I have just been Alan Mackie'd
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
- Status
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
The courts would normally expect you to get a "letter before action" and then a reasonable time to respond, so if Mr Mackie knows his stuff you have probably got a couple of weeks to ponder your reply.
agurney
Active member
That might be enough to goad him into taking it further.
wully1
Well-known member
bitbaltic
Well-known member
I'm not going to repeat the content of your post #151 but I reckon that in ?five years on this forum its the most offensive I've seen.* We all go over the top occasionally here but even the most agressive posts usually target opinions brought to the forum, not the private lives of the people behind them.
(*I never, ever, go into the lounge).
Cloona
Active member
i do find it surprising how some people show so much unpleasantness ... it is quite an insight -
steveeasy
Well-known member
Best intent to all. Dylan is a wise man, he knows where it has come from and why. Its the cause of most of the conflicts around the world. you play the game and sometimes you win and sometimes you loose. what we need to do is learn from it, lifes a little short though.
Steveeasy
Yellow Ballad
Well-known member
I'm guessing the old saying "if you haven't got anything nice to say....." doesn't apply on forums.
When I joined this forum I thought it was a little different to the usual one, mainly grown up folk that know better and are a bit more respectful, I was wrong.
Dylan, how about sending him a letter explaining you have taken it down as soon as you were informed it was a copyright picture, you were taken straight to the picture url from google and hotlinked so it was never downloaded from his website so you believed you wasn't infirnging any copyright. Mention there was no watermark or hotlink protection or that it wasn't excluded from Googles search results and as you never went onto the full part of the website you were not aware of his licence terms. Explain it was used on a personal blog on sailing on a budget and offer to donate £50 to a charity of his choice as a gesture of good will.
If he tries to take it further at least it will show you in good light, it may do didly squat but it may buy you some time. I do assume with all the reading instead of sailing you've been doing you have a better idea of where you stand.
Good luck and keep up with the good work.
When I joined this forum I thought it was a little different to the usual one, mainly grown up folk that know better and are a bit more respectful, I was wrong.
Dylan, how about sending him a letter explaining you have taken it down as soon as you were informed it was a copyright picture, you were taken straight to the picture url from google and hotlinked so it was never downloaded from his website so you believed you wasn't infirnging any copyright. Mention there was no watermark or hotlink protection or that it wasn't excluded from Googles search results and as you never went onto the full part of the website you were not aware of his licence terms. Explain it was used on a personal blog on sailing on a budget and offer to donate £50 to a charity of his choice as a gesture of good will.
If he tries to take it further at least it will show you in good light, it may do didly squat but it may buy you some time. I do assume with all the reading instead of sailing you've been doing you have a better idea of where you stand.
Good luck and keep up with the good work.
steveeasy
Well-known member
Dylan,
Accept no liability whatsoever, do not offer any money. by all means write a nice polite letter as Yellow Ballad suggests, but really hes a chancer, A typical over protective photographer who should have taken reasonable steps to protect his work. clearly he has not.
Steveeasy
Accept no liability whatsoever, do not offer any money. by all means write a nice polite letter as Yellow Ballad suggests, but really hes a chancer, A typical over protective photographer who should have taken reasonable steps to protect his work. clearly he has not.
Steveeasy
Pye_End
Well-known member
Don't let the stress of a small claims court worry you too much. They are fairly easy going (unless they are different in Scotland). If he loses then he will need to pay your costs - ie. travel etc.. He may have so much experience of them that he knows which ones he will win/lose, but otherwise he would have to factor this in to his decision.
I wonder if there is anything in distance selling law based on 'taking stuff back' that should be considered?
I wonder if there is anything in distance selling law based on 'taking stuff back' that should be considered?
aquaplane
Active member
Sweat not.
Ignore him as long as you can.
Sweat not.
If he ever escalates to court which I very much doubt, pay. It's only £450, peanuts for a man of your stature.
You want folk to think you worry over £450? Really?
Sweat not, certainly don't loose any sleep.
Ignore him as long as you can.
Sweat not.
If he ever escalates to court which I very much doubt, pay. It's only £450, peanuts for a man of your stature.
You want folk to think you worry over £450? Really?
Sweat not, certainly don't loose any sleep.
Yellow Ballad
Well-known member
If he starts playing dirty then start asking questions on how the photo was taken. I'm assuming drone, of he's selling his pictures he must be registered with the CAA for commercial SUA use, I can't see an Alan Mackie or 197 Aerial Photography listed on the current list https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP136120160819RptUAVcurrent.pdf
or even listed on the dronesafe register, http://dronesaferegister.org.uk/search/
The fact he's got no business details on his website, address, company information (Ltd/ Alan Mackie TA 197 Aerial Photography etc) means he's in the wrong already.
As it's been proven, he's a conman.
