I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[197aerial]

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?

You'd have to ask him. It certainly didn't come from me as he has falsely claimed.

Some of his posts have been edited of course (but copied off beforehand in case of need later) so you might not have all the information, reading back.

 

[Yellow Ballad]

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

I'm not saying there's a law or regulation simply saying you should protect your property as best you can, you wouldn't leave the keys in your car would you, it's common sense? I seems as if you're quite happy to leave your photo's open to abuse. How would you know this picture was copyrighted from this link http://www.197aerial.co.uk/index/index_a.jpg (right click and view properties doesn't give you anything). A simple watermark as pretty much all professional photographers use would deter most people from stealing your work, and if they still do then it's clear cut, even if you don't want to use hot link protection, a simple solution could stop most of this. It sounds like you have the same problem as Dylan, if you exclude your photo's from Google, no one sees them but you leave yourself open to people using your work not knowing if it's copyrighted or not, in Dylans case if he doesn't put his videos on Youtube no body sees them.

I won't read your link as I said before I'm a simpleton and I don't need to know what it says but you say

That effectively bars the use of electronic devices and software to prevent legitimate image access for fair use.

Would you not say that Dylan use of your image was fair use, or is fair use, not using it? What's your idea of fair use? He didn't make a digital copy of it and then upload it to his server claiming it was his, it was kept on your server, granted Dylan should have asked permission or credited you, it was a mistake I'm sure he won't make again. It's not like he has thousands of hits a day on his website, it's for us old blokes who enjoy what he does. He removed as soon as you pointed out you didn't want him to use it.

Do you make good money from your court payouts? Do you have to declare your court winnings on your tax return and pay tax on them? I'm wondering if this could be a nice source if income for myself?!?!

But seriously do you not think it's fair to put this to bed, ask Dylan for an apology and assurance he's learn't his lesson and won't do it again? Hell make him give a bit of cash to a charity as punishment, be a nice guy for once, he knows he's done wrong and I'm sure you don't want the hassle of going to court.

If not what outcome do you really want from this, make cash, be a legal wizz and keyboard warrior, gain respect, let the world, your children, family, friends read what sort of person you are (good or bad)?

 

[[163233]]

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.

It does not take a copy of the content and insert it though. There would be no need for a copy of the image to exist on Mr Winter's server, which is what "inserting files" seems to imply. I'm not sure of the relevance of navigation function I guess that's your interpretation of "link", where I'm interpreting a link as something connecting two things, in this case the img tag connecting content on different servers.

The HTML spec most definitely allows for non-graphical browsers to use different representations, the W3 specs are very accessibility focussed to the point where they seem a bit out of touch with reality at times.

https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/semantics-embedded-content.html#alt-text

4.7.5.1. Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images

Text alternatives, [WCAG20] are a primary way of making visual information accessible, because they can be rendered through many sensory modalities (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs of the user. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of user agents. For example, a person who cannot see a picture can hear the text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech.

 

[Seven Spades]

Not a presumption it's safe to make. He has deliberately re-posted the image in this forum. So he has most definitely NOT ceased or desisted.

Can I ask a question about this. If I understand correctly the photo in this forum is not copied at all but it is a function of the browser that pulls the data from your site and displays it on the viewers screen. In this case who has copied your image? Are you suggesting that someone who does not copy your image at all is in fact breaching copyright?

 

[[163233]]

With the Dylan Winter case?

I have no preference, to be honest.

You clearly have a preference, or you wouldn't be complaining in the first place.

 

[A1Sailor]

Ta.

Are you referring to Bru at #46?

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

Yup - the first mention of £450 was by Bru in post 46, but I don't know how he came by that figure. Others, including Dylan, mentioned it subsequently.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

It does not take a copy of the content and insert it though. There would be no need for a copy of the image to exist on Mr Winter's server, which is what "inserting files" seems to imply. I'm not sure of the relevance of navigation function I guess that's your interpretation of "link", where I'm interpreting a link as something connecting two things, in this case the img tag connecting content on different servers.

