Isn't "posting a poster" what a poster was originally intended for?
I am also curious how long (i.e. years) the actual copyrights are on movie posters?
It looks the NY Times is afraid of being sued too. Look at the picture they chose to use in the article - a picture of a TV set, playing the movie Titanic, showing the Picasso work “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.”
This copyright information is fascinating.
Does anyone know how this would pertain to someone who owns an original release poster, but then goes out and makes prints of this poster and offers them for sale? Do the same or similar laws apply here? We all know that businesses like Moviegoods sell 27x40 (and smaller sized) reproduction prints, and individual sellers on sites like ebay often offer 11x17 reproductions, as well.
cheers
For you UK/commonwealth people, read this article:
http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/stillimages/advice/copyright-and-digital-images/
Here's the critical portion of the article:
If the original item was in copyright at the time the photograph was taken, then the photograph is an infringement of copyright if permission was not granted. This may mean that you can own the copyright in the photograph but you can't do anything with the photograph because you are infringing the copyright of the original object. If you want to take a photograph of an object in copyright, then you should apply for permission, stating with absolute clarity what you want to do with the photograph. This means that if the copyright owner grants permission they will be giving 'informed consent'. If you leave the details ambiguous and you exploit the photograph, then the copyright owner can sue you. Thus it is in your interests to fully inform the copyright owner of all details.
So the law in the US and UK is the same for poster collectors:
(1) You have zero copyright protection in your images of your copyrighted posters;
(2) You violate copyright law by even taking a picture of a copyrighted poster; and,
(3) You violate copyright law by "watermarking" or otherwise claiming ownership interest in them.
Fortunately, in the US, "fair use" gives broad protection to use of images on copyrighted posters, so it's nothing to worry about if you're using the image on a non-profit hobby website, although it's still a good idea to credit the copyright owners. Crediting the "contributors" of such images is utterly pointless and, indeed, identifies them as potential copyright violators.
"Fair use" does not apply in UK and the much more limited defense of "fair dealing" probably does not apply to this hobby, so it's a good idea to host your site from US servers, so US law would apply.
*****
As far as MovieGoods, that's been covered extensively in another thread:
http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,4205.0.html
In short, the studios successfully sued MovieGoods. MovieGoods settled and in the settlement agreement agreed not to sell illegal reproductions. They can only sell posters if (1) they have a license from the studio or (2) the poster is a "first sale" original poster.
On another forum MovieGoods claimed that it does license its reproduction and the entire Fox lawsuit was an "honest mistake" but who knows if that's true:
http://www.movieposterdb.com/forum/topic/313
As the Imaging Director of MovieGoods, I would like to just state that we are sincerely apologetic to Disney and Fox for unknowingly reselling copyrighted images, as that was never and will never be our intention. In a business that rotates through as many posters in a year as we do, some posters got through that were mis-marked and ended up being printed, when in fact they were a Disney or Fox copyrighted image. We immediately paid the royalties that were due to these companies for these images. We have an agreement and license with Disney, Fox and several others to sell original posters that are provided by them and we are in great standing with all of these companies to date. All of our reproduced posters that we sale, we make sure we have the license to print and sale these items. The printing of the posters for Disney and Fox was a very unfortunate over-sight that has been corrected and will not happen again. In every business if the workflow is not being carefully monitored mistakes can happen, and this was a very unfortunate and embarrassing mistake to have to learn from.
We thank all of our customers for their business and we look forward to many more years of poster distribution.
Sincerely,
MovieGoods
Imaging Director
Didn't I say the same thing in my last reply?
Furthermore, the film maker is almost certianly liable for unpaid taxes and permits along with any subsequent fines should the state decide to go after him.
Another nice image lifted from Poster Mountain. How do you have access to their login only portion of their database for so many posters Mel or have you had that many restored over the years and they are yours? Just curious as I would love to see a lot of their larger sized images as well but also know that you have owned a small mountain of them over the years as well.
Well, Mike, the word "lifted" is legally inappropriate since this "graphic work" was created in the 1950s and fell into the public domain several decades ago. The artist (or artists) probably shuffled off this mortal coil long ago. We can reproduce this artwork, sell it on t-shirts, tattoo it on our chests, etc. As for how I obtained this particular digital reproduction, that's for me to know. Had you asked privately, I might have told you.
Mel that is one thing I love about you, you are a lawyer to the end.
Some of us mind, some don't, most do not have any need to use the law to excuse what we are showing or how they do it. By definition the artwork itself may very well be in the public domain but the usage of the photograph of said artwork is more recent and I believe protected under current copyright laws. Now you return with fare use, etc., etc., et al and the argument never ends. This I will not argue any more.