(I've just seen he uses either a kite or hot air balloon)
or even listed on the dronesafe register, http://dronesaferegister.org.uk/search/
The fact he's got no business details on his website, address, company information (Ltd/ Alan Mackie TA 197 Aerial Photography etc) means he's in the wrong already.
As it's been proven, he's a conman.
(I've just seen he uses either a kite or hot air balloon)
Last edited:
dylanwinter
Active member
thanks for the nice words
what you say makes some sense
however
I fear that you might not entirely understand the complete business model of 197 aerial
I am yet to find out if the local sheriff in ayr is happy to be part of this modus operandi
D
Yellow Ballad
Well-known member
I understand, but I'm an optimist and always look for the good or better nature in people.
This is my downfall.
This is my downfall.
dylanwinter
Active member
being a hack for 40 years has left its mark on me - and you have to judge people by their track record
the interesting thing about the web is that your tracks hang around for a long time
so better make sure you have not spent too long walking in manure
D
Concerto
Well-known member
That is his word, but if I was doing that way I would have shown how I did it to show my skill as a photographer. So can he prove this, or is this a cover for using a drone outside the regulations.
I have seen some good photographs taken from both a kite and hot air balloon, but they are very hit or miss and there is little control. The photos on his web site are very clear and well centred. The pixel size does vary, suggestion the images have been cropped from a larger photo.
Also I checked whether there was any information as to the date of creation or editting of a number of images, but this is not shown. Also looking at the Portavadie Marina web page it shows it a copyright statement, but I believe it should be dated as there are time limits for copyright to apply. Looking at the source code for the web page shows a copyright date of 2000 to 2016. So the question on this page is what is from 2000 and what is from 2016, or somewhere between.
These observations could easily form extra questions that could be asked of Alan Mackie. All part of the delaying tactic that makes his attempt to extract money a litle bit more difficult.
dylanwinter
Active member
197aerial
New member
This is posted by Alan Mackie.
Some of you people need to get a few facts straight before you make even bigger fools of yourselves.
As the actions of Dylan Winter are currently under investigation by various Trading Standards officers I cannot at this time say too much, but ask yourself this question. Would Trading Standards by investigating Dylan Winter on my behalf in respect of potentially criminal copyright infringement (S.107 of the CDPA 1988) if there was any doubt at all about my integrity or honesty?
So, here are a few simple facts with added opinions. Don't argue with the facts, the law of defamation would not be with you.
1: Dylan Winter has NOT been sent a claim for damages for £450 or any other amount.
He has been sent a Cease & Desist notice to which he has not yet made any comment. Depending on his reaction and response to my letter (and so far he's acting like a 5-year-old, stamping his likkle foot and crying for his mummy) I will then determine what my next step might be.
So far, no sign of any “lawyer's” letter which is a shame because in the circumstances below I'm really looking forward to it. I like fiction.
2: He is running a successful commercial website which seems to be making him a fair amount of money according to his own words at: http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/11/columns/guest/winter/index.htm
3: This is a very important point and is the main issue at hand.
Dylan Winter is claiming on his website on every page and on the page on which my image appeared that he OWNS the material on his website.
He states “© Keep Turning Left” - his trading name - in VERY small letters right at the bottom of every page. Almost like he's trying to hide it?
This means that he is claiming to OWN my property - and that of all the other images he's still hot-linking to all over his site.
How would YOU feel if that happened to you? Someone comes along, takes an image of yours without asking, uses it to promote his business and then has the brass neck to claim to OWN the property he's nicked? In my view this guy is a really nasty piece of work – a serial thief.
You'll notice that Dylan Winter has made no mention of that point - made very clear to him - in any of his postings.
What he is doing here is attempting to use the law - which I suggest he knows and understands fully - to protect his work from being stolen by labeiing it as copyrighted while AT THE SAME TIME stealing from other websites.
In my view that's blatanlty corrupt and dishonest. He wants it both ways. He claims protection but he wants to be allowed to steal freely from others. Does that impress you or do you share my view that it clearly labels him as a (... edited for language). What do you think a court would think of his actions, either civil or criminal?
4: Winter, as a self-styled long-term journalist and book publisher can be fairly expected to understand that putting a copyright claim on a page of a website is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do if the material isn't your own. Not to mention, in my view, grossly arrogant. I wonder if he owns or created ANY of the material he claims authorship of.
5: His website domain name is registered to a phony address (remember, he's running a business and MUST display an accurate trading address in the domain registry) and that is being investigated by Nominet UK Ltd. There are many regulations regarding the use of a domain name and Dylan Winter is breaching a great many of them. If the information isn't corrected the site may be taken out of the registry – it wouldn't be the first domain that happened to.
In passing, my own website does not sell directly to the public and so my address need not be on the site, though of course it's not a secret as my domain name is correctly registered and always has been.
