According to CBS Sportsline, you're going to the Insight Bowl to play Minnesota

[tfree32]

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions

The Insight Bowl...is that even televised?

[Saulbadguy]

Wow, what a cow.

[ChicoRodriguez]

[AzCat]

Wow, what a cow.

Nubbie's ol' lady is quite the porker.  No wonder he's always here, you couldn't pay me to &@#% that.

[tfree32]

Amazing that the Administrators use personal information from registration to search online, find personal information about users, and then post it on here.

Oh wait, we're dealing with classless Manhattan trash.....so no it's not.

If my team was as pathetic as yours, I'd be anxious to change the subject too.

 

 :flush:K-Lite!!!

[cyclist]

Amazing that the Administrators use personal information from registration to search online, find personal information about users, and then post it on here.

Oh wait, we're dealing with classless Manhattan trash.....so no it's not.

If my team was as pathetic as yours, I'd be anxious to change the subject too.

 

 :flush:K-Lite!!!

I can't help but laugh at Creighton !

[waks]

Wait, how the &@#% did you find a pic of the husker?? hhaahahaha that's priceless.

[tfree32]

Well, they're administrators, so they used my personal information from when I registered to find more personal information that they could then post on here.

It's not too surprising from classless trailer trash.

I guess if my team was going to the Insight Bowl, I'd be trying as hard as I could to change the subject.

 

 :flush:K-Lite!!!

[cyclist]

Well, they're administrators, so they used my personal information from when I registered to find more personal information that they could then post on here.

It's not too surprising from classless trailer trash.

I guess if my team was going to the Insight Bowl, I'd be trying as hard as I could to change the subject.

 

 :flush:K-Lite!!!

[tfree32]

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material.

That's from the User Agreement when we signed up.

Oh, and just FYI that picture is protected by copyright. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Nothing worse then a Cornhole State spammer.

[tfree32]

What a homo!!! 

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/pezpix/saulbadguy.gif

[sonofdaxjones]

Nothing worse then an easily pissed off Cornhole State spammer with a fat wife.

 

[mjrod]

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material.

That's from the User Agreement when we signed up.

Oh, and just FYI that picture is protected by copyright. 

You have a written statement of copyright on that photograph?

[tfree32]

That's the best you've got? That your moderators can take personal information from when someone registers and then get more personal information about users and then post it on here, violating both the forum's own rules and federal law? Then engage in personal attacks?

Man, you guys are desperate not to talk about your at-best mediocre football team. I guess if my team was on its way to the Insight Bowl, I'd be trying like hell to change the subject too.

[sonofdaxjones]

Geezus . . . the last train to Tardsville just picked up another passenger.

[tfree32]

You have a written statement of copyright on that photograph?

It's copyrighted by the photographer...I already emailed her to tell her that it had been used without her authorization here. She'll handle it from here if it's not removed.  

[sonofdaxjones]

I understand the American Hereford Association wants to use that photograph, anyway you can pass along who the photog is so they can contact her??

[mjrod]

You have a written statement of copyright on that photograph?

It's copyrighted by the photographer...I already emailed her to tell her that it had been used without her authorization here. She'll handle it from here if it's not removed. 

You already posted it on a public forum domain, violating the copyright, if there was one anyway.

And, FYI, I hope you don't take what some of these yokels are saying about your bride.  Personally, I think it's a very nice picture and I'm sure you're very happy with it and should be.  Most of these guys probably couldn't take a decent picture no matter how much make-up they applied.

I would stop trying to act embarrassed by your own wedding pictures.

[tfree32]

I appreciate that mjrod, and I'm not worried about the picture. I like it personally.

My concern is that a moderator used personal information that I used in registering and violated my privacy by posting personal information about me online.


As far as the copyright issue, I am licensed by the photographer to use the photo. No one else is authorized to use it without a similar license.

Here's a summary of the applicable law:

Q. What if a copyrighted work is used without permission?

A. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is called an infringement. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties for infringing copyrighted works. Under appropriate circumstances, penalties can include monetary damages, all profits earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work and attorneyís fees. A court can also order the destruction of all infringing copies.

Q. Has the Copyright Act kept pace with the computer age and changing technology?

A. Yes. The Copyright Act was designed to be responsive to all technological advances. For example, an illustration or photograph must be licensed for use on the internet. Similarly, an illustration or photograph taken off the internet without permission is as much an infringement as if the same image were taken from a magazine and used without permission. The unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work even if taken off the internet is still an infringement.

Q. What are the damages for an infringement?

A. The owner of a copyright can always claim whatever damages he has actually sustained as a result of an infringement plus whatever profits were earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of a work. In addition, if the copyright to a work which was infringed was registered with the Copyright Office either prior to the infringement or within 90 days after first publication, there are alternative damages that can be awarded. The owner of the copyright can elect to seek the greater of either his actual damages plus the profits earned by the infringer, or damages of up to $100,000 plus attorney's fees and court costs. The total damages that can be awarded by a court depends upon the degree of willfulness of the infringer.

