Arnaud Moi - [email protected] from Spain - BAD GUY - stole $4800 from us

[WebSlave]

I think someone used an automated translator for this email. Maybe someone else can figure out what he is actually talking about...

----- Original Message -----
From: sébastien moillard
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 4:31 AM
Subject: privacy


Hello
I have been informed that photos of me had been issued.
More they shall contain pictures of my nephew.
The moderation of a forum should check it and protect people's privacy.
The pictures don't correspond with the topic of the post.
I am sorry but I don't see where I am responsible and my nephew, too.
I think that the person concerned has contacted Ms. Kelli and you also received a request for elimination of these photos on its part.
In this case, it is my person and my nephew. So you eliminate that and you come into contact with me.
Here is the link of photos :
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111697&page=5&pp=5

Now, it's very simple :
I ask you to delete these photos from your forum.
I ask you to give me all the details of the administrator for direct contact because I need them to call you and communicate the information to my lawyer.
I am not asking for the elimination of the post but I just want you remove photos that do nothing and who are my privacy.
I also know that I contacted my family lawyer for the prosecution via computer commison and freedom if this is not done.
I think you will understand that the photos have nothing to do with the subject.
It seems to me that the dispute is resolved.
Regards



Sébastien Moillard.
Pizzeria Chez Sebastien
Especialidades Italiana y Francesa.
[email protected]

 

[The BoidSmith]

Seems the "Scammer for dummies" has been translated into French. Chapter one, playing the lawyer card...

 

[Wraith]

if I remember rightly photos of the supposed individual (one of which did show a child with the person) were publicly posted on another site (a photo hosting site i believe) and simply just copied here. The photos were found in the public domain so no privacy issues are involved. If he didn't want people to have access to the photos then he should not have uploaded them to a publicly accessible website. seems simple to me.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

if I remember rightly photos of the supposed individual (one of which did show a child with the person) were publicly posted on another site (a photo hosting site i believe) and simply just copied here. The photos were found in the public domain so no privacy issues are involved. If he didn't want people to have access to the photos then he should not have uploaded them to a publicly accessible website. seems simple to me.

I agree! If those photos were posted on a public photo gallery, they are public.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Hasn't been resolved until Kelli has been paidinfull for all the stolen geckos.

The pictures were posted in a very publicly accessible account online with pictures of stolen property. Screenshots have been taken to show that the pictures were posted to the photobucket account (which was public and not private) and that account included pictures of stolen property and the images of the persons linked within this thread. Pictures taken of the stolen geckos were taken after their theft.

Furthermore, the photobucket account can be directly linked back to the poster on Kelli's site who posted those pictures and stated that he had possession of the geckos which are known to be stolen.

The IPs used on that account and associated IPs and email addresses, user names for posts on other forums containing images also linked to the photobucket account can all be linked back to the same owner.

I think you want the owner of the photobucket account. I have a hunch you just might find him in the mirror.

Pay Kelli and others back what you scammed. I'm sure if you do, must wouldn't be very interested in reposting screenshots of pictures posted freely and without restraint in the public domain.

As far as myself, I have no desire to destroy my screenshots of evidence of a crime that was freely posted and distributed online that I have stored within my personal property. Unless of course, I decide there is no reason to keep them.

 

[KelliH]

I'm still waiting for therest of the money, no other updates.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

I think you want the owner of the photobucket account.

If you need help finding him I can give you a list of IP addresses and email addresses he has used for the last few years.

It seems the French authorities are very interested in talking to this person as well.
If you like, I could help your lawyer contact the proper French authorities? Anything to help.

Sincerely.

 

[Golden Gate Geckos]

Nicolas Gourai... this is for you:

You are a criminal and a liar, and deserve to go to prison for theft and fraud. I know for a fact that the photo is of YOU and your SON! You are insulting the intelligence of us by continuing to lie about being yet another person, and claiming the child is your nephew.

If you do not repay Kelli and Alberto for the thousands of dollars worth of geckos you STOLE, I will be happy to post that public photo of you and your son on the front page of my website for the entire world to see... letting everyone know you are a CRIMINAL.

If you continue to make threats of a lawsuit, be assured that you will have EVERY reptile breeder in the US and Europe at your heels.

 

[WebSlave]

Just so there is no mistake, I am not in the LEAST concerned about this threatened lawsuit. Getting threats like this is pretty routine now.

What I was concerned about was the possible inference that the photo was not actually of the party this thread is about. I could not really figure out what the email was saying, and I was hoping others could clarify it for me.

In NO event will the photos be removed from this thread by my own doing.

 

[Chameleon Company]

All Prices US $

Some food to feed your stolen geckos ...... $1.50

A digital camera to take photos of them ...... $275

A computer to be able to post those photos on the internet ..... $600

Including your son in the photo which becomes your internet mug shot .... Priceless

 

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

Well, I see nothing to be gained by posting a kid's picture on the internet, no matter what Dad is accused of....

Can he be photoshopped out or have his face blurred??

 

[Wraith]

Well, I see nothing to be gained by posting a kid's picture on the internet, no matter what Dad is accused of....

Can he be photoshopped out or have his face blurred??

