably because your web designer hasn't followed due dilligence and is using images without purchasing a licence to use them. There are numerous threads on the subject on other forums where people have had websites built then receive the dreaded letter. Maybe they don't fully understand the ins and outs of the law or decide to totally disregard it because they are working from their bedroom and disappear when the s**t hits the fan. To ensure this doesn't happen he quite clearly states that an auditable trail to prove you have followed the correct procedure in obtaining the images will in every case be quite sufficient in ensuring that you will be left alone by any picture library.

I also don't quite understand Beedee why you are asking where Matt works.

 

[Former Member 1]

Listen, I have no need to have my ego massaged. I am confident in my own abilities, experience and knowledge. I know what I can and cannot do and leave my clients to judge my output.

Yes indeed. I believe your website does speak volumes!

I have no interest in arguing with you but I believe that you have defamed my character. You seem confident enough of your case so just respond to my questions.

You are of course entitled to believe what you like.

* Can I just ask you to confirm that you are publicly calling me a "codemonkey", "fake", "fraud", "flim flam artist" and "half-assed bloody amateur"?

You can ask what you like. You already have my answer but I will clarify: If you wish to adopt that mantle as applying to you in particular ( i.e. you recognise something of yourself in it.) Then that is entirely YOUR OWN choice and your prerogative and not within my control.

For the record; the comments to which you refer are general in nature.

* Can you tell me what "legitimate academic institution" endorses language like this from one of their lecturers because I would like to discuss this with them?

You know perfectly well already where I teach. I work for a college; I'm not their possession nor their subject. It is FACT that I am a lecturer at a legitimate academic institution. It is FACT that I teach IPR related subjects (specifically media law) to HND standard. It is FACT that my material on IPR has been moderated and verified by the SQA within the past year. I have not named the college because I DON'T require or seek its endorsement. You find MY name and that of MY company attached to my posts.

What's more if you understood how these things work you'd realise that the college will not discuss my position with the likes of you! If they did I would see THEM in court!

* Can I also ask you to confirm what qualifications you have that allow you to teach IP law?

IPR management was a specific and central part of my training to IBA standards with Thames Television back in the early 1980's (I began my training in 1979 and completed with distinction in 1983). It has also been an part of various HN qualifications and business qualifications as well as a central part of my role as programme producer production manager and facilities manager over the past 24 years...

As to my behaviour and language.....

I call a spade a spade. Simple as that!

 

[stugster]

Are you condoning his behaviour then?

His comments are obviously directed at me. Of that there can be no doubt and whether or not you are willing to accept it is not really important. He hasn't denied it and I think I can prove it. I am currently seeking advice.

I must also say that you do the credibility of your forum no favours by allowing people to get out of control and to use language like this unchecked. My own experience tells me that you will eventually have to remove the threads but it doesn't matter to me now. His comments about me have been publicly displayed. The damage has been done and I have saved all of the information within this thread for future reference.

I never said that I was condoning his behaviour at all, that sir, was simply speculation (again) from yourself.

I think you will find it exceedingly difficult to have any litigation brought against Matt for his posts here, and by "exceedingly difficult" I actually mean "almost impossible". As previously stated, one can only assume (there’s that speculation again) his comments were in fact directed at you, but actually, they were more directed to the industry as a whole, I believe.

As for the credibility of the forum being put into disrepute, I also disagree with your comments, especially if your opinion is based on the fact someone has used "language". Sorry, but as an adult forum, we are all quite capable of coping with the naughty words when they appear now and again.

My final point would be that these are not actually my forums, and as I previously stated, will be looking into this matter.

I lied. My final point is this: I sincerely hope you get proper legal aid (not just some cowboy who *thinks* he knows his law),and I also refer you to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. This should prove to be some insightful and humorous reading for you all.

 

[beedee]

Beedee can I ask the picture that you refer to on your FSB post, you say you used it but you never got it from a Getty website and you can't remember where you got it from.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. My problem was actually with Corbis not Getty but I have no intention of starting another Getty/Corbis thread. I am only here to defend my name against these defamatory and unprovoked comments. If you want to join the FSB forum (where this incidentally has already been covered) I'll be happy to discuss this with you further.