The HTML spec most definitely allows for non-graphical browsers to use different representations, the W3 specs are very accessibility focussed to the point where they seem a bit out of touch with reality at times.

https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/semantics-embedded-content.html#alt-text

Thanks for the information on text browsers. I guess I am at fault for using the word link in place of hyperlink. A hyperlink is definitely defined as a navigation element. As for "inserting files" I was careful to write that part as "an instruction to an html interpreter to....". The whole bit about where the file is hosted could be seen to be important since, if its actual location is not important then Mr Mackie could also have an issue with Google since they display his images on their website.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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?

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

I found the £450 figure on Mr Mackie's website, but that was only by way of confirmation ... the first mention of that amount seems to be Bru's #46, but so many earlier posts have been edited or deleted that it may have arisen before then.

Do you make good money from your court payouts? Do you have to declare your court winnings on your tax return and pay tax on them? I'm wondering if this could be a nice source if income for myself?!?!

In general any damages which are compensation for loss of income are treated as income but damages for other things, like injury, are not.

You clearly have a preference, or you wouldn't be complaining in the first place.

He might want an apology, or his standard fee, or damages, or a donation to charity. Lots of possibilities.

 

[A1Sailor]

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.

Thanks. I had already realised that you had successfully appealed the decision that Ayr Sheriff Court didn't have jurisdiction - Sheriff Principal Lockhart reversing his earlier decision.
It was the outcome of

I shall remit the cause to the sheriff to fix a full hearing.

that I was after, and which you have now summarised. Is that full judgement published anywhere? I've been searching "Mackie" and "Askew", but nothing (else) comes up.

Perhaps small claims court judgements aren't felt worthy of putting into the public domain. Do you get a Chistmas card from the Sheriff?

 

[197aerial]

> I'm not saying there's a law or regulation simply saying you should protect your property as best you can, you wouldn't leave the keys in your car would you, it's common sense? I seems as if you're quite happy to leave your photo's open to abuse.

Last year I had over 200,000 people visit my website. In the same period there were 14 commercial illegal uses of my work, most of them claiming to own the photos they had stolen.

That's one thief in every 14,000 people. Who's at fault? The 13,986 honest people or the 14 thieves?

> How would you know this picture was copyrighted from this link http://www.197aerial.co.uk/index/index_a.jpg (right click and view properties doesn't give you anything). A simple watermark as
> pretty much all professional photographers use

You seem to be either incompetent or lying to cause trouble. Certainly trolling, either way.

Go to that page, right click and copy the image to your hard drive (that's not an infringement, it's fair use as long as you don't re-piblish it), right click on the image file and select Properties/Details. Do you not understand the words:

Copyrighted Image - Do NOT re-publish

and

© Alan Mackie - All Moral Rights are asserted. Unauthorised use will be charged at full commercial rates plus penalties. Contact copyright@197aerial.co.uk for details.

That's called metadata or digital watermarking and it's an indication of copyright ownership. It is, to the best of my knowledge, in ALL of my images.

It's exactly what you seem to want. A simple watermark. Actually, it's quite a complex watermark.

What exactly is the point of you making up lies in order to abuse me? Do you think you're clever? Do you think people are impressed by your faked lack of knowledge?

> I won't read your link as I said before I'm a simpleton

That is SO true.

> Would you not say that Dylan use of your image was fair use, or is fair use, not using it? What's your idea of fair use?

It's not my idea, it's the law. But as you claim to be a simpleton and therefore can't read the law there's no point in trying to get you to read the relevant legislation.

Fair use does not cover use on a commercial website. Nor does it allow for a false claim of copyright ownership. It's a much abused phrase generally relied upon by thieves. If you're following the thread, that's box 9.

> Do you make good money from your court payouts?

