Stop posting articles for other GN'R fans to enjoy, it's stealing! (was Brain in Modern Drummer)

[SLCPUNK]

  DID YOU TAKE THOSE PICS N' WRITE THAT ARTICLE?? 
  WHY DOES IT HAVE THAT ANNOYING WATERMARK ALL OVER?? 

The answer would be: No and more no. You should not have the marking all over it. It's like if you wrote an article and I watermarked it with my website all over it.

Or if you posted pictures of a concert and I then watermarked it with my website.

It's LAME, just like you.

The article can be found online anyway:

http://www.moderndrummer.com/updatefull/200001754

[AdZ]

The answer would be: No and more no. You should not have the marking all over it. It's like if you wrote an article and I watermarked it with my website all over it.

Or if you posted pictures of a concert and I then watermarked it with my website.

It's LAME, just like you.

Hey!

Go fuck yourself!

[Ali]

The answer would be: No and more no. You should not have the marking all over it. It's like if you wrote an article and I watermarked it with my website all over it.

Or if you posted pictures of a concert and I then watermarked it with my website.

It's LAME, just like you.

Hey!

Go fuck yourself!

Adz, tell us how you really feel 

While I understand SLCPunk's point that to some the watermarking could very well imply taking credit for the magazine's work, I appreciate you taking the time out to scan and type the article.  Thank you for that, Gypsy.

Very interesting and informative article.

Ali

[faldor]

  DID YOU TAKE THOSE PICS N' WRITE THAT ARTICLE?? 
  WHY DOES IT HAVE THAT ANNOYING WATERMARK ALL OVER?? 

The answer would be: No and more no. You should not have the marking all over it. It's like if you wrote an article and I watermarked it with my website all over it.

Or if you posted pictures of a concert and I then watermarked it with my website.

It's LAME, just like you.

The article can be found online anyway:

http://www.moderndrummer.com/updatefull/200001754

That's not the entire article

[SLCPUNK]

The answer would be: No and more no. You should not have the marking all over it. It's like if you wrote an article and I watermarked it with my website all over it.

Or if you posted pictures of a concert and I then watermarked it with my website.

It's LAME, just like you.

Hey!

Go fuck yourself!

Yea, that's about the response I thought i'd get. Frankly it's about all you're worth.

So lets get this right... if somebody leaks Axl's work that's bad and you won't support that.

But on the other hand you can take a photographer's work and then stick your website's name all over it.

Gotcha.

[jarmo]

It's not about taking credit for others' work at all, all the credits are there at the top of the article!

It's about making sure that you have to buy your own fucking magazine if you want to use those pics for something other than looking at them here.

That's fucking it.


Funny being lectured about stealing by you.

Just by taking a quick look at your site, I can see that there's no mention of who took all those pictures you have on display in the slide show.

Did you take them yourself? I don't see any photo credits anywhere.... I guess you must've scanned them all yourself from magazines you bought.
 

How about the music that's playing on your site? Did you get permission from the band? Are you paying for using it? You're streaming a high quality album version of the title track and you're lecturing us about stealing/leaking? This from a guy who's actually stealing from the band....


I guess the Brain pictures would've looked great on your little slide show but now you might have to go find them elsewhere. 





/jarmo

[Ali]

It's not about taking credit for others' work at all, all the credits are there at the top of the article!

It's about making sure that you have to buy your own fucking magazine if you want to use those pics for something other than looking at them here.

That's fucking it.


Funny being lectured about stealing by you.

Just by taking a quick look at your site, I can see that there's no mention of who took all those pictures you have on display in the slide show.

Did you take them yourself? I don't see any photo credits anywhere.... I guess you must've scanned them all yourself from magazines you bought.
 

How about the music that's playing on your site? Did you get permission from the band? Are you paying for using it? You're streaming a high quality album version of the title track and you're lecturing us about stealing/leaking? This from a guy who's actually stealing from the band....


I guess the Brain pictures would've looked great on your little slide show but now you might have to go find them elsewhere. 





/jarmo

That's a good point.  I can see it, and it makes sense.  But, I have seen a company like Getty Images that watermarks their images to denote that the images are theirs.  Not knowing the point you mentioned above, I could see how one could interpret the watermarking as an attempt to claim credit for something that isn't theirs.

Ali

[jarmo]

That's a good point.  I can see it, and it makes sense.  But, I have seen a company like Getty Images that watermarks their images to denote that the images are theirs.  Not knowing the point you mentioned above, I could see how one could interpret the watermarking as an attempt to claim credit for something that isn't theirs.

Ali

All the credits are in the transcribed article.

I don't think for a second that anybody here is stupid enough to think we took those pictures, so it has to be about something else.







/jarmo

[SLCPUNK]

Hey that's pretty funny Jarmo. You're just trying to help Modern Drummer magazine's sale department right? How very noble of you. Give me a break dude.

Do you see my website name plastered all over pictures? Nope.

If the man who took the pictures objected to you putting your name on his work would you take it down? Yes or no?

If I were to use your definition of stealing as a barometer then you would be just as guilty. Are all the GnR pictures on your forum credited back to who took them? NOPE. Yet you allow them to be posted here on your site.

But that's not the point and you know it. The point is that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you, and then plastered your site's name on it. Instead of admitting your wrong, which you are, you choose to attack the guy who points out your bullshit. It's why all Adz could do is tell me to "fuck myself" because there is no other reasonable retort.

[SLCPUNK]

All the credits are in the transcribed article.

