I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[RichardS]

The post concerned does contain a little bit more action than the qualifications you give above. Let me be clear that I am asking your opinion of the unabridged article not selected bits thereof. Once again may I press you: is post #395 is reasonable in your opinion?

Jamie has apologised to Alan for repeating the apparent untruth that Alan has demanded a financial payment from Dylan. As post #395 was addressed to Jamie and he has given the right response to Alan I do not think it is particularly relevent what we think about it.

Jamie was one of many to make this untrue allegation and hopefully he will be the last.

Richard

 

[A1Sailor]

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.

Do you blackmail people?

 

[shaunksb]

If he is being continually misrepresented regarding what he has written to DW then I think his action in asking for a retraction and an apology alongside a complaint to the moderators (AM, they don't generally monitor posts - you alert them with the wee triangle icon to the bottom left) seems reasonable though the post you reference is perhaps most forcefully expressed than I would choose to do myself.

I'll take that as a no then.


_______________________

 

[RichardS]

I'm getting a bit fed up with the bullshit and garbage that's flying my way and the constant repetition of fairy stories and outright drivel.

I can't help laughing at that.

I can understand your frustration with the BS etc that is flying your way about you personally and I make no excuses for that ....... but the "constant repetition of fairy stories and outright drivel" is something that is a recurring source of great joy to me as I read what is often technical or engineering "facts" which seem to have been pulled from the pages of a Roald Dahl novel.

Indeed, I once met a chap who even claimed to have found a mistake on the internet.

Richard

 

[197aerial]

I agree on all these points. I think it's a shame that Mr Mackie's published rates for website use of his photographs are so high,

It's pretty straightforward. Commissioning clients don't pay that much, the price only refers to stock images. Clients pay for the time to TAKE the photos as well as other fees but publication use is usually included. My clients know that. In passing, I get all the work I can handle comfortably so it's not really an issue.

However, stock images are a different story. Take Portavadie for instance. I was in the area taking photos for an estate agent (10 miles away, I can't spell it properly) and I took the chance to get some nice photos, but with no client.

The images might sell, they might not. So the price has to reflect the fact that I may generate no income at all from much of the work I do. The trick is to know what sells and take that kind of image.

That day I took three lots of stock images. Portavadie, Otter Ferry and a castle. The castle images weren't commissioned but were sold that evening for a bulk image price. The Otter Ferry shoot sold one image but no sales yet from Portavadie, after well over a year. One image on the website was ten years out of date and a client bought it for a tourist leaflet. If it exactly meets requirements, the price is irrelevant.

Thanks for the nice comments about the photos but the best ones never see the website - they go directly to clients and agents. Most professional people want images that have never been seen before - exclusive use - and putting them on my website renders them useless for many clients. I used to generate income by selling prints of images but the price I can fairly charge, along with postage, PayPal fees or bank charges and just the plain hassle (order the prints, collect them or wait for the post, re-pack them and pay to post them to the client, etc etc) bites into the margins. And some clients are less easy to please than others. Prints aren't the same in person as on monitor screens and might not even have the same colour range or brightness. People are disappointed through no-one's fault and it causes bothers.

I'm looking at my prices and may change them to reflect market trends and re-adjust the balance of income between different ranges but if you look at the NUJ's price guide online (well out of date but still relevant) I'm under the national average by a fair margin. You need to bear in mind that cheapo stock images are pretty low quality. One of the problems is that there are so many amateurs posting images of such a low standard that the market is flooded with crap. I don't sell crap. (Though I get a lot thrown at me!)

 

[dylanwinter]

I wondered if I could invite Mr Mackie to publish on here in full the contents of the registered letter dated the same day as he requested me to take down the link to his image.

A request to which I complied within minutes of opening my email on the evening of the 19th after towing my boat across Britain

My understanding of Scottish law is not as complete as it should be.... however I understand it the copyright of letters remain with the person who sent them.

I now own the paper but not Mr Mackie's words thereon.

I hope that the publication of his missive will help to explain my extremely difficult predicament.

Dylan

 

[steveeasy]

wrong time.

 

[dimdav]

Do you blackmail people?

Of course he doesn't A1!

All he does is send out his...

standard cease and desist letter as sent to this offender states that the recipient can work out what the damages might be from the price guide. Might be, not WILL be.

