<< WORLD GOES GAZA ~ MAIN ~ JILLHAD >>
IMAGE SEARED
Blogger Jeremy Sear threatens legal action against anybody who publishes his cat pictures:
Theft of such an image is, of course, covered by the Copyright Act 1968. Those who claim their theft is “fair use” might want to read sections 40-42 of the Act. Simply copying a photograph of someone’s cat is extremely unlikely to qualify as “fair dealing for purpose of research or study” (s40), “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” (s41) or “fair dealing for purpose of reporting news” (s42).
Oddly, copyright hardliner Sear (below) frequently publishes borrowed images at his own site.
(Reproduced on the basis of “fair dealing for purpose of reporting news about a guy who is extremely protective of his cat photographs”, section 42 of the Copyright Act 1968)
UPDATE. A clarification from Sear on those Bolt images:
I’m only linking to the copies on the [Herald Sun] site. I’m not publishing my own copies ...
Bandwidth thief. News Ltd should bill him.
UPDATE II. Sear has also stolen bandwidth from a resource guide to the handicapped.
UPDATE III. An incomplete list of organisations and individuals from whom Sear has stolen bandwidth over the past year:
The Wichita Eagle (in the sidebar of his main page)
Booksamillion.com
Namco
The Age (at least nine times)
Saxton Business Speaker Bureau
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
NOW magazine
ABC (at least twice)
Answers in Genesis
NSW Education Department
The University of Kentucky
The University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ask Tog
Herald Sun (at least 16 times)
MontyPythonPages.com
Lisa Rein
The Washington Post
Princeton University
ReadyMade magazine
Collecting Books and Magazines
Ambience Entertainment
Victorian Liberal Party
Thanksgiving.org.au
Boing Boing
BBC (at least twice)
European Space Agency
Tracey’s Space
Moore Educational
The Sydney Morning Herald
Handicapped Hunting Resource Guide
And others.
Wow, that’s Jeremy. He’s very young isn’t he? Doesn’t look old enough to go to a bar, let alone be a member of the bar.
Cripes, that’s a bit rich. Jezza’s pinched Bolt’s pictures. I’m not making a comment about that because I always pinch pictures. However, how rich that he complains about it when it comes to his cat.
If anyone would like a picture of my pussy (sorry, I’m so low brow), they are $5.00 a pop. It’s $4.75 for me and $0.25 for my cat, Jack.
Posted by Major Anya on 2006 03 25 at 02:44 AM • permalinkand this twerp is a barrister . . . . that’ll make the kids obey the law.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 03 25 at 03:20 AM • permalinkI’d say young master Sear heard about Copyright Law in his work experience class last week and now wants to show his mum & dad how grownup he is by making threats.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 25 at 03:21 AM • permalinkhis “i’m suppressing a fart” expression is particularly touching.
Posted by benson swears a lot on 2006 03 25 at 03:27 AM • permalinkThat would also be a copyrighted image of Rowan Atkinson on Lefty’s profile as well.
Interesting this post runs above a copyrighted photo agency image of the French riots. Is Tim buying his shots from a photo wire?
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 25 at 04:11 AM • permalinkAs I am the person threatened what this is really about his a rather nasty smear against Andrew Bolt that he published and then retracted at his Anonymous lefty Blog .I wrote about it herethis was of course a bit embarrassing for Jeremy so he belatedly decides to claim copyright for the photo that Tim has here He must have had a schizophrenic day because I received emails in the name of “Jeremy Sear” from his Vic bar email and some in the name of “Mr Lefty” from his usual blog email address and he tried to pretend to be two different people As “Jeremy Sear” he admitted that the photo was of him and said he could prove that he owned the copyright when challenged to do so he sent me an uncropped version and claimed that it proved he owned the copyright !!! Although I am not an esteemed member of the Victorian Bar I felt that I should point out that it is the CREATOR of the image who holds the copyright and not the subject .Mindful that as a barrister he should be truthful at all times he asks me if I hadn’t heard of tripods ,to imply that the picture was a taken by himself !!!! In my last email to him I said that I would consider the matter further if he would produce a sworn statement to the effect that he was the creator of the photograph .....after all why should I take his word in something as ephemeral as an email ? all he would say is that the next contact from him would be via a process server Ho Hum
Iain,
Just punch himn the nose then use your tripod to catch it and then maybe you would give the other readers in this forum a good laugh. He seems to need a good belting, what a dick
Posted by artful-dodger on 2006 03 25 at 05:08 AM • permalinkMy practice takes me no where near copyright and as such I know probably less than the average punter about it. However for a copyright infringement claim to have any legs doesn’t there have to be a question of damage? What conceivable damage has been incurred here?
Such a case might well result in an award of 5 cents damage with either each party to bear their own costs or worse for the plaintiff to pick up the defendants costs.
A little piece of free advice for my esteemed junior, the last thing a barrister should be doing is making threats of legal action, firstly it makes you look like a clown and secondly if you improperly use your status as counsel in correspondence that can be a serious breach of ethics. By the way does the Victorian Bar know that you are making legal threats on their behalf? In short, pull your head in son.
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 03 25 at 05:14 AM • permalinkWhat I wonder is if Tim will get an email from Jeremy Sear claiming “copyright infringement” , come on Jeremy you can deliver your writ to the Bulletin head office .
What is that old saying about people who live in glasshouses?
ah but maybe some one should tell him that Tim has published the photo of him he suggests was taken with a tripod , funny how the photo suggests a fairly high camera position . It must be a big tripod ......I asked Sear about the legality of using images for the purpose of distortature - evidently he wasn’t too sure.
Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2006 03 25 at 05:20 AM • permalinkIf you look at the images on his site, he’s not actually copying them, he’s embedding them from their original locations directly into his site.
In other words, he’s stealing bandwidth from other sites, and yet he has the gall to complain about someone using a picture of his freaking cat on their website.
Now, if he’d just link to a photo on another website that had hotlink protection, run by an admin with a sense of humor…
Well, JABL you’ve nailed it. He definitely needs to grow up a bit.
Regarding damages, I don’t think he would be suffering from any. Rather, he’s no doubt getting bucketloads of traffic from here, so that should raise his profile.
He should be thanking people for nicking his cat photos.
I put photos on my blog, but being a technoramus, do I have to do more than upload via the blogger uploader? Don’t want to cop a c&d.
And another question… If Mr Lefty is being anonymous (hypothetically speaking, of course), then wouldn’t claiming copyright infringement and suing someone over this mean that he would forfeight his right to anonynmity?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 03 25 at 05:43 AM • permalinkGiven ‘Gewemy’s’ own comments below:
Well, it’s his published photographs…I was mildly poking fun. The source for the fun was the photographs that featured at the top of the Andrew Bolt web site over the course of the past year.
(If anything, it’s pointing out how silly it was for Bolt to have been pretending he was, what, ten years younger than he really is, by constantly having published - twice a week - a photograph of him that was clearly well out-of-date. That first photo must have been taken years ago. And why? Vanity? Seems a bit laughable.)
And, no. This blog isn’t my job, and, despite delightfully spiteful attempts by people like you to try to link it with my job, I fully intend to keep the two separate.
Hypocrite!
#26: Stevo: Haven’t heard that particular expression for common sense before - LOL.
#20 JABL: Spot on - without fail, those who threaten legal action are cowards. Dogs with a bark, but no bite. The great thing about Australia is that if you lose the lawsuit you instigated, you pay.
The question of damages bit, is why distortatures and taking the piss are always a safe bet. He, or anyone, would have to argue that people might think it is anything other that satire, that there is truth in the joke. Which, essentially, would mean an admission of their own inanity.
(Which is why South Park doesn’t need to worry about being sued by Tom Cruise)
Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2006 03 25 at 06:09 AM • permalink#30 Humblogger (the Younger):
An old army term for common sense ... I’ve used a few more profanities on Tim’s site recently than I use in everyday life ... sorry ... a family friend told me (a QC ... this thread is about a Barrister, isn’t it?) that he used profanity extremely rarely, but when he did, it was for shock value. It was part of his bag of tricks. It’s all in the timing.JBL has it nailed as someone said. However there is another little tidbit I picked up at the bottom of Jeremy’s other site site- Bolt watch.
Did anyone notice this:
Portions of any work of Andrew Bolt are taken from his webpage at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/andrewbolt, are copyright Andrew Bolt, and are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968. Other material is copyright by its various authors, which sort of goes without saying really.
Here’s Jermey helping himself to Bolt’s work, while threatening action over the phot of his friggen cat.
Jeremy, being a lefty little punk, sees nothing wrong with availing himself to Bolt’s aticles, hell he even invokes “fair trading” to heist Bolt’s work for criticism. Yet he thinks that wouldn’t apply to his own.
This creep is a lawyer who represents people. Does he ever win a case?
Stop showing pictures of this ugly child, Tim!
Speaking of ugly, does that mean this picture is property of Macquarie University, and as such a breach of copyright? My flatmate is going to get sued by a Uni- that’ll be a story to tell, Heh
humblogger, have you got a link to the image of little lowy you distorted before
I’d recommend that he look into Galambosianism, nicely described by Google results as ``a short-lived doctrive of intellectual property absolutism,’’ for greater effect in whining.
Briefly, only the originator of an idea has the right to talk about it.
Thus :
``There are five legitimate functions of government.’’
``No kidding. What are they?’’
``I am not a liberty to say. The theory was originated by Andy Galambos and it is his primary property.’’
I remember years ago there was some kind of controversy in the Cat Protection Society and it actually resulted in a murder or two. It is quite amazing how protective people become of their cats. Maybe there is a spiritual dimension as well. By taking the image of the cat, you are also taking its soul.
Posted by Harry Heidelberg on 2006 03 25 at 07:50 AM • permalinkAll this is fine as far as it goes, but I am left wondering at the uncanny presience of the Bush clan who, foreseeing the panty-themed denigration of their name for political gain, chose to call one of the members Pierce Bush. A masterful ploy to antagonise the Code Pink crew. Bring it on!
Thus did I spake.
# 37 - Here’s that link to little Lowy.
Further to this, I’ve just uncovered evidence that Loewenstein and Sear are in cahoots. The US and Australian intelligence services might be interested to know of their involvement in the faked US air-strike in Afghanistan.
Here’s the photographic evidence.
Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2006 03 25 at 08:13 AM • permalinkJeesh, lasted I long time on Jermey’s site. He just banned me for making this comment
MrLefty says:
Mystery? Not really. Some creepy bastard, who constantly reproduces entire posts of mine on his website,
Bolt and other picture owners could say:
“Some creepy bastard, who constantly reproduces entire posts of mine on his website”
MrLefty, are we missing something here or should we just ignore the hypothetical second comment?
