manny's thread

[LEGAL]

Legal knows so much about copyright his site was once pulled down because he breached mine. However, the facts don't seem to matter to this lot. If there's a train running, they'll jump on it.

Manny/Stuart This is a another flat out lie to the public! Olga's site was never shut down.

[Vinnvinny]

Manny/Stuart This is a another flat out lie to the public! Olga's site was never shut down.

What do you expect?

This is a man who calls a guy a stalker because he takes photos of people without their permission and places them on the internet. Furthermore, he questions what good taste is.

Yet ……

The photo below is one he published on his forum. Did he get everyone’s permission? I think not. Were the racist comments he made about the people in the room in good taste? Most definitely not. Duel standards? Undoubtedly.

[Admin]

What do you expect?

This is a man who calls a guy a stalker because he takes photos of people without their permission and places them on the internet. Furthermore, he questions what good taste is.

Yet ……

The photo below is one he published on his forum. Did he get everyone’s permission? I think not. Were the racist comments he made about the people in the room in good taste? Most definitely not. Duel standards? Undoubtedly.

And the slippery slope grows even slipperier (is that a word?).

Vinn, as that is a photo of Manny's wife - AND - as I understand it, the photo was taken at a somber event that people would like to recall with some sense of celebration, I do think it is in poor taste to post it here in this topic full of rancor, hence, I deleted it.

Just a few posts back you mentioned the 5-year-old behavior of the antagonists in this topic, and here you are fueling it. Come on. You can do/be better than that.

- Dan

Oops - I see you deleted the photo of your own volition. Thanks.

2nd Oops - well, there are a couple of us 'working' this forum/topic, so I was incorrect about you removing it of your own volition - but the rationale for its removal remains.

[Admin]

Manny/Stuart This is a another flat out lie to the public! Olga's site was never shut down.

I realize that some people have a VERY vested interest in these things - but really, on this point - WHO CARES?!?

Am I missing some highly significant datapoint that could resolve world hunger, or what??

- Dan

[GQBlues]

I must say, I find it rather ironic that Jack of all posters, is all of a sudden taking up the mantle of someone posting a photo without express consent of the subject.

Manny, you have in the past noted that Jack's photos are offensive on several levels.  So, I'm certain you can appreciate why Helen would find it offensive.  Why not delete Helen's photo?

 

Sometimes the truth can be funny as hell!

 

[Vinnvinny]

And the slippery slope grows even slipperier (is that a word?).

No, it was 7.  

Vinn, as that is a photo of Manny's wife - AND - as I understand it, the photo was taken at a somber event that people would like to recall with some sense of celebration, I do think it is in poor taste to post it here in this topic full of rancor, hence, I deleted it.

Exactly my point and why I posted the photo. What is good taste to me might be in poor taste to you and others might be indifferent. Personally I would be delighted if I could post on a forum a photo of my wife becoming a British citizen and I certainly wouldn’t seize that opportunity to inject some racist commentary.

Just a few posts back you mentioned the 5-year-old behavior of the antagonists in this topic, and here you are fueling it. Come on. You can do/be better than that.

The difference here Dan it that I am just a sex tripper*/tourist whose been to Ukraine many times and can’t find a woman who will marry me, whilst the other toddlers in question are supposed to be experts in the field of WM/RW amour. Should we expect a higher and more mature level of input from these commercial members? I think yes.

* I know this to be true because there must be half a dozen threads on RUA at the moment that quote me confirming this. The fact that I once said I went on a sex trip is the prime reason for this although ‘they’ conveniently forget to mention that in the same sentence I also claimed to be a drug smuggler.  

[LEGAL]

I realize that some people have a VERY vested interest in these things - but really, on this point - WHO CARES?!?

Am I missing some highly significant datapoint that could resolve world hunger, or what??

- Dan

Good point Dan. Who really cares about Manny's lies. The fact is Manny lied and Olga's site was never shut down.

[Ravens9273]

As a person who worked many years in the music and entertainment industry I do have knowledge of the Laws concerning such issues with photographs, video, music, etc....

First to make a few points simple.

If a couple hires a photographer to take pictures of their wedding the photographer will not own the pictures nor any rights to use them for any means which also include using the pictures for their portfolio. the only way pictures could be used even within a portfolio is if permission is given by the couple. This is discussed in original contract.
Photographer will not own the pictures since they received payment for taking them.

