From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/12 Wed PM 03:14:19 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
mike wilson wrote:
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/12 Wed AM 02:28:23 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/12 Wed PM 08:32:58 GMT
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
Maybe he just came across one
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/12 Wed AM 02:28:23 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
Maybe he just came across one
John,
You look mighty close.
Was she in earshot of hearing the shutter snap there?
That could be risky.
Regards, Bob S.
On Dec 11, 2007 9:06 PM, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:28:23PM -0600, Bob Sullivan wrote:
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be
mike wilson wrote:
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/12 Wed AM 02:28:23 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
Maybe he just
Riskier is hearing the thong snap!
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John,
You look
As usual on the internet, someone chopped off a part of his sentence and used
it
as a quote. There ought to be a law against quoting only a fragment of a
sentences. OTOH, there are to many laws already. Maybe dueling is the answer. I
mean if you are likely to get shot for it, you may think
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
Maybe he just came across one.
oh, please, Mike - enough is enough.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of graywolf
Sent: 12 December 2007 18:15
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
As usual on the internet, someone chopped off a part of his
sentence and used it
as a quote. There ought to be a law against quoting
On 12/12/07, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
There ought to be a law against quoting only a fragment of a
Mark!!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/10 Mon PM 10:29:39 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
On 11/12/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Here's the 2006 list:
Part 1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg369128.html
On Dec 11, 2007 6:59 PM, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talking about getting out, I wonder how Bob Shell is managing. Did he end up
in clink?
ROTFLMAO
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
On 11/12/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Talking about getting out, I wonder how Bob Shell is managing. Did he
end up in clink?
As far as I am aware, Bob's address is:
Robert Shell
03-15122
E108/A57
c/o New River Vally Regional Jail
PO Box 1067
Dublin
VA 24084
--
Cheers,
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/11 Tue AM 11:23:40 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
On 11/12/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Talking about getting out, I wonder how Bob Shell is managing. Did he
end up in clink
On Dec 10, 2007 10:12 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
What? Brooksie wears a slip?
Over his moose-hide thong.
Its winter here. I have had to break out the long thongs. They keep
your feet warm to.:-)
Dave
--
Cheers,
On Dec 10, 2007 8:35 PM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 10/12/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections
Boy, don't you love Freudian slips
No, no. Freudian slips are verbal. When it's a typographical error like
Thongs around here are underwear made from small patches of cloth with
straps made of dental floss designed to bare the butt cheeks...
Brian Walters wrote:
In this part of the world thongs are things you wear on your feet.
Moose hide. Feet.
I don't see anything in that image to disturb my
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections
Boy, don't you love Freudian slips
No, no. Freudian slips are verbal. When it's a typographical error
like
that, you call it a Brooksian slip.
What? Brooksie wears
I don't think they let him out pending appeal.
mike wilson wrote:
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/10 Mon PM 10:29:39 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
On 11/12/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Here's the 2006 list
You thought that disturbing? Thongs, the kind that don't cover your butt,
come in sizes up to ... 22!
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly
You're an evil man, now I need a quart of scotch...
Bob Blakely wrote:
You thought that disturbing? Thongs, the kind that don't cover your butt,
come in sizes up to ... 22!
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the
At 08:10 AM 12/12/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
The fact that Bob knows this raises a few even more disturbing questions:
1. Why does he know that?
2. What size is he?
shudder
Cheers,
Dave
You're an evil man, now I need a quart of scotch...
Bob Blakely wrote:
You thought that disturbing?
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
On Dec 11, 2007 6:09 PM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:10 AM 12/12/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
The fact that Bob knows this raises a few even more disturbing questions:
1. Why does he know
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:28:23PM -0600, Bob Sullivan wrote:
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
May I remind people of this image I shared with you a while back?
http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/scary.jpg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
I either missed that or forgot about it. Excuse me, I have to go gouge
my eyes out...
