I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[dylanwinter]

Indeed, but I'm sure he would much rather people display them so that he can subsequently get his jollies by sending out shitograms.

The other scotsman who used to pretend to be Railtrak and send out rude letters to complainants was much funnier.

It's a little odd that his "copyright cases" from years ago all promise an imminent update with results, yet none are forthcoming.

Pete

I am assuming he is a bully of the first order and will only pick on small people rather than google or time warner.

So, if anyone has any ideas about how best to deal with this I am all ears

 

[PhillM]

I note that his website says things like "will go to court" and he claims to publish details of cases, but I didn't see any actual cases. I wonder if he operates by threats and people usually cough up?

Edit: - bit more reading for you:

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p05_copyright_infringement

Note the reference to damages or royalty. I guess he could first request, then sue for a usage fee. But you have limited the usage by removing the image. Any data you have on page impressions when the image was available may help to push back against that phrase he uses of "world wide web" which he suggests make usage of the image very expensive. If you can she the actual usage you can argue back on that point.

Im a bit rusty but I'm 99% sure that he has to claim from you first before he can take you to court. He cannot simp,y file a claim without showing that he has attempted to claim from your directly first.

 

[RichardS]

I am assuming he is a bully of the first order and will only pick on small people rather than google or time warner.

So, if anyone has any ideas about how best to deal with this I am all ears

You have dealt with it. Simply advise by email that the link was used in error and it was removed immediately you were notified that it was copyright
and that you received no commercial gain from it.

Richard

 

[prv]

So, if anyone has any ideas about how best to deal with this I am all ears

I'm not sure you can top the people who dobbed him in for fraudulent dole claims and put him in jail: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/benefit-cheat-photographer-jailed-2421324

Pete

 

[dylanwinter]

I'm not sure you can top the people who dobbed him in for fraudulent dole claims and put him in jail: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/benefit-cheat-photographer-jailed-2421324

Pete

Well found that man - what an amazing link you have found

I can hardly believe it

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

would you credit such a thing

what an excellently written piece




Benefit cheat photographer jailed.

00:00, 26 Nov 2010
Updated 19:56, 15 Oct 2013
By

A BENEFIT cheat who made thousands taking people to court will spend Christmas behind bars.

Share

A BENEFIT cheat who made thousands taking people to court will spend Christmas behind bars.

Photographer Alan Mackie took scores of charities, businesses and individuals court when they innocently downloaded his images from the internet.

But while he raked in cash from his court battles, Mackie was claiming a fortune in income support.

At Ayr Sheriff Court this week, Mackie, 58, pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining £24,368 in income support between October 2002 andAugust 2008.

He faced a further two charges relating to housing benefits of £8841 and council tax benefits of £2877.

However, his not guilty pleas to these charges were accepted by prosecutors.

When officials were anonymously tipped off about Mackie’s photography business and his copyright campaign, they discovered he had a secret bank account.

After apparently taking an angina attack during a police interview, Mackie was eventually charged with the offence.

Defence lawyer Peter Lockhart explained that Mackie began operating 197 Aerial Photography in October 2002.

But he suffered health problems on and off.

Mr Lockhart said: “He found himself in a catch 22 situation. His health was such that he was sometimes fit to work and sometimes wasn’t.

“He now accepts he should have told the department exactly what the truth was.

“He discovered people had been infringing his copyright and pursued them, taking several people to court.”

Jailing Mackie, of Gillies Street in Troon, for eight months, Sheriff Desmond Leslie told him: “Fraud over such a lengthy period is viewed very seriously by the court. Particularly when it involves such large sums, as was the case here.”

I take into account what Mr Lockhart has said on your behalf.

Nevertheless the High Court has repeatedly made it clear that benefit cheats who defraud the public purse of a high amount will receive a jail term.

“I have no option but to jail you for eight months.”

 

[Sgeir]

You know, this all sounds vaguely familiar. A few years ago there was some guy who put pics on the web and then litigiously chased anyone who "borrowed" them.

Professional photographers, musicians and other creative people have genuine issues with copyright, but I do wonder if, on some occasions, there might be an element of entrapment.

