-
Attachments:

If he (or she, whatever that name is) doesn't like it there are ways of rpeventing people from hotlinking your images, right? Otherwise the hell with him.

It was an image I posted in a Burning Man thread, the watermark that credits the photographer is still there, I don't know what the problem is. You would think a photographer would appreciate the images he puts online being distributed.

If Cary wants to remove it, that's fine, otherwise there is no legal weight behind their request.

Yup, perfectly legal to use an image in the public domain for non-profit purposes,,,

Eesh would be a fan of the BBC

I need pics. or GTFO.

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?40,532295,532304,quote=1



-

edit by Cary: This image (md5sum df0c72949d266caf943df0ab191661b4) was removed from your post due to a DMCA complaint from:
Black Rock City, LLC
Attn: Andrea Grace, Communications
PO Box 884688
San Francisco, CA 94188
Email: andie@burningman.com
(415) 865-3800

For more information please see the ongoing DMCA log for this incident at: http://fairfaxunderground.com/dmca/burningman/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2011 11:05AM by Cary.

Weird. A few months ago I was searching for an old post, and when I found the thread, I noticed Cary had edited one of the posts, with a note saying he removed copyrighted material due to a complaint he received. People must somehow find the images and complain to him about it. It's sorta funny they'd just contact the user about it.

Wah, I put a picture on the internet and I'm upset that people use it to promote my website... especially when the person doing it is requesting nothing in return.

Signatures are for fags

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?4
> 0,532295,532304,quote=1
>
>
>
> -


I didn't know they had sunflowers at burning man. I think that photo is staged & not random from burning man.

I really don't see what's so special about the image,,,

Photographers generally take thousands of pics a year, if this is one of your best pictures ever taken your in big trouble,,,

Fuckin amateur

I sent DustToAshes a PM...

Signatures are for fags

if i was a big, fat "moo" i wouldn't want my pics floating around either

Hey DustToAshes....

Here's something to cry about...

edit by Cary: This image (md5sum df0c72949d266caf943df0ab191661b4) was removed from your post due to a DMCA complaint from:
Black Rock City, LLC
Attn: Andrea Grace, Communications
PO Box 884688
San Francisco, CA 94188
Email: andie@burningman.com
(415) 865-3800

For more information please see the ongoing DMCA log for this incident at: http://fairfaxunderground.com/dmca/burningman/

Signatures are for fags



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2011 11:05AM by Cary.

You could always post the pic in every thread on FFXU,,,

I'm going to take all the pictures off the website and make them my signature....

Signatures are for fags

LOL Harry. Pretty good photoshop removing that original watermark.

Nothing fancy... I just cropped it out... The dummy put the watermark in the easiest place to remove it...

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL Harry. Pretty good photoshop removing that
> original watermark.

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing fancy... I just cropped it out... The
> dummy put the watermark in the easiest place to
> remove it...
>
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL Harry. Pretty good photoshop removing that
> > original watermark.

If you cropped the picture and changed it slightly then he no longer has a copyright. The copyright exists on the work exact as shown.

Change the color of the flower on the hat, no longer copyright.

And yes the pic is nothing special. I have tons of photographs which are much better that I took using my cellphone.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey DustToAshes....
>
> Here's something to cry about...


+1

Fuck them! Seriously, if they don't want to invest in the technology to protect their copyright and then post their shit online, fuck them! This is 2011, not 2001. There are ways of doing these things. They don't like it, stop posting shit online!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Copyright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Change the color of the flower on the hat, no
> longer copyright.


I thought you had to change 30%...

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Change the color of the flower on the hat, no
> > longer copyright.
>
>
> I thought you had to change 30%...




Harry, photoshop the flower girl; put in a naval ring, some tattoos on her arms, and change the sunflower to a black rose. Oh, and giver her snakebite piercings on her lips.

Maybe a dick in her hand?

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

Oh, guys, this is getting good....

I have been exchanging PM with "ales" and I am awaiting one more reply before I post our PM exchange publicly.

Long story short: "ales" is threatening ME with legal consequences.

Stay tuned, y'all....

Signatures are for fags

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 06:15PM by Alias.

Since that sculpture doesn't have a cock, it couldn't possibly be you!

I'd like front row seats to the Stinkfist vs. Alias showdown.

Tami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like front row seats to the Stinkfist vs.
> Alias showdown.


Better wear a raincoat....it could get messy.

If it's something you can just pull up on a google image search and it's not behind a password or something, it's in the public and can be used freely as long as the watermark remains.

Hilariously, Harry Tuttle's doctored picture doesn't violate any copyright laws either since it's an obvious parody, it doesn't have any impact on the work's value, and he will not be making any personal profit from it (intentionally or otherwise).

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Hey Tuttle, i will pay you ten cents for your sunflower girlie image.

Whaddya say???

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

Wire the money to my escrow account by close of business.

You can find the details on my website, tuttleblog.co

Pinhead the Cenobite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Tuttle, i will pay you ten cents for your
> sunflower girlie image.
>
> Whaddya say???

Signatures are for fags

Erm......does paypal work better?

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2011 01:06PM by Pinhead the Cenobite.

Pinhead the Cenobite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Erm......does paypal work better?

Real men pay with hookers and blow.

You're a real man, ain't-cha?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Pinhead the Cenobite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Tuttle, i will pay you ten cents for your
> sunflower girlie image.
>
> Whaddya say???

Picture for sale, taking bids.

edit by Cary: This image (md5sum df0c72949d266caf943df0ab191661b4) was removed from your post due to a DMCA complaint from:
Black Rock City, LLC
Attn: Andrea Grace, Communications
PO Box 884688
San Francisco, CA 94188
Email: andie@burningman.com
(415) 865-3800

For more information please see the ongoing DMCA log for this incident at: http://fairfaxunderground.com/dmca/burningman/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2011 11:05AM by Cary.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 06:13PM by Alias.

Oh Shit. I think I know Sunflower Girl. My husband sent her the link to the first post because we know she goes to burning man. She is an artist. She lived down the street, but has moved away.

6X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh Shit. I think I know Sunflower Girl. My husband
> sent her the link to the first post because we
> know she goes to burning man. She is an artist.
> She lived down the street, but has moved away.



Kinda like your claims about knowing me, going over to my house, knowing my grandfather, etc. Why don't you post some more robin pics that you lifted off of random Flickr accounts.

Copyright Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you cropped the picture and changed it slightly
> then he no longer has a copyright. The copyright
> exists on the work exact as shown.

No. Copyright is often described as a "bundle" of rights. One of these rights is the right to prohibit "derivative works," i.e., something based upon a pre-existing work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

The HT revision might qualify for the fair use parody exception, but that could only be established by (expensive) litigation. It's not automatic.

The author's failure to implement any form of protection or DRM for the image in no way obviates the copyright.

In short, I think if the copyright holder made a proper demand to Cary that the image be taken down from FU, Cary would be obliged to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Safe_Harbor_Provision_for_Online_Storage_-_.C2.A7_512.28c.29


Personal message from David Simon (creator of "The Wire") to Harry Tuttle:
On an ethical basis, anyone who steals and copies intellectual property is, well, a shithead.

I find that to be selfish and not a little bit infantile -- the sort of behavior that denotes someone who is unable to, say, sustain a sexual act for more than a few seconds, thereby proving themselves a huge disappointment to any and all partners.

Yeah, I'd definitely say that any asshole [who steals intellectual property] has pretty much defined himself before the world as a hopeless, useless premature ejaculator.

