 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Masque wrote: |
| Rutschen, That was in regard to open forum posting, here we are discussing editorial content, its provenance and the intent behind the use. Anyone with editorial access would have to be remarkably inappropriately qualified to make a "mistake" of this nature . . . just possible had not the photo been cropped to hide evidence of its true ownership . . . No this was a deliberate act by someone in a position of authority or at the least to have been approved by a person of authority within the club for it to be placed in the web publication. At some point at least one person knew there had been a bad act. There is no equivocation that the club should be apologising to davidof, its members and to the public since the purloined article was on the public side of its web presence. |
I believe that's what I just said - the court bit was an aside (and as I said - not pertinent).
My exact point was that anyone who made such an innocent error WAS remarkably unqualified and the blame for such error therefore lies not with the person but with the organisation responsible for him or her. How that organisation chooses to react and deal with the issue will be the true demonstration of their morals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm away for a week and a half from tomorrow and I hope this matter is settled amicably and to the satisfaction of davidof soon - best of luck 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Hello... anyone still in here?... has anything transpired between the two factions that we can stick noses into?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Bode Swiller, Well other than a few heated debates over there, b*gger all! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
AxsMan, so, they're getting away with it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bode Swiller, Of course we don't know what's been agreed (if anything) betwen them and davidof, maybe at some point he will post an update?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, they have reposted the item with the proper accreditation. AFAIK davidof is happy with that.
As far as their 'getting away' with their mistake [sic] they have, let's face it, had a right royal slagging off on the busiest snowForum in the country. The vigour of which, even their most loyal lieutenants realised they stood little chance of countering.
I personally believe the SCGB could have handled it better to their advantage by capitulating a shade more generously toward Piste Hors (perhaps they yet will?). As everyone here knows, it is an immensley well respected site and I think the SCGB would be cleverer to be seen to support such a thing. But then, if your world begins and ends with 'the club', perhaps Piste Hors is a bit of an irrelevance. After all, didn't the chap criticise the club or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
admin, er, I might be out of date, but I THINK they took it back down again, after it became clear that davidof was not happy for it to be posted (even with accreditation) without his permission. Or has this all gone full circle again? I can't find the article on their site at the moment.
IMHO the SCGB should introduce some clarity and apologise, although that would remove our excuse for a good gossip, so hopefully they won't do this too quickly 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
let's face it, had a right royal slagging off on the busiest snowForum in the country. The vigour of which, even their most loyal lieutenants realised they stood little chance of countering.
|
Sorry, admin, but with all due doffing of cap to your mighty organ and the dozen or so Snowheads who were remotely interested  , SKGB have absolutely swaggered away from the scene of the crime without even picking up an ASBO. If Davidof is happy then I'll shut up but I do think the only real punishment in a case like this should be financial then at least they'll think twice before ripping off someone else's IP. Financial means either paying the rate for the piece or making a charitable donation or something - reposting the stuff with proper accreditation is free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin, Well I suppose every cloud has its silver and all that .... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Bode Swiller, I think that you're being a bit unrealistic. From what has been said on this site, it seems unlikely that Davidof has suffered (significant) financial loss. There can be no question of SCGB being dragged in front of the beak, since that would leave Davidof well out of pocket, and I can't see the DPP rushing to bring a prosecution. If I'm right, all that can reasonably be expected is an apology, which may have been given privately, and either proper acknowledgement of authorship of the article or its removal from SCGB site, at least one of which seems to have happened.
One has to accept that mistakes, however stupid, do occur. There's no point in trying to take the miscreant to the cleaners over something relatively trivial, and the courts will not have sympathy with one if one does. All one can hope is that the SCGB are now a little more aware of their responsibilities and instruct and supervise their staff properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I'm sure it would all be water under the snowbridge if the KGB gave Davidof one of their very nice wristbands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
richmond, Do you mean CPS? If so, it would have nothing to do with them anyway as this would be a civil matter. I'm not suggesting that anyone goes spending money on lawyers either as, clearly, there would be no point. He could argue that he's suffered damage especially if his site revenue relies on click throughs - being a more powerful site, Skiclub would probably come out on top of Pistehors if you did a search on the subject matter of the article (but, this would be small beer). If it were me I'd send them a bill (and this is where having a published rate card comes in handy) and a demand to take down the article. If the invoice is disputed or ignored then you have the choice of spending a small amount to fast track it through the small claims court (I've used moneyclaimonline.gov and this gets a writ to your victim in a few days... it normally works and the only one left out of pocket would be SCGB... and potentially with a CCJ).
