A Garden View

[Deb]

It doesn't matter that you personally doctored it or not...it was done in Parody and as such falls under the fair use doctrine of copyright law, especially since she posted it in a publicly viewable forum.

Wait a minute.......so, Mr Big can't sue his ass?!

[Blueskies]

Phyllis, you have no idea how the legal system works. You come to a public site willingly, not asked to be here, no gun to your head. You have no leg to stand on. Just shut up already.

You have no idea because I've done some research and have legal council that tells me I do. Especially to what affects my artwork which is my livelyhood. Are you a lawyer? No, you're just piling on as usual and unprovoked I might add.

Well maybe your legal council is from the office of "nutcases, crazies and insane" because you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is stealing or reproducing your artwork. You chose to bring it here. People can have opinions about it and you. Last I checked this wasnt an art gallery.

Fine by me if you really want to see who is right and who is wrong. I did not choose nor did I grant permission for my COPYRIGHTED artwork to be copied , defaced and republished. NO permission was granted by me and I most certainly do have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyrighted work used without my permission and in a detrimental way to affect my business. You are clueless.

Better check again Blueskies...you are way off...you have no legal leg to stand on. I posted this in the Toronto Sun Thread but will repost it here:

You freely posted your artwork in the public domain, and as such relinquish certain right to said work, such as for use in parody, which is obviously what Beshad did. This is predicated under the "Fair use" doctrine of the Copyright law and has been upheld more times by the courts than I can even enumerate here, but for your education it is 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In addition the parody by Beshad would be covered under the court cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), as well as Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

You have NO legal standing to bring suit in any jurisdiction, but hey it's your money...please try if you like.

No, I had it written right where I posted it that it was copyrighted to me and could not be used without my consent in anyway. I belong to an artist forum and we have been discussing these issues and going over them with a fine tooth comb and many of them retain legal representation to protect their work the same as I do. To say that when I post my artwork on the internet gives others the right to use it whenever and however they wish is entirely wrong. I did not grant him permission. I just went afer a site and a blog who posted a painting of mine without my permission..and many of my artists friends have had to do the same. Just like when musicians have to fight against their music being taken and reissued without their permission. Same thing. A pain to fight it and protect ones work on the net? Yes, but it can be fought and is fought by artists everyday.

[Behshad]

It doesn't matter that you personally doctored it or not...it was done in Parody and as such falls under the fair use doctrine of copyright law, especially since she posted it in a publicly viewable forum.

Wait a minute.......so, Mr Big can't sue his ass?!

Damn you. You flipped this into third page and my perry joke is on bottom of 2nd page

[RossValoryRocks]

It doesn't matter that you personally doctored it or not...it was done in Parody and as such falls under the fair use doctrine of copyright law, especially since she posted it in a publicly viewable forum.

Wait a minute.......so, Mr Big can't sue his ass?!

Nope...sad isn't it?

Parody is fine otherwise Weird Al would have been out of business YEARS ago.

[Saint John]

Stu brings up a great point ... parody. That's why Saturday Night Live is able to get away with what they do. This is no different. Now let's all try to respect Andrew's wishes (within reason ) and calm down a little.

[RossValoryRocks]

Phyllis, you have no idea how the legal system works. You come to a public site willingly, not asked to be here, no gun to your head. You have no leg to stand on. Just shut up already.

You have no idea because I've done some research and have legal council that tells me I do. Especially to what affects my artwork which is my livelyhood. Are you a lawyer? No, you're just piling on as usual and unprovoked I might add.

Well maybe your legal council is from the office of "nutcases, crazies and insane" because you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is stealing or reproducing your artwork. You chose to bring it here. People can have opinions about it and you. Last I checked this wasnt an art gallery.

Fine by me if you really want to see who is right and who is wrong. I did not choose nor did I grant permission for my COPYRIGHTED artwork to be copied , defaced and republished. NO permission was granted by me and I most certainly do have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyrighted work used without my permission and in a detrimental way to affect my business. You are clueless.

