The VPC has stolen a picture of Oleg

Status
Not open for further replies.
saving it to our harddrive as evidence is that we could have just as easily doctored it to show what we want it to show. Not saying that is the case I am just saying that should VPC get rid of the movie and then you provide your copy of said movie as evidence, If I was the VPC lawyer I would simply contend that it was inadmissable because it simply could be a doctored copy of their "ORIGINAL" movie.
Click to expand...
the ISP for VPC probably would have all the content the VPC has put on their website archived.
 
my home machines... If possible, I'll convert it to .mpg for easy viewing (but I'll still keep the original .swf file, as it's evidence... )
Click to expand...

I don't think you can directly convert it to an MPG file. However, since it's really just a series of still jpeg images strung together with an MP3 soundtrack, there are numerous tools (freeware, shareware, and commercial) that will allow you to extract all of the images and the soundtrack back to their original component files. I just did that with a freeware flash extractor available here:

http://www.newfreeware.com/graphics/1681/

What I ended up with is a 1.5MB MP3 file and 129 stills totalling 1.58MB.

Extracting them is quite simple, but if anyone (esp. Oleg or Henry Bowman) need copies just PM me.
 
Henry Bowmans going pro bono so theres no need for a fund yet

unless we have an ammo fund for shooting Oleg's new Barrett that the VPC is going to buy

:evil:
 
"President Bush, you are either for allowing killing machines on the streets of America, or against allowing killing machines on the streets of America."

Wow! The VPC is against letting Feinstein and Schumer kill us by taking away our right to defend ourselves! That's... oh, wait...

Seriously, though:

From a-human-right's FAQ:

May I use pictures from a-human-right.com?
Yes, please do. Reproduction of the unaltered images in electronic media or print is permitted and encouraged, provided that a by-line is given and that the images are used to promote resposible gun ownership. Please check with me first: some of the images have other conditions attached to them. If you wish to produce graphics based on my posters or photographs, make sure to check with me, too. Organizations or individuals promoting restrictions on ownership and use of firearms are prohibited from using any images from this site.
Clicking on most pictures will load a larger graphic optimized for 640x480 monitors. "Hi-res" tags link to 200-300KB high-quality JPEGs suitable for printing. As I am gradually acquiring a substantial library of gun photos, you can write and request specific images.

If you would like to modify my images or use them as elements in more complex compositions, please email me. I try to be helpful, but I would also like to make sure that the uses are consistent with the goals of this web site.
Click to expand...

Now, I don't THINK Oleg gave them permission to use it in an anti-gun composition, and to use it in one of those, they would require permission. Also, they gave no by-line. Thus, they are violating Oleg's reproduction conditions and violating copyright. Artwork is automatically copyrighted, whether you file for it or not*, so he IS protected. Lawsuit time, methinks? Especially if they actually engaged in libelious activities against Oleg, and used his copyrighted works in those.

<does a little dance of joy at the thought of the VPC going away>

*Filing a copyright just makes it easier to defend.
 
<does a little dance of joy at the thought of the VPC going away>
Click to expand...

Well enjoy the dance, but I don't see this killing VPC.

At best Oleg (and some others) will get cheques and the offending flash movie removed from their site ... more then likely you'll see the flash movie removed and thats it.
 
Show a copy of todays paper in the video to establish timeframe. Z, I think it will depend on a lot of factors ie: how many viewed their site while it was up, etc. I think a biggie for a judge or jury is the fact that they went to a site totally OPPOSED to their standpoint and STOLE images & text. Maximum pain & suffering to Oleg was their intention by such theft. There are tens of thousands of other free pictures available to them. They chose to make an EXAMPLE of him & his defiance of "reasonable" restrictions.

NO QUARTER GIVEN EVEN IF ASKED. Removing the pics is not enough! Great harm has been perpetrated upon Oleg & his image within the community. Intentionally. They have declared war on law-abiding citizens. Do we run away or have mercy upon the enemy and allow it to slink away, nursing its wounds only to arise and create havoc at a later date of its own choosing? NAY! SLAY THE BEAST! (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

How's that? :cool:
 
With a libel suit, you have to worry about the concept of malice.

The thing is, do these people FEEL malice? Or are they doing this because they feel it is the RIGHT thing to do? After all, they know what is good for you.
 
How interesting that they violate Oleg's intellectual property rights in their quest to violate his second amendment rights. Oh, this is another post saying "SIC EM" :evil:
 
I feel dirty after going to that site. It does however have a nifty counter to the end of the AWB off to the left. 346 days left guys.
 
do these people FEEL malice? Or are they doing this because they feel it is the RIGHT thing to do?
Click to expand...

They are doing it because they hate guns. They hate people having the right to own guns. This is a HATE CRIME. What motivates a hate crime other than malice?
 
Wow, that sickened me... :(

Those people have so much fear, it's scary! Oleg, I love your site and I hope you get somewhere with this...
 
Yeah, some hoplophobes have so much fear going that they're downright scary... Coupla years ago, a fellow told me that if he knew someone was carrying concealed in a restaurant, he'd take a steak knife and stab them "before they could shoot someone." I just couldn't convince him that there was a difference between criminals and legitimately armed folks...
 
With a libel suit, you have to worry about the concept of malice.
Click to expand...

Oleg isn't a public figure so malice isn't required. Further, they know from his website that he is not engaged in unlawful activities, and thus placing his image in a context where someone would link him with criminal activity would indicate malice. It's the equivalent of intentionally showing one person's photo when discussing criminal charges against another person.
 
AR-15 for me. Just because there are more accessories for it, and because I can probably be more accurate with it.
 
I don't think the libel suit would fly. It's more of a false light issue. The captions don't say that Oleg is a murdering criminal, they just have his picture next to similar words. This is quite timely, actually. In my law class I asked about whether or not there was a possible libel suit over Al Franken's newest edition of leftist propaganda, with the title being Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and the pictures of O'Reilly, Bush, and Cheney. Basically, he said the same thing I just said at the beginning. Sure, the inference is there but that's all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
www.banassaultweapons.org
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
C.R.Sam
C
Z
  • Locked
VPC Stealing Photos again.....
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
T
  • Locked
This has to be seen and read to believe it.
Replies
3
Views
758
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Unbelievable VPC hypocrisy--Help ensure VPC's shambolic FFL renewal is DENIED
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
15K
Wineoceros
W
I
  • Locked
VPC... Sue them? Why not?
Replies
11
Views
623
Ironbarr
I
Back
Top