You'll need to get my permission to use it as your avatar now, too. Speak to my lawyer...Considering using this image for my avatar, but first wanted to ensure that those pic chips were @ReallyGoodUsername's and not Kaplan's.
You'll need to get my permission to use it as your avatar now, too. Speak to my lawyer...Considering using this image for my avatar, but first wanted to ensure that those pic chips were @ReallyGoodUsername's and not Kaplan's.
Fuck off and die you chip nazi pig.You'll need to get my permission to use it as your avatar now, too. Speak to my lawyer...
My lawyer has issued the following statement on my behalf:Said in the most respectful way, of course.
I don't think so -- he claims he still owns the chip, too. Which is utter BS.Is the argument being made that “My pictures of chips I owned at the time of the photo are mine, even after I sell the chips?”
I am not advocating one way or another, just trying to understand the request.
Is the argument being made that “My pictures of chips I owned at the time of the photo are mine, even after I sell the chips?”
I am not advocating one way or another, just trying to understand the request.
After I sent him photos this was his reply right after this OP was created, haven’t heard back since so figure he got around to actually looking at my photos.I don't think so -- he claims he still owns the chip, too. Which is utter BS.
After I sent him photos this was his reply right after this OP was created, haven’t heard back since so figure he got around to actually looking at my photos.
View attachment 456878
It’s my impression (correct me if I’m wrong please) that many MANY of the photos in TCG are submitted by others and not his own chips which would make him claim pretty outlandish. Maybe he sends similar follow up language to everyone since it’s usually in these cases it is an uncredited TCG photo but in this case it was clearly not.
This guy needs to give it a rest...After I sent him photos this was his reply right after this OP was created, haven’t heard back since so figure he got around to actually looking at my photos.
View attachment 456878
It’s my impression (correct me if I’m wrong please) that many MANY of the photos in TCG are submitted by others and not his own chips which would make him claim pretty outlandish. Maybe he sends similar follow up language to everyone since it’s usually in these cases it is an uncredited TCG photo but in this case it was clearly not.
How did you get a rare photo of @BonScot in the wild?
I'd message him that if he currently possesses the chip, you're filing theft charges.After I sent him photos this was his reply
Google is a beautiful placeHow did you get a rare photo of @BonScot in the wild?
I think he's done. Just gave boiler plate responses until he found out he was in the wrong then faded into the night as mysteriously as he came. I think he needs to come up with some more friendly pre-written responses though that give him an out if in fact the person took the photo themselves but I'm sure this was a 1 out of 100 case for him.This guy needs to give it a rest...
That is the exact same chip, aligned the exact same way. Look at the black dot on the inlay at 4 o'clock (between the A and C). Also the "grime" in the mold above the hat at 1 o'clock and in the hat at 2 o'clock. Not to mention the spots are EXACTLY the same.
Maybe you now own the exact chip that was in the Chip Guide photo. So strange.
Edit: and your photo is much better than the Chip Guide photo. Ask them to update the photo to yours.
You can't sue for infringement of a copyright in the US and there are no such damages unless the copyright has been registered with the copyright office of the Library of Congress, and very, very, very, very few are.
That’s me with a sun tan
No one in Scotland has a sun tan...unless it comes from a tanning bed.That’s me with a sun tan
Our natural skin colour is pale blue. It’s like Avatar over hereNo one in Scotland has a sun tan...unless it comes from a tanning bed.
After I sent him photos this was his reply right after this OP was created, haven’t heard back since so figure he got around to actually looking at my photos.
View attachment 456878
It’s my impression (correct me if I’m wrong please) that many MANY of the photos in TCG are submitted by others and not his own chips which would make him claim pretty outlandish. Maybe he sends similar follow up language to everyone since it’s usually in these cases it is an uncredited TCG photo but in this case it was clearly not.
Another photographer here who's had the unfortunate experience of photos being stolen (sometimes inadvertently, where we were able to reach to a civilized agreement). So yes, I see why he wants to protect his photos, but before sending any C&D, he should be DAMN sure it's his photo. Just recognizing the very chip is not good enough.
YGBFKM
**** Edit ****
For the record, you are correct. The Chipguide is comprised of pictures submitted by people and the pics are used with permission. I've submitted a few.
This was an automated takedown...Not excusing, just saying for what it’s worth I think it was an automated takedown.
Point is - his scan/picture was not used, he just assumed it was without even checking the picture in question (correct me if I'm wrong, @ReallyGoodUsername ).Assuming he sold that exact chip and @ReallyGoodUsername has ended up with it would be irrelevant to his claim since if it is his scan it is his picture. No longer not owning the specific chip wouldn't matter. The problem with that is that his request is really, really stupid. Let him use the damn image.
I think the fact that it is not the same picture, and that this can be demonstrated quite easily are the problem here. He should be saying something like "thanks for producing a higher resolution picture than the original scan. Is it OK if we use this for the ChipGuide pic?" Instead of "I am ChipGuide!. Stop or else!"Point is - his scan/picture was not used, he just assumed it was without even checking the picture in question (correct me if I'm wrong, @ReallyGoodUsername ).
The music industry spent the last 25 years on the internet suing people and issuing takedowns for copyright violations.You can't sue for infringement of a copyright in the US and there are no such damages unless the copyright has been registered with the copyright office of the Library of Congress, and very, very, very, very few are.