During my google search for the Sarah henderson story, I came across this article on Vexnews with the following image.
I thought the picture looked familiar, so I check this post with an image of the current Corangamite MP Darren Cheeseman.
We have a match.
I took the photo that Vexnews is currently using without my permission.
So I ask Andrew Landeryou the following two questions?
1. Are you going to take it down ASAP and apologise?
and 2. Can you spell "T-h-i-e-v-i-n-g C-u-n-t"
52 comments:
1. No
2. Yes
You are, and i speak for so many people on this issue, a contemptible wanker.
And it's not worth bringing a copyright case against you because you're a bankrupt as well.
Fat, crooked and broke is no way to go through life you cheap-arse mother-fucker.
LOL. The senseless courage of the leftist without a name. Yawn.
Why don't you give us a call on 0415 99 33 26 and we'll sort out the matter.
Of course you won't do that because you are the perfect demonstration that keyboard skills do not require a spine.
Sorry I cannot reply at great length here but I'm off to look through your collection of images to see what I can snaffle on behalf of the international right-wing conspiracy.
Before I head off though, I note that you have taking images - without permission I fear - from that struggling media organisation Fairfax Media. In light of their troubled financial circumstances, this is clearly rather cruel.
An image of patriot Family First Senator Fielding has been appropriated from The Age here and used by you here.
Physician heal thyself.
If only you mattered sufficiently for a takedown on VEXNEWS. Sadly you don't.
Ciao.
Nameless blogger/slagger from Torquay with in-laws called Michael and Faye, you really are a piece of work.
I was - as promised - scouring through the images on your blog to use and misuse in the interests of freedom and - lo and behold - I discover that some time ago you had - shockingly enough sans permission - taken an image I had created and used it to illustrate one of your stories. Click here to see your secret shame.
You credited us with the image (in the comments section where no-one seems to go on your site) and yet according to my records FAILED to seek permission to use the image.
You have demanded a high standard of me you were not willing to apply to yourself. Tsk tsk.
With a couple of exceptions of your own photographs, it's clear you have taken many other images without permission. I don't have an issue with your fair dealing in these images for the purpose of news commentary, but you must surely agree that you are left looking like a tosser when you complain the very thing of which you are guilty!
It's hard to believe someone so uptight lives in God's own country of Torquay. I suggest a quiet, calming walk by the beach to get over yourself.
Yours in Unity,
Landeryou
What's the difference where the acknowledgement, of the photo was placed on the page, it was at least on the page to begin with ?
In this instance, your high-horse criticism is misplaced, misguided and plain wrong.
You were done cold "stealing" property that clearly didn't belong to you, and not admitting it, doesn't do your cause much good at all.
Just admit you fucked up, before you get done for plagiarising anything else ?
'Harry'/Torquay anono-blogger, you wrote:
I took the photo that Vexnews is currently using without my permission. So I ask Andrew Landeryou the following two questions? 1. Are you going to take it down ASAP and apologise? and 2. Can you spell "T-h-i-e-v-i-n-g [profanity]"
You didn't ask permission to use the images you used (not just mine but many dozens of others) despite emitting howls of outrages about our use of yours.
The hypocrisy, acrimony and sanctimony of the far left knows no bounds.
Your bizarre accusation of 'theft', 'stealing' of a happy snap of a local MP at a rally and other contemptible claims shows just how free with falsehoods you are.
If you must play bush/seachange lawyer, s42 of the Copyright Act shows our legal entitlement to use the image as long as we are reporting news, which we do, clearly much to your annoyance.
We would of course be happy to acknowledge you as a source of the photograph should you provide us with your name and permission to do so.
Go in grace,
Don't need permission to take the image Landerhaha, it was taken in a public place, so get over it. Obviously, you didn't have a camera, photographer, or were simply too lazy to go to the rally yourself, so what better, oh, just steal it.
It is however, copyright infringement or theft in a language you can understand, to use someone else's material without acknowledgement.
But, you're not a total fool, you would have already known that, you just arrogantly thought, no one would catch you doing it, or care ?
Well, you are, and someone does.
