I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[197aerial]

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

I tried a copyright overlay on every image but it stopped people looking at more than one or two pages and reduced enquiries and sales as a result. You can still see an example on my Eaglesham page.

> 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.

Indeed. I've tried both options and I prefer not to spoil my images. Again I remind you - 1 in 14,000 steals from me. Why spoil the site for the rest to deter a few crooks?

A Tesco security manager told me last year that they suspect that 1 in 45 steals from them . If they had only 1 in 14,000 they could lose the tags, lose the cameras and fire thousands of staff because it wouldn't be worthwhile spending money for such a few thefts.

I know that a lot of my images are used perfectly legally by schoolteachers, archaeologists and historians. I'm fine with that as long as they don't re-publish them and it's all good for PR. But I did get a few comments that the images were spoiled by the overlay. Some of them later became clients so sales were improved without the overlay.

It might seem ludicrous but I also got emails from people asking if they bought the image or a print of it would it have the copyright overlay on it? The public are tricky to deal with sometimes.

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

And you suggest that MY posts are inappropriate? Dear oh dear.

 

[197aerial]

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

Is using other people's property and claiming to own it a "fair" way to run a business? Is it "fair" to repeatedly lie about having been sent demands for money?

Is it "fair" to get your sycophantic friends to post here and send offensive emails for you because you're too morally bereft to speak for yourself?

I have a very clear view of you and your behaviour. But it wouldn't be "fair" to post it here. That said, we all know...

Any further communication from you will be ignored. You are not worthy of my time or effort.

 

[dylanwinter]

 

[colhel]

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

Is using other people's property and claiming to own it a "fair" way to run a business? Is it "fair" to repeatedly lie about having been sent demands for money?

Is it "fair" to get your sycophantic friends to post here and send offensive emails for you because you're too morally bereft to speak for yourself?

I have a very clear view of you and your behaviour. But it wouldn't be "fair" to post it here. That said, we all know...

Any further communication from you will be ignored. You are not worthy of my time or effort.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/benefit-cheat-photographer-jailed-2421324

Is this you?

 

[RichardS]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/benefit-cheat-photographer-jailed-2421324

Is this you?

Even if that is the same Alan Mackie I'm not sure of the relevance to this thread.

And why is Dylan suddenly posting videos? Are they relevant to this thread.

Richard

 

[Yellow Ballad]

A Tesco security manager told me last year that they suspect that 1 in 45 steals from them . If they had only 1 in 14,000 they could lose the tags, lose the cameras and fire thousands of staff because it wouldn't be worthwhile spending money for such a few thefts.

Then why bother chasing them? Because you know you'll be awarded money, because of your lack of security. If watermarked pictures affected your hits maybe it was because those people wanted to steal your work in the first place and realised they couldn't. You have made it clear on the pages they are copyrighted, maybe making it clear un-marked pictures are available for personal use on request.

Fair to me would be asking for the hotlink to be removed (which is was) and letting it go, move on with it and go an take some more pictures. If Dylan was stupid enough to do it again then take him to the cleaners.

I'm just a simpleton, saying how it looks. Life is short, enjoy it.

 

[dylanwinter]

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/curre...-roll?id=4ae320a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

 

[yachtorion]

197aerial while you are here, and speaking generally rather than about this case, would you mind covering off the hot linking point? Working in the web industry I've always understood that while impolite at high volumes both EU and US copyright law did not count in-line images linked from public sources as copyright infringement - are you saying that isn't the case?

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...ission-not-an-act-of-infringement-rules-cjeu/

 

[stevepick]

> 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.

I just thought I'd grab this since you are such a fan of the edit button - Calling Dylan a thief - tut tut . You do have a criminal record. As alluded to several times here, you are what is popularly called a "benefits cheat" . I assume that you repaid the £24368 that you stole from the tax payer back? What about the £8841 & £2877 in other benefits that the court allowed to slide? Did you pay those back? I look forward to the answers to those questions from a man who only wants "A fair outcome".

 

[steveeasy]

Well things are taking a turn for the worse arnt they. Alan Mackie and Dylan are big men and both know what they should and shouldn't have done. Id certainly not bring up issues such as past convictions or you may well find yourself in court. The chap is perfectly entitled to come to the forum and put his point across, Some say bang out of order.
Steveeasy

Steveeasy

 

[rotrax]

Dodgy Barsteward.

IMHO, of course.

 

[197aerial]

197aerial while you are here, and speaking generally rather than about this case, would you mind covering off the hot linking point? Working in the web industry I've always understood that while impolite at high volumes both EU and US copyright law did not count in-line images linked from public sources as copyright infringement - are you saying that isn't the case?]

Your quoted page is interesting in that it seems to confirm my view. The guy from Pinsent Masons said:

"be possible to manage the framing issue by robust website terms and conditions and other legal means such as the author’s right not to have his work falsely attributed to another."

Thats is exactly what was done. False attribution seems to render all other factors as irrelevant.


Every case is different and there's no blanket law that I can find. I can only answer this in relation to the current facts, which ar not denied.

In this case the offender linked to my images but crucially claimed on the page that it was now his copyright. Right at the bottom in very small letters.

He continues to claim copyright ownership of many other images on his commercial pages which are also hot-linked from other sites.

It's plainly also a commercial website so I suggest that S.107 of the Act applies relating to prior knowledge and criminal infringement.

Hot-linking is perhaps a dubious matter in many place but as I understand it Scots law relies on the display of the work.

As does the law. S.107 has it that:

(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.

(1) is agreed, (d) is plain and (iii) is obvious.

He was certainly displaying what he knew to be an infringing copy. My web URL was in his html code. Can anyone argue with that plain fact?

Any person looking at the page (the man on the Clapham omnibus to use the old phrase) would assume that the image was his and that he owns the copyright. What's the defence in law?

Displaying a claim of ownership of someone else's property while KNOWING that you linked to it on another site and you don't in fact own it is plainly indefensible under any legal code.

It's not, I submit m'Lud, an issue about hot-linking, his false claims take it way beyond the technical aspects of the web.

Try this. What about the laws relating to passing off if the copyright situation isn't to your taste.

 

[JumbleDuck]

There was no way Dylan could have known the pic was copyrighted.

All pictures (except those taken by photographers who have been dead for more than seventy years) are copyrighted, though of course the copyright holder may not care about what you do with it. As I posted before, from a Google Image Search" on "Portavadie marina aerial" it takes precisely two clicks - first on the thumbnail (not far above the message from Google saying "Images may be subject to copyright", by the way, then on "view page" - to get information about the copyright holder's approach to licensing.

That's if you haven't done the three clicks (search tools -> image rights -> labeled for reuse") which it takes to find pictures you can use freely, and which incidentally excludes Mr Mackie's.

It really is not very hard to check whether a particular image is available for use (you can even ask directly!) and anyone seeking to make money from IP has no excuse for not doing so. Would a BBC radio producer - to take an example at random - assume that it was OK to use for broadcast any song they found on and downloaded from Youtube?

 

[JumbleDuck]

A Tesco security manager told me last year that they suspect that 1 in 45 steals from them . If they had only 1 in 14,000 they could lose the tags, lose the cameras and fire thousands of staff because it wouldn't be worthwhile spending money for such a few thefts.

Most railway systems operate at an optimum level of 4% fare evasion. Any more than that loses more in fare than it saves in enforcement; any less than that costs more in enforcement than it raises in additional fares.

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

And you suggest that MY posts are inappropriate? Dear oh dear.

I don't think it's inappropriate at all. I am quite happy to accept you figure for the number of visitors to your website but that's not really relevant to the number who misuse your IP. It would be genuinely interesting to know how many people follow the rules you lay out and use your IP appropriately and with your knowledge. I'm not asking how much they pay.

By the way, I don't think your posts are inappropriate, just a little harshly expressed. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and all that.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Is this you?

Why would that matter any more than what Dylan has sold his house for? Let's stick to the issues.

 

[Yellow Ballad]

I was talking in regard to the URL of the link I posted, lifted straight from google, I agree everything is owned by someone. I'm not saying Dylan hasn't done anything wrong, he has, he's made a mistake, he's corrected it and I would guess he's learnt from it. I'm sure if Mr Mackie points out to Dylan what's still wrong with his website this will also be corrected, I don't think Dylan is a professional web developer but I'm sure he would remove his copyright notice and make changes as instructed by Mr Mackie. As a "first time offender" I would have thought Mr Mackie may show some kindness and let it be, but it seems Mr Mackie takes joy in taking people to court, he's being very reactive to people stealing his work rather the proactive in preventing it because there's financial gain.

But here I will bow out, I hope Mr Mackie and Dylan come to some sort of civil agreement, learn from it and move on.
Good luck to you both.
The Simpleton.

 

[yachtorion]

Your quoted page is interesting in that it seems to confirm my view. The guy from Pinsent Masons said:

"be possible to manage the framing issue by robust website terms and conditions and other legal means such as the author’s right not to have his work falsely attributed to another."