I dunno about copyright, but looking at her gets my "Cock-y-right"

A Little Branch of Zion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you cropped the picture and changed it
> slightly
> > then he no longer has a copyright. The
> copyright
> > exists on the work exact as shown.
>
> No. Copyright is often described as a "bundle" of
> rights. One of these rights is the right to
> prohibit "derivative works," i.e., something based
> upon a pre-existing work.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
>
> The HT revision might qualify for the fair use
> parody exception, but that could only be
> established by (expensive) litigation. It's not
> automatic.
>
> The author's failure to implement any form of
> protection or DRM for the image in no way obviates
> the copyright.
>
> In short, I think if the copyright holder made a
> proper demand to Cary that the image be taken down
> from FU, Cary would be obliged to do so.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infr
> ingement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Safe_Harbor_Prov
> ision_for_Online_Storage_-_.C2.A7_512.28c.29
>
>
> Personal message from David Simon (creator of "The
> Wire") to Harry Tuttle:
> On an ethical basis, anyone who steals and copies
> intellectual property is, well, a shithead.
>
> I find that to be selfish and not a little bit
> infantile -- the sort of behavior that denotes
> someone who is unable to, say, sustain a sexual
> act for more than a few seconds, thereby proving
> themselves a huge disappointment to any and all
> partners.
>
> Yeah, I'd definitely say that any asshole has
> pretty much defined himself before the world as a
> hopeless, useless premature ejaculator.



1.) Does this photographer have the money needed for litigation?

2.) Are they willing to travel to Virginia for court appearances?

3.) Cease and desist letters can be made very intimidating sounding, but in the end they have the zero legal weight.

4.) Streisand Effect.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6X Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh Shit. I think I know Sunflower Girl. My
> husband
> > sent her the link to the first post because we
> > know she goes to burning man. She is an artist.
> > She lived down the street, but has moved away.
>
>
>
> Kinda like your claims about knowing me, going
> over to my house, knowing my grandfather, etc. Why
> don't you post some more robin pics that you
> lifted off of random Flickr accounts.


What ever. I do know William Z. You are not him, so you say.. end of story. The robins are grown and hang out in My garden. I knew Williams Grandmother too she was the nicest lady.

6X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What ever. I do know William Z. You are not him,
> so you say.. end of story. The robins are grown
> and hang out in My garden. I knew Williams
> Grandmother too she was the nicest lady.
Attachments:

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>


Don't post pictures of yourself, eesh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2011 03:50PM by 6X.

tuttle, they've gotten wise... lets split man.

Attachments:

eesh Wrote:
---------------------------------
> 1.) Does this photographer have the money needed
> for litigation?
>
> 2.) Are they willing to travel to Virginia for
> court appearances?
>
> 3.) Cease and desist letters can be made very
> intimidating sounding, but in the end they have
> the zero legal weight.
>
> 4.) Streisand Effect.


At this stage, the only relevant issue is (3).

If an actual copyright holder sends a takedown letter, following the prescribed form, an OSP such as a Cary would be a fool not to take down the relevant image(s). Not to do so would be to put himself at risk for potentially very substantial legal costs and damages. Yeah, the copyright holder might ultimately not have the resources to pursue a lawsuit, but given the potential downside, it would be very imprudent to take that risk.

By contrast, when it comes to issues of defamation, OSPs have very little risk of liability until a court (rather than a private party) issues a takedown notice, demand for ISP data, etc. This is why Cary can cock a snoot at, say, Philip Leiser, whom I'm sure has demanded that Cary taken down the various threads mocking and impugning Leiser's lawerly skills.

Thanks Zion for all the information...



Hey, would you happen to be ChuckHoffman by any chance?

> Thanks Zion for all the information...

No prob.


> Hey, would you happen to be ChuckHoffman by any chance?

Hells no.

Lovin'it... It was hilarious... I'm still smiling... Gawsh, I've missed you...

but, seriously, I'm not stealing anything, bra... How do you define stealing? It was a gift, so go boo-hoo yourself to sleep...

I read your derivative works article... My actions are justified under the fair use doctrine..

And, yes... I am a premature ejaculator... but a thief I am not...

LYLAS

A Little Branch of Zion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personal message from David Simon (creator of "The
> Wire") to Harry Tuttle:
> On an ethical basis, anyone who steals and copies
> intellectual property is, well, a shithead.
>
> I find that to be selfish and not a little bit
> infantile -- the sort of behavior that denotes
> someone who is unable to, say, sustain a sexual
> act for more than a few seconds, thereby proving
> themselves a huge disappointment to any and all
> partners.
>
> Yeah, I'd definitely say that any asshole has
> pretty much defined himself before the world as a
> hopeless, useless premature ejaculator.

