A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Solutions
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mike broke COPYRIGHT law DIAPER pictures claimed of me!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 05, 08:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike broke COPYRIGHT law DIAPER pictures claimed of me!!

http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/94212_19.jpg
http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/95672_25.jpg
http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/jwolf.jpg

All are know gone! Mike stole these pictures from the site below in an
effort to slander me!!

big_baby's Diaper boy Micke Page
http://www.big-baby.org/number.htm

I still have his page in my IE scrapbook. I wonder if I should take a
screenshot and post it. Then I bet Micke would have a problem with
Mike. It says on Micke's page that his images are copyright. So Mike
you broke the law in an effor to slander me?

Enough of this nonsense. I need to put these trolls and filter.
John

  #2  
Old January 29th 05, 08:30 PM
Roger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be wrote
in message
.com:

http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/94212_19.jpg
http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/95672_25.jpg
http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/jwolf.jpg

All are know gone! Mike stole these pictures from the site below in an
effort to slander me!!


You should probably look up the *legal* requirements for slander to be
determined.

big_baby's Diaper boy Micke Page
http://www.big-baby.org/number.htm

I still have his page in my IE scrapbook. I wonder if I should take a
screenshot and post it. Then I bet Micke would have a problem with
Mike. It says on Micke's page that his images are copyright.


No, it doesn't.

So Mike you broke the law in an effor to slander me?

Enough of this nonsense. I need to put these trolls and filter.


Of course, there is no copyright notice on either the page referenced
nor the homepage -- and even if there were there is no proof that the
images were not used with permission. Nor has john even attempted to
demonstrate that any of the other legal requirements of slander have
been met -- mostly because john is unaware of them.

So once again, john attempts to match the pathetic ignorant lying
little baby in his "ignorance displayed on the most topics" contest.


  #3  
Old January 29th 05, 08:59 PM
Mike Rosenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

All are know gone! Mike stole these pictures from the site below in an
effort to slander me!!


No, someone emailed them to me in late July of last year. I didn't post
them anywhere, didn't even so much as mention them to anyone until
brought up the subject in mid-September. I have to wonder how you knew
I had them; maybe you were the one who sent them to me under an assumed
identity.

I still have his page in my IE scrapbook. I wonder if I should take a
screenshot and post it.


Yes, please do, as long as you include the full text I added below the
thumbnails, the text that clearly stated I did not have any idea whether
they're really you and was only posting them because you asked me to.

--
Mike Rosenberg
http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
  #4  
Old January 29th 05, 08:59 PM
Mike Rosenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roger roger@. wrote:

You should probably look up the *legal* requirements for slander to be
determined.


Slander isn't even the appropriate term, since that refers to spoken
words. He really should say libel instead, and I've told him this on
several occasions.

Of course, there is no copyright notice on either the page referenced
nor the homepage


Say, you're right! John, where exactly do you claim to have seen a
copyright notice? I did see the home page specifically state, "This
site has a lot of men in diaper pictures collected from news groups and
pictures that people did send to me (with permission to place them) and
of-course my own pictures too." However, nowhere does it distinguish
which are which.

--
Mike Rosenberg
http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
  #5  
Old January 29th 05, 10:44 PM
Roger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Mike Rosenberg wrote
in message
:

Roger roger@. wrote:


You should probably look up the *legal* requirements for slander to be
determined.


Slander isn't even the appropriate term, since that refers to spoken
words. He really should say libel instead, and I've told him this on
several occasions.


Darn it, Mike: I was gonna play with him a bit before pointing that
out.

You *never* let me have any fun

Of course, there is no copyright notice on either the page referenced
nor the homepage


Say, you're right! John, where exactly do you claim to have seen a
copyright notice? I did see the home page specifically state, "This
site has a lot of men in diaper pictures collected from news groups and
pictures that people did send to me (with permission to place them) and
of-course my own pictures too." However, nowhere does it distinguish
which are which.