I don't think for a second that anybody here is stupid enough to think we took those pictures, so it has to be about something else.







/jarmo

Of course nobody thinks anybody here took the pictures, that's why you're name shouldn't be on it.

[SLCPUNK]

What's shameful on your end is that you can't admit you're full of shit, so instead call me a thief, so for that you can fuck yourself asshole.

[TAP]

It's about making sure that you have to buy your own fucking magazine if you want to use those pics for something other than looking at them here.

What can you use pics for other than looking at them? I guess I'm not following your argument - I don't see how looking at them somewhere else is better/worse than looking at them here??  

[Ali]

That's a good point.  I can see it, and it makes sense.  But, I have seen a company like Getty Images that watermarks their images to denote that the images are theirs.  Not knowing the point you mentioned above, I could see how one could interpret the watermarking as an attempt to claim credit for something that isn't theirs.

Ali

All the credits are in the transcribed article.

I don't think for a second that anybody here is stupid enough to think we took those pictures, so it has to be about something else.







/jarmo

Oh, I know.  In this situation that is clearly the case.  But, it wasn't as clearly stated for the Tommy Stinson-Bass Player story.  Nonetheless, my point was more that taken out of context, one could misinterpret the watermarkings as claiming credit given that other photo companies, like Getty Images, do the same thing to make it clear the images are theirs.  I didn't say that I misinterpreted it as such.  I'm just saying it's possible if one were to just see said images.

Ali

[jarmo]

Hey that's pretty funny Jarmo. You're just trying to help Modern Drummer magazine's sale department right? How very noble of you. Give me a break dude.

If I was to give you a break, we would just send you all the pics without any watermarks so you can plaster them on your site with no mention of who took them or where they're from. 

Do you see my website name plastered all over pictures? Nope.

So?

You took them and used without permission.

Like most other fan sites.

If the man who took the pictures objected to you putting your name on his work would you take it down? Yes or no?

Of course.


Are you gonna stop stealing from Guns N' Roses (the band your site is about) by removing that high quality illegal stream?

But that's not the point and you know it. The point is that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you, and then plastered your site's name on it. Instead of admitting your wrong, which you are, you choose to attack the guy who points out your bullshit.

Yes, the name is there so that people like you know where they downloaded the pics from.

In case they wanna upload them to their own slide shows a bit later and they've forgotten! 



We don't claim any credits to the photos, just that we've done the "work" of getting them for your viewing pleasure.

The problem is that some people have a huge problem with giving credit to others who do this kind of work.

As long as they can copy and paste, they don't have to. But when they just can't copy and paste, then they get all pissy about copyrights.



I learned this the hard way in 1996/97 when I spent weeks typing out articles for this site's articles section. Then within a few weeks, those articles appeared on many other sites.

I don't think those guys were transcribing them at the same time as me and managed to get the same exact typos I had in my transcriptions....




Funny how you didn't even bother responding to the fact that you have no credits at all on your site.

What's shameful on your end is that you can't admit you're full of shit, so instead call me a thief, so for that you can fuck yourself asshole.

Ah, insults.


How is it not stealing when you stream an album track without paying a cent for it?


You're here attacking me for stealing somebody else's work while you're stealing from the band.

Do you have your priorities right?

But, it wasn't as clearly stated for the Tommy Stinson-Bass Player story.

I believe the magazine's cover was included so it was pretty obvious where it was from.



Next time there's a new GN'R related article, I'm expecting SLCPUNK to provide us all with the scans and transcription for free with no watermarks or mention of his own site, just to show us how big man he is.

What can you use pics for other than looking at them? I guess I'm not following your argument - I don't see how looking at them somewhere else is better/worse than looking at them here?? 

Well you can always use them on your own site and get visitors to it so you make more ad money.....





/jarmo

[Bandita]

You really shouldn't mark other people's work with your logo, it's just not right.

No one is going to buy the magazine now if it has already been scanned over here so I don't really see how it helps sales.

If it's online, you post a link and I think in essence that gives credit where it's due.  If it's not, tell people where you read it and where to buy it, I guess.

[jarmo]

I'm glad all the posters from SLCPUNK's site are here to defend their cause.

In the end, you all basically don't want us to post articles.




Fair enough.




/jarmo

[Bandita]

The difference is if something is online already and not credited or watermarked, that person sort of loses their right to it.  Internet laws are very iffy that way.  A magazine article which is printed clearly has rights.

[Ali]

But, it wasn't as clearly stated for the Tommy Stinson-Bass Player story.

I believe the magazine's cover was included so it was pretty obvious where it was from.






/jarmo

Actually, Jarmo, I was referring not to the magazine cover, but to the fact that Gypsy clearly stated the writer and photographer's names for this thread at the very beginning, whereas that wasn't done as clearly for the Tommy Stinson article.  I'm talking more about the individual writers/photographers for the stories.

Ali

[jarmo]

Actually, Jarmo, I was referring not to the magazine cover, but to the fact that Gypsy clearly stated the writer and photographer's names for this thread at the very beginning, whereas that wasn't done as clearly for the Tommy Stinson article.  I'm talking more about the individual writers/photographers for the stories.

I'm assuming she types out the article as it is in the magazine.





/jarmo

[*Timothy*]

Don't Copy, Modify or Display Images You Find

The Copyright act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.It is illegal to copy from copyrighted sources

Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement.

If you take a copyrighted image without permission, and put it on a web page, you are violating the exclusive right of the copyright owner to display his work



http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm