Drew Lambeth- Curio Creatures

Originally Posted by Jay the Turtleman

Personally, once I put pictures up on the net, I consider them public property. If you don't want other people to use your pictures, the only way to ensure that they won't, is to not send them out or put them where everyone can see. Really it's not worth worrying about, JMHO.

a picture posted on the net may be publicly used, buuuut cannot be claimed as your own property and its highly frowned upon (if not illegal) to use someone else's picture to try and sell goods that are in your possession, as it is highly misrepresenting even if its the same object or animal...I don't feel like looking it up but I'm sure there is some copy right protection or even fraud protection on things like that

I dont get the point of this thread.
He's using pics that arent his, but the animal IS in his possession...soooooooooooooo


1) He's not scamming anyone.
2) It's his snake.

I dont know if that warrants a bad guy thread.

On a side note though...forever home ehh? Sounds Mormon. LDS snakes w00t.

Where did he get the photos from? Was there a disclaimer stating the photographers rights regarding the said photo(s)? Most of your rights regarding photos are waived once they hit the net without and disclaimers etc... Copyright infringement would be assuming that you actually have a copyright on the photograph itself. As far as I can tell, there didnt seem to be any type of marking whatsoever on the photo(s) in question, unless I am more blind than I think I am.

As for him selling the snakes, you said you had a verbal "contract"/agreement? Was that agreement also contigent on the snakes gender as well? I know that I would be personally disappointed if I received a male when I was expecting a female, but I would think that the general consensus would be that he now owns the snakes and can do whatever he wants with them.

It sucks that he is flipping your snakes but, once you sold them, you subject them to that.

Flag the ad on craislist. I think if it gets 20 flags, it will be removed.

I had a similiar situation, rehoming 2 snakes with a verbal agreement. A scant few weeks after rehoming them, the exact 2 snakes appeared on CL and the seller ignored my phone calls and emails.
So I can sympathize for the betrayal of trust. The use of Lauren's pics is just the stinger, and that should be frowned upon.

Seems a bit opportunist and somewhat immoral but a little short of a deserving a badguy thread.

Just because an image is placed on the net, does not mean it then becomes free to copy. The person who took the photograph is automatically granted all copyright.

There are three common instances, though, where there are exceptions to this;

1 - Any work done under the scope of employment. For example, a newspaper owns all rights to the photographs that were taken by their staff (there must be some prior written agreement where the photographer relinquishes all rights under work-for-hire).

2 - The item being photographed has its own "copyright." Basically, lets say I go to your facility, Dean. Then I photograph your animals. I can NOT sell posters (for example) of MY photographs, because they are of YOUR property (that is, of course, unless you give me permission).

The following exception applies to this situation...
3 - Fair use. If there is a GOOD reason why your photo is being used by someone else, then you're out of luck. In this case, the animal in Lauren's photograph, now belongs to Drew. A judge can rule either way...he/she can uphold the infringement as justified, or not.

If Lauren takes Drew to court...Drew will inherently have to admit to copyright infringement. He then has to give a very good reason for why hes using the photo. Its all up to the judge from there.

The above, however, is negligible if void of any enforcement. Lauren, are you going to take Drew to court? I don't think so...its not worth the money/time/head ache.

Drew, at the end of the day there is something called integrity. You MUST ALWAYS ask for permission...if you're denied, then don't use the photo. Take your own picture and call it a day...why cause all this nonsense?

The following is a great article explaining certain aspects of copyrights and infringement...

http://www.llrx.com/features/bloggersbeware.htm

Bloggers Beware: Debunking Nine Copyright Myths of the Online World - Updated
By Kathy Biehl, Published on February 7, 2006
Updated December 16, 2004 and completely revised on December 17, 2006

Misinformation has a way of taking root online and turning into virtual kudzu. Some species are merely an annoyance, such as the Bill Gates email-forwarding giveaway and other e-mail hoaxes that will not die. Others, however, are actively molding behavior. And the misinformation that's flying around about copyright is encouraging people to do things that are not merely illegal, but potentially extremely costly.

A handful of myths have spawned practices, particularly among bloggers and website owners, that turn copyright law on its head. These myths are rooted in the assumption that everything is up for use online unless and until proven otherwise. It doesn't help that technology has made it so easy to take and share images, text and files. Those myths and that ease have fostered a presumption of entitlement that causes Netizens to treat the Internet (and non-electronic sources as well) as a buffet spread of photos, articles, sounds and multi-media files free for the plucking and posting.

Despite well-publicized lawsuits cracking down on unauthorized music downloads, these myths are still in surprisingly widespread circulation. In recent history, otherwise educated people have asser ted nine different fallacies to me as if they were law. Every one of these fallacies has the potential to lead the ill-informed into the land of copyright infringement, where even a short stay can carry a whopping price tag.

Note: The discussion below will use the term "permission" to include both explicit permission from the copyright holder and any legally imputed permission, whether due to the work being in the public domain or through fair use.


Myth #1: It's okay to use anything that doesn't have a copyright notice

Not necessarily.This is true only for three types of works: (a) any work of the federal government; (b) any work published before 1923 and (c) any work without a copyright notice published between 1923-1978. Those works are in the public domain, about which more under Myth #2.

It is not okay to use a recent work just because it doesn't have a copyright notice. If the work is recent, it doesn't have to have a copyright notice. No notice is required for works published since 1978; under current law, the copyright attaches to a work as soon as it is set in tangible form. This means that permission is necessary to use anything that is less than 25 years old, whether or not the work carries a copyright notice. So do not assume you can safely retype a community newsletter and park it on your Website, simply because the newsletter editor did not put in a copyright notice. You are legally on notice that the copyright exists, whether you know or understand that this is the case.


Myth #2: It's okay to use anything that's online, because if it's online, it's in the public domain and up for grabs

No. Posting a work online makes a work available to the public, but that act does not magically remove the work from the protection of copyright and transfer it into the public domain.

"Public domain" is a concept that a lot o f people throw around without truly understanding it. "Public domain" does not mean the same thing as "on the Web" or even "publicly available." In fact, the fact that a work is online or publicly available is no indication whatsoever of whether it is in the public domain. The public domain is the vast collection of creative works that are not subject to anyone's copyright, so anyone, anywhere may freely use them. The only way a work can enter the public domain is for copyright protection to expire or to never attach, according to the law that was in effect when the copyright came into being. For a chronological explanation of the differing legal requirements, which changed frequently and drastically throughout the last century, see Lolly Gasaway's public domain chart. An alternative explanation for those who prefer more visuals is the comic book Bound By Law, produced by Duke University Law School Center for the Study of the Public Domain, and available online in HTML, PDF ( 78 pages) and Flash animated form.

Here is a summary of what is and is not in the public domain:

A work is in the public domain if it:
By the federal government, at any time.
Between 1964-1977 without a copyright notice.
Between 1923-1963 with a copyright notice, if the copyright was not renewed when the initial term expired.
Between 1923-1963 without a copyright notice.
Before 1923.

A U.S. work is still subj ect to copyright protection if it was published:
From 1978 - on.
Between 1964-1977 with a copyright notice.
Between 1923-1963 with a copyright notice, if the copyright was renewed (To verify renewals, search the Library of Congress' copyright registrations and not the LOC Website, because the online records start in 1978, i.e., after this period. Rutgers University School of Communication, Information and Library Studies has a search tool for verifying renewals of books that were published between 1923-1963. Note that this tool does not search for anything that is not a book, such as periodicals, movies or music.)

Under 17 U.S.C. § 304, the copyright protection of the last two categories of works lasts for 70 years after the author's death (in the case of joint authorship, from the last surviving author's death). The term is longer for works for hire, anonymous works, and pseudonymous works (not works written under a pseudonym, but those whose author is not identified in Copyright Office registrations). The copyright term for those works is the earlier to occur of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation.


Myth #3: It's okay to use anything as long as I'm not making any money off it.

No. The absence of a profit might affect how far a copyright holder decides to go against an infringement, but it does not determine whether the infringement exists. The question is whether you have permission for the use. If you don't have permission, you're infringing.

Some people equate not making money with the concept of "fair use." The issue of whether money is changing hands may play a role in whether a particular use is "fair," but it does not itself constitute fair use. The concept of fair use allows use of a copyrighted work without obtaining permission under a few special conditions, including criticism, parody, and teaching. There are four factors that a court will use in determining whether use of a copyrighted work amounts to fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use. If it's noncommercial, clearly fits one of the special conditions (such as criticism, parody or teaching), and adds something new, this factor looks good. On the other hand, commercial use, by itself, is not necessarily the kiss of death.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work. If it's informational (a chart, say, or an encyclopedia entry), a work may be more fair game for fair use than a work that is largely creative, such as a novel or a painting. Also, a published work may be more open for fair use than one that hasn't been published yet, because courts are protective of an author's right to control when and how unpublished work is released.

3. The amount and "substantiality" of the portion used - how much of the copyrighted work was used, and whether that amount was reasonable for the purpose of the use. Using a recognizable excerpt of a famous photograph in a work that parodies it may be okay; using the entire photograph might not be. Unfortunately, there is no specific percentage that marks the dividing line between fair use and copyright violation. The amount always depends on the particular circumstances. The more you use - or the more important the portion you use - the greater the risk.