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

[tfree32]

Similarly, an illustration or photograph taken off the internet without permission is as much an infringement as if the same image were taken from a magazine and used without permission. The unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work even if taken off the internet is still an infringement.

[fatty fat fat]

 

[ECN]

hmmm. i can use this as my canvas....

[mjrod]

I appreciate that mjrod, and I'm not worried about the picture. I like it personally.

My concern is that a moderator used personal information that I used in registering and violated my privacy by posting personal information about me online.


As far as the copyright issue, I am licensed by the photographer to use the photo. No one else is authorized to use it without a similar license.

Here's a summary of the applicable law:

Q. What if a copyrighted work is used without permission?

A. The unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is called an infringement. The Copyright Act provides stiff penalties for infringing copyrighted works. Under appropriate circumstances, penalties can include monetary damages, all profits earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of the copyrighted work and attorneyís fees. A court can also order the destruction of all infringing copies.

Q. Has the Copyright Act kept pace with the computer age and changing technology?

A. Yes. The Copyright Act was designed to be responsive to all technological advances. For example, an illustration or photograph must be licensed for use on the internet. Similarly, an illustration or photograph taken off the internet without permission is as much an infringement as if the same image were taken from a magazine and used without permission. The unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work even if taken off the internet is still an infringement.

Q. What are the damages for an infringement?

A. The owner of a copyright can always claim whatever damages he has actually sustained as a result of an infringement plus whatever profits were earned by the infringer from the unauthorized use of a work. In addition, if the copyright to a work which was infringed was registered with the Copyright Office either prior to the infringement or within 90 days after first publication, there are alternative damages that can be awarded. The owner of the copyright can elect to seek the greater of either his actual damages plus the profits earned by the infringer, or damages of up to $100,000 plus attorney's fees and court costs. The total damages that can be awarded by a court depends upon the degree of willfulness of the infringer.

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html

Actually, that law assumes some damage has taken place.  It's a wedding photograph, that you posted on a public forum.  You were licensed for that, were you licensed to post it on a public forum for all to see?  Do you have that written down somewhere or did you assume that's the case?

[tfree32]

Actually, that law assumes some damage has taken place.  It's a wedding photograph, that you posted on a public forum.  You were licensed for that, were you licensed to post it on a public forum for all to see?  Do you have that written down somewhere or did you assume that's the case?

I am specifically licensed to use the photographs by the photographer in whatever manner that I see fit, including posting them online. The copyright remains with the photographer. So the unauthorized posting of them on here is a violation of both the photographer's copyright and my license of that copyright.

Re-read this part of the quote:

The owner of the copyright can elect to seek the greater of either his actual damages plus the profits earned by the infringer, or damages of up to $100,000 plus attorney's fees and court costs. The total damages that can be awarded by a court depends upon the degree of willfulness of the infringer.

No damages need actually been proven. The violation itself is actionable. I'm a law student, and am taking copyrights now. It's not very complicated.

[ECN]

photos are copyrighted to how they will be used. web, print or video. your photographer gave rights to use on the web...whether it be a one time use or a full-year. either way, rights for it to be on the internet have been granted and makes no difference. had someone used this image for print or video, then you'd have beef.

[sonofdaxjones]

Cornhole State fan is now officially our NUBB.

[tfree32]

photos are copyrighted to how they will be used. web, print or video. your photographer gave rights to use on the web...whether it be a one time use or a full-year. either way, rights for it to be on the internet have been granted and makes no difference. had someone used this image for print or video, then you'd have beef.

Wrong.

Photos are copyrighted by the artist. The artist can then license the photos for usage by designated individuals. Any non-designated individual who uses the copyrighted material without a license does so illegally. Any website that allows this to occur can also be held liable, that's why there's that nice little clause about copyrighted images in the registration agreement.

[ECN]

nope

[mjrod]

photos are copyrighted to how they will be used. web, print or video. your photographer gave rights to use on the web...whether it be a one time use or a full-year. either way, rights for it to be on the internet have been granted and makes no difference. had someone used this image for print or video, then you'd have beef.

Wrong.

Photos are copyrighted by the artist. The artist can then license the photos for usage by designated individuals. Any non-designated individual who uses the copyrighted material without a license does so illegally. Any website that allows this to occur can also be held liable, that's why there's that nice little clause about copyrighted images in the registration agreement.

No one is using the photograph without a license.  It's simply a link back to your site, a place you gave rights to show that photograph.

You're going to have a hard time trying to win a legal argument when things such as linking, ownership, hosting, etc.. are all part of the legal issue, and I'm sure you'll find that out when you get into the copyrights and the internet in more detail.