manny's thread

[Manny]

Some of you folks have a problem with English it seems. Let me make it real simple:

• Joe Soap takes a photo of his dog
• Joe Soap joins a forum, and during signup, licences his content to that site
• Joe Soap posts the photo of Fido on said site.
• Joe has now granted licence to that site to use said photo of Fido
• Site then can use the photo how they wish.

Really people, understand the FACTS. Jack gave PERMISSION for that photo to be used as per the example above. The fact that he is too dim to grasp that and whines about it two years later (when it suits him) is not my problem.

He posted it here on the 5th October 2007 having previously accepted the TOS here when he signed up on the 15th April 2007. Next objection?

But hey, good job running interference on the subject of Jacks lost bet guys.

[Manny]

Jack -- in case you missed this from the previous page:

Now that's cleared up, there is the matter of the $50,000 you owe me. The terms of the bet were quite clear and you accepted my wager in public. You have a debt. A debt incurred purely as a result of your lies and big mouth.

Can you outline your intention to discharge your debt please?

[tim 360]

Some of you folks have a problem with English it seems. Let me make it real simple:

• Joe Soap takes a photo of his dog
• Joe Soap joins a forum, and during signup, licences his content to that site
• Joe Soap posts the photo of Fido on said site.
• Joe has now granted licence to that site to use said photo of Fido
• Site then can use the photo how they wish.

Really people, understand the FACTS. Jack gave PERMISSION for that photo to be used as per the example above. The fact that he is too dim to grasp that and whines about it two years later (when it suits him) is not my problem.

He posted it here on the 5th October 2007 having previously accepted the TOS here when he signed up on the 15th April 2007. Next objection?

But hey, good job running interference on the subject of Jacks lost bet guys.

Your TOS is just that...your TOS.  It does not supersede law.  You don't have a "models release" or a "commercial release" with her notarized signature, "no payment"--do you?  I can just hear your lawyer telling a judge that your TOS supersedes law.  Legitimate companies and publishers don't lift photos off a website without the legal paperwork and use them for advertising.

Everyone in the biz knows you need releases to use someones photo for commercial purposes.  If you "lifted" other girls photos from your website without the proper releases they too could sue you.  Not saying they would get much, prolly no deep pockets here, but thats why God created lawyers.

According to your TOS rationale I can have the same TOS on my website and any photos posted there can then legally be used for my own advertising and commercial purposes?  Without any legal releases etc from the subject?   

[Manny]

Agreements between parties are exactly that.

Nothing was "lifted" from anywhere. An image was utilised with legal permission granted on the basis of an agreement between two parties. No more -- no less.

There is no UK law that supersedes such an agreement between two parties.

[Jack]

Jack -- in case you missed this from the previous page:

[Admin: Deleted name-calling] manny, read what I wrote and try to comprehend,.......

with that behind me I will be addressing many of the false statements manny has made.  Their is so much BS it is going to take me a few days to reply to everything.

Do you understand what was written manny?  Were their any big words that you did not understand?   Here, let me make it a little more simple for you,...

I    will     be     addressing    many    of    the    false     statements    manny    has    made.   Their   is    so   much    BS   it    is    going    to    take    me    a    few    days    to    reply    to     everything.


Do you understand now manny?   I am going thru ALL your bull schit, I want to SHOW everyone here the type of person you are and by taking my time, showing time after time one lie after another, I will be able to show I think quite convincing that you are the type of [Admin: Deleted name-calling] who will write untrue statements for the sole purpose to try to discredit anyone, especially someone who can, has, and does show the type of [Admin: Deleted personal insult] you are.  You can and do control this type thing on rua, such as not allowing an opinion of your book that is not flattering [Admin: Deleted insult]  you can NOT control what is written here, what is exposed here. And for that I am so thankful you have come over to RWD.  Here you will be exposed to the newby's.  As I have said, as my emails and phone calls today have verified, most the old timers know you are [Admin: Deleted insult], I am thankful for the opportunity to expose you to the new guys and hopefully some of the many new people on rua will be reading this.

 No further name-calling or insults. Make your points without them.

[Eduard]

Your TOS is just that...your TOS.  It does not supersede law.  You don't have a "models release" or a "commercial release" with her notarized signature, "no payment"--do you?  I can just hear your lawyer telling a judge that your TOS supersedes law.  Legitimate companies and publishers don't lift photos off a website without the legal paperwork and use them for advertising.

