warning to those posting pics here



Here's the original post... since it's gone from Google. I think the
"patchwork" comment james made in the post was supposed to be a little
joke. I munged the tinyurl URL in his post for obvious reasons.

[REPOST]

Path:
nnrp.xmission!xmission!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pos
tnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "james" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: i made a pizza!
Date: 29 Mar 2006 20:06:03 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.190.251
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1143691568 4623 127.0.0.1 (30 Mar 2006
04:06:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:06:08 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1),gzip(g
fe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=67.174.190.251;
posting-account=AZsaAA0AAACP0QRVY0y8tWSgL1fLdcMH
Xref: nnrp.xmission rec.food.cooking:1289538

Check it out. Wife was working late but my kids loved it!

The dough took me eight hours to perfect, but after a little patchwork
it worked out. The sauce was homemade as well, you can see some of it
peeking through around the perimeter. The square shape was my child's
idea, and the cheese was Kroger mozerella.

Bon Apetit!!

http://tinypicXXXX/fmo2g5.jpg
 
Joe Cilinceon wrote:
> Here are some of mine you are welcome too take. I've always felt if you
> don't want it taken and used then don't post it on the net.
> http://www.dizteq.com/joestuff/

Nice work... I like The Farm and Old Truck... kinda reminds me of home.

Sheldon
 
"Glitter Ninja" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> His
> "i made pizza" post is no longer available on Google, probably because
> he used someone else's photo, and Google considers that copyright
> violation.

How would Google know he used someone else's photo, unless they were
informed of this by a person?
 
~patches~ <[email protected]> writes:

>Oh I'm pretty sure you can figure out who the person is ;)

Just a couple of words of advice. Keep in mind, my advice/opinions do
not necessarily mean anything.
First, instead of vague hints on who did what, you might want to name
names next time. Hopefully there won't be a next time, but it's obvious
several on RFC think the worst of you and won't go look anything up
themselves before calling you deranged, so, naming names and giving
message-IDs or whatever could have prevented that.
Second, this "james" guy hasn't posted anything crazy before, that I
can tell. It's likely that this wasn't harassment so much as joining in
on the recent flaming going on, and he thought this was a joke.
Remember, the 'net is full people who think sending Alton Brown a copy
of the infamous goatse picture is a real hoot. Taking your photo of
pizza and passing it off as their own was probably not intentionally
harassing.
Interesting though that some people told you that your pizza wasn't
"real" pizza, yet no one said a thing like that when "james" posted the
same pic.
Anyhow, those are just my thoughts.

Stacia
p.s. don't look up the goatse photo
 
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> writes:


>> His
>> "i made pizza" post is no longer available on Google, probably because
>> he used someone else's photo, and Google considers that copyright
>> violation.

>How would Google know he used someone else's photo, unless they were
>informed of this by a person?

They probably were informed of it. Or "james" removed the post
himself. I can't tell why it was removed, just that it was, but it
hasn't expired on my server yet so I was able to see the original. If
he didn't remove it himself then the only way an informer could get it
removed was if he violated Google's TOS. Copyright infringement is a
violation of their TOS.

Stacia
 
Could you please post a link to the picture that all this ruckus is about?
 
"Glitter Ninja" <[email protected]> wrote

> Here's the original post... since it's gone from Google. I think the
> "patchwork" comment james made in the post was supposed to be a little
> joke.

Pfft, I saw that some guy posted that twice, I didn't bother
opening it, something was off about the post ... then he posted
it yet a third under a different name and I knew not to bother.

Much ado about nothing.

nancy
 
"Glitter Ninja" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>> His
>>> "i made pizza" post is no longer available on Google, probably because
>>> he used someone else's photo, and Google considers that copyright
>>> violation.
>
>>How would Google know he used someone else's photo, unless they were
>>informed of this by a person?
>
> They probably were informed of it. Or "james" removed the post
> himself. I can't tell why it was removed, just that it was, but it
> hasn't expired on my server yet so I was able to see the original. If
> he didn't remove it himself then the only way an informer could get it
> removed was if he violated Google's TOS. Copyright infringement is a
> violation of their TOS.
>
> Stacia
>

Google has some sort of "no archive" feature. I believe it allows you to
force your messages to expire and vanish after a certain period of time.
That's the more likely reason his message is gone.
 