 

[Mister E]

I am assuming he is a bully of the first order and will only pick on small people rather than google or time warner.

So, if anyone has any ideas about how best to deal with this I am all ears

How about taking him out sailing. Not sure how far but he can then find his own way home.

 

[Concerto]

The 197aerial .co.uk web site has plenty of remarks about copyright and looking at his fees for web usage is expensive to say the least. I feel you did not breach the copyright on the image as each image did not show any copyright marking on it, but any link would have shown his web address. You only linked to the image, not used it on any web site. He did not use any primary (on image marking) or secondary protection of a scrambled file to prevent "unlawful" use. You have also removed the link as soon as you were contacted, so acted correctly. As others have stated he must advise the current "damages" he has suffered, without a monetary amount he cannot go to court to claim anything. His action would probably be via the Small Claims Court, where it would be decided by a friendly judge. I doubt if he would be able to access any higher court unless he was claiming a huge amount. In any case a defendant in a small claims can have the case heard at their local court, so you could insit he comes south (which would be at his expense and not able to be claimed for), if he attends at all. Then the case would only be heard on his written evidence and then he would need to show a clear loss, which in your case would be difficult. My advice would be to do nothing more, let him do all the work. It is very difficult to keep complaining when met with silence. So be like a duck and let the water run off your back.

Another point, for most businesses it is necessary for them to have full contact information on their web site. On 197aerial .co.uk, I could find no postal address. Checking with Nominet provides an address, http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=http://197aerial.co.uk#whois-results. Then using Google street view you see it is a private address, http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=http://197aerial.co.uk#whois-results. The property is just to the right of the low shiplap fence.

 

[fisherman]

I don't know, Dylan, I think you should put your affairs in order and prepare for the worst, start by learning this: " OK guv, you got me bang to rights, I'll come quietly".

 

[dylanwinter]

The 197aerial .co.uk web site has plenty of remarks about copyright and looking at his fees for web usage is expensive to say the least. I feel you did not breach the copyright on the image as each image did not show any copyright marking on it, but any link would have shown his web address. You only linked to the image, not used it on any web site. He did not use any primary (on image marking) or secondary protection of a scrambled file to prevent "unlawful" use. You have also removed the link as soon as you were contacted, so acted correctly. As others have stated he must advise the current "damages" he has suffered, without a monetary amount he cannot go to court to claim anything. His action would probably be via the Small Claims Court, where it would be decided by a friendly judge. I doubt if he would be able to access any higher court unless he was claiming a huge amount. In any case a defendant in a small claims can have the case heard at their local court, so you could insit he comes south (which would be at his expense and not able to be claimed for), if he attends at all. Then the case would only be heard on his written evidence and then he would need to show a clear loss, which in your case would be difficult. My advice would be to do nothing more, let him do all the work. It is very difficult to keep complaining when met with silence. So be like a duck and let the water run off your back.

Another point, for most businesses it is necessary for them to have full contact information on their web site. On 197aerial .co.uk, I could find no postal address. Checking with Nominet provides an address, http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=http://197aerial.co.uk#whois-results. Then using Google street view you see it is a private address, http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=http://197aerial.co.uk#whois-results. The property is just to the right of the low shiplap fence.

Thanks C

that sounds as if you know of which you write.

 

[prv]

I feel you did not breach the copyright on the image as each image did not show any copyright marking on it

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Copyright exists in a creative work as soon as it's created, there's no need for any markings. I think they used to have that kind of significance in the US decades ago, and there's an argument that ignoring a notice shows wilful breach and might support higher damages, but the basic principles of copyright apply regardless.

Good advice otherwise, though. Since Dylan took the pic down within hours of notification, the claim has no legs and all he's doing if he continues is stoking the Streisand Effect. This forum has a fairly potent amount of Google Juice and if we all keep mentioning Alan Mackie then we might get this thread showing up well in the results when people search for him or 197 Aerial Photography.

Pete

 

[dylanwinter]

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Copyright exists in a creative work as soon as it's created, there's no need for any markings. I think they used to have that kind of significance in the US decades ago, and there's an argument that ignoring a notice shows wilful breach and might support higher damages, but the basic principles of copyright apply regardless.