Everyone in the biz knows you need releases to use someones photo for commercial purposes.  If you "lifted" other girls photos from your website without the proper releases they too could sue you.  Not saying they would get much, prolly no deep pockets here, but thats why God created lawyers.

According to your TOS rationale I can have the same TOS on my website and any photos posted there can then legally be used for my own advertising and commercial purposes?  Without any legal releases etc from the subject?   

Tim, the photo wasn't lifted from an "A" site. The photo was on Manny's web site. I'm surprised that you don't see the difference. Furthermore the uploader of the photo signed the TOS agreement which essentially IS a license and the release to use the photo in question according to the law.

[Manny]

Knock yourself out Jack. I'm not charging you interest on your debt yet.

Can you outline your intention to discharge your debt please Jack?

[LEGAL]

Tim & Boethius I agree and found some interesting articles FYI.  

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."

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

http://www.explorephotography.co.uk/photography-copyright-law.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom

http://www.photographywebsite.co.uk/copyright-in-photography-c494.html

[Manny]

Robert, do try to keep up. There is NO copyright infringement here. For one to exert copyright, one must not have licensed it irrevocably to the one whom one seeks to complain about.

From your own link:

Who owns the copyright on photographs?
Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions: If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

Don't give up the day job Legal.

[LEGAL]

I hope you represent yourself   

[BC]

These types of incidents happen all over the net.

Resolution is usually brought about when a party is notified of the infringement and is requested to remove it.  Usually the party removes it and all is back to order.

Manny has offered to remove the objectionable material. If Jack wants it removed or advises that copyright exists Manny will probably comply.

No need to make a federal case out of petty matters.

If the material was used for commercial purposes, compensation request can either be accepted or the parties can go to court.  Considering the value of this 'material', which serves no unique purpose and is easily replicated or replaced at little or no cost, the value is probably very little if anything. Certainly not worth an international lawsuit.

Much ado about nuthin' IMO.

[LiveFromUkraine]

You can and do control this type thing on rua, such as not allowing an opinion of your book that is not flattering, no balls manny as a lot of people saw,  you can NOT control what is written here, what is exposed here. And for that I am so thankful you have come over to RWD.  

I remember a not so long time ago that Manny was all about free speech.  I remember him bitching about censorship on this forum.  Not only that but I stuck my neck out for the guy here and ended up in a disagreement with the TOS and Dan which ended up in being banned.

How ironic that now Manny seems to do the exact same things on his forum that he complained about all those years.  Yes, I have seen the censorship and even decided to leave his forum because of it.  Not that I was posting a lot anyway.

I didn't want my name associated with his site and asked the mods to delete my posts.  I was ignored until I started editing my past posts with "Manny is a hypocrite".  I eventually got them to change my name.  

I really don't have anything against Manny but the hypocritical nature is definitely there.

It is obvious he knows nothing about copyright if he thinks his TOS will "protect" him.  We are talking in regards to using copyright materials for commercial use and his TOS will not be able to cover that.  Copyright laws are pretty much the same in all countries that have copyright laws on their books.

Jack, I would and have your friend sue Manny and use those gains to pay that 50k bet.  I am sure you will end up ahead since those fees can go pass that 50k mark.



Thomas

[LEGAL]

Well Said LiveFromUkraine   

[LiveFromUkraine]

These types of incidents happen all over the net.

Resolution is usually brought about when a party is notified of the infringement and is requested to remove it.  Usually the party removes it and all is back to order.

Manny has offered to remove the objectionable material. If Jack wants it removed or advises that copyright exists Manny will probably comply.

No need to make a federal case out of petty matters.

If the material was used for commercial purposes, compensation request can either be accepted or the parties can go to court.  Considering the value of this 'material', which serves no unique purpose and is easily replicated or replaced at little or no cost, the value is probably very little if anything. Certainly not worth an international lawsuit.

Much ado about nuthin' IMO.

Well, I don't think it is much ado about nuthin if that was your photo on that site.  I am sure you're a handsome man and it would have helped his book sales but not everyone wants to be associated with that type of product.

We can use your image in some viagra marketing materials. 

I don't think Manny did it with any intention to screw someone over.  I think he is more ignorant on these issues and should be looking into it if he thinks his TOS covers commercial use of these types of images.

Thomas

[Manny]

I hope you represent yourself   

Against you who thinks this is file sharing? With one hand behind my back.

Gosh, I had forgotten about the RWD peanut gallery.  