The point is just make mention of where you get these things. We all love to have knowledgeable people on the site to lend their expertise in whatever area it may be and wherever the source may be from. Don't be a lawyer and be human being, when you post photos from someone else especially those from professional businesses who do not take them for fun but take them as a part of their livelihood and pay for that time/labor to do so and hide that photo behind a password protected portion of their company owned website which makes that photo not public domain give due credit for the fact of where you got it from because if that is the case then it has indeed been lifted. If they gave you permission prior to your posting the photo and sent or gave direct access to you then I heartily apologize for the lifted comment. Same as research. I have no problem with you using any information that you may want from me here or on your own site but once in a while it would be nice to have the person passing it along give that person the credit they deserve as they spent the time and effort to research their facts rather than make it appear as though it is yours or just magically appeared out of thin air. When you know whom the source is show them the respect for their hard work. For images many people here make posts with images from HA all the time, others with images from PM, EMP and others. More often than not they give credit to the owner of the pic or information.
As to how you got your PM images, I more than likely know how. I also more than likely know how you got the large non watermarked images from HA. The fact that you can do it does not make it right. So again stop being a lawyer and be a human being and respect peoples hard work and effort by getting their permission first or at least acknowledging the source. I feel the same about others that do the same. That is my point here and the last thing I will say about this.
By contrast it takes two minutes to take a picture of a movie poster and post it on the Internet. That is not "hard work" by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the photographer is doing NOTHING original, creative, or noteworthy...
Mel that is one thing I love about you, you are a lawyer to the end.
Some of us mind, some don't, most do not have any need to use the law to excuse what we are showing or how they do it. By definition the artwork itself may very well be in the public domain but the usage of the photograph of said artwork is more recent and I believe protected under current copyright laws. Now you return with fare use, etc., etc., et al and the argument never ends. This I will not argue any more.
The point is just make mention of where you get these things. We all love to have knowledgeable people on the site to lend their expertise in whatever area it may be and wherever the source may be from. Don't be a lawyer and be human being, when you post photos from someone else especially those from professional businesses who do not take them for fun but take them as a part of their livelihood and pay for that time/labor to do so and hide that photo behind a password protected portion of their company owned website which makes that photo not public domain give due credit for the fact of where you got it from because if that is the case then it has indeed been lifted. If they gave you permission prior to your posting the photo and sent or gave direct access to you then I heartily apologize for the lifted comment. Same as research. I have no problem with you using any information that you may want from me here or on your own site but once in a while it would be nice to have the person passing it along give that person the credit they deserve as they spent the time and effort to research their facts rather than make it appear as though it is yours or just magically appeared out of thin air. When you know whom the source is show them the respect for their hard work. For images many people here make posts with images from HA all the time, others with images from PM, EMP and others. More often than not they give credit to the owner of the pic or information.
As to how you got your PM images, I more than likely know how. I also more than likely know how you got the large non watermarked images from HA. The fact that you can do it does not make it right. So again stop being a lawyer and be a human being and respect peoples hard work and effort by getting their permission first or at least acknowledging the source. I feel the same about others that do the same. That is my point here and the last thing I will say about this.
On the Clint Eastwood forum(on which I don't post anymore). Any photo taken from any source(apart from your own) must have a link to the source or if you can't post a link, acknowledgement of the source must be given.
That would be "fair use" Mike not "fare use." Not only have you misspelled it, you have no clue what it means. "Fair use" allows anyone to post an image of a copyrighted image for limited non-profit purposes. It does not apply to public domain works, which can be used by anyone for any purpose, including selling such works for profit, for example selling reprints.
Aside from legalities, you're focusing on "protecting" those who deserve no protection. Think about it. The studio (the copyright owner) spends hundreds of thousands of dollars developing an advertising campaign, including movie posters. The artist and/or advertising agency spends hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours actually creating the poster. The studio appropriately deserves copyright protection for a period of time for those posters. The artists/creative agency deserve artistic credit. Nevertheless, at a certain point those artistic works appropriately fall into the public domain and can be used by anyone for any purpose.
By contrast it takes two minutes to take a picture of a movie poster and post it on the Internet. That is not "hard work" by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the photographer is doing NOTHING original, creative, or noteworthy by taking a picture of SOMEONE ELSE'S CREATIVE WORK. To suggest that the photographer has any legal or protected right in such a picture is absurd. The US and UK courts have rejected such a frivolous argument. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.)
Should I remind you guys that this forum is ran by a frog? So really, typos?
Aside from that and the name calling, very informative discussion. Carry on.
T
Bond posters, I am posting this prior to reading your comment but thank you for your backup on this.
I admit I said I was done commenting on this but I feel the urge.
First of all, MY GOD, I HAD AN AUTO CORRECT TYPO!!!!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!! I MUST BE AN IDIOT!!!!!! I MUST NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!!!! For those of you who are horribly offended or injured by my typo or completely lost all idea of what was being stated or commented on due to said typo and could not draw your own conclusion that said typo was indeed a typo I extend my most heartfelt apology. Even if it wasn't a typo I don't remember ever claiming I was an English professor. Mel do you actually need to be that kind of an: insert your favorite expletive here? You truly are a prime example of why lawyers have the reputation they do here in the US. You actually I think have a real future not just as a lawyer but a politician too!