4. The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. An unauthorized use is not fair if it damages or lessens the sales, actual or potential, or marketability of the copyrighted work. Distribute copies of someone's writings or recordings tapes, and good luck proving that you're engaging in fair use, particularly if you're pocketing money from it. If, on the other hand, the unauthorized use has no financial impact on the copyrighted work (for example, if the use is not commercial or it didn't keep people from buying the original work), this factor may argue in favor of the use being fair.

The specific answer to any one factor will not determine whether a particular use is "fair." What's more important is how all the answers stack up together. The bottom line is that it is risky to unthinkingly assume that any given use is fair, particularly if it does not involve criticism, teaching or parody. For plain-language discussions of this concept, and particularly of how courts have ruled on specific uses, see the resources at the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use website.


Myth #4: It's okay for a non-profit organization to use anything

No. The explanation of applies here as well. Non-profit status does not automatically convey special privileges under copyright law. A non-profit organization has to follow the same copyright rules as everyone else. If your church choir is buying one copy of a piece of sheet music and photocopying it for all the singers, for example, or if the choir is recording songs and selling CDs of the performance, the fact that this is happening under the auspices of a church does not change the nature of the copyright holders' rights. (I use church choir merely as a example; the line of reasoning applies to any non-profit organization, regardless of its nature.) You need to verify whether the works you are using are in the public domain and, for the ones that are not, either obtain permission for your use or establish that you have a defensible fair-use exemption. Otherwise, the exposure exists for a copyright infringement claim against the non-profit organization.

Aside: If a non-profit is engaging in copyright infringement, the issue may arise of whether the board and officers knew about it, should have known about it, or consented to it, any of which could call their personal liability shield into question. This means that if you're a director or officer of a non-profit organization, you owe it to the organization and to yourself to pay attention to whether and how the organization is using other people's works.


Myth #5: It's okay to use anything as long as I give credit

No. For copyright law, the question is whether you have permission. If you don't have permission, you're infringing.


Myth #6: It's okay to use anything as long as I include the creator's copyright notice

No -- unless the copyright notic e permits the use you are contemplating. Some electronic newsletters, for example, specifically permit forwarding as long as the copyright notice is included in the forward and kept intact. Likewise, some book copyright notices permit excepting a short amount (usually a specified number of words) for reviews. A third variation is a Creative Commons license, which comes in six different formats and grant specific permissions based on creator-specified requirements regarding attribution, use and sharing. If a notice grants blanket permission for a specified use, you must follow the requirements of the permission, or else you don't have permission. And if you don't have permission, you're infringing.


Myth #7: It's okay to use anything as long as I take it down when the copyright holder objects

No. The fact that you stop infringing does not alter history and erase the fact that you infringed in the first place. The following that this particular myth enjoys in the blogging world is so widespread that even lawyers have fallen for it. I have actually seen a post by a lawyer, to a lawyers' mailing list, advancing the blogging practice of posting photos without asking for permission and removing them on objection, as if the practice overrode copyright law. It doesn't.


Myth #8: It's okay to use something if I can't find the copyright holder

No. Do not assume that you are free to use the work if you can't locate the copyright holder. Elusiveness is not an excuse, if the copyright is still in effect. "I can't find the owner" is not an excuse a court is going to accept. Proceed at your risk.

If you don't see a copyright notice on a work you want to use, direct the request to the person named as author or, if none is named, to the publisher. Check the Library of Congress' database for names and addresses. If you still have t rouble locating an address for the copyright holder, try to track one down using online searches or by contacting any organization that has an obvious affiliation with the holder. (For example, if you want the right to reproduce lecture materials from a conference, ask the conference sponsor to put you in touch with the copyright holder.) Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin lays out other search strategies and points to a host of permissions pages in his helpful article Locating Copyright Holders.

The winds of change are blowing in this area, but they haven't settled down yet. Legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives to limit remedies for using an orphan work after a reasonably diligent and unsuccessful attempt to locate the copyright holder. It has not yet been enacted.


Myth #9: It's okay to use something if I asked for permission and didn't get a response

No. Silence does not equal consent in this situation. In fact, silence makes things worse for you. If you use a copyrighted work after requesting and not getting permission, you are knowingly infringing on the copyright, which ups the penalties if the holder decides to take action against you. The ceiling on statutory damages skyrockets from $30,000 to $150,000 per work when an infringement is willful. 17 U.S.C. § 504.

If this catalog of myths is too long to remember, adopt these simple guidelines to steer clear of trouble (not to mention overwhelming demand letters and lawsuits).

1. Use someone else's work only if:

a. You have permission;
b. The work is in the public domain; or
c. What you do with the work amounts to "fair use."
2. If you do not know whether a work is subject to copyright, investigate.

3. If a work is subject to a copyright, don't use, quote or lift from it without getting permission, unless you are confident you meet a fair use exception. For a blogger or site owner, that means: ask before posting someone else's articles or photos.

