manny's thread

[Manny]

uhhh manny, got some bad news for you.  That photo is not one that I took.

Well, you would say that Jack. So you breached someone else's copyright by posting it?

[Eduard]

normally issues like this are resolved simply by the copyright owner asking the infinging party to remove the owner's content from where ever it appears. Issue solved.

[Admin]

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

Thomas,

The reason those earlier threads you mention ended up being locked is that I could see this very issue being raised - and between a bunch of folks who really do not know very much about the legalities (including yours truly). I saw no productive outcome to it - just as I see no productive outcome to this one. BC outlined the most reasonable position of all - and, to those who care to read upthread, Manny already pointed out that if an objection had been raised, he would have responded by pulling the materials.

Much ado about nuthin' IMO.

In REAL terms, the above quote by BC is probably the most accurate of anything posted to this point.

HOWEVER - there is a clear undercurrent here (and elsewhere) that has little to do with the specific issue of the photo, and far more to do with people wanting to take a 'shot' at Manny for perceived injustices elsewhere.

Before we take those ANY further, I want the antagonists to explain how those sorts of thing benefit RWD and our mission (found here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?pid=33).

It was not so very long ago that some people feeling disenchanted with RWD and me, found their way over to RUA and posted some VERY hateful (and false, I should add) commentary. In point of fact, at least one of those is notably active in THIS topic. While all this cross-forum stuff seems to interest a select few, it is really quite inconsequential in the context of what RWD was established to do. That a few people get their 'noses out of joint' (an old saying of my Dad's), it means little to nothing in the broader context.

OK - so consider this a 'pause in the action' to allow the combatants (and/or developing combatants) time to clarify their positions - AND - to remember the venue and mission of RWD before taking this any further.

- Dan

[Jack]

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

he is a proven liar...The man is an uncouth, loud-mouthed, festering carbuncle on the face of the industry.

I'm sorry Dan.  I figured since you left manny's name calling and insults in place I would be allowed to reciprocate.

[Jack]

So you breached someone else's copyright by posting it?

uhhhh, no manny, it appears you breached someone's copyright when posting the photo for commercial use. 

technical we should find out first whether jack (who does own copyright of the photo if he took it) 

Easy enough to find out eduard, unlike the name/email of three men you have helped to get married  ,   Jack does not own the copyright to this photo.  And Jack did not use the photo for commercial purposes.

  had Helen sign a model release form. If he did not, then she should be going after him.

No Helen did not sign a model release form.  She will not be going after me (she likes me  ) as I did not post her photo for commercial use.

  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.

uhhh, maybe cheap models you might know or use eduard.

So potentially she could go after jack for posting her photo without her permission and maybe get a $100 out of him.

eduard, and what makes you think I did not have her permission?  Her photo was used for commercial use without her permission.   We have talked about this and I think she is going to try to get $50,000 for manny's unauthorized commercial use of her photo.

[Manny]

I owe manny an apology.

The photo in question was NOT in manny's book.

I was wrong and apoligize to manny for making the false representation that I did.

Jack, do you need wire details for the $50,000 you owe me or would you prefer to make a credit arrangement? I can offer easy terms at a low interest rate to the impecunious.

[Eduard]

eduard, and what makes you think I did not have her permission?  Her photo was used for commercial use without her permission.   We have talked about this and I think she is going to try to get $50,000 for manny's unauthorized commercial use of her photo.

And it is Helen's prerogative to go after Manny if she feels she has a case. As I mentioned before, I'm involved in copyright infringement cases (where my copyrights are infringed upon) 2 or 3 times a year and would love to see how her claim turns out. Please keep me posted!
meanwhile you have lost a bet and I also would love to see how you intend to pay Manny the $50K that you owe him.

[Jumper]

Much ado

I do agree,,
and really nothing about RWD or manny or jack,for me  it's simple curiousity , fun just to understand the reg's of a persons image being used for commercial use.My limited understanding of an open forum posting its fine ,(non comercial) ,and if it was a modeling shot you were paid for ,then the photog owns it..
celebraties images are different , and that definition gets blurred..as you certainly can't commercially use thier image ,even if you took the photo..but that is  vastly different regs than a regular person.