Time to pay the Ferryman you thieving prick.
Obviously after a week, of no reply from Mr Landerhaha, we have proved our point, it's off skulking somewhere, perhaps under the rock it crawled out of ?
My job is done.
Good day all.
:)
To recap, the Broken Left Leg blogger, who chooses to be anonymous but whose identity is now known to me, wrote words to the effect that we had "thieved" an image he took of a red-shirted Socialist Left MP.
On behalf of VEXNEWS, we pointed out our legal entitlement to do so under the Copyright Act and demonstrated that the anono-blogger regularly does exactly the same thing of which he complains.
We pointed out an example of where he had "thieved" to use his term an image we had created and used it here. Pot. Kettle. Black.
We also offered the not-so-courageous chap the opportunity to discuss the matter on 0415 99 33 26 to arrange for attribution should he want that. We get lots of calls but didn't get one from Torquay this week.
No rebuttal has been made to the above points. Understandably perhaps, because there's not really much left to say. The anono-blogger brought a toothpick to compete against our sharp blades of truth.
One final point though because not even wet cement would be enough to stop us talking. We gather the author is an active member of the Greens and is part of what we would call the ultra-left. Presumably his political views include feminism. So do ours. Our version of feminism though prohibits use of the c-word and any other hate-speech calculated to shame and diminish women. Perhaps you might reflect on that the next time you offer up misogynist words of hate as an insult.
We suspect the author of this blog had hoped we'd pay out on him on our site and send some much-needed traffic his way. In our early days on the blog, we did much the same, so it's not a bad trick and we don't blame you for trying. Perhaps try us again in January when we usually have fewer stories to break.
Ciao.
Again, you have "twisted" the law, to suit your needs, as most media outlets do, when they have been sprung with their hands in the cookie jar.
You are somewhat correct, in your broad statement re copyright, but, NOT WITHOUT STATING YOUR SOURCE !
As for :
"No rebuttal has been made to the above points. Understandably perhaps, because there's not really much left to say. The anono-blogger brought a toothpick to compete against our sharp blades of truth."
no rebuttal is needed, as the owner of the photograph is not at fault. You are ! So stop trying to "table thump" everyone into submission, with your over inflated ego, and self imposed view of self importance and standing in the world, by trying to change the subject. Your entire diatribe is irrelevant.
Stop trying to cloud the issue with the blog author's views on whatever, by doing so, you are just showing your ignorance and immaturity.
Just admit you "STOLE THE FUCKING PHOTO", write a correction, acknowledging it's source, realise that in this instance, you were caught cold with the stolen goods, do your time, and to continue the analogy,
GET OVER IT !
1) We have offered to attribute the photograph to the owner of the copyright. We have invited your anonymous self to contact us to confirm that's what you want. You have not done so, perhaps hoping to protect your anonymity. Fair enough, it's up to you. But you can't have it both ways. Again our contact # is 0415 99 33 26. If you can't afford to call, please txt or email your number and we'll get back to you.
2) We thank you for acknowledging that we are correct about our use of the photograph, which completely negates your false and defamatory assertion that we "stole", "thieved" or any other way inappropriately used the image. It doesn't matter how often you repeat your original lie - or add profanity to it - your false claims remain just that.
You have started an argument and lost it. With the greatest of respect to you, it does seem you are a little out of your league.
It seems you started it to generate some traffic. If you wish to get into VEXNEWS, as a Greens political party activist that shouldn't be too difficult, run as one of their candidates and get involved of a scandal of some kind. We report on those all the time.
Your use of misogynist hate-speech against women might qualify but we'll leave the details of your planned wrongdoing to you, of course.
Good-bye,
Piss off Slanders,
Your bullshit appreciation of copyright law is a joke. Calling someone else a sea change lawyer is laughable giving your legal opinions.
I'm not giving you permission to use my image. I have never given you permission and I never will give you permission to pass my images off as your own.
I don't want a thieving bankrupt vile loser using my property in any way shape of form.
And you've obviously done some low research into me. Finding out who my wife is, and bringing her elderly parents into your petty internet bullying routine is pathetic.
Why don't you come to my father-in-laws 80 birthday you fucking prick?
Yawn. You've lost the argument, please stop crying about it. Boo hoo.
"You have started an argument and lost it. With the greatest of respect to you, it does seem you are a little out of your league.........."
Keep talking, and maybe if you say it loud enough, often enough, you may even believe it. No one else that has at least done five minutes of legal studies will just laugh in your face, as I am doing now.
Talking about "boo-hoo" ?
Obviously, you can only read half an argument, and simply ignore the rest ?
You have to acknowledge the source of the photo you HAVE STOLEN, even unknown if need be, or anonymous, but in this case, a valid web address was known, as that was where you stole it from.
You can try and baffle us with your fancy talk, unqualified lack of knowledge and other assorted bullshit, but the fact still remains, again,
YOU FUCKING STOLE IT.
"We thank you for acknowledging that we are correct about our use of the photograph, which completely negates your false and defamatory assertion that we "stole", "thieved" or any other way inappropriately used the image"
Again, keep telling yourself, that you are in the right, and maybe one day, you will actually believe it. The crap about a false assertion and defamation is typical tabloid hype. The sort of thing we used to read in the Truth back in the sixties. I guess we can look in a couple of months, on the tabloid scrapheap for, what do you call that rag of yours VEXNEWS ? Never heard of it, sort of explains a few things.
All you have to do, is acknowledge where you sourced the photo from. Even staff photographers get that line of credit under a photo.
Are you so embarrassed at your staff's apparent lack of ability,to sniff out a story on it's own, to admit that, in desperation of a photo, you had to steal it from a blog ?
You have to be kidding.
Get your head out of the bottle it's in, and come join us in the real world
Yawn. You've lost the argument, please stop crying about it. Boo hoo.
And in fact the only research I bothered doing was looking through this lame lefty blog in search of images to appropriate for my collection.
No fewer than three people let us know who you are.
And we also of course know what you are, which is, at least by your own description and legal interpretation a thief and by reasonable inference also a misogynist.
So while I thank you for your invitation, I think you've probably caused your in-laws enough grief.
BLL
What's this idiot's boss' name, or what newspaper (and I use that term loosley ?)does he work for, and let's go it's opposition and lay it all our for them to print in opposition ?
See how the thieving pricks squirm then, and let's see if they are ever invited anywhere else with a photographer (don't need those, sorry forgot, they just steal the images they need).
LOL never heard of VEXNEWS, yet you manage to regularly visit and quote from our work.
Please get your lies straight.
Harry & BLL are one person yet are now pretending to be in earnest conversation. LOL.
"And in fact the only research I bothered doing was looking through this lame lefty blog in search of images to appropriate for my collection."
Sort of explains it all doesn't it ?
VEXNEWS - keeping you informed of the latest ?
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I am line now you fuckwit, check ip addresses
If you don't know how, I will send you a buck, ring a friend
Will this dollar to be sent by Paypal or some other means?
obviously you checked.
Gee Martha, look at that ? They're different.
BLL should just say who this VEXNEWS is, or the source of the article and stolen photo in question, and perhaps, if it's a daily, we can call it's editor by tonight's shut off time, so the retraction/correction can be published, to correct the broken record.
I wish to thank Harry/BLL or whatever his sockpuppet name is, the Greens activist, for assisting with my insomnia. I'll be sure to re-read the abuse and misogyny above if in need of a few zzz's.
Please arrange the paypal transfer as a matter of urgency.
You smoking gum trees landerhaha ?
You lose an argument, then run around saying you won ?
Once a liar, always a liar ?
Don't you know how to check ip addresses ? Sock puppet huh ? Golly gosh, mine and BLL's aren't even on the same continent you insomniac.
Uou have no credibility, time for another pill.
I established you were guilty of exactly the same "offence" of which you had accused us.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Game. Set. Match.
You haven't proved anything thief.
All you have proven is just how much a fuckwit you, and more importantly, VEXNEWS is.
