VPC Stealing Photos again.....

[Zedicus]

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2005/12/07/vpc_stealing/

VPC stealing?
Posted in Guns by SayUncle on December 7th, 2005

The VPC has a scare piece on 50 caliber danger. The problem is that the image they use on the front cover is used without permission from Ponderosa Sports. The image at their site can be seen here with the note:

If you are the bottom feeder named Tom Diaz from the VPC (Violence Prevention Center), you are not authorized to use our web site photographs. Your document, http://www.vpc.org/studies/50danger.pdf is in violation of US code.

Via Subguns.

The VPC, Allways ready to sink to any level without Hesitation...

Hey, mabie Oleg and the owner of Ponderosa can Jointly sue the idiots?

 

[Oleg Volk]

I think they screwed up bigger this time: using an identifiable person on the cover and making allegations about him is derfinitely actionable. What do THR lawyers think on this?

 

[S_O_Laban]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.... or the internet..... but I say....


GET A ROPE!

 

[Zedicus]

Here's the Keepandbeararms.com comments on this (Fun Read)
http://keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=32983977600735&tmpD=12/08/2005

 

[Standing Wolf]

There's not really much difference between lying and theft. To be sure, they're defined differently, but they're both manifestations of a fundamental pathology.

 

[Zedicus]

Guys, Read the VPC PDF File, On page 2 we see

About the Cover Photo
The cover shows a Barrett 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle mounted on a “pintle” or “soft” mount,
which is mounted in turn on a tripod. The mount reduces the effect of recoil, improves accuracy, and
facilitates movement through vertical and horizontal dimensions, thus making it easier, for example, to
engage moving targets.
The Ponderosa Sports & Mercantile, Inc. (Horseshoe Bend, Idaho) Internet web site from which this
photograph was taken advises the visitor:
Many non-residents store firearms in Idaho. It is the buyers [SIC] sole responsibility to
determine whether the firearm can legally be taken home. Ponderosa Sports has no
knowledge of your city, county or state laws. For example - many California [sic]
residents have purchased the Barrett m82 .50 BMG above. That rifle is illegal for them
to take home. They can however purchase it and store it in Boise or Nevada.1
The operation of a pintle mount is fairly easy to understand by visual inspection. Here, for example,
is one that Barrett sells for its 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles.

Now they way that they are using that little snippet I'm not certain but could they nail the VPC also on Libel Charges?

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Comment by: [email protected] (12/7/2005)
My intellectual property lawyer didn't think my chances of winning the lawsuit against VPC and collecting damages were very high. They ignored a "cease and desist" letter from him. However, given their continued thieving, I might have to re-visit the issue. Suggestions of strategies (by email) are welcome.

Oleg Volk

1. Winning lawsuit. How could you possible lose? It's a pure rip-off of a photo. It isn't a summary of an article, an artist's rendition of the photo, it's a pure pixel-for-pixel copy of a photo. Are photo's not copyrightable?

2. Damages--who cares, this is for the cause, let's all chip in to make up the difference. Just don't use PayPal. Can't we find any RKBA-type lawyers to do this gratis? This isn't just some schmuck, this is the VPC, let's hit 'em hard.

 

[Father Knows Best]

I think they screwed up bigger this time: using an identifiable person on the cover and making allegations about him is derfinitely actionable. What do THR lawyers think on this?

O.k., I'm an attorney, and I don't have good news for you. It is not a violation of copyright to reproduce someone else's photo if you fit within what is known as the "fair use" doctrine. VPC would have a good argument that its use of the photo in this context (part of an article on a hot political issue) would constitute fair use, thus they would not need permission of the copyright holder. The fact that they specifically cite the source of the photo, instead of attempting to pass it off as their own, only helps their case. In addition, I don't see any actionable allegations about the guy. Instead, all I saw was direct quotes from the Ponderosa website. It's awful hard to prove defamation when the defendant was only quoting your own words. Finally, for something to be defamatory, it has to be false and likely to cause the person to be the subject of ridicule, etc. What statements about the person in the picture are false and defamatory?

I know that Ponderosa doesn't like how the picture and its site were used. Unfortunately, they dug the hole themselves by putting the picture and statements on their website.

 

[allmons]

Law sucks

Get the rope, boys!

 

[AZRickD]

On page 16...

Nuclear plant security forces call their watch towers “iron coffins” because of their vulnerability to powerful armor-piercing attack from 50 caliber sniper rifles.

Really? That's why they call 'em that?

Rick

 

[El Tejon]

Seems like fair use to me but I don't do a lot of IP.

Why are the blissninnies so terrified of the mounts?

 

[Father Knows Best]

Why are the blissninnies so terrified of the mounts?

They're not. They are terrified of guns in general. They focus on things like mounts because they are happy to seize on anything that can help advance their cause. They survive by fomenting fear and confusion among the sheeple.

