I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[dylanwinter]

Dylan I bet you wish some of us had not joined in now.

Sarabande would it acceptable to use his email contact to ask for the business address to be shown on his web site?
If I have read the above properly this is some sort of requirement and possibly a get out of jail card.

I am jolly pleased I posted it here.

It often happens that the first few responses on any thread are the least useful.

the thread has produced the required result

I have a top lawyer to send the letter to who will deal with the matter on a pro bono basis because he likes my films

seems like a good result to me.

D

 

[davidej]

this from his website

http://www.197aerial.co.uk/txtcases.htm

D

I am waiting with bated breath to see how he describes his case against a "Peripatetic Sailor"

 

[agurney]

brilliant - new word

..
I confess that I lift and embred images all over the place

It's not perfect, but if using Google images you can apply a filter to try and avoid this type of problem:
Search Tools -> Usage rights -> Labeled for Reuse

I make a bit of pocket money from my photos that helps defray some of my expenses, but I generally only make low resolution images publicly available and don't lose sleep over it. Anything with a decent resolution is clearly watermarked or is on a commercial site (for printed images, not files).

If entrapment's your thing, putting up a high resolution image and then using Google to search for it is trivial (in Chrome, right click over an image and 'Search Google for Image'). You can cover a portfolio in a matter of minutes.

Dylan, you're welcome to use any of my images that you come across.

BTW .. check post #15, it still seems to have an offending image/link.

 

[dylanwinter]

It's not perfect, but if using Google images you can apply a filter to try and avoid this type of problem:
Search Tools -> Usage rights -> Labeled for Reuse

I make a bit of pocket money from my photos that helps defray some of my expenses, but I generally only make low resolution images publicly available and don't lose sleep over it. Anything with a decent resolution is clearly watermarked or is on a commercial site (for printed images, not files).

If entrapment's your thing, putting up a high resolution image and then using Google to search for it is trivial (in Chrome, right click over an image and 'Search Google for Image'). You can cover a portfolio in a matter of minutes.

Dylan, you're welcome to use any of my images that you come across.

BTW .. check post #15, it still seems to have an offending image/link.

the use of that image is now between Mr Mackie and Time Warner

I assume he will be sending them one of his registered letters to them demanding payment

He will have his work cut out.

D

 

[steveeasy]

Worked with photographers for years, they are all obsessed over ownership of images they have taken. Dylan if you went on to his site and copied an image and used it for your own benefit, then surely you appreciate he has some grounds to seek recompense from you. If however you found the image from an alternative source, its a completely different matter.
As ive already stated most photographers are hugely obsessed with ownership of their works, rightly or wrongly. so this business pursuing others over ownership and use of images is understandable. This man not being nice!!!. Well firstly any convictions for fraud(we don't know the details or situation) are now almost part of everyday life it seams.
Deception for financial reward is ripe in society.

He just may be as nice as anyone else quite frankly, and not be too keen on others using his work for their own benefit.

Steveeasy

 

[Bru]

There's no need for the veiled sarcasm Dylan, I shan't bother trying to help again

(For your info, whilst I am indeed a qualified electrical and electronics engineer now working in the marine trade, in a former career I was an IT consultant specialising for a time in internet / intranet security and IP protection. Go figure)

If Poacheng is happy to fight it pro bono, good on him and good luck.

Actually, that whole list of requirements is a red herring. Reading the actual article, it applies to the case where Tom obtains a copy of Dick's photo and publishes it on his (Tom's) website without Dick's permission, and then Harry is being accused of infringement for linking to Tom. In the case at hand, were Dylan being bloody-minded and keeping the picture up, it would protect thee and me linking to Dylan's site in the course of discussing the story. But it doesn't apply to Tom (or Dylan) himself.

Exactly my point Pete

 

[dylanwinter]

Worked with photographers for years, they are all obsessed over ownership of images they have taken. Dylan if you went on to his site and copied an image and used it for your own benefit, then surely you appreciate he has some grounds to seek recompense from you. If however you found the image from an alternative source, its a completely different matter.
As ive already stated most photographers are hugely obsessed with ownership of their works, rightly or wrongly. so this business pursuing others over ownership and use of images is understandable. This man not being nice!!!. Well firstly any convictions for fraud(we don't know the details or situation) are now almost part of everyday life it seams.
Deception for financial reward is ripe in society.

He just may be as nice as anyone else quite frankly, and not be too keen on others using his work for their own benefit.

