I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[JumbleDuck]

I've asked the mods to do the kindest thing to this thread if it was a horse it would have received Bernie's Bolt a long time ago.

What do you object to about it? I grant that it's perhaps not in the best place, and that the repeated attacks on Mr Mackie are pretty distasteful, but other than that it doesn't seem too bad.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Note he states in his posts, and in the reports about him, he has taken libraries and charities to court to claim what is "rightfully his" - judge that how you like, I find it distasteful .

I think libraries and charities should pay their bills. Don't you?

 

[steveeasy]

I suspect that you have not read the entire thread Steve, and I don't blame you as it's quite a long read. However, if you do, you should discover that your advice to Dylan might not be the best.

Richard

Hi Richard,
Ive followed it. You could spend an eternity trying to reason and justify actions. wont change a thing. Its no big deal to resolve. There is absolutely no point in any mediation whatsoever. life is far too short in relation to this small matter. Just carry on Dylan everyone's behind you on the whole.

Steveeasy

 

[dylanwinter]

I think that this thread will be quite useful for those who walk in my footsteps - so that it is available to the search engines



I don't mind telling you chaps

this is deeply, deeply uncomfortable.

 

[[163233]]

"It's all very well to forgive the man who stole my bicycle, but I still don't have a bicycle".

I would suggest that Mr Mackie hasn't actually been deprived of his enjoyment of the metaphorical bicycle if he has been wronged, then it's more akin to Mr Winter standing next to the bicycle in the street pretending that it's his which is still rude whether actionable or not. However Mr Mackie could resolve that by simply moving his bicycle, or putting a sign on it saying that it's his (while accepting that he shouldn't have to).

It's still perfectly reasonable to expect them to reach an agreement of some sort without recourse to law, although I fear there may be some bad blood now.

 

[steveeasy]

I would suggest that Mr Mackie hasn't actually been deprived of his enjoyment of the metaphorical bicycle if he has been wronged, then it's more akin to Mr Winter standing next to the bicycle in the street pretending that it's his which is still rude whether actionable or not. However Mr Mackie could resolve that by simply moving his bicycle, or putting a sign on it saying that it's his (while accepting that he shouldn't have to).

It's still perfectly reasonable to expect them to reach an agreement of some sort without recourse to law, although I fear there may be some bad blood now.

Theres no bad blood now. Dylan was just unfortunate to bump in to the other person. everyone knows were it is going. I suggest we all have a mutual interest in this forum and see Mr Winter as an asset and indeed a real person we want to support. lets do the right thing and unite on at least one good thing.

Steveeasy

 

[Kutassy]

I hope this whole nastiness can come to a quick and satisfactory conclusion soon. One half seems to thrive on this attention and tension whilst the other is probably mortified.
I'm a MOB and hold Dylan hugely responsible for me sailing at all. If it wasn't for his sage advice and inspirational videos I would still be sat in a hulk of a wreck of a fixer-upper in a Somerset field wondering where to start.
I hope that this is settled sensibly and quickly and these two gentlemen can get back to what they do best, flying kites and taking photos, tweaking sheets and making videos.

Let's get back outside eh?

 

[roblpm]

I hope this whole nastiness can come to a quick and satisfactory conclusion soon. One half seems to thrive on this attention and tension whilst the other is probably mortified.
I'm a MOB and hold Dylan hugely responsible for me sailing at all. If it wasn't for his sage advice and inspirational videos I would still be sat in a hulk of a wreck of a fixer-upper in a Somerset field wondering where to start.
I hope that this is settled sensibly and quickly and these two gentlemen can get back to what they do best, flying kites and taking photos, tweaking sheets and making videos.

Let's get back outside eh?

I would like to echo this sentiment.

Dylan contributes enormously to these forums.

I hope Alan can see fit to bring this to a swift conclusion by giving Dylan a reasonable way out that doesn't prolong the process.

 

[197aerial]

I think libraries and charities should pay their bills. Don't you?

Yes indeedy. It can be fairly argued that librarians are well aware of copyright law as part of their training. As a simple example they have signs all over the photo-copiers - don't copy illegally or you'll be shot at dawn, sort of thing.