| Quote: |
One has to accept that mistakes, however stupid, do occur.
|
Were you on the OJ Simpson jury?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
| If the invoice is disputed or ignored then you have the choice of spending a small amount to fast track it through the small claims court (I've used moneyclaimonline.gov and this gets a writ to your victim in a few days... |
The courts aren't there for you to victimise people.
I hope Davidof gets a fair and speedy settlement. Hopefully he has already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
richmond, FWIW I agree with you regarding the pointlessness and cost of involving lawyers and at any rate IMHO that's up to Davidof. I do feel though that a public apology is warranted and I also think that to categorise a deliberate act of cut and paste copyright infringement as a 'mistake' is being overly generous to the perpetrators. Especially when efforts were clearly made to hide the copyright on the copied materials and that this wasn't the first such 'mistake' they have made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Tim Brown,
| Quote: |
The courts aren't there for you to victimise people
|
No, and the courts don't allow you to either. I use the word "victim" as it puts me in the right frame of mind.
This is actually a very simple case - If I commissioned a writer to travel a good few hundred miles, spend a couple of days getting pics and the story, having to do an overnight and then write it up and file the material, I'd expect it to cost somewhere between £500 - £800 inc expenses. So, in the absence of a published rate card for web usage rights, I'd base my invoice on what it would have cost SCGB to create their own original work. You say to them "fair enough, you swiped my property without my authority, here's an invoice for the priviledge. I don't need an apology. Cough up". They either pay it or they don't. If they don't it's a small claims matter, more bad publicity, a probable lost case and, if ultimately unsatisfied, a CCJ. Apologies are free and one wouldn't be sincere anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Bode Swiller, I probably did mean CPS. Copyright infringement can carry criminal penalties, but I doubt that the CPS, DPP or anyone else wll be interested in bringing a criminal action in this case; one certainly hopes not. Perhaps someone could bring a private prosecution, but it would be ludicrously expensive and would very likely fail. So far as a civil action is concerned that is entirely davidof's business.
To stick my nose in anyway, from what little I know, it's hard to see that davidof has suffered much quantifiable damage, certainly not enough to justify a court action for copyright infringement. The idea of billing SCGB and then taking them to the SCC is shrewd, but it would require the SCC to hear a copyright infringement matter; I'm sure that they would refuse to hear it even if they're allowed to, which I very much doubt. In the present circs, I suspect that it might be regarded as an abuse of procedure and chucked out; the SCC is unlikely to take kindly to being the tribunal for a 'backdoor' copyright action.
BTW, although your approach to billing SCGB sounds fair, it's not the basis on which damages for copyright infringement would be calculated. The author can only recover what they've lost by the infringement, which in this case might be nothing. They might get something for breach of their 'moral rights', but that wouldn't make much of a dent on their share of their own costs.
AxsMan, I was applying 'mistake' to the SCGB rather than to the individual responsible for putting the article on their site. I'm not defending SCGB or that person, but I just don't think that this is a matter for litigation.
I wasn't on the OJ Simpson, jury (but you'd probably guessed that). Whether or not he did it, I'm not sure that he'd even have come to trial in this country, never mind been convicted; any criminal lawyers (aren't they all?) care to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
richmond, I agree with you re litigation. Where I think you are being over kind to the SCGB in classifying their actions as a 'mistake' is that their official editorial policy (as expressed in the email they sent to me 'explaining the mistake') appears to neglect the basic step of asking permission before using material from another site. No mention was made of this in the email, and they re-posted the article (which has since been removed again) after adding the accreditation's but allegedly still without seeking permission. This seems to me to be a more serious 'policy failing' than simply a mistake by an individual who did the deed. Following all the complaints, more than one individual, and someone quite senior would, I would have thought, be likely have been involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond, I am indeed suggesting that the copyright infringement angle should be forgotton as being a non-starter. I think everyone sees that.
