Real offer? or Rick S. just blowing smoke? Where is Rick S.

sixpack said:
First of all, not analogous. The ambulance shows up and bills later. The patient usually has no clue what the ride will cost. AND the ambulance drivers and the ambulance companies are getting paid. They are driving a company vehicle and using company equipment while on company time.

The freelance photographer on the other hand, drove there in his own car, bought his own gas, used his own time waiting for something to happen or finding something to photograph, used his own camera and film and does not get paid for anything unless someone buys the photos. And he was obviously freelancing at the time because if he wasn't the company he was working for would have negotiated the sale of the photos because they would have had the rights to them.

IMO a better analogy is: Would you expect the ambulance drivers to invest in their own ambulance, buy their own gas, buy their own medical equipment, buy their own uniforms, wait on their own time unpaid for an emergency call, and then drive to the scene and save someone's life and take them to the hospital without getting paid or even reimbursed for their expenses? Obviously not. Yet that is what people expect the photographer to do.

I agree that on first blush it looks like the photographer is a greedy sob. And the media certainly portrayed this story that way. I remember this story when it came out (although I had no idea it was our very own coco that was involved in it.) I even remember thinking that the photographer was a greedy sob at the time. I was as naive as everyone else about the photography business back then.

I'm not trying to convince you and I don't think I can. I'm just presenting an alternate way of framing the situation that probably didn't occur to most people when they heard or read about that story.

As for Rick's point about a fair price - Obviously opinions varied about what a fair price was and that's why they went to court. And that is the precise role of courts in civil disagreements.
Click to expand...

now this logic, i get it.
 
ChicagoRJ said:
And that's why we have internet forums, so we can call out DB moves like that. You dont' have to like it, but I'm pretty sure we know where the majority sides on this issue.... so you and coco must feel good about pulling that move on a grieving widow,..... nothing says integrity like a pool player....bravo.
Click to expand...

I would say the lawyer is the bad guy in this tale, not Coco. That's just me, though.
 
sixpack said:
I wouldn't pull that move on a grieving widow. And I never have. Stop trying to make everything personal it gets annoying.
Click to expand...

But you would defend a guy that did ??? not very consistent or logical... but hey.. it's the internet ??? Shall we post a poll about the subject, would love to know what others think... heck, If I'm wrong, I will be the first to admit it....
 
Like I said there was no formal offer, just a question posted long ago in 2008. I answered the question later in the thread titled.

"Do you favor OPEN Play Tournaments, or Handicapped Tournaments."

06-14-2008, 10:24 AM was the date, and it Post # 74. <<-- Post linked.

You asked a question Rick S., and commented on your own question. Maybe you forgot it was only a question, not an offer, see below.:smile:


"Would you play in one of the Az Desert Classic Tour tournys with a paid spot??

I don't think so....."

So all you guys who know how to use the search feature. Go find a post where Rick S. made a formal offer. As before I started this thread I search, and search, and NO FORMAL OFFER WAS MADE IMHO.
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
OK folks I have decided to stop being so nice, and I have decided to take Rick S. up on his generous offer if it is a real offer.

What is in italics is from a post # 47 below I have linked here.

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

“CooCoo Cowboy absolutely won't go.....I have even offered to pay his entry into a Desert Classic Tour event in Phx. Nope....he was afraid he'd have to purchase a bottle of WATER while he was there.

The cheapest SOB on the face of the earth....

A few yrs back he was offering suggestions on how to save money in Vegas....."take a bus across town to Walgreen's where they have souvenir t shirts cheaper...."

Can you imagine being that damn cheap.....? “
Click to expand...


CocoboloCowboy said:
Like I said there was no formal offer, just a question posted long ago in 2008. I answered the question later in the thread titled.

"Do you favor OPEN Play Tournaments, or Handicapped Tournaments."

06-14-2008, 10:24 AM was the date, and it Post # 74. <<-- Post linked.

