manny's thread

[LEGAL]

 You don't understand the fundamentals of your own law.

[Manny]

You don't understand the fundamentals of your own law.

I understand what file sharing is.

Really, stop pretending to be a lawyer and talk sense or hush up.

[OlgaH]

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.

Manny, while you are posting a response from anakata (Per Gottfrid Svartholm Warg) and that he is ignoring the law here is an article

A court in Sweden has jailed four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's most high-profile file-sharing website, in a landmark case. The damages were awarded to a number of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and Columbia Pictures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8003799.stm

Really, stop pretending to be a lawyer and talk sense or hush up.

Legal never pretended to be a lawyer especially on the copyright law, he simply shares his views and opinions as any other member on this board. He is a legal consultant that is retained by law firms for civil litigation.

[Voyager36]

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.

AJ, unless I am mistaken, that photo was not a "model" sitting, it was a candid photo taken in public - hence the subject has no copyright.
If I take a photo to promote my business and people are driving or walking by, do I need a release from every single person? No.
(That's how National Enquirer can post photos even if Mick Jagger or whoever doesn't agree to their use - if taken in a public place)

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

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.

Jack, just curious, you have posted dozens of "candid" photos of women in Ukraine, did you get their permission for those? Did you get a model's release from all the guys & ladies pictured attending your socials? (Later used to advertise them)

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.

Tim, suppose a local restaurant advertises it's "patio pub" to attract customers.
(like this photo) http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00059/toronto_patio_59742a.jpg
The restaurant is advertising for commercial purposes. Do they need permission from everyone sitting in the picture for it to be used?

[Admin]

Folks,

There is some useful information in this topic - but much of it is lost in the rancor. What many seem to be tripping over is application of 'Fair Use Doctrine' - you can read more about it here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use.

For those of you who are REALLY interested, spend some time pouring through case law at FindLaw for professionals, here -- http://lp.findlaw.com/.

Please understand that no-one here is offering legal advice - no matter how assertive they may state their *OPINION*.

- Dan

[Daveman]

Once again I must confirm my reiteration of... Gooooooood Lord

What the hell is wrong with all of you?

Party at my house.. chips, dip, and pizza on me... you guys bring the beer...

[Vinnvinny]

Once again I must confirm my reiteration of... Gooooooood Lord

What the hell is wrong with all of you?

Party at my house.. chips, dip, and pizza on me... you guys bring the beer...

Boney M or Modern Talking? 

[OlgaH]

Boney M or Modern Talking? 

Boney M or Modern Talking was very famous in USSR and I remember how merrily we "boogied" in Disco Clubs, though such songs as "Rasputin" were of course forbidden

[Voyager36]

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.

So the only person who (may) be able to assert copyright is the photographer, correct?
Now if the photographer gives the photos to someone to use (as they see fit) and the person they gave it to agrees to their use (by signing ToS), has the original photographer surrendered their rights?

[JohnDearGreen]

So the only person who (may) be able to assert copyright is the photographer, correct?
Now if the photographer gives the photos to someone to use (as they see fit) and the person they gave it to agrees to their use (by signing ToS), has the original photographer surrendered their rights?

Copyright is just the first of two laws involved here.   The 2nd pertains to an individual's "right of publicity".   Using a photograph for commercial purpose also requires permission from the individual similar to a modeling release agreement.  I doubt that Manny obtained that release from the ladies pictured.  This is very similar to the case of Alison Chang versus Virgin Mobile:
http://saperlaw.com/blog/2007/10/05/using-a-photograph-for-commercial-purposes-copyright-and-right-of-publicity-law/

[GQBlues]

This is very similar to the case of Alison Chang versus Virgin Mobile:
http://saperlaw.com/blog/2007/10/05/using-a-photograph-for-commercial-purposes-copyright-and-right-of-publicity-law/

Interesting.

