I guess we're famous now

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
re copyright laws ... you took the picture, it's YOURS, no one else can use it without your permission. It doesn't matter if you're an amateur or professional, no one else has the right to use your photographs without permission.

EVERYONE should watermark EVERY photo they put on the internet - put your name on everything you put out there. It'll prevent a lot of thievery and it's super easy to do.
 
Have you seen the latest blog? Now they are bashing mini horse costume classes!! Oh yeah...they do have comments about using minis as guide animals too. The following has been posted:

"Well I guess you have to do something with all of the mini's being bred willy-nilly. Maybe if you hide them in costumes , no one will see their misformed heads and mouths

Mini breeders are as bad as color breeders. If it's tiny, bred it. But then you get the ones with spots too! So you can bred tiny and spotted and never mind that when the ignorant rubes have finished tormenting the beast into a biting kicking monster that not even the kill buyers will have it... "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jenn, could you please let us all know how to watermark our photos? I've been wanting to do it, but don't know how. I don't have any fancy photo program like photoshop or anything like that.
 
pictures etc ARE NOT public domain! this is a huge misconception on the internet. Just because something is on the internet does not at all make it public domain.

also penalties for copyright infringement go up when the person refuses to take them down after being told they are in violation. They go even higher if there is a malicious intent.

Public Domain. Here are the rules for determining when a document enters the public domain:

In the United States, material first published before January 1, 1978, usually enters the public domain 75 years from the first date of copyright, that is, 75 years from the original date.

Most works created on or after January 1, 1978, enter the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. This rule applies after January 1, 2023.

After January 1, 2053, any work written by a corporate author and originally published on or after January 1, 1978, will enter the public domain 75 years after publication or 100 years after creation, whichever comes first.

Works created before January 1, 1978, but not published before that date are copyrighted under rules 2 and 3 above. There is one exception here: The copyright on works published after January 1, 1978 expires before December 31, 2002. As a result, a lot of books that might otherwise enter the public domain remain copyrighted

Any work enters the public domain in the United States if a substantial number of copies were printed and distributed in the U.S. without a copyright notice before March 1, 1989.

Substantially new editions of books, especially new translations or editions created by a new editor, are copyrighted from the creation of that edition, not from the creation of the original.

In the United Kingdom and many other nations, copyrights generally endure for the life of the author plus 50 years.

Libraries must conform to the copyright laws of the nation in which the work will be distributed. For example, Peter Pan is in the public domain in the United States but not in the U.K.; therefore, American libraries may not distribute the book online in Great Britain.

Under the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act, protection lasted for 28 years and was renewable for another 28 years for a total of 56 years. In 1962, Congress started overhauling the entire Copyright Act, passing interim extensions giving existing works protection for a total term of 75 years. All copyrights in existence in 1962 were extended to at least 1976, when the 75-year rule went into effect. As a result, works published between 1917 and 1939 have not yet entered the public domain.

A public speech is copyrighted only if the speaker writes it down, authorizes it to be recorded, or has someone record it at the time it is given. Because Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech was written down on paper and registered with the Copyright Office, Mrs. King has been able to forbid its duplication without permission. If you want to tape a speech for distribution (online or off), you will need to obtain copyright clearance from the speaker.
 
You can tag photos as well - although that can be cropped off....

As a side note, the table CAN turn both ways. I have found pictures of this person's family and animals on another board. I'm just not as cruel as they are
Well, posting them or even discussing them would be out of line IMO.... the table need not turn both ways...
default_unsure.png
:

Steph - the mistake you made in all of this was giving them too much information - you should have stopped at the fact that you rescued her in that condition anf left it at that. Never feed the fish...

Some of the concerns expressed on that blog are valid... only perhaps expressed in extremely flammable ways at times.

And I am still surprized that anyone has their Photobucket or other online photo site accounts public instead of private. It is very easy to simply go backwards from the URL of one photo and get into an entire album - if you have NOT made said album/account private...

I am getting the impression that the person behind this fugly horse thing could very well be a member of this forum? Or friends with many who are?
Well, I don't know her from a hole in the ground.

You sound a bit.... suspicious??
default_unsure.png
:

*edited cuz spelln iz impordind*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, to be copyrighted, the above states that forms need to be filed with the Copyright Office - this doesnt mean that I can take pics of my horses, put them on my website and assume they are copyrighted. That means they are protected- by whom as I have not filed anything to copyright them.

A copyright is a secured legal right to something, prohibiting others from reproducing, selling, distributing or publishing it.
 
I've read the blogs and am astounded at how someone can be so proud of hurting people's feelings or being "mean" (her words, not mine).

The word that comes to my mind to describe her best is RABID. It also appears a lot of the other people who responded might be foaming at the mouth too.

Steph, I'm like you, I try hard not to hurt others feelings and just don't understand people who do. I won't tell you to ignore it because I have some idea how difficult that would be for me.