He deleted the last bit where I asked him to show some professional ethics.
This is is his reply to my post:
Anon. You know perfectly well that attempts to name other posters - particularly me - will result in banning.
Welcome to bansville!
ps Yes, you are missing something. I only quote the parts of Bolt’s columns which are necessary for the responses. And there’s a huge difference between BoltWatch and the site to which I was referring. As would be clear to any reasonable observer.
He is not showing the deleted bit. Damn.
It was a “good” site and I should have behaved for a ltitle while longer. This professional litigator is certainly touchy. A real supporter of free speech.
At the Bar 20 years from now, Jeremy aka anon lefty, aka Mr. Lefty is recommned to become a Kings Council ( Queen passed away several years again and Charles runs the show)
Jeremy’s roommate, he shares a 2 bedroom walkup as he hasn’t had a case in 19 years nominates him for KC reciting this “memorable argument” that Jeremy made on his defunct blog 20 years ago citing it as evidence of a clear and highly intlligent legal mind.
( And if the BBC objected and asked me to remove it, I would.
I think it’s unlikely that they’d be concerned, however.
ps Hello, Blairite bat-wing monkeys! Please feel free to rack off again. Your mighty Blairite master might be having a slow weekend, but presumably he’ll move onto actual news shortly.
pps “JABL” - ha, ha. Look, the wing-nuts think you know what you’re talking about! Good for you, “son”.)
The room remains silent.
Someone was heard to mutter. “He ain’t Judge Posner is he”.
51.
Just now inhttp://anonymouslefty.blogspot.com/
look in Copyright Infringement via stealing cat photosDown the bottom
Jeremy is now in intensive care. His close friends just admitted him. According to them he banned them from the site as well. They were the last people allowed on the site.
He’s in emergency under observation and currently being assisted by a psychiatric nurse.
They say it touch and go if he survives mentally intact. I’m sending flowers and rest of you should too. Jeremy needs loving care at the moment.
Saw the comment. Really do not know how to respond. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I do not practice in copyright law. However I do know ethics and if my learned friend is not careful in how he conducts himself then he soon will be trying to explain how he has managed to bring himself and his chambers into disrepute.
Sport, my advice was given in good faith, pull your head in. There are a fair number of Australian lawyers reading this site, not to mention the ones on TSSH. Someone sooner or later is going to make a complaint and the way our profession is going in all jurisdictions you are a) going to have to take an inordinate amount of time explaining yourself and b) have the pain in the arse of repeating a) on every renewal form for your professional indemnity insurance from there on out.
Son, you are my junior in every respect. Whilst I can respect your ideological zeal (from the other side of the fence) you have been outed, now you have to make up your mind, are you counsel or a commentator? for I fear that you will not be able to be both for very long.
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2006 03 25 at 09:04 AM • permalinkThis is side splitting hilarous. Jeremy has banned a good portion of the commenters.
He’s just going down the comments and telling everybody their banned!
I’m sorry I going to bed, I’m laughing so much I can’t take it anymore.
I offered Jeremy $15 a hour for any future legal advice I need. He even deleted that too. Ungrateful bastard. who does he think he is, Judge Posner!
#44, yeah, mate, that’s really fucking hilarious. You sure have got one great sense of humour. Do you laugh it up at suicide bombings in Israel as well as US airstrikes that kill civilians?
I suppose in those links you’re talking about the US airstrike in Pakistan that was supposed to have killed a bunch of Al Q terrorists, but actually turned out to be just 10 or so plain old women and children, plus a few men, that were shredded?
If that is so, well...Ha...ha...ha....I’m laughing so hard I want to...puke, in your fucking face.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 25 at 09:15 AM • permalink
#And if the BBC objected and asked me to remove it, I would.
I think it’s unlikely that they’d be concerned, however.
ps Hello, Blairite bat-wing monkeys! Please feel free to rack off again. Your mighty Blairite master might be having a slow weekend, but presumably he’ll move onto actual news shortly.
pps “JABL” - ha, ha. Look, the wing-nuts think you know what you’re talking about! Good for you, “son”.
MrLefty | Homepage | 03.25.06 - 10:40 pm |Jeremy ,"Jabl" seems to put a more rational argument than you do . Probably a good time to rescue what is left of your dignity. Because a Barrister threatening a fellow blogger with a writ for publishing a picture of his cat is just the sort of thing that the papers love , silly and quirky enough to be newsworthy.
13 times
If it wasn’t serious why is he treating it as such.
Not one of his comments even goes close to irony. The kid has blown a gasket.
If were kidding, he would be banning everyone and posting the reason for the ban. He would let everyone rip.
Your the one getting suckered. The kid’s deadly serious.
That’s a funny-looking cat.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 25 at 09:20 AM • permalink# 57 - Leftie coffee person. What an angry little response? I just prefer the actual news to get reported, not fake news, to which you are referring. Was it too hard to actually follow the links? Just hold the icon of your mouse over the link and “left click”. If you are able to think linearly, you should be able to find the original photo and the subsequent New York Times correction.
And my photoshop skills, though admittedly somewhat amateur, do seem to be mildly amusing to most.
I can’t help but wonder if there is something more to, or rather “behind", your sanctimonious vitriol?
Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2006 03 25 at 09:33 AM • permalink#62, if you are so worried about readng ‘fake news’, why visit the NYTimes? Perhaps you might prefer The Washington Times?