..Remember that before you use a photograph in your advertising or on your goods, you need to either own the copyright in the photograph or license the photograph from the copyright holder. The Creative Commons Attribution license here applied to the copyright in the photograph and did not grant any further rights!

So if you wish to use someone’s name, image, or other identifiable attribute in advertising or in connection with sale of goods or services, you should first obtain that person’s consent!  Often this is done by having the individual sign a Model Release granting you the right to use the person’s name and/or image for commercial purposes....

So in Alison v Virgin, there is in fact a precedent that set the tone for such cases. I wonder how art v function applied to that particular case..?

Irony is that Alison resides in Texas, too. Texans must be sue-happy, eh?

Additionally, I wonder if this law apply to videos, too...(just thinking out loud here, LOL).

Dan, why I thought you had some legal background I will never know.

[Eduard]

They decided that as Manny, Ed and Jack all appear to have the mental age of a 5 year old ...

Vinn, I'm very dissapointed with your judgement and offended by this statement! Every one knows that this sort of behavior can only be attributed to children age 11 to 14 and not younger than 10.

[Donhollio]

 If any of you would be interested in reading my trip report until the boys come out accusin in the morning, you can find it here.
 
    http://ruadventures.com/forum/index.php?topic=1578.0

8 trips over 7 years totalling about 10 months in 3 FSU countries. Go on take a peek I even have photos of hot girls that I know!   BTW I don't wish any of those pics to be used for any commercial purpose.


 Dan thanks for restoring my PM privileges, not sure when you did that, but thanks.

[tim 360]

Tim, suppose a local restaurant advertises it's "patio pub" to attract customers.
(like this photo) http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00059/toronto_patio_59742a.jpg
The restaurant is advertising for commercial purposes. Do they need permission from everyone sitting in the picture for it to be used?

Ravens, SPOT-ON posts.

This thread has spiraled down into total death spiral.  Voyager:  If the people were invited to be in a local commercial and they came I see no need for releases from the crowd.  They would have no expectation of privacy in a restaurant that invited them to be in a commercial and they wanted to be in the commercial.  Yet, if it was a nationally aired commercial in the USA--the production company just might cover their butts and get releases signed from everybody.  Common practice in say an Applebee's or McD's commercial is that everyone shown on camera both foreground and background would be given a standard release to sign.

Look.  The laws to this are complex but there are standards and I can't explain every instance for you which is why companies have legal departments and they have their own standards to cover their legal butts.

Last photo answer:  The photo I took of Mick Jagger (or AJ) I can't sell for advertising or commercial purposes without Mick giving clearance or permission.  But, since he is a bona fide celebrity I can sell my photo to Time magazine or TMZ or any other news media outlet without Mick's clearance or permission.  Thats it.  I'm outta here.

[shakespear]

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.

So the $50,000 check is in the mail. right?

[Admin]

So the $50,000 check is in the mail. right?

Brad,

Considering this was addressed directly with Manny upthread (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12479.msg246652#msg246652), I presume you MUST be aware of how it looks when you make a singular appearance in this topic to perpetuate the provocation - correct?!?

To all - if you take a look on the RWD Forum Index page, you will see I have added a couple of new forums. I am going to describe those soon as well as take stock of what we have seen thus far, in just a short time.

As it seems the provocateurs wish to play while I am preparing the materials, I will lock this topic until I am finished.

- Dan

[Admin]

Taking stock of what we have seen thus far in this topic - and drawing a bit from the other polls running down in NHB - the following:

So far in this topic Jack has made 21 posts of the total of 193 at this moment. Manny has made 29 posts. Other emerging combatants include:

Eduard who does not like Jack.
OlgaH who does not like Jack and has her own 'position' on Jack and his business practices found in this topic -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12464.0
LEGAL who is married to OlgaH and apparently does not like Jack.
BC who has never been crazy about Jack and his photo campaigns.