 

Now If helen took a photo of jack,posted it anywhere,  and manny used it comercially , we'd have a trifecta of sillyness.

 

[Jack]

manny I have discussed this with Helen, she is very offended that you have used her photo for commercial use without her permission.  She asked what I thought she could sue you for, I told her about $100,000. 

I do not see you getting one cent until you pay Helen for your unauthorized use of her photo.  However due to your  [non-Admin: Deleted name-calling and insults]  which you have shown over the years, I expect you will try to wiggle your way out of paying Helen and I have advised her of this.

Should you want your attorney to make contact with mine please send me your attorney's contact information to my email address.  I know Helen would appreciate it.

[Admin]

manny I have discussed this with Helen, she is very offended that you have used her photo for commercial use without her permission.  She asked what I thought she could sue you for, I told her about $100,000. 

I do not see you getting one cent until you pay Helen for your unauthorized use of her photo.  However due to your  [non-Admin: Deleted name-calling and insults]  which you have shown over the years, I expect you will try to wiggle your way out of paying Helen and I have advised her of this.

Should you want your attorney to make contact with mine please send me your attorney's contact information to my email address.  I know Helen would appreciate it.

The next reference to lawsuits or legal action will result in this topic being closed and deleted.

RWD is *NOT* going to be used as a venue for anyone to engage in litigation.

- Dan

[Boethius]

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?

[Shadow]

Now lets see the license Jack agreed to:

4. LICENSE GRANTED TO RU ADVENTURES
RU Adventures does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post to the RU Adventures Forum. After posting your Content to the RU Adventures Forum, you continue to retain all ownership rights in such Content, and you continue to have the right to use your Content in any way you choose. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the RU Adventures, you hereby grant to www.ruadventures.com a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content on and through the RU Adventures forum.

Without this license, www.ruadventures.com would be unable to provide the RU Adventures Forum. The license you grant to www.ruadventures.com is non-exclusive,  fully-paid and royalty-free, sublicensable, and worldwide.

[Jack]

Shadow, is this a reference to the legality of the license?

[tim 360]

A photos copyright is usually owned by either the photographer or if it was a work for hire, it is owned by the entity (company) who paid for the photographers services and the talents and they own the copyright.  This can be changed in the contract on whatever the photographer and entity agree upon.  Sometimes the copyright will revert back to the photographer after some time has passed.

A copyright is a copyright and thats it.  To protect the photo against unauthorized use, duplication, publication etc.

When you use a copyrighted photo of a person for commercial purposes, such as advertising, then you need a release from the person in the photo.  In the trade it's called "clearance".  Or commercial or models release.  There are clearance companies in NYC and LA and all over the world and thats what they do.  They get permission.

Even if you think you have a "copyright" because of your TOS.  You don't have "clearance" or release or permission from the person in the photo and that is all I am poisting.

Of course this book and it's advertising are so trivial and smalltime that theres no money in this game for anyone.  Lawyers like $.

If the girl doesn't want her photo used in Manny's advertising the first thing she should do is send him a "cease & desist request".  And I'm sure he would remove her photo--being a good gentleman.

I can take a photo of Mick Jagger and I would have a copyright on said photo.  True.  But...I don't have "clearance" from Mick to use it for commercial or advertising purposes.  Are you gettin' it?  Understand?  Clearance needs to be obtained from Mick in a contract and in writing and money.  Just like if I take a photo of AJ, (who's lookin' better than Mick) I may very well be the owner of the copyright of said photo but...I don't have "clearance" from AJ for it to be used for commercial or advertising purposes.  The clearance has to be specific, like for what use (local, regional, worldwide--use determines price) and what company and what markets and duration.  Very specific stuff.

Ok.  Thats ad photography 101.

[Admin]

Shadow, is this a reference to the legality of the license?

Reference to legalities is not a problem.

Threatening to file a lawsuit - posturing to file a lawsuit - if IMO the parties involved in the debate have so totally lost their perspectives and are moving in a direction that suggests litigation, I simply do not want RWD to be a part of it. And for those who might choose to engage RWD in such an action, directly or indirectly, please allow me to point out that the Terms of Service compel a substantial deposit/retainer and hourly rate for ANY legal research or actions necessitated by such an action.

