I have just been Alan Mackie'd
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
- Status
IainT
New member
Long time lurker, first time poster.
Had written lots of points down but will try shorten it all down otherwise it may kill this thread, even though it has an air of Jezza Kyle to it (guilt pleasure).
Understandably "locker room banter" is gonna be rife, but I find it difficult to understand in the repeat postings of AMs' conviction and a quick search would find all info but surely this is just going to muddy the water/agitate matters and get the haters bashing him for what has happened in the past and is paying the price for it (wrong saying, sorry). This isn't being productive and some of the comments have been coming across as harsh but it's difficult to get the correct emphasis in written word, well for me anyway.
@197aerial I'm no lawyer or web designer or anything special but surely you should follow procedures and legalities to have address etc on your site as although you state " does not sell directly to the public", aren't you offering aerial photography services as an individual/business which by my limited legal knowledge would make you a business. Looking at Dylans' site it does state it use to charge a sub fee for 3 months access but the model changed with the times and now goes with donations, would this note change his operation from business to more of crowdsourcing in which legalities differ. I haven't got fully clued up on that yet too much googling earlier looking at copyright infringement.
Having an interest in photography and being an amateur at best I have basic knowledge of copyright but not that it lapsed 70 years after death; forum helps me learn something new everyday; and although Dylan used an image sourced fron google (other search providers are available) and which he hot linked the court of Justice of the EU quote is not an infringement of copyright as he hasn't done in "the pursuit of financial gain".
IMO it does seem a bit like "entrapment" by taking individuals to court over illegal use of copyright material unless all avenues were exhausted, I did read the cease and desist and understand that Dylan took the image/link down but decided to post in this thread (haven't seen if it was removed or not, too many posts to go through). Like a naughty kid who was told not to do something but does it regardless, made me chuckle I must admit. I never knew of the 3 click system to only bring up royalty free/re-usable images and I feel many members of the public are the same.
I would say that this image could fall under exception for "fair and resonable" as it doesn't from what I can see "conflict with copyright owners normal exploitation of their work". He hasnt sold the image or made profit from the use of it and wonder how much can actually be made from a 600x400 image "useless for anything but websites". I also pressume you took the image on your own time and not for a client so no loss of earnings on that part. I understand you say you have lost earnings by marking images with a visible watermark however having one visible would help deter people in the future and as long as it isn't too intrusive and ugly then it doesn't take away from the image. I know a good handful of professionals who sell their work with a beautiful watermark.
I am intrigued by the actual process that is involved in your photography and have viewed your page since this has came to light, maybe if it doesn't reveal all your tricks and secrets could you maybe post a brief intro into how you go about taking the snaps, would love to see the balloon or kite in action.
PS can everyone start behaving like mature adults that we all are
Had written lots of points down but will try shorten it all down otherwise it may kill this thread, even though it has an air of Jezza Kyle to it (guilt pleasure).
Understandably "locker room banter" is gonna be rife, but I find it difficult to understand in the repeat postings of AMs' conviction and a quick search would find all info but surely this is just going to muddy the water/agitate matters and get the haters bashing him for what has happened in the past and is paying the price for it (wrong saying, sorry). This isn't being productive and some of the comments have been coming across as harsh but it's difficult to get the correct emphasis in written word, well for me anyway.
@197aerial I'm no lawyer or web designer or anything special but surely you should follow procedures and legalities to have address etc on your site as although you state " does not sell directly to the public", aren't you offering aerial photography services as an individual/business which by my limited legal knowledge would make you a business. Looking at Dylans' site it does state it use to charge a sub fee for 3 months access but the model changed with the times and now goes with donations, would this note change his operation from business to more of crowdsourcing in which legalities differ. I haven't got fully clued up on that yet too much googling earlier looking at copyright infringement.
Having an interest in photography and being an amateur at best I have basic knowledge of copyright but not that it lapsed 70 years after death; forum helps me learn something new everyday; and although Dylan used an image sourced fron google (other search providers are available) and which he hot linked the court of Justice of the EU quote is not an infringement of copyright as he hasn't done in "the pursuit of financial gain".
IMO it does seem a bit like "entrapment" by taking individuals to court over illegal use of copyright material unless all avenues were exhausted, I did read the cease and desist and understand that Dylan took the image/link down but decided to post in this thread (haven't seen if it was removed or not, too many posts to go through). Like a naughty kid who was told not to do something but does it regardless, made me chuckle I must admit. I never knew of the 3 click system to only bring up royalty free/re-usable images and I feel many members of the public are the same.
I would say that this image could fall under exception for "fair and resonable" as it doesn't from what I can see "conflict with copyright owners normal exploitation of their work". He hasnt sold the image or made profit from the use of it and wonder how much can actually be made from a 600x400 image "useless for anything but websites". I also pressume you took the image on your own time and not for a client so no loss of earnings on that part. I understand you say you have lost earnings by marking images with a visible watermark however having one visible would help deter people in the future and as long as it isn't too intrusive and ugly then it doesn't take away from the image. I know a good handful of professionals who sell their work with a beautiful watermark.
