Comments

• Will

  2009-07-24 13:24:07

  Unless I missed something:
  
  "We hereby grant to You a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the Image on the terms and conditions explained in this Agreement and on the Image preview page FREE OF CHARGE.
  
  You may use the Image
  
  * In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones."
  
  That is from the terms of use for that photo.

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 14:58:25

  You did indeed miss something. The paragraph where they allow that they don't check a single solitary thing that's uploaded for copyright violations, and that it's on the user to check and make sure that the rights are what the upload says they are.
  
  This photo is clearly posted at scx.hu illegitimately, as my link to its original location shows. The site that has the rights--littleart.ru--says, as I pointed out, that you can only use it if you link back to their site from it. So, unless Roy makes that photo a link to littleart.ru, he's in violation of their copyright.
  
  All he needs to do is make it link appropriately. Is that so hard? It's a nice photo, why do you and Roy want to deny its creators the credit they deserve?
  
  But I've posted all of this already, right here. Don't you read before you comment?

• Dylan McCall

  2009-07-24 16:56:55

  The truth is, they just want to pretend you don't exist because you don't subscribe to their "freedom or die" mentality. If Roy had his way, you would already be an unperson.

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 17:07:50

  I was an unperson, a few times, at least until Roy ran short of reasons, and the energy, to ban me again.
  
  

  I though I was dead once. Turned out, I was just in Nebraska.

  —Gene Hackman as "'Little' Bill Daggett" in Unforgiven

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 10:13:40

  Roy, I've just reported your site to littleart.ru for violating its terms of use on artwork. I'd heard that you'd been smacked around for using stock are without permission, and here you are doing precisely that.
  
  This photo comes from this page on littleart.ru; note that at the bottom of the page, there's the line
  
  Copyright €©2008-2009, Littleart.ru. Использование материалов сайта возможно только при наличии прямой ссылки на Littleart.ru
  
  If you read Russian, you'd be aware that this says, "Copyright ۩ 2008-2009, Littleart.ru. Use of the site's materials is only possible when there are direct links to Littleart.ru." I'm not seein' no direct links, Roy.
  
  So, the Big Defender of Free Software for the Evil Corporation is a violator of copyright. A thief of the creativity of others . Nice.
  
  Or maybe you're just exercising your "freedom" and seeing to it that your neighbor shares his things with you. Whether he wants to or not. Without your asking first.
  
  For shame, Roy. I'm going to be going through the rest of the artwork on the site, I expect I'll find more examples, and I'll report those, too, as I find them, both to their owners and here.
  
  Those stories were true, weren't they? Once a thief, always a thief.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-07-24 10:19:37

  The photo is from here:
  
  http://www.sxc.hu/photo/994612
  
  "Usage Royalty free, see usage options"
  
  Your only purpose in this site in to silence and intimidate (see the subject of this post). If you carry on, your account will be banned for breaking the commenting policy.

• Dylan McCall

  2009-07-24 16:52:53

  Okay...
  
  "Standard restrictions apply and flaivoloka must be notified and credited when using the photo for any public work."
  
  Maybe it's lost somewhere, but I don't see the latter end of that being upheld.

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 10:32:35

  Don't blame me, Roy, there had been stories, and the very first photo I check takes me to littlearts.ru; I not the one snagging free photos from dodgy web sites; I either get permission or get my stock from iStockphoto.com...
  
  That only talks about the royalty you have to pay when you've executed a license with the owner of the image. From the sxc.hu "Site Info" (my emphasis):
  
  "6. Are these images really free?
  
  Yes, they are free as long as you stick to the rules in the Image license Agreement. Also, in some cases you may need to notify the artists about using the images and sometimes you need to give credit to them. You can see these restrictions under the image previews, right next to the Download button."
  
  Also, in section 7, "Legal Information", they note
  
  "SXC cannot be held responsible for any copyright violations, and cannot guarantee the legality of the Images stored in its system. If you want to make sure, always contact the photographers. You use the site and the photos at your own risk! "
  
  And, as I said, the image in question, as nearly as I can tell, belongs to littleart.ru and is only available under the specified terms. I'll track down others as I have time, but I won't bother telling you about it, since it seems to upset you.
  
  Speaking of "being banned", I was wondering if you'd had a chance to either collect some links to where I was cursing so much that you had no recourse but to remove me from the site, as well as that list of "what is and what is not a 'curse'"...? I mean, is "bas**rd" okay? I guess "as***le" is probably over the line, but what about just "a**"?
  
  Seen verofakto's time line? Really nice job there, huh?

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 10:35:28

  Oh, and verofakto did that on his or her own: I just offered one additional "incident"--the "tomboy replacement" thread in early 2008--and one clarification, to the work that had already been done. I can pass along any comments you have on this, if you'd like, Roy.

• nachokb

  2009-07-24 20:14:59

  And, as I said, the image in question, as nearly as I can tell, belongs to littleart.ru

  
  
  zatoichi, I don't know why you are so sure about that, perhaps you have more information.
  
  Still, I can't help but look at the dates, and it just so happens that sxc's predates the Russian site's image by more than a year. At least, that's what it says.
  
  Anyway, it is ultimately irrelevant: it should be reported (to both of them, without prejudice) and then left aside (if, the real rights holder turns out to be the Russian guy, all that Roy would have to do is remove the image or ask permission).
  
  You seem to keep insisting that it is somehow Roy's fault. That's what makes you look like a zealot.
  
  Regards,
  
  nachokb

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 10:38:33

  I'm not trying to silence you, Roy. I'm just trying to get you to stop misrepresenting things, and leading this incessant chorus of hatred. I'm afraid you'll die young if you keep up this sort of thing, it's not at all healthy for you.
  
  Of course, to the extent that a lot of stuff on the site is out-and-out misrepresentation, I guess there'd be a lot less stuff, but that's not the same thing at all.

• Needs Sunlight

  2009-07-24 11:27:08

  More! This must be spot on if it gets the MSFT boosters so wound up and skipping right to the personal attacks. Fact is, if they have only the attacks that shows there is no basis for the claims that Mono / BOTNet are technically or legally suitable for any given task. Usually MSFT boosters do the attacks when there is some very bad showing in the quarterly figures, some competitors (read: the rest of industry) are getting good press, or
  
  Fact is the "protections" for Mono are not passed downstream. Only hobby developers are covered. End-users and commercial developers are at risk from racketeering. Building on Mono instead of the original Java or C++ can leave your customers in for a *nasty* surprise later -- black hats and lawyers.

• eet

  2009-07-24 14:19:09

  Apparently you haven't been following what's been going on lately, otherwise you would know who zatoichi is. This here is about far more than your boring Mono-conspiracies; it is about what we want our community to be: A playground for self-indulgent paranoiacs who go around defaming others or a place for people who want to make constructive contributions to a shared vision.

• Needs Sunlight

  2009-07-24 14:44:09

  @EET: it seems you are one who has splinters from the troll-mirror in his eyes or that you seem to think it is opposite day. Anyway, keep up the yammering, but do it elsewhere.
  
  Mono, aside from performance and security hits, is about locking software into M$ outdated stack.
  
  Don't use it in place of Java: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

• zatoichi

  2009-07-24 14:50:00

  The FSF has their opinion, and the UTB has theirs.
  
  Why does everyone need to subscribe to the one you say?