JellyBean said:
Bean,
I don't know if you've noticed.. I ain't fighting over the picture. I think its funny myself, but for different reasons.
BTW I don't have to buy a bigger d**k, thats why I don't own a Bushka
Joe
Nuts 3
- Thread starter JimBo
- Start date
Bean,
I don't know if you've noticed.. I ain't fighting over the picture. I think its funny myself, but for different reasons.
BTW I don't have to buy a bigger d**k, thats why I don't own a Bushka
Joe
Rackin_Zack said:
Yes, it applies to digital images, too. For me, I embed the copyright information in the metatdata that is a part of the image file. My files come out of my cameras in a Camera Raw format which has to be edited, then converted to jpeg, tiff or some other format for final use. During the editing process in Photoshop, I embed the copyright data.
If someone comes into your house, shop or whatever and takes an unauthorized photo of your cue I'm not sure there's really a whole lot you could do legally, unless they tried to use the image for profit. They would still own the image, but would really need permission from you to use it commercially. You would probably have to sue them to get any satisfaction. There are some pretty gray areas regarding this issue...if, on the other hand, you were in a public place and they took a picture of you holding your cue, then they would need the model release if you were identifiable in the photo. If you were not identifiable in the photo (maybe it just showed your hands and the cue), I think it would probably take a court ruling to decide. No model release is needed if you are not the main subject of the photo and it's taken in a public setting. Private property being photographed in a public setting is a matter that I'm not sure about. I'm sure if it's unique property, like a one-of-a-kind cue, then you would have some rights...especially where there is a possiblility of infingement on rights such as design of the cue.
GeraldG said:
G,
Once you stepped into my garage, you would be tresspassing, once convicted of that, you would no longer own the picture. What I think is important here is that there was an agreement, and its really just 2 differeing stories on what that agreement was.
Joe
One thing I think that needs to be looked at in the overall scope of the situation. It was a private photographing session involving cues for a specific publication. So does that mean that since all the cues were being shot for possibility of being in said publication that they all become "public". Should the only people allowed to take any pictures have been the BB3 people? The applicability of "fair use", in the aspect of art and research.. many questions to little time...
Joe
Joe
classiccues said:
Joe, I don't think this really matters much in this case...sort of off topic, but you're not trespassing until you have been asked to leave and refuse to, or if you enter a property after being warned not to. If someone comes into your garage (after being allowed or invited by you) and starts taking pictures, you have every right to ask them not to and to ask them to leave if they continue to take pictures. If they refuse, then they are trespassing. If that didn't happen, then no trespassing took place. You can't allow someone onto your property, then suddenly decide they are trespassing. You have to ask them to leave and warn them not to re-enter the property, then they have to violate that before there is trespassing. If someone comes onto your property unauthorized (without being allowed on the property or invited on the property), then they are trespassing even without being warned. If they enter a building or structure unauthorized, that would be a more serious crime, either burglary or B&E depending upon the state and how the statutes are written.
However, you are right...if there was an agreement with the photos, then the agreement should be adhered to. Unfortunately, it sounds like even though this was a quasi-business agreement, nothing was in writing.
GeraldG said:
Absolutely, when I said my garage is was ment not to mean invited. But you are correct he was invited. None the less, the lesson here is get it in writing.
Joe
classiccues said:
Yep!! If the agreement isn't in writing, there's no agreement.
My honest opinion is that this whole argument is ridiculous. I just can't see where anyone was harmed by the use of these photos. It seems to me that a lot of the argument was just for the sake of arguing...sort of like the arguments about one pool cue looking similar to another. Yeah, there's probably technically a point that can be made on both sides, but so what? Is it worth getting your blood pressure up over? Similarly, I find it ridiculous that a person who doesn't design or build cues would be so worried about somebody building a cue that looks like someone else's cue.
GeraldG said:Yep!! If the agreement isn't in writing, there's no agreement.
My honest opinion is that this whole argument is ridiculous. I just can't see where anyone was harmed by the use of these photos. It seems to me that a lot of the argument was just for the sake of arguing...sort of like the arguments about one pool cue looking similar to another. Yeah, there's probably technically a point that can be made on both sides, but so what? Is it worth getting your blood pressure up over? Similarly, I find it ridiculous that a person who doesn't design or build cues would be so worried about somebody building a cue that looks like someone else's cue.
G,
Well you have this one pegged in the first three sentences. Some people just cannot be happy unless they are making other people miserable. Well you know, I can understand both sides of the "copying" debate. Remind me sometime to show you the pics of the Kulungian Kollection.. by Adam Cues.
Joe
classiccues said:
Oh, definitely. I can certainly see how the original designer or owner of the original could have a beef.... in the case of a forgery (counterfeit). But why in the world would a 3rd party with absolutely no tangible interest in it get in such a wad over it? Especially if there's really no counterfeitting involved, but only the use of certain design elements. It's one thing to believe that it's wrong and to express that opinion, but to become abusive with other people and to use the kind of juvenile language I 've seen in some of these threads over something like that is kind of over the edge in my opinion.
Last edited:
YO CRAZY DUDE JUST CAUSE SOMEONE AINT HURT DONT MEAN IT AINT RIGHT WHAT DAT ASS DID BY STEALIN THE PICTURE. DA PRICK DIDNT HAVE PERMISSION FO DA PICTURE SO HES AS ASS FOR TAKIN AND USIN IT ON HIS WEB SITE. ALL JIMBO WANTS IS DISS ASS TO ADMIT HES AN ASS AN A WANNIBE. HE TINKS HE CAN MAKE YALL BELIEVE HE KNOWS SOME SHIT CAUSE HE CAN STEAL A PICTURE O OTHERS PEOPLES CUES AND POST IT LIKE HE KNOWS SOMETHIN. ALL IT PROVE IS DAT HE CAN STEAL SOMEBODIES ELSES PROPERTY.GeraldG said:Yep!! If the agreement isn't in writing, there's no agreement.
