Re: FYI - Tinypics

jmcquown said:

~patches~ said:

Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
something.

Jill

Whatever Jill. It is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is
theft of intellectual property, pure and simple. Such theft is
punishable legally. FTR, I am busy with RL now I just got busier. This
two faced poster is going to find out it wasn't a real smart thing to
do. Whether you like it or not, there will be fallout for this type of
intimidation. Now it isn't so funny, is it? And it doesn't take an
brain to figure out who the two faced person is, does it? Except, I
have that person's info and their isp. And their isp is more than
willing to act on this one. Even though you don't think it is a
problem, it is and the thief will find that out very soon!

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

jmcquown said:

~patches~ said:

Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
something.

Jill

Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
truly is...

[censored], she's making r.p.c.h+b look positively sane...

-L.

-L. said:

jmcquown said:

~patches~ said:

Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to
think we all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really,
honey, you said you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted
author with the Library of Congress, I fail to see what you are so
worried about. You're talking about pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a
law! Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm
really getting tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can
something, or cook something.

Jill

Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
truly is...

[censored], she's making r.p.c.h+b look positively sane...

-L.

That's saying a LOT!!

~patches~ said:

jmcquown said:

~patches~ said:

Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to
think we
all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you
said
you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the
Library of
Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking
about
pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really
getting
tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
something.

Jill

Whatever Jill. It is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is
theft of intellectual property, pure and simple. Such theft is
punishable legally. FTR, I am busy with RL now I just got busier. This
two faced poster is going to find out it wasn't a real smart thing to
do. Whether you like it or not, there will be fallout for this type of
intimidation. Now it isn't so funny, is it? And it doesn't take an
brain to figure out who the two faced person is, does it? Except, I
have that person's info and their isp. And their isp is more than
willing to act on this one. Even though you don't think it is a
problem, it is and the thief will find that out very soon!

Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
in this situation.

If the copyrighted property was used in a manner that satisfies the
criteria of fair use, you have no legal standing. I don't know how the
picture was used, and since you come up well short of a useful
description of the infraction I am unable to imagine accurately what it
is that's put you in such high dudgeon.

I could better understand your indignation if you labored as an artist
and found a prized work of yours deliberately attributed to someone
else. I could understand it if you were a commercial food photographer
and some poser was stealing your reputation and potential income. I have
a hard time understanding *your* motivation. But I can say that the
mental picture of Joe or Jane Sixpack cruising web pages and suddenly
pulling up short and exclaiming "That's MY pizza!" has kept me in
stitches all day!

Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your could
support your argument. If you are intent on following this through to
the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position. It will be up
to you to bring the proof.

Pennyaline said:

Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your could
support your argument. If you are intent on following this through to
the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position. It will be up
to you to bring the proof.

Not likely. After her whacky assertions are questioned you normally
hear "Do your own research!".

It's gone from whacky to psychotic at this point.

--
Reg

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ said:

jmcquown said:

~patches~ wrote:

> Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
> stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to
think we
all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you
said
you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the
Library of
Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're
talking about
pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really
getting
tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
something.

Jill

Whatever Jill. It is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is
theft of intellectual property, pure and simple. Such theft is
punishable legally. FTR, I am busy with RL now I just got busier.
This two faced poster is going to find out it wasn't a real smart
thing to do. Whether you like it or not, there will be fallout for
this type of intimidation. Now it isn't so funny, is it? And it
doesn't take an brain to figure out who the two faced person is, does
it? Except, I have that person's info and their isp. And their isp
is more than willing to act on this one. Even though you don't think
it is a problem, it is and the thief will find that out very soon!

Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
in this situation.

No the pic is mine and I maintain copyright. It was posted as a form of
harassment to try to get me from posting. It was posted after another
heated discussion. Google, tinypics, and the two faced poster's isp
agrees with me.

Quoted message said:

If the copyrighted property was used in a manner that satisfies the
criteria of fair use, you have no legal standing. I don't know how the
picture was used, and since you come up well short of a useful
description of the infraction I am unable to imagine accurately what it
is that's put you in such high dudgeon.

It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I made
this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow this fully
I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the two face poster
used 3 different nyms to post their message, and the fact that this
poster stole my pic.

Quoted message said:

I could better understand your indignation if you labored as an artist
and found a prized work of yours deliberately attributed to someone
else. I could understand it if you were a commercial food photographer
and some poser was stealing your reputation and potential income. I have
a hard time understanding *your* motivation. But I can say that the
mental picture of Joe or Jane Sixpack cruising web pages and suddenly
pulling up short and exclaiming "That's MY pizza!" has kept me in
stitches all day!

The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

Quoted message said:

Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your could
support your argument. If you are intent on following this through to
the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position. It will be up
to you to bring the proof.

No, the pic was mine and I have legal copyright. It was used as a means
of intimidation on this ng. I have proof of when the pic was taken to
when it was finally uploaded to tinypics. See tinypics TOS. I have
supported my argument as well as providing a link to the DMCA of 1998.
I have provided times, dates, full headers, etc to google, tinypic and
the two faced poster's isp. Funny how they are taking this seriously.
Google has already acted.

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

-L. said:

jmcquown wrote:

.... Who cares?!

Quoted message said:

Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
truly is...

I wouldn't mind that so much if she had any taste, but the recipes she
posts are [censored].

Too bad she wasn't capable of carrying out her whine about not posting.
-aem

aem said:

I wouldn't mind that so much if she had any taste, but the recipes she
posts are [censored].

I have posted recipes that I have tried and are trusted. I will not
post a recipe otherwise. I'm sorry you don't care for my recipes but no
one is forcing you to try them. If there is something specific that you
are looking for and I have a tried and true recipe, I will post it for
you.

Quoted message said:

Too bad she wasn't capable of carrying out her whine about not posting.

I'm replying to those who are kind enough to reply to my initial post.
If you don't see the wrong in theft, that's your problem. You can
always kf the thread 😉

Quoted message said:

-aem

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ said:

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision
for fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could
apply in this situation.

No the pic is mine and I maintain copyright. It was posted as a form of
harassment to try to get me from posting. It was posted after another
heated discussion. Google, tinypics, and the two faced poster's isp
agrees with me.

You're not paying attention. I may maintain copyright, but fair use can
still apply and make the infringement argument moot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the copyrighted property was used in a manner that satisfies the
criteria of fair use, you have no legal standing. I don't know how the
picture was used, and since you come up well short of a useful
description of the infraction I am unable to imagine accurately what
it is that's put you in such high dudgeon.

It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I made
this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow this fully
I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the two face poster
used 3 different nyms to post their message, and the fact that this
poster stole my pic.

But THAT does not successfully refute the possibility of fair use.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could better understand your indignation if you labored as an artist
and found a prized work of yours deliberately attributed to someone
else. I could understand it if you were a commercial food photographer
and some poser was stealing your reputation and potential income. I
have a hard time understanding *your* motivation. But I can say that
the mental picture of Joe or Jane Sixpack cruising web pages and
suddenly pulling up short and exclaiming "That's MY pizza!" has kept
me in stitches all day!

The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your
could support your argument. If you are intent on following this
through to the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position.
It will be up to you to bring the proof.

No, the pic was mine and I have legal copyright. It was used as a means
of intimidation on this ng. I have proof of when the pic was taken to
when it was finally uploaded to tinypics. See tinypics TOS. I have
supported my argument as well as providing a link to the DMCA of 1998. I
have provided times, dates, full headers, etc to google, tinypic and the
two faced poster's isp. Funny how they are taking this seriously.
Google has already acted.

Your statements in your own defense are leaving you with more and more
to defend. Again, if you wish to take this to the bitter end, you must
prove that you are the creator of the picture and have not shared or
given license to use the picture to anyone else. And now, you would also
have to prove how and why the offender was attempting to intimidate you.

<in short, don't throw accusations around>

Quoted message said:

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I
made this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow
this fully I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the
two face poster used 3 different nyms to post their message, and
the fact that this poster stole my pic.

But THAT does not successfully refute the possibility of fair use.

I'm unaware of any definition of "fair use" that involves passing
someone else's work off as your own.

Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Pennyaline wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Your statements in your own defense are leaving you with more and more
to defend. Again, if you wish to take this to the bitter end, you must
prove that you are the creator of the picture and have not shared or
given license to use the picture to anyone else. And now, you would also
have to prove how and why the offender was attempting to intimidate you.

<in short, don't throw accusations around>

As already posted as as explained to google, tinypics, and the two faced
poster's isp. I have proof of when I took the pic, date and time. I
have proof when that pic was uploaded to my computer. I have proof of
when that pic was modified to a smaller size. I have proof of when that
modified pic was uploaded to tinypic who does track ip numbers. I have
proof including message id as to when I first posted the pic link to
rfp. I posted the tinypic link here. At no time did I grant license
for anyone else to use that pic. Tinypics TOS indicates that any pic
uploaded is the copyright of the person who uploads it. Google has
already taken action. Tinypic and the two faced poster's isp agree with
me and are in the process of whatever it is that they do in this
situation. The post was definitely made during a period of heated
discussion which does indicate intimidation but IMO that is not the
issue. The issue is theft of my pic that was passed off as the two
faced poster's pic. From my discussions to day both by email and phone,
I have nothing more to prove. The issue is not intimidation it is theft.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ said:

Pennyaline wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Your statements in your own defense are leaving you with more and more
to defend. Again, if you wish to take this to the bitter end, you must
prove that you are the creator of the picture and have not shared or
given license to use the picture to anyone else. And now, you would
also have to prove how and why the offender was attempting to
intimidate you.

<in short, don't throw accusations around>

As already posted as as explained to google, tinypics, and the two faced
poster's isp. I have proof of when I took the pic, date and time. I
have proof when that pic was uploaded to my computer. I have proof of
when that pic was modified to a smaller size. I have proof of when that
modified pic was uploaded to tinypic who does track ip numbers. I have
proof including message id as to when I first posted the pic link to
rfp. I posted the tinypic link here. At no time did I grant license
for anyone else to use that pic. Tinypics TOS indicates that any pic
uploaded is the copyright of the person who uploads it. Google has
already taken action. Tinypic and the two faced poster's isp agree with
me and are in the process of whatever it is that they do in this
situation. The post was definitely made during a period of heated
discussion which does indicate intimidation but IMO that is not the
issue. The issue is theft of my pic that was passed off as the two
faced poster's pic. From my discussions to day both by email and phone,
I have nothing more to prove. The issue is not intimidation it is theft.