That case involves a website featuring the local area with dozens of images taken from websites, some marked as copyright (so the KNOW that's important) and many just used with no acknowledgement. One of the interesting features is that the same photograph was used in the same context by the same council about 6 years ago, as well as being passed on by a council official for use on a commerical website. It seems that they may have kept it on file for future infringing use or just went back and copied it again, maybe. In the first case the council weren't asked for money but I understand they re-imbursed the people they illegally supplied my photo to when they paid damages out of court.

I only seek recompense from those who know better. One image is an error. Over two hundred on one site (three of them mine) is a policy of theft. It's a judgement call and I do try to be as fair as possible in each circumstance,

Charities? It all depends on your point of view. I refused an offer of cash from the RNLI when they used one of my photos as part of a fund-raising project. I hadn't even asked and they wanted me to tell them how much they owed me. I didn't even talk about money to a local community council run by pensioners and I went no-where near the young lad using my photo (and claiming to own it) to try to raise money for cancer research before he died. There are many more examples. I've supplied photos for free to many charity projects aand non-commerical community type groups and even supplied framed prints of really good photos as prizes in raffles and so on.

I was asked to supply a photo for a harbour regeneration type outfit. It has boats in it so this brings it on-topic. A genuine charity. They used my photo under licence on the index page of their site along with a few other in a slideshow. My name was on it and it was perfectly legal. However, it didn't attract any enquiries for commissions so when the two-year free use ended I asked them politely to take the photo of the website. They weren't pleased. They got the use of a top-quailty aerial photo for free for two years to promote their project and raise funds (over £25K as I recall) and I was in the wrong for legitimately asking them to stop using it! i assume the boat owners who pay through the nose for berths wouldn't have approved of them whinging, but who knows?

One mob, however, really got my goat. A council was looking to reduce staff wages bills. So, they took a department, made them redundant (ie gave them cash) and then set uo a private limited company, supported by grant from them and the Scottish government and re-employed the SAME people in a different office, doing the same job which, incidentally, they did very badly for many years.

The trick is that as it was a private company supported by grant they were able to have it registered as a charity in order to prevent paying tax on the income from the public purse. That also means that as a private company their finances were secret but I did get a copy of their first year's accounts and it made fascinating reading. A small local office employing five people in the field of getting folk back to work spent over £2,500 on taxis in one year. That's £10 per head per week, just on taxis fares!

Anyway, they used five of my photos in a brochure and as per usual claimed to own them. They paid up before going to court. The local press were advised by someone and they spoke to me and asked around the town but couldn't find anyone who even knew about the company so it had no interest and the story was dropped. Maybe they should have asked the local taxi firms?

Now, is that a charity or is it a con to hide wage bills? Are there many of these types of business set up in Scotland? It's hard to find out but it seems to be over 400 or so. About 25 per council.

 

[Mister E]

What is the going price for a low resolution picture that is only any good for web stuff?

 

[bitbaltic]

I see no evidence that Mr Mackie is unreasonable.

I've tried to agree with that whilst reading his post #395. I'm sorry to report that from every angle I have failed.

Must. Try. Harder.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I would suggest that Mr Mackie hasn't actually been deprived of his enjoyment of the metaphorical bicycle if he has been wronged ...

That's a fair point, and it wasn't intended as a direct analogy. However, Mr Mackie has certainly got two valid causes for complaint: the misuse of his picture and the public vitriol to which he has been subjected. In his place the latter would rile me more. Money doesn't have to change hands, of course, but I think it is reasonable for Mr Mackie to expect more than a handshake.

It's still perfectly reasonable to expect them to reach an agreement of some sort without recourse to law, although I fear there may be some bad blood now.

I agree completely.

I hope Alan can see fit to bring this to a swift conclusion by giving Dylan a reasonable way out that doesn't prolong the process.

Indeed, and I hope Dylan takes a reasonable way out if and when one is presented to him.

I don't mind telling you chaps

this is deeply, deeply uncomfortable.

Have you been in touch with Mr Mackie to explore resolution of the issues? I don't want to know any details, but it would be good to know when things start moving.

 

[yachtorion]

I've not got anything further to add to this other than to say that I too find KTL to be deeply uncommercial. My DVDs were swapped for a couple of mouldy old sailing books, I definitely got the better end of that.

If KTL ever was a commercial enterprise it hasn't been for a long time now.

KTL has been hugely inspirational for me. I was no longer enjoying the hobby because I'd forgotten what I enjoyed about it - KTL reminded me and set me back on the right path.

