I have just been Alan Mackie'd

Status
Not open for further replies.
Poecheng said:
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.
Click to expand...

Before I sued the electricty company I did read huge amounts of the electricity act and the company's terms and conditions, so I was fully prepapred. The result was more about satisfaction in being proved right than the compensation I received. I did fail to mention my brother, now retired, was a solicitor in a series of commercial businesses dealing with contracts. However I did not consult with him in this case.

I fully agree the training to be a solicitor is detailed and comprehensive. A lot of the law can be common sense and there is a standard procedure for a lot of situations that are simple. Complex problems do require involving a solcitor. The only case I have ever lost was a liable case against a national newspaper. My brother had recommended a solicitor specialising in liable actions. It hinged on a lower case "a" rather than a capital "A". So even specialist solicitors do not guarantee success.
 
JumbleDuck said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

Actually it is relevant when it comes to the courts deciding the amount of damages

Also relevant in that determination is whether the respondent would have paid a usage fee of they had not obtained the image in breach of copyright

(There is case law available online of relevance to this)
 
JumbleDuck said:
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.



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

s-l1600.jpg


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.



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.



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

Deep linked

it is, amazingly, the way the web works

however, he chases people like me and not people like time warner

kip%20low.jpg


he is betting that I will not be prepared to travel to scotland to defend myself from the £450 bill he wishes to impose on me

this, my friends, is a man who is a convicted benefits cheat


who uses the law as a way of threatening people to pay up for something that is widespread across the web - the thing is that he picks on the easy wins.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2010/10/26/honeypot-photographer-admits-benefit-fraud



what he is doing is threatening to drag me through the courts and is hoping that I will pay up to avoid the round trip to Ayr.


he is not a nice man - the business model of making money from ten year old snaps is a busted flush so he has turned to this new revenue stream which involves two page threatening letters sent through the post by registerd mail.

D
 
FWIW if small claims hasn't altered recently the case can be moved to a court convenient to both parties and you can ask for that, so might be not so easy for him to attend. (You could be in Mylor?) Then he would have to convince the arbitrator of his loss and your knowledge of this area will stand you in good stead, you may be able to make it clear you won't be a pushover before he insists on a hearing. Or, just ignore it, not like there is a contract between you and an unpaid invoice. I would suggest that the benefit fraud, although opprobrious, is irrelevant.
 
In re solicitors, self interest trumps legal correctness. When my neighbour's solicitor tried to convince me I didn't own a section of my property I suggested that the solicitor that conveyed it to me 20 years earlier might be in trouble, and guess who that is. Case dropped pronto.
 
fisherman said:
FWIW if small claims hasn't altered recently the case can be moved to a court convenient to both parties and you can ask for that, so might be not so easy for him to attend. (You could be in Mylor?) Then he would have to convince the arbitrator of his loss and your knowledge of this area will stand you in good stead, you may be able to make it clear you won't be a pushover before he insists on a hearing. Or, just ignore it, not like there is a contract between you and an unpaid invoice. I would suggest that the benefit fraud, although opprobrious, is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

the two are linked - certainly in the press reports that are all over the web

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald/20101026/281762740625171
 
or Anaphora.

I was referring to your #83, where you repeat the mud about his history. It is really does not help your case; stick to the facts and the law (and you have generous professional help from many people here), and stop attacking the man. Otherwise you are tarring yourself with the same brush.
 
If it could be shown that the web site was operating illegally and the past cases were flawed?
Could that hold the possibility that the others claimed from could get their money back?
 
doug748 said:
We have not paid but you have to be willing to go to court. My understanding is if you lose and still don't pay up, they can knock on your door and ask but little else. It's a debt they will get bored.
Click to expand...

That's most definitely not correct. If you lose the case and don't pay up you will indeed a receive a knock on your door and they will almost certainly gain entry one way or another and start to take goods, even though they cannot force entry. Even if you manage to keep them out, anything outside your home such as your car, will be taken. The longer you don't pay, the higher the eventual settlement costs will become. :(

Richard
 
RichardS said:
That's most definitely not correct. If you lose the case and don't pay up you will indeed a receive a knock on your door and they will almost certainly gain entry one way or another and start to take goods, even though they cannot force entry. Even if you manage to keep them out, anything outside your home such as your car, will be taken. The longer you don't pay, the higher the eventual settlement costs will become. :(

Richard
Click to expand...

if the court decides I have to pay then I would do just that.

men in stab vests with cameras on their top pockets and followed by a TV crew turning up at my door is not something I would be that happy about

- they might come and seize my Duck Punt - that would be a disaster on a magnificent scale

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMqAhk1PPc

Jolly good every blog is not followed by threats from men in Scotland
 
Last edited:
Dylan, I'm sure that you are aware, but just in case - Time Inc Terms of use:

User Obligations:
4.5 Anything that is placed onto the Forum must not infringe the intellectual property or other rights of any third party or breach any applicable laws.
Click to expand...
 
Paul_S123 said:
Dylan

Here is a study I found online that says hotlinking, which is what you did, is not copyright infringement:

Might help, might not.

http://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/2983/1/What is hotlinking and should photographers be worried about it.pdf
Click to expand...

thanks for that -

most interesting

If this bloke was really interesting in selling pictures then he would be taking simple steps to prevent his images being linked to

I am learning fast - not making any films.... but learning lots.

I am also learning about small claims courts in Scotland and their power to take action this side of the border.

I am hoping that the magistrates in Scotland are not happy about this bloke using them as a threat. I can see that if you are running a proper company then it would be easier to just send the man a cheque for £450 and have done with.

However for me £450 is three trips to the boat.

I have never been on the receiving end of court action so it will be interesting to see this thing through.

At least it will make a few mildly interesting blogs which may be of some help to those he pursues in the future.

D
 
I am (clearly) no expert, but I didn't think you could successfully sue without first notifying the other party that they infringed your copyright by using a cease and desist letter. Once the C&D letter has been sent and the other party has failed to react in a reasonable timescale such as 28 days, then it is reasonable to seek damages. Dylan took down the link immediately and so what there is no chance of a successful claim. Am I wrong?

Clearly this guy is taking a punt for the price of a small case courts form and a registered letter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top