On Monday, July 28, 2003 7:25 PM, Christian Gerzner wrote:
(snip)
> > At present I'm already paying a copyright lawyer's golf club fees!
Copyright
> > also applies to misappropriation of text without permission - but you
knew
> > that, didn't you? (How is your newsletter doing, by the way?) :-)
> Newsletter? What newsletter? I've never even entertained the idea of a
> newsletter, leave alone publish one. I'm extremely interested to know
> about this apparent newsletter which is apparently mine and I'd
> appreciate being steered in the right direction.
> I look forward to evidence of this newsletter, I'm sure you won't let
> me down.
"Scuba Scope" - the monthly journal of the Terrigal Underwater Group - that
you compiled. You may recall that a few years ago we had an online spat
when the editor of Scuba Diver magazine, having been sent a copy by you,
drew to my attention that an article of mine - one that I had previously
shared with list members - was included in your publication without my prior
knowledge or permission. For some reason you omitted to send me a copy!!
(To be fair, I did allow you to use other articles in subsequent issues
providing that you sought permission first!)
> > > and that makes it likely, rather than possible, that any copyright is
> > > actually vested in the RN.
> > A moot point
> Regardless of who employed you at that time, you were employed by
> "somebody" to do the work that you did which is likely to make that
> work the property of the employer.
This didn't seem to bother you when the matter came up in a previous list
discussion and you expressed interest in seeing some of the pics - which I
duly scanned and sent to you. (At that time, you wanted to put them up on
Ron's website, something that, I explained to you, I was loathe to do on the
grounds that sharing with a small group of people was, to my way of
thinking, marginally different to 'sharing' with the world. I explained to
you, at the time, my reasons.
Following the recent discussion about Calypso cameras, you suggested that:
> I think that photographs like that deserve a record on the Internet.
> You should pop them up rather less than "briefly" with a full
> description of how it happened. They are a historical record which
> should be maintained rather than lost.
I was quite happy to share them with a small group of people for a brief
period of time. I even, foolishly, imagined that you might be interested!
Apparently I was mistaken. Fortunately you've only seen a very few.
(snip)
> > > Having said that I rather doubt that the RN is likely to jump up and
> > > down about it, although they'd probably like copies if they've lost
> > > their versions.
> > Nicely - if snidely - put. Which is why those shown are from a released
and
> > less 'sensitive' source.
> Snidely? I fail to see what is "maliciously derogatory, supercilious
> 2. counterfeit or sham" about my comment - Collins English Dictionary,
> Australian Edition.
Don't you think that the unnecessary addition of:
>>>although they'd probably like copies if they've lost
> > > their versions.
might possibly be open to mis-interpretation about how I happened to retain
possession of them?
> > The editors' were obviously mistaken when they told me of your
approaches to
> > them, then?
> Editors? What editors? My approaches? I, personally, don't recall
> approaching anybody.
Selective memory, eh!
>The organisation I work for did try to find out
> who owned copyright, unsuccessfully (it may be that I acted for that
> organisation at that time at the organisation's request). The matter
> was then not pursued, it was unsuccessful.
> I resent your inference that I, personally, made such approaches and
> equally I resent your inference that the organisation that I represent
> in working hours did anything untoward. They did not, and I did not.
I made no inference, I made a statement. The "you" in that statement was
"you" - not your employer.
> Yes, the intent was that we (I am here employing the Scribal Group
> "we") might be able to use these images on product such as garments
> and this came about after, AFTER, my suggestion that we use Scribal
> facilities to scan these images. After all, until you sent them to me
> I had no real idea of what you were talking about.
> However:
> 1. We didn't obtain copyright permission, IIRC we never found an
> "owner", and therefore went no further.
> 2. More importantly perhaps you were not then, and are not now, a
> manufacturer of anything other than words (to my knowledge). I
> therefore much doubt that any printing on promotional products that
> Scribal might have done would have had any effect whatsoever on your
> livelihood. Printing is not your bag (nor should it be, that comment
> is not meant to be anything other than a statement of fact). Scribal,
> on the other hand, is one of the most diverse printing organisations
> in the world and that is THEIR bag.
(snip)
> > > Incidentally, at Scribal we do have the original scans in "printable"
> > > form and we certainly would be able to print them if desired. Being
> > > very aware of copyright restrictions, access to these is restricted to
> > > myself and Phil.