Good advice otherwise, though. Since Dylan took the pic down within hours of notification, the claim has no legs and all he's doing if he continues is stoking the Streisand Effect. This forum has a fairly potent amount of Google Juice and if we all keep mentioning Alan Mackie then we might get this thread showing up well in the results when people search for him or 197 Aerial Photography.

Pete

they would also see this link to his criminal record and subsequent jailing.

He does not seem to be an awfully nice fellow

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


http://www.thedrum.com/news/2010/10/26/honeypot-photographer-admits-benefit-fraud

 

[Poecheng]

Dylan,

Read something very recently about links not being copyright - found it, as the Court of Justice of the European Union has just ruled on it in September 2016
http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/09/08/...right-if-commercial-european-high-court-says/
So it has to be
a) a link to copyright material AND
b) copyright material that is being published on a third-party website without the copyright holder's consent; AND
c) linked for profit; AND
d) acting with knowledge that the publication at (b) is without the owner's consent

So it seems that a) and c) apply presumptively and that b) and d) do not apply. The Centaur One is free !!!
(You may laugh at the thought of (c) applying but for the sake of argument......)

All the best

 

[dylanwinter]

Dylan,

Read something very recently about links not being copyright - found it, as the Court of Justice of the European Union has just ruled on it in September 2016
http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/09/08/...right-if-commercial-european-high-court-says/
So it has to be
a) a link to copyright material AND
b) copyright material that is being published on a third-party website without the copyright holder's consent; AND
c) linked for profit; AND
d) acting with knowledge that the publication at (b) is without the owner's consent

So it seems that a) and c) apply presumptively and that b) and d) do not apply. The Centaur One is free !!!
(You may laugh at the thought of (c) applying but for the sake of argument......)

All the best

thanks P

so should I ignore everything or communicate with him and let him know that I know he does not stand a chance of winning money from me.

I am expecting the threatened registered letter to arrive in the morning.

I deleted the reference to his image within minutes of arriving home and opening the email.

D

 

[Poecheng]

thanks P

so should I ignore everything or communicate with him and let him know that I know he does not stand a chance of winning money from me.

I am expecting the threatened registered letter to arrive in the morning.

I deleted the reference to his image within minutes of arriving home and opening the email.

D

Send it on to me if you like.

 

[dylanwinter]

Send it on to me if you like.

ooh goody

I shall do just that

D

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

View attachment 60539

The document tat you have taken this from clearly states that it is copyright and requires permission/fee for you to publish it.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

The 197aerial .co.uk web site has plenty of remarks about copyright and looking at his fees for web usage is expensive to say the least. I feel you did not breach the copyright on the image as each image did not show any copyright marking on it, but any link would have shown his web address. You only linked to the image, not used it on any web site. He did not use any primary (on image marking) or secondary protection of a scrambled file to prevent "unlawful" use. You have also removed the link as soon as you were contacted, so acted correctly. As others have stated he must advise the current "damages" he has suffered, without a monetary amount he cannot go to court to claim anything. His action would probably be via the Small Claims Court, where it would be decided by a friendly judge. I doubt if he would be able to access any higher court unless he was claiming a huge amount. In any case a defendant in a small claims can have the case heard at their local court, so you could insit he comes south (which would be at his expense and not able to be claimed for), if he attends at all. Then the case would only be heard on his written evidence and then he would need to show a clear loss, which in your case would be difficult. My advice would be to do nothing more, let him do all the work. It is very difficult to keep complaining when met with silence. So be like a duck and let the water run off your back.

Another point, for most businesses it is necessary for them to have full contact information on their web site. On 197aerial .co.uk, I could find no postal address. Checking with Nominet provides an address, http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=http://197aerial.co.uk#whois-results. Then using Google street view you see it is a private address, http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=http://197aerial.co.uk#whois-results. The property is just to the right of the low shiplap fence.

IIRC this is doxting and is not lawful.

 

[prv]

IIRC this is doxting and is not lawful.

The Whois database is a matter of public record.

Pete

 

[Giblets]

I wonder how long this thread will last! :anonymous: