Double Take

[mmiller]

While checking the latest collecter site updates, I came across an article that I thought may be of interest, on the Army Para Badge.

The article showed versions of catches used on the aluminum version badges. A second group of images showed versions of Juncker hallmarks. I believe that three images of mine are being used in this article without my knowledge or permission.

The article is titled Army Para Badge by CEJuncker Update Part 2. Here is the URL with the images:
http://www.thirdreichmedals.com/answer.html

Here is my original image, posted last May on this Forum in response to one of Eric's initial threads on the aluminum para badge. In fact, the para badge that I posted as fake is represented on Third Reich Medals site as real.



What concerns me is that the images of my badges are named 'armourer1' and 'armourer2'. Does this mean that my images were used in a magazine article? If I am mistaken here, I'm sorry. Am I imagining things?


Thanks,
Mark Miller

[Bruce Simcox]

proof in the pudding

Hi Mark,

After looking over the photos you have supplied and the photos represented in the article you have referred to herein(duly copyright protected I might add!)my blood begins to boil.

That looks like as solid a case of rip-off that I've ever seen...and by one of the sponsors here as well????

There are certainly some explanations due, or at best a lengthy discussion out back by the woodshed!

I guess the true nature of some people just can't help but show itself eventually, once the smoke of bullsh*t clears.

I am sorry to see it happening in front of our eyes like this, especially to a fellow collector who has so selflessly shared his knowledge here on this Forum usually accompanied by outstanding photographs. Photographs, some of which seem to have made their way into another's article not only without your permission but, mislabled to boot!

And, I might add, it seems as if the boot is called for in this situation.

I am outraged by this, to say the least.

--------------------

Bruce

moremad

[exbooty]

B###locks

His article also mainly contains the questions that I proposed to him and had a load of blarney back, smoke and mirrors.

He than has the gohonees to publish his pathetic response as fact.

But you see once it goes in an article in a magazine it becomes fact.....Magic

This guy is a real objective dude

I asked for my money back, but thought hey I'll take goods it will be easier on him. I got back this

I will happily exchange for something else, but you may not wish to do this just yet, as the stuffing has now been knocked out of the price. As I said, I am compiling more evidence, (there is an LDO list which we are trying to get hold off that proves that the Para badges were being produced in 1941, 2 years after certain ones have said manufacture had been dropped, as these were still available then for retail sale), so if you want to wait until this comes to light and the prices may hopefully return, like it did with the L12 KC etc. ..you may see a better rate. Jam##

Yes the badge took a real stuffing in price, on his site his apb gap sqn member came down in price from £1000 to ...er...£1000.

Smart bloke. and an insult to this forum

Chris

[Paul Massucci]

Guess from now on when posting we'll have to add a warning similiar to the one the author of the website used at the top of his article. I suggest:

NO PART of this Posting may be USED or COPIED without the express permission of the author/poster

[Rick Research]

"Fair use" is for PERSONAL viewing (I now have about 5 BOXES of floppies all full of "good stuff" to look at). Having posted quite a few scans of either my own stuff, or things people gave me permission to share with you guys, I would be personally Quite Seriously Annoyed to find MY/THEIR scans being used without so much as a by-your-leave, posted up someplace I had not given permission to, let alone used for somebody else's profit.

Indeed, when we had similar ethical discussions some time back in the Photos Forum, it was observed that automatic copyright remains "forever" with the person who took the pictures. Personally, again, so tender and pink is my personal code of ethics and honor that I will NOT repost scans that I took, of items that I had permission from the then owner to share, if a piece has subsequently been sold, and I do not know who the current owner is.

Something silly like frolicking kitties scans may indeed be copyrighted, but when placed in Kneipe goofing around, I think that passes as "fair use." There is no advantage to the re-poster of such a scan, in such a case. If the person originally responsible for the medical x-ray Coke bottle scan, for instance, wanted it withdrawn for violating copyright, I would comply immediately, with profuse apologies, having had no way to possibly know who such a person was. ("Forgetting" where one saved a scan from is not quite the same thing, when taken from a known source to begin with.)