Those of us who know how hard you've worked to get her where she is today applaud you. :aktion033: :aktion033: :aktion033:
 
No not suspicious well ok i guess there is always a small part of me that is by nature.. I just got the feeling from reading some answers that some knew or know of others involved that is all. Again doesnt really matter who it is if they are proud enough of what they do and say and feel they are educated enough to make those claims I am sure they would feel no need to hide and would come right out and say Hey I am the one who said those things
 
HG i posted somewhere on this long thread the copyright laws. Just by taking a picture or making a drawing you have an automatic copyright. You can get an official one for 45.00 but its really not necessary and the only time i do it is when something is published in a national magazine. the above rules are for public domain.

this is why for example i cannot go to little kings site and take a picture of buckeroo and post it on my site without their permission. This is also why mary lou asks people not to post pictures of horses they dont own without permission.

Lisa i so agree that if she really felt she was educating etc she would not feel the need to hide her real identity. but until someone files against her she will continue on im sure.

But really what it boils down to is being human. Steph asked her to take the pic down and instead of doing the right thing and just taking it off she continues on
default_sad.png
 
My first thought is WHO WOULD READ THAT CRAPPY WEBSITE ?? :eek: Who is the idiot that writes that stuff ?

I am sorry you were a victim
default_sad.png
 
Last edited:
I'd find it amazing if it were someone on this forum, as funny as some of it is, I don't see any of that kind of casual bashing going on here... Anyway we could do some homework? Steph said she had "found" her on other blogs etc, it can't be That hard to track someone down is it?
 
After seeing this thread this morning I took a quick look at that blog page, and simply can't believe anyone really reads that junk. I scanned through the first part & then left--it simply wasn't worth continuing on. Whoever the author of that site is, she's nothing but an ignorant mouthpiece who doesn't know half as much about anything as she thinks she does. Of course those that know the least tend to be the ones with the most to say.

Like Carol said, she's a legend in her own mind. You run across one of those every so often. I'm not sure what's more annoying--to meet them on the web, or in person?
 
[SIZE=14pt]Guys, I went to the link for this site....I clicked on the first link and read the comment this "person" has made. The newest photo is of a mini in costume and her comments are very nasty & negitive. She has formed her "opinion" on miniatures with out have a lot of facts. Which it seems like she is doing with her whole blog site.[/SIZE]

The comments are really bad as well.

This is directly B/C of Steph contacting them with a lawsuit. One of the comments states....

"fuglyhorseoftheday said...

(For those of you who were missing yesterday's hilarity with David & Steph, I think we're about to top it.)

OK, Sherlock. Who am I?

August 8, 2007 1:52 PM "

It is a direct slap in the face to Steph...... Is there anything Steph can do about this?

(If this has already been brought up, I sorry, I read at least 8 of the pages then posted ;-)! )
 
Dana stated my problem exactly, I don't have a clue how to find this person. I'm slowly tracking her down through other message boards and what-not, but so far I've found nothing as far as a web site with a real address. At least most of the folks here have the guts to put up a web site with contact information
default_yes.gif
:

(Ok, now I wanna run around the house screaming "Chicken!!! Bok bok bok bok bok!!!" and flap my wings, does that make me immature? :new_shocked: )
 
If you want to discourage and downplay that blog - stop giving it hits.

Stop going there.

Do not LINK directly from here to there.

Stop giving it hits.

No links.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

That is what a lot of the blogosphere is like. If you do not like it - do not engage it... and no - if they are not posting personal information such as names and addresses and phone numbers you cannot jump them for that.

The worst thing you can do to any blogger - is IGNORE THEM.

There are parts of that blog that I do not mind - and that the blogger is RIGHT about... vis a vis breeding ugly anything to uglier anything - going for colour only - deciding that everything can or should be bred etc. ... but her approach may not be everyone's cup of tea - obviously. She could tone it down a lot and still get her point across IMO. I guess I am a bad, evil, horrible, disgusting person - as I laughed at that older "Hookd ohn Fonics" section as well. Or more like - sighed.

Dreamweaver - she is not exactly ignorant. She has an excellent eye for conformation and most of that analysis is dead on... I am not defending her way of getting her message across, however.

And for the suspicious... no - I do not know her. I have looked at the blog upon occasion. And that is all.

ETA: Steph - why track her down? Why bother? You are simply giving her the attention she wants... IMHO.

ETA2: Your post below is exactly right, dimimore... THANK YOU!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May I respectfully ask that this blog place and person be ignored from now on? No more links, who cares? Steph is fine, Faith is great and those bloggers are like sharks feeding and searching for fresh blood. Shall we give them their due? I think not...let them go....such a sad group of folks. I actually feel quite sorry for those with that much unhappiness and venom that they must attack anything and everything to feel powerful and special.
 
[SIZE=14pt]Dimimore is sooo right...i said this several pages ago...don't fuel the fire, this is what they wake up each day for...i can imagine how angry and hurt you are as i am sure i would be also but the more you play their game the bigger their smiles get...i will say it again...TWISTED and sad for sure...Nikki[/SIZE]
 
Concerning watermarks (I tried to quote...I'm a moron...I know you mentioned it somewhere!)

Steph, what photo editor are you using?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top