Steveeasy

I did not go anywhere near his site

it all came via google images

it comes up in an image search, you then click on see image and save the location

If he is not keen on people using his images then all he has to do is to reset the details on the image or put a logo across it.

He has not taken any effort to protect his images - He pursues people who have linked to his images.

 

[macd]

I feel you did not breach the copyright...

that sounds as if you know of which you write.

Your hearing's impaired, Dylan. The 'feel' is the giveaway. Copyright law might cause plenty of angst, but it is most definitely not an emotion.

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Copyright exists in a creative work as soon as it's created...

+1
...and rests with the creator unless an agreement has been made to the contrary.

 

[dylanwinter]

There's no need for the veiled sarcasm Dylan, I shan't bother trying to help again

(For your info, whilst I am indeed a qualified electrical and electronics engineer now working in the marine trade, in a former career I was an IT consultant specialising for a time in internet / intranet security and IP protection. Go figure)

If Poacheng is happy to fight it pro bono, good on him and good luck.



Exactly my point Pete

Sorry about that. I did not mean to offensive. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this thread

however, as you may appreciate, the advice on here has been everything from "pay up you blaggard" to this man is "trying it on"

However, when a lawyer makes a suggestion and offers help then that seems better than advice to just stump up the £450 from those who may, or may not be, up to speed with the law.

It is just as I listen carefully to everything VicS posts about engines whereas there are others on here whose advice is traditionally slightly the wrong side of useful

D

 

[steveeasy]

I did not go anywhere near his site

it all came via google images

it comes up in an image search, you then click on see image and save the location

If he is not keen on people using his images then all he has to do is to reset the details on the image or put a logo across it.

He has not taken any effort to protect his images - He pursues people who have linked to his images.

Dylan,
If that's the case what more could you do, or have known then.

Steveeasy

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

The Whois database is a matter of public record.

Pete

It dosnt matter that the information is on a public database. The new (I think its been passed) law concerns cyber bullying and presenting personally identifiable information in a manner that is detrimental to the subject counts as bullying.
Yes, I know its daft but Govt really dosent understand interwebz.

 

[Concerto]

the use of that image is now between Mr Mackie and Time Warner

I assume he will be sending them one of his registered letters to them demanding payment

He will have his work cut out.

D

I smiled when I saw the image in this thread as I worked out why you had done it.

 

[Bru]

Sorry about that. I did not mean to offensive. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this thread

S'all right, you're forgiven (I'm in a better mood now having finally managed to route a heating duct through the boat after three ****ing days of struggling!)

however, as you may appreciate, the advice on here has been everything from "pay up you blaggard" to this man is "trying it on"

However, when a lawyer makes a suggestion and offers help then that seems better than advice to just stump up the £450 from those who may, or may not be, up to speed with the law.

And I'd be the last person to suggest ignoring his advice. Handy place, this forum innit!

Hopefully, with a lawyer in your corner he'll decide you're not a pushover and not worth pursuing further

 

[dylanwinter]

S'all right, you're forgiven (I'm in a better mood now having finally managed to route a heating duct through the boat after three ****ing days of struggling!)



And I'd be the last person to suggest ignoring his advice. Handy place, this forum innit!

Hopefully, with a lawyer in your corner he'll decide you're not a pushover and not worth pursuing further

very good

peace has been restored

D

 

[Concerto]

It dosnt matter that the information is on a public database. The new (I think its been passed) law concerns cyber bullying and presenting personally identifiable information in a manner that is detrimental to the subject counts as bullying.
Yes, I know its daft but Govt really dosent understand interwebz.

I only included a link to the Nominet Whois record, not directly quoting his address, so only if you followed the link would you find it.

Using this information made it easy to locate the property he lives in, again only a google link with a comment on which property after carefully zooming in to make sure I had the correct place.

This cannot be considered cyber bullying as all the information is in the public domain and the only comment is the property for the registered domain address is not a commerial, but a private residence. This was a comment as this business web site does not have any physical contact address.

Nowhere in this thread has any one suggested sending in the heavies to sort him out. Dylan has listened to many comments about what he should do and is following a very sensible course of action, if anything further occurs.

For the record I am not from a legal background, but have plenty of experience in obtaining payment from erring customers and also sued an electricity for breach of contract and won against a specialist energy solicitor from Mayfair. My background also included some knowledge on copyright, but I would not call myself an expert. However, I have learnt that silence can be a useful tool for dealing with chancers and scammers. So never respond instantly but take a measured time to do anything, if at all.

