|
On February 27 2012 03:59 The_Stampede wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 03:55 ceaRshaf wrote:On February 27 2012 03:54 Remaker12 wrote:On February 27 2012 03:43 MLG_Adam wrote:
You can email me directly if you would like to discuss this issue instead of posting a forum thread. My email address is aa@mlgpro.com.
FYI, this is not my specific expertise at MLG, but I do know this is covered in our TOS around tickets and via signage that is posted all over our venues. Pretty much this. If OP contacted MLG instead of posting it on TL he would have been offered a polite explanation/apology with compensation. Instead he pulls this publicity stunt. I hope he gets nothing but an empty apology. Sorry but you are a really bad person (I would like to insult you a lot more, but you are not worth my ban). HE HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL ON MLG. And I want to be informed about this kind of issues that aren't resolved as we all expected. If any of you agree with the law..idk what to tell you. If it's on the internet it shouldn't even be yours anymore OMG! OMG! And MLG wants people like this to pay 20$ for a ticket. SC community fail. Your caps show how ignorant you are. All this guy like to do is complain like the rest of the community...it's getting old. Clearly he's trying to bring drama up in the community. How about you speak to MLG first before bashing them....zzzzzzzzzz the human race amazes me when I read crap like this.
My caps show how mad I am. You post how ever shows how ignorant you are.
|
|
|
just sue them as fast as you can. pay per view only! most fans arent rich guys in suit like guys from mlg( i suppose)
|
LOL at anyone supporting the OP.
First of all, he can sue all he wants, he will get nothing. No court or jury will reward him anything because its not like music or video cases, its a damn picture.
In fact, the courts will reward MLG money for legal fees and the OP will be forced to pay MLG.
You can say "legally its the same as downloading and broadcasting music" all you want, the truth is courts do not operate on 100% absolute legal grounds anymore. Its all based on emotions, which is how humans operate. And humans look at videos and music and can easily see ok this dude knew this was clearly a song or a video he didnt own without paying for.
But pictures? Dude any jury will think "umm MLG just found some picture on the internet and used it."
With music and video its easy to assume the downloaded KNEW he was downloading questionable content.
But a picture, who cares. no way to know who took the picture. And if you are downloading something off the internet you dont KNOW is questionable, then any jury will say you are not guilty because theres no way for you to know you were doing anything wrong.
What makes music and movie cases to easy is the fact that most juries will say because its music its easy to assume beyond a reasonable doubt the user knew he was committing a crime as he was doing it so it makes it easier to claim him as guilty. But with internet copyright its hard to claim someone is guilty when he just downloaded something, essentially replicated it, and the jury cannot be sure he even knew it was wrong which means there could be thousands of people committing the same crime unknowingly which means it is really a sort of entrapment, and in reality the jury would decide the true victim is MLG for being a victim of unknowing entrapment.
Instead, blame will be put on the owner of the picture. If you "own" that picture you shouldnt allow it to be "posted" on the internet by anyone without a clear clause stating the picture is owned and not available for unintended use wherever the picture is "posted"
So yes, this thread is pointless. Im sure someone will respond to me saying i dont know jack legally, but the fact is, the moment the OP gets one penny in compensation, is the only moment I will start to care about this crap.
|
On February 27 2012 04:00 Karthane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 03:58 frozenrb wrote:On February 27 2012 03:57 Karthane wrote:
Why the fuck is this thread even necessary? Email them about it and settle it privately. It's really not a big deal, i have no idea why you are trying to bring attention to this. read his words MLG, if you can charge the ESPORTS community $20 dollars to view a pay-per-view stream with no free option, you can certainly pay an employee to ask me for permission to use my photographs. Because it was to be used on a pay-per-view basis, and because you are obviously a for-profit enterprise, we would have worked out an acceptable licensing fee or you would have chosen perhaps not to use my photograph after all. I did, he should just e-mail them instead of making a thread. I'm sure they will be more than happy to resolve this..well maybe they would have before he made this thread.