As to the remainder of your rhetorical screech,
Yawn
Game, set and match and rubber thief
Broken Left and socks, The links I provided above prove exactly what I said. They demonstrate you did precisely the same thing of which you complained originally.
I'm impressed you've been able to access the web this evening from your psych ward.
Well done.
Landerhaha,
oh dribble dribble.
Instead of attempting to try to fool, and lie to everybody, why not just admit that you fucked up, and get on with it.
How hard is it to just put a link in your post, as to where you sourced the photo ? It is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but the principle is the key. Is your ego that crushed that you didn't get the photo yourself, that you felt you had to thieve it ?
If you steal just a photo, what the hell else are you stealing ?
This sock puppet crap is getting a bit old to say the least. That again, just shows lack of skill in the maintenance of an argument, and trying to fight from a such a weak position, that you have to make up an attack front, just to stop from drowning.
Shit, time I was out of here, work is done for the day, and to waste my time on such a blimp like you, is nothing short of sacrosanct.
Good day light fingers landerhaha.
Iain
You are in error to claim that Andrew has violated your copyright quite simply because he has manipulated the image enough for it to become his own work...
Oh piss off ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Mildly cropping an image is not manipulating it you idiot. Jeremy Sear said you "weren't a bush lawyers arsehole". I backed you up though Iain, I said you were.
Landeryou and Iain Hall, A crook and a moron. Take your pick children.
As for your sock puppets argument, bring up the IPs slanders and prove it to the world.
Bet you a million bucks you can't.
Silly me, why even make the bet? Impossible to get money out of a bankrupt crook. How's MUSU going Andy?
BLL
I admire your patience with this tosser on this occasion.
Must have been tough
My oh my what any angry puppy you are Iain!
The image has been both cropped, had its proportions changed and it now contains the liberal party logo and a caption all added to your original image that is quite a substantial change from your original now isn't it?
As I said the image has been substantially altered,
probably enough so that your claims of copyright violation would not stand up were you to seek redress through the courts.
I actually think that you should have been credited as the source of the image though.
I would suggest that you seek a different legal advisor though as your current one seems to have a problem with the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism.
Three words for you ;;;;;;;;
Bad
bush
lawyer.
Iain Hall,
Sorry, but your argument is flawed.
Doesn't matter if the the image is contorted beyond comprehension. It is still (if left un-cited), theft of intellectual property. It was not a photo taken from a paper, or another site, it was a photo taken from BLL's own camera, and is his property.
If the same thing were done in academia by a student, that student would fail that paper. Guess where the law is taught ?
All that has to be done, is to acknowledge the source of the photo ?
Is it that embarrassing to acknowledge that simple fact ?
Man, is it that much of an atomic bomb to Landeryou's huge ego ?
Hate to tell you, but plagiarism, and copyright infringement are the same thing.
They are simply different terms.
Plagiarism is the term used in the education foray, and the other, the legal definition. Both however, mean exactly the same thing. The "theft" of someone else's intellectual, or physical property.
Manipulation of a product (or whatever), does not make it anything more, than a copy of the original idea, or product. I think a quick chat with Bill Gates could reinforce this ?
I think I said this elsewhere in the thread ?
you pair of wongers have way too much time on your hands...come on boys, its only politics...give peace a chance and give eachother a big toungie.
It is the principle that is involved Fukumugu.
Maybe just politics, and maybe just the theft of a photo, but if trivialised, what is the rodent concerned, going to steal tomorrow ? Something of yours perhaps ?
Wonder if the attitude would be the same if it was your work Vexnews had stolen ?
Somehow, me thinks your screams of apathy, would wain to a wimper.
You give it a big "toungie" if you like, the guys a thief.
Harry
You are in error:
copyright infringement is reproducing someone's intellectual property without permission, plagiarism is claiming someone's work as your own. While you could argue, as you do, that both are a form of theft, but to claim that they are identical is just as wrong as it would to argue that carrots and spuds are exactly the same because both are vegetables
Indeed.
Theft is still theft, whether it be spuds, rough pineapples, whatever.
Sorry but :
"copyright infringement is reproducing someone's intellectual property without permission, plagiarism is claiming someone's work as your own."
What's the difference according to you ? Both argue that the work has been stolen/acquired/copied/ or whatever without the author, or more basic than that, the creator of the work's permission.
Whatever you call it, that is exactly what has occurred on this occasion. I just don't know as to why it is so difficult a process, to get your heads around ?
Gloss over it, with fancy terms, but perhaps it may be beneficial just to call it what it was, theft.
I think you are splitting hairs here Iain ?
"copyright infringement is reproducing someone's intellectual property without permission, plagiarism is claiming someone's work as your own"
I agree, BUT, I honestly cannot see the difference between the two, other than the terms are used in different applications. They both ESSENTIALLY mean the same ?
I remember one of my law profs, coming up with a quick acronym, as to how, when it came to any application of the law, to a particular problem, the way to argue it ?
IPAC
I : Interpretation
P : Principle i.e the law concerned
A : Application to the facts of the case; and
C : Conclusion.
If you work through the acronym, then the conclusion still results in the same answer ?
Whether the term used is plagiarism, or copyright infringement, it still states the same thing, a taking (or copying), of someone else's intellectual, or other property, and reproducing it elsewhere, without the original author's or otherwise owner of the said "property" permission.
The fact still remains that the "property" was taken, without being cited, or sourced or even acknowledged. Pretty cut and dried. The solution is simple, just acknowledge where the photo came from ?
When it comes down to the crunch, it is only ego, that prevents this ?
I have seen your blog Mr Hall, you do it, as does BLL. So what is the problem here ? A crush to the ego ?
Pretty lame excuse, sorry.
Harry
the difference is that while both are using property without permission there is also an added element of fraud when it comes to plagiarism. namely the pretence that the work used is entirely your own when it isn't.
Now I make no pretence that any of the images that I hot-link to are my own work and where ever possible I clearly attribute the image to its author, likewise I always annotate the source of any text that I quote and I make it clear that my use is based upon the "fair use for criticism or review" provisions of the copyright act in the sidebar widget of the front page of my blog so if there is any omission on my part in respecting the copyright act it is not for lack of trying.
No argument with any of that.
Pity "Vexnews" didn't see it that way. Perhaps too many "chards" ?
I see landerhaha has disappeared back under his rock.
Probably trying to find other places he can steal from.
This time perhaps, without getting "caught" ?
Any more bugs that need squashed ?
I won the argument. See above.
Yeah Andrew You won. And of course nobody would ever come to the conclusion that you are an arrogant thief, who is a bankrupt bullshit artist who just can't admit he was wrong.
Good for you Andrew, you're a champion.
You "stole" images from my site and yet complain when I used one of yours. Get over it.
Again you are confusing images that were taken personally, to those taken from a paper or otherwise "publicly published" location.
It was his photo, not public property.
Your the one that needs to get over it 'thief'.
Piss off idiot.
Given my use of "your" (read "my") image was to highlight the fact you stole it in the first place, I'm tipping I'd have a rock solid "fair criticism" defence.
You on the other hand just stole my image and blatantly breached my copyright.
Are you
A. An arrogant wanker who just can't admit, despite all the evidence, that he is a thief? or
B. Thick a pig shit?
Andrew take your pick
so...andrew stole lefty's photo to piss her off
Lefty got pissed off
Lots of pixels and time wasted
Andrew wins!
I can only image the shitfight that would occur on a real issue...like a fake email fer instance...
Dream on Foomanchu.
Landerhaha is a thief, and got caught.
"Vexnews, the latest in stolen news."
Maybe that should read :
"Vexnews - The latest in EVERYONE ELSES news ?"
Just, for shits and giggles, I checked out this Vexnews or whatever. On a self glorification ad is this :
"We speak your truth...."
"Your truth"
Well, that covers it. Certainly wasn't Vexnews' truth was it ?
Pity, it is all based in lies to begin with ?
You call yourself a journalist Landerhaha ? You wouldn't last five minutes in the trade. The first time you were caught stealing someone else's "whatever", I don't know an editor in the country, that wouldn't turf you out on your arse.
Post a Comment