 

[Poecheng]

For the record I am not from a legal background, but have plenty of experience in obtaining payment from erring customers and also sued an electricity for breach of contract and won against a specialist energy solicitor from Mayfair. My background also included some knowledge on copyright, but I would not call myself an expert. However, I have learnt that silence can be a useful tool for dealing with chancers and scammers. So never respond instantly but take a measured time to do anything, if at all.

Just to follow on from that, lawyers are simply people trained in legal thinking, procedure and certain areas of law. It isn't magic and the same goes for most other occupations/professions. We could probably all do each other's jobs with a bit of practice though the skill and experience to make it polished would be missing.
One good lawyer once said: 'A good lawyer in not necessarily one who knows the law but where to find it".

That used to be difficult but now most people can find the law on most things and, with a bit of confidence, can piece it all together - it may not be quite how a lawyer would do it but so what.

So people with a bit of commercial nouse and savvy and confidence can be effective if they bone up on the (very small) area of law that they need to deal with. Equally lawyers have a lot to learn from people with lots of commercial savvy.

 

[dylanwinter]

Just to follow on from that, lawyers are simply people trained in legal thinking, procedure and certain areas of law. It isn't magic and the same goes for most other occupations/professions. We could probably all do each other's jobs with a bit of practice though the skill and experience to make it polished would be missing.
One good lawyer once said: 'A good lawyer in not necessarily one who knows the law but where to find it".

That used to be difficult but now most people can find the law on most things and, with a bit of confidence, can piece it all together - it may not be quite how a lawyer would do it but so what.

So people with a bit of commercial nouse and savvy and confidence can be effective if they bone up on the (very small) area of law that they need to deal with. Equally lawyers have a lot to learn from people with lots of commercial savvy.

but is is hard to beat that knot in your stomach when you get a headed letter from a lawyer

when I was at the BBC I got a letter from Mischon De Reya concerning a feature I had made on radio 4 about bananas and Fyffes - a subject which used to get the company very steamed up.

The BBC had a splendid body of lawyers

"no problems" said my favourite BBC lawyer - a bloke called Glen Del Medico

"we will send them one of "fusk off" letters" - those were his actual words

we used to meet them in the canteen or in the corridors

One day I met Glen walking down the corridor and whistling as he went

"wassup Glen! why are you so happy?"

"radio 4 is currently embroiled in a witchcraft case - fantastic fun!"

he was a man who truly relished his job. When your back was to the wall they were great blokes to have batting for you.

D

 

[RichardS]

I have 40 years of dealing with lawyers when representing companies in dispute with employees. In 99% of cases the course of events went as follows:

Dear Mr S ..... My client has been treated outrageously by your Company and we are seeking to apply the full measure of the law and receive a minimum of £X,000 compensation.

My reaction was always the same ..... phone up the lawyer, introduce myself as Richard, explain what has really occurred including accepting where the Company might have been at fault, and suggest that a quick settlement of £(much less than £X,000) could be easily achieved.

Lawyer and I then strike up a good professional relationship on first name terms and a deal is soon done.

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

Worked with photographers for years, they are all obsessed over ownership of images they have taken.

Since it's how they earn their living, that's reasonable. When I had some headshots done a few years back I paid two usage fees; one to allow me to use them for professional purposes and a further, relatively modest fees for reproduction rights on one image.

You only linked to the image, not used it on any web site.

I'm not clear what happened here. Did KTL contain a link to a photograph, like this

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0G4AAOSw8w1X-VlF/s-l1600.jpg

or did it deep link the content, like this

I believe that the case of Shetland News vs Shetland Times sorted this out in Scotland; you can print links to other people's stuff freely but if you embed their work in your own then you are in trouble.

If the IP holder was a reasonable chap, given that there is no profit from the blog, he'd be satisfied with the removal of the offending image and an assurance that it was a mistake and won't happen again

Maybe. However, the profit element isn't terribly relevant. The photographer has lost any usage fee he might have charged Dylan and which Dylan, of course, would have been free to reject, taking his custom elsewhere.

One wonders if Mr MacKie has written permission from all the owners of the houses that he as flown over and photographed possibly invading their privacy.

There is no legal right to privacy in the UK and property owners have no rights regarding the air space above their houses.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

Nowhere in this thread has any one suggested sending in the heavies to sort him out.

[best pantomime voice] Ohh yes I did [/best panto voice]