Bill Walker really is a Convict

Threats of violence, even without a prior conviction, are technically
actionable, but the target would have to interest the local PD and they tend
to have more important issues to deal with. Seen it done a few times, but
this Walker silliness does not merit it.

That is also why I believe his posts about Government agencies looking into
the misuse of data, copyright violations, and subpoenas flying is utter
nonsense. He has not answered up on any of those issues either.

 

Ill say its eatin at him. seems to be keeping him up day & nite, to!

 

What does any of this have to do with going to Austin?

 

Actually it is your ignorance that is flapping in the breeze and your
limited comprehension of the English.

Many organizations that handle money have their personnel bonded/insured.
That includes banks, escrow companies, school districts, messenger services,
and other businesses which handle large amounts of cash. Its how a
professional business is run. IME, people with non juvenile criminal
records are rarely if ever able to be bonded.

TMRA II is a biker group not professionally run company in the financial
area. I presume it handles relatively little cash. I would not expect them
to require bonding. I have not trashed them in any way.

Clearly you could benefit from adult literacy classes since you seem to have
a hard time understanding what people are posting.

 

I have said nothing about the TMRA II, so what are you ranting about?

Why would I want to go to Austin other than to take more (and copyright)
pictures of you in action which I could then legitimately turn over to Deb
and the other Reekyites to suitably embellish?

 

Is this a denial that the record that was published was yours?

I have said nothing about the TMRA II, so what are you raving about?

You still have done nothing to support your earlier claim of Government
agencies taking legal action. Ranting about affronts to the TMRA II does
not answer those questions

 

You are confusing commercial work with parody, news, and other areas covered
by fair use. The Dallas Morning News can print any picture they take in
public without a copyright issue. In your own home town there is a website
call www.barkdogs.org. They published pics of people leaving the bars drunk
doing all sort of things in public (Lower Greenville), and yet no copyright
issues. And thats right there in Texas. It was also funny as all hell too.

Fair Use and Non Commercial Use are clearly unknown to you, Consider this:
- Who is profiting?
- Is it confusing the consumer by using something very similar or
identical to protected trade dress or a service marque.
- Is it news
- Is it parody

Go pay for a time of a lawyer who specializes in these areas (not the
storefront guy who covers petty criminals in night court) and she/he will
also tell you really don't have a copyright issue. The owner of the porn
picture or the owner of the original picture of you may, but you don't.
Your issue is defamation. It should cost you around $500 if you get one of
the right background.

I don't expect there is anything you will effectively be able to do about
this legally. I offered a more pragmatic approach, but it appears to be
beyond either of your capabilities.

 

Since you asked, it depends on a lot of things. The most important
being whether the publisher of the picture is implying that it's
genuine. If someone published a picture of Britney Spears having sex
with a space alien on top of the Washington Monument, it would be hard
to make a defamation case out of that.

Likewise, when the same original photograph is modified several times,
and the original and all of the modified versions are published
together, it makes it patently obvious that the modified versions are
fakes, which gives them some legal protection as parodies.

There's a big legal difference between "character defamation" and
"making fun of somebody". One's legally protected, and the other
isn't. Just think of all the funny doctored photographs of
clelbrities you see on "The Tonight Show" or Letterman. Do you really
think the producers would open themselves up to a lawsuit?

 

So I guess when you see someone on the Jumbotron at a ballgame,
everyone in the scene has signed a release form? Or when a TV
reporter is standing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, they
have to get a release from everyone that runs behind her before they
can air the segment? Or when you see a picture in the tabloid of a
celebrity walking down the street with the first two knuckles of her
finger up her nose, I guess she signed a release for that picture to
be published?

Your protections against being photographed in a public place are next
to nil. And to make it even funnier, the photo of the nose-digging
actress *is* protected by copyright, but guess who owns the copyright?
That's right - the photographer!

 

Last post, you were trying to make your argument based on how and
where the photograph was taken. Now, you're basing your argument on
how the photograph was used. I hope you're more consistent when you
appear before the judge. How did the Dallas courts get jurisdiction,
anyway?

Unless it's an extremely professional photo re-touching job that could
easily pass for genuine, it's probably going to be considered parody
and found to be protected.

Someone made fun of you - it's not a criminal act. Maybe if you could
show that the picture cost you a movie deal or an endorsement
contract, things would be different.

