Dear Sir; I paid a handsome sum for the copyrights (and the
originals) of these Charles Hubbel paintings. These are "registered'
copyrights with all the legal papers, signed by Hubbell's son. I have
these images posted on my website with the notice that they are not
to be copied or posted elsewhere without written permission. My
website has the "right click to copy" feature blocked. This is for
ALL of the Charles Hubbell art on my website, including watercolors,
pen & ink, Oil paintings, pencil sketches and caseins, etc. O do NOT
like to see you posting them for copying, so they wilL soon appear on
Ebay, posted as "prints for sale" by someone who has NOT paid for
this right. as I have..Please respond by taking sown these images.
They jeopadize a significant investment I have in them.

It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for copyrights
or laws . . .

Sue him or screw him!

Hello, Joe!
You wrote on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:57:01 GMT:

JG> Dear Sir; I paid a handsome sum for the copyrights (and the
JG> originals) of these Charles Hubbel paintings. These are "registered'
JG> copyrights with all the legal papers, signed by Hubbell's son. I
JG> have
JG> these images posted on my website with the notice that they are not
JG> to be copied or posted elsewhere without written permission. My
JG> website has the "right click to copy" feature blocked. This is for
JG> ALL of the Charles Hubbell art on my website, including watercolors,
JG> pen & ink, Oil paintings, pencil sketches and caseins, etc. O do NOT
JG> like to see you posting them for copying, so they wilL soon appear
JG> on
JG> Ebay, posted as "prints for sale" by someone who has NOT paid for
JG> this right. as I have..Please respond by taking sown these images.
JG> They jeopadize a significant investment I have in them.

"Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
copyrights
> or laws . . .
>
> Sue him or screw him!

or even giving credit where its due. he likes to pretend they come from an
extensive collection in his posession rather than from hours of net
surfing.

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
> copyrights
>> or laws . . .
>>
>> Sue him or screw him!
>
> or even giving credit where its due. he likes to pretend they come from an
> extensive collection in his posession rather than from hours of net
> surfing.
>
>

I have posted many unique, never-seen photos here before, always diligent to
credit the material to its owner only to find them later in a "collection"
with all credit info conveniently omitted. I have gobs of similar items
that will likely never be seen outside of my computer screen for this very
reason.

gdp


Attachment: Chance Vought decal, circa 1945 via Ed Calvert collection.

"Paul Stewart" > wrote in
:

> It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
> copyrights or laws . . .

Dear Don, Ray, & Paul;
Thank you for the supporting comments. I was hoping that my defensive post
would not be taken as an over-reaction.

I also have thousands of private aviation photos that I DO scan and share
and send high-res images of (free of course) to many researchers and buffs,
and modelers, on various aviation forums. I posted a lot of my aviation art
collection on my website so others could enjoy viewing it. But that was
some four years ago... THESE days(after being advised by those with more
Internet experience) I tend to overlay all the images with a text
indicating copyrighted material. 99.9% of Internet surfers respect that and
are content to enjoy and correspond about it. But I've learned there are a
few pitfalls to posting images, on occassion. I rarely mind copying for
personal use, but when you see copies (of material that cost you a pretty
penny) printed out on some copier, and sold on EBAY, (without any credit or
permission) it can be upsetting. And when you want to use one of your
images in a magazine article, and the editor says it is now a common image
seen all over the Internet, so they don't want to use it, That can be a
little upsetting, also.

Haven't used the newsgroups in a while. I've never seen these Exclamation
point/red icons before, in the threads. Do you put them in yourSELVES, or
are they put in by some group Moderator?

"Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
20...
> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in
> Haven't used the newsgroups in a while. I've never seen these Exclamation
> point/red icons before, in the threads. Do you put them in yourSELVES, or
> are they put in by some group Moderator?


this is a non-moderated group.

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in
:

>
> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
> copyrights
>> or laws . . .
>>
>> Sue him or screw him!

Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address? Since the
images have not been deleted, I would like to have my attorney handle the
matter from here. Usually copying an image or two is not worth pursuing.
But Holman's unauthorized use of at least 44 items,represents potential
damage to a six-figure investment, and to those registered-copyrights of
considerable value.

you may not know this, but you can't delete anything from a newsgroup.

Steve

"Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
. 120...
> "Ray O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
>> copyrights
>>> or laws . . .
>>>
>>> Sue him or screw him!
>
> Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address? Since the
> images have not been deleted, I would like to have my attorney handle the
> matter from here. Usually copying an image or two is not worth pursuing.
> But Holman's unauthorized use of at least 44 items,represents potential
> damage to a six-figure investment, and to those registered-copyrights of
> considerable value.

Joe Gertler wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
>>> copyrights or laws . . .
>>>
>>> Sue him or screw him!
>
> Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address? Since the
> images have not been deleted, I would like to have my attorney handle
> the matter from here.

The problem is that this is usenet, not a website. If it were a website, Mr
Holman could actually delete the images as you asked. On usenet that isn't
actually possible. Mr Holman could issue a cancel message for each of the
posts, but that won't guarantee that the posts will actually get wiped from
usenet servers. Some servers simply don't accept cancels. With usenet, once
a post is out there, it is effectively out there for ever.

I can understand how you would be annoyed about unauthorised use of your
images, however I would suggest that the damage to your business is probably
minimal. The images as posted here were simply not of a high enough
resolution or quality to be printed out and sold.

--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

"Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
. 120...
>
> Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address?


Here is your shopping list:

1) Get a life.
2) Get an education on how Usenet actually works.
3) Get your own damn private investigator. You want us to help you
try to burn a regular here? LOL
4) Get a lawyer to explain the actuall prosecutability of your
complaint.
5) Get a grip. These puny 200dpi scans don't represent a real threat
to the profitability of your "six figure invetment".
6) Get out your checkbook... Pursuing this complaint will only ensure
you loose more than you collect.


Luke

"Luke" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
> . 120...
>>
>> Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address?
>
>
> Here is your shopping list:
>
> 1) Get a life.
> 2) Get an education on how Usenet actually works.
> 3) Get your own damn private investigator. You want us to help you
> try to burn a regular here? LOL
> 4) Get a lawyer to explain the actuall prosecutability of your
> complaint.
> 5) Get a grip. These puny 200dpi scans don't represent a real
> threat to the profitability of your "six figure invetment".
> 6) Get out your checkbook... Pursuing this complaint will only
> ensure you loose more than you collect.
>
> Luke

That's right Luke - ad insult to injury . . .

"Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
k...
>
> "Luke" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>>
>> "Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
>> . 120...
>>>
>>> Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address?
>>
>>
>> Here is your shopping list:
>>
>> 1) Get a life.
>> 2) Get an education on how Usenet actually works.
>> 3) Get your own damn private investigator. You want us to help you
>> try to burn a regular here? LOL
>> 4) Get a lawyer to explain the actuall prosecutability of your
>> complaint.
>> 5) Get a grip. These puny 200dpi scans don't represent a real
>> threat to the profitability of your "six figure invetment".
>> 6) Get out your checkbook... Pursuing this complaint will only
>> ensure you loose more than you collect.
>>
>> Luke
>
> That's right Luke - ad insult to injury . . .


So, sue me....


Luke

Hello, Luke!
You wrote on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:50:10 -0600:


L> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in message
L> k...

>> "Luke" > skrev i en meddelelse
>> ...

>>> "Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
>>> . 120...

>>>> Can anyone help me to find Mitchell Holman's legal address?


>>> Here is your shopping list:

>>> 1) Get a life.
>>> 2) Get an education on how Usenet actually works.
>>> 3) Get your own damn private investigator. You want us to help
>>> you try to burn a regular here? LOL
>>> 4) Get a lawyer to explain the actuall prosecutability of your
>>> complaint.
>>> 5) Get a grip. These puny 200dpi scans don't represent a real
>>> threat to the profitability of your "six figure invetment".
>>> 6) Get out your checkbook... Pursuing this complaint will only
>>> ensure you loose more than you collect.

>>> Luke

>> That's right Luke - ad insult to injury . . .

Why? - do you need attention?

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in

>
> The problem is that this is usenet, not a website. If it were a
> website, Mr Holman could actually delete the images as you asked. On
> usenet that isn't actually possible. Mr Holman could issue a cancel
> message for each of the posts, but that won't guarantee that the posts
> will actually get wiped from usenet servers. Some servers simply don't
> accept cancels. With usenet, once a post is out there, it is
> effectively out there for ever.
>
> I can understand how you would be annoyed about unauthorised use of
> your images, however I would suggest that the damage to your business
> is probably minimal. The images as posted here were simply not of a
> high enough resolution or quality to be printed out and sold.
>

Thank you for that information, Enzo (and others). It is reassuring. And
thanks to all for your comments, including Luke whose comments I
cannot/would not argue with. Well, Most of them, anyway...
This is not your problem. I should have sought professional advice on
such a matter. My sincere (NOT sacrcastic) apologies for ruffling any
feathers. Please do not trouble yourselves with further discussion, and
return to your enjoyment of aviation images.

"Steve Vernon" > wrote in message
. ..
> you may not know this, but you can't delete anything from a newsgroup.

Actually YOU can delete your own post but no one else can - u wuld use a
control message in the header eg.
Control: cancel

"Joe Gertler" > wrote in message
20...
> "Paul Stewart" > wrote in
> :
>
> > It's his M.O. - he post other peoples material with no regard for
> > copyrights or laws . . .
>
> Dear Don, Ray, & Paul;
> Thank you for the supporting comments. I was hoping that my defensive post
> would not be taken as an over-reaction.
>
> I also have thousands of private aviation photos that I DO scan and share
> and send high-res images of (free of course) to many researchers and
buffs,
> and modelers, on various aviation forums. I posted a lot of my aviation
art
> collection on my website so others could enjoy viewing it. But that was
> some four years ago... THESE days(after being advised by those with more
> Internet experience) I tend to overlay all the images with a text
> indicating copyrighted material. 99.9% of Internet surfers respect that
and
> are content to enjoy and correspond about it. But I've learned there are a
> few pitfalls to posting images, on occassion. I rarely mind copying for
> personal use, but when you see copies (of material that cost you a pretty
> penny) printed out on some copier, and sold on EBAY, (without any credit
or
> permission) it can be upsetting. And when you want to use one of your
> images in a magazine article, and the editor says it is now a common
image
> seen all over the Internet, so they don't want to use it, That can be a
> little upsetting, also.
>
> Haven't used the newsgroups in a while. I've never seen these Exclamation
> point/red icons before, in the threads. Do you put them in yourSELVES, or
> are they put in by some group Moderator?

for every proven copyright violation it's a fine of $25,000.00 - Hey, if
anyone used or edited one of my images without my permission I wouldn't
hesitate...I could use an extra 25,000!! Lawyer fees are gonna run you
about $1600.00. I been down this road before..The hard part is you'll have
to prove loss of funds!!! When the other party is found at fault you'll
get to collect for the next 25 years all the monies owed - Doesn't matter it
the other faulted party doesn't have all the cash - I was able to get the
court to deduct the fine from the faulted partied home - they lost their
home!

Most individuals don't realize that they are breaking the law when they
simply scan an image from a book or magazine...that is copyright violation!