 

[beedee]

Sorry, but as an adult forum, we are all quite capable of coping with the naughty words when they appear now and again.

But this is not an adult forum. It is supposed to be a business forum where certain common business courtesies should be observed.

 

[stugster]

But this is not an adult forum. It is supposed to be a business forum where certain common business courtesies should be observed.

Yawn...

Children don't tend to have businesses, and even less tend to frequent business forums. Therefore if there are no children, it can be deduced that the people on-line are likely to be.... yeah, you guessed it! Adults!

 

[beedee]

For the record; the comments to which you refer are general in nature.

Nice.

Will you then be happy to publicly deny that the abusive comments were aimed at me personally?

 

[stugster]

I cannot see anywhere that states his comments were made directly at you personally.


P.S. Here's Arkell v Pressdram, for fun:

Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Private Eye:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

 

[Former Member 1]

Nice.

Will you then be happy to publicly deny that the abusive comments were aimed at me personally?

Will you be willing to snap a rubber glove on your head and run naked 'round George square singing "The Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy"?

No? No reason why you should be? And quite a few why you shouldn't?

 

[TomB]

I am not sure I understand what you are asking here. My problem was actually with Corbis not Getty but I have no intention of starting another Getty/Corbis thread. I am only here to defend my name against these defamatory and unprovoked comments. If you want to join the FSB forum (where this incidentally has already been covered) I'll be happy to discuss this with you further.

My apologies, I meant Corbis. I don't know why I wrote Getty, must have been thinking of something else.

I am simply asking if you paid for the use of the icon? A simply yes or no is sufficient without starting a thread about it.

I simply do not have time to read a 107 page forum topic.

 

[beedee]

I cannot see anywhere that states his comments were made directly at you personally.

Can you see anywhere that he denies this?

 

[stugster]

I didn't deny that I'm the Pope. That doesn't mean I am.

 

[Former Member 1]

Can you see anywhere that he denies this?

And you won't find anywhere I deny invading Poland in 1939 either... :001_rolleyes:

If you feel your reputation has been brought into disrepute that's by your own words and your own actions. NOT mine. YOU are the one claiming these comments are about you. YOU are the one (wee bit of legal technicality here) who is identifying YOURSELF with the characters I described.....

 

[beedee]

No one asked you if you were the pope.

It sems to be difficult to have a sensible discussion in here. Does no one answer questions resonably?

 

[stugster]

Let it be known, that if you ask a silly question, you get a silly answer.




Yours,


Pope Gilbertsnot I

 

[Former Member 1]

No one asked you if you were the pope.

It seems to be difficult to have a sensible discussion in here. Does no one answer questions resonably?

Reasonably?

Since you're so insistent on questions being answered..... George Square... Rubber Glove... What about it?

Because that's about as SENSIBLE as anything you've asked.

Tom asked you a perfectly reasonable question which you haven't answered.

 

[beedee]

Clearly, hiding behind all of the nonsense, it is obvious that you do not have the courage to admit that you were referring to me. Your reluctance to answer my questions says it all.

You were the first one to suggest that people were defaming you in the FSB forum with your comment. "Readers should note that my posts have been edited to destroy much of their meaning whilst defamatory remarks about me have been left. I consider that I have been treated unfairly and dishonestly".

Perhaps you can point these defamatory remarks out to me?
----------------------------------------------------------

You other guys will probably not be interested in the facts but for those of you who do not know why all of this has happened I will provide you with some background information anyway. Your man chucked the FSB forum after some of his abusive posts were censored and several people disagreed with what he was saying. This is not a new thing for him. His confrontational approach has caused problems in forums before. This particular instance happened more than a year ago and since it is still apparently so fresh in his mind it would seem to have been festering away ever since.

