Handling anti-gunners request for gelatin block images?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brass Fetcher

Brass Fetcher

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
1,686
Location
Bill Clintons old stomping grounds.
I was emailed today by a person asking permission to utilize 'some pictures' off of my website, but did not specify what pictures/info they wanted. As they would not identify themselves, I figure it was an anti-gunner, because here is what I have posted as to the 'rules' for copying the info on my website :

"All information and images on this website is free for public distribution, provided that credit is given to the source of the information. This offer extends to all legitimate uses of the information, for non-political, medical, pro-second amendment, governmental or recreational usage.

That being said, the exception to the above statement is anti-gun groups. If you or your groups interest is in regulating civilian possession of firearms or ammunition, you are expressly forbidden to utilize any information or image on this website. Whether you like guns or not, remember that you have no right to dictate what the next person chooses to own or not to own. Move to North Korea or any other "workers paradise", where your political view(s) would be more at home and "may posterity forget ye were our countrymen.""
Click to expand...

So. How do you think I should handle any anti-gunners requests in the future? Some antis are also medical doctors/organizations, so I don't want to impede any research on gunshot treatment... but ... ?

Does anyone know what my legal recourses are in the case of an unauthorized usage?

Thank you!
 
I'm no lawyer

Does anyone know what my legal recourses are in the case of an unauthorized usage?
Click to expand...

But copywright infringment, or "intelectual property" law...
 
Does anyone know what my legal recourses are in the case of an unauthorized usage?
Click to expand...
I guess you could spend a lot of $$ on a lawyer to get them to stop. I doubt you could prove any damages.

Realistically, nothing at all...unless you really think it is worth the $200+ an hour for a lawyer.

I wouldn't worry about an anti-doctor's medical usage. No one is gonna die on the OP table for lack of your gel pics. Just tell all antis no, if they do it in spite of that and your warning (maybe a firm email telling them how you feel, educating them on the infringement of you intellectual property rights), then they have to live with their dishonest selves. Keep up the good work, don't let the bastiges get you down.

If a lawyer could solve this in 10 billable hours @ $200 per hour...that's a lot of gel test you could have done instead!
 
You can release your copyrighted material conditionally, and photographers, writers and authors often do. Send any party that wants to use your material a copy of your written conditions, and ask them to return a signed release form. If they then violate the conditions you have the basis for a lawsuit. While it is unlikely you will bring such a suit, you can threaten the user with one unless they immediately cease doing whatever they are. That usually brings results. If not, there isn’t much more that you can do.

One thing. If someone does violate the signed form, it doesn't cost much to have a lawyer send a letter demanding that they "cease and desist," which is a lot different that a lawsuit, and again, usually brings the desired result. Whoever is doing whatever probably doesn't want to take a chance.
 
Last edited:
You can file pro se. It is not as difficult as people make it out to be. The fact that you sent a cease and desist letter and then filed suit against the organization might be enough to get them to stop.

Lawyer's retainer fees are not cheap.
 
Some antis are also medical doctors/organizations, so I don't want to impede any research on gunshot treatment... but ... ?
Click to expand...

If they are medical people/organisations, let them contact me and tell me why they need them. I will soon weed out any fakes!

AndyC made a very good suggestion. Watermark those images. People have asked me for images before and here is what I always find out first:

1) Who he is. If he doesn't tell me his name, or he tells me a name that I can't check out, that is the end of our dealings.

2) He has to tell me what he wants it for. Some trauma surgeons have asked me if they can use some of my radiographs for teaching purposes. If the material is not the subject of a pending publication, and the use of those images is what I regard as fair, non-profit use, then I usually let them use those.

3) The guy mustn't have a nefarious history. If I know he has been involved with unsavoury or unethical research in the past, or intends to do so currently, I avoid that guy. He gets nothing.

4) Occasionally a guy will use one of my images by accident. It has happened already right here on THR. A moderator posted one of my radiographs, which I originally posted on another website. The images are copyright to me, as indicated on that website. HOWEVER...I looked at the use of that radiograph here on THR, and the intent of the poster, and I saw that he was not trying to claim that image as his own, and he was not trying to unjustly benefit from my images. So that's fair play, in my book. I didn't even comment. But generally, if someone wants to use my images on another website I ask that they indicate the source. As I post anonymously here, I have to accept that these things occasionally happen.

5) There are few instances where I allow someone to use my images for use in a hardcopy publication. Some people have asked for images and I have made them some images from scratch. In other cases I don't provide them with images for academic or scholarly articles, unless I can write those images off entirely.

Hope this helps.
 
You can file pro se. It is not as difficult as people make it out to be. The fact that you sent a cease and desist letter and then filed suit against the organization might be enough to get them to stop.

Lawyer's retainer fees are not cheap.
Click to expand...
You have a copyright whether or not you have registered it.
You can only file a copyright infringement suit in federal court (exclusive jurisdiction).
You can only file a copyright infringement suit if your copyright has been registered first ($45 + several months wait or $545 for quick turnaround).
You cannot disguise a copyright infringement claim as something else like unfair competition (copyright preemption).
If you have registered your copyright before the infringement occurs, you are entitled to statutory damages (do not have to prove actual damages) of $750 -$30,000 per infringement and up to $150,000 if willful, plus the prevailing party recovers attorneys fees. You can also get an injunction.
Watermarking images that you post on the net is a very good idea.

