Bad Guy Guy Brunke AKA Guyco Gecko - Theif, liar, flipper

[bobtard]

are you guys serious?
he breeds and buys and sells geckos to a niche market that some people may not have access to. once someone buys something from you they can do what they want with it. i sold some geckos to someone and they flipped them, that's my mistake. what did i think they were going to do? hold on to them and cuddle them at night? i buy and sell items all day long, that's how a lot of people make their livings. did guy pay you? yes... but you call him a thief? maybe he had no initial intentions of reselling your gecko, but maybe, if the price was right, he'd be willing to resell... isn't that how the world works? i buy something from someone for myself, and someone offers me more money than i spent... if i need the $$ i am going to sell it 9x out of 10... you would too.

Did you even read this thread?

 

[bobtard]

as for him using your photo, it is fair use. you posted it on a public website, anyone can use your for photo for non profit. he isn't selling your photo... he's selling the gecko.

He was using my photography (my property, copyrighted) without my permission, for the sole purpose of making money. And no, he can not use my photo for profit (which he was) or non profit.
There are laws and rules, he needs to abide by them, and you obviously need to learn them.

 

[Leif]

Guy, very nice website. There is an error that I stumbled upon in respect to Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus. It's just "Rough-Snouted Gecko" and not "Rough-Snouted Giant Gecko". The only Giant Gecko, using this common name, is the Rhacodactylus leachianus. However, both have a greater and lesser subspecies.

 

[skanndelus]

i read the whole thread. he isn't selling your photo, he is selling a gecko you have a photo of. you posted the photo on a public website. technically anyone can use that photo for non profit purposes... e.g. not selling the PHOTO.

if you KNOW differently and can prove it with legal docs online or wherever go ahead, otherwise it's a pointless discussion to have... this whole thing is.

i do KNOW that calling someone a THIEF is in fact LIBEL, not slander, published false written statements about someone. i don't think any of you can prove that this guy STOLE from anyone.

grow up people.

 

[xreinx]

thats false advertising On most websites, and have you ever heard of Copyright laws? he didnt give permission.

Plus, Guy is Using it for personal gain. again Illegal.

they made an agreement.. does that not matter anymore? just cause you didnt sign, or shake on it, dosent mean it ISNT binding... or your Ideals diffrent from what they SHOULD be?

remind me to beware of the people who Agree with Guy on this, in the future.

 

[skanndelus]

everyone PLEASE stop pulling the word illegal out of your ass and post some actual REAL info on ACTUAL laws, i don't trust some random person on the internet to tell me what the laws are.

 

[hezekiah]

i read the whole thread. he isn't selling your photo, he is selling a gecko you have a photo of. you posted the photo on a public website. technically anyone can use that photo for non profit purposes... e.g. not selling the PHOTO.

if you KNOW differently and can prove it with legal docs online or wherever go ahead, otherwise it's a pointless discussion to have... this whole thing is.

i do KNOW that calling someone a THIEF is in fact LIBEL, not slander, published false written statements about someone. i don't think any of you can prove that this guy STOLE from anyone.

grow up people.

I may be out of line here, but it took you 5 years to post 3 posts, all of which are in this thread? You are within 1 hr (ish) drive of Temecula; am I correct in assuming that you are here merely to defend a personal friend/acquaintance?

 

[bobtard]

i read the whole thread. he isn't selling your photo, he is selling a gecko you have a photo of. you posted the photo on a public website. technically anyone can use that photo for non profit purposes... e.g. not selling the PHOTO.

if you KNOW differently and can prove it with legal docs online or wherever go ahead, otherwise it's a pointless discussion to have... this whole thing is.

i do KNOW that calling someone a THIEF is in fact LIBEL, not slander, published false written statements about someone. i don't think any of you can prove that this guy STOLE from anyone.

grow up people.

First of all, this is a privately owned website. The rules are set in place by the owner(s). And I'm pretty sure using someone elses photo without their permission is against said rules. Him stealing my photo (therefore, technically making him a theif) is false? Stealing doesn't have to involve an actual, physical item being stolen, it's called "content theft". Just do a search on stealing COPYRIGHTED CONTENT.

