Re: ex web client is stealing my images and holding my poetry hostage

With 5 years of experience in an abuse department, what you are suggesting
is a waste of time. This is a civil matter between Lori and the other user.
If Lori wants to follow up to get the pictures removed it is up to her to
get a court order to present to her ISP. It is not the ISP's job to sift
through a bunch of paperwork to determine who is right or wrong - ISP's are
not a court of law. The police won't even do anything - so why should an ISP
be expected to. I understand Lori's dilemma, but she is barking up the wrong
tree.

You also have to look at it this way - this user got these pictures from
Lori in some manner (unless he hacked her computer). So right away there is
an agreement of some kind between them. Again - it is not the ISP's job (by
law or anything else) to determine what this agreement was. He could claim
this was a verbal agreement - and how do you prove or disprove those. This
type of decision can only be made by a court of law, not by an ISP. I doubt
very much than any court would find any ISP guilty of anything in this
circumstance.

B.



----- Original Message -----
From: "jim barchuk" <jb(at)jbarchuk.com>
To: <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: ex web client is stealing my images and holding my poetry
hostage


> Hi Lori!
>
> > >I used to work for the abuse department of an ISP, and whenever someone
> > >such as yourself would contact us with similar issues (and there were
> > >quite a few) we would tell them that it is a civil issue and we would
> > >not get involved. An ISP has no idea of what agreement was made between
> > >you and this other person.
>
> > It is very easy to prove these images are mine because I have the
> > original photographs which I have offered to provide proof to my ISP and
> > I never signed any rights away to these images and I've had them on my
> > web design site for months before this site was ever designed and my
> > ISP/Web Host has the means to verify that by just looking at my files to
> > see they haven't been changed in all that time. And they are too
> > breaking the law by merely refusing to investigate the matter as the
> > following article stated. And none of these images were work done for
> > hire either.
>
> What have you actually -done- to prove all this? Not just saying 'look at
> the files' because timestamps are easily modified. Not just 'I have
> offered to provide...'
>
> The ISP doesn't do anything because they don't want to; it's annoying and
> costs them time and effort. They probably don't even have to either
> without full legal notice and documentation. And if anything ever proved
> -you- to be wrong, (no, I am not even vaguely suggesting that's true,) the
> ISP could be liable for damages and losses. The ISP needs to protect
> themselve too so that if anything goes wrong they will not be held
> responsible. (Yes, there are cases of that happening too.)
>
> IANAL; personal opinion:
>
> Write a statement explaining everything, in excruciating detail,
> timelines, conversations, agreements both paper and verbal. Include things
> like any email or other written communication. Get hardcopies made of your
> pics, or better yet include copies of the negatives if they're 'film..
> Download a copy of the current site with the offending pics and put it on
> floppy. Get everything notarised. Everything. Be *very* careful about
> details or they can toss it all out and tell you to 'try again.' Send the
> whole lot to them, certified. I'd also send copies to the local or state
> DA or other legal entity so they know the ISP is 'under notice to do
> something.' They might even be interested on the chance other users have
> complained about similar problems.
>
> The point is that you've got to shove real documentation right in their
> face to *force* them to do something, not just make vague (from their POV)
> claims and complaints. It shouldn't cost you any more than a few
> notarisations. Once you've done that they can't just ignore you any more
> or yes, they'd be in violation.
>
> Best of luck. Have a :) day!
>
> jb
>
> --
> jim barchuk
> jb(at)jbarchuk.com
>
>
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA