I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[JumbleDuck]

I hope that helps?

Yes, thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of where they can be sued, but what subsequently happens to the case and whether it gets moved nearer the defendant. As I recall - it's a long time since I took someone to the Small Claims Court (as it then was) in England - you sued them in your local court and the case was then normally transferred to their local court. My case wasn't IP-related, though.

 

[197aerial]

In any case sticking (c) Keep Turning Left on a page containing other people's IP probably isn't a good idea.

CDPA 1988:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107

" 107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c.

(1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—

(d)in the course of a business —

(iii)exhibits in public,

an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work. "

What's your view? Are all the required boxes ticked?

 

[AntarcticPilot]

"A geographic information system (GIS) is a computer system for capturing, storing, checking, and displaying data related to positions on Earth's surface. GIS can show many different kinds of data on one map. This enables people to more easily see, analyze, and understand patterns and relationships."

Usually costs money unless anyone knows of a freebie site.

The market leader (and pretty much only game in town, realistically) is ArcMap by ESRI. This costs big dollars per seat.

QGIS and GvSIG are both useful, free GIS software packages. OpenLayers is a very good alternative to GoogleEarth for embedding in web-sites.

Sorry, way off topic, but this is (or was) a major element of my working career.

 

[A1Sailor]

I won the case, certainly. Did I make any money, bearing in mind the effort and costs? No, I didn't.

But I did win an important legal precedent which has saved me and many others a great deal of money since then.

I think of it as a succcess, rather than as a financial gain.

Sounds like a bit of a result - well done.:encouragement:
Is the judgement in the public domain?

 

[197aerial]

Yes, thanks. I wasn't thinking so much of where they can be sued, but what subsequently happens to the case and whether it gets moved nearer the defendant. As I recall - it's a long time since I took someone to the Small Claims Court (as it then was) in England - you sued them in your local court and the case was then normally transferred to their local court. My case wasn't IP-related, though.

I think it's done on paper prior to any hearing. The court clerk sees the papers and writes to both parties telling them that Xyz court is now dealing with it. But that might well be wrong so don't hold me to it. It's not really of much interest to me at present.

I only ever sued once in English Small Claims, before the IP court existed. Kendal, as I gave my evidence the judge said I was "pushing against an open door" and awarded me the full sum claimed and a shedload of expenses. It's a very informal affair, sitting round a table and chatting, basically. In Scotland it's before a Sheriff, wigs, clerks, evidence under oath in a witness box, formal and scary, especially if one of the parties is lying. It's meant to be as informal as possible. Some Sheriffs try that approach but it's never very satisfactory. It takes them out of their comfort zone, in my view.

 

[Yellow Ballad]

Genuine question for Mr Mackie as he's here, how come you don't use any watermarks, right click/hotlink protection or exclude your photo's from Google's search results as your photo's are so rightly valuable to you? We had some family photo's taken the other week and the photographer sent us a link and all of the above had been used. I know it doesn't change the fact they're your photos but it may stop you having to go through legal action every time you find someone stealing your work.

Just incase you missed my question? Or do you enjoy using the law to make yourself feel powerful , by not doing everything possible to prevent them from using your work?

Going back to your first message, selling on the website or not, if it's a business website you must show a trading address, people shouldn't have to hunt Whois to find it. I assume you also use some sort of analytics cookie (to fine out what people are looking at/linking to and from) which I'm sure you know websites need a disclaimer for. I'm just a simpleton so may be wrong, please enlighten me.

 

[chinita]

I am confused about a simple point:

DW states that a claim of £450.00 has been made against him.

AM states that no claim for this, or any amount, has been made.

Clearly, both statements cannot be correct.

So, which one is telling little fibs then?

 

[JumbleDuck]

What's your view? Are all the required boxes ticked?

I think you raise some good points, but I'd prefer to remain neutral on this particular case.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

Doesn't it? img tags are "simple web links" to my mind.
There's certainly no copying, hosting or circumventing restrictions involved.

Fair enough, but "to your mind" does not represent the reality of the web, technically or effectively.
A link is just what it says on the tin, a way to navigate (link) one web page to another. An image tag inserts actual content from another file. without any implication for navigation

 

[197aerial]

So, which one is telling little fibs then?

Big fibs, I'd say.

My standard cease and desist letter as sent to this offender states that the recipient can work out what the damages might be from the price guide. Might be, not WILL be.

" An estimate of the potential sum to be later formally claimed for copyright infringement damages can be calculated from the pricing guide and terms. "

That's standard content, has no legal status and makes no mention of ANY sum of money. (I might ask for a pittance, but I might in some cases ask for thousands.)

When I first send out that letter I have no idea of the reaction I'll get or if the offender is a crook or made a genuine error. It's advisory, it's not a claim for damages.

Dylan Winter decided to whinge and tell a few lies, several times over. Boxes 3 and 4 on my list.

In passing, my terms allow for higher sums where false claims are made as to ownership by the offenders as well as charges for the expense of recovery but of course I have no contract with a thief and so I rely on the Moral Rights section of the CDPA 1988.

All clear now?

 

[chinita]

Big fibs, I'd say.

My standard cease and desist letter as sent to this offender states that the recipient can work out what the damages might be from the price guide. Might be, not WILL be.

" An estimate of the potential sum to be later formally claimed for copyright infringement damages can be calculated from the pricing guide and terms. "

That's standard content, has no legal status and makes no mention of ANY sum of money. (I might ask for a pittance, but I might in some cases ask for thousands.)

