Mopars In Barns

[moparsinbarns]

Check out my Mopars In Barns site!!!!! Make sure u SIGN THE GUESTBOOK please.

www.dodgesinbarns.piczo.com

[Drache]

For good news this '69 Daytona is currently being or already has been restored. There was a story about it on another site.

[moparsinbarns]

Thanks for reminding me. I knew that it was restored and the owner sent me the after pic but I just havent put it in my restored section yet.

[Drache]

No prob! 

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Problem taken care of.

Ryan

[Drache]

Hey Cody.  I noticed you stole some of my pictures and are trying to pass them off as your own.  If you do not remove the pictures, I will have no choice but to get my lawyer involved since they are copywrited.

Ryan

I'm pretty sure he's not passing them off as his own since he doesn't state that he took those pictures. Maybe try being a little nicer about it? 

[Shakey]

Hey Cody.  I noticed you stole some of my pictures and are trying to pass them off as your own.  If you do not remove the pictures, I will have no choice but to get my lawyer involved since they are copywrited.

Ryan

Which photos on his site are copywrited?

Are these photos of your cars?

Does it cost $$ to get a photo copywrited?

What is the purpose of copywriting a photo?

Do you have a web site where you are showing these copywrited photos?

Just curious.

[Chris G.]

I'm pretty sure he's not passing them off as his own since he doesn't state that he took those pictures. Maybe try being a little nicer about it? 

FWIW, he was trying to pass off another Charger for his until Chris called him on it. It also looks like he edited his cars in barns page and credited some people. We are talking about a 13yr old kid here, so I guess some slack is in order.

ps- I see you have our fender tag decoder on your site. While we appreciate the use of it, how about just putting up our home page banner and linking that? It's in my sig in case you want to use it. 

[Arthu®]

Just curious.

Cut the kid some slack, I don't see him saying anything about those being his finds.

Arthur

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

I have emails between him and another member saying that he had found these cars in BC and was trying to get them onto the other members cars in barns site.  Luckily the owner knew they were my pictures and contacted me. 

These are all pictures I personally posted.  I do have the pictures online at yahoo, for all to see, but they are restricted from being saved/linked to because of the copywrite.  It does not cost anything to copywrite photos, just a lot of paperwork.  Which is in the disclamer on the page where the pictures are posted.

How should I have known he was 13?  Does it make it anymore wrong?

Ryan

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

BTW, I posted a link to my cars in barns site before.  Notice the disclaimer that says "READ FIRST" and that some of the pictures seem oddly familiar.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,10558.0.html

Ryan

[moparsinbarns]

Hi Ryan,

I am sorry that I used those pictures without your permission but I'm only 13. All I want to do is make a cool site. Yesterday when I went onto your site, I didn't see the copyright page. I did delete the pictures from your site. The rest of the pictures on there are cars that were SENT to me and cars that I found on ebay. Anyways, I would like to say again that I am sorry and no hard feelings?

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Thank you for understanding.  That little page at the bottom is easily missed normally.  Just try not to do it again.

Ryan

[Shakey]

A 13 year old from Canada falls under the "Young Offenders Act".  Which means whether you swipe some pics or murder another human, you'll only get a slap on the wrist.

[moparsinbarns]

Hey Shakey,

It dosent really matter. Me and him straightened everything out. I didnt see his tiny copyright thing at the bottom of the page so I got rid of his pics that I put on my site and we're cool now.

[inhrmswy]

Devil, before you start crying foul about copywrite infringement take another look at your own signature pic and avatar.  I some how think that those images are also copywrited and not by you.  So before you start slinging stones you had better be sure you have all you s#$t in one sock.  No malice intended just an observation.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Put my vote in for really not giving a crap.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

I am using the Evil Monkey as an avatar, not saying that I created or made up the character.  It is two completely different circumstances.  What he was doing, which he has now corrected, was called libel, or an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.  I am just trying to protect what is rightfully mine, as would anyone else.

And trying to connect two completely unrelated events just shows your level of ingenuity.