Not really. I'd rather have payment up front from an honest client. I lose thousands a year from cases I can't or don't pursue. My accountant reckons last year I was down on earnings by over £20K as a result of thieves. I know a guy reckons he loses over £90K a year to people like Dylan Winter

> Do you have to declare your court winnings on your tax return and pay tax on them?

It's classed the same as any other income. Sadly I can't offset the £20K of other thefts.

> I'm wondering if this could be a nice source if income for myself?!?!

I doubt it. Simpletons don't do well before the courts, in my experience.

> But seriously do you not think it's fair to put this to bed, ask Dylan for an apology and assurance he's learn't his lesson and won't do it again?

He's had my email and letter for over a week. All he has done is abuse me in public. He hasn't appointed a lawyer or had the wit or moral integrity to reply to me. And you're trying to suggest that I'm at fault?

> Hell make him give a bit of cash to a charity as punishment, be a nice guy for once, he knows he's done wrong and I'm sure you don't want the hassle of going to court.

It's no hassle to me, it's only 20 minutes down the road.

> If not what outcome do you really want from this,

Try to understand this, I know it's hard for you. A fair outcome.

 

[chinita]

I found the £450 figure on Mr Mackie's website, but that was only by way of confirmation ... the first mention of that amount seems to be Bru's #46, but so many earlier posts have been edited or deleted that it may have arisen before then..

Thanks for that.

It just seemed to me that this £450.00 was an emotive issue but I could not find from where it emanated!

I am still not much clearer except to acknowledge that AM has NOT demanded this, or any, figure.

 

[[163233]]

Thanks for the information on text browsers. I guess I am at fault for using the word link in place of hyperlink. A hyperlink is definitely defined as a navigation element. As for "inserting files" I was careful to write that part as "an instruction to an html interpreter to....". The whole bit about where the file is hosted could be seen to be important since, if its actual location is not important then Mr Mackie could also have an issue with Google since they display his images on their website.

I think some of the phrasing is ambiguous, really government advice should be less open to interpretation.

He might want an apology, or his standard fee, or damages, or a donation to charity. Lots of possibilities.

Yes, there are lots of possibilities, he might be happy with the links just taken off the site(s) which doesn't seem an unreasonable request. He's been said to demand all sorts of things, it would be interesting to hear what he actually wants.

 

[197aerial]

> Is that full judgement published anywhere? I've been searching "Mackie" and "Askew", but nothing (else) comes up.

I doubt it. You need to ask the Sheriff for a written interlocutor and the case has to have some interesting merit before it's published.

> Perhaps small claims court judgements aren't felt worthy of putting into the public domain.

As I said.

> Do you get a Chistmas card from the Sheriff?

There are various Sheriffs involved. Some send me a card, some don't.

 

[dylanwinter]

 

[agurney]

Can I ask a question about this. If I understand correctly the photo in this forum is not copied at all but it is a function of the browser that pulls the data from your site and displays it on the viewers screen. In this case who has copied your image? Are you suggesting that someone who does not copy your image at all is in fact breaching copyright?

That was determined this very day 20 years ago in the Court of Session, and referred several times in this thread.

(just search for "Opinion of Lord Hamilton in the case of The Shetland Times Ltd against Dr Jonathan Wills and Zetnews Ltd.
Court of Session, Edinburgh 24 October 1996")

 

[A1Sailor]

> Is that full judgement published anywhere? I've been searching "Mackie" and "Askew", but nothing (else) comes up.

I doubt it. You need to ask the Sheriff for a written interlocutor and the case has to have some interesting merit before it's published.

> Perhaps small claims court judgements aren't felt worthy of putting into the public domain.

As I said.

> Do you get a Chistmas card from the Sheriff?

There are various Sheriffs involved. Some send me a card, some don't.

You do seem to provide the Lockharts with regular work! I wonder if Peter is related to Sheriff Principal B A Lockhart.

