The right to answer back

Everybody has the right to answer to a situation when people may feel comfortable or uncomfortable with.
Regarding to my latest post, blackLiquid Tokyoska has the right to answer back.

She sent me an e-mail I'm going to publish here, with her own perspective, her point of view and a request. My answer to her e-mail is only posted here, not answered back to her e-mail.

Hello there Fashion Critique, it was lovely to see your post about me recently on your blog, I feel quite special that you have written about me 3 times in 7 months always getting free advertising from you is wonderful, however I would appreciate it if you could remove my images as you haven't asked for my permission to use them and I would rather that they are not used in this context. As you can see from my tumblr site in my photography information section; "||ALL IMAGES REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF blackLiquid PHOTOGRAPHY AND ARE NOT FOR RESALE UNLESS NEGOTIATED WITH blackLiquid Tokyoska, IMAGES TO BE USED

I appreciate your cooperation in removing my images.
Thanks for your time.

blackLiquid Tokyoska.


Hello there blackLiquid,

Appreciated for your e-mail.
I'm glad my latest post has made you feel special.

I have only a few points to underline:

1. Your legal copyright disclaimer, stated in your e-mail, refers to your Tumblr website. The printscreens I uploaded here are from Flickr, public web content, searchable on google.

2. As I mentioned above and it's clear in my latest post, I didn't upload your photos. I uploaded printscreened public web content, with a link to your Flickr page, as legal courtesy.

3. Since you do not contest that the photos and text are yours, I don't see any reason to remove my printscreens of Flickr public content. I made clear who is the photographer and who is the avatar in the photo - you; who wrote the text - you. So, I'm not saying that the photos are mine. They are yours, it's public on Flickr. This is not content theft.

4. You ask me to remove your images, because I didn't ask your permission to use them. But I didn't not upload your photos. I uploaded public web content I searched on Google and I printscreened. You may see that I didn't change or crop any of your photos, because I didn't use your photos, even less from any Tumblr webpage.

So, your copyright legal disclaimer doesn't apply in this circumstance.

I did my best to identify the author of the photos and text shown in my printscreens, as it should be, legally, because the photos and text in the printscreens are not mine. Even though it's public content on Flickr - searchable on Google - I had the courtesy of identifying the author - you.

I'm glad you feel wonderful with me freely advertising you. Hence it doesn't make sense to remove my own printscreens of photos taken by you, posted in public Flickr pages, searchable by anyone and plus, giving you the ownership of photos and text, which you do not contest- you actually say they are yours.
I did the right thing. Gave you the complete ownership of the photos and text you have posted in Flickr public contents.

Again, much appreciated for your answer.
I will keep the printscreens of your photos and text in my blog, as they are, with the correct credits to who wrote that and who is in the photo. They are yours. You have absolute ownweship of what was photographed, posted and said, publicly on Flickr. Public content doesn't need legal permission to be printscreened or even screen photographed with a digital camera, if it were the case.

I'll be here, as always,
Fifth Avenue aka FC


Laura18 Streeter said...

just my two cents' worth here -
BlackLicquid's Flickr site and photos are clearly marked
All rights reserved

She is the right holder and by the DMCA Act only she can grant you the use of her work, whichever means, printscreen or other you may use. The fact that they are on a public site is irrelevant.

Hence, you are in breach of copyrihgt.

Fifth Avenue said...

Appreciated Laura18 for your comment.

I would be in breach of copyright if the material had commercial use by me- if I were making profit from it - which is not the case.

Or, if I was using intellectual property of someone else, not stating who the author is - I clearly stated who the author is.

Take a look at this example: I'm taking a walk in a public place and see a billboard advertising something - let's say Ferrari, for example. I take a photo with my camera and post it in my blog. Do I have to ask Ferrari for permission - or better yet, the author of the billboard itself - to post a photo I took of a public billboard?

Same here. I clearly stated who the author is, I added a link to the author's Flickr page. I never said those contents were mine.

The situation here is not about me being in breach of copyright or not. The problem is the opinion I have, illustrated by my printscreens.

Please, read Flickr TOS, carefully.

If I posted the same printscreens of Flickr public content, clearly stating who the author is and then wrote a more positive review, then, I'm guessing there would be no problem, would it?

Rod said...

As Laura pointed out blackLiquid's images are infact marked "All rights reserved", and you are in breach of copyright. Twist it any which way you want, it also states in the Blogger COntent Policy: "Copyright: It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. More information about our copyright procedures can be found here. Also, please don't provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads other people's content."

And if I am correct you did mention in your response to Laura that "I clearly stated who the author is, I added a link to the author's Flickr page." So not only are you in breach of copyright, but you proceeded to go against the Blogger COntent Policy regarding copyright as well.

Taellinu Aichi said...

I have to agree with Fifth Avenue on this one. He seems spot on in his interpretation of TOS here. Last i checked most of the Internet fell under US Law, and that is premits freedom of speech. If he wants to use a screenshot he can.

After all a screenshot is an image that comes off of the viewing screen, if content isn't for use elsewhere it should not be viewable to ANYONE period, end of story. Once you can take a screenshot the image is taken, and it's a copy of a REPRESENTATION of something. While US copyright law is quite convoluted....images of images are still free domain to be used. Otherwise everything someone too a picture of an airplane, billboard, etc was taken the company displayed would have control over the image.

That isn't the case. As the work wasn't reproduced....just an image taken off of Fifth Avenue's computer screen there is no issue. Especially as original work has been clearly cited.