Carry on chaps...........  

[LiveFromUkraine]

Gosh, I had forgotten about the RWD peanut gallery.  

Carry on chaps...........  

You have been a member of the peanut gallery for a long time.  I don't know why you forgot about it.  No different then the peanut gallery on your site.  You just can't lock or edit this thread here.  


Thomas

[Jumper]

Manny-

for what its worth , jack posting the photo or complaining to you about it -
isnt the heart of the point now being made,and you seem to be missing that.

Helen is in the photo.
in the context its taken ..likely jack can indeed post it in a forum without her permission, so could anyone once its on the net.

what you seem to fail to recognize is jack , or anyone else can not give YOU permission from HELEN to use it commercially.comercially seems the  difference.


 I understand you wouldn't have used it , or that it wasn't malicious,, but to pretend you have some third party right to use a photo commercially seems odd. your TOS appleis to jack, not helen whose image was used commercially in this case.
 
if HELEN herself posted it on your site , even under your TOS i'm not convinced you could use it commercially ,
even though you could post it on forums or blogs forever..


FWIW-Owning a few TM's , I run into trademark (not copyright but similar) infringement often..
both nationally and internationally, and most people are very unfamiliar with the specifics of IP law.
Much less international IP law.

Add in that there is a peculiar 'net mentality , that anything on the Inet is free, or should be free, and usasable in general..
there is often even some self rightous indignation from folks who have copied not only my products ,
but thier trademark names when informed they can't just use them..
yes often the rather silly excuse ,* it was posted on my website so its mine*  comes up..lol
its even comical at times (well , if it dint effect my bottom line)
Any decent IP (intellectual properties) attorny averages 10K for just a starting retainer..
so it is hard for them to even educate themselves fully at a reasonable rate.


while admitidlly copyright laws regarding images ,are far from a realm i know much about ,
i would think them at least somewhat similar to trademarks and as such I wish you
good luck to you if you persist in your current  argument..
 I know without doubt, that if  a third party posted a trademark of mine on your website ,you certainly could not use it commercially regardless any TOS you made up , and regardless if  the third party agreed to some random user agreement .. ..in TM law, that is pure folly ..
 follow?

Overall i do agree it's much to do about little ...
In the context of jack knowing helen ,and she certainly could have asked him to not have you use the photo commercially .. and you acknowledging that you wouldnt have used it had you *known*...

why the turmoil or defense of what seems a silly position?

[Ade]

why the turmoil or defense of what seems a silly position?

Because he's an arrogant egotist?

[LiveFromUkraine]

Because he's an arrogant egotist?

We all stick to silly arguments based on our egos. 

I thought arrogance was a British thing.  I kid, I kid! 


Thomas

[Manny]

AJ, I agree with what you say about TM's, however, this is not a trademark.

Original copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject usually. Thus it was Jack's picture to post. Jack knowingly licensed to me it by posting it. I used it within the confines of that licence. If Jack had a complaint that had any legal basis he would have used it two years ago to have it pulled.

It is irrelevant if later use is commercial or non commercial in my view. I have yet to read anything to the contrary. Certainly nothing that would override an agreement between two parties.

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.

[tim 360]

Manny-

Helen is in the photo.
in the context its taken ..likely jack can indeed post it in a forum without her permission, so could anyone once its on the net.

what you seem to fail to recognize is jack , or anyone else can not give YOU permission from HELEN to use it commercially.comercially seems the  difference.


 I understand you wouldn't have used it , or that it wasn't malicious,, but to pretend you have some third party right to use a photo commercially seems odd. your TOS appleis to jack, not helen whose image was used commercially in this case.
 
if HELEN herself posted it on your site , even under your TOS i'm not convinced you could use it commercially ,
even though you could post it on forums or blogs forever..


FWIW-Owning a few TM's , I run into trademark (not copyright but similar) infringement often..
both nationally and internationally, and most people are very unfamiliar with the specifics of IP law.
Much less international IP law.

