New York City is for sellouts

Also, if there is any whiff of abuse or slander on the part of someone puroprting to be considering legal action, it doesn't look very good for the complainant. It could, in fact, be seen as extortion based on certain precedents.

-- Allyzay (notthatyanceydoesntdeservei...), February 18th, 2004 1:49 AM. (later)

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY IT NEEDS TO STAY UP!

You (and the others) just don't get it. That's what pisses me off. You say, 'Linking to images on remote servers is one of the ways that the web "works." it's built into the spec. it's NOT illegal and it's NOT "thievery," no matter how much you would like it to be.'

When there is a specific notice, specific language forbidding linking to images on my site, and cleary requiring my permission before using any of my images, it IS wrong to do so, and it is a copyright violation. Copyright violations are "intellectual property theft". I'm not just blowing smoke, it's true.

'if you tell us who the photographer is we'll credit him or her'

Please pluck a clue off the tree. simply giving a photo credit doesn't relieve you of responsibility to ask PERMISSION before using someone elses property. My images, yes I'm the photographer, are my property. You couldn't take my car and then defend yourself against car theft charges by saying, "well, I put a sign on the car door saying it belonged to Stevem" Taking without permission is theft.

'but if you want the image gone from this thread, please just edit your .htaccess file! damn!!'

No. Simply ask permission before using someone elses work. It's really not that hard. If Ally would have dropped me an email and asked to use the image, my standard response is, sure, go ahead. But that didn't happen. It's not my responsibility to prevent you from breaking the law. It is your responsiblity to obey the law.

Since you guys have finally removed the offending link, I"ll be leaving you all alone to your own little game. However, I hope that this ugly episode will at least make you think about asking for permission before helping yourself to the work and bandwidth of others.. And gawd, if someone complains about copyright/bandwidth issues, be nice. remedy the situation and apologize...

Oh, one last thing, when you do a google image search, pay attention to the line that says, "This image may be subject to copyright."

Cheers!

Stevem

http://community.webshots.com/html/violation.htm

Yup, it's that simple, post the link. Now I could have cut and pasted the content from that page right here in this little text window, but that would have been a no-no.

By the way, any admins paying attention to this thread. It would demonstate a modicum of due dilligence if you were to have a readily available link to your policy regarding complaints of copyright violation. A somewhat murky "moderation request" will likely not provide you with anywhere near the protection (and ease of use for victims) that the above reference link would provide to you... Just a thought, and a demonstration of how to be a good Netizen...

Ciao!

Stevem

No. Simply ask permission before using someone elses work. It's really not that hard. If Ally would have dropped me an email and asked to use the image, my standard response is, sure, go ahead. But that didn't happen. It's not my responsibility to prevent you from breaking the law. It is your responsiblity to obey the law.

This is like, say, owning a nice home with lots of nice things in a sketchy neighborhood, but refusing to lock the doors because you think people should know better than to steal things because, after all, stealing is obviously wrong. Once you've been relieved of your car, VCR and jewelery, sure, the theft is the robber's fault, no question. But you'll still look pretty silly -- perverse, even -- for not locking your damned doors.

http://bs20002.tripod.com/006.jpg

You still haven't apologized for stealing stevem's name.

PORTENTS PEOPLE! PORTENTS! ICH BIN EIN DOPPELGANGER

http://www.jagweb.com/jaguarmodelclub/TVjags/Quadrophenia-1.jpg

http://unit.bjork.com/77island/77island/images/alarmcall61big.jpg

hahaha... the evil Stevem walked into the ILX bees nest!

The other problem is that it's easier to configure your site so that people can't link images from it than it is to yell at people who link images from your site.

http://news.com.com/2100-1025-1023629.html

We're not really profiting from posting Mr. Evil Stevem's pictures though, so I think we're more likely to fall under fair use.

No worries, Allyl. Somethingawful.com, UNLIKE THE ABOVE STEVEM, knows the way of the .htaccess issue, and has a very clever way of dealing with it.

They just replace external image links to a link to a huge pic of a swollen cumming cock-head. Thee best way to teach a lesson, and come out look K-COOL (if not K-CRUEL)

Just ask Chris V.

"And take your sucky Jr. High photogirl pictures with you you skinny white Ho."

Isn't the problem here that he pays for bandwidth, so if we use his bandwidth then it's costing him money? Or do I misunderstand?

Yeah, but I use his bandwidth by looking at the picture in its original setting too. Much more of it, in fact.

http://www.wasteoftechnology.com/motw/williamatherton/peck.jpg

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/peck.jpg

ilx in a nutshell

Actually he stated numerous times that he didn't give a shit about that so honestly I'm not 100% sure what his issue is besides people seeing his picture without him getting a counter hit on his website. I'd understand more if it was the bandwidth thing, though not really why he was dealing with it in such a fashion (the same shit happens to me all the time and I just don't even give a fuck to be honest, like as been pointed out it's really easy to fix if I cared about it).