First, those images do take time to layout and take as Charlie mentioned. Expense is also spent to create the areas to take said pictures, labor is spent to pay the employees to layout and take said pictures, edit them for web use and post to their sites just for starters. More importantly though you seem to have missed the point and APPARENTLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND the real and point of this so here are two questions. First start with simple YES or NO answers please before you try and justify yourself if you don’t mind.
1. Did you or did you not access through means other than those intended by the website owners and or developers copy an image and or images from a password protected portion of a legal business or corporations website(s) without prior permission and re-post said images claiming FAIR use and or circumnavigate a websites efforts to display images with a watermark prominently displayed and added during the proper server call made at said site(s) through a URL exploit allowing the same said image(s) to be displayed in full without said intended watermark for the purpose of downloading and or redisplaying same said image(s)?
This actually is a crime and there is case law to back it up. Am I going to go nuts searching for it to quote it to you and try to make it sound even more important? No, don't have the time and apparently since you can't just stop being a lawyer and again be a human being you are not worth it. I make my living building websites, not half assed little baby sites but large corporate and business sites where these little security issues which is how I know where and how to get these images you use come from and how you circumnavigated security to get those images came from. Sorry, is that legal to do to under fare use? See how it is spelled again? Just for fun this time, sorry to those offended or mentally damaged by this intentional spelling error. It is also how I know that the business owners of these sites do have a case if they so chose to make it and a reasonable expectation of privacy because I have been through it with the copyright lawyers before to help make sure my clients are protected. They do not need to watermark an image that is held behind protected areas of their sites because of an implied and or apparent expectation of security and privacy in these cases. They also have a claim when said images are displayed through proper means with said watermark that the image will not be copied or redisplayed without said watermark even if an exploit known or unknown publicly allows the opportunity to download the image without the intended watermark. Yes there is room to play with culpability here depending on if the owners know about the exploit, length of time known, etc. But really? Is that needed? Because these exploits in the websites in question exists does not give you free range because you know a simple old school hack to get around code that was poorly written by their developer to get at those images? Would it be legal for me to use an exploit to hack into the obamacare website and just copy everyone’s personal information and use it at will? I do not expect that they, the image owners in these cases, will file suit and do not even know if they care or not though in some cases I think they just might.
2. Have you or have you not on this site and others including your own used the published research and information of others without crediting said sources?
Where do I even begin. First SCREW THE LAW, if you did the research especially if it is published in a book, magazine or website credit should be given out of simple human decency and respect for the time and effort made to do that research. Heck didn’t they teach you when doing research papers in school to quote your sources or did they leave that part out? If I were to directly quote information from your site and or use an image from your site and it was actually yours and you did the research then I feel 100% that I should as a human being acknowledge your time and effort to better this hobby with at least a simple comment “Hey guys I got this from ….. If I do not know the original source of the information that does make it difficult at times but at least I can say it came from this site especially when quoting it for education to allow the users to continue and or do their own research and form their own conclusions based on those sources. Do I care if once in a while it was forgotten to add the credit? Heck no, we are all human write. <--- see another misuse of similar words here but I bet those that have read this far got the meaning anyway. I know I have done it form time to time, I am again human, but I do try to do so at all times. But then again that is taking an image or research that is not hidden in a protected area of someone’s website. If it were in a protected area with these weird login things required to reach it through the intended paths then NO it should not be copied and reposted AT ALL without permission.
Does this all of this make you a criminal? I am not a lawyer or law enforcement representative to make that judgement and frankly do not really care. Does it make you just a little less of a person especially that you are fighting so hard to not give people credit for their efforts using the law in this manner to justify it? In my eyes Yes.
And that is my last comment on it. You have fun quoting case law now.
Should I remind you guys that this forum isranrun by a frog? So really, typos?
Aside from that and the name calling, very informative discussion. Carry on.
T
Bond posters, I am posting this prior to reading your comment but thank you for your backup on this.Didn't want to fill up space by quoting your entire message.
...
If you're not a lawyer, then trying to not defend your case against one is probably not the wisest move. I'm sure that Mel has his reasons for not posting the information of the image locations, and it sounds like he knows what he's talking about regarding why he doesn't have to post that info. What about the artists, the campaign employees, etc.? It's a slippery slope if you really want to give credit to every person who was responsible for this stuff. Anyway, this art was meant to be shared with the public.
Fixed that for you. 8)
Did you even understand what I was trying to say?
If you're not a lawyer, then trying tonotdefend your case against one is probably not the wisest move.
You are right some arguments are not worth arguing or difficult to win but the simplest explanation of what the real complaint here or root cause of it is that the images in question are hidden behind an, admittedly not the best coded (no offense the the developer that wrote it), secure portion of a website and are being downloaded and used without permission. If they were in public view I would have like as I normally do kept my mouth shut. You are also correct it is really hard if not impossible to credit everyone but it is very easy when you already know.
If you're not a lawyer, then trying to not defend your case against one is probably not the wisest move. I'm sure that Mel has his reasons for not posting the information of the image locations, and it sounds like he knows what he's talking about regarding why he doesn't have to post that info. What about the artists, the campaign employees, etc.? It's a slippery slope if you really want to give credit to every person who was responsible for this stuff. Anyway, this art was meant to be shared with the public.