" An estimate of the potential sum to be later formally claimed for copyright infringement damages can be calculated from the pricing guide and terms. "

Its then up to the offender to decide whether to deal with the matter directly with him and come to an "arrangement" armed with the potential sums he could potentially have to pay if he decides to take it to court and wins or to force the issue. No horses would be harmed in the process because a prima face copyright breach has been made so the law is, in the first instance on his side, he is the offended party. People might not like the spirit of it but tough luck its his entitlement.

Edit: Just to say the Dunlop Players say he is a nice man re the photo from their day out at Dunure so there are 2 sides to everyone.

 

[197aerial]

Surely not? At least WE nover make mistakes. Of course, we're the good guys. Just look at our hats.

I didn't know Roald Dahl wrote technical books. Can you recommend any?

 

[197aerial]

Do you blackmail people?

Not at all. But occasionally in many legal cases people are taken aback by the evidence presented in court. You know the expression about the pot calling the kettle black? Like that.

Of course, the kettle knows what colour he is when he sets out on the journey.

 

[RichardS]

I wondered if I could invite Mr Mackie to publish on here in full the contents of the registered letter dated the same day as he requested me to take down the link to his image ....

That's a fair request since this matter is clearly now a subject of discussion in a public forum by both parties.

Richard

 

[CLB]

Having read the whole thread, I am left wondering what, exactly, it is that AM wants. He claims no request for payment has been made, DW took the image link down as soon as notified. There seems little left to do, unless of course AM does want payment, in which case why not just come out and say it.

 

[dimdav]

Not at all. But occasionally in many legal cases people are taken aback by the evidence presented in court. You know the expression about the pot calling the kettle black? Like that.

Of course, the kettle knows what colour he is when he sets out on the journey.

Quite right. I used to do business with a company that sent out letters to companies who we slow in paying their suppliers on behalf of the suppliers. Some people took umbrage at the tone of the letters and that they even got letters in the first place. They weren't overtly threatening just pointed out the facts of the situation, the implications of continued non payment pointed out they were backed by the legal clout of a large firm which would act if no action was taken. The intention was only to get the invoice moved from the bottom of the pile to the top. It sounds a similar (sort of) scenario with your cease and desist letters.

 

[viago]

Indeed. He posts lies about me that have been widely discussed by many and are generally agreeed to be known to be lies.

I'm getting a bit fed up with the bullshit and garbage that's flying my way and the constant repetition of fairy stories and outright drivel.

I want it to stop. I will have it stopped if need be. I'm perfectly happy to discuss facts and truth but I will not succumb to mindless bullying and libellous comments made about me in public.

Does that seem unreasonable to you? If so, I pity you.

Be assured, a court will take my side, every time.

All I want is for the Dylan Winter claque in here is to stick to the facts, not conjecture and fabrications. Surely that's not beyond your abilities?


And you can be sure some moron will now refer back to my criminal conviction as if that's got any relevance to Dylan Winter's conduct, because that's all people of that mentality are capable of doing.


To paraphrase a current TV advert:

I wonder how some of you guys manage on a boat.

But then I read all the reports of sinkings, collisions, people falling overboard and the helicopters and RNLI volunteers risking their live to save them and it dawns on me...

hello aerial.

might i welcome you to this little clan of boaty folk. your contributions to date seem to qualify you well to be a proud member here.
i assume you have no objections to being called a member, i wouldn't wish to be thrust before a beak by your good self.
i particularly enjoyed your observations on our boating skills and have to agree that many here do need a little help from time to time.
i trust you will continue to be an active member long after this sorry tale of greed and malice has come to it's inevitably sticky end.
i rarely post here myself, just popped in to see what all the fuss was about. the drums beat loud hereabouts.
best wishes and remember that karma has a wicked sense of humour.

 

[webcraft]

It sounds a similar (sort of) scenario with your cease and desist letters.

What is quite right?

What do you think 'the kettle knows what colour he is when he sets out on the journey' means?

To me it means Mr. Mackie is saying Dylan knew full well he was attempting to defraud Mr. Mackie. I say there was no such intent, and for Mr.l Mackie to imply tehre was is quite possibly libellous. A shame Dylan isn;t as 'au fait' with the court system as Mr. Mackie, or the boot might be on the other foot.

Sending out mildly threatening letters for overdue invoices is asking for payment for a service the cleint has received and knows they have received. Taking people to court who have been foolish enough to innocently hotlink on of Mr. mackie's photographs is a completely different matter IMO.