Is it any wonder the snert and john are such good buddies?
  #6  
Old January 29th 05, 11:00 PM
Mike Rosenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roger roger@. wrote:

Darn it, Mike: I was gonna play with him a bit before pointing that
out.

You *never* let me have any fun


Dreadfully sorry, old chap! I doubt that he'd even give you the
opportunity to play with him on this, though.

--
Mike Rosenberg
http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
  #7  
Old January 30th 05, 08:49 PM
Cathy Stevenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Roger
roger@. wrote:

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be wrote
in message
.com:

http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/94212_19.jpg
http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/95672_25.jpg
http://www.macconsult.com/diaperboy/jwolf.jpg

All are know gone! Mike stole these pictures from the site below in an
effort to slander me!!


You should probably look up the *legal* requirements for slander to be
determined.

big_baby's Diaper boy Micke Page
http://www.big-baby.org/number.htm

I still have his page in my IE scrapbook. I wonder if I should take a
screenshot and post it. Then I bet Micke would have a problem with
Mike. It says on Micke's page that his images are copyright.


No, it doesn't.


It doesn't, as you note. But, saying they are copyrighted doesn'tmake
it so. Why in the world would someone copyright that junk?

Cathy

--
"there's a dance or two in the old dame yet." - mehitabel

C.Stevenson, M.D.

  #8  
Old January 30th 05, 09:05 PM
Mike Rosenberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cathy Stevenson wrote:

But, saying they are copyrighted doesn'tmake it so.


Actually, it does. As long as the intellectual property in question is
yours, putting a copyright notice on it does make it copyrighted.

--
Mike Rosenberg
http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius
  #9  
Old February 1st 05, 11:15 AM
Anthony Fremont
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cathy Stevenson" wrote in message

It doesn't, as you note. But, saying they are copyrighted doesn'tmake
it so. Why in the world would someone copyright that junk?


It doesn't have to. According to the copyright act of 1976, the
copyright is automatically applicable the instant the "work" (in this
case a photograph) is created. Nothing has to be registered for it to
be protected by copyright law. Copyrights on photographs are automatic
the moment the shutter is released and the invisible image is created on
the negative. Check it out instead of guessing about it.

It does not matter whether the website owner would care about the
pictures being reused, what matters is the opinions of the persons that
created the photographs. Unless, they all specifically assigned ALL
rights to the photos to the diaper website guy. It's probably safe to
reason that the guy that reused the photos (Mike?) probably didn't get
specific permission from the original creators of the works. I suppose
it's possible he did, but it seems quite unlikely.

  #10  
Old February 1st 05, 02:41 PM
Kenny Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Two questions...

What does this have to do with HPC's?

Why is a broken thread suddenly appearing in this NG?


"Anthony Fremont" wrote in message
...

"Cathy Stevenson" wrote in message

It doesn't, as you note. But, saying they are copyrighted doesn'tmake
it so. Why in the world would someone copyright that junk?


It doesn't have to. According to the copyright act of 1976, the
copyright is automatically applicable the instant the "work" (in this
case a photograph) is created. Nothing has to be registered for it to
be protected by copyright law. Copyrights on photographs are automatic
the moment the shutter is released and the invisible image is created on
the negative. Check it out instead of guessing about it.

It does not matter whether the website owner would care about the
pictures being reused, what matters is the opinions of the persons that
created the photographs. Unless, they all specifically assigned ALL
rights to the photos to the diaper website guy. It's probably safe to
reason that the guy that reused the photos (Mike?) probably didn't get
specific permission from the original creators of the works. I suppose
it's possible he did, but it seems quite unlikely.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bill Cosby on Fatherhood-More influential than Spock? Kane Spanking 26 January 12th 05 11:04 PM
What's in your Diaper Bag? Hoister Pregnancy 23 May 10th 04 07:51 PM
Dirty Diaper song Hillary Israeli General 4 September 12th 03 07:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.