SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 20 of 33 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 808
  1. #476
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also I'm sure if you are registered with a debt agency you can't get credit for loans and mortgages. I use to work in mortgages and it happened all the time. Bad debt means bad credit history. Try getting a loan now.

    That only applies if they get Judgement/court order. Anything unproven they have to remove.

    Last week a shoplifter who stole a DVD was fine £40 last week in court. It was his 3rd offence. So why should i pay thousands in fines for something i never stole or had reason to believe was stolen!

    If it was theft we would have all been prosecuted by now. If it was a legal or legitimate claim then one of us would have been taken to Court by now.

    Its all about inflating their accounts to stop their shares sliding even further - well it won't work as there a lot of people out there making sure it won't:-)
    sally

  2. #477
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OTE View Post
    What would the position of the forum members here be if someone downloaded a site you had spent hundreds of hours designing, changed the text to personalize it and called it their own?
    It has happened to me, this is what I do... I email them - in a non-patronising and informal way - to point out they are using copyrighted material on their website and ask them to remove it. If there is no response then I would send a letter. If no response then I would email their hosting company, then network provider and so on. Basically there's always a way to take something offline without harming the other party... this has always worked for me and rarely goes beyond the email point.

    You see, you are dealing with an unknown entity - especially if it's related to the internet. That entity may not be able to comprehend consequences due to age or mental ability, that entity may not have been fully educated to understand the full ramifications of copyright law due to their upbringing, that entity may not know who you are and has innocently sourced the material from a trusted (to them) third party and the list can go on...

    By approaching this unknown entity in such a blunt fashion you effectively create an enemy - rather than educating the entity so that he/she becomes a customer or friend. Using the blunt method means you must hope that entity doesn't decide to carry out a publicity campaign to attempt to destroy your public image or worst still, that entity could turn out to be something nasty like a criminal or a hacker.

    Basically what I am saying is, you should treat others the way you expect to be treated yourself. If you think you would be happy living with the threat of a random company sending you a large invoice without warning, then I guess you will agree with what these image rights management companies are doing. But realise that not everyone is a typical client of Getty or Corbis such as a newspaper, and as such does not expect such invoices and doesn't have the reserves ready to pay these demands.

  3. #478
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Bad credit history

    Sally wrote "That only applies if they get Judgement/court order. Anything unproven they have to remove"

    I think you will find this is wrong. What you are referring to is CCJ's and I can promise you if you go and get a credit report you will sadly find you are listed as having bad credit. I had people crying to me all the time when there mortage was denied because of some bad credit history.

    Finally it is very risky taking Getty on you don't know what they will do. It is a little like playing with fire.

    But good luck to you. Don't pay and hope it just goes away. Guess what happens when you fail to pay parking tickets. Your car gets towed away. hehe!

    I think you will see Templatemonster going out of business very soon. Just watch.

  4. #479
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbankrupt View Post
    I think you will see Templatemonster going out of business very soon. Just watch.
    I have no problem with that . It'll definately help to clean up the Web-scape.

  5. #480
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sally,
    This is not in your favor:

    "Thats the whole point the majority of us here never saw it on the web and in my case spent a considerable amount of time and effort checking to see if it was."

    Don't use this as an argument. It implies you suspected there might be problems with using the pictures. Certainly, you were aware that you didn't own the copyright. You hesitated and did research for a reason.

    "As for the analogy to houses that simply cannot apply to the web as the web has a global reach and is not confined to a particular street or location. People in Alaska can see the same image just as easily as those in Australia - so that analogy just does not work as people in Australia cannot physically walk through the door of a house in New York but they can view the New York based image."

    On the contrary, it has been said on this forum that stock agencies have no right to offer an image for use at different prices at different locations. If you have a company that sells a widget, you might ask more for it in France than you would in Somalia, and no one can tell you to do otherwise. It is not some fair trade problem.
    Licensing has nothing to do with who can see the image. It has to do with the audience that it is directed toward. If you are marketing your product to North America then I will license to you for that use. If you are a global marketer, I would bill for worldwide usage.

    I see you ignored the most important part of my post, that as a business owner, I must have knowledge of the use of my images so that I can tell a client in confidence that they are the sole users of an image.
    How would you feel if business started going well, so you invested in a media buy of $25,000 (images, design, printing, distribution, etc.) only to find out after printing that someone else was using the exact same thing? Would you say, "Well, I'm sure they were acting in good faith?" In the real world, I don't think I would expect anything less than to have to refund all money to the client and pray to avoid being sued.

    "Trust me, GettyImages are finished. Period."