Better check again Blueskies...you are way off...you have no legal leg to stand on. I posted this in the Toronto Sun Thread but will repost it here:

You freely posted your artwork in the public domain, and as such relinquish certain right to said work, such as for use in parody, which is obviously what Beshad did. This is predicated under the "Fair use" doctrine of the Copyright law and has been upheld more times by the courts than I can even enumerate here, but for your education it is 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In addition the parody by Beshad would be covered under the court cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), as well as Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

You have NO legal standing to bring suit in any jurisdiction, but hey it's your money...please try if you like.

No, I had it written right where I posted it that it was copyrighted to me and could not be used without my consent in anyway. I belong to an artist forum and we have been discussing these issues and going over them with a fine yooth comb and many of them retain legal representation to protect their work. To say that when I post my artwork on the internet gives others the right to use it whenever and however they wish is entirely wrong. I did not grant him permission. I just went afer a site and a blog who posted a painting of mine without my permission..and many of my artists friends have had to do the same. Just like when musicians have to fight against their music being taken and reissued without their permission. Same thing. A pain to fight it and protect ones work on the net? Yes, but it can be fought and is fought by artists everyday.

You would lose. You cannot post in the public domain and claim unabridged copywrite...it doesn't work that way...the law says your are wrong...decades of jurisprudence says you are wrong...but PLEASE take it to court, that is your right...attorneys all over are hurting for stupid clients so they can make an easy buck.

I mean did you even go read about any of the case law I cited? Or the case that have been decided about this VERY thing? I would say probably not.

You would lose over and over again...PLEASE PLEASE litigate this, can I convince you to move the venue to the US District Court in Pittsburgh???

One more thing...you would have to prove monetary gain for Beshad or anyone else for use of your copyrighted work. What they did was in parody...you LOSE.

[Behshad]

Phyllis, you have no idea how the legal system works. You come to a public site willingly, not asked to be here, no gun to your head. You have no leg to stand on. Just shut up already.

You have no idea because I've done some research and have legal council that tells me I do. Especially to what affects my artwork which is my livelyhood. Are you a lawyer? No, you're just piling on as usual and unprovoked I might add.

Well maybe your legal council is from the office of "nutcases, crazies and insane" because you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is stealing or reproducing your artwork. You chose to bring it here. People can have opinions about it and you. Last I checked this wasnt an art gallery.

Fine by me if you really want to see who is right and who is wrong. I did not choose nor did I grant permission for my COPYRIGHTED artwork to be copied , defaced and republished. NO permission was granted by me and I most certainly do have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyrighted work used without my permission and in a detrimental way to affect my business. You are clueless.

Better check again Blueskies...you are way off...you have no legal leg to stand on. I posted this in the Toronto Sun Thread but will repost it here:

You freely posted your artwork in the public domain, and as such relinquish certain right to said work, such as for use in parody, which is obviously what Beshad did. This is predicated under the "Fair use" doctrine of the Copyright law and has been upheld more times by the courts than I can even enumerate here, but for your education it is 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In addition the parody by Beshad would be covered under the court cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), as well as Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

You have NO legal standing to bring suit in any jurisdiction, but hey it's your money...please try if you like.

No, I had it written right where I posted it that it was copyrighted to me and could not be used without my consent in anyway. I belong to an artist forum and we have been discussing these issues and going over them with a fine yooth comb and many of them retain legal representation to protect their work. To say that when I post my artwork on the internet gives others the right to use it whenever and however they wish is entirely wrong. I did not grant him permission. I just went afer a site and a blog who posted a painting of mine without my permission..and many of my artists friends have had to do the same. Just like when musicians have to fight against their music being taken and reissued without their permission. Same thing. A pain to fight it and protect ones work on the net? Yes, but it can be fought and is fought by artists everyday.

So you came here trying to provoke people to make fun of you and your art ?!
Saving this !

[Behshad]

Stu brings up a great point ... parody. That's why Saturday Night Live is able to get away with what they do. This is no different. Now let's all try to respect Andrew's wishes (within reason ) and calm down a little.

Group Hug.

