ed prewitt cues

[cueaddicts]

....aren't really to sure if it's ok to steal, seems since both companies they work for try to do it so often they try to defend it as much as they can.

Jim

LOL....what a joke.

 

[cornerstone]

Hey Bill I know you're the rookie just trying to fit in the club, but you've got more class then this, butt out or jump in and we can have some real fun.

BTW I drink very much and even at my most drunk I am aware that stealing is a bad thing.

Jim

you are correct theft is wrong !and I didnt think you were the type to get hammered and that is why i asked? the couple times i seen you you were on very good behavior and very courdual?

 

[JimBo]

Bruin, don't worry. I know you can read. Jimbo says I accused you of stealing the images from Joe. Anyone with an education beyond the 2nd grade can read and understand that is not the case. Jimbo cannot, however, because his own comprehension shows that he never made it past 2nd grade.

Sean please grow up and stop trying the BS backpedal, you said "Did you get permission from JoeVan at classiccues before using his scans? Shame on you if you didn't" Right there you Implied (I know it's a big word for you) that he took "Joe's Images" without permission. You can call it barrow if you'd like but taking something without one's permission is as wrong as stealing in case you don't want to use harsh words. Also it was your intention to bring up an old topic where MY property was used in a manor that it wasn't intended for, please don't "play" dumb you're too close and many may get confused if it's an act or the real deal.

The point to be made here is Jimbo's.

I made my point several times and I believe must with an education got it.

Classiccues created those images and in reality the rights for their use would be theirs

How do you know who created them? Bruin claims he got them from Ed.

(if I'm understanding the old thread correctly).

What thread??

Most people seemed to agree.

About what? You are talking in circles, "most people" can't follow what you're talking about.

Now, just because Joe's name was brought into the mix, Jimbo wiggles and squirms, backtracks and puts on his usual spins, just for the sake of an arguement.

JimBo wiggles?? About what? Stealing is wrong? That's what you think I wiggled on? You are as big a clown as Joe. Seems you don't need to be to bright to sell cues, thank God there is no test. Just for the sake of an argument?? Why did you bring my name and the old topic up? What were you hoping for?? You're a fool Sean. You bring it up and then claim it's me looking for an argument? LOL Good one.


It's probably fine using the pics,

Not unless you ask the person who owns them idiot. Stick to selling cues the law isn't your area of expertise.

but not because Ed gave them to you. Acording to the old thread's subject material, they would in theory still classiccues' unless they were given to Ed with an understanding they could be used publically. (And this may have even been the case...nonetheless, it's not about you or the pics, it's about the point).

Sean

What old subject material in what old thread?? If it's about a point then maybe you should make one. For the record it's OK to use someone's property when you get the permission of the person who owns the material, anything else is stealing.

Jim

 

[bruin70]

so i'm not reading your posts back and forth. but let me put my 2 cents in, anyway. this post is not about me, but i am only trying to be objective about the issue of property rights of images loaded onto a website.

the issue "unauthorized use of,,," implies use for PROFIT, imo.

the easy access to the internet has made it imperative to guard your property rights IF that's a major concern,,,,for it is so very convenient to simply "right click, save image as".....that is the internet. i myself have targeted 40 second snippets from songs that i listen to on occasion on my computer.

i am also in the exact same boat as ed, any cuemaker, or any cue dealer. and any one can go to the site of any of my galleries, and "save image as". but the whole point, after all, is that you are on the internet because it offers others access to your inventory and you can reach thousands of web surfers conveniently. it would be naive to think no one is saving any of your images or sharing them with others,,,"hey guyz, check out this ginacue i saw at billiardcue.com". i think abbott AND ernie would like that. one musician loaded one of my paintings onto his site, and wrote a song after it. i thought it was cool, and CERTAINLY it warranted more scrutiny than anything we've been talking about. but we show our inventory onsite BECAUSE we want that very kind of exposure and accessability. what you don't want, of course, is someone printing out your images and selling them as postcards, etc. and cuemakers/dealers don't print posters, so they are not losing income off other people's downloads.

if property rights is a PRIMARY concern, then cuemakers and dealers have a few alternatives..... 1...say on the site, PROMINENTLY, that saving images is prohibited,,,which i don' think you really want. 2...ask that people please contact them for permission. 3...put a digital watermark on the image. 4... build the site in flash.

 

[JimBo]

so i'm not reading your posts back and forth. but let me put my 2 cents in, anyway. this post is not about me, but i am only trying to be objective about the issue of property rights of images loaded onto a website.

the issue "unauthorized use of,,," implies use for PROFIT, imo.

