Copy right laws and Tim Bowels

[W.Wedeking]

I have to agree with Stardust and Matt here. Just replace the photo with one you have taken. From everything I have read, this Tim guy isn't worth the time or hassle. Why even be associated with him in any way?

 

[jim scharphorn]

Thanks everyone for your opinions.

I had the picture that Tim took because it was a very nice picture.
And I did not think I was in the wrong by having the picture,Tim and I, I thought were freinds before this went wrong last summer.

I decided Tim did not deserve the credit he was given when I was complimented by others on how nice of a picture it was.
So I have removed the picture from my website.




www.coolcrittersbylj.com

 

[Ghi Reptiles]

It is a nice picture to have Jim but I think you have made the mature choice between the two of you. Take it easy!

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

Definitely a smart move Jim.

 

[HerpVenue]

Here is one for you all.

I know tim owns the picture and Jim owns the animal and Tim can do whatever he wanted.


Now here is one for you.

Lets say a stranger broke into my home. tied up the wife and I.
Took naked pictures of my baby. Then untied us and left.
Then he posted the pictures on the porn sites.
Well I know he will get into trouble for kiddie porn.

BUT.

1. Can I kill him?
2. Will he still own the copyright?
3. Can I get the negatives and the pictures that now clearly belongs to him and burn it?
4. Can I kill him again after I kill him the first time?


Hypothetical of course.
Why did I think this?
Because what if Jim does not want pictures of that certain animal posted anywhere.....but what if Tim decided to post it everywhere anyway?

Just wondering I guess.

Wait is this the Tim that injected an animal with fluids to make it look healthy? Then sold it then it died. then he is suing? Or is that a different tim?

 

[dvf1973]

Exactly that Tim

I would think killing the person that took the pics, as long as he was already dead would be totally legal if you were to kill him again, the laws may get you for the first murder, but its not illegal to remurder the same person? And now that hes dead-again. might as well steal the pics as who cares? You just commited a murder and a kinda murder. Is this still hypothetical?

 

[jim scharphorn]

Ritchie, Yes same Tim.
And yes same Tim and same snake that he sent me, no money down with a date that I told him I would pay for it, and then 2 weeks before that date he had this same Lawyer send me a letter to pay up now or be summonds.
But that letter actually came from the Lawyer.

 

[W.Wedeking]

Well Ritchie, that is a little dramatic but .....

If you were to kill him, it would be considered a "crime of passion" and most juries would aquit you.

However, since the man used illegal methods to take illegal photographs, he would not be eligible for copyright under those premises.

Even though Jim owns the animal, Tim still owns the picture (I really don't think it is the same thing as kiddy porn). It wasn't Jims animal at the time the picture was taken and as long as Tim isn't representing it as still belonging to him I don't think it is actually "wrong". (yes, this sucks even though he is not a very nice person)

I would liken it more to:

You have been taking pictures of your daughter through out her whole life and now she goes off to college and gets married (don't have a heart attack it is a long way off yet).

Are the baby pictures you took of her when she was 6 months old still yours to show everybody? Even though she is out on her own now?

I know, not as dramatic, but I think it is more comparable to this situation.

 

[W.Wedeking]

Oh! I forgot number 4...sorry,
I think there are actually laws that prohibit you from "killing" an already dead person. I don't know them exactly....but the scary part is that it must have happened often enough to make laws against it. Yuck!

 

[Rob @ RK Reptiles]

Wendy,

You are correct. There are a few different crimes against a cadaver that can be prosecuted. Mutilation, a.k.a. "killing a dead body" is one of them that is prosecutable in most states in the US.

 

[Darin Chappell]

Just a "for what it's worth" post here, but I called the number of the law office listed, and it apepars to be what is represented in that email. I was told that "Brett was out of the office today," and I didn't get into it any deeper with the receptionist.

If the actual attorney wrote that email, I would have problems about it, as a client. 1) It's an email...Duh!; 2) It's poorly written grammar-wise, I mean; and 3) It even has improper syntax "armature?!?!?" Does this guy use a legal secretary, or even a spell-checker on his computer???

