«

Read 'em and weep bubba.
the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
court.
Now I'd like to see you walk in to a court, in front of a judge and jury.
"What evidence do you have that you created this image sir?"
"I don't have any real evidence. But I created it."
"Your honor, we make a motion that this case be dismissed on lack of
evidence."
"Granted".

Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site, you
will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the work
MUST be registered.
Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
news:...
..
> the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
> In short, they don't care.

Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get lost
because of too much text in there.

"person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using the
content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "

See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you have
REFUSED to take image off As simple as that.

<SNIP>

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:02:21 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
wrote:

>Read 'em and weep bubba.
>the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this issue.
>In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
>court.

That is NOT what they said at all.

The Forum Admin stated:
"If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
content."

Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared in
response to his and the subsequent threads you started.

The forum admin also said:
"If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."

Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.

[snip]
>Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site, you
>will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the work
>MUST be registered.
>Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.

It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
it is true.

Carol

"Wÿrm" <> wrote
> "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
> news:...
> .
> > the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
issue.
> > In short, they don't care.
>
> Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get lost
> because of too much text in there.
>
> "person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using the
> content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "
>
> See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
> Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you have
> REFUSED to take image off As simple as that.

I don't think that Duende even needs to provide any proof on this matter.
RtS has quite publicly in this newsgroup many times stated that he stole the
image from Duende's site. He has also publicly stated something along the
lines of "So what, I stole it, it is now up to Duende to prove he owns it".

If I owned batcave this dipstick would be out the door as soon after receipt
of Deunde's complaint as I could press the delete key.

--
Cheers
Richard.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:44:54 +0200 Wÿrm wrote:

> "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
> news:...
> .
>> the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
>> issue.
>> In short, they don't care.

> Wrong. Read their answer AGAIN... Here's snippet for you if you get
> lost
> because of too much text in there.

> "person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
> the
> content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof. "
Hello ding ding
ding...........................................^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I own the copyright" ain't good enough.


> See that little part "contact OUR ABUSE department". Basically all
> Duende has to do is contact batcave abuse department now because you
> have
> REFUSED to take image off As simple as that.

You fail to understand their standing in this issue. "It's a picture of an
eye. So what?".
Proof Bubba.
To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
No number? No proof.

<snip>

Are you still going on about this?.....Jeesus, don't you ever shut the hell
up?

--
Sam.
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
high quality photographic
restorations and repairs

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:55:55 GMT CarolW. wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:02:21 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
> wrote:

>>Read 'em and weep bubba.
>>the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
>>issue.
>>In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with in
>>court.

> That is NOT what they said at all.

> The Forum Admin stated:
> "If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
> should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
> content."

> Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
> image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
> ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared in
> response to his and the subsequent threads you started.

> The forum admin also said:
> "If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
> person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
> the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."

> Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if he
> so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof should
> be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would help
> back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
> lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.

> [snip]
>>Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office site,
>>you
>>will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law, the
>>work
>>MUST be registered.
>>Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.

> It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
> proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
> proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even though
> it is true.

> Carol


_"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
"I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
I can make the same claims.

For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the negative.
As the negative can only be owned by one person.

Richard wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:55:55 GMT CarolW. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:02:21 -0600, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Read 'em and weep bubba.
>>> the real powerst that be at batcave.net have finally spoken on this
>>> issue.
>>> In short, they don't care. That's an issue you'll have to deal with
>>> in court.
>
>> That is NOT what they said at all.
>
>> The Forum Admin stated:
>> "If a copyright infringment is reported - the person making the claim
>> should contact the owner of the website and ask them to remove the
>> content."
>
>> Duende has publically asked you, the owner of the site, to remove the
>> image. I would think it would be very hard to argue that he did not
>> ask you to remove the content - particularly with your posts shared
>> in response to his and the subsequent threads you started.
>
>> The forum admin also said:
>> "If the person publishing the disputed content does not - then the
>> person can either pursue that person legally to make them cease using
>> the content, or contact our abuse department with sufficient proof."
>
>> Which means that Duende can indeed take it up with the site host if
>> he so wishes to do so. Personally I hope he does. Sufficient proof
>> should be easy for Duende to share plus the threads on this NG would
>> help back up any proof he can provide as you posted yourself that you
>> lifted the image _from_ his site to begin with.
>
>> [snip]
>>> Now then sir, if you would kindly move on to the copyright office
>>> site, you
>>> will learn that in order to have legal standing in a court of law,
>>> the work
>>> MUST be registered.
>>> Show me the proof that says YOU registered the work.
>
>> It does NOT have to be registered with the copyrights office to have
>> proof of copyrights. One has that option but it is not required as
>> proof of copyrights. I know you won't care to beleive that even
>> though it is true.
>
>> Carol
>
>
> _"WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF"_.
> "I created that image" is not sufficient proof.
> I can make the same claims.
>
> For a photographer, sufficient proof would be in the form of the
> negative. As the negative can only be owned by one person.

It isn't difficult to prove when Duende first published the image to the
net, and when you published it.....That would constitute "sufficient
proof".....Is the chronological concept of linear time too complicated for
you to understand?.....

Wÿrm wrote:
> "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
> news:...
> <snip>
>
>> To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
>> Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
>> No number? No proof.
>
> *******s. If you do not understand plain english from
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc
>
> (here's little snippet for you)
>
> "Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
>
> The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
> misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
> Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."
>
> you really should ask some adult read/explain that text to you. Ask
> from copyright office if you do not believe
>
> I suggest you BOTHER read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
> to get SOME grasp of things instead of making false claims.

I suspect that, even if he did get someone to explain it in words of 1 or 2
syllables, he'd still deliberately fail to understand.....

--
Sam.
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
high quality photographic
restorations and repairs

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message
news:...
<snip>

> To have legal standing the work MUST be registered.
> Once it's registered, you get a unique ID number for it.
> No number? No proof.

*******s. If you do not understand plain english from

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

(here's little snippet for you)

"Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

you really should ask some adult read/explain that text to you. Ask from
copyright office if you do not believe

I suggest you BOTHER read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html to get
SOME grasp of things instead of making false claims.