I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[197aerial]

> 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?

You really need to read the thread before posting. It looks very unimpressive.

Dylan Winter has not been asked by me for ANY money. None. At any time.

> Just my tuppenceworth.

Grossly over-valued.

 

[Pagetslady]

Why hasn't Dylan, replied to the letter from Alan Mackie, appoligised and requested a bill surely this would have been the reaction of most people?
Mike

 

[webcraft]

Dylan Winter has not been asked by me for ANY money. None. At any time.

So you are not taking him to court? You are going to settle the matter in a civilised manner? Delighted to hear it.

- W

 

[197aerial]

> So you are not taking him to court?

Not at this time, certainly. The decision has not yet been made. So far, I haven't even made a formal claim.

> You are going to settle the matter in a civilised manner?

I can't do that unless he contacts me. So far he's refusing to do so. That's not civilised, is it?

You can't settle with someone who remains stubbornly silent. He reads this thread. He's posted videos to it in the last day or two, which are of course very off-topic. He's also pointed out one of the cases I'll be in court over in a day or so. It's probably meant to be vaguely threatening.

> Delighted to hear it.

Nice try, but it's not going to work.

 

[Angele]

> 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.

You know why that is, don't you? They are probably all forumites.

Dylan has done you a favour. A week ago I hadn't heard of you or your business. Now I have.

Nice photos by the way.

 

[webcraft]

Nice try, but it's not going to work.

So you are not going to settle nicely whatever happens?

Oh well, that's a shame.

- W

 

[steveeasy]

Well Mr Mackie, Its a first, the big shots have been silenced. If id been insulted more than a dozen times and had my past posted around id act rationally, yeh right !!.

Steveeasy

 

[yachtorion]

@197aerial - as before I'm talking generally. I don't know all the specifics of this case and I don't wish to comment on them. And it's all just my opinion.

Your reply doesn't yet explain why you couldn't simply enable the referrer check I mentioned and avoid unnecessary use of your and the courts time... you can still show off your wares as you do now, completely unfettered. Those that license still will, I suspect it is likely that most people fall into the naive innocents category and would simply find another picture rather than duplicate, most of the "theft" would end, and you would avoid most of the (therefore) unnecessary litigation.

Having reviewed your standard price list, it certainly appears you do believe even the small pictures are valuable! But if the pictures at that scale are not valuable then there is no damage that would justify action, why pursue it? Why not even encourage it as long as links to your site are included, if the purpose is to up-sell the larger images.

I agree that copyright on the internet is essentially dead and we need to find a way to reward artists that still works. You're obviously doing the right thing by limiting the resolution of images you make publicly available, meaning there is still a product to purchase, why not take the next simple step that would probably resolve most of your remaining "theft" issue rather than resorting to C&D and the courts?

Without a cogent answer, given some of the "crime" and the litigation is presumably easily avoidable, it does surprise me as a way to proceed given the intended purpose of the civil courts as a last resort.

 

[NorthRising]

Do you like boats?

 

[JumbleDuck]

If (if ...) Wikipedia is right, amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means that a sentence of 6 - 30 months custody is spent four years after the end of the sentence, which would mean that, for example, a sentence of 8 months imposed in November 2010 would have become spent in June 2015.

Furthermore, Wikipedia says that "[Under] Section 8 of the Act, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with a primary motive of causing damage to the subject (malice), then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not."

 

[yachtorion]

Do you like boats?

Yes here's one, I definitely own the copyright on this. consider it public domain Double points if you can name that marina.

 

[197aerial]

> 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?

No demaqnd for money has been made. Which part of that is not clear to you?

> To me it is not the fact that technically and legally Mr. Mackie may be in the right,

Thank you for that confirmation. Very decent of you.

> 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.

On the basis of what, exactly? You have access to my accounts? You've hacked my bank? You had a dream? Enlighten us.

> Certainly the Daily Record claimed that he 'earned a living suing people for copyright theft' and described him as a 'serial litigator'.

and a few months later their local paper nicked a photo off my website and they paid me damages for infringement. They're a newspaper, they write lies for a living.

> During his trial one witness described his litigation operation as a 'honeypot'.

Drivel and defamatory. There was no trial, no witnesses. I pleaded guilty. See how much you can trust what you read in the papers?

> a man who has found a nice little earner

Yes indeed. Taking aerial photos and selling them is a nice little earner. Most clients pay in advance, legally, others pay in arrears after trying to get away with theft. They're all entitled to pay.

Do you not understand that these people we're talking about are so damned stupid that they think they can find an image on the web and use it illegally without getting caught? Are they so damned stupid that they don't understand that I can find the thefts on their site just as easily as they found the images on mine? And it gets easier every day, Google now index images INSIDE pdf files. Genius!

> and doesn't care who he hurts pursuing it.

Oh, I care. I want to hurt the pockets of people who use my work illegally to make money for their own corrupt businesses. What's that old line? If you can't do the time...

 

[Poecheng]

If (if ...) Wikipedia is right, amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means that a sentence of 6 - 30 months custody is spent four years after the end of the sentence, which would mean that, for example, a sentence of 8 months imposed in November 2010 would have become spent in June 2015.

That is correct for a person convicted in England and Wales.
There are parallel texts for Scotland and E&W.
The text applicable to Scotland was not altered and remains a rehabilitation period of ten years [Section 5, Table A] with half that for those convicted when under 18 years of age.

NB: Legislation is now virtually impossible to follow with its myriad amendments and separate texts for separate jurisdictions.
Certainly the Legislation.com website is good but is not up to date. The only site capable of being relied upon as being upto date is (I believe) Westlaw.

 

[NorthRising]

"Yes here's one, I definitely own the copyright on this. consider it public domain Double points if you can name that marina"

Troon?

 

[yachtorion]

"Yes here's one, I definitely own the copyright on this. consider it public domain Double points if you can name that marina"

Troon?

Further South, as a clue it's on the West Coast of England. The marina had an unfortunate accident some years ago but thankfully no-one was injured - and neither was that boat. I enjoyed my time at the marina - the staff are excellent. I wished I had a twin keeler though for exploring the area properly.

 

[197aerial]

If (if ...) Wikipedia is right, amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means that a sentence of 6 - 30 months custody is spent four years after the end of the sentence, which would mean that, for example, a sentence of 8 months imposed in November 2010 would have become spent in June 2015.

Furthermore, Wikipedia says that "[Under] Section 8 of the Act, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with a primary motive of causing damage to the subject (malice), then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not."

Thanks for that. It's ten years in Scotland, sadly. But from the date of conviction, not release.

I wonder of I can sue in England under English law for offences committed in England? Maybe time for an injuction or two?

Oh, hang on, many in here would claim me to be in the wrong to apply my rights and sue people. Surely not?

 

[chinita]

All this obfuscation is getting boring.

Two questions:

1. Is AM going to sue DW?

2. Will DW pay up?

AM please answer Q1

DW please answer Q2


Poecheng, please go and get the popcorn.

 

[NorthRising]

Further South, as a clue it's on the West Coast of England. The marina had an unfortunate accident some years ago but thankfully no-one was injured - and neither was that boat. I enjoyed my time at the marina - the staff are excellent. I wished I had a twin keeler though for exploring the area properly.

Fleetwood?

 

[yachtorion]

Fleetwood?

No but that may be the current boat's home for a while soon.

 

[Poecheng]

All this obfuscation is getting boring.


Poecheng, please go and get the popcorn.

salty or toffee?