At any rate, Jim, I'm glad you acted as you did. But I would have probably jerked Tim and his lawyer around a bit before giving in on the deal.

 

[Pennebaker]

Also, there is a whole different set of laws when it comes to taking photos of people. In order to publically display photos of individuals (humans) (pornographic or not), you need their consent.



Dana

 

[GinoInDaBronx]

FYI

The lawyer mentioned by tim is definitely real. He advertises
in 'Reptiles' magazine quite often. Here is a sample:

Legal Trouble?
Wanted: Herp-Related Legal Issues
Brett E. Nelson
Attorney at Law
Phone: 317-637-0700
Fax: 317-637-0712
E-mail: [email protected]
1346 N. Delaware St. Indianapolis, IN 46202-2413
Plews Shadley Racher & Braun: Attorneys At Law


Now, with that having been said, I would like to know:
1. why he is emailing you from tim's wife's account.
2. why he is emailing you at all-any intelligent lawyer (oxymoron, i know) would mail it to you.
3. 'armature'? either this lawyer is infinitely stupid, or he didnt send it at all. i would email him to find out. be sure to CC it to everyone at his firm (just to annoy him).

Sincerely,

Gino 'In Da Bronx' Beniquez

 

[jim scharphorn]

Gino, I and I would think that everyone else knows that it came from Tim and not his Lawyer.
It was made to look like it came from the lawyer but he slipped by using his wifes e-mail address ( Did he not know that when I recieved the e-mail it had his wifes name on who it was from, Duh, ) and it is signed Tim Bowels then the lawyers name and firm.
And I think most of us know of this lawyer.
I have forwarded the e-mail to his firm. I am just waiting to here back from him.

 

[beastie]

about his copyright argument...

while tim technically does hold the copyright for this pic, his 'reasoning' has nothing to do with actual law...

his "lawyer" (another issue all together, the guys not even a partner. check out the website: http://www.psrb.com/index_files/attorneys.htm)

anyway... his lawyer said that tim held the copyright because he 'has had photos published'... and is an armature... lol.

anyway, the point is whether or not tim has published photos is completely irrelevant to whether or not he holds the copyright. the instant he takes a picture he holds the copyright on it. it doesn't have to be published, it doesn't have to have his name on it, he just has to be able to prove he took it himself. (negs, digital signature from camera, etc...) (i love Communication Law...)

the fact that his "lawyer" thought his being published was a significant factor in the copyright of an unpublished picture leads me to believe that....


tim is pretending to have a lawyer he read about in Reptiles... also the only lawyer i've seen advertise in Reptiles... also a lawyer from my town...

his ego pretty much gives him away on this one, not to mention his wifes email addy, and "armature..."

i say you follow up with the lawyer, and see if tim *really did* contact him before impersonating him...


Bryan Cantwell

 

[richard till]

This is my pic now isnt it pretty?

I saw this picture on Tim Bowles's website and wondered if the fat useless waste of space would sue me if I used it.

I dont think so I think that its mine now to use how I wish.

C'mon tubby get your legal team onto it!

I think you are all mouth Timbo but lets see shall we?-I very much doubt if a man who scoops up pooh for a living can afford the luxury of lawsuits over worthless snake photos but lets see.

Lookin forward to hearing from your lawyers Timothy you salad dodging desperado.

Since the author of this post is blatantly admitting that he took this photo from another site and posted it here without the owner of the photo's permission, I had no choice but to remove it. The author of this message is welcome to post photographs of this kind on his own website as he sees fitting and proper.

-WebSlave-

 

[TimCoplan]

Jim, Id put the picture back up on your site just to pisshim off. He is not going to sue you. Isnt all copyright laws taken away when the picture is posted on a public forum?


Anyone have a picture of tim bowles? Just curious to see what he looks like!

 

[artfan1]

I don't think you understand how serious this is...

I don't know anything about the guy who took the photo. And I wasn't even going to post here because I am not directly involved. BUT, when the talk of knowingly stealing other peoples photos just to "show them", becomes part of this forum, I do have something to say.