 

[rero360]

“The .50 BMG is infinitely more powerful than any other shoulder-fired rifle on
the planet,"

uh wait a minute, don't the swiss have a 14.5mm anti tank gun that fires a tungstin fin stabilized sabot disgarding round that penetrate over 800mm of rolled homogonous steel at a 1000 yards if my memory is correct, I would say thats a lot more powerful than the .50cal and thats shoulder fired too.. the chinese have a big gun also, along with the russians, both in the russian .50 which is a bit longer round than that designed by JMB.

as too all the rest of that junk, it was covered in that french POS, total BS you know what, a bunch of my friends work at some nuke plants, I'll give em a call and find out about the whole iron coffin thing and if thats why they're called that, allthough I'd assume thats its because if you were to have a leak anyone inside the thing wouldn't survive for very long due to radiation poisioning. oh well, get back to you all on that one

 

[Henry Bowman]

I too am a lawyer -- and IP law is all I do. I have worked with and for Oleg for some time.

Father Knows Best is correct. Fair use exception.

Keep in mind, folks, the VPC influences virtually no one. They make their inflammatory agi-prop to inspire their own Kool-aid drinkers (their choir) and to rile us. They enjoy aggravating us. I guarantee that their site has 10 times (or more) as many hits from us as from their supporters -- and virtually none from fence-sitters.

 

[exoduster18]

GET A ROPE!!! Oh and can you say plagiarism? They used so many exact words and then never credited the source through out the essay!! Dumba$$es!!!

GET A ROPE!!!

 

[roscoe]

Exactly - don't let us get out feathers ruffled.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I bet their mis-use will sell a lot of 12.7mm rifles for the company they featured...

 

[Manedwolf]

1. Winning lawsuit. How could you possible lose? It's a pure rip-off of a photo. It isn't a summary of an article, an artist's rendition of the photo, it's a pure pixel-for-pixel copy of a photo. Are photo's not copyrightable?

2. Damages--who cares, this is for the cause, let's all chip in to make up the difference. Just don't use PayPal. Can't we find any RKBA-type lawyers to do this gratis? This isn't just some schmuck, this is the VPC, let's hit 'em hard.

Using the content like that is a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, isn't it? And because it was taken from an image of a business' saleable products, can't they can claim financial damages, too?

 

[Manedwolf]

On page 16...


Really? That's why they call 'em that?

Rick

Nuclear plant security forces...?

Uh. Hm. I think Seabrook has...a fence. And a booth with a guy with a donut.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

“The .50 BMG is infinitely more powerful than any other shoulder-fired rifle on
the planet,"

uh wait a minute, don't the swiss have a 14.5mm anti tank gun that fires a tungstin fin stabilized sabot disgarding round that penetrate over 800mm of rolled homogonous steel at a 1000 yards if my memory is correct, I would say thats a lot more powerful than the .50cal and thats shoulder fired too.. the chinese have a big gun also, along with the russians, both in the russian .50 which is a bit longer round than that designed by JMB.

31.5 inches (800mm) of steel at 1000 yards? I don't have my reference book handy, but that's impossible. A 16 inch battleship shell might have trouble with that. I believe that battleship belt armor was typically 12 to 16 inches thick.

Also, I know man-portable anti-tank rifles of up to 20mm have been developed. There was a big push in this direction at the beginning of WWII when shaped-charge warheads hadn't yet been developed (Bazooka, Panzerfaust) in a desperate attempt to give infantry some man-portable anti-tank weapons.

About the VPC getting publicity. Didn't John Lott say he called them once and their director said, "We can get publicity anytime we want"?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I know that Ponderosa doesn't like how the picture and its site were used. Unfortunately, they dug the hole themselves by putting the picture and statements on their website.

Really? Ponderosa specifically mentioned the VPC by name when they listed people they didn't want to use the photo they created.

How can they get away with this? That photo was created by Ponderosa. Shouldn't they be able to determine how their creation is used? Ponderosa was perfectly clear about whether or not they wanted the VPC to use their photo.

I think the VPC used that photo specifically becuase Ponderosa said they couldn't. Sort of a great big F- You to someone who called Tom Diaz a bottom feeder.

(And didn't a previous version of VPC get canned for using copyrighted material without permission??)

 

[chopinbloc]

I guarantee that their site has 10 times (or more) as many hits from us as from their supporters...

speaking of which - i'm pretty sure it's illegal for an individual to make a denial of sevice attack but if we all decided on a precise time to view the vpc website, would that crash their server? would it be illegal? i don't know much about this sort of thing, maybe i'm talking out my butt.

but i do have good news, and it's not about car insurance. apparently they're worried about supreme court nominee sam alito. that's gotta be a good thing, right?

 

[igor]

31.5 inches (800mm) of steel at 1000 yards? I don't have my reference book handy, but that's impossible.

I don't know the exact product discussed, but with a high-speed sabot-type projectile, the feat is most definitely possible. That's the chosen ammunition type for a number of smooth-bore tank cannons as well (albeit in a wee bit bigger caliber).

 

[spartacus2002]

Look, there is a simple fix for this. Take a hardcore porn image, rename it to the image name that VPC is linking to, and revise Ponderosa's website to show the original image by a different name.

Then, set up an office betting pool to see how long it takes VPC to notice that their website is displaying a naughty image

 

[ZenMasterJG]

“The .50 BMG is infinitely more powerful than any other shoulder-fired rifle on
the planet,"

Hmm.. but... physics.... no...

Antis make my brain meats hurt.