Ryan

[red72chrgr]

pathetic

[nh_mopar_fan]

Hey Perry Mason,

I suggest you go look up the definition of "libel".

[moparsinbarns]

Ya, I got corrected by Ryan and fixed my mistake.

[moparsinbarns]

Okay u guys, lets stop fighting here. Theres nothing to fight about, I made a mistake and I was corrected by Ryan and I thank him for that.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Perhaps you should go look up the definition of Libel.  Seriously.  The definition I posted was word for word the same that was in my Civil Law book.

It's pathetic that you guys are arguing with someone that's right.  He fixed his mistake, and I'm not going to continue with anything.  But the fact that you guys are arguing with me about it is sad. 

Perhaps when someone steals your car and calls it their own, that you might take this more seriously.

Ryan

[mustanghater]

he's worse then me

[nh_mopar_fan]

Hey Perry Mason,

Malicious. Look up the word. You have to prove malice in order to make a case for libel.

Hit the books, junior.

You're dismissed.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

There was no malice.  It was a statement of fact, then an explanation of terms. 

Try reading about a 4th grade level.  Perhaps you'll learn.

Ryan

[ramit]

   This could get really good!

[nh_mopar_fan]

There was no malice.  It was a statement of fact, then an explanation of terms. 

Try reading about a 4th grade level.  Perhaps you'll learn.

Ryan

Yes, "about" a 4th grade level. You really showed me. Moron.

If you can't prove malice, there is no libel.

Idiot.

I won't even get into the fact that we're talking about some friggin pictures. It might be copyright infringement but it isn't libel.

Yet, you come in here whining. candy-ass.

If it were me, I'd tell you to go ahead and file suit. I'll wait.

Big talk but in the end, just a mouth with nothing to back it up.

The kid is 13 and made an honest mistake. He's already proven he's far and away more mature.

[tipopiola]

All I know is that he has two or three pics of my car on his site and I couldn't care less.  The pics might be on HIS site, but the car is in MY garage and thats all that matters to me.  I just think its great that a 13 year old knows more about putting a website together than myself (a 28 year old college graduate).  Even if he wasn't only 13 you still wouldn't have had to get your panties in a bunch over some pics of rotting cars.  Now I wouldn't be too surprised if you if wanted to call your lawyer concerning that slanderous allegation I just made about you wearing panties   .  Sounds like Ryan the Devil needs to cut back on the caffeine a bit.  Tipopiola

[RD]

I am using the Evil Monkey as an avatar, not saying that I created or made up the character.  It is two completely different circumstances.  What he was doing, which he has now corrected, was called libel, or an untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.  I am just trying to protect what is rightfully mine, as would anyone else.

And trying to connect two completely unrelated events just shows your level of ingenuity.

Ryan

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

That is what you are trying to substantiate your argument upon, but I have to tell you that you are incorrect in your terminology.  He has no way perpetrated "libel" in the sense that he has not stated anything about you that is untruthful "....to expose another to public contempt." 

What you probably wanted to say was:

Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

So you see... if you want to bring the law into this, maybe you should get your terminology correct.

Secondly, your website does not prohibit individuals from saving your pictures as seen by my attachment.

Thirdly, it is spelled copyright, not copywrite.

Main Entry: 1copy·right
Pronunciation: -"rIt
Function: noun
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)

If you talk up copyright, then you should also produce the legal documentation stating why it is copyrighted.  Each photograph should have the copyright information located on it in order to be status quo with all the other photographers out there.

And lastly, who really gives a shit if he takes your photos or not?  I mean for instance, how do we know you didnt steal them from someone else?  Just being a devil's advocate here.  And well, we probably wouldn't be messing with you if were not so much of a jerk to the kid from the get go, and well we all kinda like to stick up for the underdog when the big bad wolf oversteps his boundaries, especially when the usage of those boundaries are under erroneous, undignified and unsubstantiated premises.

As my good buddy nh_mopar_fan stated... school is dismissed.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Lol, you poor fools that believe that stuff you guys are spewing.  Here is something I hope even you guys can understand.

