User talk:Jahc

Please don't get yourself in a tiff because nothing happens for 24 hours after you point out a problem -- this is a low-volume wiki, and sometimes several days can go by without any edits at all. AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2013 (BST)

Please explain why we should go out of our way to indulge your whims, given your attitude. I'm sorry someone uploaded the snorkel image without permission several years ago (an image that was not too great anyway, in my opinion, and didn't add too much to this site), but it's pointless to ascribe collective guilt... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2013 (BST)

Do not patronise me, whoever you think you are. You are bothered by my attitude? Are you serious?

Try answering the question, eh?

REMOVE MY COPYRIGHT WORK FROM HERE: http://www.fetbook.it/wiki/index.php?title=File:Underwater_bondage.jpg#filelinks

If you are unable to do that, just say so, and I will take legal action against the hosts directly.

And remove my other image, the spread hogtie one, now.

I allowed you to use that image in good faith.

But your site hosted other stuff of mine illegally, under a bogus commons licence, and has caused me hours and hours of deeply frustrating work, which is a total waste of my time and seriously annoying.

Your dismissive and snotty attitude, instead of understanding how much hassle this has caused, is very disappointing. To put it mildly.

So I revoke permission to use any of my work, and you will remove it immediately.

I do hope that is clear.

I add my apologies to those of AnonMoos. However, I am afraid that neither AnonMoos nor I has any ability to do anything on Fetbook; you would have to contact the site operator there. I would also point out that hosting the image was in no way illegal; copyright violation is not a criminal offence.--Ropeuser (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2013 (BST)

@ Ropeuser - thank you for actually answering the question. Wasn't so hard now, was it?

You should not have passed on permission to publish my, or anyone else's material to another site, though, without expressed consent. Wiki commons, on the other hand, have been very good. Even google and tumblr and pininterest responded very quickly and took down all copies of my work they or I could identify without any fuss. You, though, seem to have a deeply unprofessional approach to these things. You know, an apology for allowing an anonymous user to upload my copyright material and claim a commons licence for it, without you guys even checking it, would not go amiss.

And I first took legal action over copyright violations in 1986 - and I have never lost a case. So, please don't bother with the patronising crap about what is and what is not illegal.

Neither AnonMoos nor I passed on any permission, and I would be most grateful if you would please withdraw this accusation. How do you suggest that either of us could have known that you owned the copyright of this picture?--Ropeuser (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (BST)

It is very simple - you, or someone, allowed the entire site to be copied and re-published by another host - you were not given licence to distribute it. And, when someone uploads material claiming a commons licence, it would just be good form to see if that licence is valid.

You know, all this would have been a much less unpleasant experience if a) there was a clear and visible way to get in contact with the site admins. b) there was some mechanism for reporting copyright abuse when it does occur, as you will find on just about any user contrib site c) the messages sent to me had not been so unprofessional and patronising.

Look at the first response I got from annon - frankly, that was atrocious, and could not have been more different from the polite, informed and professional response one gets from people like wiki commons, or even tumblr.

I say that in a constructive spirit, and I hope you will take that on board, and behave in a rather more mature manner if anyone else has cause to contact you about material illegally hosted on your site. OK?