I do not quite understand why so many people on here are being so obsequiously polite to Mr. Mackie, particularly when he has made disparaging remarks about sailors in general and our seamanship. There is no doubt that he is legally in the right. Discussion is however possible as to whether he is morally in the right, and criticism of the way he has gone about presenting himself on our forum is certainly fair and valid in many cases.

Sorry Dylan if you are still reading this B/S, but you soon find out who your friends are when the chips are down.

- W

 

[webcraft]

hello aerial.

Might i welcome you to this little clan of boaty folk. Your contributions to date seem to qualify you well to be a proud member here.
I assume you have no objections to being called a member, i wouldn't wish to be thrust before a beak by your good self.
I particularly enjoyed your observations on our boating skills and have to agree that many here do need a little help from time to time.
I trust you will continue to be an active member long after this sorry tale of greed and malice has come to it's inevitably sticky end.
I rarely post here myself, just popped in to see what all the fuss was about. The drums beat loud hereabouts.
Best wishes and remember that karma has a wicked sense of humour.

- W

 

[A1Sailor]

Do you blackmail people?

Not at all. But occasionally in many legal cases people are taken aback by the evidence presented in court. You know the expression about the pot calling the kettle black? Like that.

Of course, the kettle knows what colour he is when he sets out on the journey.

Good to know that. Thanks.

 

[dimdav]

What is quite right?

What do you think 'the kettle knows what colour he is when he sets out on the journey' means?

- W

Sorry Webby, I should have been more precise. I was referring to people being taken aback when receiving letters that may appear threatening.

I'm not defending Mr Mackies practices I find them abhorrent but need to watch what I say as I've already had a smack on the wrists for my comments earlier on this thread (imagine that! in scuttlebutt of all places and not during one of our more heated exchanges in the lounge ).

I don't think Dylan made a conscious decision to breach copyright, he made a mistake and corrected it promptly when it was pointed out. He has imho not helped the situation by the earlier postings on here but since he's had legal advice he's doing the sensible thing of "not very much". I suspect he wont reply to Mr Mackie and this will end up in court and that the defense should a court action be raised has already been thought out and planned. I don't expect it to be discussed in public despite Mr Mackies constant requesting a reply.

 

[Colvic Watson]

remember that karma has a wicked sense of humour.

Missed your way with words, welcome back.

I see the mods are continuing to allow this half dead mongrel of a thread to drag itself through the dung heap. No other thread has brought the forum into disrepute like this one.

 

[197aerial]

I wondered if I could invite Mr Mackie to publish on here in full the contents of the registered letter dated the same day as he requested me to take down the link to his image.

I feel VERY uncomfortable having to conduct this matter in public. It is grossly inappropriate and in my view a very amateurish and foolish way to progress matters.

But you leave me no choice if I am not to be accused of failing to mitigate costs by trying to progress matters.

I will say nothing of the dispute details or content of the letter you refer to and deal only with the specific matter you raise.

I didn't send you a registered letter. It was recorded delivery and has a totally different standard of proof of delivery. But no matter, that's not a significant error.

The letter I use is a standard legal letter some of the contents of which I am using under licence - it's important that the contents are to the required legal standard and I'm not formally qualified - and so I am not entitled to publish it myself (other then my own text sections) but can of course use it in court if necessary later under S.45 of the Act. As can you, of course.

As you ask specifically, you may NOT publish ANY of the contents without the consent of all the copyright owners, including me. Please confirm that you understand that. Thank you.

To do so now, bearing mind the reputation and business of the company I licenced it from, would, I suspect, be utterly disastrous for you. They sue people for fun and then collect the debts if they don't pay up.

This refusal does not in any way prohibit you from conducting a normal business negotiation and does no harm to either party's case.

Further, a court would say that the details should NOT be discussed in public as it may affect the value of the evidence of any required witnesses who may access it. It may be seen (may, it's not likely) as contempt of court.


It seems to me that all you are trying to do is continually stir up trouble without actually doing anything constructive. This seems to be yet another attempt to extend the argument and drag out the process, based on your present behaviour.

You have supporters in this forum. None of them will be able to assist you in this matter. Abuse is not a defence in law.


Would you like me now to progress matters by sending you a formal claim letter as the next stage of the process?

And if so, would you like me to offer to keep any settlement agreed confidential to both parties in order to spare any blushes? Penalties would apply for breaching that term, if agreed to.