Protection of reputation is arguably even more important in a highly technological society, since one may not even encounter an individual or organization other than through the medium of the Internet. One of the primary appeals of the Internet, however, is the ease of unfettered and limitless communication on numerous subjects with a virtually unlimited audience.

Libel is written defamation and slander is oral defamation. The primary difference is that in libel, damages are presumed, whereas in slander actions, unless the slander falls into a certain category, called slander per se, the plaintiff must prove actual or quantifiable damages

Copyright law holds both the distributor of copyright infringing material strictly liable. This liability encourages online service providers to look for and remove copyright infringing material. However according to the Prodigy case this will tend to cause the provider to be categorized as a "publisher".

I would not have cared if he had taken the pictures and said, "Hey, I found these picture from www.blahblahblah.com" instead he had them listed on his website and was emailing others saying that they were his own pictures.

If you guys can't understand this.  Perhaps I can find some with pictures for you, preferably not copyrighted.

Ryan

[nh_mopar_fan]

Have your "lawyer" call me. I'll wait.

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

If you talk up copyright, then you should also produce the legal documentation stating why it is copyrighted.  Each photograph should have the copyright information located on it in order to be status quo with all the other photographers out there.

And lastly, who really gives a shit if he takes your photos or not?  I mean for instance, how do we know you didnt steal them from someone else?  Just being a devil's advocate here.  And well, we probably wouldn't be messing with you if were not so much of a jerk to the kid from the get go, and well we all kinda like to stick up for the underdog when the big bad wolf oversteps his boundaries, especially when the usage of those boundaries are under erroneous, undignified and unsubstantiated premises.

As my good buddy nh_mopar_fan stated... school is dismissed.

I could scan and post the papers I have to prove copyright.  I have also logs, negatives and files of all pictures I have ever posted to prove I am the original photographer of the pictures.  I thought you couldn't save them from Yahoo, oh well.

The reason being I needed them copyrighted and I am so protective is for a up coming book deal.  If anyone has read "A Cobra in the Barn: Tales of Automotive Archeology" It is similar to that book.  And first step was to get them all copyrighted to protect them.  And if someone was going around saying they were their pictures, it looks very bad.

I had no idea the kid was 13 at the time.  Someone forwarded me the posts about it and thats all.  Him and I worked it out and everything was set strait.  

Ryan

BTW, you guys aren't saying that it is your car, or your pictures so there is no problems.  And since I am fully aware of what you guys are doing, it isn't anything illegal about it.

[tipopiola]

So I should have asked your permission before I made this my screensaver?  Tipopiola

[RD]

Libel is written defamation and slander is oral defamation. The primary difference is that in libel, damages are presumed, whereas in slander actions, unless the slander falls into a certain category, called slander per se, the plaintiff must prove actual or quantifiable damages

He had done none of the above.  What he had done is called FRAUD.  I believe you are confusing the two, which could get your court case thrown out, but hopefully your lawyer knows the difference between "libel" and "fraud".

My question to you is this, "WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE?"  Have you made money off your pictures?  They are just pictures of "OTHER" people's cars correct?  Some may be your own, but the majority are not.

All truth comes out in the wash, I just do not know why you have this whole "possessive" thing going on.  It really is kind of sickening if you don't mind me saying.

Kinda reminds me of the daffy duck cartoon where he grabs onto the pearl and screams "its mine, all mine, no one can have it, I am rich, I am wealthy..."

Oh, and a stolen car and some pictures on the internet are two totally different things.  But on that note, if you want people to see these cars for what they are, why do you care how they get distributed, just as long as they do?

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

Copyright law holds both the distributor of copyright infringing material strictly liable. This liability encourages online service providers to look for and remove copyright infringing material. However according to the Prodigy case this will tend to cause the provider to be categorized as a "publisher".

Why would I care that someone is taking my pictures, my work, and claiming it for their own?  I actually have made money off my pictures.