If one figures out and "goes" into a company's private & secure database and takes images (or any data for that matter) without permission, I hardly think one will advertise that, will one?
Perhaps Mel saved it before they shut it down... Lawyers can't hack.
And that is my last comment on it.
Isn't that considered 'hacking?'
Perhaps Mel saved it before they shut it down... Lawyers can't hack.
I love it when you guys get Mel all riled up! :)
Mike, who are you anyway? Wow, you are a tiresome troll. Have you ever contributed anything to this forum or do you just come here to launch "digital piracy" crusades?
The problem is, even if Mel did either of those things it cannot be proven and photos of posters belong to no one. So they cannot do anything legally because they do not own the works displayed and therefore do not enjoy the protections of being copyrighted works.
This is quite a defamatory statement, counselor.
Maybe you should scan Undead's post history.
He's a cool contributor.
No signs of 'trollish' behavior.
I think you're mistaking Undead for Louie -- which is understandable. They each have a 'u' in their name. wynk
Thank you!
What about the modifications they made to those posters? Do they own photographic representations of that work?
That's more legal mumbo-jumbo .. technically they are recreating what was there. So, I'd guess (because I'm no legal eagle) that they do not own that work at all. Only if an artists changes it and makes it their own artwork would then ownership start to come into play.
Well restoration is never exactly the same as the original poster/artwork. I would think a restorer would feel they own that re-created art or "work" and representations of it - especially when it is used as promotional material for their services...
The problem is, even if Mel did either of those things it cannot be proven and photos of posters belong to no one.
If the intended it to be a true restoration, meaning that they are trying to make it to look just like the original then I'd still say they have no ownership. I think of restoration this way.. they are copying what is there to make the piece whole again. Now if they did the exact same thing but instead of recreating a part of the image they recreated the entire image then the recreations would be considered forgeries and either way the work doesn't (legally) belong to them.
Only if they take the work and do something highly transformative or attempt some spoof, satire or to criticize could they then claim some kind of ownership of the new work.
The camera info still doesn't prove anything .. that can be edited or deleted by anyone. For all we know Mel thought this was a funny thread went in there and duplicated the camera codes and is having a laugh. It is circumstantial and wouldn't "prove" anything.
Does anyone know if a restorer must legally ask permission from a client to post/distribute/market the work done on a poster in advance of doing same?
The camera info still doesn't prove anything .. that can be edited or deleted by anyone. For all we know Mel thought this was a funny thread went in there and duplicated the camera codes and is having a laugh. It is circumstantial and wouldn't "prove" anything.
I thought the camera info/code was ingrained in the digital photograph?
I believe this is harkening back tot he original question .. people who own artwork, be it posters, photos or whatever .. do not really own it. So someone taking a basic photograph of it doesn't infringe on copyrights and the person who took the photograph doesn't really own that image.
Now take it one step further, some one restored a poster and took a super HD photo and then started illegally recreating the poster and selling it. The person for whom the poster was restored has no legal rights to sue but that would fall on the VeRO to raise question and file suit.
Nope, save the photo to your computer then right click and go to properties then details and you can delete most of it easily there are other ways to scrub metadata to where it can say whatever you want it to say as well.
(http://snag.gy/NzIaD.jpg) (http://snag.gy/DdSGp.jpg)
Remove entirely yes, but editing the shutter speed, ISO and the focal length of the lens, hell no.
I am not referring to the poster in totality but the restored work...if the poster is restored the poster is no longer "as it was". It's been altered. I believe one of the arguments that came up is that the photo of King Kong could be disseminated because any copyright on it would have expired. The photo shared also had not yet had any restoration work performed by Postermountain. But if artistic restoration was done yesterday - and if there is a copyright - it obviously would still be in effect...
A digital file / digital image is comprised of a long string of text characters 1's and 0's (as we all know by now).
A digital file can be edited down to the 1's and 0's level to change anything. Don't think a digital file has some sort of unbreakable protection or has something that can't be changed. EVERYTHING in a digital file can be altered. Once somebody has the file, they can do whatever they like to it technically.
---
My understanding is if the photo is not just of the poster but includes something else, such as a scarab paper weight in each corner, it is considered sufficiently different creatively and copyrighted. Include something other than just the poster in the image if you want to have a little protection.
Aside from the interesting camera info, data stamped on a photo image file, etc, the basic question that Mike "Undead" asked (several times) still remains unanswered:
Was permission given to go into Poster Mountain's private, secure and non-public database to download their large image files?
OR, was it done by other, "less permissive" means?
Forget about poster images for a moment. Hacking into secure, non-public areas on ANY website is illegal -- period.
Regardless if it be poster images or other data looked at or downloaded -- that is immaterial.
If you are asking Melvin, I am guessing you might need to wait till he is back from figuring out where the EMP supersized image repository is located
If you are asking Melvin, I am guessing you might need to wait till he is back from figuring out where the EMP supersized image repository is located
Not that I am saying that he did it, but if he had, why would he admit it publicly on an open forum? That just seems idiotic to me, and as smart as Mel is I am not 100% sure that he's as good of a Hacker as you all seem to believe he is.