If the subject in a photo was paid to be the subject in a picture they will not own the picture but whoever paid them to be in the picture will be the owner. As always this will be under contract and the owner of the picture would need a signed release as to what the picture may be used for. Use of the photo must also meet payment.
What this means is if a model were paid for a local store advertisment to take photographs they would receive payment. However if the photo was then used on a larger scale more compensation would be required.
This rule follows the fact actors who were paid to film a TV show and were paid will receive additional money if the TV show is aired in Reruns.
The rule also applies to commercials as well. Actors are paid for the original filming of a commercial. Commercials have a lifespan of aprox 90 days. If the commercial is still being aired after this time additional payment will need to be made to those involved.

In a case of a photographer being hired to take photographs who did not receive payment the photographer will be the owner of the photos. However the photogrpaher cannot use the photographs on a commercial level without properly compensating the subject within the photos.

Laws around entertainment is different them most laws because photos, music, video, could be used over and over again earning additional imcome. It is set out to protect those involved and to make sure they are properly compensated.

As far as publishing pictures with a book.
There is a difference to a picture being used on a cover as to a picture being used within the book.
Pictures being used within a book are considered to be reference picture and not considered to be used as commercial since they were not the focus of being used to make sales. There is still a need or proper permission to use the pictures however they do not hold the financial value as a cover picture.

Now concerning non professional photographs. The photographer is considered naturally to be the photograph owner.
If the photographer did post such pictures on a website that did have a TOS which was within the guidlines of local state and federal laws the website could use the picture as described by their TOS.

Part of TOS is also the person who posted the picture agreeing to the fact they are the owner and or have permission to post the picture. If this person did not have the authrity to do so then blame lies upon them.
The website however upon knowing that the picture was posted under false pretenses will have to cease using the picture.

In short terms. If Jack posted the picture agreeing to the terms of service without having permission or legal ownership of the picture he is legally responsible for his actions. Also the TOS is no longer valid since it was entered illegally to begin with which woould then include Manny in the legal responsability of the use of the photograph. Manny could also be liable for damages to the photograph owner. However Manny would also have the ability to go after Jack for damages for posting the photograph to begin with.

As far as comments I have read to Helen suing Manny.
Unless Helen being the owner of the photograph she has very little to stand on in, much less a $100,000 suite that was mentioned.
Manny did not use her face in a sense to make money. The photo seemed more for reference then as a photo of branding purposes.
If the picture is also all over the internet in forums, and other sites it would be hard to claim damages since it is also being recycled all over the internet. Very difficult to claim damages on one person and not go after others.

[Vinnvinny]

As a person who worked many years in the music and entertainment industry I do have knowledge of the Laws concerning such issues with photographs, video, music, etc....

First to make a few points simple.

If a couple hires a photographer to take pictures ................

What’s the law if I take a photo of myself and post it on the internet without giving myself permission and then that photo is copied and used for commercial reasons to promote Regain? Do I sue the owner of the website, Regain or myself or would it be better if I changed my name, wore a toupee and sought medical help? Thanx.

[Manny]

Ravens, thank you for a quality post on an otherwise dubious topic. That pretty much concurs with my understanding of things. I had been thumping that drum for many pages.

Legal: You tell yourself whatever it takes to make you happy. I still have a copy of the DMCA notice that GoDaddy actioned. Shall we leave it there? This isn't a discussion for RWD.

Vinny: Please refer to your email about your actions.

[dogspot]

What about when a someone takes a photo of Brittney Spears or some other celebrity and it winds up on the cover of Star magazine. Is she entitled to compensation? Are laws being broken?

[OlgaH]

Legal: You tell yourself whatever it takes to make you happy. I still have a copy of the DMCA notice that GoDaddy actioned. Shall we leave it there? This isn't a discussion for RWD.

Manny, and what did they action? They sent us copy of your copyright claim that I posted some screen shots  (I still have them if somebody is interested), so after the phone conversation with my host I took the screen shots from public "eyes" and they never shut my website down as your stated in your previous post.     You can  leave it there as it is not a discussion for RWD, though you have started it when you mentioned my website.