You asked a question Rick S., and commented on your own question. Maybe you forgot it was only a question, not an offer, see below.:smile:


"Would you play in one of the Az Desert Classic Tour tournys with a paid spot??

I don't think so....."

So all you guys who know how to use the search feature. Go find a post where Rick S. made a formal offer. As before I started this thread I search, and search, and NO FORMAL OFFER WAS MADE IMHO.
Click to expand...

What the hell is wrong with you? You start a thread, whining about something, then post later in your own thread that there was nothing to post about. Seek help.. preferably somewhere without internet access. Immediately. You've really out-crazied yourself this time.
 
CocoboloCowboy said:

"Would you play in one of the Az Desert Classic Tour tournys with a paid spot??

I don't think so....."
.
Click to expand...

You've lost your rocker man. Do you see that symbol ? there at the end? Like I just did there too. It means it's a question. The next line is a speculative response. You seriously, and I'm not trying to bash you here, need to go to a doctor. Something has been off with your posting as of lately, and this just show cases the problem more.
 
Site

I must be on the wrong Az web site this has to be a group of teenagers spending their days agruing about bullshit. Maybe I'm just getting old at 38 tho.
 
TimKrazyMon said:
If I'm not getting what I deem fair, I'm not giving up the photos either. Kudos to Coco for standing his ground. Like it was said previously, when 2 sides disagree on "fair", that's what courts are for.
Click to expand...

yes, kudos to a great human being... I'm pretty sure the courts determined what was fair and fair is the going rate... not the ransom rate from a distraught and grieving widow. Yes, coco should be so proud :rolleyes:
 
ChicagoRJ said:
But you would defend a guy that did ??? not very consistent or logical... but hey.. it's the internet ??? Shall we post a poll about the subject, would love to know what others think... heck, If I'm wrong, I will be the first to admit it....
Click to expand...

Truth and logic doesn't have a side.

Consenus <> science. Consensus <> logic.

It doesn't really matter what public opinion is. Freedom is freedom and the legal foundations of our country are the legal foundations of our country. I believe strongly in those foundations and personal freedom and liberty and support people and businesses to exercise those freedoms in the way THEY see fit. Not the way ChicagoRJ, sixpack or anyone else sees fit for them.

If they didn't want to pay for the photos from that photographer then they should have bought the photos from someone else. Oh they couldn't? Right. Because that photographer was the one who was there at the right time, with the right training, with the right equipment and the right vision to create the work that apparently was the lynchpin for their (probably) million dollar settlement with the insurance company. He is free to ask for whatever he wants to be compensated. If the photos are worth that much to them they will pay. If they are not, then they will not and he'll be stuck with photos that are no use to him. It's just a negotiation.

America is a free country and depends on market forces to determine prices and value. I'm not the one trying to limit someone's compensation after they have put in the time and risked the investment. Yet I'm the bad guy. And somehow pool players are bad guys. huh? I don't follow that either.

Just to try and follow your logic a little further: The lawyer was taking advantage of her for charging her to pursue this lawsuit because she was a grieving widow. The judge was taking advantage of her for presiding over this lawsuit because she was a grieving widow he did not forego his salary for the duration of the trial. The custodian in the courthouse, the recorder, the bailiff and the policemen guarding the courthouse were all taking advantage of her because she was a grieving widow and they were compensated for their services. The photo lab that processed the photos should not have charged because she was a grieving widow. When she had lunch with her lawyer during the trial the restaurant and all the employees there should not have charged her because she's a grieving widow.

I'm sure the church or funeral home where she held the funeral didn't charge her either because she's a grieving widow. The gravediggers worked for free too I'm sure because she's a grieving widow.

Out of all of these people, why do you focus on the photographer? The one who is probably making the least of all of them on an annual basis. The one who probably had no health insurance, no steady paycheck and yet showed up and produced work that was valued highly by the widow and the insurance company. Why?

They valued it enough to go to court. If they had offered to pay the photographer the amount they were willing to spend on legal fees, court fees, time and energy he likely would have accepted. So they valued the photos at least as much as their court costs, but weren't willing to pay the photographer that much. Why?

Why didn't they get the photos they needed from the police photographer? Who, btw, if there was one, would have been paid to take the photos, paid even when he' s not taking photos, used government equipment, government film and ridden there in a government car with gas paid for by the government. And on a per photograph basis 'we the people' probably would have paid him more than the photographer was asking for. Why aren't you mad at police and crime scene photographers?

Why do you focus on this one little entrepreneur in the whole scenario? Do you hate capitalism? Do you hate entrepreneurs?
 
Okay. Just so we all know what we're arguing about....

Here is one of the articles that Rick originally posted: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/freelance-photojournalist-protected-california-shield-law

This is a different one from the one I found last night. But I can't find that one now.
This one is a court summary that explains the situation slightly differently than most of us were assuming I think. The Photographer sold a copy of the slides to the plaintiff in a lawsuit. The defendant in the accident case then tried to force the photographer produce the slides but the photographer claimed journalistic privilege and refused. The court found for the photographer. He sold the copies through his agent so I'm sure it was fair market price. The defendant did not want to pay him for the slides apparently. Or they wanted him to produce them so they could examine whether or not the prints the plaintiffs were using had been doctored. Either way the court sided with him.

If someone can find the other article and post the link I'd appreciate it. My google juice appears to have run out.
 
Blue Hog ridr said:
....Sometime, ask Coco where he got all the Free Billiard Supplies from. He knows but he won't tell. He got caught trying to sell some of them by another Long Time AZ Member. When that member made a thread about it, it was quickly deleted.

I do know that it makes him Vibrate every time I mention it. He used to be a Pot and Pan Huckster. Thats why he claims that Green Chalk is his favorite. He probably has a ton of it left over.
Click to expand...

ok, i'm calling your post OUT.
;)
 
Rick S. said:
Well....do you really think that the lawyers-family would have had a problem paying a reasonable price for the photos? Hell no.....

Don't create any more stress-strain on the poor lady who just lost the father of her children-husband by holding the photos as ransom for more money. Do you really think that's right?

They had to go court over this....
Click to expand...



Well Rick S. you did not read the Court Case. It involved California Shield Law, and First Amendment Rights. Remember California Shield Law, it was part of the OJ Trail, and involved unpublished reporter notes.

The family aka as the Plaintiff in the Case had a set of photo, it was the Defendants, like the Motor Cycle Company, Helmet Company, City where the crash occurred, etc. who wanted a FREE SET.

When I said no to a FREE Set they served me with a Subpoena, think I would give up my property to them, and we went to Court over principal.

The Judge Rules had the Defendant asked the Plaintiffs Attorney for a SET THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO GIVE UP A SET under something legal terms called Discovery. The share of evidence before trail by both parties.

The Attorneys for the Defendants, never ask for what they had a right to from the Plaintiff Attorneys.

So you painting a picture of me to fit your agenda of hold up some poor family up like a highway bandit or? That was BU****IT, as the Attorney representing the family got a set that they paid the going rate for at the time.

THIS THREAD HAS GONE TO CRAP,HAS BEEN HI JACKED, AND IS LIKE A SHIP WITH NO RUDDED.
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
OK folks I have decided to stop being so nice, and I have decided to take Rick S. up on his generous offer if it is a real offer.
Click to expand...

CocoboloCowboy said:
Like I said there was no formal offer, just a question posted long ago in 2008. I answered the question later in the thread titled.

<SNIP>

So all you guys who know how to use the search feature. Go find a post where Rick S. made a formal offer. As before I started this thread I search, and search, and NO FORMAL OFFER WAS MADE IMHO.
Click to expand...

CocoboloCowboy said:
THIS THREAD HAS GONE TO CRAP,HAS BEEN HI JACKED, AND IS LIKE A SHIP WITH NO RUDDED.
Click to expand...

Oar maybe It was ruddedless to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top