So make your assumptions on where he got the photos from and move on, you will either get no response or you will not believe his response. Either way, that has no bearing on the ownership of the rights for the photos of posters or artwork as they are displayed on the internet.
"Breaking in" to a secured part of any website (let alone downloading pics or information, without permission), is illegal --- PERIOD. How it was done (the "simple URL gimmick" you refer to, or workaround) is not the issue.
How would you feel if someone "got in" to your online bank, medical or credit card files, and then downloaded and/or posted them to some public forum? I'm assuming you would not be happy (or would you care less?)
It's the same thing here... whether they be poster images or bank or medical data; the info (in this case, large, high res images of pre- and post- restored posters) is from a secured part of Poster Mountain's website that is not available to the public or displayed online, in general.
Just because someone figured a way to access those images and download them, does NOT make it right, let alone the comment that even though one may have spent $1000. in rendered services, makes one entitled to do so. That is pure hogwash.
I understand if Poster Mountain has reasons for not sharing the large versions of the images with the public, and if that's the case then I'm sure they appreciate someone bringing it to their attention, so they can take measures to prevent it from happening again in the future. However, Jeff, my bank, etc. info. are not the same as a photo of a movie poster. Poster Mountain posted the photo to their website, intending to share it with the public. I don't see the big deal about using a URL gimmick to share a large version of it. Mike said that's it's a very simple thing. We'll have to agree to disagree about the moral unjustness about that, as it was a a photo (albeit a smaller version, that they posted on a public website) of art that was designed to be shared with the public. Whether that action is potentially illegal is probably something that only an expert could determine.
I know that he only has the best intentions for the hobby and gives a lot back to the hobby which is more than I can say for a lot of other members of this site.
In that case, I wonder if Bruce provides those with best of intentions for the hobby unfettered access to the EMP Supersize image archive. If not, I am not sure then that that is much of a reason.
You know how much effort Tang puts into his videos. Should they be taken and used on other web sites without his knowledge or approval. I wonder if you think his videos are also free for all's as they just show a poster.
I think we can all agree that we're right and everybody else is wrong and/or diabolically evil. It's too bad Mike (is that you NickLowe?) and Adam don't do anything on this forum other than start fights. Jeff really does nothing other than praise others' contributions. We can only hope they actually contribute something positive and original someday.
I will continue to post images of movie posters generally without crediting intermediary sources on this forum for the reasons I've stated and the authorities I've cited. If you think I've committed a crime and/or been un"fare," please call the FBI, the MPAA, the National Enquirer, or sue me. Whatev:
1. Did you or did you not access through means other than those intended by the website owners and or developers copy an image and or images from a password protected portion of a legal business or corporations website(s) without prior permission and re-post said images claiming FAIR use and or circumnavigate a websites efforts to display images with a watermark prominently displayed and added during the proper server call made at said site(s) through a URL exploit allowing the same said image(s) to be displayed in full without said intended watermark for the purpose of downloading and or re-displaying same said image(s)?
2. Have you or have you not on this site and others including your own used the published research and information of others without crediting said sources?
I was not going to bother repeating these but since you are so intent on being a dick. Do you have an answer?
(http://undead.net/images/laughing.gif)
Yes that is my real name.
Please do.
And I think that pretty much everyone would agree by the above that you have now gone and proven beyond all doubt the type of person you are.
We shall see. Not too cool to call someone a criminal for posting an image on a just-for-fun forum like this. It's also defamation with presumed damages.
We shall see. Not too cool to call someone a criminal for posting an image on a just-for-fun forum like this. It's also defamation with presumed damages. By the way, here's the original post showing a public domain image that you've identified as "criminal activity." As you can see, to the extent it's relevant, I clearly identified Poster Mountain as the source:
Now Ari, do pray tell if Nick's posts originated from New Jersey?
Guys, please go out and do something else (like get laid)! You are both good guys, and there are a ton of crooks and slimeballs polluting this hobby. I bet they are laughing their heads off reading this thread.Morning Bruce thumbup
Guys, please go out and do something else (like get laid)! You are both good guys, and there are a ton of crooks and slimeballs polluting this hobby. I bet they are laughing their heads off reading this thread.
Not sure, but did Bruce just tell those two to go get f*cked?
Not sure, but did Bruce just tell those two to go get f*cked?You`re from the future ,you should know already. ;)
In the spirit of this argument - maybe he meant "layed"?
Or if he did tell them to go get f*cked perhaps he just misspelled and meant 'get "layered'
;D
Guys, please go out and do something else (like get laid)! You are both good guys, and there are a ton of crooks and slimeballs polluting this hobby. I bet they are laughing their heads off reading this thread.
I have edited some private information out of this thread.
Can a one post thread (presumably locked and pinned) be created by an admin in the APF Welcome/Join section that clearly states some of the rules?