Also very interesting that you had a Wikipedia entry for Irritable Bowel Syndrome bookmarked for easy access. Problems?
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 25 at 09:45 AM • permalink13 Times
This is why it was a serious post:
Jeremy says:
Mystery? Not really. Some creepy bastard, who constantly reproduces entire posts of mine on his website, had also reproduced one of my kitten photos; that, at least, has been removed.
The journalist wasn’t calling about that. Although, it should be a headline in one of the newspapers, shouldn’t it?
MR LEFTY’S CUTE KITTEN PHOTOS STOLEN ON THE INTERNET! Story continues on pages 4, 5, 7. Editorial on page 13. Updates on the website.
STORY OF THE YEAR!
Jeremy is upset because another poster copies Jeremy’s posts like Jeremy does to Bolt and others.
In other words, Jermey, doesn’t want others to do what he does to others, which is a perfectly good logical argument to hold.
In other words the creep is serious.
63 - LLL: You seem to lack even a whiff of an echo of an iota of cognitive ability. How do you manage to dress youself in the morning?
"Also very interesting that you had a Wikipedia entry for Irritable Bowel Syndrome bookmarked for easy access. Problems?"
You don’t get it? I said “behind”, bookmarked [sic] to IBS, clearly implying it’s your ailment - get it now? Or is it still too cerebral?
Posted by Humblogger (the Younger) on 2006 03 25 at 10:26 AM • permalinkLeftyLatteLover: If you don’t want your family blown to bits, best not to have a party at your house with terrorists, or at least send the wife and kids over to grandma’s house when you do. Play the game, pay the price. Their deaths are squarely in the hands of the friend’s of terrorists. Your propagandist rhetoric is sure getting old. Do you also think there is currently a civil war in Iraq?
Anyhow, all of this is OT. LLL has suckered us in to his thread hijacking again.
I don’t know about the cat. I don’t WANT to like it. I WANT to think it is ugly. But, it just looks like a regular cat too me. We should probably feel sorry for the cat. It isn’t Commodore Puddles’ fault his owner is a fit throwing ban happy little ball of squeaking cellulose. He’s acting like someone jacked pictures of his wife or girlfriend..... ummm… never mind.
Bob, it has now been confirmed by the Pakistan government and the US Airforce, no less, that the people killed in the misdirected airstrike, 10 to 15 of them, were innocent civilians, with no connections to Al Q whatsover (unless you believe that all people of this region are all Al Q sympathisers, even the infants).
Further investigations are underway into who supplied the obviously fabricated intelligence that led to the airstrike.
If you get a big laugh out of someone making fun of civilian casaulties, well, that’s just great, go and enjoy yourself. I’m sure you already know the right websites to seek out.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 25 at 11:35 AM • permalinkLatte, one more off-topic comment and I’ll start deleting them.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 25 at 11:54 AM • permalinkYou know, I can understand and appreciate the meteor shower of personal comments, the remarks about his appearance and the you-are-my-junior-in-every-respect nonsense. That’s what many of you here do so well - abuse in lieu of rationality. What you fail to note, however, is that Mr Lefty’s legal ‘threat’ (if it can seriously be construed as such) was directed at Iain Hall, who many of you seemed to correctly identify in a previous thread as seriously in need of therapy. Take a look at Hall’s blog and judge for yourself - it’s an ongoing long-winded Mr Lefty-a-thon. Doubtless Mr Lefty’s comment may seem rash but consider who and what it was formed in response to. This Iain Hall person, ladies and gents, has seemingly nothing better to do than devote thousands of words to identifying, critiquing (if it can be called that) and seeking to humiliate young-lawyers-cum-bloggers. As much as you may dislike Mr Lefty’s ideology and approach, it’s a little surprising that you seem happy to call Hall one of your own when he’s equally if not more troubled.
Yes, funny cat, that cat, is funny, yes, funny, that is. Mr Lefty, booooooo.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 25 at 12:52 PM • permalinkTim B? The Tim B? Are you up till 4.15am every morning of the week? Now that’s dedication!
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 25 at 01:23 PM • permalinkMr Lefty, if that is indeed him, looks like a bit player in the upcoming “Trainspotting II.” I thought you Aussies had got rid of whatever recessive British gene causes that kind of face.
IF I were unlazy and ran a blog, and IF I posted pics of my hellish fur-beasts, could you possibly guess as to how very little I would give a flying fucking rat’s ass if someone posted one of their pics on another site?
Tim, if Boltwatch is as miserable and unimportant as Bolt himself and those here claim, surely there’s very little bandwidth actually being ‘stolen’ anyway. And which would be the greatest annoyance to you: someone hot-linking to a pic on your server space and costing you a couple of meg ... or some creepy dude posting your pic all over his website, over reams of nonsense masquerading as critique? I think I’d take the bandwith loss.
IF I were unlazy and ran a blog, and IF I posted pics of my hellish fur-beasts, could you possibly guess as to how very little I would give a flying fucking rat’s ass if someone posted one of their pics on another site?
Peachy. But it still doesn’t address the question of why someone would go to the trouble of posting your pics and those of your hellish fur-beasts, etc. all over their site. Unless, of course, they had serious issues.