Once Dylan Winter can find the moral courage to respond to my letter rather than whinge in forums and blogs about how hard I'm being to him (I repeat - he has NOT been asked for ANY money) and he states his case (an apology would be nice – stop laughing at the back!) I will then decide what further action to take. To be frank, I'm not in a very good mood over this guy's behaviour.
That of course will also be dependent on the outcome of my formal complaint to Trading Standards, though I doubt very much that he'll be charged – prosecution funds are short and this is small case. The usual response from T.S is that if the civil matter is settled they won't interfere further.
In passing, as you may know, I've dealt with these kind of cases over many years and with characters like Dylan Winter just as often. I joke with my legal advisors that I have a printed list of lies and false claims that will be made by offenders trying to pretend they're innocent of theft and deception. So far, Dylan Winter hasn't responded directly but he's ticked of 8 of the 12 boxes. That's probably a record.
I will not be answering questions on this posting pending the end of the formal investigation.
Read it, understand it and to those of you to whom this applies, stop drivelling on about matters which you don't understand and of which you have no experience.
Thanks for all the laughs, by the way, some of the legal comments were priceless in their ignorance and stupidity.
Alan Mackie
... who never swears an oath
Some of you people need to get a few facts straight before you make even bigger fools of yourselves.
As the actions of Dylan Winter are currently under investigation by various Trading Standards officers I cannot at this time say too much, but ask yourself this question. Would Trading Standards by investigating Dylan Winter on my behalf in respect of potentially criminal copyright infringement (S.107 of the CDPA 1988) if there was any doubt at all about my integrity or honesty?
So, here are a few simple facts with added opinions. Don't argue with the facts, the law of defamation would not be with you.
1: Dylan Winter has NOT been sent a claim for damages for £450 or any other amount.
He has been sent a Cease & Desist notice to which he has not yet made any comment. Depending on his reaction and response to my letter (and so far he's acting like a 5-year-old, stamping his likkle foot and crying for his mummy) I will then determine what my next step might be.
So far, no sign of any “lawyer's” letter which is a shame because in the circumstances below I'm really looking forward to it. I like fiction.
2: He is running a successful commercial website which seems to be making him a fair amount of money according to his own words at: http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/11/columns/guest/winter/index.htm
3: This is a very important point and is the main issue at hand.
Dylan Winter is claiming on his website on every page and on the page on which my image appeared that he OWNS the material on his website.
He states “© Keep Turning Left” - his trading name - in VERY small letters right at the bottom of every page. Almost like he's trying to hide it?
This means that he is claiming to OWN my property - and that of all the other images he's still hot-linking to all over his site.
How would YOU feel if that happened to you? Someone comes along, takes an image of yours without asking, uses it to promote his business and then has the brass neck to claim to OWN the property he's nicked? In my view this guy is a really nasty piece of work – a serial thief.
You'll notice that Dylan Winter has made no mention of that point - made very clear to him - in any of his postings.
What he is doing here is attempting to use the law - which I suggest he knows and understands fully - to protect his work from being stolen by labeiing it as copyrighted while AT THE SAME TIME stealing from other websites.
In my view that's blatanlty corrupt and dishonest. He wants it both ways. He claims protection but he wants to be allowed to steal freely from others. Does that impress you or do you share my view that it clearly labels him as a (... edited for language). What do you think a court would think of his actions, either civil or criminal?
4: Winter, as a self-styled long-term journalist and book publisher can be fairly expected to understand that putting a copyright claim on a page of a website is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do if the material isn't your own. Not to mention, in my view, grossly arrogant. I wonder if he owns or created ANY of the material he claims authorship of.
5: His website domain name is registered to a phony address (remember, he's running a business and MUST display an accurate trading address in the domain registry) and that is being investigated by Nominet UK Ltd. There are many regulations regarding the use of a domain name and Dylan Winter is breaching a great many of them. If the information isn't corrected the site may be taken out of the registry – it wouldn't be the first domain that happened to.
In passing, my own website does not sell directly to the public and so my address need not be on the site, though of course it's not a secret as my domain name is correctly registered and always has been.
Once Dylan Winter can find the moral courage to respond to my letter rather than whinge in forums and blogs about how hard I'm being to him (I repeat - he has NOT been asked for ANY money) and he states his case (an apology would be nice – stop laughing at the back!) I will then decide what further action to take. To be frank, I'm not in a very good mood over this guy's behaviour.
That of course will also be dependent on the outcome of my formal complaint to Trading Standards, though I doubt very much that he'll be charged – prosecution funds are short and this is small case. The usual response from T.S is that if the civil matter is settled they won't interfere further.
In passing, as you may know, I've dealt with these kind of cases over many years and with characters like Dylan Winter just as often. I joke with my legal advisors that I have a printed list of lies and false claims that will be made by offenders trying to pretend they're innocent of theft and deception. So far, Dylan Winter hasn't responded directly but he's ticked of 8 of the 12 boxes. That's probably a record.
