From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2013 #272 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe:mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Website:http://jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Thursday, February 21 2013 Volume 2013 : Number 272 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 [Les Irvin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:39:48 -0700 From: Les Irvin Subject: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 Kakki, I've thought about that as well. Regardless of how this comes out, I am going to take appropriate steps to bring the site more in line with the law so that the chances of this happening again are minimized. I'd like to protect photographers from exactly the scenario you outlined. I thought about that in the early days, and have always "washed out" the resolution of photos in hopes that anyone who did steal images would find that reproducing them yields unsatisfactory results. Time to take a further step now. On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:19:23 PM, kbhla wrote: > Hi Randy, > > I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of copyright law but have the > impression it is somewhat "codified." There have been a few links on the JM > and JMDL Facebook pages where the process is somewhat discussed. There are > legal statutes/regulations which seem to provide a process for instituting > and challenging copyright infringement claims. You are right about the > notification and request for removal of the material and compliance should > either resolve it or constitute a defense. But there is a question rattling > around in the back of my mind that perhaps there could be a separate claim > for the infringment itself, regardless of improper use, sale, profit, etc. > Can it be argued that the availability of the material alone could have > caused it to be used by other unknown persons for sale, profit, etc.? At > any rate, I do find the whole matter personally distasteful and unfortunate > that Les has to be embroiled in it. > > Kakki > > > notify the webmaster, and if the webmaster fails to remove the photos in > question, then there is a basis for legal action. Since Les has promptly > removed them already, and was not aware of their ownership, and was not > profiting from their use, I doubt Ms. Scam Artist/Photographer has a leg to > stand on. > Hopefully someone on the list (Kakki?) has some legal knowledge that would > help. Maybe send a letter alerting them that you intend to recoup for > damages for any frivilous lawsuit that might follow, maybe they will > fu...uh, back off. > RR>> ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2013 #272 ***************************** ------- To post messages to the list, sendtojoni@smoe.org. Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------