73 Cruella:
Aw c’mon! There’s nothing like a little frrrrriction to keep things lively around here, is there?74 Emily P:
If (*) Iain Hall is nuts and is getting unjustly abused by another nut, and if that other nut is consistently a sanctimonius prat, hypocrite, and all-around wanker, then that other nut is likely to be mocked. Does this constitute a defense of Iain Hall? Hardly. If your complaint is that Iain Hall is being overly defended here, or underly mocked here, then maybe you should contribute some mockery, or some substantive attacks on his character, or whatever. It’s no use complaining that everybody else isn’t carrying your water for you, now is it?(* I’m not claiming he’s nuts, just making an ad arguendo assumption, for, you know, rhetorical purposes.)
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 25 at 01:55 PM • permalink79
surely there’s very little bandwidth actually being ‘stolen’ anyway.
Ah! And small thefts are morally different from large ones, right?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 03 25 at 01:57 PM • permalinkEmily, if Hall is so miserable and unimportant as you claim, surely his impact is very slight.
Meanwhile we have a creepy dude—a barrister, as it happens—caught stealing bandwidth.
(Incidentally, several creepy dudes have posted pictures of me all over their websites, over reams of nonsense masquerading as critique. I’ve somehow survived this.)
#81 SDD, I’m not interested in mocking Iain Hall; his rants and his blogs invite their own ridicule. And no, I’m not suggesting that he is being “defended” in here - but the fact that nobody here acknowledges his role in all of this suggests that you either don’t care or, worse, you support the way he has behaved. It’s prescient to note that this brainless blog-war - pictures, copyright, identities, cats et al - only started because Hall acted like a tool on Boltwatch and Mr Lefty banned him.
Emily, if Hall is so miserable and unimportant as you claim, surely his impact is very slight.
Well it wasn’t so slight that it stopped you from running with this ‘story’, was it?
I’m pleased you survived the creepy dudes, Tim. Mr Lefty is also quite safe; fortunately Hall is two states away. I’m not doomsaying or defending him, just providing the context for his copyright ‘demand’ that your post doesn’t offer.
#75 LLL, that is the 1st time you’ve made me laugh. I mean, laugh WITH you vs. AT you. Very nice.
#84 Emily P. Perhaps it is because some of us here are unaware of the history between Hall and Sear. This thread, mostly in jest, is no more than some barbed ribbing. If you care to note, Lefty is saying practically the same thing (albeit completely without merit) about the posters here. Please come down from the pedestal before you give yourself a nose bleed.
Emily, very nice post. Condescending, irrelevant, waspish, but to the point.
And you quite inappropriately assume the moral high ground, given that you’ve been known to dump crap and insult people here on this blog. Usually out of the blue, such as on this thread.
You are but the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 04:53 PM • permalinkEmily P /Bridgit Gread
Unlike you I write, on the web under my own name , and you have the cheek to try to post comments at my blog calling me a coward.
And who was it that created an elaborate internet fraud to try to discredit me ?, and cheered loudly when another of Jeremy’s fellow travellers created an even fouler blog purporting to be authored by me that was clearly defamatory ?I suggest that nobody drawing breath would care when or where Mr Lefty’s cat pics are reproduced - and I doubt Mr Lefty would ordinarily care much himself. But in this context, his protestations about image copyright were made to someone who has waged a personally-motivated campaign at Mr Lefty for the past four months. Iain Hall’s vendetta has involved constant posting and repitition of Mr Lefty’s real name on a variety of blogs - for no good reason; re-posting of the content of Mr Lefty’s blogs - for no good reason; and the location and publication of pictures of Mr Lefty - again for no good reason. Even the most fervert Blairites have noted Hall’s bizarre fascination and told him to get a life (refer to the comments at http://timblair.net/ee/index.php...ntified_lefty/)
So, Tim Blair - who either reads Iain Hall’s incoherent and vindictive blog or was fed this non-story by Hall himself - has made much of Mr Lefty’s angry demand, without acknowledging that it was made in response to a sustained and ongoing vendetta by someone of questionable motives and/or rationality. A good journalist would include the background - then again, Blair’s post was not journalist but simply a garden-variety troll. Either way, it makes him and his coven apologists for Hall’s antics which are, at best, weird or, at worst, tantamount to harrasment.
Bridgit Gread | 03.26.06 - 2:34 am | #Now “Bridgit” strictly speaking I may have infringed your copyright As author of this comment here but to seek redress you would have to doo so in your own name , are you up to it?
I think notI wonder why Mr Lefty is sending his
hose babegirlfriend over here to fight his battles.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 25 at 06:07 PM • permalinkps Yes, you are missing something. I only quote the parts of Bolt’s columns which are necessary for the responses.
ps Yes, you are missing something. I only quote the parts of Lefty’s columns which are necessary for the responses.
You see Jeremy the argument works both ways and if you had ANY courage at all you would link to the my site when you attack me at your blog but you use the explicit and implicit smear instead .
The above quote is from
hereIs that cat to slack to climb a tree he had to photo shop it in one.
I don’t know about that, but the cat must be worried that the local Toms may recognise her after reading “Being Nice"and realise that she lives with a Barristerwho writes a whole article in his Boltwatch blogbased on just three words comprising just five letters by Andrew Bolt himself which generates at last count 115 loony comments from the fellow travellers.
Hotlinking, besides being in terribly bad form, actually IS theft.
REALLY, now.
Hotlinking isn’t “theft”. It can be a problem in a commercial context - but in that situation, it’s very easy for the original owner to take steps to stop the use of his/her images. Somehow, I don’t think any of my hotlinking bothered the persons concerned in the slightest.
