Re: FYI - Tinypics

aem said:

-L. said:

jmcquown wrote:

.... Who cares?!

Quoted message said:

Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
truly is...

I wouldn't mind that so much if she had any taste, but the recipes she
posts are [censored].

Too bad she wasn't capable of carrying out her whine about not posting.
-aem

Agreed.
-L.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

No, that's "principal", not principle.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Pennyaline said:

You're not paying attention. I may maintain copyright, but fair use can
still apply and make the infringement argument moot.

Even so, don't you think it is a little weird to post a message to the effect
I cooked something and here is a picture of it, and then to use a picture of
something made by someone else?
What is the game plan behind something like that?

Upon the face of it and with a quick read, I was annoyed that the guy
posted the exact same post three times. However, it was cute, with the
guy making a pizza dinner with his kids. Upon rereading the post, it
isn't cute at all. He was obviously making fun of patches and her pizza.

To quote:

"The dough took me eight hours to perfect, but after a little patchwork
it worked out."

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:58:30 -0700, Dan Abel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Upon the face of it and with a quick read, I was annoyed that the guy ...

Who says it's a guy? I've just assumed it was a woman. Maybe
that's just the male chauvinist in me. Whenever I hear a woman
get pissy like this...

-sw

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

No, that's "principal", not principle.

By Jove! My bad.

<so okay, who is the principal she's trying to defend?>

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
in this situation.

Here's a little blurb on fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Doesn't look real clear to me either way.

Yeah, I know. Fair use is tough to decide, which is why a STRONG case
for infringement is a very good idea.

Pennyaline said:

Default User said:

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

> It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I
> made this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow
> this fully I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the
> two face poster used 3 different nyms to post their message, and
> the fact that this poster stole my pic.
But THAT does not successfully refute the possibility of fair use.

I'm unaware of any definition of "fair use" that involves passing
someone else's work off as your own.

Patches was making the accusations before the circumstances had been
established: I did not start receiving more detailed posts on my
newsreader until approx. 1:30 PM today, hours after her first highly
inflammatory ones. At the time I wrote the post you quoted above, my
suspicion was that someone had used the picture and post to poke fun at
her, a parody use covered by fair use... or at least by ones own sense
of humor.

To be fair, I did see a pizza pic that looked suspiciously like a
rerun... but wasn't interested enough to find out who posted it first.
Heck, I don't even remember who posted it second!
--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

Pennyaline said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.
Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

No, that's "principal", not principle.

By Jove! My bad.

<so okay, who is the principal she's trying to defend?>

No, it's "a principal thing," i.e., the ABSOLUTELY MOST IMPORTANT thing.
That's why it's gotten so much bandwidth.

Bob

sf said:

To be fair, I did see a pizza pic that looked suspiciously like a
rerun... but wasn't interested enough to find out who posted it first.
Heck, I don't even remember who posted it second!

I saw your comment out there saying it looked familiar, so I
figured it was you that "tipped" her off - and said so somewhere
in this thread. '

Apologies for fingering you (heh) as the "tipster".

-sw

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Wertz said:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:58:30 -0700, Dan Abel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Upon the face of it and with a quick read, I was annoyed that the guy ...

Who says it's a guy? I've just assumed it was a woman. Maybe
that's just the male chauvinist in me. Whenever I hear a woman
get pissy like this...

I don't know why I wrote "guy". Patches has [censored] plenty of both
males and females. I'm not sure why, though. I always liked her posts,
although I didn't always agree with her.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

Steve Wertz said:

sf said:

To be fair, I did see a pizza pic that looked suspiciously like a
rerun... but wasn't interested enough to find out who posted it first.
Heck, I don't even remember who posted it second!

I saw your comment out there saying it looked familiar, so I
figured it was you that "tipped" her off - and said so somewhere
in this thread. '

Apologies for fingering you (heh) as the "tipster".

-sw

No sf was not the tipster. There are a couple here who know my real
email address. I was tipped off through email not on this ng. Sf had
nothing to do with it. Sorry. But sf was the first here to respond
that the pic had been seen before.

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

> The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.
Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

No, that's "principal", not principle.

By Jove! My bad.

<so okay, who is the principal she's trying to defend?>

No, no, no! It's being used as an adjective. As an example:

The principal posting patches used to do on this group was about food,
now her principal posting is about how she was robbed. That's why it is
now her "principal thing".

Do you understand now?

:-)

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Even so, don't you think it is a little weird to post a message to the

effect

Quoted message said:

I cooked something and here is a picture of it,

Well, James didn't exactly say that it was a picture of his pizza, although
it was written so that one would make that assumption.

Dave

"Dan Abel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Pennyaline <[email hidden]> wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:

>> The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The

offending

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.
> Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

No, that's "principal", not principle.

By Jove! My bad.

<so okay, who is the principal she's trying to defend?>

No, no, no! It's being used as an adjective. As an example:

The principal posting patches used to do on this group was about food,
now her principal posting is about how she was robbed. That's why it is
now her "principal thing".

Do you understand now?

I think you are saying that Patches is unprincipled. 😉

Dave

In article <[email hidden]>, "Hairy" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Dan Abel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> Pennyaline <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> ~patches~ wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The

offending

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.
>> Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?
>
> No, that's "principal", not principle.

By Jove! My bad.

<so okay, who is the principal she's trying to defend?>

No, no, no! It's being used as an adjective. As an example:

The principal posting patches used to do on this group was about food,
now her principal posting is about how she was robbed. That's why it is
now her "principal thing".

Do you understand now?

I think you are saying that Patches is unprincipled. 😉

I was just tweaking Pennyaline with my weird sense of humor.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

"Dan Abel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pennyaline said:

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Pennyaline <[email hidden]> wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:

>> The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own
>> has
>> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The
>> offending
>> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.
> Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?

No, that's "principal", not principle.

By Jove! My bad.

<so okay, who is the principal she's trying to defend?>

No, no, no! It's being used as an adjective. As an example:

The principal posting patches used to do on this group was about food,
now her principal posting is about how she was robbed. That's why it is
now her "principal thing".

Alliteration at this time in the morning eh? <G>

Steve Wertz said:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:43:50 -0700, sf

Quoted message said:

To be fair, I did see a pizza pic that looked suspiciously like a
rerun... but wasn't interested enough to find out who posted it first.
Heck, I don't even remember who posted it second!

I saw your comment out there saying it looked familiar, so I
figured it was you that "tipped" her off - and said so somewhere
in this thread. '

Apologies for fingering you (heh) as the "tipster".

Huh? You did? I completely missed that. Damn! I was unjustly
accused and didn't get a chance to make an ass out of myself over it.
Oh, woe is me!

--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

jmcquown said:

~patches~ said:

Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
something.

Better yet, if she doesn't want her photos stolen and used by someone
else, she shouldn't post them on the Internet. She can always sell
her photos of food on any number of online microstock photography sites
where she will be paid for their use by others. Problem solved.

SD

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Better yet, if she doesn't want her photos stolen and used by someone
else, she shouldn't post them on the Internet. She can always sell
her photos of food on any number of online microstock photography sites
where she will be paid for their use by others. Problem solved.

I take it that means you didn't see the picture in question that patches
posted?

:-(

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Better yet, if she doesn't want her photos stolen and used by someone
else, she shouldn't post them on the Internet. She can always sell
her photos of food on any number of online microstock photography sites
where she will be paid for their use by others. Problem solved.

I take it that means you didn't see the picture in question that patches
posted?

:-(

No...We had no internet or phone for about a week....during the time
this whole thing blew up. That bad huh?

SD