Glitter Ninja wrote:

> ~patches~ <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Oh I'm pretty sure you can figure out who the person is ;)
>
>
> Just a couple of words of advice. Keep in mind, my advice/opinions do
> not necessarily mean anything.
> First, instead of vague hints on who did what, you might want to name
> names next time. Hopefully there won't be a next time, but it's obvious
> several on RFC think the worst of you and won't go look anything up
> themselves before calling you deranged, so, naming names and giving
> message-IDs or whatever could have prevented that.

Yep, thanks Glitter. I know I'm not well liked by some here so them
taking cheap shots is nothing new. It really doesn't bother me. Theft
of my pic does bother me. The poster knows who they are and others know
as well. I'm not going to name names but have chosen to take other
actions. It would serve no purpose to name names at this point.

> Second, this "james" guy hasn't posted anything crazy before, that I
> can tell. It's likely that this wasn't harassment so much as joining in
> on the recent flaming going on, and he thought this was a joke.
> Remember, the 'net is full people who think sending Alton Brown a copy
> of the infamous goatse picture is a real hoot. Taking your photo of
> pizza and passing it off as their own was probably not intentionally
> harassing.

Given when it was done and the discussions going on at that time, it was
intentionally posted to harass. Google holds the proof of that.

> Interesting though that some people told you that your pizza wasn't
> "real" pizza, yet no one said a thing like that when "james" posted the
> same pic.

One poster did and I did thank that poster. There were a lot of nasty
comments when the pic was first posted. When it was posted the second
time by the thief, it got a better review just not a lot of attention.
There were a couple of comments that I saw.

> Anyhow, those are just my thoughts.

Thanks, I really appreciate your input.
>
> Stacia
> p.s. don't look up the goatse photo
>


--
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.
 

>
> If it makes you feel better, steal this, I really don't care.
>
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/74365720/1074365823046690505TtOJGp
>
> Jill
>
>

Oh wait I must add - I would also like some of your pot roast (the
broccoli looks so good) and umm...That spinach with feta looks
interesting....

well frankly, I think I would try just about anything in those
pictures...I might even try the brussel sprouts - as long as the don't
smell like feet *G*

Roberta (in VA)
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Here's the original post... since it's gone from Google. I think the
> > "patchwork" comment james made in the post was supposed to be a little
> > joke.
>
> Pfft, I saw that some guy posted that twice, I didn't bother
> opening it, something was off about the post ... then he posted
> it yet a third under a different name and I knew not to bother.
>
> Much ado about nothing.
>

Precisely. Tempest/teapot, mountain/molehill, and so on.

--
Peter Aitken
 
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> writes:

>Google has some sort of "no archive" feature. I believe it allows you to
>force your messages to expire and vanish after a certain period of time.
>That's the more likely reason his message is gone.

The original post which is on my server doesn't have an X-No-Archive
header or line in the text, so it wasn't X-No-Archived. Besides, Google
does archive such posts for a few days with a note on them saying the
post will disappear soon. There's just no sign that the post was
X-No-Archived.
Like I said, "james" may have deleted his own post, or Google agreed
with an informer and removed the post because of copyright infringement.

Stacia
 
Peter A wrote:

>>~patches~ wrote:
>>
>>
>>I hold copyright on that pic and no one has the right
>>to use it for any reason. I intend to follow this one through for theft
>>of intellectual property and copyright infringement.
>
>
> Get a brain. You are blowing hot air I think, and even if you are not
> then all that will happen is you will pay a lot of $$ to a lawyer and
> the offender will be ordered to stop posting whatever it is. You will
> get no damages, no legal costs.

I'm not blowing hot air. Would you like copies of the emails that were
sent out? Funny how this two faced poster's isp and tinypics agreed
with me. I could easily sit back and just let them go after the thief
but I'm not going to do that. FTR, as mentioned in another reply, I'm
not going after any monetary damages. I want this two faced poster to
realize they have overstepped the fine line. There is a point to be
made here and I fully intend to make it.