I hope this thread helps prevent others from falling into the situation Dylan has reached and that sooner or later someone updates copyright to realistically reflect the technical advances of the last 25 years or so. For the benefit of both users and creators.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I've tried to agree with that whilst reading his post #395. I'm sorry to report that from every angle I have failed.

He does perhaps come across as a little testy sometimes, but against that he has taken the trouble to join the forum and respond in detail and (usually) with good humour to a thread which was started specifically to criticise him by name As far as I can see, he hasn't responded at all to any of the personal abuse which has been directed at him (not by Dylan), which is quite civilised really.

 

[197aerial]

I would like to echo this sentiment.

Dylan contributes enormously to these forums.

I hope Alan can see fit to bring this to a swift conclusion by giving Dylan a reasonable way out that doesn't prolong the process.

By posting copyright infringing material, maybe?

And how can I bring it to any kind of conclusion (other than a formal claim - still not made) if he stubbornly refuses to respond?

It's my view that he's still behaving like a spoilt child caught stealing sweeties.

In passing, expressing an opinion based on factual knowledge is not a problem as far as libel or defamation (in Scotland) laws are concerned.

What Dylan Winter doesn't know is what facts about him I have to hand to encourage that view.

 

[macd]

I don't mind telling you chaps this is deeply, deeply uncomfortable.

Then why on earth not end it?

 

[JumbleDuck]

KTL has been hugely inspirational for me. I was no longer enjoying the hobby because I'd forgotten what I enjoyed about it - KTL reminded me and set me back on the right path.

I agree, more or less. In a world - and in forums - where one cannot possibly sail in anything less than 34' long with hot and cold running water (dahlings), the adventures of scruffy boats are a welcome contrast. I'm sorry that the original KTL concept seems to have disappeared in favour of random sailing holidays in ever-nicer boats, and I really wish the Centaur well conversion had happened - but that's not up to me.

I hope this thread helps prevent others from falling into the situation Dylan has reached and that sooner or later someone updates copyright to realistically reflect the technical advances of the last 25 years or so. For the benefit of both users and creators.

There is no doubt that it is a mess, and it has been a mess for far, far too long. When the Shetland court case was rumbling on I was writing the first web-based teaching material (optimised for Mosaic, Netscape and Web Explorer!) used by a major UK university. Their lawyers were so frightened by the mess that they advised us that even giving a url in text form, let alone as a clickable link, might be breach of copyright. It's not quite that bad now, but it would be nice if things had been tidied up a bit more over the past twenty years.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Then why on earth not end it?

+449

 

[197aerial]

I hope this thread helps prevent others from falling into the situation Dylan has reached and that sooner or later someone updates copyright to realistically reflect the technical advances of the last 25 years or so. For the benefit of both users and creators.

Dylan Winter has dug his own hole, seemingly using a large JCB. He needs a long ladder, urgently.

Updating copyright law? Are you suggesting that people who create art, photos, literature, music etc should not be allowed to benefit from their creations?

Would you also ban patents, trade marks and having to pay to watch satellite TV? Why on earth should anyone pay to see a film or buy a music CD when they can steal it off the web for free?

One reason might be that if the creators don't get paid for their work and investment there will be no music, no films, no books and no TV.

Also no talentless "celebrities" to drool over and fantasise about, no morons taking Klingon, no headphnes chattering at you when you want silence and of course nothing to do with a mobile phone except (horror of horrors) talk to someone.

(I saw a queue for a school bus yesterday morning. Seven kids, both genders, all standing well apart and all playing with their phones. Now, in my day, we'd have been chattng to the girls and having a laugh. I feel really sorry for them, they all live in wee plastic boxes and have no life worth living. But I digress. )

In my experience, and I point no finger here, the only people who object to fair and reasonable copyright laws are those who have no creative talent, couldn't write a note or draw a straight line and are jealous of those who can.

Visually, think of a chap with neat hair, glasses and clothes and carrying a music case and violin? Got the image?

Now think of a thug with rings in his nose and tattoos shouting at him that he's a specky nerd and steps foward to beat him up because he can't express his frustration at his own stupidity and ignorance any other way.

Get the picture?

Anyone with talent is in favour of copyright laws and protection of rights. Anyone against the rights to own and benefit from created material are just morons.

 

[chinita]

+450

Oi! Bru has copyright of that figure.