Some of you may remember a little while ago, a charming little pedant calling themselves insider 01 commenting on this site who seemed to have a dummy spit and subsequent mental melt-down about a very general non-specific comment I made about Albury council.
Well, he she or they disappeared in a puff of acrimony never to be seen or heard from again, or so I thought.
Then I get this email from someone using the same “border_realist” email address (they “border” on being a “realist” perhaps?).
The banner image on your website is copyright to both the photographer and the customer who owns the image who will remain nameless for now. I suggest you remove it straight away before a claim is made against you.
Do not ignore this message.
Oooh scary. No I certainly don’t intend to ignore the message, it’s far too amusing not to share.
“Joint” copyright of an image, no that sounds perfectly viable, nothing fishy there at all. I know every time I’ve ever purchased the rights to an image from a photographer I’ve been more than happy for the photographer to retain the rights…that I’ve just bought.
Makes perfect sense.
Sadly I deleted an email from another person (at least sent from a different email address) claiming to have copyright of the image and insisting I remove it, the wording was suspiciously similar enough to suggest it might well have been written by the same hand.
In any rate, my general response is this, until I see proof of copyright to permit or deny use, the image stays where it is.
Anyone can generate an email address and claim to be anyone else, I’d have to be pretty gullible to just take on face value a threatening email from a petty backstabber like insider 01.
The image isn’t being used for commercial gain and wasn’t copy protected (a common precaution where copyright infringement is a concern).
It seems to me, insider 01 is just a sad little twerp going out of their way to make life difficult, cyber bullying in other words.
Can you imagine the lawsuit that would ensue if amatuer (ie not for profit) blogs like this one were sued for use of images without copyright?
Twelve year old little Timmy wants to put up a picture of Indiana Jones to illustrate his post telling all his friends he liked the film, “better get a lawyer son”.
We are talking about literally thousands of sites, and probably millions of images.
It would make the war crimes tribunal at the Hague look like an afternoon of “Judge Judy” for sheer scale.
To the holder of copyright for the image I say this, demonstrate your claim to copyright and I’ll happily remove the image on your request.
To insider 01 I say, this kind of backstabbing underhanded greaseball tactic is a really rather wretched indictment on your slimy character.
If you take exception to an opinion I have expressed, debate the point on it’s merits, don’t slink off and pull some underhanded (and frankly laughable) attempt at sabotage, that’s the act of a worm, not a man.
Odd that I should get two emails in a week hinting at legal action and then Bradley Worrall’s sad attempt at a journalistic opinion piece.
If I were that way inclined it might lead me to speculate about the true identity of “insider 01”.