Vinvinny who does not like Manny.
LiveFromUkraine who feels Manny is a hypocrite.
OlgaH who does not like Manny.
LEGAL who is married to OlgaH and apparently does not like Manny.

Voyager36 who is a Moderator at RUA and is doing his damndest to be objective and impartial.
shakespear who is a Moderator at RUA and does not like Jack.

tim 360 who has been around these fora since the 'stone age' of the internet and, I *think* likes Jack but thinks he is acting .... would 'petulant' describe it?

GQBlues who finds this all rather humorous - and wants to be absolutely certain anything he writes does not result in the loss of one drop of baby's milk for Eduard's family.

Daveman who thinks every single person who posted in this topic is certifiably nutso.

And Boethius who is working every angle known to try to encourage people to post with logic and reason and (hold for it --- hold for it) - even FACTS.

Others have contributed and I do not mean to overlook those as some are quite helpful. This synopsis is meant to capture the major points and takeaways so far and apologies to anyone I might have overlooked.

As you all may have gathered, Manny and Jack do not like each other very much. They each have their protagonists and their antagonists.

So what have we learned from this (he asks rhetorically)? My thoughts are:

* Photos posted on the internet are a never-ending source of contentious debate. Absent a definitive court ruling, it is going to remain contentious for the foreseeable future. Not surprisingly, RWD members are equally split on this topic.

* This topic has involved a fair amount of my time, in addition to the principals. I have made 22 posts in this topic of the 193 total. The topic has consumed more than its fair share of RWD Staff attention - which is usually NOT a good thing BTW.

* Jack is PO'd that I flagged his profile with a Warning while missing the earlier insults and name-calling by Manny. While I understand that 'argument' - it does not change the fact that Jack was guilty of name-calling and the warning was appropriate. Essentially, this experience shall reinforce the RWD policy prohibiting name-calling, and anyone who engages in it should expect to receive a Warning WHETHER OR NOT THEIR ACTIONS WERE PROVOKED. In other words - be accountable for your own behavior. Period.

* When this dispute showed signs of eruption, I suggested the principals consider participation in some kind of a structured process to arrive at a resolution that would not pollute RWD with exactly the kind of disruption we are witness to now. My suggestion may be found here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12479.msg245603#msg245603.

* I have received comments from our members who believe there may be some kind of conspiracy by the RUA crowd (consisting of Manny, Eduard, Voyager36, shakespear and maybe Donhollio) to disrupt RWD. I have learned never to say never, but at least in the case of Manny and Voyager36, I do not believe it to be so. I also see Eduard's activities as falling much more into the category of clumsy self-promotion rather than intentional disruption - though the bottom-line effect is the same. And Donhollio mostly just does not like me, I *think* - so not really anything nefarious.

* What *is* clear, and is evident in the polls in NHB, is that the vast majority of our members don't have much use for this kind of squabbling.

To address this, and to contain it in the future, I am going to pursue the option originally suggested about the 'Trials & Tribulations' process. Specifically, I request that our members, when they see such things in the future, encourage the 'warring' parties to submit to the RWD T&T process. In fact, should the RWD Admin staff see eruptions of the sort we saw here, we may decide to insist that the parties either submit to the T&T process, or cease posting.

You can find more about this process posted in this forum -- RWD Trials & Tribulations.

I will open a separate topic in the RWD Feedback forum to entertain constructive criticism as to the currently defined process.

As a point of comparison/contrast, if this dispute had been raised to the T&T process, there would have been a grand total of 7 posts by each of the principals, along with a few by the 'Judge' - and with fewer than 20 posts we should have gotten to the point where the RWD Jury (RWD members) could vote on the most persuasive argument. As it is - we are nowhere near anything like that, and the site has been subject to rancor that is unproductive in terms of meeting our mission/vision.

I may add some more thoughts to this particular topic but will close for now.

Topic is re-opened with FAIR WARNING to *any* antagonists of *any* sort that the RWD Admin staff is anxiously looking forward to trying out the new T&T process. PLEASE be the first to encourage YOUR selection  :evil: .

