Oops, my first DMCA take-down notice!

[jjphoto]

Hey John, lighten up a bit.

I can't quite see how the rather erroneous references to conspiracy theories sit with the discussion but I will answer you questions....

Only because no one has submitted any evidence/proof that refutes that RB is NOT run from Melb as per their own statement on their website. I have no reason to doubt RB's statement, but I also don't care either way. The Russian Mafia could run it for all I care. So my issue is with random unsupported comments, that's all.

Re Kubrick. He started his working life as a photographer but soon started to make movies. Clockwork Orange is probably the most challenging of his movies to watch. It's also confronting on a few levels. It's also not a 'typical' Kubrick film but no such thing exists anyway. Almost all of his relatively few films are very different to each other. In some respects it's hard to tell they where all made by the same person.

2001, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and maybe Lolita are arguably his best and most interesting work. Sparticus is a beautiful film but was not really a Kubrick film although he did direct it (only after the original director was sacked). Barry Lyndon is of interest to many photogs due to Kubricks adaption and use of a 0.7/50mm Zeiss lens made for NASA and which allowed him to shoot some scenes using only existing candle light.

You can't watch one Kubrick film and have a sense of his style or work, and I'm not sure you can even after seeing most of his films many times over. In any case, I would never recommend A Clockwork Orange as the first and only Kubrick film to see. That might require therapy.

[Mark L]

Quoting John C. Hall in his reply to Matt,

....
Original photographs or artworks depicting trademarks do not infringe on those marks. A classic example would be Andy Warhol's use of the Campbell Soup cans in his artwork.
...

And this is why RB should have stood up and said to Korg something like "it's an artwork that happens to have your logo. "tis not making money because of your logo. Surely you'd rather the exposure. Get real and go away."

[Warbler]

Hey John, lighten up a bit.

Careful there. I got a warning for telling another member to lighten up. Wouldn't want you to get in trouble.

[Redgum]

In case you haven't noticed "law" is a major industry in this world which pervades the sensibilities of just about every human. I know from my thirty years as a professional in the film industry that there is at least a dozen law firms that specialize in "copyright" and all the issues that surround it (that is, they generate all their income from these matters). You can argue the toss but you can't win in these situations because even a win will be a substantial cost to you which can result in a significant loss of assets (read "home" if you are an individual/amateur).
Our rule of thumb has been not to broadcast any questionable images before obtaining permission (and this includes uploading to public websites) and to make sure any caption promotes the owner, not yourself or project. The latter being critical. i.e. most brand/logo owners will ignore cases with positive promotion but come down heavy on users that promote themselves or their work.
Case study: A local amateur movie club made a film on the poor state of Australia's telecommunications. It included Telstra logos but nothing specific about the company. After a complaint from lawyers the film was withdrawn from YouTube and the master destroyed. The alternative could have been all individual members losing their homes if the club was sued. Implied intent. Could have got away with it but they didn't have the assets to fight the issue.
The moral I guess is to be aware of your perceived obligations or cop the penalty. Your choice.

[PhotoPaul]

I wonder why Yamaha Australia import and distribute Vox when Korg own it. That's a weird one.

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's a ridiculous world we live in, isn't it?

[zeddicus]

Vox does not have a leg to stand on - you did not infringe on their trademark.

* removed, please read the site rules, in particular rule 3 - admin*

[zeddicus]

In which case could I respectfully request you review rule 3 to make it more targeted to its apparent intent?

I understand the reasoning behind the rule you cite. In this case I believe application of rule 3 was clearly inappropriate. My post in its entirety was a legitimate comment on the situation. The only thing I regret is the thread revive (I did not notice the date on tapatalk).

[ricktas]

In which case could I respectfully request you review rule 3 to make it more targeted to its apparent intent?

I understand the reasoning behind the rule you cite. In this case I believe application of rule 3 was clearly inappropriate. My post in its entirety was a legitimate comment on the situation. The only thing I regret is the thread revive (I did not notice the date on tapatalk).

The rule will not be changed. Your post included comments about a site (redbubble) and those comments we deemed as complaints about the action taken by redbubble. The rule is clear. Until you have 30 days membership AND 50 posts you cannot post complaints.

[ameerat42]

Zeddicus.
It's not unheard of that members occasionally run aground on some site rule.
When this happens, some appropriate moderation occurs (if sometimes a little late).
But that moderation does not extend to in-depth interpretation of users' motives or intents.

Similarly, in this case, you are not being targeted as being engaged in any untoward forum activity.

You just ran aground of a rule. Your being new, and clearly keen to interact, this occurrence is understandable.
Am.

[zeddicus]

The rule will not be changed. Your post included comments about a site (redbubble) and those comments we deemed as complaints about the action taken by redbubble. The rule is clear. Until you have 30 days membership AND 50 posts you cannot post complaints.

*woosh*

You have missed my point entirely. Your application of the rule is inconsistent with the stated aim of said rule.

Oh well.

[bitsnpieces]

Well, I'm glad this thread was revived nonetheless as I was able to read through it, gain some good insights, and also learn of good things - specially love the response MattNQ received in post #18.

[ricktas]

*woosh*

You have missed my point entirely. Your application of the rule is inconsistent with the stated aim of said rule.

Oh well.

No, you have missed the point of the rule. Until you have 30 days membership and 50 posts, you cannot post complaints about companies, people, products, services, as the rule states. You made a comment about RedBubble that we deem to be a complaint about the way RedBubble handled the matter under discussion in this thread. Your comment made reference to RedBubble's poor form (your words), among other statements in your post. The comment was removed as we deemed it a complaint about how RedBubble choose to run their business. Simple!

You have been a member here since 2009, how about joining in photographically with some critiques of members photos, or perhaps put up some of your own photography for critique?

[zeddicus]

The stated aim of the rule is to prevent spammers. Ergo, you have applied the rule inappropriately. I am simply pointing out a facT.

I don't expect to change your mind now, having seen your flawed reasoning thus far.

The reason I have not attempted to participate thus far was due to being marked "inactive" and having certain access removed.

[jollie]

Zeddicus, irrespective of why the rules relating to new members was brought in, it's very clear in it's application and I can't see where the rule has been applied inappropriately. Having fallen foul of this exact rule before I had reached the 50 posts mark myself, I'd suggest just letting it go and moving on.

[ricktas]

The stated aim of the rule is to prevent spammers. Ergo, you have applied the rule inappropriately. I am simply pointing out a facT.

I don't expect to change your mind now, having seen your flawed reasoning thus far.

The reason I have not attempted to participate thus far was due to being marked "inactive" and having certain access removed.

We have no way of knowing if you are a spammer or not. After all, you could run or work for a website in competition to RedBubble for all we know, and by commenting negatively about their service, could be of benefit to your own site. I have tried to be patient and explain the rule to you. The Rule applies to ALL members with less than 30/50. I suggest you move on, and start joining in photographically.

[Mark L]

.......
The reason I have not attempted to participate thus far was due to being marked "inactive" and having certain access removed.

Oh, no. More rules.
The more you get active here, the less important the rules seem.