When he first entered the FSB discussion it was with a rambling post 3,451 words long. I believe that my response to him was both courteous and polite (check it out) but he took exception to this replying with an 1800 word response and then another couple of shorter ones. I continued to disagree (politely) with just some of the points he made and fully explained my reasons for doing so but the dummy was thrown out of the pram again. He insists that he is better qualified than any of the rest of us (and never misses an opportunity to tell us this) and that we are not entitled to disagree with him.

The main talking point in this case has always been that there was no precedent or any instance of Getty and Corbis taking anyone to court. Matt was quoted as saying, "There are DOZENS of others and plenty of precedents". When asked by more than one person to show us these he refused saying that they were "easily found" despite the fact that hundreds of people worldwide were unable to find them and have still not found them. As this was such an important point his insistence that they existed and his refusal to say where was both puzzling and frustrating for the thread participants. Still he refused (as he does now) to answer the question.

On a point as important as this is it any wonder that he pissed a few people off? Having said that I have rechecked the forum and I can still find no instance of anyone abusing him, disagreeing with him yes, but abusing him no. Abuse is his territory.

Once again check it out and feel free to correct me if I am wrong because it is all on record.

 

[Former Member 1]

MY reluctance to answer questions? :lol:

So Bedee, HAVE you paid for the logo Tom asked about??? :lol:

Clearly, hiding behind all of the nonsense, it is obvious that you do not have the courage to admit that you were referring to me. Your reluctance to answer my questions says it all.

Are you implying I'm a coward Bedee? Because whilst I'm actually bright enough NOT to post anything that's actionable YOU just have! :lol: Been taking legal advice have you?

I HAVE answered your questions....

As always the picture you're trying to paint is the one that suits you. What, in reality, I said was there was plenty of legal precedent in relation to copyright law and IPR breech. Yes there ARE dozens of precedents and they ARE easily found. Any legitimate student of IPR will have had to research them as part of their coursework. In fact, as (to the best of my knowledge) all the creatives here ARE properly trained and ARE properly qualified they'll all have been through it at one time or another. Just because Getty or Corbis' name isn't on the court papers doesn't mean the legal principals haven't been tried.

I do consider that the editing of my posts was unfair and dishonest. It left some of them robbed of much of their meaning. But where did I accuse someone of abuse? The simple FACT, which I'd be HAPPY to prove in a court of law is I AM actually better qualified than you and many others on that forum to comment.

This particular instance happened more than a year ago and since it is still apparently so fresh in his mind it would seem to have been festering away ever since.

The issue IS a very real and very serious one. As a LEGITIMATE professional I have to deal with IPR issues on a daily basis; and have done on a daily basis for what will shortly be 30 years. As a teacher it's my responsibility to ensure that the up coming generation of entrants to the creative industries are suitable versed in IPR management. That means keeping abreast of current issues.

Personally I've not viewed the FSB thread since last year. It's fresh in my mind simply because I'm not particularly slow-witted. The Getty/Corbis issue is a serious one which regularly comes up in classroom discussion. And, as per my previous post here on the subject it's one that has affected many. IPR cases like this are generally settled out of court (again see my previous post) simply because the theft of IP like this is generally a clear cut issue. No lawyer will tell a client to go to court without a defence.

And with all that said, I'm perfectly happy to REPEAT that.....

IF people had the correct permissions and PROPER audit trails then G&C wouldn't have a case. End of, simple as that.

Now; quite frankly, MOST of the so-called 'victims' are in that position because they appointed web designers who damn well didn't know or didn't do their job! Half-assed 'code monkeys' who actually AREN'T PROPERLY QUALIFIED AND DON'T KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY'RE DOING!!!!

And guess what?

THAT'S what happens when you get fakes, frauds, flim flam artists and half-assed bloody amateurs in to do a job that really NEEDS to be done by people who are PROPERLY trained, LEGITIMATELY qualified and actually KNOW what they're talking about!

THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ADVICE THAT I OR ANYONE ELSE CAN GIVE IS THAT IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN THIS POSITION YOU NEED THE HELP OF A QUALIFIED U.K. LAWYER WHO SPECIALISES IN IPR MATTERS AND YOU NEED TO SEEK THAT HELP URGENTLY!