Please read the Announcement at the top of this forum.
Thank you.
Please read the Announcement at the top of this forum.
Thank you.
Update: Until we get advice on this issue we have disabled posting of images from one's computer. This avoids the situation where one could illegally download an image and repost it here. However the ability to post an image by call the URL of the image is permitted.
Can you give us a clue as to which images or videos were pulled so we know? And, is this why you guys won't enable avatars?
I'm sure you can't reveal who brought suit, but I have a feeling it's Al Abrams? I know he would get upset with posts in which a copyrighted pic was posted here.
You have the audacity to simply throw out my name without anything to back up your supposition. Perhaps, we'll meet in court one day. Meanwhile do your homework and quit with your lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by smark21
Al makes a good point, Smark. Your post was way out of line and you should have thought a little more carefully before posting his name. And for the record, it wasn't Al that posted the picture in question.
The last thing I want to do is get involved with this thread. But I do have to correct you. The question asked wasn't who posted the picture, but who brought suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
Amazing what can happen in these threads!
Milven,
And I must correct you. It is only my and Lowell's business who posted the picture. It was done....it is over....time to move on.
And again, I will say no one in this thread asked who posted the picture. It was asked who brought suit. So my correction stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by ralpht
Quite honestly, I'm not interested in either who brought suit or who posted the picture. I was just making a correction to the thread. And , therefore will move on as you suggested.
Okay Milven, fair enough. I'm not sure where the complaint came from. I received a call from Lowell telling me of the problem and he had been contacted by some lawyer for a copyright infringement. And that is what I know.
First, let me confirm what Millven speculated correctly—I was speculating about who filed a copyright violation, not who posted the picture.
I’m sure I’m not the only member here who was wondering who might have brought up the copyright violation, but I’m certainly the first to bring up the question in discussion. I do find it interesting that someone did file such a claim. There are thousands of sites on the internet where copyrighted pictures are posted that escape scrutiny yet Soulful Detroit was hit with such a claim. I can’t help but to wonder who is monitoring this forum for such violations—is it a member? Or someone who just regularly peers in. Whatever the case may be, the administrators here were correct in removing the post picture function here as this forum is under close scrutiny from some entity whether it be an individual or a corporation.
To the best of my memory I recall Al Abrams posting in threads in the past when someone posted a picture from his book and stating this was a copyright violation. The thread was quickly deleted. Perhaps my memory was wrong and it was someone else. Anyway, one is able to read the recent post histories of members here if you click on their profiles. So I just did so for Stalebagel and I see no posts in his history claiming a copyright violation. So without any concrete evidence I retract my speculation. And I like to emphasize speculation, not accusation. If you read the wording of my post Sunday, I used the words “I have a feeling” and phrased it as a question, not as a direct accusation. I do try to be careful in my word choice and use of punctuation. But once again I retract my speculation. That being said, another question: If a thread is deleted here, does that mean any member’s post in that deleted thread is then deleted from their recent post history on their member profile here? I still stand by my memory that I have read posts here from members indicating copyright violation when a copyrighted picture was posted here.
That cease and desist letter must have really shaken up Lowell. The letters are generally a formality simply intended to inform of possible copyright infringement, and are worded in such a way to enforce compliance. If immediate action is taken, no harm is done. It's a formal way of doing things. That's all. YouTube, and other websites get these as a matter of routine.
It would be a nicer world if people could just politely request something be taken down and people respond in kind, but it's a nasty world. people feel like they have to intimidate and threaten.
I don't think Ralph or Lowell have the time and money to pursue a fair-use defense.
It really does not matter who posted an image, nor does it matter who sent the cease and desist request.
Milven, I have found that notable people in the industry tend to be very particular about the accuracy of their legacy. I don't think they like speculation. Speculation on the internet leads to hearsay and misinformation.
Soulster, you are absolutely correct. There is far too much misinformation on the Web -- think Wikipedia. I'm sure many of those university libraries who dumped their shelves of hardcover reference books have reason to regret that decision.
We need to respect Lowell's request because if there actually were legal action commenced, it would almost certainly mean the end of this site because of the costs involved.
The trouble is that it is not very clear what will cause a problem and what won't, what is allowed and what isn't; occasionally it is very clear; much of the time, it is murky. And that is one of the reasons that leads to speculation and questions. It is natural to wonder "what" "who" "why".
I don't think it is a bad idea to have a posting setting out what is understood to be the basic rules with some examples.
It's a changed world; newspapers and paper are fading; desktop computers now are slipping away to ipads and phones; surveillance is a fact of life. It's tough when you are an old fart.
I notice that uploading images from one's computer has been disabled.
It's hard to find a balance between an informal internet forum where the public desires, and tends to speak freely on any number of topics, the the interest of professionals, famous figures, and business.
everything you said here is very accurate. Cease and desist letters are just a lawyer's way of trying to scare you, and if you remove the photo, no harm, no foul. Nobody's gonna spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees to sue a website because somebody posted a picture of someone that hasn't had a hit record in 40 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulster
I'm not clear on what can be posted either. I am about to start a thread with a link to a music site. I hope it doesn't cause any problems, but am stating so here in case Lowell and Ralph feel it should be deleted.
~~Mary~~
I don't think that should be a problem, Mary.
Thanks, Ralph. It's up.
~~Mary~~
We removed the image and informed the law firm, explaining the non-commercial nature and poverty of this forum and site. We have heard no further and hopefully they have put it to rest.
That's good news Lowell.