My honest opinion is that this whole argument is ridiculous. I just can't see where anyone was harmed by the use of these photos. It seems to me that a lot of the argument was just for the sake of arguing...sort of like the arguments about one pool cue looking similar to another. Yeah, there's probably technically a point that can be made on both sides, but so what? Is it worth getting your blood pressure up over? Similarly, I find it ridiculous that a person who doesn't design or build cues would be so worried about somebody building a cue that looks like someone else's cue.
MAYBE CAUSE HE GOT THE RIGHTS TO DAT PICTURE AND DIS ASS STOLE THE PICTURE FROM HIM AND USE IT FO HIS OWN BENAFIT. MAYBE JIMBO CAN NEVER SELL IT BUT SO WHAT CAUSE ITS STILL HIS SHIT AND THIS PIECE OF DINGO STOLE HIS STUFF. HOW YOU LIKE IT IF I COME TO YO HOUSE AND STEAL ONE TSHIRT FROM YOU? YOU AINT GETTIN HURT FROM IT BUT ITS STILL WRONG TO DO IT. DIS GUY IS WRONG AND HE AN ASSHOLE FOR TAKIN WHAT NOT HIS TO BEGIN WITH.GeraldG said:
OK hmmm,
All you legal wannabees answer me this... if a newspaper or magazine photog takes a pic of Joe and Jimbo beating the sh*t out of each other in the middle of a public street with $5000.00 Bushkas can he print the pic without a model release or does he have to bail them both outta jail and get them to sign one?
And if he doesn't have to can I then post the pic onthis forum???
Terry ( who'll never own a Bushka)
All you legal wannabees answer me this... if a newspaper or magazine photog takes a pic of Joe and Jimbo beating the sh*t out of each other in the middle of a public street with $5000.00 Bushkas can he print the pic without a model release or does he have to bail them both outta jail and get them to sign one?
And if he doesn't have to can I then post the pic onthis forum???
Terry ( who'll never own a Bushka)
GeraldG said:
Joe will continue to try and bad mouth me and claim there is much more to the story, but the truth is it's an easy cut and dry story that's very simple, I own the picture, that's all. No need to try and complicate it in an attempt to look better.
Jim
JellyBean said:
Bean it has nothing to do with the picture or the content, it has to do with an agreement between two friends, Joe not being one of them (although I do consider Joe a friend and still do). Fact is I'm not really mad at Joe at all in this case, he had no idea what agreement I had with his boss, he would love for everyone to think I was mad at him and that he did play a roll in this because that would give him some credibility and put him in the loop, he's just not. For the same reason I'm not mad at you or Roscoe for posting up the copy of MY picture, we didn't have an agreement. It really isn't about the content of the picture it's about a broken promise, it's not about Joe Van it's about the person who gave his word. Joe wants us all to believe he speaks for that person, but until I hear these words direct I won't react.
Jim
classiccues said:
Just to clear it up for me Joe please ask Mark to E-mail me exactly how he recalls that conversation going and what he thinks the agreement was, I know it will hurt for you to step out of the spotlight, but really it doesn't need to take up any of this forum's space or time. I can't wait to hear from him.
Jim
classiccues said:
Once again Joe you are trying to hard to shift the focus, none of this matters in the original discussion, yet you want things to get blurry so you can try to confuse the argument. What if it had been a full moon, what if Mark was drunk, what if I was late on my mortgage that month? Also these are all hypothetical situations and lies since I was invited and EVERYONE knew I was taking my own pictures at the time. Not only did I set up my own picture but I also used the BB3's set ups and lights for other pictures, I was not sneaking around with a spy-cam like the picture you are trying to paint. I've worked with every person in that room (other then you) on numerous shoots and never had 1 problem. The main problem with you is your need to try and be a part of something that you had no involvement in. But again I guess it makes you feel important so keep talking.
Jim
classiccues said:
LOL Joe are you drunk?? Get it in writing? what did Mark need to get in writing? I don't ask friends to put things in writing because I trust that they will keep their word, I didn't have to give him anything, I did because he was a friend. I have a few other pictures he's asked me for that he'll never see (one involves cops, one involves a girl, and others with cues) I don't need shit in writing because he'll never see another picture from me. Fact is people can say I'm beating a dead horse, but this thread has more traffic then anything here in the past month, if the horse is dead stop looking at him. And I will continue to respond to every lie Joe makes up, like his new one that I was trespassing in a private place LOL and taking pictures without anyone's knowledge, both lies.
Jim
Tbeaux said:OK hmmm,
All you legal wannabees answer me this... if a newspaper or magazine photog takes a pic of Joe and Jimbo beating the sh*t out of each other in the middle of a public street with $5000.00 Bushkas can he print the pic without a model release or does he have to bail them both outta jail and get them to sign one?
And if he doesn't have to can I then post the pic onthis forum???
Terry ( who'll never own a Bushka)
Press photographers go by a different set of rules when photographing for a newspaper or whatever. 99.9% of their photos are taken in public places. Tabloid photographers are taking pictures mostly of celebreties in public places. There are exceptions to the privacy laws for that sort of thing. It's all based on "reasonable expectation of privacy".