Such as comment from Holiday buried away:
"Thierry and I have made clear - or at least we thought we did - that slurs, epithets, racist comments, hate mongering and the like WILL NOT BE FUCKING TOLERATED!"
But one comment I cant find but was said was that personally identifiable information is not to be posted
Yes, these need to be re-posted and enforced.
I'll leave the re-posting to them and I will focus on the enforcement.
The 'personally identifiable info' you mention was in response to members posting PMs (personal messages) that were not meant to go public. That doesn't excuse Mel's post. That was not good.
So it's perfectly OK to call somebody a criminal multiple times for posting a public domain image to entertain forum members but God forbid if you post public information that anyone can look up on whois.com? Very logical, Ted.
Are you serious, Mel?
If people want to look up information on a person, let them go for it.
But to post it here without their prior approval is wrong.
Dead wrong.
I'm sure that Holiday and T would agree with me.
Look Mel, I like you.
I think you've got your heart in the right place.
But sometimes you can be a real dickhead.
Posterguide.org also has virtually every "protected" Heritage image.
The craziness began when Undead's avatar changed to double full moon... Can you change your avatar to a waterfall. Thank you.
Now I need to pee.
Guys, please go out and do something else (like get laid)! You are both good guys, and there are a ton of crooks and slimeballs polluting this hobby. I bet they are laughing their heads off reading this thread.
(http://shedexpedition.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/niagara3.jpg)
I tried. I just can't deal with online dating anymore - 15 girls in 15 weeks. Too easy to meet them, too easy to let them go (and vise-versa of course). Gotta find one in "real" life. Plus my poster crack habit spending has returned with a vengeance - $5,000 in the last 30 days (including a big chunk to you - thanks a lot!) - with no end in sight, no escape pod :-[
Boys, your faux-enlightened legal analysis and complaints are simultaneously amusing and tiresome. You've gone on and on about various subjects but we're only talking about photographs of movie posters. For legal purposes, they are considered "slavish" copies of pre-existing creative works and do not enjoy any independent copyright protection. The plaintiff in Bridgeman made the same losing arguments you're making. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm)
Mike, who are you anyway? Wow, you are a tiresome troll. Have you ever contributed anything to this forum or do you just come here to launch "digital piracy" crusades?
And of course the legal “help” from Adam is hilarious. This is the guy whose “nonprofit” website (BondPosters.com) is infested with advertising and promotes gambling websites. (The front page states: “We recommend visiting SpinPalace.co.uk whose poker games should help brush up your casino knowledge to hopefully defeat the budding Goldfinger's and Le Chiffre's of today.”) I can't imagine that Danjaq LLC – the copyright owner of all James Bond posters (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Danjaq-LLC/103813863018899) – would knowingly tolerate that abuse of its intellectual property.
But notwithstanding the foregoing please feel free to complain to Heritage and/or Poster Mountain that I am "stealing" from them and/or being un“fare” by posting some of their digital reproduction images on this forum to amuse and entertain my fellow poster nerds. That is a terrible crime indeed. Or perhaps not. Of course, aside from the ridiculousness of such complaints, I should mention that I have paid Heritage and its consignors $14,912 and Poster Mountain more than $1,000 for their wares and services, so your complaints may fall on deaf ears. Too bad, so sad.
I've simply skimmed through the gibberish that Mike and his pals wrote. Suffice it to say that I think we can all agree that we're right and everybody else is wrong and/or diabolically evil. It's too bad Mike (is that you NickLowe?) and Adam don't do anything on this forum other than start fights. Jeff really does nothing other than praise others' contributions. We can only hope they actually contribute something positive and original someday.
I will continue to post images of movie posters generally without crediting intermediary sources on this forum for the reasons I've stated and the authorities I've cited. If you think I've committed a crime and/or been un"fare," please call the FBI, the MPAA, the National Enquirer, or sue me. Whatev:
However, this is verging on harassment and I've reported it to the forum owners for appropriate action.
Thanks, just wanted some more info about you. [This area is where Mel had a link to Undead's personal information] Can I use this address for service of process in case we have to go to court to resolve our little spat?
We shall see. Not too cool to call someone a criminal for posting an image on a just-for-fun forum like this. It's also defamation with presumed damages. By the way, here's the original post showing a public domain image that you've identified as "criminal activity." As you can see, to the extent it's relevant, I clearly identified Poster Mountain as the source.
Now Steve, Chris and Ari and the old NS4 gang will remember my old pal Nick Lowe, who made similar charges of "plagiarism" against me back in the day:
"Nick Lowe" also had very odd problems with the English language, just like "Mike" can't seem to spell "fare" right.
Now Ari, do pray tell if Nick's posts originated from New Jersey? You refused to tell me the IP address of "Nick Lowe," even though you knew the answer:
In the spirit of such I will offer this to Mel. Let's bury the hatchet. I will leave it alone and not say any more on the subject. I think my point has been made for good or bad too many times. I will not badger, badmouth or say anything else referring to this incident on the forum. I would ask you to do the same. I would also ask that you delete the screen grab of my corporations contact information and address from your website and ask the moderators to do the same from this thread. Though it is public information I feel that it is unwarranted to publish it like it is and have refrained from doing the same with Mels home address for the same reason. It would just be bad form.