Defence lawyer Peter Lockhart explained that Mackie began operating 197 Aerial Photography in October 2002
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?466686-I-have-just-been-Alan-Mackie-d#YhG2xAsO5JP60wjy.99

No need to reply...

 

[197aerial]

Mr Mackie could also have an issue with Google since they display his images on their website.

Many years ago I gave Google consent to store thumbnail copies of my images in order to enable them to help me to generate website interest and subsequently sales.

They only store thumbnails in very poor quality which I am fine with. To get the larger website image you have to visit my website. To buy a proper copy of the image in high resolution and with a large pixel count you have to pay money.

The system has changed since then and there is an option on Google's site to enable people who don't want their website crawled to avoid it with a simple addition to the robots.txt file. No-one HAS to have Google index their images if they don't want to. All search engines are the same as far as I know,

I really appreciate Google's help (and that of other search engines) as well as their excellent image search facility.

Isn't it odd that someone who has such a down on Google feels able to use their free services to find content to steal for a website?

 

[JumbleDuck]

You seem to be either incompetent or lying to cause trouble. Certainly trolling, either way. ...
Try to understand this, I know it's hard for you. A fair outcome.

It would be nice if you could perhaps be a little less aggressive in your language. It doesn't affect your case, of course, but it's a shame when potentially interesting discussion is derailed by personalities ... in any direction. The abuse which has been thrown at you is no better.

I think the poster you were replying too was referring to visible watermarks, like this

(taken from Wikimedia commons, licensed for reuse) rather than the digital sort. There are pros and cons to both approaches; visible watermarks can make it easier to weed out some images but also make it harder to exercise some free use rights.

As a matter of interest, roughly how many sales for online/blog use do you make per year?

 

[197aerial]

You do seem to provide the Lockharts with regular work! I wonder if Peter is related to Sheriff Principal B A Lockhart.

I'll reply anyway. I think it's an uncle/nephew setup. There's also a brother in practice in Kilmarnock as far as I know.

I haven't been involved with either of them for many years, thankfully.

 

[Yellow Ballad]

> How would you know this picture was copyrighted from this link http://www.197aerial.co.uk/index/index_a.jpg (right click and view properties doesn't give you anything). A simple watermark as
> pretty much all professional photographers use

You seem to be either incompetent or lying to cause trouble. Certainly trolling, either way.

Go to that page, right click and copy the image to your hard drive (that's not an infringement, it's fair use as long as you don't re-piblish it), right click on the image file and select Properties/Details. Do you not understand the words:

Copyrighted Image - Do NOT re-publish

and

© Alan Mackie - All Moral Rights are asserted. Unauthorised use will be charged at full commercial rates plus penalties. Contact copyright@197aerial.co.uk for details.

That's called metadata or digital watermarking and it's an indication of copyright ownership. It is, to the best of my knowledge, in ALL of my images.

It's exactly what you seem to want. A simple watermark. Actually, it's quite a complex watermark.

This is my point, Dylan didn't download your image, he simply took the URL off Google to hotlink your pic from your server. From that link I posted, which was taken from google, it doesn't show any copyright information in the properties (maybe you should take Google to court. By downloading the pic you make a digital copy (which is why paedophiles get done for making an image even if they didn't take it) so as far as I can understand is infringing copyright, only then you can see the information you describe. There was no way Dylan could have known the pic was copyrighted. Obviously if you had made google aware it was a copyrighted piece they would have excluded it from their searches. Or you could have put a physical watermark on the image (even a small one in the corner) to stop any acidental misuse.

It sounds to me you enjoy this sort of thing. If Dylan had downloaded your image and uploaded it to his server would you have ever known? Could you have not blocked his hotlink from your server? To me you're entraping people and extorting money out of them, knowing your lack of protection of you own images will result in the courts awarding you money. You're using a loophole to generate income that may not of exsisted if you had simply, physically watermarked you images.

I'm all for getting paid for an honest days work, and protecting what's yours but do it in a fair way.

Shame on you.