I read the rules for posting here on the BOI. And though Rich doesn't recommend posting links to other sites, I am going to because the amount of text involved is enough to warrant it, I think. Plus, I doubt the links will become dead anytime in the future.

First of all, just because you buy the snake from someone, you don't have the right to use the photos the previous owner took. They photo is copyrighted the second he snapped the shutter on the camera. And unless he gives you written permission to use it, you are not allowed. Even in the UK. I think the UK has even tougher laws.

If I buy a snake from [insert big name breeder here], I don't get the privilege of using his/her photos now on my site. By the same token, if I buy a snake from [insert big name breeder here], and take a photo of my new snake, the breeder doesn't have a right to the photo either. I actually had a breeder fuss at me because I took some photos of my snakes and failed to include his name on the photo as the original breeder. That was an oversight and I added it. I meant to anyway because I wanted to give credit. But actually, he doesn't now have the right to come get that photo and use it because he once bred, hatched, owned the snake. They are two completely different entities.

And just because someone posts their own photo in a public forum, that DOESN'T make if a public domain image. Many quality breeders post photos to help others out. That doesn't mean that now I can steal that photo and use it on my site without permission.

If you really care about what the laws truly are and you don't want to read about kiddy porn, and murder then go to THE source. www.copyright.gov . If you want to download the PDF file of the US copyright laws in it's entirety then here is a direct link to that http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

If you don't want to sift through the almost 300 pages of copyright laws just to find out how it pertains to photos. Then go to www.photo.net. More specifically http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007J50 . They have extracted the photo part.

I don't want you guys to really get yourself into trouble thumbing your noses at this guy. He might just have the resources to make an example out of you. Though I doubt it, it's not worth the risk.

Hope this help,
Troy Dozier

 

[The BoidSmith]

Troy,

Thanks for posting that link. It provides a source of unbiased, accurate information.

As for your statement in the quote:

I actually had a breeder fuss at me because I took some photos of my snakes and failed to include his name on the photo as the original breeder. That was an oversight and I added it. I meant to anyway because I wanted to give credit.

Was he serious? You bought the snakes and they are now your property. Are you saying that every time you take a picture of YOUR snakes the breeder wants recognition because he was the one who produced them? When will his right on the snakes end then?

Kindly.

 

[artfan1]

A little more details...

Troy,

...
Was he serious? You bought the snakes and they are now your property. Are you saying that every time you take a picture of YOUR snakes the breeder wants recognition because he was the one who produced them? When will his right on the snakes end then?

Kindly.

Sorry, I guess I should have given more details on that part.

He didn't think he had a legal right to his name being added to the photo. But he was under the impression that by me photographing my own snake, (which he had hatched and sold to me), that I might be giving the impression that I was showing it as my own. (Something that I had hatched).

When in fact, I was just showing the lineage of my collection. Mothers, fathers, etc. He knew I had bought the snake from him, and wanted me to put "acquired from so and so" on the photo. I did, and didn't mind. But, if for some reason, I felt I no longer wanted to be associated with that person, I have a right to leave his name off. But I would never say, "I hatch this snake". That would be wrong. I bought the snake as a hatchling, and raised it up. So it was by far, now my snake and showed, my care of the snake.

The thing is, in the case of photos and copyrights, the subject matter and the photo itself are different issues. If I snuck into a big name breeders facility and took some great pictures of his snakes, without permission, those photos are no longer usable by me. I may own the rights to the photos but actually, I photographed something in a private setting without permission. BUT, if I went to a large public gathering and that same person had a table with snake on it, I could photograph the snakes and display them on my web site if the photos was part of a "news" type page. In other words, I put it on a page that says, "Had a great time at the show, look who was there and look at their snakes". This falls under the "Fair Use" clause. The the fair use clause CAN be challenge by the owner of the subject matter. How do you think the paparazzi make so much money? Celebs in the public settings can't stop me from taking their photos. BUT, if I buy a ticket to a concert and take their photo, watch out. They will sue me. That's why subject matter has less to do with copyright than the person who took the photo. Even if you now own that subject matter.

Troy Dozier