Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Bill, let me explain something to you. The enhanced image is my property - my intellectual property. I have copyrighted it - notionally and factually.You stole it! What sort of an ill-mannered uncouth individual are you,anyway? You have no right to post it or use it in your research without my express and written consent. I urge you to enhance your own images and do your research on them. Stop stealing from me and don't steal from me again! Have I made myself perfectly understood? If there is something - anything in this post which you find difficult to understand feel free to ask me about it and I shall do my best to help you over any language difficulties you may have. EBC EBC, you are a nut case! Just because you post an image that was taken by someone else does not mean that you own it. We are not even supposed to be post images of the Zapruder film because we do not have written consenst to do so. Feel free to consult a lawyer if you think I'm kidding you. You don't own any assassination images from what I know. Your thinking that you do only reflects your ignorance of not only the photographical record, but the copyright laws as well. BTW, your posting of the caption with the red arrows on it is my work, but don't fear - I'm smart enough to know that I didn't own the film in the first place so I have no right to bitch about you duplicating it. Bill Edited February 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) If there is something - anything in this post which you find difficult to understand feel free to ask me about it and I shall do my best to help you over any language difficulties you may have. EBC EBC, you are a nut case! Just because you post an image that was taken by someone else does not mean that you own it. We are not even supposed to be post images of the Zapruder film because we do not have written consenst to do so. Feel free to consult a lawyer if you think I'm kidding you. You don't own any assassination images from what I know. Your thinking that you do only reflects your ignorance of not only the photographical record, but the copyright laws as well. Bill I seems you really do have major problems understanding English,Bill. Perhaps English is not your original language? Bill - face it. You're nothing more than a plagiarizer. A parasite. You do not have the intellectual capabilities to enhance images of your own let alone argue about copyright law. I suggest you get your colouring pencils out and start on a new page of your two copies of the Warren Commission. I leave the choice of which copy you use up to you. Maybe we can look forward to your posting some of your coloured in pages soon? Untill then stop your thieving! EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Bill, let me explain something to you. The enhanced image is my property - my intellectual property. I have copyrighted it - notionally and factually.You stole it! What sort of an ill-mannered uncouth individual are you,anyway? You have no right to post it or use it in your research without my express and written consent. I urge you to enhance your own images and do your research on them. Stop stealing from me and don't steal from me again! Have I made myself perfectly understood? If there is something - anything in this post which you find difficult to understand feel free to ask me about it and I shall do my best to help you over any language difficulties you may have. EBC EBC, you are a nut case! Just because you post an image that was taken by someone else does not mean that you own it. (However, whether it is legal or not - any capture taken from Groden's films has been offered to me by Robert to use as I see fit) We are not even supposed to be post images of the Zapruder film because we do not have written consenst to do so. Feel free to consult a lawyer if you think I'm kidding you. You don't own any assassination images from what I know. Your thinking that you do only reflects your ignorance of not only the photographical record, but the copyright laws as well. It is all about Bill's ill-mannered brutish behaviour towards me and othersin this forum. My brutish behavior as you call it is directed to your ridiculous use of degraded images to invent made up people when the better images show no one there. Bill Edited February 5, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Ooops! Duplicate messages? Looks like the WC Two Copy Syndrome is contagious! EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) My brutish behavior as you call it is directed to your ridiculous use of degraded images to invent make people people out of when the better images show no one there. Bill, So you do not deny your brutish behaviour? Therefore you are a brute, a plagiarizer and a parasite! What else can we add to this list? Is there something we should know,Bill? Keep talking,Bill! Keep it coming,Bill! EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Is there something we should know,Bill? Yes, in post #189 of this thread you used one of Jack's images and didn't reference him as the one who originally posted it. Now you can add "hypocrite" to your resume. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Bill, let me explain something to you. The enhanced image is my property - my intellectual property. I have copyrighted it - notionally and factually.You stole it! What sort of an ill-mannered uncouth individual are you,anyway? You have no right to post it or use it in your research without my express and written consent. I urge you to enhance your own images and do your research on them. Stop stealing from me and don't steal from me again! Have I made myself perfectly understood? If there is something - anything in this post which you find difficult to understand feel free to ask me about it and I shall do my best to help you over any language difficulties you may have. EBC EBC, you are a nut case! Just because you post an image that was taken by someone else does not mean that you own it. (However, whether it is legal or not - any capture taken from Groden's films has been offered to me by Robert to use as I see fit) We are not even supposed to be post images of the Zapruder film because we do not have written consenst to do so. Feel free to consult a lawyer if you think I'm kidding you. You don't own any assassination images from what I know. Your thinking that you do only reflects your ignorance of not only the photographical record, but the copyright laws as well. It is all about Bill's ill-mannered brutish behaviour towards me and othersin this forum. My brutish behavior as you call it is directed to your ridiculous use of degraded images to invent made up people when the better images show no one there.Bill "Miller" does not understand COPYRIGHT LAW and is not an attorney. He needs to look up FAIR USE DOCTRINE which allows for educational non-profit use of copyrighted material. He needs to look up PUBLIC DOMAIN, through which a copyright may be forfeited for failure to VIGOROUSLY ENFORCE the copyright. He needs to study trademark copyrights about how certain copyrighted terms become public domain through PUBLIC USE, such as ZIPPER, NYLON, and CELLOPHANE, etc. He should not lecture on things he does not understand, but that never stands in his way, does it? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Is there something we should know,Bill? Yes, in post #189 of this thread you used one of Jack's images and didn't reference him as the one who originally posted it. Now you can add "hypocrite" to your resume. Bill That was Bernice's image post to which I gave fulsome praise and acknowledgement. Don't tell lies Bill and for God's sakes don't get rattled! Don't be economical with the 'truth',Bill or I'll have to add to your list - Brute,plagiarizer,parasite....? EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 "Miller" does not understand COPYRIGHT LAW and is not an attorney.He needs to look up FAIR USE DOCTRINE which allows for educational non-profit use of copyrighted material. He needs to look up PUBLIC DOMAIN, through which a copyright may be forfeited for failure to VIGOROUSLY ENFORCE the copyright. He needs to study trademark copyrights about how certain copyrighted terms become public domain through PUBLIC USE, such as ZIPPER, NYLON, and CELLOPHANE, etc. He should not lecture on things he does not understand, but that never stands in his way, does it? Jack Jack, I understand copyright laws all to well. EBC is saying that he owns the images he post on this forum which he has no right to do. Also, you citing public dopmain laws is like you citing the Moorman photo shows no gap. Definition: A public domain work is a creative work that is not protected by copyright and which may be freely used by everyone. The reasons that the work is not protected include: (1) the term of copyright for the work has expired; (2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright or (3) the work is a work of the U.S. Government. In other words, the films and books that these images are being scanned from are copyrighted despite you believing otherwise. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 That was Bernice's image post to which I gave fulsome praise and acknowledgement. Don't tell lies Bill and for God's sakes don't get rattled! Don't be economical with the 'truth',Bill or I'll have to add to your list - Brute,plagiarizer,parasite....? EBC The hell you say, EBC. I read your remarks very carefully and I could not find the word Jack, Wiegman, or JFK assassination anywhere in your response. You did mention Bernice by name when you addressed the response to her personally. Bernice, To me the photo you posted is perhaps redolent of a man who is wearing a white shirt and has something flung over his left shoulder. This 'man' also seems to be wearing black trousers. Please remember this is merely my opinion. I have neither the intention to denigrate your efforts nor to be supercilious. And I mean that most sincerely. Best Regards EBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) EBC is saying that he owns the images he post on this forum which he has no right to do. Bill, You are really running on an empty tank today. If you'd only read the posts instead of scurrying off to compose the bilge that you do post then maybe...just maybe, you might even understand. You used one of my enhanced images. You had no right to do so. As Jack says you know nothing about copyright law and never will. Get back to your sandbox and read some light fiction. Maybe copy two of the Warren Commission - just for a change? (Don't get any sand in your pristine WC copy two.) EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Bill, let me explain something to you. The enhanced image is my property - my intellectual property. I have copyrighted it - notionally and factually.You stole it! What sort of an ill-mannered uncouth individual are you,anyway? You have no right to post it or use it in your research without my express and written consent. I urge you to enhance your own images and do your research on them. Stop stealing from me and don't steal from me again! Have I made myself perfectly understood? If there is something - anything in this post which you find difficult to understand feel free to ask me about it and I shall do my best to help you over any language difficulties you may have. EBC EBC, you are a nut case! Just because you post an image that was taken by someone else does not mean that you own it. (However, whether it is legal or not - any capture taken from Groden's films has been offered to me by Robert to use as I see fit) We are not even supposed to be post images of the Zapruder film because we do not have written consenst to do so. Feel free to consult a lawyer if you think I'm kidding you. You don't own any assassination images from what I know. Your thinking that you do only reflects your ignorance of not only the photographical record, but the copyright laws as well. It is all about Bill's ill-mannered brutish behaviour towards me and othersin this forum. My brutish behavior as you call it is directed to your ridiculous use of degraded images to invent made up people when the better images show no one there.Bill "Miller" does not understand COPYRIGHT LAW and is not an attorney. He needs to look up FAIR USE DOCTRINE which allows for educational non-profit use of copyrighted material. He needs to look up PUBLIC DOMAIN, through which a copyright may be forfeited for failure to VIGOROUSLY ENFORCE the copyright. He needs to study trademark copyrights about how certain copyrighted terms become public domain through PUBLIC USE, such as ZIPPER, NYLON, and CELLOPHANE, etc. He should not lecture on things he does not understand, but that never stands in his way, does it? Jack Once again we go through this silly copyright argument and it is FILLED with misinformation. First, Jack is simply WRONG. As a copyright holder you do not have to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND ANYTHING. Tha only way for the owner of a copyright to LOSE IT, is to SIGN IT AWAY. The public is NOT granted licence simply because the owner fails to defend it. Second, EBC holds NO RIGHTS to claim his works are can be copyrighted. His works are "Derivatives" and while derivatives can be copyrighted, the creator must either OWN THE COPYRIGHT of the original work, or hve the owners approval to use the original work. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html Fair use is a VERY slippery slope. It has become even more so in recent years. It is simply silly to think to that you can have unfettered use of copyrighted material for educational uses. You must proceed with care in this area. Profit or non-profit may OR MAY NOT have any bearing. I suggest that members who are really interested inthe current state of copyright law do some in depth research and perhaps contact a copyright attorney. But beware the net is FILLED with gross misinformation and wives tales. Start here: http://www.copyright.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) That was Bernice's image post to which I gave fulsome praise and acknowledgement. Don't tell lies Bill and for God's sakes don't get rattled! Don't be economical with the 'truth',Bill or I'll have to add to your list - Brute,plagiarizer,parasite....? EBC The hell you say, EBC. I read your remarks very carefully and I could not find the word Jack, Wiegman, or JFK assassination anywhere in your response. You did mention Bernice by name when you addressed the response to her personally. Bernice, To me the photo you posted is perhaps redolent of a man who is wearing a white shirt and has something flung over his left shoulder. This 'man' also seems to be wearing black trousers. Please remember this is merely my opinion. I have neither the intention to denigrate your efforts nor to be supercilious. And I mean that most sincerely. Best Regards The hell you say, EBC. I read your remarks very carefully and I could not find the word Jack, Wiegman, or JFK assassination anywhere in your response. You did mention Bernice by name when you addressed the response to her personally. Bill, You got that right. I did not diss Bernice's efforts as you had done previously. Not like you who cannot open your mouth without spewing your hateful bile at anyone and everyone who happens to be in your way or path. EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Bill,You got that right. I did not diss Bernice's efforts as you had done previously. Not like you who cannot open your mouth without spewing your hateful bile at anyone and everyone who happens to be in your way or path. EBC I thought we were talking about the use of other peoples images and copyrights. Try and stay focused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) I thought we were talking about the use of other peoples images and copyrights. Try and stay focused! Bill, there you go again! You are either Educationally Subnormal or just plain stupid. I am talking about my enhanced images. Images that I have enhanced...understand? You took my enhanced images and used them without any acknowlegement. To make matters worse you vandalised them. I can only repeat: Brute, plagiarizer,parasite. Have you access to a good dictionary? Check your sand box or maybe look in your Two Copies WC et al library collection. EBC Edited February 5, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now