 

[ididit]

Where exactly are you getting your photo usage info? Technically? Really? You have NO idea what you are talking about. Every time that a camera is clicked and an image is made it has has a copyright by the photographer. Does not matter one bit if it is for profit or not. You are making a TOTAL idiot of yourself. Do some research before post about topics you do not understand. WOW..... The world wide web is not a free for all. You cannot take something just because it is there.
If you take a newspaper and reprint it from their site or put it on your site with written permission you will be sued. HELLO a photo is no different. Two final words for you... Intellectual Property Look it up.

 

[Crissy]

Let's take away the legal factors in this situation, I for one, would not want to buy from a seller who is flipping animals or using photos that is not their own. At least put forth the effort to take your own photos.

When someone is 'flipping animals' it screams to me that they do not care for the animals wellbeing, and that a proper quarantine procedure wasn't followed. I want a seller to have possession of a animal for at least a month for gosh sakes.

Also, the seller IS profiting from the photo (or the use of it), indirectly but he is still profiting. Not to mention it IS a copyright infringement.

i read the whole thread. he isn't selling your photo, he is selling a gecko you have a photo of. you posted the photo on a public website. technically anyone can use that photo for non profit purposes... e.g. not selling the PHOTO.

if you KNOW differently and can prove it with legal docs online or wherever go ahead, otherwise it's a pointless discussion to have... this whole thing is.

i do KNOW that calling someone a THIEF is in fact LIBEL, not slander, published false written statements about someone. i don't think any of you can prove that this guy STOLE from anyone.

grow up people.

 

[reticguy76]

all you have to do is look up the law (particularly copyright laws). i never rely on people anywhere to inform me of anything, if i question or have an issue with it, i look it up for myself.
however, you will find that most are right on this copyright law. buy again, dont take my or anyones word on it, look up the law for yourself

 

[Mister Internet]

as for him using your photo, it is fair use. you posted it on a public website, anyone can use your for photo for non profit. he isn't selling your photo... he's selling the gecko.

This is completely and unequivocally incorrect. Your statement illustrates that you know absolutely nothing about copyright law, Fair Use (it's capitalized since it's the proper name of a named caveat to Title 17), or business ethics, and can't believe that in the year 2010 people still think everything they find on the Internet is "Free". Mind-boggling. I've been involved with website development in professional capacities for almost 16 years now, and everything you have stated above is just flat our wrong.

Someone owns an AUTOMATIC copyright on a photograph AS SOON AS THEY HIT THE SHUTTER BUTTON. Period. It is automatic, and it lasts the entire life of the photographer (plus 70 additional years). Copyright protection means that the photograph has become your personal real and intellectual property, and ANYONE that wants to use it must be granted your permission. Copyright infringement is the USE of photos that have COPYRIGHT PROTECTION (all photos taken after 1/1/1978 fall into this category) WITHOUT the express permission of the author... whether by granted permission, or sale of license or ownership. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU "MAKE MONEY" with the photograph or not, I don't know why people keep saying this!! Copyright infringement is ANY USE without the permission of the author. Period. End of story. Money, making money, the intent to make money, whether or not you made money, or money changing hands are all COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

By the way, "Non-Proft" or "Not-For-Profit" is a SPECIFIC, LEGAL tax-exempt designation granted to particular entities that meet the requirements for 503(c) Not For Profit status. It is not some catch-all phrase that covers "any time we're not making money", or "well, I wasn't really selling THAT, now was I?". It is a crime to claim to be a "not for profit" organization when you are not, so I'd be very careful with that term in the future if I were you.

Also, "Fair Use" is a particular caveat to Federal Title 17 Copyright Law, meaning that people who want to create derivative works for purposes of education, parody, satire, etc are granted the right to derive from the copyrighted work... under the AUSPICES of a clause called "Fair Use". "Fair Use" is not just an adjective you can slap on any situation where you feel you ought to be able to use something without paying for it.

I hope you enjoyed this free lesson... and I hope you quit posting about stuff you have absolutely no clue about. There are lots of resources out there if you actually care about learning things before you spout off about them. I'm just trying to save you from future ridicule here.

 

[ididit]

typing to fast.... if you take a newspaper article / without written permission...sorry.

 

[skanndelus]

even if i'm wrong, big deal. the guy's butthurt that someone might make more money on a gecko he sold for less. that's the issue. you're all a bunch of cry babies with too much time on their hands.