4. If you don't know whether it's copyrighted or do not know for certain that it is in the public domain, ditto.

5. If you have any doubts, consult a copyright or intellectual property attorney before using someone else's work. (Advice costs less than defending an infringement claim does.) At a minimum, read Franklin Pierce Law Center Professor Thomas G. Field's concise online primer, Copyright on the Internet.

This article is not intended to constitute legal advice or to take the place of conferring with your own attorney.

©Kathy Biehl 2006. All Rights Reserved.

This is obviously extreme hypocrisy at work. I am Drew's roommate. When this woman sold him a snake that was incorrectly sexed, and did not fit into our breeding plan, he offered to RETURN it. This person, who is SOO worried about her snake having a 'forever' home should have taken her snake back. Instead, she refuses. It is obviously is not about the snake. Her main issue of contention was that it would be sold for MORE THAN SHE SOLD IT FOR. Capitalism fail on her part lol.

Then, this other person replying to the thread, who I will not name, also got into a FACEBOOK name calling war with Drew and his friends over a joke that we were having - specifically, we were upset that a raggedy dude with mental issues called us "Fucking Cocksuckers". We laughed about this, and a friend jokingly suggested setting him on fire. This woman became so incensed over the idea that we go around setting the homeless on fire, that Drew became her Arch Nemesis. It really was quite comical. This is why I tell him not to get involved with people from Craigslist, and online forums. They are 90% of the time mentally instable because they do not leave the confines of a chair for days on end.

There is more to the world than the internet people. And when you start name calling and making insane accusations, especially regarding their BUSINESS, you approach a borderline Slander and Libel situation.

Everyone just RELAX. The world is not ending.

First, the ad has been removed. Unfortunately, I was away from my office all weekend and only now just saw this.

Help me understand this. I'm a bad guy, because I bought a snake that you mis-sexed, and now don't need it. First you got mad that I was selling him. Then, you got mad because I was asking so much for him....should I give him away for a paltry $25? I believe you said in your email that I received this morning that I shouldn't "sell a snake on craigslist to any idiot who comes by."

Oh that's right, it's the pictures. I'M SORRY. I took the ad down off Craigslist, and I will take my own pictures. Honestly, I don't see why it's such a big deal seeing as how you don't have the snake anymore. Whatever, deleted.

Now let's get to the heart of the matter. You are probably wishing you didn't sell me this snake. That's fine. In one of our PM conversations I even offered to send him back to you. You declined. Understand that for me, this is a business. If an animal doesn't fit into my breeding colony because he was mis-sexed as a female, it doesn't make financial sense to me to keep and feed him. I'm sorry if that's not how YOU choose to deal with YOUR pets, but when you sold this animal to me, it was no longer YOUR pet.

That said, I really don't like that this transaction went so terribly wrong. What EXACTLY would you like to see happen here? (Other than continue to send me PMs / Emails berating me, demanding that I take pics down, etc.) I guess you want me to give the snake "a forever home"? Unfortunately, as I said, that's not going to happen because the snake turned out to be male and not female. Would you like me to send him back? No, you already refused that. Would you like to find someone local to me to take him? Heck, just have them email me and it's done. At this point, I'd like to be RID of him so you'll leave me alone.

On another note, the other snake I got from you....the "aggressive one"....whom apparently you aren't concerned with at all since you haven't mentioned her one time...is doing fine.


*********************

Oh, and Bethany...while your willingness to jump on the bandwagon here is comical at best, you leave out the fact that the real reason you dislike me soooooo much is because one of my FACEBOOK FRIENDS called you a bad name. That's it.

Originally Posted by drewby07

*********************

Oh, and Bethany...while your willingness to jump on the bandwagon here is comical at best, you leave out the fact that the real reason you dislike me soooooo much is because one of my FACEBOOK FRIENDS called you a bad name. That's it.

It was not only that Drew. He called me what he called me, and instead of at least telling him that he was in the wrong for using *that* word, you decided to defriend me because I "didn't get your humor". That pretty much condoned what he said, and showed me (and a few others) something about your character. Like it or not, you are judged by the company you choose to keep.

Yes Bethany, I defriended you on Facebook.....and apparently you think that gives you license to "watch" my forum activity....and post snide comments about me whenever possible. Get a life!

So my point is that since you agree that any woman who disagrees with you should be called *that * word, why would ANY woman (or decent man for that matter) want to do business with you when there are plenty of NICE people around who don't condone that sort of behaviour from their friends?


Maybe the way you treated Lauren and Tara deserves a badguy thread.
Maybe it doesn't.
But your lack of character and the way you conduct yourself sure puts you in that category.

Oh, does anyone remember that thread from tyflier (Chris Morrisson) about the pictures stolen from him and used by a club?