Add in that there is a peculiar 'net mentality , that anything on the Inet is free, or should be free, and usasable in general..
there is often even some self rightous indignation from folks who have copied not only my products ,
but thier trademark names when informed they can't just use them..
yes often the rather silly excuse ,* it was posted on my website so its mine*  comes up..lol
its even comical at times (well , if it dint effect my bottom line)
Any decent IP (intellectual properties) attorny averages 10K for just a starting retainer..
so it is hard for them to even educate themselves fully at a reasonable rate.


while admitidlly copyright laws regarding images ,are far from a realm i know much about ,
i would think them at least somewhat similar to trademarks and as such I wish you
good luck to you if you persist in your current  argument..
 I know without doubt, that if  a third party posted a trademark of mine on your website ,you certainly could not use it commercially regardless any TOS you made up , and regardless if  the third party agreed to some random user agreement .. ..in TM law, that is pure folly ..
 follow?

Overall i do agree it's much to do about little ...
In the context of jack knowing helen ,and she certainly could have asked him to not have you use the photo commercially .. and you acknowledging that you wouldnt have used it had you *known*...

why the turmoil or defense of what seems a silly position?

AJ,  TM's and copyrights have alot of legal similiarites.  Posting a photo on a website does not give legal clearance or release nor confer permission of the photographed subject (Helen) to be used for commercial or advertising purposes not matter what his TOS reads.  Whether used in a book or advertising you have to have explicit permission and releases.  In advertising money is usually conveyed too.

I can't understand his silly position either?  AJ,  lets say I take a photo of you and I post it on Mannys site.  Did YOU in any way give Manny your permission to then use that photo of you for his advertising?    

[LiveFromUkraine]

However, the facts don't seem to matter to this lot. If there's a train running, they'll jump on it.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

Who owns the copyright on photographs?

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

    * If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
    * If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

Was Jack paid for such photos?  TOS doesn't mean squat if it is illegal.  DO you really think the courts will allow you to use Jack's photos for commercial use when he never got paid for it.

Model release forms

An individual has certain rights to control the use of their image. The specific details will vary from one country to another depending on national legislation, although the general rule seems to be to protect a person against defamatory or offensive use of their image.

If you intend to sell or distribute images that include people, then it is worth getting your subjects to sign a model release form as this will protect you against any comeback.

Still waiting on those facts.  All I see is your opinion.  This took about 5 minutes of searching on Google and you haven't been able to find anything?  


Thomas

[Jack]

Original copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject usually. Thus it was Jack's picture to post.

uhhh manny, got some bad news for you.  That photo is not one that I took.  It was one of my favorite photos, yes, but I am not the photographer of that photo. 

Regardless of what you say, neither the photographer, nor Helen, authorized their photo to be used in a commercial manner, as you have.

[Admin]

uhhh manny, got some bad news for you.  That photo is not one that I took.  It was one of my favorite photos, yes, but I am not the photographer of that photo. 

Regardless of what you say, neither the photographer, nor Helen, authorized their photo to be used in a commercial manner, as you have.

Not taking sides in the debate - but if you had posted the photo at RWD, it would be expected that you had the legal rights to do so (as per the RWD ToS). If RWD then relied upon the expectation you had those rights and it turns out you did not - well, that probably would not be an issue for which RWD would be culpable - though, admittedly, it would probably take a court (or formal arbiter) to decide.

FWIW

- Dan

[Eduard]

AJ, I agree with what you say about TM's, however, this is not a trademark.

Original copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject usually. Thus it was Jack's picture to post. Jack knowingly licensed to me it by posting it. I used it within the confines of that licence. If Jack had a complaint that had any legal basis he would have used it two years ago to have it pulled.

It is irrelevant if later use is commercial or non commercial in my view. I have yet to read anything to the contrary. Certainly nothing that would override an agreement between two parties.

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.

this does seem to be the case here. Tim, I happen to deal with copyrights in my other business and go after at least 2 or 3 companies or individuals each year for copyright infringement. In this particular case I think this discussion is a waste of cyberspace. But if you really want to get technical we should find out first whether jack (who does own copyright of the photo if he took it) had Helen sign a model release form. If he did not, then she should be going after him. But the reality is that her "damages" would be the modeling fee that is customary in her area for such "shoot". If she was a professional model, maybe she could charge about a $100. But this wasn't a professional shoot and she wasn't even modeling really, so a $100 is too much for a snap shot like this. So potentially she could go after jack for posting her photo without her permission and maybe get a $100 out of him. She couldn't go after Manny, because jack gave him a license to use this image for any purpose by signing TOS agreement. I honestly don't know what sane person would decide to take such matter to court and spend tens of thousands of $$$ to get a $100 and I think most people understand that all this copyright talk is just a diversion from the issue at hand. Manny and jack made a bet, jack lost, now it's time to pay up. Everything else is just noise.