They didn't e-mailed him. Whe he should ?
|
the thing that's stupid about this thread is not that it isn't an issue. it is. but it's how childish you are going about addressing it. did you make any effort to contact MLG? i'm assuming that because your complaint on the internets didn't include MLG blowing you off, that you didn't. i googled "tl sheth" just to see what pops up, and your photo is on the front page, implying there could be an honest mistake at work here. it's pretty reasonable to assume they have one staff guy just collecting photos of everyone and not taking it very seriously. someone rushing through that could just pick up your photo because it is well done and moved on to the next one.
you haven't even given them the chance to talk about a deal with you, so why the hell should i feel sorry for you? i can see why it would concern you since you did go through the effort of enforcing the copyright onto Liquipedia, but seriously, you're going to cry on TL before you privately message an MLG admin about the issue? are you fucking retarded or something?
they could EASILY compensate you and now you have YOUR fucking photo over everyone else's on MLG and they're probably creditting you. except now you went and acted like an asshole on the internet so you will probably get your photo taken down, probably given minimal compensation, and then be actively avoided as a photographer.
|
You really couldn't just take this up with MLG rather than posting it here and starting a shitstorm? You certainly have the rights to your picture and all, but I think your handling of this issue could use some work.
|
On February 27 2012 04:00 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 03:57 Karthane wrote:
Why the fuck is this thread even necessary? Email them about it and settle it privately. It's really not a big deal, i have no idea why you are trying to bring attention to this. I don't see how it's wrong to show us how mlg does it's business.
Exactly. But some people like to make drama about idras new gf but on serious shit they close their eyes and bash the op.
|
On February 27 2012 03:56 Ercster wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, by mirroring the picture, they bypass your copyright because it isn't the same picture then. You can do this with movies to bypass their copyright.
Are there really people who believe this? It reminds me of those ROM sites that used to say "you can legally download this, BUT ONLY FOR 24 HOURS!"
|
Why is there a thread on this? If you want somewhere to spew this stupid drama, go to reddit.
|
On February 27 2012 03:59 ImHuko wrote:
It is blowing my mind reading the first few pages that this many people think it is OK to break copy write laws as long as you're more important than the other. They might not have stolen everything, but the fact they stole even one thing in a PAY PER VIEW is crazy. If you're going to charge people to watch your event in order to make money, you might want to actually spend money toward the product instead of carelessly stealing material.
I know. I also can't keep up with the people pulling statements from their ass, like "the OP wanted too much money! etc.." when the guy never asked for any money.
|
|
|
On February 27 2012 03:57 KaiserReinhard wrote:
I'm by no means a professional photographer, nor do I know any, but I find it hard to sympathize with the photographer on this issue. It seems to me that if you go to an event and take awesome pictures, you shouldn't guard them jealously after the fact but instead share them with the world and be happy whenever they pop up anywhere.
.
Movies Studios should be happy their movies are popping up everywhere. Newsbin, torrents etc. They should gaurd them jealously if they don't like that amirite? No, his camera and expertise is no less noble of an Enterprise than movie making they are both work and require resources.
|
|
|
Professional photographers would be pissed.
|
thebike
United States157 Posts
On February 27 2012 04:01 roymarthyup wrote:
LOL at anyone supporting the OP.
First of all, he can sue all he wants, he will get nothing. No court or jury will reward him anything because its not like music or video cases, its a damn picture.
In fact, the courts will reward MLG money for legal fees and the OP will be forced to pay MLG.
You can say "legally its the same as downloading and broadcasting music" all you want, the truth is courts do not operate on 100% absolute legal grounds anymore. Its all based on emotions, which is how humans operate. And humans look at videos and music and can easily see ok this dude knew this was clearly a song or a video he didnt own without paying for.
But pictures? Dude any jury will think "umm MLG just found some picture on the internet and used it."
With music and video its easy to assume the downloaded KNEW he was downloading questionable content.
But a picture, who cares. no way to know who took the picture. And if you are downloading something off the internet you dont KNOW is questionable, then any jury will say you are not guilty because theres no way for you to know you were doing anything wrong.
What makes music and movie cases to easy is the fact that most juries will say because its music its easy to assume beyond a reasonable doubt the user knew he was committing a crime as he was doing it so it makes it easier to claim him as guilty. But with internet copyright its hard to claim someone is guilty when he just downloaded something, essentially replicated it, and the jury cannot be sure he even knew it was wrong which means there could be thousands of people committing the same crime unknowingly which means it is really a sort of entrapment, and in reality the jury would decide the true victim is MLG for being a victim of unknowing entrapment.
Instead, blame will be put on the owner of the picture. If you "own" that picture you shouldnt allow it to be "posted" on the internet by anyone without a clear clause stating the picture is owned and not available for unintended use wherever the picture is "posted"
So yes, this thread is pointless. Im sure someone will respond to me saying i dont know jack legally, but the fact is, the moment the OP gets one penny in compensation, is the only moment I will start to care about this crap.