But I would never take a scan from one of these Forums and use it without asking permission first--nor would I use it if that permission was not granted. Some time back someone on Germandaggers.com posted an interesting embroidered SS ribbon bar that I believe may well be good. Without any way to contact that poster, however, it will certainly NOT be appearing in my Ribbon Bar Article. Likewise, several weeks back Detlev Niemann had two WWI ribbon bars that I desired fiercely, but missed out on. The scans are in my "private use" Floppies Archive as consolation prizes, but will not, of course, be appearing in my Article. They are not mine. I do not have the right to use them for my own, even non-commercial, public re-use to the "benefit" of MY Article.

Mark is certainly due an apology, and either removal of his scans or compliance with his terms. As the owner of an item HE says is fake, having that misused scan as "original" is wrong.

Gentlemen do not behave this way!

[Prosper Keating]

I'm sorry! I HAVE TO do this! I'm not sorry really, but I will edit out the name of the sender to avoid any accusations of victimisation and "shouting at the top of my lungs to an empty room"…containing a mere 2500-plus people.

Joking aside, this is an e-mail I got from someone about image copyright. Note that it was sent to me alone and not to Eric Queen as my co-author and Sebastian Bianchi as 'the publisher' of the article.

This was before the shakedown involving my job, aimed at getting me to change the article to say that badges like the one bought by Chris Sheppard - as well as their unmarked siblings - are original wartime or prewar pieces. But I digress. I have been told that nobody wants to hear about those implicit threats.

It is also worth mentioning that the images in question were given to Eric by the person who claims ownership specifically for use in the article. I gather that he got upset because the fake APB was pictured in the section dealing with fakes.

Anyway…for Mark Miller's attention and information:

------ Forwarded Message
From: J****C***S@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:53:14 EDT
To: prosperk@filnet.fr
Subject: Re: Army Para Badges


Prosper,
We have reviewed your article in the hope that you have amended it accordingly, but all that you have appeared to have done is remove our name from the credits while still using our photographs. I now ask you to remove all our photographs from your article as under the Berne Convention, you are now under infringement of the copyright act.
For your convenience, here are the photographs to be removed.
Unmarked 2nd pattern aluminium para front/back
57 Juncker badge
The badge you misrepresented as a copy.

Any rights given are now taken back (as they were given in good faith and not to be misrepresented) for any forthcoming publications.

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation in this matter.
J***e


------ End of Forwarded Message


Prosper Keaitng

[exbooty]

the smell of napalm in the morning

He has taken the APB badges off his site..

That is what this forum is about..

Chris

[François SAEZ]

Because I went to the same issue some weeks ago - somebody used a pic I sent to him for info, specifying not to use it - it was use without permission, like pictures from the DK article I wrote with J. Calero - used with no permission AND even without asking - But the person apology publicaly and it was the end of the story.

So, like you, I believe that Mark should receive apologies for that.

Also, and this is were I am not confortable with:

The pictures were used to describe an original while Mark used them to describe a fake.

I easily understand Mark's position as I will really be upset if somebody was doing that to me

François

[eric]

If I can recall correctly I faintly remember in the not-so-distant past someone espousing a 'Zero Tolerance' rule towards collecting these types of items. Does this incident apply to that rule?
If so, where does one go from here? moremad

Do we use our certificates for toilet paper?

[François SAEZ]

Sorry Eric, if it is for me, I don't understand. (please use simple words)
My position is clear: ZERO tolerance, including the fact to use pics without permission

[eric]

compris, mon ami

Here's a word that you might understand, since it is latin-based:

CHICANERY

If all of this is true it is a sad day on this Forum. In the end it is the COLLECTORS who have to watch out for each other.

People like Francois who take the time to inform us and people like Prosper who have the heart to stand up for what is right regardless of the consequences or aggravation.


Thanks, guys!

[exbooty]

bog paper

Eric

Yes.... I have been thinking of using my certificate as toilet paper, it is not worth much else, I could feel quite decedent, a $1400 crap.

Oh for the days of the Roman Empire

Chris