> > That's a comforting thought. (I take it that you didn't sell too many
of
> > the shirts that you had made, then?)
> The "shirts that we had made" went to you, Roger and myself. NO, as in
> not one, other shirt was made or has been made since. NO, as in not
> one, shirt was sold.
> Period!
That's good to know. It has, however, made me wary about dealing with
people who *might* be motivated by commercial gain rather than the genuine
desire to share knowledge about diving with others.
> I resent, on behalf of my employer, your insinuation. The Scribal
> Group did not sell even one shirt with a "cards" image on it. Again,
> your inference is (a) quite wrong, (b) distasteful and (c) quite
> possibly litigious.
Don't put words that I never said into my mouth. My comments were directed
at you, Christian Gerzner. Not Scribal or anyone else.
> I challenge you to provide me with evidence of any "Card" shirt (or
> other Scribal product) not owned by yourself, Roger or myself which
> was printed by the Scribal Group on Scribal product. If you like I
> will provide the identity labels of the shirts that we print. The
> majority, from memory, say "Blue Pacific". We get these by the
> container load from China and I have no way of knowing, until I ask,
> whether this label is exclusive to us. It probably is, but that's a guess.
> > > I would think that the cards were originally photographs, therefore
> > > monocolour (black and white) and have been "colourised" by an artist.
> > As I told you at the time, many are from B&W plates originally appearing
in
> > Robert H Davis' book, "Deep Diving and Submarine Operations".
> You may well have made that comment, I don't recall. I explained the
> method of "colourisation" as a theory, an informed one certainly, but
> a theory and the comment was only made to be informative.
As was my clarification.
> What is it with you? Do you want an organisation with a $AU 40 million
> turnover talking to their lawyers about you? I know that's not much by
> international standards but it's a helluva lot for the likes of you
> and me.
Do whatever you feel appropriate.
> You've seen the Scribal operation; it's not as if you don't know.
> Scribal welcomed you when you needed advice, we gave you absolutely
> open, to the best of our ability unbiased, advice. We provided you
> with access to an Offset printer who we consider (a) excellent and (b)
> extremely reasonable. We asked nothing in return and we didn't, as
> many would, undertake to do the work ourselves and then farm it out at
> a premium. I, and in part Phil, spent the best part of the day with
> you. We sent you an extremely lengthy e-mail detailing, chapter and
> verse, what was concerning you at the time and our suggestions as to
> how to overcome those concerns.
> Do you have any idea of what that would have cost you if you had asked
> for that advice and had to pay for it? Actually, come to think of it,
> do you seriously think that the Scribal Group would have been that
> altruistic (your word) towards you had it not been for me?
I don't know. Other printing and pre-production houses that I've spoken
have never charged to quote on jobs.
> Why, then, are you so negative towards Scribal?
I'll repeat it once again! My comments were said to - and about - you.
> As for the "Cards" pages, any idea of what that would have cost
> professionally? Remember what the late, much lamented, Ron Fuller,
> webmaster of that site, had to say about the quality of the
> information we sent? For those that don't know, it's on the first page:
Whoa! I didn't ask anyone to do anything with the images. You were the one
who 'phoned and offered to scan them and have them put up on a site for the
list to see.
> http://www.diegoweb.com/diving/cards/
>
> Yes, I have an agenda. It is the dissemination of historical
> information and I think my record speaks to that regard.
Other than the cards, what record?
> I don't much care about myself and I usually ignore your, shall we say
> pointed, comments about myself which sometimes include language which
> I wouldn't use in conversation leave alone in print, even though it is
> internet print.
Eh???
> When, however, you insinuate things which go against others that I
> hold dear, such as in this case the Scribal Group, the largest private
> employer (about 500 people) on the Central Coast, it kind of gets me
> seriously offside. Scribal can't defend themselves on here, they
> couldn't care less about a silly little list such as this one; it's
> not their bag and, please folks, let's not get all upset about my
> description of Scuba SE, YOU might think it important but you're very
> definitely in a huge minority.
Unlike you, Christian, I rarely indulge in private, off-line discussions
about people or issues. What you see - in that regard - is what you get.
I'm sure that Scribal are very happy to have you as ambassador-at-large for
their services, but unless everything that you do or say is at their
direction why introduce them into the debate? I didn't!
Strike
|