I'm saying he should be invoicing them for services rendered by his company... I think you call it "straightforward commercial debt". OK, there's no contract between the two parties but there would be a justified invoice. He should invoice them a fair and reasonable amount, give them, say, 14 days to pay and then, if they don't, use the court's moneyclaimonline service and they'd have a writ in no time. Writs don't half concentrate your mind and eat into your time. They'd pay up. Hitting them in the pocket is the only way they'll understand. Apologies are never really meant and only make others look on and say "diddums".
OJ wouldn't have got away from the scene here... his white Ford Bronco would have been stuck in traffic or clamped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, I think yours is a great idea for circumventing pricey litigation, but I don't think it'll work. Of course, they might pay up.
AxsMan, yes, it does sound as if I was being a bit too kind, in that case. Perhaps suggesting that they're a bunch of well meaning amateurs is being too kind too. Let's hope that they mend their ways, because there's little of a practical nature that can be done to stop them repeating the offence.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 6-12-06 15:37; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
richmond, I think 'amateurs' may be appropriate, but not that kind! (actually given their turnover, they really should behave professionally in all their business practices).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
halfhand,
| Quote: |
Pity the usual s Club Kickers haven't
|
I think the level of vitriol spat in snowHeads direction in the ski clubs 'chatroom' is far in excess of any comments made regarding the club and it's members on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
boredsurfin, I beg to differ, do your research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I like to think that I am a ski club supporter rather than a ski club agitator. I did post on the SCGB board on this topic and like everybody else there agreed that what happened was wrong.
When it comes to agitation though, just look at what Bode Swiller has been up to today. I thought richmond's response was measured and fair this morning but he seems to have changed his mind having read Bode Swiller's remarks. I thought admin's remarks were also very reasoned.
I doubt that what Bode Swiller wants is likely to happen and I am sure that davidof is more than capable of agreeing a successful resolution with the ski club himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I think the level of vitriol spat in snowHeads direction in the ski clubs 'chatroom' is far in excess of any comments made regarding the club and it's members on here.[/quote]
I have to disagree. I would say that one member in particular could be accused of being critical towards Snowheads but vitriol IMHO is too strong a word. He has at least made similar comments here so at least he has been open about it.
I would say that his comments to one other person who is both a Snowhead and SCGB member have been vitriloic but that is personal - and it's become very personal. That other person in return (and I cannot recognise who it is on this thread) has been equally vitriolic. I think sadly that both had a reasonable point to make at the beginning but both have lost their moral high ground in a flame war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
halfhand, nope 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
halfhand,
| Quote: |
and no one else Bode Swiller
|
That's why I said "if it were me" 
richjp, So, I'm officially a Ski Club Agitator. Wow, makes me proud, thinking of getting a logo sorted out. In case you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum and Davidof chose to air his dispute publically... and a very good job he did otherwise we may never have learnt about the dodgy practices of SW19. So, we're having what's known as a debate here. Richmond and Davidof both seem big enough and clever enough not to be the slightest bit influenced by me. Fact is, we're into page 7 and shortly page 8... Ski Club could have nipped this in the bud on or around page 1. But what do they do? SFA. I have no sympathy and look forward to still discussing this on page 26.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Bode Swiller, how do you know it hasn't all been sorted out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Brown, I don't, that's why I came looking for an update
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely all this chat is pointless. Only David and the SCGB know if it has been sorted out amicably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Bode Swiller, why didn't you PM Davidof?
Anyway, according to you:
| Quote: |
| Fact is, we're into page 7 and shortly page 8... Ski Club could have nipped this in the bud on or around page 1. But what do they do? SFA. I have no sympathy and look forward to still discussing this on page 26. |
So you seemed to have ski jumped to your own conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin,
I prefer "commercial" and there's no personal feeling. I merely describe how I'd go about things if the same had happened to me. From what I read this isn't their "first offence" so time to rub their collective toffy nose in it (my new official agitator lingo  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
s Club Kickers haven't 