It is sickening that you people are arguing a fruitless point, or not even trying to make a point anymore and just trying to push my buttons with pictures of my car or myself and my sister.  Atleast I back up my points with facts and information, not just trying to egg me on.  Definately shows the maturity of you guys.  They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

And you are correct RD, it could very well be fraud,

All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.

[tipopiola]

Oops did I push something?    Tipopiola

[RD]

Copyright law holds both the distributor of copyright infringing material strictly liable. This liability encourages online service providers to look for and remove copyright infringing material. However according to the Prodigy case this will tend to cause the provider to be categorized as a "publisher".

you can stop repeating that, I read it already (twice).  But the part that is missing in that is lost in the first sentence.  YOU state:

Copyright law holds both the distributor of copyrfight infringing material strictly liable.

If you look at that sense, the "both" implies that copyright law holds the distributor and another entity liable, yet your sentence does not state what the other entity is.  Can you possibly elaborate on what or who that other entity is, will be, or has become?

As far as your facts and information that substantiates your claim is concerned, I have seen nothing of the sort.  I, too, can quote from a dictionary, but just because I can quote from a dictionary does not imply that I have a legal leg to stand on now does it?

What I am saying is this.  If you could substantiate your claim with cold hard primary source material stating that you have each photograph copyrighted, that you can show that you have made "money" off of your photos as you claim, and all the while quit trying to use more than 4 syllable words to "prove" how smart you are, then maybe, just maybe I would believe your condescending ass.  But until then wiseguy, your maturity level (since I presume maturity means everything to you) has something to be desired.

Anywho.... this is boring me.  You will not convince me that your claims are credible, so I digress... methinks this thread is fruitless... where is those mod's when you need them to lock something?

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

The "both" is a misprint copying it from one location to another.  There was actually another post I copied over, thought I had gotten everything.  Copyright law holds the distributor of copyright infringing material strictly liable.  That is how it should be stated.  Then I copied it from the first post, causing the same mistake twice.

I don't really care if I convince you or not.  Thats really not the point.  It is definately fraud, and could be libel.

I'll scan some articles with the pictures from some magazines tomorrow I've made money off of.  I also have emails between moparsinbarns and another member of him taking the pictures personally.  I could post those as well.

And I'm not name calling, or trying to push peoples buttons by showing pictures from my website.  I have been nothing but respectful and trying to show you guys where you are wrong.  And some of you are getting defensive and acting like 4 years olds going "na na na na na na, we got your pictures too."

I really could care less about you guys showing my pictures.  Everyone now knows they are my pictures and you guys are not claiming otherwise, go ahead and make it your desktop, or screen saver.  Enjoy the pictures.

Ryan

[tipopiola]

Nah, you can keep em'.  Thanks though.............    Tipopiola

[RD]

I don't really care if I convince you or not.  Thats really not the point.  It is definately fraud, and could be libel.

So now you are stating that it is definitely FRAUD and that it "COULD" be libel?  tsk tsk.... sounds like you are questioning yourself methinks.

I'll scan some articles with the pictures from some magazines tomorrow I've made money off of.  I also have emails between moparsinbarns and another member of him taking the pictures personally.  I could post those as well.

Go for it... cannot wait to see that.

And I'm not name calling, or trying to push peoples buttons by showing pictures from my website.  I have been nothing but respectful and trying to show you guys where you are wrong.  And some of you are getting defensive and acting like 4 years olds going "na na na na na na, we got your pictures too."

Wait, there is a contradiction there.  You state that you have been nothing but respectful yet:

"...acting like 4 years olds..."  
"And trying to connect two completely unrelated events just shows your level of ingenuity" (that is condescension at its greatest)
"Try reading about a 4th grade level.  Perhaps you'll learn."  (yep, that is respectful)
"Lol, you poor fools that believe that stuff you guys are spewing.  Here is something I hope even you guys can understand." (condescending and disrespectful)
"If you guys can't understand this.  Perhaps I can find some with pictures for you, preferably not copyrighted." (refer to the above)

Maybe I am mistaken, can you clarify exactly how you have been nothing but respectful?  Maybe its my 4th grade level of reading that makes me confoosed.    

