New York City is for sellouts

As it is, I now *strongly* wonder if he tries this same sort of tactic every time for every potential link he's gotten.

http://www.deansabatino.com/images/portfolio/portfolio_richard.gif

But no, you guys can't take a hint. You've collectively downloaded that big ass file more than 1200 times since August. at a toal bandwidth utilization of about 3.3GB. My site generally pushes about 4 or 5gb+ a day... That's why it's colocated. Regardles of your bandwidth consumption (which would have been significantly lower if you had got the little 640x480 image you were requesting), you are not entitled and have not been granted permission to use my images or bandwidth... Yes, it really is the principle of the matter.

Then when I started looking around and saw how casually and OFTEN you guys steal images, I couldn't believe my eyes! And then there was this "fuck you" attitude of "it's our right to take from you whatever we want" that just amazed me!

So check this shit out... I know you all think I'm whacked outta my gourd... Even if I am whacked outta my gourd, What I'm saying about copyright and usage is real. So here's the real deal:

if you are interested in understanding copyright laws/issues:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

pay special attention to the section on inlining in this link:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html

It really is a good idea for your guys to responsibly address this issue. Add a link to the front page of the site that says "click here to protest the use of your content" or some such thing. And then nicely remove any protested content. Instead of inlining images, post links to html pages so the owner, creator, person doing the work, gets credit. Ask permission if you want to use an image. Probably 98% of the time, the owner will say, fine. I've only turned down one request for using one of my images, and that guy was a stock broker! Grow up be responsible, put money in a savings account, use condoms when bumping uglies, Don't run with scissors in your hand, don't play leapfrog with unicorns. stop and smell the kine buds... Live love and prosper...

Just don't steal my fucking shit! ;\

fitter, better, happier....etc

and to quote A Fistful of Yen, "Visit a dairy, and learn how milk is made!"

Your objections/position/suggestions have been noted.

This is also regardless of it happening on thousands of other web forums, its wrong there also i would say. Though this does raise the following issue. if the boardowner is to be held responsible for this, does that mean that i, if i so wish, could i post a million of steves pictures to a board i didnt like, in order to get them into trouble? (i dont wish to do this, but it interests me how much responsibility the siteowners must take (of course yahoo ran into a similar problem with their groups thing)

also, i think the majority of the pictures here (not on this thread, which i havent seen until now, but on the board in general) are actually taken from members own sites (there are a lot of people on this board, a tiny minority of which are on this thread).

http://www.shooter.net/folsom%20street%20fair%202003/source/17.html

i've found alt-stevem's lecturing on copyright and ownership dull, familiar, predicatble and patronising as i suspect we all have. as if we were not aware of the 'rules' when posting images on here (stealing/sharing copyright material)...does he not realise many people just don't care about that even though they're aware of the law. okay so the issue is settled now and the complaint was only made on a matter of (petty imo) principle but i hope i at least clarified my position, however wrong you may deem it to be - though i reserve my right to change my mind obv. - maybe this should've been a new thread already.

He said it.

Regarding your perspective on using/modifying/etc other people work. I see no problem with that. But by your own definition, when you guys link to my images in such a way that my site is never visible to the end user, you are clearly using my work whether small or large effort, and giving me absolutely no credit for it. Trust me, I do a bit of perl coding. cpan.org is my friend. I don't believe in creating any script from scratch. But when I use a module or script that someone else has written, I take the time to drop them an email and say thank you... No, I am not an angel. I've reached a point in my life where it's easier and less worries to pay for my sattelite channels rather than get a decoder. I pay for shareware that I use, and when I needed office for my mac, I convinced my boss to buy it for me. As I've gotten older, pushing 40 now, I have become much more aware that people who create things are not adequately rewarded. I have a bunch of mp3's believe it or not, if there is something I download hat I like and will listen to more than once or twice, I usually buy the CD... Although I'll likely buy it used on Amazon, so really the artists and the record company don't get shit.