    This tells me you have no idea what's really going on. I assure you, Getty knows exactly what they are doing. They may well do nothing more than send a lot of threatening letters to the small folks, but I'll bet they have caught some big companies in this search that will get more than a few letters.

    Jim

  6. #481
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ticksoft,

    Basically what I am saying is, you should treat others the way you expect to be treated yourself. If you think you would be happy living with the threat of a random company sending you a large invoice without warning, then I guess you will agree with what these image rights management companies are doing. But realise that not everyone is a typical client of Getty or Corbis such as a newspaper, and as such does not expect such invoices and doesn't have the reserves ready to pay these demands.
    I don't disagree and personally handle these issues the same way I would wish to be treated. I posted because there were many false ideas being posted and I felt I might be able to add to the discussion. It is unfortunate that some people don't understand that pointing out an error is not personal nor is it a flame.

    There are over 400 posts in this thread and only a few were related to the photographers point of view. Except for infringed666, I don't thinnk anyone was dealing with the root of the problem. As a group, many seem ready to try and cause an action against Getty, but has anyone in this thread said there is a problem here with a resource (imagery) that needs to be addressed?

    As a group, along with finding a solution to Getty, you might also look to finding a consensus on alternate image sources and elevate that to a forum resource. There are business people here that are acting like anything but business people.

    As a new member here, let me thank you for your thoughtful response.

    Jim

  7. #482
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Complete ignorance. Seriously.

    I have to say that I don't have any sympathy for most of you, who would no doubt be very upset if someone were to "steal" your website.

    You all try to claim ignorance, but it's transparent. Here's why:

    1) You knew you were using a photo
    2) You knew that YOU did NOT take it
    3) You knew that nobody had given you explicit permission to use it

    Thus, you were hoping not to get caught. Period.

    This doesn't apply of course to those of you who did license these photos from unscrupulous designers or low-end agencies that didn't have rights to them in the first place. For those of you who are thus affected, I sympathize, but also suggest that you be more careful in forming business relationships and contracts in the future, and that you not always try to "low ball" services you purchase, as most serious web designers and most serious agencies would not have landed you in such a predicament to begin with.

    And for those who say they didn't understand about licensing and copyright, here's a quick course:

    1) ALL IMAGES are copyrighted the moment they are taken
    2) You can use an image only if YOU are LICENSED to use it
    3) Royalty-free means an up-front fee, not a "cost free" image
    4) You need written permission to use ANY IMAGE you encounter
    5) This written permission must come from the COPYRIGHT HOLDER

    That permission/license may indeed say "you can use this image for free." If so, fine. But there's no excuse for simply using images that you "find" as though nobody owns the image. Someone owns it and it's not you. Most of you already knew this, so shame on you. The rest of you who didn't know it: WAKE UP! And don't do it again.

  8. #483
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OTE View Post
    As a group, along with finding a solution to Getty, you might also look to finding a consensus on alternate image sources and elevate that to a forum resource. There are business people here that are acting like anything but business people.
    I see what you are saying, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted your original post.

    I actually think rights management companies do a good job at dealing with large clients such as glossy magazines and newspapers, but I don't think they understand what they are doing in respect to the web and who they are dealing with (ie websites are mostly personally run, no matter how professional they look).

    If they want to go after the small guys then their license audit trails for photos must be 100% rock solid and electronic, they also need to stop scanning in an unethical manner and they should issue C&D orders with the option to pay at normal rates to continue using the photo - as I think they'll make more money doing this in the long term.

    Without the above, they'll give the stock photo industry a bad image where everyone other than the big guys will actively avoid agency photos.

  9. #484
    SitePoint Addict silver trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One of the better places I have found for accessing free images is:

    http://www.sxc.hu/

    In fact, this site is brilliant. The site's membership is made up of photographers - both amatuer and professional - from around the world. A very strong sense of community has developed at this site - much like the community at the sitepoint forums - where people genuinely attempt to help each other out - regardless of who they are, where they're from, or what they're about. Pretty inspiring stuff really! It's one of those sites that gives you some hope that we're not a doomed race. Christians helping Muslims, Muslims helping Jews, and Jews helping Buddhists..... it's all there (a microcosm of the best humanity has to offer). Well devised and - quite frankly - pretty uplifting stuff. And great images too!!!!!

    But, sites such as this (and there most certainly are others) threaten Getty's core business. After all, why would you pay Getty's stupid prices when you could get an image of comparable quality from a community site such as www.sxc.hu? Getty's strategy does not envisage, and will not permit, a free "community-based" site eroding its revenue stream.

