I have just been Alan Mackie'd

[Even Chance]

What a bawbag.

If you want to use any of my aerials, feel free, but its only the North Highlands really so far....

https://www.facebook.com/#!/highlandaerialviews/

 

[dylanwinter]

What a bawbag.

If you want to use any of my aerials, feel free, but its only the North Highlands really so far....

https://www.facebook.com/#!/highlandaerialviews/

brilliant - new word

as an old hack I love new words

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bawbag

thanks for the offer

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

this Mr Mackie fella is a low life of the most extreme sort

a predatory benefits cheat.

Your word seems most apposite

D

 

[Lucy52]

Doxing an individual may not be allowed due to some privacy rules no matter how odious they might appear to be but would that same protection extend to a company?

 

[prv]

Doxing an individual may not be allowed due to some privacy rules no matter how odious they might appear to be but would that same protection extend to a company?

It's kind of irrelevant when the information in question is required by law (Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008) to be published on the company's website, and doubly so when it's already published in a global database that's existed for that precise purpose since the 1980s

Pete

 

[RichardS]

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

Especially since I put this issue to bed in post #23 but everyone seems to have me on ignore.

Richard

 

[Bru]

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

but I think b trumps a, c and d

Dylan used a photo directly of Mackie's website, not off a third party site

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

However, given that he's clearly in the business of making money by taking people to court for IP infringment damages, I suspect he'll pursue it claiming that the blog is part of the wider KTL brand and that KTL is a profit making business*. He'll sue for his (rather excessive?) £450 at least and then it will be up to the defence to argue the amount down (there's ample case law for reducing the damages based on the fact that you wouldn't have purchased the image, arguably did not profit from the IP infringement etc.).

The trouble is that you're then embroiled in a legal case through the courts with all the costs that will entail. Could add up to well into four figures. I'm afraid that if he makes a claim you're best option is to settle out of court

* Ad it doesnt have to be a profitable business for damages to be claimed but it will affect the amount the courts award

 

[PeteCooper]

I am baking a cake containing a file even as I type - we'll get you out Dylan!

 

[dylanwinter]

but I think b trumps a, c and d

Dylan used a photo directly of Mackie's website, not off a third party site

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

However, given that he's clearly in the business of making money by taking people to court for IP infringment damages, I suspect he'll pursue it claiming that the blog is part of the wider KTL brand and that KTL is a profit making business*. He'll sue for his (rather excessive?) £450 at least and then it will be up to the defence to argue the amount down (there's ample case law for reducing the damages based on the fact that you wouldn't have purchased the image, arguably did not profit from the IP infringement etc.).

The trouble is that you're then embroiled in a legal case through the courts with all the costs that will entail. Could add up to well into four figures. I'm afraid that if he makes a claim you're best option is to settle out of court

* Ad it doesnt have to be a profitable business for damages to be claimed but it will affect the amount the courts award

thanks for you suggestions

Poecheng is a lawyer and is up for a fight

he has told me to send the demand for money under menaces to him and he will deal with it pro bono

while it is great to have the input from a marine electrical engineer with a wide experience of the world

I shall do as my highly qualified lawyer suggests. Apparently any legal procedings will take place near to where I live - he will have to come down to Ipswich to get me.

D

 

[prv]

but I think b trumps a, c and d

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.

Pete

 

[doug748]

I shall do as my highly qualified lawyer suggests. Apparently any legal procedings will take place near to where I live - he will have to come down to Ipswich to get me.
D

Perhaps you could offer to put him up for the night.

I have followed this thread with interest. It is hard to know who to follow in subjective matters but with questions of fact, or law, things should be easier. Even so the advice has veered between:

....He has you bang to rights, pay up. If push comes to shove, the case will be heard in Scotland, or:

....he does not have a prayer, you have done the right things, any case will be brought to your doorstep.

Glad you have found someone you can trust to have a genuine grip on things. Apart from that you don't seem to be having a great week. Keep buggering on as Churchill used to say.