 

Um it is parody. Ever hear of Fallwell v. Flynt? Sounds pretty damn
similar, right down to the doctored photos.

 

What *exactly* is the "harm" that was supposedly intended? When/if
you get in front of a judge, you'll have to be very specific, so this
isn't just a nit-picking question. How would you show a judge that
the publishing of this picture has caused you real, tangible,
measurable harm? Embarassment isn't "harm", and unless the Photoshop
job was good enough for the picture to easliy pass for real, it's not
like it could have cost you a job or a political office or anything
like that.

 

Photoshopping is not copyright violation against the subject. Publishing it
is potentially defamation, but it is not copyright issue.

One more time, its not a copyright issue, it would be defamation.

I don't know what website it was even on, but the some reasons could be:
- The owner of the company pulled it
- The poster decided that it was more risk than he wanted
- ISP stepped in
- DCMA Takedown notice
- Ran out of posting space
- Too much bandwidth was being consumed.

The reality is that most companies don't want the hassle of lawsuits, even
bogus ones, and won't take those kind of risks (unless they are CBS or the
National Inquirer). Cease and Desist letters are often enough. Why don't
you ask whoever posted it?

Look at the prior post to the old man about a possible course of action.

Let us all know when you get a copyright judgment against whomever posted it
with you as the plaintiff.

 

If it did happen it would not be a copyright issue.

Civil or criminal?
Why Dallas when it happened in Houston?
What damages are you alleging?
What remedies are you asking the court for?
Filing number?
Which court? Note that copyright is Federal not State, and would not be
handled by a Dallas County Court.

For a while there you were at least rationale, but uninformed. Now you seem
to be getting as befuddled as the old man.

 

No because he stated right up front that he is not a lawyer. Jeez Bill,
you are grasping at straws now.

 

His reaction is common. He feels slighted/offended. He may well have been
defamed. Its all civil vice criminal and he has no chance at recovery.
However his impotent rage is amusing. The hints about legal action by
Government agencies is hysterical.

 

Nope not the constitution, Supreme court descisions. But you might not
know that...have you ever read the constitution?

 

No it's not. It's not until you file a civil suit. Make sure to post
the case # here. We all want to follow along.

 

Good parallel. Falwell sued "Hustler" over a picture of Falwell
having sex with his own mother in an outhouse. The complaints were
libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The case was dismissed, mainly because it was obvious the
picture was a fake, or as the court put it:

“no reasonable man would believe that the parody was describing actual
facts about Falwell.”

So, if the picture is outlandish enough, or an obvious fake, it can be
protected as parody, even when the photo is a pornographic depiction
of an illegal sex act. Whether it's "funny" or not doesn't enter into
the question.

 

ROTFL.. These clowns have become to tiresome to mess with, Brian.. The legal
beagel is really making an ass out of himself.. Showboat has already been
"waltzed" all over the map.. Don Binns face is all broke out again from all
the fun, he's been having and the whole thing has gotten downright
ridiculous..

John Moran is switching aliases so much and so frequently, he's already
forgotten who he is.. Damn.. talking about life being difficult.. now that
little fat dude has really got his hands full, just staying online, so he
can enjoy all this "fun".. Spending the day begging some provider to open an
account for him is frustrating as hell.. Here's a clue, John.. ssshhhh...
Arresting Officer.. and on and on..

Since they've all ignored the perfect opportunity to discredit Bill Walker,
and in public.. hmmm not to even mention TMRA II, in one fell swoop.. I
suppose none of the Welfare Rider assholes will be in Austin next week..
<sigh> After all the trouble I went to, to make sure that for once in his
life, Don Binns.. WON something and got an Awards Ceremony arranged .. just
for his benefit.. That's not showing anyone much loyalty and dedication..

As for that sleazy little cocksucker that thinks he's the resident legal
beagel for reeky.. sheesh.. that dude couldn't beat a parking ticket, much
less persuade anyone that he knows what he's talking about.. How 'bout that
John Moran.. Another Viewer.. Arresting Officer, or whatever you are calling
yourself today.. Post some more of your shit porn .. Supernews is waiting
for an excuse to pop your sleazy ass, just like Internet America did.. LOL..
Just too much "fun" going on.. huh ?