Brad Cassagne is a Plagiarist (recognize anything?)

[bmcassagne]

It's not criminal, it's a civil issue, and since there were no damages I would have no liability. I've admitted to anything that was apropriate.

 

[HerpVenue]

I continue to be insulted for things that have nothin to do with this incident. This is why my apology does not sound more sincere.

Actually you continue to be insulted for the following

QUOTE 2- Seems to me like a little more discression from Botar would have been warranted since I've been a customer to them on a couple of occasions, but I guess not. /QUOTE


QUOTE 3- Botar has probably done nothing illegal about all of this. I'm just not the type to hang someone out to dry like all you guys. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance to make things right, but I know I'm in the minority, and the web is a dangerous place for poor judgement. /QUOTE


YOU did wrong.
But Botar should have excercised more discretion. But it is okay, you won't hold it against him because you are such a great guy. As can bee seen in that quote 3.

That is why people continue to insult you. You claim people contort your words. We do not have to. you said it in plain english.

 

[HerpVenue]

It's not criminal, it's a civil issue, and since there were no damages I would have no liability. I've admitted to anything that was apropriate.

Civil issue? is that why they call it a criminal offense?


§ 506. Criminal offenses5
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. - When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. - Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

 

[monkeywrench133]

It's not criminal, it's a civil issue, and since there were no damages I would have no liability. I've admitted to anything that was apropriate.

"What Do I Do If My Copyright Has Been Infringed?

Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice."

From: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

Do you understand now?

 

[DThomas]

It's not criminal, it's a civil issue, and since there were no damages I would have no liability. I've admitted to anything that was apropriate.

Copyright infringement is not a tort offense, it is a criminal offense. You can be sued civilly for it but that does not preclude criminal prosecution. Additionally, there do not have to be actual damages for you to be sued or prosecuted. You are sadly mistaken about that.

 

[bmcassagne]

However, the government must show "that some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the schemer." Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution." "Instead, the deceit must be coupled with a contemplated harm to the victim

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00949.htm

Yes, it says wire fraud but I'm sure the interpretations are the same.

 

[jsrocket]

I don't like your apologies. In a true apology there should be no buts or i am just mad. I don't see where anyone said all your photos were plagiarized. Just that a few were and that was grounds enough to contact wiki directly.

A true apology would be something like ...

I am sorry for what i did ... next time I'll be sure to get permission before i use someone else's photograph.

I think this post says it all. If he had simply done that, this thread would have likely faded away.

 

[bmcassagne]

It continued to be a misdemeanor offense with both willfulness and a financial motive required; the penalties included and imprisonment.

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner66.htm

Good luck showind financial motive for posting on a free encyclopedia.

 

[bmcassagne]

I seriously doubt any of you would have simply apologized after all the attacks on personal character and exaggerated accusations.

 

[monkeywrench133]

This is from the actually applicable statute regarding Copyright Infringement, which is NOT the same as wire fraud:

"1847 Criminal Copyright Infringement -- 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319

The principal criminal statute protecting copyrighted works is 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), which provides that "[a]ny person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" shall be punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Section 2319 provides, in pertinent part, that a 5-year felony shall apply if the offense "consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500." 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1).

The 1992 amendments to section 2319 have made it possible to pursue felony level sanctions for violations relating to all types of copyrighted works, including computer software and other works written, stored or transmitted in a digital format, if the other elements of the statute are satisfied. Felony penalties only attach to violations of a victim's rights of reproduction or distribution in the quantity stated. A misdemeanor shall apply if the defendant does not meet the numerical and monetary thresholds, or if the defendant is involved in the infringement of the other rights bestowed upon the copyright holder, including the right to prepare derivative works, or the right to publicly perform a copyrighted work.

There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Attempts to infringe are prohibited to the same extent as the completed act. Conspiracies to violate the Act can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 371. A minority of courts also require that the government prove the absence of a first sale, and refer to this as a fifth element of a section 506(a) offense. However, the majority position is that the absence of a first sale is an affirmative defense. Thus, the government does not need to allege it in the indictment or to present initially evidence to negate the defense. See this Manual at 1854.

The elements of criminal copyright infringement are discussed in the following sections."

From: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01847.htm

usdoj = United States Department of Justice

This is the federal statute you have admitted to violating.

And just to be clear, Misdemeanors ARE considered crimes.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[monkeywrench133]

I seriously doubt any of you would have simply apologized after all the attacks on personal character and exaggerated accusations.

Jackass, you just don't get it.

None of us would have stolen the pictures in the first place.

 

[bmcassagne]

Surprise more name calling.

And oh ya, read your own quotes...

There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

 

[HerpVenue]

I seriously doubt any of you would have simply apologized after all the attacks on personal character and exaggerated accusations.

which came first?

the attacks on personal character and exaggerated accusations.

or

half A$$ed apology where you turned things around and blamed the owners of the pics?

 

[monkeywrench133]

(1) that a valid copyright; (which Randy had)

(2) was infringed by the defendant; (which you've admitted to doing)

(3) willfully; (again, you've admitted to)

and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Simple enough: You use Randy's photo on Wikipedia to make people think you're a better photographer than you are, and its clear from your myspace page that photography is something you dabble in, then you offer to sell them any of the other photos you've stolen from copyrighted sources.

And the statute does not say that you have to have recieved personal profit, only that the intent of the copyright infringement was personal gain.

 

[bmcassagne]

photography is something you dabble in, then you offer to sell them any of the other photos you've stolen from copyrighted sources.

That's called libel buddy and that's just as much grounds for a suit as copyright infringement.

"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

This is a waste of time anyway, I'll handle this further by e-mailing Ray.

 

[monkeywrench133]

I have been accused of gross copyright infringement, which is absurd. I can't think of more than 3 or 4 of the photos that were not actually mine.

Your own words.

3 or 4 photos that were not actually yours equals photos you've stolen from other sources.

And his name is Randy, not Ray by the way.

 

[Jim O]

All of my photos have been banned from Wiki, which I put quite a few hours of work into. Considering my actions have caused no real damage, I think that's a bit excessive, but I guess it doesn't matter now.

That's Wiki's call but I consider it the correct one. You cannot be trusted to function within their honor system. You freely admit to having stolen images and cropped them to remove copyright information so as to get around Wiki's policy. What should the response be? Would a slap on the wrist and go back to the playground be appropriate? They have strict rules and zero tolerance for a reason. You broke the rules, you were caught, and now you are paying the applicable penalty. End of discussion.

 

[monkeywrench133]

That's called libel buddy and that's just as much grounds for a suit as copyright infringement.

"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

This is a waste of time anyway, I'll handle this further by e-mailing Ray.

All I was doing was replying to the question you implied in this statement:

"Good luck showind financial motive for posting on a free encyclopedia."

 

[monkeywrench133]

Good luck showind financial motive for posting on a free encyclopedia.

That's from post #48 by the way.

 

[HerpVenue]

yeah work it out through e-mail.

Good luck to both of you.

by the way this would have and could have ended within your first post. all you had to do was take responsibility instead of trying to turn it around on them by saying they should have contacted you.