Signatures are for fags

Ales, AKA Ales Prikryl writes on his flickr...

I believe that Art is, and cannot be other than, the exact reproduction of Nature. Photography is a system of visual editing. In a simple sense, it is essentially surrounding a portion of one’s cone of vision with a frame, while standing in the right place at the right time. For me, taking a picture is a matter of choosing between given possibilities. The beauty is that the possibilities are infinite and the outcome unpredictable. I like to create my own visual world and unique reaction to the images not just for myself but for everybody else. Since I don’t have to follow any trends or reach a certain public my images are reflecting my visions and reactions to any situation I choose to be interesting. Thanks for taking the time to view this mini gallery. If you like some of the photographs, check out my other images at www.DustToAshes.net and please drop a comment or email me. Thank you -Ales

http://www.flickr.com/people/colorstream/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Ales/Prikryl

http://www.facebook.com/people/Ales-Prikryl/709985845

This will be fun...

Signatures are for fags

This loser is the one threatening legal action? He lives all the way in Reno anyway. Fuck him.



EDIT: LinkedIn says he is based in Reno but Facebook says Tucson AZ.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2011 12:41AM by eesh.
Attachments:

Nice shirt,,,

who joins a private message board for that ...well it's not exactly private but you need to take time out for joining? heh

Get any more PM from this guy, eesh?

Signatures are for fags

Yeah, I was wondering that too. How's it going to be
when dusttoashes finds out there was nothing
Between eesh and him?

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get any more PM from this guy, eesh?

Dude should sue el eeshbo $150,000 for willful infringement* (e reposted the image after being advised it was under copyright), and H. Tuttle $155,000 for willful infringement + removing the copyright notice ($2,500 criminal fine**) + applying a fraudulent notice ($2,500 criminal fine***).

Fair use defense? Ha ha ha. Good luck with that.

Peace out.


* 17 USC § 504(c)(2) (statutory damages: plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages or loss of profits)
** 17 USC § 506(d)
*** 17 USC § 506(c)

Burning Man's Revenge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dude should sue el eeshbo $150,000 for willful
> infringement* (e reposted the image after being
> advised it was under copyright)

False. The image was posted with its watermark intact. Eesh is not trying to profit or take credit for the picture. It's easily found with a google search, and the site it's from does not have it password protected or otherwise access-restricted.

, and H. Tuttle
> $155,000 for willful infringement + removing the
> copyright notice ($2,500 criminal fine**) +
> applying a fraudulent notice ($2,500 criminal
> fine***).

False. In this context, Harry Tuttle's manipulation of th epicture was clearly done as a parody. He does not stand to profit from the image, nor is he taking credit for the picture.

It's the same reason why a user on MySpace can add a song from a band's page to their own personal page without it being copyright infringement. The work was put out into the public for distribution.

>
> Fair use defense? Ha ha ha. Good luck with
> that.
>
> Peace out.

Like that hippie is going to pursue anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Burning Man's Revenge Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dude should sue el eeshbo $150,000 for willful
> > infringement* (e reposted the image after being
> > advised it was under copyright)
>
> False.

Nope.


> The image was posted with its watermark
> intact. Eesh is not trying to profit or take
> credit for the picture.

Makes no difference. He was told to take down the image and instead reposted it.

As noted, under a statutory damages claim there is no need to prove the infringer profited.

Whether or not the image has a watermark, or eesh "took credit" for it, are similarly irrelevant.


> It's easily found with a
> google search, and the site it's from does not
> have it password protected or otherwise
> access-restricted.

So what? None of those things obviate a copyright infringement claim; even an "innocent" infringer [pdf link] can be successfully sued.

And of course in this case (as in many others) eesh is far from innocent.


> False. In this context, Harry Tuttle's
> manipulation of th epicture was clearly done as a
> parody. He does not stand to profit from the
> image, nor is he taking credit for the picture.