[Ravens9273]

What about when a someone takes a photo of Brittney Spears or some other celebrity and it winds up on the cover of Star magazine. Is she entitled to compensation? Are laws being broken?

Actually interesting question.

This is the chance we take going out in public. As mentioned a photographer is the owner of pictures they take if they were not compinsated and an agreement made otherwise. They do have a right to sell those pictures. A person can only really have a legal case if their image is being used as a brand.
Example the Gerber Baby.

If the image is being used to sell a product there could be legal issues. But if the picture is being used for a story things change.

Laws are different from country to country. while I see Manny has a British flag with his avatar I can only take it as he is across the pond. However if the book is being sold within USA borders USA laws apply.

No where in my posts am I taking anyones side. Just pointing out what I know on the subject.

[GQBlues]

If a couple hires a photographer to take pictures of their wedding the photographer will not own the pictures nor any rights to use them for any means which also include using the pictures for their portfolio. the only way pictures could be used even within a portfolio is if permission is given by the couple. This is discussed in original contract. Photographer will not own the pictures since they received payment for taking them.

This is exactly what happened to us. We had to sign a consent form the photographer sent before she can use some of our specified wedding photos into her website and catalogs.

I understand how many ladies I will inspire to get married if they see someone like me getting married. 

[Vinnvinny]

Vinny: Please refer to your email about your actions.

Which bit of your email would you like me to refer to? The 'face to face' confrontation you threatened or the other playground bully antics?

[Manny]

Laws are different from country to country. while I see Manny has a British flag with his avatar I can only take it as he is across the pond. However if the book is being sold within USA borders USA laws apply.

That's an interesting point Ravens.

The book is sold across the world, yes. It is published from, and mostly printed [excepting licences to specific distributors elsewhere] in the UK. I don't think US laws apply just because a product is sold in the US FWIW. I think that rather rests in the jurisdiction of the publishing entity and where the ISBN is registered.

However, as the image in the previous debate was not part of the product, only a minuscule part of one site of several hundred sites that market the product, the image itself cannot be said to be a noticeable part of the marketing. Indeed, the image questioned was on a UK registered website, and reproduced under licence from another UK registered website. It was taken in Ukraine by an American who later admitted he may not hold the copyright. The mind boggles!

Its a curiosity that a UK blog type site recently stole our book cover and reproduced it, hosted on their own servers, attached with objectionable content. I objected to their use of it and spoke to their hosts. After some discussion, the host booted the entire site from their servers. The site had to make a rapid migration -- sans image -- elsewhere. Another site -- entirely unconnected with Russian women -- recently stole a whole page of text I had written on one of my sites and even had the cheek to hotlink to my images. Again on a UK host. I objected to the host under EU copyright directives and they gave the site 48 hours to remove it or be closed down. They removed it at the last moment and emailed me a crawling apology.

[Vinnvinny]

It was taken in Ukraine by an American who later admitted he may not hold the copyright. The mind boggles!

It certainly does. How do you know the nationality of the person who DID take the photo?

Its a curiosity that a UK blog type site recently stole our book cover and reproduced it, hosted on their own servers, attached with objectionable content. I objected to their use of it and spoke to their hosts. After some discussion, the host booted the entire site from their servers. The site had to make a rapid migration -- sans image -- elsewhere. Another site -- entirely unconnected with Russian women -- recently stole a whole page of text I had written on one of my sites and even had the cheek to hotlink to my images. Again on a UK host. I objected to the host under EU copyright directives and they gave the site 48 hours to remove it or be closed down. They removed it at the last moment and emailed me a crawling apology.

You seem to spend of lot of your time in conflict Manny. Ever wondered why that is so?

[Ravens9273]

That's an interesting point Ravens.

The book is sold across the world, yes. It is published from, and mostly printed [excepting licences to specific distributors elsewhere] in the UK. I don't think US laws apply just because a product is sold in the US FWIW. I think that rather rests in the jurisdiction of the publishing entity and where the ISBN is registered.

