User talk:Ron Hernandez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the Sandbox.
- For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.
-- utcursch | talk 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Banned
You have been banned from editing Wikipedia due to your legal threats, which go against our policy WP:NLT. --Cyde Weys 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] removed image from Pornography article
You removed an image from the Pornography article, and threatened to sue. I am not a Wikipedia Admin, nor do I represent them in any way. I do, however, wonder what the basis of your removal is? The person who took the picture released it into the public domain properly. The images taken are covers of Pornography magazines. As they are cover photo's, they are subject the copyright law in the U.S., and are allowed within copyright law as "fair use". Reproduction of anything within those magazines would not be fair use, but the cover photo is. Please elaborate on what your basis is for claiming that the public domain picture of the fair use images is a copyright violation. Thanks, Atom 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, these count as incidental inclusion, and since they are so small and low resolution they cannot be reasonably considered to be infringing on anyone's copyrights. --Cyde Weys 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The images shown are not public covers, they are special "covers" showing a "hardcore" image and are intended only for the purchaser of the video - and are offered as an incentive to purchase the product. They are covered and sealed inside the product box behind the "softcore" cover when sold.
It seems the retailer is violating his distribution agreement by putting them on display and the photographer is violating the copyright by releasing rights he does not own. I highly suggest temporarily removing the image while this claim is verified. Ignorance of copyright is not a defense. The copyright owner is suffering real and proveable fiscal damage while these images are available and those offering it freely for display could be held liable for damages incurred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ron Hernandez (talk • contribs).
The retailer is violating his "distribution agreement" by putting the DVDs on display? What? How in the hell is he supposed to sell them otherwise? I don't think you understand copyright law at all. And why the legal threats? They're not your intellectual property, why in the hell are you threatening a lawsuit? --Cyde Weys 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps my 5 word incantation against the photographer could be viewed as such, but honestly how else in the space provided? This is a true copyright violation and in my suprise and angst at seeing these specific titles presented as the masthead for "pornography" I may have been curt.
But, to your question: In the Adult industry hardcore images of models (e.g. showing penetration) are considered more valuable than softcore (those not showing). These specific titles in Israel are sold in a cardboard sleeve and shrink wrapped. When the purchaser removes the shrink wrap the sleeve can come off showing the image on the inside. It's a big deal and many there buy based on the promise of what image is inside.
Every product shown in that picture is unwrapped and showing the hardcore image, leading me to believe that these are available from a retailer who either did not read his distribution agreement or is not licensed. In eitehr case, he's not allowed to display the product that way. It's akin to having the spoiler of any movie on the box cover - it blows the value.
Seriously, this needs to come down. Let me know what else you'd like. I can have the copyright holder's counsel contact you directly for any clarification. Thanks much. Ron Ron Hernandez 03:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Does the lack of response indicate agreement, indifference? I think the gravity of this situation is perhaps not realized. It would be in the best interest of all concerned to address this issue expeditiously. Ron Hernandez 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