From a barrister this is a shameful argument surely as a member of the bar you should be scrupulously following the letter of the law in ALL aspects of their lives. What you are saying here is that your transgression is small enough not to matter.
I’d certainly prefer someone hotlinked to an image of mine - in which case I retain control - than stole it and saved it on their site as if it were theirs.
Why Jeremy I made it perfectly clear that the photo was yours and I never claimed otherwise .
Hotlinking is a fundamental part of blogging, and it’s not a problem, so long as it’s done in good faith. We all do it. It is clearly distinguishable from someone maliciously taking personal photographs and using them as part of a campaign of harassment.
Once again from a barrister this is a shameful argument surely as a member of the bar you should be scrupulously following the letter of the law in ALL aspects of their lives. What you are saying here is that your transgression is small enough not to matter.
The fact of the matter is that if someone wanted to reproduce my photos, then, as long as they credited me (and at least hotlinking makes it clear who the original owner is), I wouldn’t usually mind. On this occasion, I minded the person in question stealing them because I didn’t wish them to appear on his vicious little hate site.
MrLefty | Homepage | 03.26.06 - 8:07 am | #Back to the Slurs and veiled insults , have you not read the Email I sent you last night ? I sent it to both of your email adresses
Re #90, PW, should I have said Emily is the pot calling the kettle copper coated? Or teflon lined?
;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 25 at 08:43 PM • permalink#46 One noted the Black Adder avatar also.
Perhaps Jeremy is a fan because he has a passing resemblance to Rowan Atkinson.
As Mr Bean.
—Nick
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 03 25 at 08:46 PM • permalinkNext, I’m not accusing you of altering text or images, but you are displaying images (eg: of Bolt) by linking to them in a different context, which I think can be seen as violating the clause I pointed out earlier.
could some one please point out to “Duncan” who is take the debate right up to Jeremy at Anonymious Lefty that the image of Andrew Bolt under the heading at Boltwatch is an altered one and not hotlinked to the Hereld Sun . I would love to but I’m banned over there :o)
well jeremy has got exactly what he wanted - a whole lot of attention. it’s the cat i feel sorry for. can we mount a rescue mission & take it to a good home where its new owner will not use it to fight imaginary wars on copyright criminals?
btw he edited my post & banned me for calling him a tosser, claiming i was trying to reveal his identity, which in a way calling him a tosser does
Rescue the cat? now there is a thought .
Ironicly a cat seems to be an inaproppriate for a socialist. given that cats are by their nature animals that tend to live a rather individualistic life . If he was to be true to his collectivist principles he would have a dog because for a dog loyalty to the pack is the foundation of their behavior and mind set a truly socialist pet.Is Jeremy Sear related to Thom Lyons in any way? This silliness is amazingly reminiscent of the pathetic fight the failed Greens Party candidate started with Tex at Whacking Day.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 03 25 at 10:50 PM • permalinkmr lefty does not want to prevent people using his cat photo. he just wants us to waste our time talking about how stupid he is. after all, any attention is good attention. i say liberate the cat & give it a good home where it will not be exploited by mr lefty. down with miaouist cat abusers
#
cat liberation army | 03.26.06 - 12:52 pm |
THIS COMMENT IS VERY FUNNY AD IN TUNE WITH THE LATEST HEREUPDATE: This is all that really needs to be said on the subject. I didn’t actually intend to prompt a copyright debate with the bat-winged monkeys, just because it was a slow news day at Blairville. (The “debate”, such as it is, is still there in the comments, though. If that sort of thing thrills you.)
This is the latest update and most of the restof the post has bee so edited as to be an entirely different post . I am happy to see that he has removed the implication that I am a thief .
Jeremy
Thank you for removing the part of your post that implies that I am a thief .now there is just the qestion of all of the other derisory comments about me elsewhere in your blog.
I am still waiting for a reply to my last email.
I would like permission to use the picture of your catbest wishes
Iain HallJust sent him this email I am shivering with anticipation that he may just allow me to use his cat picture
And who was it that created an elaborate internet fraud to try to discredit me ?, and cheered loudly when another of Jeremy’s fellow travellers created an even fouler blog purporting to be authored by me that was clearly defamatory ?
‘Elaborate Internet hoax’? My flatmate and I posted a couple of things on your blog, sent you an e-mail, and you ran with it and made a complete fool of yourself. The whole thing took about 10 minutes of our time. You even congratulated us for it straight after. And I have never “cheered” fatnigger or the fake ‘niceperson’; no doubt you can provide proof of what you claim to avoid the charge of being a liar.
This, Blairites, is Iain Hall’s game. He posts a plethora of comments from other sites and blogs, dumping them in this thread because he assumes that (a) the people here are too stupid to follow links, or (b) they’re so interested that they’d like the whole saga laid out before them. He’s a sad character of dubious rationality but yet you continue to cheer him on, while demonising Mr Lefty. Weird.
Hey folks, what’s weirder? A guy who posts a couple of pictures of his cat on his blog? Or another that devotes his blog to another male whom he has never met, posting thousands of words and pictures about him?
Go to this blog and soak up the obsession!
Why Emily P/Bridgit Gread you’ve come back and still running the same line are you going to pursue me for infringing your copyright? Just need your real name to do that though. It seems to me though that posters here and at Jeremy’s blogs have made all of the running with out much help from me at all and given that it is essentially the same debate at both venues a little cross posting is fair dealing, But as a “journalist” you should know that.