I will not be answering questions on this posting pending the end of the formal investigation.
Read it, understand it and to those of you to whom this applies, stop drivelling on about matters which you don't understand and of which you have no experience.
Thanks for all the laughs, by the way, some of the legal comments were priceless in their ignorance and stupidity.
Alan Mackie
... who never swears an oath
197aerial
New member
> So can he prove this, or is this a cover for using a drone outside the regulations.
A very rude and offensive suggestion. Close to defamation?
Anyway, sometimes I need to get CAA permission to fly near airports or at height. These applications have to be approved by the police and are logged as part of standing orders for the entire North Atlantic air trafic control area. I do not break the law. I do not own a drone of any sort. I need professional, reliable equipment built to a very high standard. Not plastic toys.
> I have seen some good photographs taken from both a kite and hot air balloon, but they are very hit or miss and there is little control. The photos on his web site are very clear and well centred.
Thank you. I am, after all , a professional. I have spent many years and great deal of money perfectng my system and you seem to approve of the results, as do my many regular clients. I also expect to be paid for my trouble at fair rates. My clients agree.
> The pixel size does vary, suggestion the images have been cropped from a larger photo.
Canon EOS digital (re-written firmware) images of 18 or so megapixels taken in RAW format using Canon or Voigtlander prime lenses. I'm guessing that's way over your head, no pun intended.
> Also I checked whether there was any information as to the date of creation or editting of a number of images, but this is not shown.
Some pages are dated, others are not. Who cares?
> Also looking at the Portavadie Marina web page it shows it a copyright statement, but I believe it should be dated as there are time limits for copyright to apply.
Well done! The most idiotic copyright comment on this thread yet! Copyright subsists for 70 years after the death of the photographer. As you may have guessed, I'm still alive.
> Looking at the source code for the web page shows a copyright date of 2000 to 2016. So the question on this page is what is from 2000 and what is from 2016, or somewhere between.
See above. It's for information and has no legal significance. Some of the html text goes back to 2000 and all of the rest of the text, graphics and images are covered by the 70 year rule.
> All part of the delaying tactic that makes his attempt to extract money a litle bit more difficult.
That's the idea. Act like a spoilt kid caught stealing sweeties instead of like an adult who respects the law and other people. Did you know that Scottish Courts allow an interest rate of 8% per annum to be applied to sums claimed? Plus added expenses for deliberate time-wasting.
... Where to find a competent IP lawyer? Sorry, I can't help you with that one.
A very rude and offensive suggestion. Close to defamation?
Anyway, sometimes I need to get CAA permission to fly near airports or at height. These applications have to be approved by the police and are logged as part of standing orders for the entire North Atlantic air trafic control area. I do not break the law. I do not own a drone of any sort. I need professional, reliable equipment built to a very high standard. Not plastic toys.
> I have seen some good photographs taken from both a kite and hot air balloon, but they are very hit or miss and there is little control. The photos on his web site are very clear and well centred.
Thank you. I am, after all , a professional. I have spent many years and great deal of money perfectng my system and you seem to approve of the results, as do my many regular clients. I also expect to be paid for my trouble at fair rates. My clients agree.
> The pixel size does vary, suggestion the images have been cropped from a larger photo.
Canon EOS digital (re-written firmware) images of 18 or so megapixels taken in RAW format using Canon or Voigtlander prime lenses. I'm guessing that's way over your head, no pun intended.
> Also I checked whether there was any information as to the date of creation or editting of a number of images, but this is not shown.
Some pages are dated, others are not. Who cares?
> Also looking at the Portavadie Marina web page it shows it a copyright statement, but I believe it should be dated as there are time limits for copyright to apply.
Well done! The most idiotic copyright comment on this thread yet! Copyright subsists for 70 years after the death of the photographer. As you may have guessed, I'm still alive.
> Looking at the source code for the web page shows a copyright date of 2000 to 2016. So the question on this page is what is from 2000 and what is from 2016, or somewhere between.
See above. It's for information and has no legal significance. Some of the html text goes back to 2000 and all of the rest of the text, graphics and images are covered by the 70 year rule.
> All part of the delaying tactic that makes his attempt to extract money a litle bit more difficult.
That's the idea. Act like a spoilt kid caught stealing sweeties instead of like an adult who respects the law and other people. Did you know that Scottish Courts allow an interest rate of 8% per annum to be applied to sums claimed? Plus added expenses for deliberate time-wasting.
... Where to find a competent IP lawyer? Sorry, I can't help you with that one.
Giblets
Well-known member
I know that this might sound a bit daft but how does one actually prove that you took or produced the image and therefore own the copyright? I understand that EXIF data may be embedded in the metadata but not all cameras produce this information to the nth degree
- Status