- Dan

[BC]

One thing to remember is that assertion of rights plays an important role.

I walk down the street and a 100 dollar bill slips out of my pocket...

I note the loss, turn around and while he picks it up, I state 'hey that's mine'.

Who wins or loses??  Y'all have a blast figuring it out, but ponder a bit about this..  I don't note the loss and keep walking..

A month later I see the same guy that was behind me and ask him 'hey guy.. you were walking behind me a month ago when I dropped a 100 dollar bill'.. if you picked it up can I have it back?

Jack noted his 'loss' months ago?? -and is now bringing it up here?? - very convenient.

Manny already offered to give it back even months later.

Again, y'all figure it out.  Actually not much to figure out at all.  Anyone posting photo's on the 'net that feels the 'property' needs protection should assert their rights at the outset.  Had Jack (who I assume took the picture) asserted ownership when posting it by identifying the material as copyrighted Manny would likely not have used it.

What's the Jury's verdict?

[Shadow]

Shadow, is this a reference to the legality of the license?

Jack, as Dan would rather have this matter not taken further I leave you to figure it out. Just note that what I posted is not what it says today. 

[Vinnvinny]

What's the Jury's verdict?

They decided that as Manny, Ed and Jack all appear to have the mental age of a 5 year old then it would be more productive for those WM looking for a FSU wife to watch some Coco the Clown videos and spend less time on forums such as this. At least with Coco you know he’s acting and get to laugh occasionally.

I don't know what I find more disturbing. Is it that grown men can write such tosh or married men with young families prefer to write such drivel rather than spend time with their wives and kids? Tough choice.

[Jack]

Just note that what I posted is not what it says today.  

Ohhhh, I see. Thanks Shadow.  More manny furtives.

Why not delete Helen's photo?

You have to ask Boethius?

[Admin: Deleted name-calling]



 

Had Jack (who I assume took the picture)

ahhh, see its happening again BC.  As you have done, and shown often over the years, your assumptions are usually wrong, at least when it comes to me.  I know, just a bad luck kinda thing.

Jack noted his 'loss' months ago?? -and is now bringing it up here?? - very convenient.

I'm sorry,...as usual your not making sense, oopps, better add "to me",  your not making sense to me.  This way it's probably not considered an insult.

BC, can you try to explain what you mean by I noted my loss months ago?  What did I loose?

Manny already offered to give it back even months later.

manny offered to give what back?   What are you talking about BC?

[BC]

Jack, that's not fair at all..

I thought you were ignoring me.. did you peek?
 

[Manny]

What did I loose? [sic]

The bet! Fifty grand American I believe Jack. 

[Admin]

manny offered to give what back?   What are you talking about BC?

This is what he is referencing (as posted upthread):

Had you have ever identified it to me, explained it offended you, I would have substituted it, despite my absolute legal right to use it however I wish.

- Dan

[Admin]

Fifty grand American I believe Jack. 

Stuart,

I do not think you are serious with this, hence, it falls into the category of provocation. If you *are* serious, you will need to find some way of communicating with Jack off-board.

- Dan

[Manny]

Stuart,

I do not think you are serious with this, hence, it falls into the category of provocation. If you *are* serious, you will need to find some way of communicating with Jack off-board.

- Dan

The guy made a public bet. He lost the bet and he has a debt now. That's a documented fact.

However, I agree RWD is not an ideal venue to debate it with him. Thank you for your timely intervention Dan. Like you, I see no productive outcome; there is no merit in prolonging this nonsense. I take note of your comments upthread and will not engage Jack Bragg further on the subject on RWD. If Jack can show a similar restraint remains to be seen.

I shall also make the gesture to replace the photo he was harping about at my earliest opportunity. That finalises the photo stuff.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Thomas,

The reason those earlier threads you mention ended up being locked is that I could see this very issue being raised - and between a bunch of folks who really do not know very much about the legalities (including yours truly). I saw no productive outcome to it - just as I see no productive outcome to this one. BC outlined the most reasonable position of all - and, to those who care to read upthread, Manny already pointed out that if an objection had been raised, he would have responded by pulling the materials.

Dan, I completely understand.