[TheAutoArchaeologist]

It was always fraud.  There was no dispute.  It is also libel since it is defamation with the written word.  And he was the one doing the defamation with copyrighted material.  Which states above is libel.  You should know in law, something event can be taken in different lights and different definitions can apply.

Here is an email sent from Cody to another member, who would prefer to remain nameless.

From: "Cody
To:
Subject: boneyard pics
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:55:00 -0800
Hey ---,

I recently dug up my old car photo album and I found these. So I scanned them on my computer and I thought you could do something with them like put them on your cars in barns. These are from my BC boneyard outtings in 2004-2005. Enjoy!!!

(After this there is a bunch of my pictures he posted.)

-Cody

There are more if you would like to see them, with pictures he was trying to pass off as well.

Those quotes are correct, some guys couldn't understand the concepts, so I was trying to point out the faults in your logic.  If you took it as condescending and disrespectful that isn't my fault.

"...acting like 4 years olds..." (some people are, that is a statement of fact, not disrespect) 
"And trying to connect two completely unrelated events just shows your level of ingenuity" (Trying to relate 2 different items, your thought process, not mine)
"Try reading about a 4th grade level.  Perhaps you'll learn."  (Helpful hint)
"Lol, you poor fools that believe that stuff you guys are spewing.  Here is something I hope even you guys can understand." (Statement of fact, hoping you guys will understand)
"If you guys can't understand this.  Perhaps I can find some with pictures for you, preferably not copyrighted." (another helpful hint if above don't work)


Ryan

[RD]

Those quotes are correct, some guys couldn't understand the concepts, so I was trying to point out the faults in your logic.  If you took it as condescending and disrespectful that isn't my fault.

"...acting like 4 years olds..." (some people are, that is a statement of fact, not disrespect) 
"And trying to connect two completely unrelated events just shows your level of ingenuity" (Trying to relate 2 different items, your thought process, not mine)
"Try reading about a 4th grade level.  Perhaps you'll learn."  (Helpful hint)
"Lol, you poor fools that believe that stuff you guys are spewing.  Here is something I hope even you guys can understand." (Statement of fact, hoping you guys will understand)
"If you guys can't understand this.  Perhaps I can find some with pictures for you, preferably not copyrighted." (another helpful hint if above don't work)


Ryan

okay ryan... here is the deal.  If you cannot be man enough to admit that you are wrong in something, then all the sh** that you spewed out earlier has no merit.  The fact that you said you were respectful in all regards, yet when shown to you that you were not, AND then you stating the above to purport your statements as something other than what they were tell me...

1.  You are bullshitter who believes their own bullshit
2.  Full of the above
3.  Allows pride to intercede daily in their decision making process
4.  Is unwilling to admit their own fault(s)
5.  Lacks integrity
6.  MOST IMPORTANTLY.... IS A FRAUD IN THEIR OWN RIGHT BY CLAIMING THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE THE RESULT OF OTHER PEOPLE AND CAN NO WAY BE AFFILIATED TO BECAUSE "..THAT ISN'T MY FAULT."

This comment tells so much about you:

If you took it as condescending and disrespectful that isn't my fault.

The truth behind the matter is that you are unable to see how that comment allows others to view you. 

I cannot educate you, this is something you have to learn on your own. Matter of fact, I would not want the opportunity even if it had a million dollar price tag.

I guess Mr. Nobody made me take your words that way, hence none of your comments are your fault.  Your comments must be the result of everyone else MAKING you say all that nonsense huh?  That is a good way to put it.  Blame everyone else, or hell just me, for you saying what you said.  I bet it makes you sleep better at night huh?

I know this, when it comes to being an adult, you must:  1. Pay your own bills and 2. admit your own faults.  You may have to re-look number two and see how it applies to you.

Just out of curiousity, how old are you?

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

Man has this gone horribly wrong