John Francis wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:28:23PM -0600, Bob Sullivan wrote:
My thoughts exactly Dave!
Why would he be looking for size 22 thongs?
Regards, Bob S.
May I remind people of
Well, you may . but I wish you hadn't.
:-)
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
Quoting John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
May I remind people of this image I shared with you a while back?
I think this is one that we have been trying to forget - it pretty
much is burned into the retinas - now doubly so - maybe that makes it
a 44?
--
Bruce
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 7:06:21 PM, you wrote:
JF On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:28:23PM -0600, Bob Sullivan wrote:
My thoughts exactly
- Original Message -
From: ann sanfedele
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
William Robb wrote:
And Ann, I did not, nor will I, apologize to her. I refuse to admit I did
anything wrong here, and am still reserving the right to repost the images
if my lawyer thinks I am safe
On Dec 10, 2007 10:46 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when I'm not writing emails, I'm a pretty reasonable
Mrk!
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: ann sanfedele
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
William Robb wrote:
And Ann, I did not, nor will I, apologize to her. I refuse to admit I did
anything wrong here, and am still reserving the right to repost the images
This is not about being a prude or any such similar thing. This person,
gender aside, accepted MONEY to pose nude for a gaggle of photographers. She
sould know that:
(1.) Film was being exposed!
(2.) Prints were to be made!
(3.) The photographers OWN the copyrights to their OWN photos.
(4.) ANY
What is this Mark! thing???
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 10, 2007 10:46
Its to draw attention to the keeper of the Quotable Quotes list for
the pdml. that maybe something should be added.
Dave
On Dec 10, 2007 2:09 PM, Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is this Mark! thing???
Regards,
Bob...
On Dec 10, 2007 2:09 PM, Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is this Mark! thing???
Mark.
Dave
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly
Bob Blakely wrote:
What is this Mark! thing???
You'll find out in 20 days!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On 10/12/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed:
What is this Mark! thing???
Oh jees now we're in trouble.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Bob Blakely wrote:
Now, as to her desires not to have the photographers display THEIR work
and
share their pride in the development of THEIR art, she can ask all she
wants, even make demands. Nevertheles, legal ears should be deaf to
such
demands. William Robb is entirely within his rights
Where can I read some of these Quotable Quotes? You guys are pretty witty.
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: David J
Bob Blakely wrote:
Where can I read some of these Quotable Quotes? You guys are pretty
witty.
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections on my web site. Won't
happen until later this week as I'm grading exams at the moment.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
You must have missed it. Mark Roberts keeps a list of memorable,
amusing, stupid, etc., things said on the PDML and publishes the list
yearly. It's heavy on the irony. I think this statement by Mr. Robb
more than qualifies, as apparently does Mr. Savage. On the other hand I
have to agree
Mark Roberts wrote:
Bob Blakely wrote:
Where can I read some of these Quotable Quotes? You guys are pretty
witty.
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections on my web site.
That was supposed to be previous years... But now that I come to
think about it, maybe they *are* precious ;-)
--
Bob Blakely wrote:
Where can I read some of these Quotable Quotes? You guys are pretty witty.
Regards,
Bob...
Here, after he makes the list 9and checks it twice)
ann
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
Here's the 2006 list:
Part 1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg369128.html
Part 2:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg369129.html
Cheers,
Dave
On Dec 11, 2007 5:37 AM, Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where can I read some of these Quotable Quotes? You guys are
On 10/12/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections
Boy, don't you love Freudian slips
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Savage
Sent: 10 December 2007 22:07
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT: Legalese, Canadian Style
Here's the 2006 list:
Part 1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg369128.html
Part
Bob Blakely wrote:
You guys are pretty
Mark!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On 11/12/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Here's the 2006 list:
Part 1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg369128.html
Part 2:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg369129.html
Dave mate, you have got to get out more. Really.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
Cool! Thanks!