Can a one post thread (presumably locked and pinned) be created by an admin in the APF Welcome/Join section that clearly states some of the rules?
Such as comment from Holiday buried away:
"Thierry and I have made clear - or at least we thought we did - that slurs, epithets, racist comments, hate mongering and the like WILL NOT BE FUCKING TOLERATED!"
But one comment I cant find but was said was that personally identifiable information is not to be posted.
So it's perfectly OK to call somebody a criminal multiple times for posting a public domain image to entertain forum members but God forbid if you post public information that anyone can look up on whois.com? Very logical, Ted.
And by the way Mike, don't you know that MoviePosterDB has downloaded virtually every "protected" Heritage image and sells them FOR PROFIT? Get your priorities straight.
Posterguide.org also has virtually every "protected" Heritage image.
But you avoided the question. Is it perfectly OK to call somebody a criminal without consequences here?
Is Mel a great guy? I have no doubt he is in most respects and believe that this issue no withstanding would get along with him just fine but not on this particular one and am sorry that some people feel that it is a crusade against him. It is not. For me it is about laws that have been broken intentionally and incorrect use of the reading and intent of certain laws used to make it look OK which may make others think it is legal when it is not. Is Mel a criminal, in this particular case my personal opinion is a crime has been committed but I am not an attorney and it is for a court to decide which I am sure will not and hope for his sake never happens.
Look Mel, I like you.
I think you've got your heart in the right place.
But sometimes you can be a real dickhead.
You are the master of avoiding answering specific questions.
But, in this case, I will answer you directly.
No, I do not think it is OK to call someone a "criminal" on a public forum.
And I don't believe Mike has called you that.
He asked you a question and you avoided the answer. Repeatedly.
But, regardless, how the fuck does that exonerate you from calling him a 'troll" (which he obviously is not) and then posting personal contact info about him?
What is the adult rationale behind that behavior?
I just can't deal with online dating anymore - 15 girls in 15 weeks. Too easy to meet them
^^^ Now that you read the above longest post eva, because it will be tomorrow, my below reference is long forgotten
You need to put on your profile that you are a poster addict and you are a expert on ET movie posters. That should slow the floodgate somewhat
Now Steve, Chris and Ari and the old NS4 gang will remember my old pal Nick Lowe, who made similar charges of "plagiarism" against me back in the day:
Those bastards are not very cooperative...
*sigh* ...memories :P
hitself
So Drew Brees got me 35 Fantasy Points tonight... woohoo
Good for you Charlie!
I hate the Cowboys. ;D
By the way, Brude is a mod because we trust him. Whatever he says or does is fully supported by Thierry and I.
By the way, Brude is a mod because we trust him. Whatever he says or does is fully supported by Thierry and I.
Now I need to pee.
Mel will NEVER bury the hatchet with anyone he has had a feud with
There are ONLY 43 days, 6 hours, 30mn and 2 seconds until XMAS
About time for the Christmas spirit.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6879049216/hE716374E/)
Mel Really?
You think Ari is going to post info like that here?
Stew
Of course I wouldn't give Mel or anyone else these details.
Really? I remember you telling me about a member who likes to dress in drag and take a lot of drugs...
Well it's OK when he's speaking about himself
bury the hatchet
phrase of bury
1.
end a quarrel or conflict and become friendly.
Really? I remember you telling me about a member who likes to dress in drag and take a lot of drugs...
It doesn't count when Ari is talking about himself.
Ps I don't even like top gun.
oh shit I forget is it sue
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q654/Offal_Eaters/image_zpsa5e57817.jpg) (http://s1352.photobucket.com/user/Offal_Eaters/media/image_zpsa5e57817.jpg.html)
WOW! ...Like, seriously, WOW! jawdrop
This guy never ceases to amaze me.
Jees, I'm not a lawyer, however, I and the majority of people understand certain areas of copyright law.
As a lawyer himself, he doesn't seem to understand much but in saying that he doesn't specialise in copyright law so I suppose we have to let him off.
...Actually no, as a lawyer, HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
If a poster itself has been worked on or the image of the poster has been worked on in order to enhance the aesthetics of it, it then effectively has copyright protection.
Yes, he is quite right - SOME photographs CAN be deemed slavish copies but others are NOT slavish copies, much like many of those he uses on his website etc.
I'm amazed that he called Mike a troll for asking him genuine questions.
And then questioning him on his contribution to this forum.
Mel sadly is, in the simplest of terms, A HYPOCRITICAL BULLY.