Tuttle could make a fair use parody argument. But that would be a very expensive proposition. If he was sued he would have to hire an attorney to advance that defense, and intellectual property litigation is notoriously expensive. Moreover, fair use is a slippery concept and there's no guarantee it would be a winning argument.


> It's the same reason why a user on MySpace can add
> a song from a band's page to their own personal
> page without it being copyright infringement.

Most bands would let something like that slide, but they don't have to. Can't speak to MySpace, but if you go through the FU music video thread, for example, you'll see that many Youtube songs have been removed due to copyright claims.


> The work was put out into the public for distribution.

But here, the copyright holder specifically requested that the infringing image be taken down, and instead it was reposted. And of course, just because you put something "into the public for distribution" doesn't mean you lose your copyright to the distributed work, or your right to control that distribution; see, e.g., Metallica.


> Like that hippie is going to pursue anything.

Likely so. But I would certainly lmfao if Tuttle got sued.

I would too...

Burning Man's Revenge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Likely so. But I would certainly lmfao if Tuttle
> got sued.

Signatures are for fags

That's bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.

I have always had the ability to laugh at my misfortune...

If I got sued over something so silly, I would be upset at the time, but I would definitely laugh about it once things settled down.

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Get any more PM from this guy, eesh?




No, just that one.



As I said before, I would think a photographer would appreciate his work being disseminated. I never took credit for his pictures, it was a random image search for Burning Man girls. The more he wants to act like a douchebag, the more Streisand Effect he will incur.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always had the ability to laugh at my
> misfortune...
>
> If I got sued over something so silly, I would be
> upset at the time, but I would definitely laugh
> about it once things settled down.



This guy doesn't have the financial resources to bring a lawsuit. Being a one man business, I doubt he would dedicate a lot of time to come to Virginia to bring a case.

Burning Man's Revenge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dude should sue el eeshbo $150,000 for willful
> infringement* (e reposted the image after being
> advised it was under copyright), and H. Tuttle
> $155,000 for willful infringement + removing the
> copyright notice ($2,500 criminal fine**) +
> applying a fraudulent notice ($2,500 criminal
> fine***).
>
> Fair use defense? Ha ha ha. Good luck with
> that.
>
> Peace out.
>
>
> * 17 USC § 504(c)(2) (statutory damages:
> plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages or
> loss of profits)
> ** 17 USC § 506(d)
> *** 17 USC § 506(c)




Look at the pretend lawyer trying to sound smart. It's cute.


EDIT: Fixed!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2011 09:05PM by eesh.

I thought the same thing... In his PM to me he stated he wanted the picture removed for "personal reasons"...

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I said before, I would think a photographer
> would appreciate his work being disseminated. I
> never took credit for his pictures, it was a
> random image search for Burning Man girls. The
> more he wants to act like a douchebag, the more
> Streisand Effect he will incur.

Signatures are for fags

Burning Man's Revenge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Makes no difference. He was told to take down the
> image and instead reposted it.
>


If sending someone a PM on FFXU is the equivalent to "official notification", I'd say we're all Supreme Court Justices.

Good point, Soylent...

How can we be sure that the person who sent eesh the PM is the actual copyright holder?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point, Soylent...
>
> How can we be sure that the person who sent eesh
> the PM is the actual copyright holder?


hell son...I'm not even sure you're Harry Tuttle.

This place is a portal to the internet........it aint Homeland Security.


Hold on a second and I'll PM Cary using the name Barrack Obama...think he'll shit himself?

SoylentGreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good point, Soylent...
> >
> > How can we be sure that the person who sent
> eesh
> > the PM is the actual copyright holder?
>
>
> hell son...I'm not even sure you're Harry Tuttle.

WHat that s'posed t'mean?

>
> This place is a portal to the internet........it
> aint Homeland Security.
>
>
> Hold on a second and I'll PM Cary using the name
> Barrack Obama...think he'll shit himself?

I do... not...