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's the 2006 list:
Part 1:
Forgetaboutit, no one will believe he said it.
Paul Crovella wrote:
Bob Blakely wrote:
You guys are pretty
Mark!
--
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.
In a message dated 12/10/2007 2:57:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Forgetaboutit, no one will believe he said it.
Paul Crovella wrote:
Bob Blakely wrote:
You guys are pretty
Mark!
===
I see it quoted, and I still don't.
Marnie ;-)
At 07:29 AM 11/12/2007, Cotty wrote:
Dave mate, you have got to get out more. Really.
You have no idea.
:-P
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
I've been reading the epistles of these delinquent denizens o' the dark for
near 10 years now. Every now and then one of them quips out a doozie.
Wheatfield Willie spewss excellent barbs when he feels the need to blow them
someone's way. Others are just as good with the wry stuff - when irked.
Cotty wrote:
On 10/12/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections
Boy, don't you love Freudian slips
No, no. Freudian slips are verbal. When it's a typographical error like
that, you call it a Brooksian slip.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 10/12/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections
Boy, don't you love Freudian slips
No, no. Freudian slips are verbal. When it's a typographical error like
that, you call it a
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:35 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Perhaps I'll put precious years' collections
Boy, don't you love Freudian slips
No, no. Freudian slips are verbal. When it's a typographical error
like
that, you call it a Brooksian slip.
What? Brooksie wears a slip?
Godfrey
--
On 10/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
What? Brooksie wears a slip?
Over his moose-hide thong.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Now that's a disturbing image I didn't need just before bed...
Cotty wrote:
On 10/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
What? Brooksie wears a slip?
Over his moose-hide thong.
--
I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati.
A union with the
In this part of the world thongs are things you wear on your feet.
Moose hide. Feet.
I don't see anything in that image to disturb my sleep
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
Quoting P.
So, the upshot of this little tempest in a pisspot seems to be that once
again, a photographer has caved in to the threat of legal action, even
knowing that he has done nothing wrong.
So far, I have not been able to find any citations, in either Canadian
criminal or civil law that seems to put
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:53:58 -0600
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the upshot of this little tempest in a pisspot seems to be that
once again, a photographer has caved in to the threat of legal
action, even knowing that he has done nothing wrong.
ok if you hear of me winning the
William Robb wrote:
I refuse to admit I did anything wrong here, and am still reserving
the right to repost the images if my lawyer thinks I am safe to do
so. I really do believe that if people don't take a stand against this
miasma of horseshit that is creeping across the land, then we will
At 09:53 AM 10/12/2007, William Robb wrote:
miasma of horseshit
HAR!
I like that one.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
You are right, of course. And apologizing would be a mistake. It suggets that
you did something wrong.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, the upshot of this little tempest in a pisspot seems to be that once
again, a
William Robb wrote:
And Ann, I did not, nor will I, apologize to her. I refuse to admit I did
anything wrong here, and am still reserving the right to repost the images
if my lawyer thinks I am safe to do so. I really do believe that if people
don't take a stand against this miasma of
On Dec 6, 2007 1:25 AM, Bran Everseeking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:42:52 -0800
Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I turn up naked on the net in sculpture, canvas or photos my own
response will be wow I was young and slimmer... all are possible
given my past at
Actually, in my experience, in most of those kinds of shoots, the photographers
are told up front that they have to work out some kind of separate deal with
the
model if they want to use the photos for anything other than as a learning
experience.
And, BTW, I have never gotten anyone other
William Robb wrote:
A couple of years ago, I partook in a little photo contest based on
the Naked in the House concept.
Of course, I won (using a Nikon to boot).
Some of you may remember the pictures which, until very recently, were
on my website.
Anyway, some internet hero mentioned
Even though she got paid - if she didn't sign a model's release it would
mean to me she would not have wanted those pictures circulated.
Especially since she was naked.