I am intrigued by the actual process that is involved in your photography and have viewed your page since this has came to light, maybe if it doesn't reveal all your tricks and secrets could you maybe post a brief intro into how you go about taking the snaps, would love to see the balloon or kite in action.
PS can everyone start behaving like mature adults that we all are
Seven Spades
Well-known member
Can you please respond to this.
Bru
Well-known member
As others have already pointed out, I did not suggest a sum, I merely repeated an amount that had already been stated as having been demanded
RichardS
N/A
And much much earlier in this thread I advised Dylan to contact Alan Mackie with the only viable response. Unfortunately my advice was not taken.
Richard
Fluvial66
New member
This is the most entertaining thread that I have read on this site - by far !
Yet sentiments like "Storm in a tea cup" and "Get a Life" do seem appropriate ....
Yet sentiments like "Storm in a tea cup" and "Get a Life" do seem appropriate ....
chinita
Well-known member
Thanks A1 and Bru.
Hmm, that explains the £450.00 and who first mentioned it. The original post seems to have disappeared - or, at least I can't find it.
AM still waiting for a response to his 'letter demanding money with menaces' which has presumably been passed on to our forum lawyer.
I think I shall set my alarm for Friday.
[159032]
...
Perhaps this document from the Intellectual property Office may help.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf
It summarises situations which are covered by the CDPA 1988 in the same way that the Highway Code summaries motoring and road acts.
The IPO also offer a mediation service.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf
It summarises situations which are covered by the CDPA 1988 in the same way that the Highway Code summaries motoring and road acts.
The IPO also offer a mediation service.
Vanilla
New member
I do hope that Alan will decide to act decently and sort things out amiably with Dylan. From what I have read here it does seem a very small error on Dylan's behalf which he seems to have rectified as soon as it was pointed out to him and he has not benefited financially in any way. Life is too short.
A1Sailor
...
+1
...but Alan cannot sort things out with Dylan until/unless the latter replies to his messages!
colhel
Well-known member
I don't understand how some forumites are saying that AMs past is irrelevant in this discussion.
chinita
Well-known member
It could have been rectified at the beginning.
It wasn't; and it remains to be seem what fallout there will be from this, rather out of control, thread.
claymore
Well-known member
Probably concerned that they do not get pinged for libel. I understand it can cost 450 squids if you come out of it badly.....
IainT
New member
I'm not concerned about libel, but at the end of the day the conviction was in the past and he served time for it. I could understand if AM was still gaining income while claiming benefits it would be relevant but the only real relevance is that he is still suing people.
[163233]
...
I'm looking forward to the linking/copyright question being actually decided in court.
In the one that has been frequently mentioned the court didn't actually reach a decision.
RichardS
N/A
If my house were burgled and something of mine stolen, would it be relevant in law that I have a criminal record for shoplifiting 10 years earlier?
Richard
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Hmm. I think the onus is on the person who has done something wrong to act decently; the victim has no particular obligation to be nice about things. I recently found that someone had used a picture of mine online without asking first. I contacted him, pointed out the problem and asked him to acknowledge me as the copyright owner. He promptly and cheerfully did so and we went happily on our ways. All very amicable.
I might not have felt quite so kindly disposed if his reaction had been to post vitriolic personal attacks on me to a couple of widely read websites while failing to respond directly.
The issue is about hotlinking to someone else's IP and then using a copyright notice to claim it as your own. Nothing else in the history of the protagonists, including how much money they have recently sold houses for, is relevant. Disclaimer: I have three points on my driving licence.
chinita
Well-known member
bitbaltic
Well-known member
Not in law, no. But if you then went on the internet to denounce all forms of theft in the most robust and unequivocal language then why yes, it would- to the people listening to you.
-AMs past is completely irrelevant to the legal case against Dylan
-But it's very relevant to the rather wide social question, "what sort of a man is Alan Mackie?"
The law does not allow questions of character to shade the investigation of events, for very good reason. But society, generally, prefers to form an opinion of a man's character by establishing his context. And whether anyone likes it or not, both of those discussions are going on in this thread.
All IMHO of course. I otherwise lost interest in this thread a long time ago.
Cliveshep
Well-known member
Dylan clearly cocked-up with the hotlinking although it seems it may well not be such an open and shut case of copyright theft as the clearly venal Mr Mackie seems to hope. The fact of the hot-linking to which the serial litigant takes exception to having been pointed out, the offending link was removed.
So where now is the proof it ever happened? Especially if Dylan deletes all his posts in this thread. What a shame it didn't happen here? The complainant would pop into a bar and never be seen again. They don't tolerate gratuitous court cases here when they are for profit. "Stolen my poperty" indeed, pompous little nobody.
He is clearly a dishonest man who is out for the main chance, I do hope he gets his come-uppance soon.
So where now is the proof it ever happened? Especially if Dylan deletes all his posts in this thread. What a shame it didn't happen here? The complainant would pop into a bar and never be seen again. They don't tolerate gratuitous court cases here when they are for profit. "Stolen my poperty" indeed, pompous little nobody.
He is clearly a dishonest man who is out for the main chance, I do hope he gets his come-uppance soon.
- Status