    If you were Getty, what would be the easiest way to remove your competition? How about have somebody upload a few of your copyrighted images to http://www.sxc.hu/ ? That way, anyone who unwittingly downloaded them would be in breach of your copyright. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened. And guess what - just like is happening right here - the community begins to panic..... fear sets in!!!!


    I strongly suspect Getty are not going to pursue the small players involved in the discussion here. They have already achieved their end goal - they have instilled fear in those who would otherwise continue using free "community-based" services such as the one I mentioned above. And, in doing so, they have effectively removed their competition.

    The ONLY thing that will come from all of this (and it most certainly won't be court cases) it will be the loss of communities! Corporate Getty will win the battle they sought to win. So, get used to paying for images - perhaps not the ludicrous prices that Getty's main site tries to sell images for, but you're going to pay them (or one of their subsidiaries) at least $1 per 300 x 400 px image.

    Getty have already won! They don't want to go, and were never realistically contemplating taking anyone, to court over a few thousand dollars as had been discussed here.

    Goodbye to community - hello Getty!!!!! $1 per image might not sound like much, but they've done the math and it adds up pretty quick (particularly if you don't have much competition!!!!!) Oh well, I guess if we all do a site about touring France, we can all post the exact same images (from Getty) as everyone else....... coolo

  10. #485
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey hairybob, that's what anti-trust laws are for .

  11. #486
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am pretty sure that with the billions the getty Corporation has, it would not be difficult to pay some programmer to write a subroutine that watermarks all of Gettys so-called copyrighted images.

    The world could then see the mark on the image and KNOW that they are copyright. If they are used without purchase, then, and only then, should Getty have a case.

    They could also then send all of us who have been affected (and others in the pipeline) a "Cease and Desist" letter. If we refuse to take the offending items from our sites then Getty would have a case again.

    This "Bull in a China Shop" approach to the problem does nothing.

    I fully agree with Ticksoft's post above (#477) qouted below:

    "It has happened to me, this is what I do... I email them - in a non-patronising and informal way - to point out they are using copyrighted material on their website and ask them to remove it. If there is no response then I would send a letter. If no response then I would email their hosting company, then network provider and so on. Basically there's always a way to take something offline without harming the other party... this has always worked for me and rarely goes beyond the email point.

    You see, you are dealing with an unknown entity - especially if it's related to the internet. That entity may not be able to comprehend consequences due to age or mental ability, that entity may not have been fully educated to understand the full ramifications of copyright law due to their upbringing, that entity may not know who you are and has innocently sourced the material from a trusted (to them) third party and the list can go on...

    By approaching this unknown entity in such a blunt fashion you effectively create an enemy - rather than educating the entity so that he/she becomes a customer or friend. Using the blunt method means you must hope that entity doesn't decide to carry out a publicity campaign to attempt to destroy your public image or worst still, that entity could turn out to be something nasty like a criminal or a hacker.

    Basically what I am saying is, you should treat others the way you expect to be treated yourself. If you think you would be happy living with the threat of a random company sending you a large invoice without warning, then I guess you will agree with what these image rights management companies are doing. But realise that not everyone is a typical client of Getty or Corbis such as a newspaper, and as such does not expect such invoices and doesn't have the reserves ready to pay these demands."

  12. #487
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see you ignored the most important part of my post, that as a business owner, I must have knowledge of the use of my images so that I can tell a client in confidence that they are the sole users of an image.
    OTE you are of course correct in saying that no one should be stealing images. I don't think anyone here would dispute this. The thread however is mostly about the "penalties" for doing so and the perceived seriousness of the situation. Also we are not talking about "sole users" here. We are talking about Getty (and Corbis) who will sell many of their images to as many people who want them. It's not just photographic images we are talking about. In my case Corbis are after me for using a little graphical icon that has been kicking around the web for years.

    All the major search engines provide a means for unsuspecting people to find images. They have copyright notices hidden away in non prominent places on the results pages. This at leasts suggests to the general public that image theft is not really important, perhaps just a wee bit naughty?

    Apparently Bill Gates owns Corbis. His MSN's live.com also provides an image search. When I use it to do a search for an image I get lots of results displayed. If I click on one of these results I can freely copy it. The only copyright notice is in light grey text on a white background right at the bottom of the page where no one is looking. That's really getting the message over, eh?

    If Bill Gates really wants to put a stop to this why doesn't he attach a prominent copyright notice to the images on the results pages so that people are properly warned before going any further? Better still, why don't the search engines put a notice about the implications of copyright theft right on the image search home page before people start searching?

    Incidentally, this does not apply only to unsuspecting web designers. It applies to anyone who uses a copyrighted image on an email. Will they start going after them too? You bet they won't because then the general public would be involved and the press would really get hold of it.