Signatures are for fags

Just a note that the copyright maintainers of the Burning Man Festival have asserted additional copyright claims over images posted to FairfaxUnderground.com. Several images from this thread have been removed. An ongoing log of this claim and counter-claim process can be found here:

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/dmca/burningman/

- Cary (the admin)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2011 11:16AM by Cary.

The claim of copyright infringement is complete and utter bullshit, but I can see why you'd rather just delete the picture than take the time to prove it's bullshit.

I still maintain that it's not infringement if it's available via a simple google search and the watermark was intact, but if the guy's anal enough to search the Internet for people posting pictures from his site, it's probably not worth the time and money associated to fight it.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

It's worse than that, it's not the guy who runs dusttoashes but rather the organizers of Burning Man itself. They claim copyright ownership over all images taken at the festival. See these for more information:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/tell-burning-man-you-care-about-your-digital
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/know-you-go-part-2-burning-man-improves-ticket

A Little Branch of Zion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > 1.) Does this photographer have the money needed
> > for litigation?
> >
> > 2.) Are they willing to travel to Virginia for
> > court appearances?
> >
> > 3.) Cease and desist letters can be made very
> > intimidating sounding, but in the end they have
> > the zero legal weight.
> >
> > 4.) Streisand Effect.
>
>
> At this stage, the only relevant issue is (3).
>
> If an actual copyright holder sends a takedown
> letter, following the prescribed form, an OSP such
> as a Cary would be a fool not to take down the
> relevant image(s). Not to do so would be to put
> himself at risk for potentially very substantial
> legal costs and damages. Yeah, the copyright
> holder might ultimately not have the resources to
> pursue a lawsuit, but given the potential
> downside, it would be very imprudent to take that
> risk.

Issue 3 bloomed, and Cary responded accordingly.


Cary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When it comes to censorship of my users I will not use
> a meat cleaver when the law calls for a scalpel.

Very nicely put!

I would love to see some of your exchanges with Mr. Leiser.


MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The claim of copyright infringement is complete
> and utter bullshit, but I can see why you'd rather
> just delete the picture than take the time to
> prove it's bullshit.
>
> I still maintain that it's not infringement if
> it's available via a simple google search and the
> watermark was intact, but if the guy's anal enough
> to search the Internet for people posting pictures
> from his site, it's probably not worth the time
> and money associated to fight it.

You're incorrect on the copyright infringement issue.

The DMCA takedown notice was issued by Burning Man, not the photographer. My understanding is that Burning Man is co-holder of the copyright in all photos and video taken at Burning Man events (when you buy a ticket to the event, you agree to those terms).

Wow what douches those Burning Man people are. Funny how a bunch of dicks who market themselves as counter-culture types suddenly get all lawyerly and indignant over something that will never make them any money.

Cary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's worse than that, it's not the guy who runs
> dusttoashes but rather the organizers of Burning
> Man itself. They claim copyright ownership over
> all images taken at the festival. See these for
> more information:
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rig
> hts-playa
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/tell-burning-
> man-you-care-about-your-digital
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/know-you-go-p
> art-2-burning-man-improves-ticket

Wow. From Burning Man's site:

"Burning Man is an annual art event and temporary community based on radical self expression and self-reliance..."

What a load of hypocritical bullshit.

I still don't see how reposting a publicly-available picture with copyright information attached in a not-for-profit manner is infringement, but I'm not a lawyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Am I sued yet?

Signatures are for fags

Just read the log... You are the shit, Cary...

Signatures are for fags

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I still don't see how reposting a
> publicly-available picture with copyright
> information attached in a not-for-profit manner is
> infringement, but I'm not a lawyer.

The copyright holder can't pick and choose what they want to enforce. They either aggressively pursue ALL "infringements" or "violations" or they risk weakening their position when they must defend against a serious violation.

I've never heard of this kind of practice before. When is Disney going to start clamping down on tourist pictures posted online? Oh, they won't. Because they aren't total assholes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

So really, Burning Man could potentially claim the copyright for any picture taken in the desert.

For example, check out this picture I took at Burning Man:

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.
Attachments:

What kind of bullshit is that policy? Burning man owns the rights to any pictures taken at burning man?