The person who owns the photo is responsible for photo shopping out whatever they don't want the world at large to see in it when they choose to publicly post it for the world at large to see in a publicly accessible photo website. No one here did anything wrong by copying the photo because the photo was ALREADY on the internet by the person who took the photo.

 

[Chameleon Company]

Lloyd,
I have no problem understanding the decency of your concern. I am just not one to be so decent. My argument would be that the internet has millions of pictures of fathers and sons on it. Many reptile folks show off their families in their business websites. Arnaud actions compromised what otherwise would have been just more innocent pictures of a father and a son. Avoiding further disgrace to one's family is also a strong motivator to make things right and mitigate the disgrace. It is highly likely that if Arnaud makes things right, this thread will fade to oblivion.

 

[lanceheads]

Jim,
You NAILED it!

Randal

 

[dsirkle]

It looks to me like this guy has been running a con game for a while and has had a good number of victims around the World. Now that he has tried to victimize the wrong person and ended up being quickly exposed by the BOI for who he is and where he is and what he looks like he wants to feign being an indignant concerned parent (or uncle as it were). Too bad! Settle up first! Then ask for some slack.

 

[Jim O]

if I remember rightly photos of the supposed individual (one of which did show a child with the person) were publicly posted on another site (a photo hosting site i believe) and simply just copied here. The photos were found in the public domain so no privacy issues are involved. If he didn't want people to have access to the photos then he should not have uploaded them to a publicly accessible website. seems simple to me.

Not that I give a crap about this guy's photos, but there is nothing that is "public domain" about those photos. That misconception is 100% fallacious. Linking to them when they are posted and publicly accessible is likely permissible. Copying them and storing them on another server, which has been done here, likely is a violation of the copyright of the photo. A photograph is copyright of the maker of the photo unless ownership of the copyright has been transferred. Depending on the country, this copyright extends even after the death of the photographer. That's why people get upset (and rightly so) when people use their photos without permission. There is the concept of "fair use", but I doubt that these images fall under that category by any reasonable person's stretch of that term.

I'm not suggesting that the images be removed. As I said, it doesn't matter to me. I will say that if my images were being used without permission and I wanted them down, I would pull the photos from the Photobucket server (or wherever they are posted) and send an email to the owner of the site where they are being used. If that didn't work, I would then email the host of the server on which they reside and make a DMCA complaint about use of my copyright material. Generally that will get the image(s) taken down.

 

[Craigh]

I highly don't think this Lair/thief is going to get a lawyer and sue. With all the trouble and other thefts he has committed the last thing I would think is him getting the law involved.. Lets hope Kelly and everyone else he defrauded will get reimbursed (sorry for the life of me can't spell) in full ..

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Not that I give a crap about this guy's photos, but there is nothing that is "public domain" about those photos. That misconception is 100% fallacious. Linking to them when they are posted and publicly accessible is likely permissible. Copying them and storing them on another server, which has been done here, likely is a violation of the copyright of the photo. A photograph is copyright of the maker of the photo unless ownership of the copyright has been transferred. Depending on the country, this copyright extends even after the death of the photographer. That's why people get upset (and rightly so) when people use their photos without permission. There is the concept of "fair use", but I doubt that these images fall under that category by any reasonable person's stretch of that term.

I'm not suggesting that the images be removed. As I said, it doesn't matter to me. I will say that if my images were being used without permission and I wanted them down, I would pull the photos from the Photobucket server (or wherever they are posted) and send an email to the owner of the site where they are being used. If that didn't work, I would then email the host of the server on which they reside and make a DMCA complaint about use of my copyright material. Generally that will get the image(s) taken down.

Proprietary Rights in Content on Photobucket.

Photobucket.com Terms of Use Agreement

6.1 Photobucket does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Photobucket Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services. Photobucket and/or other Users may copy, print or display publicly available Content outside of the Photobucket Services, including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content). After you remove your Content from the Photobucket Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license to such Content will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the Photobucket Website you change the Content’s privacy setting to "private," we will cease any further distribution of such "private" Content outside the Photobucket Website as soon as practicable.

The account was marked public not private.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

I wonder what the copyright rules are on taking a picture of a picture?

 

[WebSlave]

Not that I give a crap about this guy's photos, but there is nothing that is "public domain" about those photos. That misconception is 100% fallacious. Linking to them when they are posted and publicly accessible is likely permissible. Copying them and storing them on another server, which has been done here, likely is a violation of the copyright of the photo. A photograph is copyright of the maker of the photo unless ownership of the copyright has been transferred. Depending on the country, this copyright extends even after the death of the photographer. That's why people get upset (and rightly so) when people use their photos without permission. There is the concept of "fair use", but I doubt that these images fall under that category by any reasonable person's stretch of that term.

I'm not suggesting that the images be removed. As I said, it doesn't matter to me. I will say that if my images were being used without permission and I wanted them down, I would pull the photos from the Photobucket server (or wherever they are posted) and send an email to the owner of the site where they are being used. If that didn't work, I would then email the host of the server on which they reside and make a DMCA complaint about use of my copyright material. Generally that will get the image(s) taken down.

I seriously doubt it.... In my opinion, the use for which the photos were posted was a FAIR use of those photos. They were used strictly for the purpose of identifying someone allegedly engaging in criminal activity. As such, they definitely serve a useful purpose which I doubt anyone would consider as "unfair".