  13. #488
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you will find this is wrong. What you are referring to is CCJ's and I can promise you if you go and get a credit report you will sadly find you are listed as having bad credit.

    My uncle won £14,000 in damages from Experion because they created a bad credit report for unproven debts (i.e. there were no CCJ's) Under the Data Protection Act they have to supply you with their records and under the defamation acts they are liable if they supply to any 3rd party a 'bad' history were they cannot legally prove the debt was owed. Not a lot of people know this which is why the debt agencies have been getting away with it.

    Stocked photos comments are not backed up with any legal statute or case law and therefore must be treated with the contempt they deserve. He seems to ignore the previously mentioned section 97 which is a defence to any claim for damages - if you did not know nor had reason to believe etc.

    Ticksoft made an excellent post and I agree Getty have no idea as to the damage they have caused to themselves. Already more and more free gettty images are flooding the net - so what are they going to do? -sue 3 billion net users!!!!!!!!!! lol

    Before Gettys letter I respected a photographer’s copyright. Since their letter I couldn't give a damn, as to me and many others they have portrayed all their photographers as a bunch of scheming money-grabbing scamsters who have no power or case to actually sue.

    OTE said Don't use this as an argument. It implies you suspected there might be problems with using the pictures
    Whilst I can see your point I do not wish to lie about anything particularly in court. The truth is I always checked to see if any material was copyrighted so as to make sure there were no problems. No-one has explained why Getty deliberately leaves off the copyright symbol. The Use of the copyright notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication.

    Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's defence based on innocent infringement. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.
    The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.
    sally

  14. #489
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well said sally23. You are completely right about the debt agencies recording non-proven debts. In the case of non-proven copyright infringements you can also sue them under section 253 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

    I do not want to give away my 100% fool-proof defence away to Gettyimages suffice to say there are enough clues on this forum

    BTW 'shocked photo' heres a quick point you omitted = INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT IS A DEFENCE particulalry where there is no copyright symbol.
    http://inventors.about.com/od/copyri...ightNotice.htm

    DO NOT PAY GETTYIMAGES a cent. It will get you no where and they CANNOT LEGALLY prove their case.

    Gettyimages have completely ignored the requisite notice procedures (this may only be relevant for those who they try and sue through the US courts)

    So what happens if a copyright owner does not, in the court's judgment, substantially meet the statutory notice requirements? The court can dismiss the complaint. This is what happened in the case of Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d 1082 (C.D.Cal. September 4, 2001).

    So 'shockedphoto' i suggest you make that case bed-time reading before you throw your ill-advised and wholly inaccurate statements at this forum.

  15. #490
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sally23 View Post
    My uncle won £14,000 in damages from Experion because they created a bad credit report for unproven debts (i.e. there were no CCJ's) Under the Data Protection Act they have to supply you with their records and under the defamation acts they are liable if they supply to any 3rd party a 'bad' history were they cannot legally prove the debt was owed. Not a lot of people know this which is why the debt agencies have been getting away with it.
    Hi Sally!
    Yes this is correct. Experian and most other credit reference agencies offer a service to allow you to view your credit record in full, for a few pounds a month. (I do this currently because I want to see if my cancelled credit cards are actually being marked as cancelled on my credit history). However, to the point - if a unproven or incorrect entry appears on the credit file then you can simply get it knocked off with a NOC (Notice Of Correction) statement. You phone the reference agency, specifying the details of the correction and it will mark the entry as void so won't appear in any future searches. So I shouldn't worry about them putting incorrect entries on your file. Incidentally, this is all credit repair companies do and charge £000's for - they just phone up and get NOC entries on your incorrect entries, but which anyone can do for free.

  16. #491
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    We thought we did have permission

    1) You knew you were using a photo
    2) You knew that YOU did NOT take it
    3) You knew that nobody had given you explicit permission to use it
    That's just it - in item #3, I think quite a few of us thought that we did indeed have permission to use it from the source that we obtained it from. So, what happens then?

    J.

  17. #492
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would love to check the DVD, CD and audio cassette collections of all these "holier than thou" photographer people who are surfacing in here.

  18. #493
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    'I would love to check the DVD, CD and audio cassette collections of all these "holier than thou" photographer people who are surfacing in here'

    not sure if 1936 Nazi Rally music is still in copyright:-)
    sally

  19. #494
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would love to check the DVD, CD and audio cassette collections of all these "holier than thou" photographer people who are surfacing in here.
    Sorry to disappoint Booger, I'm legal.

    not sure if 1936 Nazi Rally music is still in copyright:-)
    Sally and Booger

    I joined this forum expecting to discuss the issues, not be slammed by inuendo, by graduates of an Outcome-Based elementary education. I came back today to answer any questions posed to me, with what I hoped would be reasoned responses. Can either of you show how you have contributed to the discussion?

