Re: Copyright Question


"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gjrhms$tr1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D.Mac wrote:

Anyone who thinks they can steal copyright images and use thenm to poke
fun at the owner really ought to read up a little more.
http://www.copyright.org.au.

There's a lot there; could you please direct us to something precise and
cogent to what might apply here?

Also, Doug, what have come of your previous efforts to punish folk whom
you believe deserve it?

--
john mcwilliams
---------------------------------------
Basically John, you can't claim any exemption clause in the copyright act if
you use someone elses Interlectual Property to insult or menace them. Jeff
Ralph altered my header image by pasting a copy of someone else's IP
(Peanuts cartoon character) into it and altering the typeface I used, in an
derogatory and degrading way to insult me.

I didn't actually have a problem with his theft until the other troll picked
up on it and both began using it to taunt me. In the matter of civil action
for defamation, both of thes swine know full well how to hang up a lawyer
and run my legal bill into the stratosphere.

It looks like being a very expensive process to halt Jeff Ralph and Mark
Thomas. Partly due to their ISP refusing to provide identity information
without a court order and partly because neither of them appear to have any
assets I can access if I were to sue for defamation. Not to mention their
probable mischievious use of court proceedures to run me out of money.

My advise just before I left on an overseas holiday was that a restraining
order to prevent them continuing is probably the most effective method to
stop them. Given the issue crosses state boarders and a few other legal
considerations, I'll be looking at more money than I had at the time I began
the threat of action. That is not the case now.

"Previous efforts"
Bret Douglas - eventually by mutual agreement
Cost to me: $800 for a failed attempt to serve him papers using local
Sheriff.

Paul Furman - Forced removal of my images by his site host under threat of
DMCA action. Cost to me $2800 AUD for New Your Lawyers after he moved the
images and I had a second lot of costs plus private investigators to
determine his assets.

AOL - Forced closure of offending site (Bret Douglas'): Cost to me $350 by
same lawyer.

pBase written apology by them and forced removal of my images under threat
of DMCA action from numerous sites set up by an unknown individual or
individuals. Their servers are now monitored for key words associated with
me and my several businesses.

Google.- Removal of links under threat of DMCA action. Cost to me $900 by
New York law firm. The bastards are in need of a new BMW!

Yahoo.- Removal of links and flickr sites under threat of DMCA action. By
now I've learnt to file correctly composed DMCA papers myself. Only cost my
time.

Mark Thomas - Court Action authorised October 2008. Optus (his ISP) are
about to be served with a writ for his true identity.

Jeff Ralph - Apparently not residing at the address listed for the owner of
Mendosus.com or he lied to the process server. Optus are about to get a writ
for this one too. Followed by a restraining order against the prick and a
take down notice to his site host.

I've spent over $11,000 protecting my Intellectual Property rights since
2004. The cost is insignificant compared to the value of not having mongrels
I've never met, who've never see the work they defame and I've never done
business with and never likely to outside a courtroom ...shown they can't go
around stealing from business owners and get away with it.

What you learn along the way is that since the Internet invaded our lives, a
bunch of idiots who were probably thieves and despots in the first place
have found you can defame someone and in some instances, send their business
broke whilst hiding their identity.

In the past, publisher were the ones to look out for. The one consoling part
about them, is they usually had the money to settle defamation actions. The
swine doing it from behind an anonymous filter are probably worthless
individuals but have the same power to affect a business as a publisher
does.

For me, it's meant setting up a fund solely to protect my rights. I'd rather
spend it in a new car or a cruise, even give it to a worthy charity but
instead, the very few (like less than 0.002%) of Internet users who think
the only time they do anything is illegal is when they get caught, have the
power to disrupt legitimate business people and cause harm to innocent
people.

Douglas


.

Loading