- Dan

[shakespear]

shakespear who is a Moderator at RUA and does not like Jack.

The point of my post was to call attention to the absurdity of much of the thread. 

I agree with Vinny here.  I think it was pretty juvenile to propose a bet in such a large amount and even more juvenile to accept it.  It got even MORE juvenile when the person who obviously and admittedly lost the bet made payment of the loss conditional upon his nonprofessional model girlfriend receiving a $100,000 fee for the possible technical misuse of her photo image for a book that hasn't generated revenue anywhere near either the amount of the bet nor the fee for photo usage.  Then the real entertainment stated when forum members, none of whom to my knowledge are attorneys voiced their legal opinions on the applicability of international photo copywright law. 

With all due respect to all parties involved, great comedy there by all parties.  I'm still chuckling.     

I have received comments from our members who believe there may be some kind of conspiracy by the RUA crowd (consisting of Manny, Eduard, Voyager36, shakespear and maybe Donhollio) to disrupt RWD. I have learned never to say never, but at least in the case of Manny and Voyager36, I do not believe it to be so. I also see Eduard's activities as falling much more into the category of clumsy self-promotion rather than intentional disruption - though the bottom-line effect is the same. And Donhollio mostly just does not like me, I *think* - so not really anything nefarious.

Since I was the only "culprit" omitted, I assume you consider me guilty of conspiracy to disrupt. 

Such a premise is even bigger comedy than what I described above. 

All I can say is "dewd, you take yourself and your forum much too seriously". 

[sunandsail]

I feel that somehow the whole discussion is yet incomplete.

We now need to endlessly discuss Jack and Manny's age difference, and how that could effect their relationship.

[Admin]

The point of my post was to call attention to the absurdity of much of the thread. 

I agree with Vinny here.  I think it was pretty juvenile to propose a bet in such a large amount and even more juvenile to accept it.  It got even MORE juvenile when the person who obviously and admittedly lost the bet made payment of the loss conditional upon his nonprofessional model girlfriend receiving a $100,000 fee for the possible technical misuse of her photo image for 1. a book that hasn't generated revenue anywhere near either the amount of the bet nor the fee for photo usage.  Then the real entertainment stated when forum members, 2. none of whom to my knowledge are attorneys voiced their legal opinions on the applicability of international photo copywright law. 

With all due respect to all parties involved, great comedy there by all parties.  I'm still chuckling.     

Since I was the only "culprit" omitted, I 3. assume you consider me guilty of conspiracy to disrupt. 

Such a premise is even bigger comedy than what I described above. 

All I can say is "dewd, you take yourself and your forum much too seriously". 

Brad,

1. How do you know the amount of revenues earned by the book? What are they?

2. How would you know if the participants in this topic are, or are not, attorneys?

3. As the remainder of your post is predicated by your admitted assumption, I will simply point out that I don't "consider" you much at all and only when absolutely necessary - oh, and your assumption would be fallacious.

- Dan

[Vinnvinny]

I feel that somehow the whole discussion is yet incomplete.

We now need to endlessly discuss Jack and Manny's age difference, and how that could effect their relationship.

This is a darn good point and should not be overlooked! I'm guessing 14 years, which by a strange coincidence is around the same number in thousands of dollars that their reinforced matrimonial bed will cost.

Seriously ....

As commercial members often lecture us lesser mortals on the need to speak Russian, then maybe from now onwards they should be only allowed to post in that language .... or Arabic? 

[JohnDearGreen]

AJ, unless I am mistaken, that photo was not a "model" sitting, it was a candid photo taken in public - hence the subject has no copyright.
If I take a photo to promote my business and people are driving or walking by, do I need a release from every single person? No.

Yes, if used for commercial purpose.

(That's how National Enquirer can post photos even if Mick Jagger or whoever doesn't agree to their use - if taken in a public place)

The newgathering press has special rights to use photos and video even though it might be considered commercial use
to promote their TV station.

