Oops. I was trying to edit the thread via Tapatalk to unlink the embedded Garden Valley photo from Idaho Aero, at the firm request of the copyright owner, and I tapped the "delete" button instead of "edit."

There's no "trash" to restore it from. I'd have to rebuild the database from backup and surgically copy those posts into the active database.

Feel free to start another thread and pick up where you left off. And please use a photo of GV other than one owned by Galen Hanselman, as he has threatened legal action against BCP for remote embedding of his photos from any photo host, including itd.idaho.gov.

Sorry Bryan... (Embarrassed... it's been a long week.)

Damn it Zane!

It's interesting how some photogs differ on that. I know 2 who I count among friends. One gets really wound up about his stuff showing up unauthorized, the other, who is much more successful in the game says "go ahead, make me famous."

I like to play around with cameras some. I have only taken 1 picture that I think is good. I stand in awe of those who are really good at it.

I saw Galen post something about that pic on f-book. Thought it was kinda funny, the pic is on the web and it not like Bryan posted it, he just linked it. Maybe he should request it be removed from the itd website.

Well, it's his photo and technically he can dictate its usage however he likes. I will respect the copyright of any photographer who requests a takedown, however referenced use is a grey area on the Internet, as like you say Whee, it was just linked from idaho.gov.

Anyway, sorry about the fat finger move. Please resume the conversation. I like to stay clear of the summer fly-in planning, that's all up to you guys.

Zzz is definitely right to respect Galen's wishes. It's a small community and Galen is probably a bit paranoid about stuff like this as he tries to make money from publishing, so why the hell not remove the image.

Legally though, this is settled. The courts have ruled that linking like that is fair game. BCP only had instructions (readable by the browser) on how to find the image that idaho.gov choose to publish for free. Or maybe Galen was saying that idaho.gov didn't have the right to publish the photo.

Whatever. Just thought some people might be curious to hear that inline linking is settled law.

Zane,

Hey, stop by here for a nice glass of Cabernet......you oughta see some of the stuff I've nuked over the years.....like a nearly complete journal article...

MTV

I have unfortunately had to deactivate the copyright owner's access to this site, and our Facebook page, as a result of repeated threats of legal action against ME for copyright infringement, even after his photo was unlinked. Pretty silly on his part, considering legal precedent (DCMA) protects any site owner.

That's all I'm going to say, other than this is a case of how to not market yourself and your products. If you threaten me, you no longer get access to the fun free site.

Zzz wrote:I have unfortunately had to deactivate the copyright owner's access to this site, and our Facebook page, as a result of repeated threats of legal action against ME for copyright infringement, even after his photo was unlinked. Pretty silly on his part, considering legal precedent (DCMA) protects any site owner.

That's all I'm going to say, other than this is a case of how to not market yourself and your products. If you threaten me, you no longer get access to the fun free site.

Sucks. Sorry to hear it.

Sounds like the type of douchebag that would sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on himself. Unfortunately I own four of Mr. Hanselman's products, as I'm sure many other people on this site do. Needles to say he will not be getting anymore of my business.

robw56 wrote:Sounds like the type of douchebag that would sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on himself. Unfortunately I own four of Mr. Hanselman's products, as I'm sure many other people on this site do. Needles to say he will not be getting anymore of my business.

No kidding! Business must be good if he can afford to piss off one of the largest sites frequented by his target consumers. My business I'll withhold as well.

Well, don't get me in more trouble for libel. His products are pretty good and a great resource to the flying community. Just don't link to them or embed them.

Man, what a dipshit

Zzz wrote:I have unfortunately had to deactivate the copyright owner's access to this site, and our Facebook page, as a result of repeated threats of legal action against ME for copyright infringement, even after his photo was unlinked. Pretty silly on his part, considering legal precedent (DCMA) protects any site owner.

That's all I'm going to say, other than this is a case of how to not market yourself and your products. If you threaten me, you no longer get access to the fun free site. Perhaps those buyout offers for this website I get periodically aren't such a bad idea...

Can we use this one from airnav?

Maybe you should threaten to counter sue him for un-warranted cyber bullying !!

"Bullying" is such a popular buzz word these days that you'd most certainly win and be able to fund BCP for years to come

CW

rw2 wrote:Legally though, this is settled. The courts have ruled that linking like that is fair game. BCP only had instructions (readable by the browser) on how to find the image that idaho.gov choose to publish for free. Or maybe Galen was saying that idaho.gov didn't have the right to publish the photo.

Whatever. Just thought some people might be curious to hear that inline linking is settled law.

You are dead on. Websites like this are protected buy OCILLA and well-established US Copyright law precedent for works that are not stored on my server. As the site owner though, I am required to comply with takedown requests and to post notices that copyrighted materials should not be used in violation, as in the case of flyidaho.com imagery, regardless where it is hosted.

See what gets stirred up when we break the tradition of having the fly-in at JC!

It's my understanding from publishing some works long ago and also from a writer I know that saying a work is copyrighted is perfectly legal but you are limited to asking for damages for market value, which is typically $300 - $500 for an image used in a publication. The attorney's retainer is way more than that. If you want real copyright protection, the actual work has to be submitted to the US Copyright Office, the proper forms filled out, fees paid etc. Most don't go to that trouble.

Been a while, might be different now.

I guess it's good the fella is proud of his work, too bad he's alienating potential customers as said earlier.

Please repost the deets on the Flyin!

Bryan's post was a masterpiece!

[edit] nevermind, found it...

one of the strange aspects of the copy right and patent law is that if you want to keep the legal bright line you must pursue every case where you know it is being broken or risk having the information or object become public and can possibly loose the protection, that may be where he is coming from, however, it sounds like Zzz was doing everything to comply with the request and he should have said thanks to him instead of keeping on with the threats.

If you soak a book in oil, it makes a great fire starter.