I was quoting you directly, patches, via cut and paste. You stated that
it was an act of intimidation, which makes it an issue in your opinion.

Meanwhile, I'm glad that you got his posts removed.

Pennyaline said:

You're not paying attention. I may maintain copyright, but fair use can
still apply and make the infringement argument moot.

Even so, don't you think it is a little weird to post a message to the effect
I cooked something and here is a picture of it, and then to use a picture of
something made by someone else?
What is the game plan behind something like that?

Default User said:

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I
made this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow
this fully I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the
two face poster used 3 different nyms to post their message, and
the fact that this poster stole my pic.

But THAT does not successfully refute the possibility of fair use.

I'm unaware of any definition of "fair use" that involves passing
someone else's work off as your own.

Patches was making the accusations before the circumstances had been
established: I did not start receiving more detailed posts on my
newsreader until approx. 1:30 PM today, hours after her first highly
inflammatory ones. At the time I wrote the post you quoted above, my
suspicion was that someone had used the picture and post to poke fun at
her, a parody use covered by fair use... or at least by ones own sense
of humor.

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ said:

Pennyaline wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Your statements in your own defense are leaving you with more and
more to defend. Again, if you wish to take this to the bitter end,
you must prove that you are the creator of the picture and have not
shared or given license to use the picture to anyone else. And now,
you would also have to prove how and why the offender was attempting
to intimidate you.

<in short, don't throw accusations around>

As already posted as as explained to google, tinypics, and the two
faced poster's isp. I have proof of when I took the pic, date and
time. I have proof when that pic was uploaded to my computer. I have
proof of when that pic was modified to a smaller size. I have proof
of when that modified pic was uploaded to tinypic who does track ip
numbers. I have proof including message id as to when I first posted
the pic link to rfp. I posted the tinypic link here. At no time did
I grant license for anyone else to use that pic. Tinypics TOS
indicates that any pic uploaded is the copyright of the person who
uploads it. Google has already taken action. Tinypic and the two
faced poster's isp agree with me and are in the process of whatever it
is that they do in this situation. The post was definitely made
during a period of heated discussion which does indicate intimidation
but IMO that is not the issue. The issue is theft of my pic that was
passed off as the two faced poster's pic. From my discussions to day
both by email and phone, I have nothing more to prove. The issue is
not intimidation it is theft.

I was quoting you directly, patches, via cut and paste. You stated that
it was an act of intimidation, which makes it an issue in your opinion.

Meanwhile, I'm glad that you got his posts removed.

Thanks pennyaline. IMO this poster made the posts as a form of
intimidation. It happened during a heated discussion. The same poster
has done similar things in the past so was immediately suspect. That
really ticked me off along with the theft of my pic so I acted on it.
I'm not going after damages or even pressing the intimidation issue
although the user's id is rather concerned over the harassment and
intimidation issue. How they act on that isn't my concern. Right now I
want this poster's account closed period. Getting those posts removed
was nice 🙂

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

Dave Smith said:

Pennyaline said:

You're not paying attention. I may maintain copyright, but fair use can
still apply and make the infringement argument moot.

Even so, don't you think it is a little weird to post a message to the effect
I cooked something and here is a picture of it, and then to use a picture of
something made by someone else?
What is the game plan behind something like that?

The objective is sheer spectacle. Someone wanted to drive a housebound
nutcase with unlimited free time over the edge. It worked.

--
Reg

Pennyaline said:

Default User said:

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

> It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I
> made this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow
> this fully I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the
> two face poster used 3 different nyms to post their message, and
> the fact that this poster stole my pic.

But THAT does not successfully refute the possibility of fair use.

I'm unaware of any definition of "fair use" that involves passing
someone else's work off as your own.

Patches was making the accusations before the circumstances had been
established: I did not start receiving more detailed posts on my
newsreader until approx. 1:30 PM today, hours after her first highly
inflammatory ones. At the time I wrote the post you quoted above, my
suspicion was that someone had used the picture and post to poke fun at
her, a parody use covered by fair use... or at least by ones own sense
of humor.

No I was not making accusations before the circumstances were
established. I was rather clear about the circumstances. That your
newsserve did not show those posts is not my problem. News servers are
funky that way. Believe me I have documented this issue from one end to
the other and have proof every step of the way. The posts in question
were not parodies. Those in charge of cancelling accounts agree with me.

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ said:

The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

That's the WORST thing that can happen? Oh how DREADFUL! That person might
have to open an account with a different ISP! Maybe it will result in a
substantial SAVINGS of money or increase in bandwidth! Boy, you sure know
how to mete out a punishment.

Bob

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
in this situation.

Here's a little blurb on fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Doesn't look real clear to me either way.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA