Ms Hanson has agreed to put up a public apology on her website, http://maddmill.com/, and I’ve accepted her apology.
For me that resolves this dispute.
Thank you, Ms Hanson.
From A Different Angle
Search the blog
Recent Posts
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
Nice one Arno, it is clear that Bas has no real understanding about how it works but that’s okay. Maybe we can pop over to his house and grab a tv or two and maybe someone will buy him a new.
Bas knows how it works, he’s a friend of mine and an artist himself (videographer), but he chooses to direct his energy to his work instead of pursuing cases like this.
Everyone sets their own priorities.
Arno-
Good for you for calling this girl out on her misdeeds. Hopefully one day she will realize the error of her ways. You always seem to find your photos and I know there is a way to look for them on the web. Can you tell me how you do it?
Thanks,
Myrtie
Myrtie, I’m using Google Revers Image search and Tineye Reverse Image search. Both are available as a plugin to the most common browsers. You can simply right-click on an image (if that option is not disabled or if the image is not disguised by a transparent layer), select either one of the two plugins (or use both subsequently) and the results will open in a new browser window/tab. I’ve noticed that generally Google Image Search renders more and better results than Tineye.
(how are you doing, by the way??)
Arno,
Sometimes life is full of garbage and people like this have no conscious or soul and I believe as she passes through the phase of the living, “What goes down, comes around!” Bottom line is, you have publicly nailed her as a thief and mindless bitch. She may look Chick but garbage has a smell all it’s own.
Arno, I respect you as an Artist/Photographer and trust you will prevail in your work as such. This thief will go down a hard road one day and become a hollow human piece of crap and she will never attain the title of artist, well maybe the title of “Scam-artist, will fit!” No need to be hard on her, she will hang herself by her own rope one day…
Best Regards,
The PhotogDog
Ok, she is stealing your stuff and she isn’t honest about it, but do you really think the effort you put in to this was worth your time? Let people use your images, let other people ask who is responsible and go get new clients. Bitching about copyright infringement over only 1 image isn’t getting you new business right?
Bas, I’ve had these cases at hand before, and yes, they CAN turn out in payment. Good payment, too. But this unfortunately didn’t.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, if it’s just a personal blog I’m fine with just a credit line. But this was a whole different case.
Bas,
I believe you are missing the point but have a valid opinion. Thieves need to be called out and I believe Arno did a very good job of that. As for it being a waste of his time, that is for Arno to make that call, I think, and I respect his position. Just maybe, by his effort this thief may rethink her direction and make a change or two in her life, for the better! Also, maybe others knowing her and that she did this will also bring pressure to bear…
Anyway Bas, Arno did the right thing, in my opinion and did it very well!
“BZ” Arno
R/ The PhotogDog
Sigh! Will share your story.
Re: Posting email on a public forum.
Copyright protection originating in the U.S. Constitution and elucidated in the Copyright Act of 1976 under Title 17, chapter 5 of the United States Code states that emails are subject to copyright protection, falling under the category of literary works and carrying the exclusive rights enumerated in the above.
The maximum legal liability in the United States for actual and statutory damages is $150,000 per infringement.
Since “innocent” infringement is nothing but lies and excuses heard before, should I assume the posting of these emails is willful?
Ms Hanson, do you want to settle this in a friendly way?
Then I suggest you publicly apologize for infringing on my copyright.
You can pay me $150,000 for infringing on my copyright, and I can pay you $150,000 for those emails that miraculously (I have no idea how), appeared on my blog.
But then you still owe me the fee for the use of my image on your website for almost a year.
Please provide me with the address where I send my invoice.
Thank you.
🙂
I am so sincerely sorry for infringing on your copyright.
I’m sure it is so frustrating. Honestly, most of us out here non-photographer land are much more unaware than you think. Another blog I am on we cannot post any photos anytime as jokes or cute photos we like as the owner just had to pay for one being posted. The best you could say about us is that we are clueless.
Since tucked away in the replies thread of this blog (with about 40 visitors a day) doesn’t really mean “public” to me, if you put that up on the front page of your own website for the coming week, do mention my name in the apology, then I will edit these two posts (I will leave the comments thread) and say that you apologized, that I accepted your apology and we part as “friends”.
This doesn’t change anything about my opinion that you -as an artist- have no right to hide behind “most of us out here non-photographer land are much more unaware than you think”.
But I’ll look past that.
How does that sound?
Absolutely.
I recognize this isn’t the point but as far as I know there have been 3 viewers of website – you, me and DT – 4 if your lawyer viewed it.
That is indeed beside the point. I have access to statistics that you don’t see. The comments aren’t representable to the amount of visitors this site gets. But alas.
Do mention my name in your apology and we’re all good.
Not yet, counsel still working on posting screenshot of my daughter to your blog.
All images that I “used” here were available in public domain, visible and accessible to EVERYone, and I credited the sources, never claiming any of them to be mine, nor deleting any possible present watermarks. I’m quite positive your counsel will confirm that I did not do anything legally wrong for the use in an educational, editorial environment.
But let me know.
I will be ready to accept your apology.
I have posted your apology. Please remove all my copyright protected emails from your site.
I posted apology on my website. Please remove my copyright protected emails from your site.
Ms Hanson, would you please provide the URL, because the URLs I have tried come up with the following message:
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache Server at lynnhanson.me Port 80
The charge is Defamation Per Se, Invasion of Privacy
From counsel with regard to the screenshot of my daughter’s Facebook page posted the international site fromadifferentangle.net:
“The precedent to cite is the reasonable expectation of privacy . While the courts initially often found to the opposite, the proliferation of cases concerning information that a person intended to be viewed by a small scale audience then being posted without permission to a large scale audience is now usually found in favor of the person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, despite being a public website, no one can extend the reach of the intended audience by posting, screenshots included, to a wider audience than initially intended.”