I will not speak for other countries, but if a US citizen found fault with your book and by chance decided to take legal action they could do so in the USA because the book is being sold here. It does not matter where you are or are registered. The USA will have jurisdiction.
Most entertainment law in the USA is governed by the state of California. Other states made very little laws surrounding this area because of the detail to the industry California has made. Also it would be hard to overturn those laws.
In music even if the record label is located in New York and the artist from another state, the very moment a cd was sold in California, or one of their songs played on the radio in California it gave that state jurisdiction. 99% of entertainment cases are filed in California courts.
It is a part of doing business and one must follow the laws of where they do business even if they are located somewhere else.

[Admin]

You seem to spend of lot of your time in conflict Manny. Ever wondered why that is so?

Vinn,

I suspect some might see my posts as defense of Stuart - though they are not designed to be so. It is merely that I have faced similar issues and I suppose I see, more than most, how Stuart finds himself "in conflict" over decisions he's made at RUA. As I posted upthread, it was not all so very long ago that others were gleefully attacking me over all manner of things - some real, most imagined. I do not believe that Stuart is, as some seem to want to depict him, as Satan-incarnate (nor as Hitler nor as Stalin, etc., etc.)

Just another point of perspective - FWIW.

- Dan

[Manny]

I will not speak for other countries, but if a US citizen found fault with your book and by chance decided to take legal action they could do so in the USA because the book is being sold here. It does not matter where you are or are registered. The USA will have jurisdiction.

Indeed, anybody can file suit in the US, but US judgements are meaningless outside of the US. They would need to apply to a foreign court for enforcement. A foreign court that would apply local laws to ascertain if the judgement was valid.

It is an interesting line of conversation.

[GQBlues]

Oh well, BC was right all along...much ado about nuthin'

Ravens-

Copyrights and violations thereof, I thought, was always determined based on function vs art usabilities, no?...(to expand: one must determine if Manny's usage of the photo was strictly for art usability, or did the photo served as a direct function of his business selling point?)

I'm not an attorney, so maybe Dan or Legal can determine this for us...

In the end however, is it not wise just to take the photo down and be done with this altogether? methinks all these huffing and puffing goes beyond than just mere misplaced photo, no?

[Boethius]

Indeed, anybody can file suit in the US, but US judgements are meaningless outside of the US. They would need to apply to a foreign court for enforcement. A foreign court that would apply local laws to ascertain if the judgement was valid.

It is an interesting line of conversation.

No, if there is a treaty for the recipricol enforcement of judgments, the judgment is entered, and can be enforced in the other jurisdiction.  Most EU countries, including the UK, have such treaties with the US.  

[LEGAL]

Boethius you are correct and the article written by By Kim Walker, a partner with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, who specialises in intellectual property law.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/06/acta_treaty_negotiations/



"It has been said that each country that signed the treaty would have to create a 'laundry list' of penalties to deter people from infringing copyright on a commercial scale. That already exists in the UK. File-sharing could be prosecuted as a criminal offence under copyright law.


Some of the biggest shock was reserved for the idea of making ISPs liable for copyright infringements carried out by their subscribers. Yet that, too, is the case across the EU. If an ISP is told about a customer's copyright infringement or defamatory statement on pages it hosts, it must take action quickly otherwise it will be liable for the infringement."

[Admin]

Oh well, BC was right all along...much ado about nuthin'

Ravens-

Copyrights and violations thereof, I thought, was always determined based on function vs art usabilities, no?...(to expand: one must determine if Manny's usage of the photo was strictly for art usability, or did the photo served as a direct function of his business selling point?)

I'm not an attorney, so maybe Dan or Legal can determine this for us...

In the end however, is it not wise just to take the photo down and be done with this altogether? methinks all these huffing and puffing goes beyond than just mere misplaced photo, no?

GQ - for the record, I am not an attorney. I am pretty sure LEGAL is not an attorney either.

Usual disclaimers apply.

- Dan

[Manny]

"It has been said that each country that signed the treaty would have to create a 'laundry list' of penalties to deter people from infringing copyright on a commercial scale. That already exists in the UK. File-sharing could be prosecuted as a criminal offence under copyright law.

Legal [sic], You have posted that twice now. Do you know what file sharing is? It is NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. It is mostly peer to peer stuff. A website called "The Pirate Bay" is the most famous for this in Europe. They are also the most famous for ignoring international copyright law on file sharing. Learn.

Posting the first thing you find on Google does not a reasonable debate make. Talk about what you know about man.