Thats is exactly what was done. False attribution seems to render all other factors as irrelevant.

Thanks for the reply and clarification, your complaint is about false attribution not unauthorised copying?

Speaking generally, I personally wouldn't agree with the false claims argument, I'd say that had more weight if the image is copied and what you describe as your "digital watermark" (the image metadata) removed, i.e. if there was an attempt to hide the source of the image. I don't think in general internet savvy people would expect the copyright statement at the bottom of a blog to include ownership of content linked from other sites. But that's just my opinion and I'm just a techie not a lawyer.

Try this. What about the laws relating to passing off if the copyright situation isn't to your taste.

Thanks, you were kind enough to answer my question so I'll do my best to answer yours!

I know of the many easy technical solutions to the problem you could implement that need cost you nothing, and I have never heard of a single person or body getting into trouble for implementing as an example, a referrer check. It doesn't prevent fair use because someone with a fair use entitlement may simply copy the image and host it themselves. You could simply and automatically replace any image used without your permission with an image saying "Contact XXX for a licence to embed this image including free licences for fair use". Every "violation" becomes a free ad.

My discomfort I think stems from a feeling that your response may have been disproportionate, but also and without claiming a perfect analogy, if every week I leave a valuable item outside my house, and advertise it's presence in some kind of searchable listing.. how many weeks in a row of it being "stolen" should I expect the legal system to help me (possibly partly at taxpayer expense, I doubt MCOL fees cover it all) before I stop leaving it outside or perhaps attach a lock to it?

That said I feel some sympathy... this decade is a sucky time to be a content creator of any kind.

 

[paul-essex]

I to am a Simpleton in this matter of fine law as I think Dylan is to
yes as far as it is claimed Dylan done something wrong and had it pointed out and removed it
and it could be said it was pointed out to him quite quickly by Mr Mackie so he didn't rack up a weekly bill
perhaps Dylan might even be a asset to Mr Mackie and have low res pic link as a add for him and both men will gain from this little misshap

 

[webcraft]

.
So what's actually happening here? Is Mr. Mackie going ahead with his demand for an outrageous sum of money from Dylan for hotlinking a pretty unimpressive photo?

To me it is not the fact that technically and legally Mr. Mackie may be in the right, it is that I suspect this entrapment probably forms the major part of his business, i.e. makes him more money than the legitimate sales of his photos. Certainly the Daily Record claimed that he 'earned a living suing people for copyright theft' and described him as a 'serial litigator'. During his trial one witness described his litigation operation as a 'honeypot'.

So I am afraid to me he is not coming across as an honest photographer incensed about copyright theft, he is coming across as a man who has found a nice little earner and doesn't care who he hurts pursuing it. His tones of moral outrage on here ring very false.

Just my tuppenceworth.

- W

 

[197aerial]

> Thanks for the reply and clarification, your complaint is about false attribution not unauthorised copying?

Bit of both, aggravated infringement if there was such a thing.

> Speaking generally, I personally wouldn't agree with the false claims argument, I'd say that had more weight if the image is copied and what you describe as your "digital watermark" (the image metadata) > removed, i.e. if there was an attempt to hide the source of the image.

We're not dealing with tech experts, we're dealing with the general public. It syas on this website that they own these images. Surely that MUST be true??

> I know of the many easy technical solutions to the problem

What problem? I can choose to prevent hot-linking or not as I think fit. Currently I'm not and web traffic has increased by 20% in three weeks. That's a hard boost to ignore.

> Every "violation" becomes a free ad.

Every violation becomes an annoyance to the potential thieves, more like. Do you know that people still argue that I can use Java to stop right-clicking images? It's pretty pathetic.

> My discomfort I think stems from a feeling that your response may have been disproportionate,

The website had no current email address and the domain was/is registered to a false address. So, i posted a messgae on his blog asking for a working address in the expectation that he would moderate it, not publish it and reply privately. He didn't, he posted my message here and went ga-ga, lying about demands for money He STILL hasn't replied either directly or via a lawyer.

> I leave a valuable item outside my house,

My images are mostly 600 by 400 pixels and the full files are 5,000 and more pixels wide. If you try to use them in print they come out at 3cm wide. Useless for anything but websites. How do you suggest I show off my wares? National mailshots? Show them in shopping centres?

> That said I feel some sympathy... this decade is a sucky time to be a content creator of any kind.

Indeed. Take a look at https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/?hl=en#glance and realise that Google are asked to remove over 20 million links to stolen files every month. Theft is rife. Crooks are rife. Some of us try to survive in business by making sure we get the full reward we're entitled to for our efforts.