*cry* *cry* copyrighted *cry* *cry* making more money than me *cry* *cry*
*life's not fair*

get a life

 

[reticguy76]

This is completely and unequivocally incorrect. Your statement illustrates that you know absolutely nothing about copyright law, Fair Use (it's capitalized since it's the proper name of a named caveat to Title 17), or business ethics, and can't believe that in the year 2010 people still think everything they find on the Internet is "Free". Mind-boggling. I've been involved with website development in professional capacities for almost 16 years now, and everything you have stated above is just flat our wrong.

Someone owns an AUTOMATIC copyright on a photograph AS SOON AS THEY HIT THE SHUTTER BUTTON. Period. It is automatic, and it lasts the entire life of the photographer (plus 70 additional years). Copyright protection means that the photograph has become your personal real and intellectual property, and ANYONE that wants to use it must be granted your permission. Copyright infringement is the USE of photos that have COPYRIGHT PROTECTION (all photos taken after 1/1/1978 fall into this category) WITHOUT the express permission of the author... whether by granted permission, or sale of license or ownership. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU "MAKE MONEY" with the photograph or not, I don't know why people keep saying this!! Copyright infringement is ANY USE without the permission of the author. Period. End of story. Money, making money, the intent to make money, whether or not you made money, or money changing hands are all COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

By the way, "Non-Proft" or "Not-For-Profit" is a SPECIFIC, LEGAL tax-exempt designation granted to particular entities that meet the requirements for 503(c) Not For Profit status. It is not some catch-all phrase that covers "any time we're not making money", or "well, I wasn't really selling THAT, now was I?". It is a crime to claim to be a "not for profit" organization when you are not, so I'd be very careful with that term in the future if I were you.

Also, "Fair Use" is a particular caveat to Federal Title 17 Copyright Law, meaning that people who want to create derivative works for purposes of education, parody, satire, etc are granted the right to derive from the copyrighted work... under the AUSPICES of a clause called "Fair Use". "Fair Use" is not just an adjective you can slap on any situation where you feel you ought to be able to use something without paying for it.

I hope you enjoyed this free lesson... and I hope you quit posting about stuff you have absolutely no clue about. There are lots of resources out there if you actually care about learning things before you spout off about them. I'm just trying to save you from future ridicule here.

this post should just about clear all your non-knowledge of copyright laws right up

 

[reticguy76]

even if i'm wrong, big deal. the guy's butthurt that someone might make more money on a gecko he sold for less. that's the issue. you're all a bunch of cry babies with too much time on their hands.

*cry* *cry* copyrighted *cry* *cry* making more money than me *cry* *cry*
*life's not fair*

get a life

if that isnt the pot callin the kettle black

 

[skanndelus]

*cry*

 

[ozz465]

even if i'm wrong, big deal. the guy's butthurt that someone might make more money on a gecko he sold for less. that's the issue. you're all a bunch of cry babies with too much time on their hands.

*cry* *cry* copyrighted *cry* *cry* making more money than me *cry* *cry*
*life's not fair*

get a life

SO when someone proves you wrong you turn around and act like a little kid ?? so stealing someones-pic with out permission is right in your eyes?? The original owner had a stipulation on not flipping the animal if sold , while that may not be illegal-its still something people who might potentially buy from guy to know.


also i find it odd that less than 5 post here and you defending someone who does not live far from you . Maybe an IP check is needed?

 

[tenderoni]

if you KNOW differently and can prove it with legal docs online or wherever go ahead, otherwise it's a pointless discussion to have... this whole thing is.

Since you are too lazy and/or dense to do it yourself...
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

technically anyone can use that photo for non profit purposes... e.g. not selling the PHOTO.

Still confused as to how someone selling something for profit is equal to non-profit. He is using the photo for the purpose of profit without consent of the photographer.

 

[Mister Internet]

*cry*

You don't have to get all butt-hurt when someone proves you wrong. There's no shame in being wrong. There's a ton of shame in being wrong and insisting you're right... or is that stupidity. Eh, either will work.

Take your lumps like a man and move on... you're smarter now that you were 6 hours ago, and you didn't even have to pay for it. Insisting that stealing photos still "doesn't matter" after you've been proven wrong is only going to cause people to avoid you in the future... is your future reputation really worth it? Yikes.