When I first send out that letter I have no idea of the reaction I'll get or if the offender is a crook or made a genuine error. It's advisory, it's not a claim for damages.

Dylan Winter decided to whinge and tell a few lies, several times over. Boxes 3 and 4 on my list.

In passing, my terms allow for higher sums where false claims are made as to ownership by the offenders as well as charges for the expense of recovery but of course I have no contract with a thief and so I rely on the Moral Rights section of the CDPA 1988.

All clear now?

Thanks; almost clear.

Are you saying that DW has calculated this figure from the 'price guide' (sounds like internet shopping!) and has come up with the figure of £450.00?

 

[197aerial]

Just incase you missed my question? Or do you enjoy using the law to make yourself feel powerful , by not doing everything possible to prevent them from using your work?

Going back to your first message, selling on the website or not, if it's a business website you must show a trading address, people shouldn't have to hunt Whois to find it. I assume you also use some sort of analytics cookie (to fine out what people are looking at/linking to and from) which I'm sure you know websites need a disclaimer for. I'm just a simpleton so may be wrong, please enlighten me.

Your first point is drivel. Please show me the regulation or law.

As to hot-linking prevention? I was using it but for some reason I can't fathom out it's stopped working.

What it did do was send people who tried to hot-link to a 404 page and then my index page. That had serious effects on my website use as many people who innocently clicked on a Google link were put off by the 404 page warning. It also meant that Bing searches labelled all my photos as having been "removed from the website" because the search engine coudn't link to them it assumed that had been deleted. That was VERY bad for business, as you may appreciate.

However, now that the hot-linking prevention is at best working intermittently I now find that searches on Bing are much more successful and drive a lot more visitors (and some business) to my site. It's a stark choice. Trade hot-linking prevention for added hits and business.

You might like to read CDPA section 296ZE. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZE That effectively bars the use of electronic devices and software to prevent legitimate image access for fair use. It has been argued that hot-link prevention is illegal under that section of the Act and it's a fair point to make.

 

[A1Sailor]

I won the case, certainly. Did I make any money, bearing in mind the effort and costs? No, I didn't.

But I did win an important legal precedent which has saved me and many others a great deal of money since then.

I think of it as a succcess, rather than as a financial gain.

Sounds like a bit of a result - well done.:encouragement:
Is the judgement in the public domain?

Perhaps you missed my question. Can you post a link to the Court judgement? It would be interesting for us all to see the basis of it.
Many thanks.

 

[A1Sailor]

Thanks; almost clear.

Are you saying that DW has calculated this figure from the 'price guide' (sounds like internet shopping!) and has come up with the figure of £450.00?

I think "Bru" suggested £450.00

 

[[163233]]

An image tag inserts actual content from another file. without any implication for navigation

Ah now, it doesn't at all, it tells the browser where to find content, it is up to the browser whether it does so. Text browsers will typically display the alt text creating a clickable link and graphical browsers can be configured to not collect images at all.

What it definitely does not do, is "insert actual content", that would be a gross misrepresentation at a technical level.

 

[chinita]

I think "Bru" suggested £450.00

Ta.

Are you referring to Bru at #46?

In which case the £450.00 seems to be already established - but where?

 

[197aerial]

Perhaps you missed my question. Can you post a link to the Court judgement? It would be interesting for us all to see the basis of it.
Many thanks.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=019187a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The small claims case that it led to was not as good an outcome.

The Sheriff (the same one that made the first wrong judgement) decided that as my website page read "© 197 aerial photography" that was not an accurate or legal claim of copyright ownership because "197 aerial photography" is not a person or legal entity. Another page said "For the avoidance of doubt all images are copyright Alan Mackie etc) but that wasn't on the image page so it was ignored, very unfairly in my view. It's nit-picking of the worst kind but courts like to go by the strict letter of the law rather than apply plain common sense.

Ther was no suggestion that I didn't own the images concerned or that they hadn't been stolen. All that was agreed. Just nit-picking over the business name on the website.

Some you win, some you draw, but the appeal before the proof was still an important victory.

It's a learning process but I'm getting better at it all the time.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

Ah now, it doesn't at all, it tells the browser where to find content, it is up to the browser whether it does so. Text browsers will typically display the alt text creating a clickable link and graphical browsers can be configured to not collect images at all.

What it definitely does not do, is "insert actual content", that would be a gross misrepresentation at a technical level.

Aha, good, I see, like that is it, OK.
In that case <img src=URL> is an instruction to an html interpreter that it should (if possible and desired) insert actual content from a resource specified by the URL. It does not in any way represent an navigation function. Now, text only browsers may in place create their own links, but that is not part of the html spec.

 

[[163233]]

Some you win, some you draw, but the appeal before the proof was still an important victory.

What would you actually like to happen in this instance?

 

[197aerial]

What would you actually like to happen in this instance?

With the Dylan Winter case?

I have no preference, to be honest.

I have to say that his behaviour isn't going to do him any good either now or in the future. He chose to make this a public matter and as he has found out the web has a long memory.

This isn't the only forum dicussing the case, as you probably know. His work is under close scrutiny by many people.

Once the investigation by the authorities is concluded I'll be able to try to make some progress but with people like this it usually comes down to putting the facts before experts for some sort of arbitration and judgement by a neutral party. That seems to be the way it's going, especially in light of his continued silence.