A blog is a web diary and by it’s nature it is a record of events so I keep a Diary of the “stoush “ with Jeremy over his identity and you seek to imply I am obsessed with him in a sexual manner? This from a person who has taken every opportunity to name me and make nasty comments about me personally in his blogs . Honey If I did not know you better I would think that YOU are obsessed with me. Is the reason that you are so keen to defend him because you are married to the poor chap ?
Hall, you can repost comments or posts of mine at your leisure - particularly if they’re about you. I don’t give a damn about copyright issues and nor, I bet, does Mr Lefty in ordinary circumstances. It’s only when his pictures are being used by Queensland-based el creepo web-stalkers that he probably gets annoyed, and rightly so.
And it bewilders me why you keep referring to the fact that both Mr Lefty and I choose to post under a psuedonym ... particularly when you yourself posted under one for months, when your best buddy David Tan still does, and when many of the good folks here do the same. Apply your arguments a little more consistently, ‘niceperson’.
Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way – this is not easy.
This is all too self-referential to my liking.
I said it in the other thread and I’ll say it here: Have we become that which we decry? The Media loves to “be” the news.
When the non-MSM diddles itself like this, we are all diminished thereby.
I don’t have my own blog (yet), and count on you older (in blog years) and wiser (in blog-noggin) folk to set an example.
My 2p.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 03 26 at 12:15 AM • permalink"Stoush”? It’s a little more than a stoush when it runs for more than four months and when you put so much time, effort and content into your grotty blog with the sole purpose of hounding someone else. And no, I don’t think you’re sexually obsessed with Mr Lefty at all. I just think you like taking web-based potshots at a barrister on the most flimsy and banal points-of-order because it affords you some kind of satisfaction that atones for your own position in life.
My, how it must sting when you log off the computer and realise that you’ve annoyed a barrister for five minutes - but ultimately you haven’t made a damn difference to his life or to your own.
Emily P/ Bridgit Gread
I actually don’t give a toss if you or Jeremy choose to post as the tooth fairy . I Mock Jeremy about being “anonymous “ because his claims to still be so are just so ludicrious ,even you his stunchest fellow traveller admit that he has been outed . Need I remind you of the comedic point of the fairy tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes “ ? he may have passed the Bar exam but he has shown a complete lack of steeet smarts over this issue . A better man would have admitted the truth ages ago and weathered the short lived embarresment of being outed and moved on perhaps to be a more credible comentator but definuitely a more respected man. It is actions by fellow travellers like yourself that have made me continue . I have not counted the number of times you have posted my name and made derisory comments about me at his blogs . I was willing to let him be but you and the other fellow Travellers kept stirring the possum .
As for me using the username “niceperson “ I use it still and when my name became known I was man enough to acknowlwge it . Walter Jeremy Sear should do the same.Your arguments, as ever, are flawed. Mr Lefty likes to blog anonymously and has a right to do so. Just because you or others can find his identity doesn’t mean you should post it here, there and everywhere. By the same logic, if a house can be broken into easily then it’s fair game. As for claiming that you were “willing to let him be” and trying to suggest that your abhorent behaviour is somehow the fault of others, a cursory scroll through your blog suggests otherwise - you have posted and updated repeatedly and regularly.
You have made all the running here, for the reasons I have spelled out above. Just as you expect Mr Lefty to admit certain things, why can’t you admit that your campaign against him is exactly that - instead of playing innocent and trying to abrogate yourself from responsibility.
I have just sent this little Email to the copyright holder for the image used By Jeremy as his profile photo and avatar :o)
http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/ http://anonymouslefty.blogspot.com/ at these Url’s you will find a chap who is using the the image of Rowan Atkinson in the guise of Edmund Blackadder as his user picture and avatar . THis chap is a Barrrister by the Name of Walter Jeremy Sear and his email is Now he is quite prolific on the internet and he told me that he would continue to use the image until the BBC told him to stop . I think that the way he uses it brings the BBC and Mr Atkinson into disrepute and I suggest that you drop him a line and remind him that he should stop using your copyright image in such a manner.
Best wishes
Iain HallThe fact that I Could find his Identity with out much bother was something I pointed out to him last december , without lifting a finger to actually do so, he went straight to the bully boy tactics , he as they say, “ threw the first punch” and I have on several ocassions suggested that I was willing to negotiate a “Sessation of Hostilities “ as recently as today he was sugesting to me in am email that he would remove all reference to me explicit and implicit from his blogs in exchange for me doing the same with regaurd to him at my blogs . He has yet to reply to my last email.
Now you lefties are always keen to paint the agressor in a conflict as the villian so why don’t you hold Jeremy to account for starting this ball rolling rather than constantly blaming me.But look on the bright side - it gives you Blairites a bit more of an opportunity to continue pretending that the post included some sort of “threats”, despite this clearly not being the case. See, when people could actually read my original post, it just made those of you making those claims look like utter imbeciles.
Jeremy, Tim never said that the threats were in your post he refers to the ones you made in your emails to me like “your next contact from me will be by a process server”
You just keep trying to rewrite history and you keep triping up on those pesky facts .
Perhaps some one should send the URL to this page to some of your fellows in chambers I am sure that they would find it Oh so funny , not so good for your reputation though. But don’t blame me because I just could not be bothered to do it . I am still waiting for a reply to my emails I desperately want permission to use that photo of your cat :o)oh and a word or two about the other business would be good to.127 Andrew Bolt is a nationally-known and widely syndicated media commentator who has a bi-weekly column in News Ltd papers and appears on at least three TV/radio programmes. Mr Lefty is a private citizen who blogs about Bolt’s articles. See if you can spot the difference.
128 Take note of this post - it shows exactly how ridiculous and vindictive Iain Hall is.
Talking about bloggers, I recently made comments on Antony Loewenstein’s blog—the self-hating Jew. My comments were polite, but adverse to his opinion—and I found that they were all removed.
Why? I can only assume that Loewenstein removes all comments that he does not agree with or who critisise him.
What he is left with is a chorus of people who all echo his Jew-hatred but who cannot spell, have no idea of correct grammar and who are full of profanities. And this is without mention of the historical inaccuracies on his blog.
There are one or two exceptions to this. But, generally, he banished all those who dare to challenge him. I can personally vouch for this.
The man appears to be interested in self-promotion rather than ‘truth’.
I find it difficult to distinguish between painful rectal itch, and Emily P.
Geez, Emily, I would have thought that after your last orgy of “why do you evil hateful nasty stupid sheep-like Blairite morons have to be so abusive” and the subsequent righteous ass-paddling we all gave you, you would have plonked your cherried derriere in a sitz bath for a few more months.
I don’t have the inclination to read through all of the comments, but I’m sure it’s not news that your chickenshit buddy pulled his original post. Do you know what Tim does on the rare occasions when he screws the pooch? He leaves the post up with a crow-eating admission of error, like a man.
So, if we question your buddy’s manliness, it’s no just because of the bitchiness, the fey photo, and the cat.
you write critical coments about Bolt and Ian does about you.
See, there’s your difficulty. I write them about Bolt’s articles. I couldn’t care less about Bolt’s personal/professional life.
The person to whom you refer, however...
Jeremy
Let me see… my last two posts were specifically about pieces you had written at Anonymous Lefty, one about your smear of Andrew Bolt and the second about your whinge piece about the copyright of a picture of your cat that I had used to illustrate how you had removed a “rather foul smear “ in a six line post . I think that if you were to take a closer look you would see that all of my pieces about you are about things that you have actually published. Even the piece that has the two pictures of you was inspired by the exchange, in your comments between Tim Blair and yourself about your identity, ah those pesky facts again…
#135 Dave S, you haven’t changed, I see - probably not since the middle paleolithic period.
#137 I find it quite amusing that you’re complaining about censorship, Hall, when your own blog permits comments only after moderation. At least Mr Lefty’s blog allows open comments, without the need for registration or moderation prior to publication. On the issue of free speech I’d say his blog makes yours look like North Korea.
I’m too lazy to read through the comments to see if someone has already made this point. However, it’s just as much a breach of copyright to republish an image using the original URL in a completely different site and context. In fact, as Tim obliquely suggests, it’s arguably worse because it’s not oly a copyright breach but an unauthorised use of someone else’s bandwidht as well. Either Jeremy knows this and is obfuscating, or his legal knowledge in this area needs some polishing.
Of coures, it isn’t actually a very big deal. Media organisations tend to take a fairly relaxed attitude about amateur bloggers using their images in this way. But I agree there is more than a touch of hypocrisy in Jeremy’s objection to anyone using his cat pictures in the circumstances (not that it’s very likely anyone will). Maybe he was just seeing if he’d get a reaction from opponents. If so you’d think he’d be pleased.
Posted by Ken Parish on 2006 03 26 at 04:40 AM • permalinkLet me see Emily P/ Bridgit Gread, I have allowed comments from Mr lefty your self there but when I specificly decline your abusive posts to my blog it is censorship.
At Jeremy’s blogs Jeremy doctors the comments that are not abusive and bans any desenters who want to discuss the topic of his identity when that is the issue at hand.At least Mr Lefty’s blog allows open comments, without the need for registration or moderation prior to publication.
What have you been smoking Bridgit ? what planet are you on because it is not this one .
If you write a polite and to the point comment about any of my posts at “Being Nice” I will allow it . after all even the holder of your heart ,Jeremy Sear, does not allow “abusive comments” so why should I ?
Yet when I and my actions are the actual topic of discussion I am denied any right of reply, even blind freddy can see what is wrong with this pictureHey- who’s that guy in the pic with NO chin?
And why is there some chick here defending the guy with NO chin?
You’d think Aussie chicks would like Aussie guys with chins like
Mr Chesty Bond -
No accountin’ for taste huh…Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2006 03 26 at 05:05 AM • permalinkHe’s sort of cat-like in appearance. The little up-turned pink nose, the little line/dimple things on his face that also typically appear on on a contented cat, the smooth receding chin, the almost pointed ears that you can kind of see into.
Everything about him appears feline.
Perhaps I was at Webdiary too long and too easily fall into conspiracy-think....
but does anyone have a picture of BOTH Sear and the cat? You know, same place, same time etc.
Notice how you never see them together? Funny about that, eh?
Posted by Harry Heidelberg on 2006 03 26 at 06:03 AM • permalinkMe, I think Emily, Iain, and Mr. Lefty/Jeremy are involved in some sort of virtual menage a trois.
;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 26 at 11:12 AM • permalink
He seems the type to just take it on the ch… oh, never mind.