Not you phyl ! Go hug your art buddies

[Behshad]

3 pages and 1300 views. I say Phyl owes us 10% of what that painting sells for , for us promoting her art.
Give us our $1 !!!

[Michigan Girl]

I'm thinking if Pussyballs had defaced the original piece, then you could sue his sand nigger ass
for the worth of the painting, court costs and perhaps a little for pain and suffering ...he can
pilot his own carpet, which would cover travel expense and save both of you a couple of bucks!!

I'm afraid the Garden will no longer exist tomorrow! ...but we still have the Toronto Sun!!

[Blueskies]

Phyllis, you have no idea how the legal system works. You come to a public site willingly, not asked to be here, no gun to your head. You have no leg to stand on. Just shut up already.

You have no idea because I've done some research and have legal council that tells me I do. Especially to what affects my artwork which is my livelyhood. Are you a lawyer? No, you're just piling on as usual and unprovoked I might add.

Well maybe your legal council is from the office of "nutcases, crazies and insane" because you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is stealing or reproducing your artwork. You chose to bring it here. People can have opinions about it and you. Last I checked this wasnt an art gallery.

Fine by me if you really want to see who is right and who is wrong. I did not choose nor did I grant permission for my COPYRIGHTED artwork to be copied , defaced and republished. NO permission was granted by me and I most certainly do have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to copyrighted work used without my permission and in a detrimental way to affect my business. You are clueless.

Better check again Blueskies...you are way off...you have no legal leg to stand on. I posted this in the Toronto Sun Thread but will repost it here:

You freely posted your artwork in the public domain, and as such relinquish certain right to said work, such as for use in parody, which is obviously what Beshad did. This is predicated under the "Fair use" doctrine of the Copyright law and has been upheld more times by the courts than I can even enumerate here, but for your education it is 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

In addition the parody by Beshad would be covered under the court cases: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), as well as Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

You have NO legal standing to bring suit in any jurisdiction, but hey it's your money...please try if you like.

No, I had it written right where I posted it that it was copyrighted to me and could not be used without my consent in anyway. I belong to an artist forum and we have been discussing these issues and going over them with a fine yooth comb and many of them retain legal representation to protect their work. To say that when I post my artwork on the internet gives others the right to use it whenever and however they wish is entirely wrong. I did not grant him permission. I just went afer a site and a blog who posted a painting of mine without my permission..and many of my artists friends have had to do the same. Just like when musicians have to fight against their music being taken and reissued without their permission. Same thing. A pain to fight it and protect ones work on the net? Yes, but it can be fought and is fought by artists everyday.

You would lose. You cannot post in the public domain and claim unabridged copywrite...it doesn't work that way...the law says your are wrong...decades of jurisprudence says you are wrong...but PLEASE take it to court, that is your right...attorneys all over are hurting for stupid clients so they can make an easy buck.

I mean did you even go read about any of the case law I cited? Or the case that have been decided about this VERY thing? I would say probably not.

You would lose over and over again...PLEASE PLEASE litigate this, can I convince you to move the venue to the US District Court in Pittsburgh???

One more thing...you would have to prove monetary gain for Beshad or anyone else for use of your copyrighted work. What they did was in parody...you LOSE.

You aren't a lawyer either and aren't even in the right ballpark on this. I have read things you have been mistaken on in the political thread many times so your opinion on this issue is not under consideration.

[Deb]

Stu brings up a great point ... parody. That's why Saturday Night Live is able to get away with what they do. This is no different. Now let's all try to respect Andrew's wishes (within reason ) and calm down a little.

Wait a minute. I have a bone to pick with you? You got on my case for posting moving sigs, have you checked out BB's little domicile lately?

[Saint John]

Stu brings up a great point ... parody. That's why Saturday Night Live is able to get away with what they do. This is no different. Now let's all try to respect Andrew's wishes (within reason ) and calm down a little.

Wait a minute. I have a bone to pick with you? You got on my case for posting moving sigs, have you checked out BB's little domicile lately?

Tittties and Van Damm are covered under Article 2 section 8 of the Coolness Doctrine. Mr Big is not.

[Ehwmatt]

This is beyond hilarious. Phyllis, any lawsuit you might try to bring would be 12(b)(6)'d into oblivion by a first semester first year law student.

[RossValoryRocks]

You aren't a lawyer either and aren't even in the right ballpark on this. I have read things you have been mistaken on in the political thread many times so your opinion on this issue is not under consideration.

Ok...I was trying to be fair...I said I thought your painting was very good...but you are just wrong in every sense of the word wrong about Copyright and Fair Use.

It's ok..don't take my word for it. Even if I cited the relevent US Code...the court decisions on fair use and the like.

Go get a lawyer and sue...please, it is your right. No competent lawyer would take the case.

And you don't know me from a hill of beans...you don't know what degrees I hold or what I do for a living.

You are just being pissy because you are wrong, and I am right and cited the examples that PROVE it. So rather than alienating ONE of people who might have supported you a bit in this, you bring up what? A political thread, (Where I am ALWAYS Right by the way ) and dismiss my FACTS? Not smart. You think Deano, Dan and Beshad are brutal??? You DO NOT want me to chime in. I make them look like rank amatures.

If you think you are right then go do the research and cite court cases, as I did, and the applicable section of Copyright law, which I did. You can't because you are WRONG.

I could take your picture posted here in your profile and do a SteveW on it like he did with Jon Cain's photo, and the is ABSOLUTELY no legal remedy for it because it would be fair use and done in parody.

[Behshad]

I could take your picture posted here in your profile and do a SteveW on it like he did with Jon Cain's photo, and the is ABSOLUTELY no legal remedy for it because it would be fair use and done in parody.

Lets see what you got

[Deb]

You aren't a lawyer either and aren't even in the right ballpark on this. I have read things you have been mistaken on in the political thread many times so your opinion on this issue is not under consideration.

Ok...I was trying to be fair...I said I thought your painting was very good...but you are just wrong in every sense of the word wrong about Copyright and Fair Use.

It's ok..don't take my word for it. Even if I cited the relevent US Code...the court decisions on fair use and the like.

Go get a lawyer and sue...please, it is your right. No competent lawyer would take the case.

And you don't know me from a hill of beans...you don't know what degrees I hold or what I do for a living.

You're a fisherman, aren't you?

[RossValoryRocks]

You aren't a lawyer either and aren't even in the right ballpark on this. I have read things you have been mistaken on in the political thread many times so your opinion on this issue is not under consideration.

Ok...I was trying to be fair...I said I thought your painting was very good...but you are just wrong in every sense of the word wrong about Copyright and Fair Use.

It's ok..don't take my word for it. Even if I cited the relevent US Code...the court decisions on fair use and the like.

Go get a lawyer and sue...please, it is your right. No competent lawyer would take the case.

And you don't know me from a hill of beans...you don't know what degrees I hold or what I do for a living.

You're a fisherman, aren't you?

On occasion...LOL...Fisherman, poet, lyricist, musician, computer nerd, part time lawyer, lover, father, brother and all around good guy!

[Deb]

You aren't a lawyer either and aren't even in the right ballpark on this. I have read things you have been mistaken on in the political thread many times so your opinion on this issue is not under consideration.

Ok...I was trying to be fair...I said I thought your painting was very good...but you are just wrong in every sense of the word wrong about Copyright and Fair Use.

It's ok..don't take my word for it. Even if I cited the relevent US Code...the court decisions on fair use and the like.

Go get a lawyer and sue...please, it is your right. No competent lawyer would take the case.

And you don't know me from a hill of beans...you don't know what degrees I hold or what I do for a living.

You're a fisherman, aren't you?

On occasion...LOL...Fisherman, poet, lyricist, musician, computer nerd, part time lawyer, lover, father, brother and all around good guy!

Hey that almost sounds like a song........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAImeCYJEyg

[Blueskies]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

[RossValoryRocks]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

ALL works are subject to fair use. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Regardless of implied or explicit copyright. You chose to post it in a publicly accessible forum and one in which you have cultivated a group of detractors, as such you end up looking like the person who throws the first punch, get their ass beat, and then sues, even though you started the fight in the first place.

As I said...go get a lawyer and sue, if one will take the case. You should also read the law: 17 U.S.C. § 107. It's ALL there. Check the related case law. State your facts and case law to back yourself up.

Otherwise you should just shut up, ignore the people who don't like your works and make parodies of them, and spend your time smartly and cultivate those of us who do like your works.

Because your belly-aching just turns people off...especially when it has no basis in fact nor law.

[Behshad]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

Did you check with the owner of this site if you can use this forum to sell your products !?

[Behshad]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

ALL works are subject to fair use. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Regardless of implied or explicit copyright. You chose to post it in a publicly accessible forum and one in which you have cultivated a group of detractors, as such you end up looking like the person who throws the first punch, get their ass beat, and then sues, even though you started the fight in the first place.

As I said...go get a lawyer and sue, if one will take the case. You should also read the law: 17 U.S.C. § 107. It's ALL there. Check the related case law. State your facts and case law to back yourself up.

Otherwise you should just shut up, ignore the people who don't like your works and make parodies of them, and spend your time smartly and cultivate those of us who do like your works.

Because your belly-aching just turns people off...especially when it has no basis in fact nor law.

Whoa ! I don't think anyone here dislikes her art. It's the artist we don't like !

[RossValoryRocks]

You aren't a lawyer either and aren't even in the right ballpark on this. I have read things you have been mistaken on in the political thread many times so your opinion on this issue is not under consideration.

Ok...I was trying to be fair...I said I thought your painting was very good...but you are just wrong in every sense of the word wrong about Copyright and Fair Use.

It's ok..don't take my word for it. Even if I cited the relevent US Code...the court decisions on fair use and the like.

Go get a lawyer and sue...please, it is your right. No competent lawyer would take the case.

And you don't know me from a hill of beans...you don't know what degrees I hold or what I do for a living.

You're a fisherman, aren't you?

On occasion...LOL...Fisherman, poet, lyricist, musician, computer nerd, part time lawyer, lover, father, brother and all around good guy!

Hey that almost sounds like a song........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAImeCYJEyg

IT SOMEHOW ALWAYS COMES BACK TO MR. BIG DOESN'T!?

The answer to the enternal question is Mr. Big...now if we only knew what the eternal question is...

[Blueskies]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

ALL works are subject to fair use. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Regardless of implied or explicit copyright. You chose to post it in a publicly accessible forum and one in which you have cultivated a group of detractors, as such you end up looking like the person who throws the first punch, get their ass beat, and then sues, even though you started the fight in the first place.

As I said...go get a lawyer and sue, if one will take the case. You should also read the law: 17 U.S.C. § 107. It's ALL there. Check the related case law. State your facts and case law to back yourself up.

Otherwise you should just shut up, ignore the people who don't like your works and make parodies of them, and spend your time smartly and cultivate those of us who do like your works.

Because your belly-aching just turns people off...especially when it has no basis in fact nor law.

Way to twist, Stu. I started no fight and you know it, I know it and anyone who read this thread knows it...especially those who read before Andrew deleted Behshads posts. Which I printed out before he did, by the way, and so did a few other people I know. Behshad and Dan didn't say and do what they did because they didn't like my work either. They looked for an excuse to start something and they were entirely unprovoked, as usual. You and others who take up for them and pretend not to notice that they start things and harrass is what turms many more people off of you and a few others here. This is a perfect example to why few people participate here any longer The harrassment, crudeness and game playing. You and your group of friends aren't going to admit that but its true.

[RossValoryRocks]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

ALL works are subject to fair use. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Regardless of implied or explicit copyright. You chose to post it in a publicly accessible forum and one in which you have cultivated a group of detractors, as such you end up looking like the person who throws the first punch, get their ass beat, and then sues, even though you started the fight in the first place.

As I said...go get a lawyer and sue, if one will take the case. You should also read the law: 17 U.S.C. § 107. It's ALL there. Check the related case law. State your facts and case law to back yourself up.

Otherwise you should just shut up, ignore the people who don't like your works and make parodies of them, and spend your time smartly and cultivate those of us who do like your works.

Because your belly-aching just turns people off...especially when it has no basis in fact nor law.

Way to twist, Stu. I started no fight and you know it, I know it and anyone who read this thread knows it...especially those who read before Andrew deleted Behshads posts. Which I printed out before he did, by the way, and so did a few other people I know. Behshad and Dan didn't say and do what they did because they didn't like my work either. They looked for an excuse to start something and they were entirely unprovoked, as usual. You and others who take up for them and pretend not to notice that they start things and harrass is what turms many more people off of you and a few others here. This is a perfect example to why few people participate here any longer The harrassment, crudeness and game playing. You and your group of friends aren't going to admit that but its true.

Complete and utter bullshit.

I was commenting on your lack of legal standing and pointing out how it looks to people who know nothing of the history of you with the people on this board.

I provided the case law, the U.S.C citation and everything to show you WHY you are barking up the wrong tree.

I don't defend Dan or Beshad on moral grounds, that is their own cross to bear, but on legal grounds they have every right to express themselves as they like under the 1st amendment, within the pervue of the site owner (Andrew) and they have every legal right to parody ANY of your works you post here or anywhere else.

Just admit you are wrong, because you are. You just have some sort of martyr complex or something.

Again take them to court or just STFU about it and move on.

[Blueskies]

Its not in play for Fair Use when copyrighted work is published with the expressed intent of sale by the creator of the image and when it has been expressed that the use of the image can only be done with the consent of the owner and creator of the image.

Did you check with the owner of this site if you can use this forum to sell your products !?

Did any of the musicians members of this forum ask every time before they posted a thread to promote their work over the years? No. Other visual artists? No. and don't even try to claim they did. Andrew has never had a problem with forum memebers promoting their own work, Never. So Thats not at issue here. If you had copied other artists work and missued it without their permission and misrepresented it in a derogatory fashion they would have taken issue with you as well.

[Andrew]

No, I had it written right where I posted it that it was copyrighted to me and could not be used without my consent in anyway. I belong to an artist forum and we have been discussing these issues and going over them with a fine tooth comb and many of them retain legal representation to protect their work the same as I do. To say that when I post my artwork on the internet gives others the right to use it whenever and however they wish is entirely wrong. I did not grant him permission. I just went afer a site and a blog who posted a painting of mine without my permission..and many of my artists friends have had to do the same. Just like when musicians have to fight against their music being taken and reissued without their permission. Same thing. A pain to fight it and protect ones work on the net? Yes, but it can be fought and is fought by artists everyday.

So....it the entire point of this thread a set up then? A little practical test for your theories? This is getting up my goat.

[Andrew]

Way to twist, Stu. I started no fight and you know it, I know it and anyone who read this thread knows it...especially those who read before Andrew deleted Behshads posts.

You know what? Fuck off. Please. I'm deleting your account for good this time....pure and absolute bile from the get go this. More crap here than a over populated pig farm.

[Andrew]

This is the original work of Phyllis Wolf. It is for sale, copyrighted to Phyllis Wolf and, as such, is protected by US and International Copyright laws.


Artist: Phyllis Wolf
Title: Zaria's Garden
Subject: Botanical Garden
Dimensions: 26 x 34
Media: oil on canvas





I am a fine artist. This is just one example of my work, as I do various styles...realism and impressionist mainly but have done some surrealism and abstract but for the most part I have a unique style which is undefined. I work with various media....oils, acrylics, graphite, charcoal, pastels, etc...and I paint, draw, sculpt, do mural work, jewelry, etc.
I'm also a fine art photographer and have prints of my photographs available as well as prints of my paintings and drawings, along with the originals.
I do commissioned work as well..landscapes, people and pet portraits,...just about any subject matter. If anyone is interested in original artwork or prints contact me via my website to follow. Thanks for viewing.

http://phyllis-wolf.artistwebsites.com

and on Facebook at..
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Phyllis-W ... ref=Share#

And that will be $120 for the advertising please.