    It's pretty well a given, that in discussion, when one begins attacking a person rather than the issue; the attacker cannot defend their position or is incapable of adult thought.

    If you have a specific question or comment about something I have written, then say so. If you have a problem with something someone else has written, make sure your comments reflect that so that individual may address it.

    You have both done a disservice to these forums (which should be open to rational discussion), and to the other posters who might be interested in furthering the subject of copyright issues.

    Stay on topic...

  20. #495
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    4 or 5 weeks later, i get a call from Getty.

    They have 'managed' to get me a 25% discount.

    I told them i need to seek legal advice and get back to them.

    Any suggestions on what i do now? This is so stressfull, its just eating me up, im so dissapointed in myself for letting it happen.

  21. #496
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, they're eating you up. They're just trying to pressure and intimidate you. Just ignore it.

  22. #497
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry to disappoint Booger, I'm legal.
    Of course you are, I would have expected nothing else.


    Sally and Booger

    I joined this forum expecting to discuss the issues, not be slammed by inuendo, by graduates of an Outcome-Based elementary education.
    Booger? Who is Booger? My first instinct was to make some smart comment about your own (superior?) education not stretching to being able to read properly but I won't ... oh and by the way I think you will find that the preferred spelling of inuendo is "innuendo"

    Assuming that you meant me, can you please explain where and when I attacked you?

  23. #498
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulie_A View Post
    4 or 5 weeks later, i get a call from Getty.

    They have 'managed' to get me a 25% discount.

    I told them i need to seek legal advice and get back to them.

    Any suggestions on what i do now? This is so stressfull, its just eating me up, im so dissapointed in myself for letting it happen.
    Paulie, they are playing a very hard game of hard ball. Put yourself in their position ... if they were to come back and say they had dropped it and word got about, do you think that others in the same position as you would pay?

    My advice is to be strong, don't let them get to you but ignore them - if you pay, you will certainly have some peace of mind now but, down the line, you will beat yourself up for giving in to them when you will see others haven't had too.

    Sal.

  24. #499
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the woman told me that they can extend it to 2 weeks before i have to get back to them, so i expect them to call me (if i dont call them) in about 2 or 3 weeks time. What should i be telling them, any ideas?!

  25. #500
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think YOU need to read that link again, Danny, because you seem to be finding legal advice about your defense in it where there is none. Pay special attention to the context in which innocent infringement is discussed and what it does NOT say about the symbol (specifically, that it's required in order for a copyrighted work to remain protected, or that when the symbol doesn't appear, you're off the hook to steal the work at will).

    And Booler, you can come search my software, my DVDs, my CDs, and everything else in my house. I live in NYC and can get $5.00 screeners of every latest movie on the subway every day, along with $2.00 copies of MS Office and Adobe CreativeSuite if I want them. I don't. Every CD and DVD I own is a LEGAL, PAID FOR retail copy. I even have a 5,000 song MP3 collection that I RIPPED MYSELF from said CDs using abcde and lame, and that I DON'T SHARE WITH OTHERS because they haven't licensed the material. It's all legal. I PAID FOR my LEGAL license and media for MS Windows XP (and 2000 before that), I PAID FOR my LEGAL license and media for Adobe CreativeSuite, and I even PAID FOR my LEGAL license to Codeweavers CrossOver office so that I can run my Windows applications in Linux (I dual boot and use open source software, too, so I'm not just some BSA/RIAA/MPAA/pro-DMCA freak). But everything I use is licensed, legally licensed and morally in the clear, because I don't slither along at my grocery store looking at produce and thinking "Hmmm... Is there any sticker on this watermelon that says 'PROPERTY OF STORE' or a price written on it in magic marker? No? HEY, I suppose it's FREE FOR THE TAKING!"

    But all of your responses here make the following clear to me about Web developers/designers:

    1) They're proud to steal if they can get away with it
    2) They have no consideration for the creators of some resources they use often
    3) They have no regard for law or ethics

    Now I understand why there are so many FrontPagers and DreamWeavers out there trying to pass themselves off as Web developers and taking cash from hapless small business owners to make shoddy (stolen image-encumbered), insecure, non-standards-compliant websites: because they have no respect or moral fibre and are out to take who they can, when they can, however they can, so long as they don't get caught.

    And when they do, rather than apologize, they're apparently happy to hide under and rock and prepare to countersue.

    You've all done yourselves proud. Thieves.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •