On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:22:05 +1000, Strike wrote:
(snips)
> On Monday, July 28, 2003 7:25 PM, Christian Gerzner wrote:
> > (How is your newsletter doing, by the way?)
> > Newsletter? What newsletter?
> "Scuba Scope" - the monthly journal of the Terrigal Underwater Group - that
> you compiled.
Ahhhh, you have now qualified by adding "that you compiled". This
newsletter is still compiled by me (I haven't been a member of TUG for
years) because Scribal produce it. I can't recall whether I was at
that time actually the editor. Your initial inference, however, was
that it was MY newsletter. It wasn't then and it isn't now.
Incidentally, and for exactly the same reason, I also compile the
Brisbane Water Aqualung Club newsletter. Scribal produce these for
free for the clubs, today, indeed in full, glorious technicolour.
> 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!)
You may also recall that I apologised abjectly for this at the time
and I still consider this deed particularly bad form on my part. It
WAS an error though, Sue would otherwise never have received her copy
... that stupid I am not.
> > > > 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.
That was different in that you were not seeking to profit from the
publication of the photographs. If you seek to publish for profit I
suggest that you make damn sure that either copyright has lapsed or
that you have permission.
> 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.
Strike, I gave you my reason for not looking at them and I thought
that they would be the same ones. I have no idea of how many of these
you have.
> > > > 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?
Come on Strike, that's conspiracy theory. I had absolutely no
intention of inferring this and I am absolutely certain that quite a
lot of copies of these photographs were floating around, restricted
maybe, but floating around nevertheless.
> > > 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.
Again, I made no personal representation to anyone, please note that.
Why would I? I don't own a manufacturing facility, what good would it
do me, personally? I still don't know what editors you are talking
about and, indeed, it's irrelevant because we (whether Scribal or I)
did not pursue the matter. Your accusation is without basis, whether
personally towards me or towards Scribal.
Yes, I have the technical expertise to set up such an operation.
Firstly I never entertained it and secondly I didn't. Think about it:
investing tens of thousands of dollars (it would be) in such a
facility based on something as tenuous as the "Card Pages" simply
makes no sense, unless it is just another string to the bow, as it
would be in Scribal's case. Conversely, would Scribal allow me to act
as agent using their facilities? Are they that stupid? Quite frankly
they'd sack me for obvious disloyalty.
> > 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.
> > > > 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 think it fairly natural to believe, in certain instances that the
"you" you refer to applied to the Scribal Group. After all, like you
yourself, I am not a manufacturer.
> > 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 think it fairly natural to believe, in certain instances that the
"you" you refer to applied to the Scribal Group. After all, like you
yourself, I am not a manufacturer.
> > 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.
What we did was rather a little bit more than a quote. Actually there
was no quote in the proper sense of the word. The information you
provided was not, in any way shape or form, sufficient to provide a
basis for a quote.
> > Why, then, are you so negative towards Scribal?
>
> I'll repeat it once again! My comments were said to - and about - you.
Your comments, many of them, could more easily have referred to my employer.
> Other than the cards, what record?
Well, I did, quite genuinely, suggest the thermocline pics. Bjorn has,
or had, the proper story about the designer of the Calypso up on his
website for a number of years. If that's lame, then so be it.
> > 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???
You made some very derogatory comments about me, using some pretty
poor language, after the debacle of the meeting with Viv at Shelly.
That comment will do, let's not visit that again, it's behind us.
> > 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.
Unlike me? How do you know that? I actually believe I'm much the same.
Matter of fact I believe that the only time it could be said that I
discussed "people and issues" privately was when you (very kindly I
must say) invited, also tried to persuade me, to Feesh's BBQ. There is
no way that I would divulge, as you would fully understand, who that
person was but, no, it was not a certain party in Scotland.
> 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!
Your comments, many of them, could more easily have referred to my
employer. They were related directly to manufacture which Scribal does
and I don't. Well, not except at Scribal's behest.
Have we beaten this to death now?
Let's, as usual, agree to differ. Semantics bore me and, more
particularly, fellow listmembers I'm sure.
Christian
|