I disagree with this and again we are not talking apples to apples.

the easy access to the internet has made it imperative to guard your property rights IF that's a major concern,,,,for it is so very convenient to simply "right click, save image as".....that is the internet. i myself have targeted 40 second snippets from songs that i listen to on occasion on my computer.

i am also in the exact same boat as ed, any cuemaker, or any cue dealer. and any one can go to the site of any of my galleries, and "save image as". but the whole point, after all, is that you are on the internet because it offers others access to your inventory and you can reach thousands of web surfers conveniently. it would be naive to think no one is saving any of your images or sharing them with others,,,"hey guyz, check out this ginacue i saw at billiardcue.com". i think abbott AND ernie would like that. one musician loaded one of my paintings onto his site, and wrote a song after it. i thought it was cool, and CERTAINLY it warranted more scrutiny than anything we've been talking about. but we show our inventory onsite BECAUSE we want that very kind of exposure and accessability. what you don't want, of course, is someone printing out your images and selling them as postcards, etc. and cuemakers/dealers don't print posters, so they are not losing income off other people's downloads.

Once again I will point out that we are not talking about the same thing here. Sean tried to drag up an old issue and it has little to do with any of this. As I've said stealing is stealing and it's wrong. but all your points are correct on the topic, the differing factor comes when the original item is not something on the net rather a private item.

if property rights is a PRIMARY concern, then cuemakers and dealers have a few alternatives..... 1...say on the site, PROMINENTLY, that saving images is prohibited,,,which i don' think you really want. 2...ask that people please contact them for permission. 3...put a digital watermark on the image. 4... build the site in flash.

Bru when you put your art out there it's to be seen and to get exposure. If you sent a friend a picture of your wife nude and asked them to keep it private and then they posted the pic in a public forum would you think it was ok?? Even if they weren't going to profit from it?? Now what if after they posted it others took it from their post and used it on other websites, maybe to profit? Who would be wrong then? What if they asked your friend if it was ok, even though it wasn't his to give permission?? I mean this thread took a turn because Sean wanted to have a little fun and that's fine with me, but let's not confuse the issues. I could easily ignore it and it would go away, many reading this now have no clue as it is. But I'll take every chance I can get to expose thieves and liars and piece of shit people who can't be trusted, people who claim to have honor and who claim to be trustworthy. hey, on second thought maybe he knew exactly what he was doing LOL. (nice work Sean) ;-)

Jim

 

[bruin70]

Bru when you put your art out there it's to be seen and to get exposure. If you sent a friend a picture ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hey, on second thought maybe he knew exactly what he was doing LOL. (nice work Sean) ;-)

Jim

if i sent a pic of my wife nude, then i must be married to pamela anderson. "for joy, for joy", to quote maynard g. krebbs

speaking in non legal terms, of course, my friend would be breaking a trust and it is ethically wrong, at least. but i'm sure there's a suit there, not unlike the paris hilton video thing.

if others use a pic of a cue, and profit from it, then THEY are held accountable, not the original downloader, i would think. if,,,along the way, the pic being sent from one to another to another to another, until a point when authorization and property rights are "lost in translation", i cannot see blame involving the original downloader who did so innocently, because, you see, hundreds upon thousand and even millions of images, text how-to's, etc etc get downloaded every day, and there is no way to control it. those things are free to use unless otherwise dictated. if one assumes there are hundreds or thousands viewing and possibly saving images or text, then he "gives up"(bad phrase) his property rights because it is impossible to control all this downloading unless he specifies so on his site. the internet, by its very nature, is a SHARING community,,,,sharing information. at EVERY site we visit, someone is sharing information with us.

if i visit someone's home and i see pics of my art cut out from magazine ads of my show and pinned to their wall, i won't say, "hey, you can't do that. i own the rights to those pics"...a better point. i do a two week art seminar every year. i've also given TONS of advice at certain art sites. if someone decides to print out my advice, good for them. my advice was given freely,,,to share. if they print it out and try to sell it, well,,,,,,,,,,,

the blame would go directly to the offending party using the images for profit. understand, that i am talking SPECIFICALLY about image downloading, nothing else.

just my nonlegal opinion

 

[Cornerman]

the issue "unauthorized use of,,," implies use for PROFIT, imo. .

I'm sure this isn't true. There are a multitude of reasons for unauthorized use that don't involve profit.

Photos may give information about the subject matter or photographer that neither wants divulged.

For example, if a person took nude photos of his girlfriend, unauthorized use of those photos doesn't have to be profit motivated.

Fred

 

[bruin70]

I'm sure this isn't true. There are a multitude of reasons for unauthorized use that don't involve profit.

Photos may give information about the subject matter or photographer that neither wants divulged.

For example, if a person took nude photos of his girlfriend, unauthorized use of those photos doesn't have to be profit motivated.

Fred

yes, and i briefly touched upon it. however, i don't think that's the gist of the issue here.