OK, I'll be the guy who says you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so please stop saying random bullshit and acting like you have a law degree when you OBVIOUSLY don't. Jesus Christ people.
|
United States994 Posts
To the OP, I shot you a PM. Would love to resolve this issue. Again, my email is aa@mlgpro.com
Thank you.
|
On February 27 2012 04:03 thebike wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 04:01 roymarthyup wrote:
LOL at anyone supporting the OP.
First of all, he can sue all he wants, he will get nothing. No court or jury will reward him anything because its not like music or video cases, its a damn picture.
In fact, the courts will reward MLG money for legal fees and the OP will be forced to pay MLG.
You can say "legally its the same as downloading and broadcasting music" all you want, the truth is courts do not operate on 100% absolute legal grounds anymore. Its all based on emotions, which is how humans operate. And humans look at videos and music and can easily see ok this dude knew this was clearly a song or a video he didnt own without paying for.
But pictures? Dude any jury will think "umm MLG just found some picture on the internet and used it."
With music and video its easy to assume the downloaded KNEW he was downloading questionable content.
But a picture, who cares. no way to know who took the picture. And if you are downloading something off the internet you dont KNOW is questionable, then any jury will say you are not guilty because theres no way for you to know you were doing anything wrong.
What makes music and movie cases to easy is the fact that most juries will say because its music its easy to assume beyond a reasonable doubt the user knew he was committing a crime as he was doing it so it makes it easier to claim him as guilty. But with internet copyright its hard to claim someone is guilty when he just downloaded something, essentially replicated it, and the jury cannot be sure he even knew it was wrong which means there could be thousands of people committing the same crime unknowingly which means it is really a sort of entrapment, and in reality the jury would decide the true victim is MLG for being a victim of unknowing entrapment.
Instead, blame will be put on the owner of the picture. If you "own" that picture you shouldnt allow it to be "posted" on the internet by anyone without a clear clause stating the picture is owned and not available for unintended use wherever the picture is "posted"
So yes, this thread is pointless. Im sure someone will respond to me saying i dont know jack legally, but the fact is, the moment the OP gets one penny in compensation, is the only moment I will start to care about this crap. OK, I'll be the guy who says you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so please stop saying random bullshit and acting like you have a law degree when you OBVIOUSLY don't. Jesus Christ people.
He talks from his ass and is condescending. Standard internet people i guess. Don't worry.
|
On February 27 2012 04:01 roymarthyup wrote:
LOL at anyone supporting the OP.
First of all, he can sue all he wants, he will get nothing. No court or jury will reward him anything because its not like music or video cases, its a damn picture.
In fact, the courts will reward MLG money for legal fees and the OP will be forced to pay MLG.
You can say "legally its the same as downloading and broadcasting music" all you want, the truth is courts do not operate on 100% absolute legal grounds anymore. Its all based on emotions, which is how humans operate. And humans look at videos and music and can easily see ok this dude knew this was clearly a song or a video he didnt own without paying for.
But pictures? Dude any jury will think "umm MLG just found some picture on the internet and used it."
With music and video its easy to assume the downloaded KNEW he was downloading questionable content.
But a picture, who cares. no way to know who took the picture. And if you are downloading something off the internet you dont KNOW is questionable, then any jury will say you are not guilty because theres no way for you to know you were doing anything wrong.
What makes music and movie cases to easy is the fact that most juries will say because its music its easy to assume beyond a reasonable doubt the user knew he was committing a crime as he was doing it so it makes it easier to claim him as guilty. But with internet copyright its hard to claim someone is guilty when he just downloaded something, essentially replicated it, and the jury cannot be sure he even knew it was wrong which means there could be thousands of people committing the same crime unknowingly which means it is really a sort of entrapment, and in reality the jury would decide the true victim is MLG for being a victim of unknowing entrapment.
Instead, blame will be put on the owner of the picture. If you "own" that picture you shouldnt allow it to be "posted" on the internet by anyone without a clear clause stating the picture is owned and not available for unintended use wherever the picture is "posted"
So yes, this thread is pointless. Im sure someone will respond to me saying i dont know jack legally, but the fact is, the moment the OP gets one penny in compensation, is the only moment I will start to care about this crap.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case?comments=4
Look at this. Photo have same protection like music. It's art.
|
What a bunch of idiots in this thread.
It's very clearly, legally, up to MLG to make sure the images they use are licensed properly. This is not up to debate, you children. Copyright infringement is a real thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