>
>
>
>>Heck, it even
>>shows my counter top and things on it.
>>
>
>
> Oh golly, such horror! What on earth could you have on your counter that
> is so secret?
>

Absolutely nothing of interest to anyone. The pic was posted as a form
of harassment. Now, the two faced poster is going to find out it isn't
quite as funny as they initally thought.

--
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.
 
~patches~ wrote:
> Well Lyn, you should know all about abusing others online, shouldn't
> you.

Why are you still here, recipe theif?

-L.
 
Glitter Ninja wrote:

> Here's the original post... since it's gone from Google. I think the
> "patchwork" comment james made in the post was supposed to be a little
> joke. I munged the tinyurl URL in his post for obvious reasons.
>
> [REPOST]
>
> Path:
> nnrp.xmission!xmission!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pos
> tnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: "james" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
> Subject: i made a pizza!
> Date: 29 Mar 2006 20:06:03 -0800
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 11
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.190.251
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1143691568 4623 127.0.0.1 (30 Mar 2006
> 04:06:08 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:06:08 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
> SV1),gzip(g
> fe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: [email protected]
> Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
> posting-host=67.174.190.251;
> posting-account=AZsaAA0AAACP0QRVY0y8tWSgL1fLdcMH
> Xref: nnrp.xmission rec.food.cooking:1289538
>
> Check it out. Wife was working late but my kids loved it!
>
> The dough took me eight hours to perfect, but after a little patchwork
> it worked out. The sauce was homemade as well, you can see some of it
> peeking through around the perimeter. The square shape was my child's
> idea, and the cheese was Kroger mozerella.
>
> Bon Apetit!!
>
> http://tinypicXXXX/xxxx.jpg

I've blacked out the image.

>

Yep, and the two faced poster wasn't smart enough to hide their headers.
Talk about a nice red flag. The two faced poster changed their nym
then was stupid enough to post with their own account and if that wasn't
good enough posted at least twice under two different nyms. Google took
action as will Comcast. The two faced poster has been outed and will
likely be back with a brand new isp ;)

--
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.
 
zxcvbob wrote:
> ~patches~ wrote:
> > jake wrote:
> >
> >> Nothing anyone puts out on the Internet is safe from misuse, be it
> >> pics, personal info, lies, etc. But that doesn't make it any fairer to
> >> pass other people's work off as one's own :(
> >>
> >> I am sorry this has happened to you.
> >
> > Thanks Jake. I'm pursuing this issue through tinypics, the offenders
> > and legally. It's become a principal thing now. The offender thought
> > is was a funny way to either mock or harass me. Let's see how funny the
> > offender thinks it is now.
>
>
> Speaking of funny, did you know that if the thief claims that their use
> of your picture is a derivative work that constitutes a *parody*, their
> use is protected? In other words, if they took your picture
> specifically to mock you (rather than to use it as their own work),
> there may not be much you can do about it. HTH :)
>
> Bob <-- not a lawyer

Not only that but regularly posting on Usenet makes one are a public
person, open to most anything the paparazzi dreams up... we are all
celebates, we have no privates! hehe

Sheldon
 
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:52:52 -0700, Sheldon wrote:


>... of course there's no
> biggie in posting a lifted recipe but for someone so whiny about her
> fercocktah pics she could at least attribute them, "anon" is
> sufficient.
>
> Sheldon

And the pizza picture is still there http://tinypic.com/fmo2g5.jpg which
is the url that james who must be the alleged offender posted.
tinypic/photobucket has not removed it as of 2 minutes ago. I have a hard
drive full of pictures at least as good as the pizza one, that ain't even
worth deleting. I prefer round pizza and round waffles. They seem to fit
better on ugly round plates. <G>
 
Sheldon wrote:

> Not only that but regularly posting on Usenet makes one are a public
> person, open to most anything the paparazzi dreams up... we are all
> celebates, we have no privates! hehe

Stop making me laugh (I have a headache) ;)

Cheers
Cathy(xyz)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back