Keep in mind that antis are often able to successfully make use of the "fair use" defense (depending on many factors, including how you were using the images).

I am an IP attorney (20 yrs) who charges $300/hr (a bargain compaired to a lawyer on either coast). I am proud to be Oleg Volk's IP attorney. This is not legal advice, but if you PM me I will be happy to talk with you whenever I am available. www.armorer-at-law.com
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the great replies. I believe that I will be watermarking my images from here on out - I've already found a pic on a website (without permission), but thankfully it was a Pro-RKBA site. I don't expect the luck to last - given the 'controversy' of such testing to the sheeple. (You should be there for the rare moment when I have to justify my work with one of said people present).

AndyC - thank you for the link.

@ Mr. Bowman: Thank you for the overview. It seems as though there is considerable copyright protection in the US! Hooray us! I am sure that your rates are reasonable - specialty lawyers are indeed valuable assets to have working for oneself. I just hope that it doesn't come to having to give you a call - one thing that I can say for the antis is that what they lack in moral righteousness they more than make up for in available money. Wouldn't it be akin to David v. Goliath :) in this respect?

Thank you! (Look for Copyright 2007 Brassfetcher.com to appear soon on my images).
 
I would personally inquire as to what specific images they wanted, what the document was going to be, and to see it. I would probably allow it though in the long run anyway because I think we are telling the truth and don't need to hide facts to further our cause like the gun control lobby.

If it is gun control, I would suspect they're after either .50bmg or 7.62 tok data.
 
You have a copyright whether or not you have registered it.
You can only file a copyright infringement suit in federal court (exclusive jurisdiction).
You can only file a copyright infringement suit if your copyright has been registered first ($45 + several months wait or $545 for quick turnaround).
You cannot disguise a copyright infringement claim as something else like unfair competition (copyright preemption).
If you have registered your copyright before the infringement occurs, you are entitled to statutory damages (do not have to prove actual damages) of $750 -$30,000 per infringement and up to $150,000 if willful, plus the prevailing party recovers attorneys fees. You can also get an injunction.
Watermarking images that you post on the net is a very good idea.

Keep in mind that antis are often able to successfully make use of the "fair use" defense (depending on many factors, including how you were using the images).

I am an IP attorney (20 yrs) who charges $300/hr (a bargain compaired to an lawyer on either coast). I am proud to be Oleg Volk's IP attorney. This is not legal advice, but if you PM me I will be happy to talk with you whenever I am available. www.armorer-at-law.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up!
 
You could just file a DMCA notice with their ISP. Many will just cave and shut off the site at the first sign of something illegal to avoid hassles, and let the users duke it out.

That's the easiest, and the cheapest, and doesnt' even require a lawyer. Just a few minutes to figure out who's the ISP hosting the site, and a few minutes to find a fax number.
 
If they ask for gelatin block images, say "absolutely, I'll send them to you". Send them some pics of blocks you went to town on with an axe or a large knife. :evil:
If they complain say "ohh you wanted gun testing pics?" "well those aren't nearly as impressive or devistating as edged weapons like kitchen knives".
 
I have visited your website and I think your work is worthwhile. You are very generous to make it available.

If they were my images I would only post them on the net or release them with a watermark that was visible across the entire image area that said "Support gun ownership" or something similar. I would also add a more visible copyright notice out of the image field.
 
DoubleTapDrew:

A block hit with a single overhead stroke from a golf putter would be interesting.
 
Send them "Jello Wrestling" pics. If they don't think thats funny, then you know they are antigun, because those people don't have a sense of humor about anything!
 
Anti-bubba - you're killing me!

OMG - How about I send them a picture of me making the gelatin? I even have a few glamour shots of the blocks before shooting and while setting up in the mold! :evil:

I did actually test the old-style M16 bayonet on a block, both on the gun and off. Results - if you are stabbing with a thrust (hand), stab HARD and then be ready to push again for the last 1-2 inches. Mount it on a rifle and well... bayonets beat knives 100/100 times. It didn't take anything to thrust the bayonet into the block and a slashing motion (with the block sitting on its narrow end) almost cut the block in two. I think the antis would implode if I sent 'em that!
 
Henry Bowman:

After seeing your web site I would bet that you rarely have to do more than suggest that an infringer take a quick look at what might be in store for him unless he mends his ways fast. :)

I bow to you in awe and admiration. You are an attorney who means business.
 
I bow to you in awe and admiration. You are an attorney who means business.
Click to expand...
I'm flattered. :eek: But it's really not intended to be intimidating. It's meant to show that I am knowledgable about and comfortable with firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Friend fired for going to gun show. 99.7% Psycholgists possibly anti-gun
Replies
15
Views
2K
PotatoJudge
P
S
  • Locked
Anti-Gun Bigotry From Online Personals Site
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
StopTheGrays
S
L
  • Locked
Anti-gunner in the pulpit?
Replies
17
Views
717
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Justin
  • Locked
Making a concerted effort to dismantle an anti meme
Replies
18
Views
1K
Roadkill Coyote
R
T
  • Locked
CCW Liberal Anti-Gunner Stories
Replies
8
Views
708
Justin
Justin
Back
Top