 

[dylanwinter]

Perhaps you could offer to put him up for the night.

I have followed this thread with interest. It is hard to know who to follow in subjective matters but with questions of fact, or law, things should be easier. Even so the advice has veered between:

....He has you bang to rights, pay up. If push comes to shove, the case will be heard in Scotland, or:

....he does not have a prayer, you have done the right things, any case will be brought to your doorstep.

Glad you have found someone you can trust to have a genuine grip on things. Apart from that you don't seem to be having a great week. Keep buggering on as Churchill used to say.

been a great week

sure I lost a heel but no-one was harmed, the shebang was back on the road within three hours and we delivered the boat

I have been threatened by a not very nice man and a very nice man has offered to help me

the sun is shining and next week I am moving to within half a mile of the sea

so.... it has been a good week

yours

cheery Dyl

 

[Mister E]

How about if we all counter claim against him while he is in the clink.

What is the name of his web site again?

 

[sarabande]

brilliant - new word

as an old hack I love new words

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bawbag

thanks for the offer

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

this Mr Mackie fella is a low life of the most extreme sort

a predatory benefits cheat.

Your word seems most apposite

D

Dylan

it is not as if you are a naive scribbler of simple sailing blogs. You are a professional writer.

Your own philosophy seems to embrace the idea that copyright of your images is a free for all area, and you have by accident used a pic from a site of someone who also earns money from journalism and pictures but who believes firmly in the law of copyright. You did the right thing taking down the pic, but you are showing a rather gritty and tendentious trait of personality in hounding Mackie by publishing in full details of his conviction, as part of retaliating against him.

Mackie has done time, that is public record; you are not being either kind or generous in picking scabs to score points. Stick to writing gentle and evocative words about sailing places, which you do so well.


And for Mister E. Look at the date of Mackie's trial before compounding any further internet hounding on this forum.

 

[dylanwinter]

Dylan

it is not as if you are a naive scribbler of simple sailing blogs. You are a professional writer.

Your own philosophy seems to embrace the idea that copyright of your images is a free for all area, and you have by accident used a pic from a site of someone who also earns money from journalism and pictures but who believes firmly in the law of copyright. You did the right thing taking down the pic, but you are showing a rather gritty and tendentious trait of personality in hounding Mackie by publishing in full details of his conviction, as part of retaliating against him.

Mackie has done time, that is public record; you are not being either kind or generous in picking scabs to score points. Stick to writing gentle and evocative words about sailing places, which you do so well.


And for Mister E. Look at the date of Mackie's trial before compounding any further internet hounding on this forum.

he makes money from scaring small people with official looking registered letters

to suggest that this is journalism is bonkers



D

 

[Mister E]

This bloke has made money out of hounding others so to suggest a dose of his own treatment seems fair to me.

Unless somebody thinks his actions are worthy of some sort of support, I can not see and objection to sending him a letter wanting money for harm that he has caused.

 

[dylanwinter]

This bloke has made money out of hounding others so to suggest a dose of his own treatment seems fair to me.

Unless somebody thinks his actions are worthy of some sort of support, I can not see and objection to sending him a letter wanting money for harm that he has caused.

this from his website

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

D

 

[Giblets]

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.

 

[sarabande]

he makes money from scaring small people with official looking registered letters

to suggest that this is journalism is bonkers

D

You are being wilfully specious and casuistic. I did not suggest that his pursuit of people for (sometimes) innocent use of his pictures is journalism, and you know that.


You sell words and pictures; he sells pictures. You are both journalists.

 

[dylanwinter]

You are being wilfully specious and casuistic. I did not suggest that his pursuit of people for (sometimes) innocent use of his pictures is journalism, and you know that.


You sell words and pictures; he sells pictures. You are both journalists.

I sincerely apologise to you for anything I have done wrong in the past.

 

[Mister E]

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.