I think the biggest thing that I disagree with you on is your attitude when confronted about using someone elses stuff. If you get caught. be responsive. if the owner wants you to stop, then stop. If you feel it at all, apologize...

and finally, is it really so burdensome to ask for permission before using something, or posting a link instead of an inline pull? Is it that hard to be sure that the person whose work you are using gets credit for the work?

I'm assuming the original link from this board was for a photo of SF. if Ally had emailed and said that you guys were having a dick comparison sessions between several large cities, and did I have any images to offer, I would have been happy to come up with a half a dozen really nice shots of SF. I would have felt good about it. Ally would have had photos... It all would have been cool. But that's not how it worked...

fwiw... If you follow politics.. The Republicans released a photo about a week ago of John Kerry sitting a couple of rows behind Jane Fonda (aka to vets as Hanoi Jane) at an anti war rally in the 70s. The effort was to link him to her radicalism. Only problem was that they never even met at that rally, and it was two years before Jane Fonda went to Viet Nam. The photo was taken 30 years ago. That photographer, because he has partnered with Corbis is making money on that image today. Corbis will chase down anyone who attempts to use that photo without the correct permissions.Because of copyright laws, and his ability to enforce or have them enforced, the photographer is making money on an image that he probably never made much money on before now.

Lot of dick swinging in this thread.

I think Mike's and my assumption upthread a bit just got proved.

Astounded a the amount of copyright violation happening/condoned on this thread, pissed off because of the 'tude here and the casual way you steal from me and others, and entertained while confounding you all... It's been a full fun filled day.

One point that I wanted to make is this: You (the generic you) may think that you can flaunt copyright law and use a persons images/content any way you want with impunity. On one level you are right, you are probably a punk kid with no assets worth chasing down. However the community in which you operate, meaning the provider that hosts thisserver, and other businesses are vulnerable, and a company like cnn or Disney will pursue them if someone makes enough noise. Wouldn't you feel real stupid if your provider pulled the plug on this board for violating their acceptable use policy after a nasty letter from Disney's copyright enforcement office? It's not beyond the realm of possibilities. It may not be quite the right page, but this link should give you an idea of the kind of legaleze your are up against... http://www.keypoint.com.au/agreement.html

You (the generic you and the community inclusive you) are vulnerable and accountable for your actions online. Period.

Now you're just going out of your way to be an obnoxious sockfucker.

and entertained while confounding you all...

You do realise how ridiculous and pompous this sounds, right?

You spend your off-hours playing RPG games, don't you?

For the record, almost the entirety of my posts and I'm pretty sure most of JBR's posts (being as we have the most amount of pic posts on this thread) are our own fucking photos off our own fucking webpages, you obnoxious cockfarmer. Jesus Christ, get over yourself. Your fucking image was deleted and, quite frankly, no one in the entire world would've been nasty to you if you hadn't come in and acted like an jackoff ramming a bee stick up his ass from the get go. You couldn't even see the words "Moderation Request" on the bottom of the page and you rush in and lose your mind on the reading skills of people who, quite honestly, didn't go to your page to begin with. Whoops, sorry.

On the upside, I was afraid you were a NYer. But you aren't! So no blight on us. I was afraid you were taking a careful stance to prove Nick right about us.

It is precisely this attitude of entitlement and open flouting of legal and ethical behavior that I find so offensive. The hypocritical element is just frosting on your cake of moral turpitude.

Mr. Steve on the law, part 2:

stop and smell the kine buds

I do photography too, and I put it online. I agree, credit should be respected, but why would I complain if my pics appeared elsewhere - its good exposure. "But no one knows theyre mine!" you might say.

Well, thats why I'd be smart and put a clear copyright watermark with my name etc ON EVERY PHOTO ON MY SITE. There, your getting credit problem is solved, and if you dont mind about bandwidth, what other issue is there?

Sure being asked is nice but were it me, I'd be pleased to see my pics with my name on them all over the web personally.