Jack, just curious, you have posted dozens of "candid" photos of women in Ukraine, did you get their permission for those? Did you get a model's release from all the guys & ladies pictured attending your socials? (Later used to advertise them)

Jack's posting of photo's is probably not a direct commercial use unless it is specifically in a thread advertising his tour.

Tim, suppose a local restaurant advertises it's "patio pub" to attract customers.
(like this photo) http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00059/toronto_patio_59742a.jpg
The restaurant is advertising for commercial purposes. Do they need permission from everyone sitting in the picture for it to be used?

Yes, if used for commercial purpose.

As Boethius mentioned, state and country boundaries can affect jurisdiction however.

"Companies should make clear that by submitting UGC to the company, the submitter is granting the company a worldwide, royalty-free right and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform and publicly display the UGC. However, this does not give a company a license to transform the UGC into a commercial or print advertisement. In fact, in the event that a company seeks to transform a UGC video into a television commercial or made-for-Internet commercial, the company must obtain a release from any individuals to be featured in the ad and take into consideration the SAG and AFTRA requirements set forth in the commercials contract."

[Donhollio]

* I have received comments from our members who believe there may be some kind of conspiracy by the RUA crowd (consisting of Manny, Eduard, Voyager36, shakespear and maybe Donhollio) to disrupt RWD. I have learned never to say never, but at least in the case of Manny and Voyager36, I do not believe it to be so. I also see Eduard's activities as falling much more into the category of clumsy self-promotion rather than intentional disruption - though the bottom-line effect is the same. And Donhollio mostly just does not like me, I *think* - so not really anything nefarious

 Dan to start off I don't hate you, I dislike people who abuse their powers to set a agenda that they want. In the past I have always found RWD to be too controlling of it content. After all my first several posts here came as a result of the Ashley Niel shooting his big mouth off to me in a CBS boardroom. All my time was wasted in that thread, as it was or had to be deleted. I understand why and you did in a reply to my PM. RUA's admin would openly post how they weren't a heavy handed forum, however that recently changed.
 
  In the past anything about his book was banned from here, and FWIW it's a good book for a new guy starting out, it'll save him having to sift through all the ridiculous posts found on any of these forums. Quite honestly when I read this thread I felt embarrassed to be associated with any of the foreign bride market. Manny's not making friends, and he needs to make himself look like a level headed dude if he wants to unload his books.
  Jack's business would look so much better to a new guy if he kept his hands off the PC for the most part, and stuck to his excellent knowledge of UA.
 Ed would be best to allow his past happy married clients to do the talking for him, as I suggested to him last week. Now Dan I also want you to know I'm not here to disrupt your forum, I'm not in any silly dial club as Manny continues to assert, and I can assure you that any of the crap you may of heard is completely false. If you want to know the truth you just have to ask.

 Now if you'll excuse me I notice there is a new guy here planning his first trip to the pearl of the sea... Odessa! My favourite city to visit in the whole world!
 

[Daveman]

 Now if you'll excuse me I notice there is a new guy here planning his first trip to the pearl of the sea... Odessa! My favourite city to visit in the whole world!
 

I happen to like that city a lot too. 

Yep yer all certifiably nutzo! 

In reality, I have a very difficult time taking any of this seriously.  For an outsider, it's really funny as hell. 

He said my tours are bad!
He stole a photo!
He wrote a bad review!
He owes me $50K (and, seemingly, this *is* true.. the photo wasn't "in the book")
Copyright infringement as nauseum

Let's settle this the old fashioned way... a tequila shot contest.. last man able to still sing the alphabet song wins! 

[Vinnvinny]

Quite honestly when I read this thread I felt embarrassed to be associated with any of the foreign bride market.

+1

It kind of says it all really. It would be better to tell your mates or your gal that you were a part time gay with HIV than let them find this site.