I wasn't even aware that burning man was something that you bought tickets to...

I thought it was just a bunch of crazy people partying in the desert...

All this makes Burning Man seem.... less cool...

Signatures are for fags

Mephisto... Remember this picture taken of us at Burning Man?

Signatures are for fags
Attachments:

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought it was just a bunch of crazy people
> partying in the desert...

It probably started that way, but that changed as soon as someone realized they could make a buck off of it. A free-spirited, anti-capitalist romp in the desert, sponsored by capitalism. God bless America.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mephisto... Remember this picture taken of us at
> Burning Man?

I totally remember that! I bought a bunch of hippie souls for a handful of poisonous mushrooms and you laughed so hard that blood shot out of your eyes.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Nicely done...

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you laughed so hard that blood shot out of
> your eyes.

Signatures are for fags

Is eesh still missing? has anyone checked for him at Wolfram Mathematica Online?

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just read the log... You are the shit, Cary...


Agreed, Cary's response was strong,,,
Attachments:

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never heard of this kind of practice before.
> When is Disney going to start clamping down on
> tourist pictures posted online? Oh, they won't.
> Because they aren't total assholes.


That's pretty ironic, considering that Disney owns Black Rock City, the corporate parent of Burning Man.

Disney's Epcot is planning a kid-friendly, environmental-themed version of Burning Man as a development within Future World's "The Land" pavilion. It's scheduled to open in 2016.

I realize some people may think that's not "cool," but I think it's great. I mean it's not like Disney can just keep recycling Mickey Mouse and the Little Mermaid forever and ever. They have to try new stuff.



Draft Illustration for Epcot Center's "Burning Man" logo

Uh.yeah,,,,real cutting edge,,,

Yuppie hippies

Nothing says "creativity" and "radical self-expression" like a corporation founded by a Nazi sympathizer.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Cary-

Seems to me that Burning Man's beef is with the people who agreed to the original arrangement...the participants...and not with outside groups that have nothing to do with their event.

You might want to remind the Burning Man organizers that Nevada has anti-SLAPP laws...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation#United_States

...Seems to me they are setting themselves up for a class action suit that the will surely lose.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Hey everybody, let's promote community and radical self-expression by forcefully enacting the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act! Look how fucking serious we are- we'll sue your ass!

For a group of people who value ideas like "decommodification", they sure have a bully-ish, corporate way of embracing it.

Who the fuck runs this gig anyway, the Scientologists?

Welcome to burning man comrade,,,
Attachments:

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey everybody, let's promote community and radical
> self-expression by forcefully enacting the terms
> of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act! Look how
> fucking serious we are- we'll sue your ass!
>
> For a group of people who value ideas like
> "decommodification", they sure have a bully-ish,
> corporate way of embracing it.
>
> Who the fuck runs this gig anyway, the
> Scientologists?

Burning Man was on my bucket list, but I'll try to find a less-commercial avenue for asserting my individualism and creative free-spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Burning Man was on my bucket list,

On mine too, I've often thought of coordinating a Vegas trip with a ride up there with some friends who've gone to it before.

No more. And I'm spreading the word to my friends:

The Burning Man and Black Rock City, LLC actively promote censorship and are the arbiters of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

I know this couple that's gone to burning man for years,,,they're both hard core conservative republicans,,I always thought it was strange,,,now it makes more sense to me,,,

fuckin posers

I think instead I'll go to an event run by a group that won't take legal action against people who re-post a publicly-available picture from their gathering.

Maybe a Ku Klux Klan rally.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Burning Man was on my bucket list, but I'll try to
> find a less-commercial avenue for asserting my
> individualism and creative free-spirit.


I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.
Groucho Marx

Does this constitute fair use parody?

Signatures are for fags
Attachments:

Awesome.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Take it dooowwwwwnnn!!

Your alleged parody will not protect you from the power of Burning Man!

Ve vill crush you!

PS: http://boingboing.net/2011/06/23/why-fair-use-doesnt.html