Leave it alone and apologize to her
ann
William Robb wrote:
A couple of years ago, I partook in a little photo contest
In a message dated 12/5/2007 12:34:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Opinions?
Preferably opinions that are relevant to Canadian law
--
William Robb
=
Don't know Canadian law, but a group shoot, either she signed a release (to
the club) and/or it
A couple of years ago, I partook in a little photo contest based on
the Naked in the House concept.
Of course, I won (using a Nikon to boot).
Some of you may remember the pictures which, until very recently, were
on my website.
Anyway, some internet hero mentioned to the model that I had
Yea, I know the law generally, and I'm probably wrong in thinking I know
where you're comming from. Nevertheless, she did not go to a photographer
(or photographera) requesting nude portraits of herself. She posed at the
request of the club and for a fee. Whining that she got burned when
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:32:43 -0600
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opinions?
Preferably opinions that are relevant to Canadian law
when I was young I happily took some extra money modelling for the fine
arts dept. Another model sued and lost complaining that she did not
know she would
As long as you're not selling the images commercially you're completely
in the clear.
If you were to try to sell the images to someone for publication you'd
want to have a signed release (I know I would). But you can sell your
own prints of the image, show it in your portfolio, etc.
This
In the US you can exhibit photos of people all you want without proving
anything. The
problems typically come up when you use a photo in a way that may endorse
something. See
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
Igor Roshchin wrote:
Bill,
I am not sure about
Bill,
I am not sure about Canadian laws. At some point I looked into the
issues of a universal model release form, and found that laws
vary widely, even between different states in the US.
I vaguely remember that just recently, a decision of some court
(probably in the US) that it was ok to
On 05/12/07, ann sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed:
Leave it alone and apologize to her
The first bit is always hard for a male to do
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
Professional Photographers Rule #1: Do not publish, in any form, nude photos
unless you have a long Form (SMP) Model Release specifically allowing you to do
so.
It does not matter whether you are morally, legally, and ethically entitled to;
you are still into a world of woe if you do. In fact
At 05:32 AM 6/12/2007, William Robb wrote:
snip
Opinions?
Photoshop a goalies mask on her face (Is that Canadian style?)
Preferably opinions that are relevant to Canadian law
Oh...
...Photoshop the cover page of the relevant Canadian copyright law over her
face.
HTH
Cheers,
Dave ;-)
--
Neither the model or National Geographic own the photo, the photographer
does. (By default that is, yes alternate arrangements are [too] often
made.) It's the owner who gets to put it up on their website, or sell
prints, or license it for use in National Geographic (print edition
only,
On Dec 6, 2007 9:10 AM, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Professional Photographers Rule #1: Do not publish, in any form, nude photos
unless you have a long Form (SMP) Model Release specifically allowing you to
do so.
It does not matter whether you are morally, legally, and ethically
Maybe she thought they'd be part of an unpublished collection. For
personal use only...
keith_w wrote:
William Robb wrote:
A couple of years ago, I partook in a little photo contest based on
the Naked in the House concept.
Of course, I won (using a Nikon to boot).
Some of you may
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:22:55 -0800
Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But law shouldn't matter in any of this. The photographer should be
able to do the right thing without having his hand forced.
the question really is what is right.
it does not rest with one set of moral values.
That's just a cop-out to never have to decide what's right and what's wrong.
Bran Everseeking wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:22:55 -0800
Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But law shouldn't matter in any of this. The photographer should be
able to do the right thing without having his
I don't think she was identified by name.
Sandy Harris wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 9:10 AM, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Professional Photographers Rule #1: Do not publish, in any form, nude photos
unless you have a long Form (SMP) Model Release specifically allowing you to
do so.
It
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:42:52 -0800
Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's just a cop-out to never have to decide what's right and what's
wrong.
not at all. I do not leave it to a moralistic approach nor a legalistic
one.
I am of the opinion that body shame is a moral cop-out from the
85 matches
Mail list logo
