Post a photograph taken by one of the major news services you found on the Internet and see what happens. (Please don’t do it here.)
And all it took was a teeny tiny bit of chum to get a bite. Imagine that. First, let’s add a little context here, shall we? What’s worse: someone making a threat to take legal action if a stolen image INTENTIONALLY used in a wholly unacceptable manner was not removed two pages later, or oh, I don’t know, perhaps someone who actually tried to have the forum shut down over another member INNOCENTLY using his intellectual property on the site? Any reasonably objective person capable of even a modest level of intellectual honesty would certainly agree the latter is much more egregious, right? Fortunately, we just happen to have an example of both! Since we’re all familiar with Kurt’s, let’s have a look-see here... https://www.cointalk.com/threads/another-website-tried-to-legally-take-cointalk-out-today.224737/ Note the title and at least be sure to read Peter’s OP. Pretty nasty and wholly uncalled for stuff, especially coming from a guy who was then a brand new member and surely could have requested it be removed, right? Certainly this guy, of all people, wouldn’t remain a member here under any circumstance and regardless of how often he participates, particularly considering the rules we’re all supposed to believe are both sacrosanct and always applied equally as if by the hand of deity, right? I mean, just look at how many in this very thread have expressed their personal belief that banning after such a threat is an appropriate response. Well, gosh darn golly gee, Wally. Whaddya know.... https://www.cointalk.com/members/james-bucki.45941/ Make whatever excuses you see fit, but this is yet another example of selective enforcement. It’s also not the first time this but has been mentioned. Perhaps what’s most sad about the entire thing isn’t just that this is the reality; it’s the fact that certain individuals endlessly try to convince us its a figment of the imagination instead of simply acknowledging the fact they too suffer from the human condition. They can point the finger at the biases of others, yet when it comes to their own it’s simply dismissed. Let the mix of deflection and projection begin....
This is a forum to discuss a hobby. You sure seem to want to expend a lot of energy over complaining about how things work here. Don't you have something better to do? I know I do. See ya...
What he's telling you is true, friend. And all copyright is statutory. If you've got a problem, consult the Copyright Act. If you don't understand the Act, and it's worth anything to you, consult an intellectual property lawyer.
Hmm this looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck. I think that the Bellman event looks just like the @James-bucki story that @BooksB4Coins has dug up here what’s the difference? Not much except Bellman is out spoken and the mods don’t care for him? Quack quack. Reed BTW James Bucki is still a member, user #2092. Go figure? Quack
They're trying to say that Kurt had a long history of infractions, and that this was just the straw that broke the camels back, and that very well may be, idk. It's also possible that someone here that Kurt regularly sparred with set up a fake noob profile from behind a proxy, possibly with the knowledge and/or help of a mod, to deliberately antagonize Kurt.
Oh, geez. Conspiracy theories now? "...with the knowledge and/or help of a mod..." Was V. Kurt that much of pain in the backside that such nefarious work had to be undertaken? I don't believe it for a second, and think I'll go back to threads dealing with coins and currency. This one has been beat to death. Steve
Apparently you don’t considering the fact you still took the time to respond and complain. Pot, meet kettle.
Christian, did he pull the trigger? You seem to be implying he did. If that's where this stands, he's going to beat you, as he was right in that you should have sided with him and taken that avatar down. I see it's down, now. If he didn't start anything, I'd contact him, apoligize, ask for his understanding, and offer to let him back. Chalk it all up to, you didn't have a clue. It happens. FWIW...
Here is the way I look at it, V.K.B liked to cross the line. Remember the Kid that always pushed the envelope? And please I am not trying to say that he was young at heart or even that he acted like a child, Kurt liked to constantly work that line and cross it, just to see if he would get caught. He got away with many of things that crossed the line, the times our mods, decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. And during that time he decided to pick at just about every mod for hitting him with points when he didn't get away with it. How many times do you let a grown adult get away with breaking the rules. When do you stop telling someone the same rule over and over. And actually take an action? Rules are the Law and how can you keep rules if you don't enforce them? We have zero knowledge of what is spoke behind closed doors, but, I could expect that if we knew? This would be a mute conversation.
So I decided to cut to the chase and run this issue past a couple of attorneys I know. Here’s the scenario I gave them: I post a photo of something I own (my coins, my car, my watch, whatever), or a photo of my dog, or a photo from my vacation in Jamaica, on a forum. That photo finds its way onto the servers of an image aggregator like Google (they almost always do). Six months later Joe Blow does a search, sees my photo, appropriates it, and then posts it on another forum, or FaceBook, or Twitter. Can I sue him for copyright infringement? One attorney responded with this: “Every judge I know would consider that to be frivolous.” The other said: “Your thinking is correct. It would be a waste of time to pursue a case like this. A good lawsuit requires liability, damages, and a deep pocket to pay the damages. If any of those three elements are missing, the case is not worth pursuing.” It doesn’t matter what’s in the legal code. What matters are how issues like this are handled in the real world of the judicial system. Now, if Joe Blow had borrowed my photo and used it in a money-making endeavor, that’s a different matter. The prosecution rests.
Whether or not it is worth pursuing in court is irrelevant to the actual statutes. Most of what you said earlier was simply incorrect in relation to the law.