Oh, that's right - Mel attacking my website yet again to aid him in his crusade because he doesn't like my comments in backing up Mike rofl1
So Mel does not understand what a non-profit organisation is. Well it is something which makes no profit...and that means any money that goes into the organisation gets put straight back into it. Oh, what Mel doesn't know is priceless. Using sly tactics to attack me again is very silly and pointless, but the fact remains the website is a non-profit cause. I don't make ANY money from the website. Not that I need to explain myself, but what I do receive goes into the maintenance and promotion of the website (actually it doesn't even get anywhere near the promotional finances!). There is a lot of behind-the-scenes work going on at the moment and if I was to make ANY profit whatsoever my website would then REALLY have to be infested with ads (he makes my website sound like eBay!) and it making a small fortune, but even then it would still be non-profit as the money would be pumped straight back in to the site sm1
Why would Mel mention how much he has spent with Heritage and Poster Mountain?
Spending money does not give him the right to do what he does.
It doesn't surprise me that Mel openly admits he skimmed through the comments (with more attacks).
It goes to show he hasn't got the jewels to stand up and be counted and actually answer people properly for once without attacking them. He talks like he is some God-like authority here; who's he kidding!?
I am honestly fascinated with how he STILL acts this way; it's bizarre to say the least.
He should credit all his sources instead of making the images look like his own.
This is false advertisement of his website, if I was to be really picky ;D
Is he for real!? Harassment!? laugh1
He is the BIGGEST culprit of all on this forum!
He attacks and bullies people a heck of a lot here and yet when somebody questions him he runs to the head master and deputy head!
Classic bully. What a joke! puke
Wow. Threatening Mike with court. Who would have thought that!?
Very novel and a sad scare tactic from a grade A bully.
I don't believe Mike ever called Mel a criminal.
I love it how he always twists other peoples words.
And to have the audacity of accusing Mike of defamation - again... laugh1
Is he for real!? I mean, again, HYPOCRITE OR WHAT!? eyeroll
The post Mel links to was from almost three years ago, hardly back in the day.
You see, back then he pissed people off and he still doesn't realise that he pisses people off today; even people who do not post on these forums. Now that's a sign of a good "pisser offer"! ;)
Mel as we all know can dish it out but can he hell take it, and yet he still attacks Mike, focusing on something that was a simple error that anyone could have made (apart from him of course).
Ari would of course know the IP address of Nick Lowe, and rightly so that he refused to tell Mel what it was.
Why on earth would a forum owner give out IP address information to anyone let alone to Mel? This is private information and as a lawyer Mel should know better than to demand this information. Sure, Mel could probably wrangle his way into getting some form of warrant executed on his behalf, but he isn't the law - I never knew he demanded this information! nono
Some advice, Mike:
Mel will NEVER bury the hatchet with anyone he has had a feud with (even when he knows he is in the wrong) especially with someone who has disagreed with him. He bears a grudge I cannot liken to anyone else. Mel also NEVER apologises to anyone. You see, when he thinks he is right we, the majority, are always wrong no matter what the truth is. The truth does hurt him.
I find it truly ASTONISHING what Mel did with your details.
He cried his little heart out when I mentioned just his name in my signature a while ago when I was subject to his wrath (it was something I acknowledged I should not have done) but then he goes and publishes SOMEONE ELSE'S contact information like that! What a numpty! hitself Proves he believes he is above everyone else here. I guarantee that if someone posted HIS contact information he would reply with a load of legal threats as per and scurry away to Thierry and Holiday again like a school kid. I wonder how many people (on and off the forums) have all HIS personal information ready for when he ACTUALLY goes through with his legal threats, which are all a complete joke as he is the biggest culprit of all.
What he needs to understand is that the way he is upsets a lot of people.
The prohibiting of posting personally identifiable information is a rule in the SMF forum pack rules and guidelines that Thierry and Holiday will have received when they set up this forum. But they have both said this place has no rules and as far as I am aware, have not once upheld those rules (or if they have I do not know about it). If they had upheld those rules, Mel would have presumably been banned LONG AGO and quite rightly so.
Again, Mike did not call Mel a criminal.
I'm amazed Mel thinks it is OK to post somebody else's contact information without their consent and then try to make Ted sound like he is wrong for sounding him out about it.
What a hypocrite - Mel's full name is publicly available if you do a search, but it is wrong to mention that :o
Mel used to openly support MoviePosterDB (everyone should know they are a dodgy website; stealing artists work on many occasion and the like which is publicly available information), so why is he trying to divert people's attentions to that place? Why should Mike's priorities be that website? He was asking Mel a number of questions. Trying to get answers from an individual is far easier than doing the same with a company, so he does have his priorities right.
Is he for real!?
HE AVOIDED the questions posed by Mike and still has NOT answered them hitself
Instead of answering Mike's questions and other people's comments, all he does is reply with a load of digressed blahblah
Well said, Ted.
What was his response? A half-arsed quip at something you said about him.
STILL no answers or anything that show he has a conscience.
I find it astonishing some people here actually defend Mel's actions at times.
The day he does get a woman will be the day all this shit ends as he will see the light. happy1
Now I am offended and may sue or is sew or oh shit I forget is it sue
(http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q654/Offal_Eaters/image_zpsa5e57817.jpg) (http://s1352.photobucket.com/user/Offal_Eaters/media/image_zpsa5e57817.jpg.html)