IS IT TRUE? November 3, 2011 Late Edition (PictureGate)

47

Grafton Image: Owned by Joe Wallace

IS IT TRUE? November 3, 2011

IS IT TRUE that the picture of Brent Grafton that was mailed out to people yesterday is not the property of the Vanderburgh County Democratic Party and that the Party did not receive permission to use the picture in the mailer from the person who took the picture?…that this picture was taken by none other than Mr. Joe Wallace in the Civic Center at the press conference called by Mr. Grafton to announce his candidacy for Evansville City Council?…that Mr. Grafton paid the City County Observer for the right to use the picture and that Mr. Joe Wallace was paid a fair sum of money for the use of that image?…that Mr. Grafton has permission to use this image only on the banner ad that he paid to place in the City County Observer?…that the price to use an image owned by someone is different for sending a mass mailer than it is for a simple banner ad?…that the theft of intellectual property through screen scraping is a serious matter?…that Mr. Wallace will be submitting an invoice to the Vanderburgh County Democratic Party tomorrow morning and that no terms will be offered?…that means due upon receipt and that Mr. Wallace expects his fee of $3,500 for the mass distribution that the Vanderburgh County Democrat Party made without permission to do so?

IS IT TRUE that the negative campaign materials just seem to keep coming out?…that there is one that was sent that was paid for by the Indiana Republican State Committee and Authorized by Winnecke for Mayor that literally makes Rick Davis look like pictures of the devil that young children are scared with?…that is part of the game of politics and Mr. Davis has certainly taken the attack mode with his State Democrat paid for ads?…that it is one thing to distribute attack ads but it is very different to openly state that you won’t do this and then to do it anyway?…that Mr. John Friend has been saying that he would never do attack ads and then the Vanderburgh County Democrat Party took it upon themselves to send out an attack ad on his behalf?…that Mr. Friend has been quoted as saying he never saw the ad, never approved it, and that he has had nothing but heartburn from the Democrat Central Committee this year?…that Mr. Friend has also been getting grief over CHICKENGATE?…that is because he was listed as the Party Finance Chair on the Party website?…that Mr. Friend was getting blamed for not paying for the Chicken at Bauerhaus, or the rental of the Centre, and for filing a false campaign finance report?…that his picture was removed from the website this afternoon as he says he advised the Party a year ago that he could not do this job?

IS IT TRUE that Occupy Oakland crossed the line from protest to anarchy and disruption of commerce yesterday?…that closing the Port of Oakland by the use of intimidation tactics is not acceptable and that we encourage the State of California to do whatever has to be done to open the Port as many jobs and much trade is dependent on the goods that flow into and out of the Port of Oakland?…that as long as this movement has stayed peaceful that the CCO has been tolerant and even supportive of their grievances?…that keeping a business from carrying out their business is not worthy of praise or support?…that there are plenty of things to protest about that do not involve costing many people a day’s pay to indulge an unruly group?

IS IT TRUE that the word going out from the Ford Center is that the Evansville Icemen’s hockey game will be sold out on Saturday?…that the word SOLD might be a stretch because this guy has been offered free passes twice in the last 24 hours?…that if we are to pack the house then great, but let’s not refer to large number of giveaway tickets as SOLD when they are not?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

47 COMMENTS

  1. The vandy dems need to release another amendment – 3500 debt to Joe Wallace.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

  3. Joe, who is Officer Friendly? He indicated, in his response to the article about John Friend denying any connection with the Grafton mailer, a little too much information about a “legitimate news source”. But then you do not care who did it. It was some Democrat official and the bill has been sent. Wonder who printed these mailers.

    • I do not know the real name of Officer Friendly. The piece has photo-copy images from the Courier Press so I assume that is what the post is referring to as legitimate media. No way to know who printed the mailers unless someone involved in buying them steps forward. With regard to Friend’s statement he made them directly to me.

      • Yep. Have the mailer right here in my hand. This poster either has to be resident of Ward 5 or a higher up in the Dem Party officers club or both to be aware of the design of the piece. And to also try to defend it.

        • Curt John lives in the 5th Ward according to his address on the Mainstream Dems Campaign report.

          • Curt John has been out of town so he hasn’t seen it yet. I’m not a resident of the 5th Ward or a Democrat party officer or the printer but I have seen the mailer already today, about 6:00 this evening when a friend who does live in the 5th Ward showed it to me over drinks. Keep playing your silly guessing game but anyone in the right place at the right time could have seen the mailer already.

  4. This is exactly why they don’t let the monkeys run the zoo. The only thing that monkeys are qualified to run is the Democrat Central Committee. Watch out they have something in their hand’s and they’re getting ready to throw it.

  5. Burkert Waldon did the printing for this mailer. All the dems use them because they’re the only union printer in Evansville. But I have a feeling that this will come back on Clark Exmeyer. His one-man “marketing agency” did the design for them.

    • Maybe….if he’s a one man shop he probably did the layout of the design but use the content that was provided, most small shops don’t do design work, not saying your wrong he may have but graphic design takes a little time and a lot of talent, unless he has nothing else to do (no printing) I’d say he just put the elements submitted to him together creating the mailer.

      JMHO

  6. Joe—-

    Before you go and submit your bill for the IP you own you may also want to type up a C&D (cease and desist) letter to hand them at the same time, given how this ship of fools operates they will just add it to file 13 and you’ll have to file in small claims court or go the big route and just file a civil case for theft of IP including damages.

    Theft of IP is no joke and in this case there is no fair usage claim for the DCC to be had, they can claim stupid but that changes nothing.

    Good luck and keep us posted.

    JMHO

    • Has CCO got permission or paid owner for all photos or art clipped and printed here? I’ve seen photos clipped from Democrat party web site for example. Tit for tat so to speak.

      • While I can’t speak for the CCO, there are literately millions of images on the internet that are pay per usage or royalty free, also images can be bought in a bundle such as clipart that is either royalty free (after payment) or has limits/restrictions to how it can be used.

        Photos are a totally different animal, typically when a photographer take a picture he has sole rights to that image but doesn’t necessarily own the rights to the content in the picture. There are individual “rights to privacy” and “rights to publicity” involved.

        An example would be a photo taken on a busy street corner or public place in this case there is no right to privacy implied because of being in public but depending on what the subject of the picture is the photographer may not be able to use the picture for commercial endeavors where a profit is being made even though he owns the image.

        The right to publicity is even trickier since every person has that right and the right to profit or gain from a image taken of them, most politicians wave their right to publicity when they take public office which is why you see so many unsavory depictions of politicians in cartoons or photos, it’s really that they simply believe it isn’t worth the negative press to sue people over how they are portrayed not that they don’t care.

        But in this case….Grafton paid a photographer to take a image of him, then paid for usage of the imagery, the photographer retains all rights to the photo including content of the photo.

        JMHO

        • I’m referring to the same thing. There are photos on the Democrat party web site that candidates and party officials paid a photographer to take specifically for the party to publish on their web site and those photographs have appeared as part of articles here on the CCO web site. Was that with permission of the owner of the photos? That was my question.

          • You can read the CCO reply below, I seriously doubt the intelligent people that own and run the CCO given it’s content and intent would not have every I dotted and every T crossed in everything they do…they are just a big target that is getting to be a bigger target every day.

            JMHO

      • When we do articles on candidates, the candidates themselves send us their pictures and actually insist on having their pictures included with interviews and text. On some occasions (not all) the pictures sent to us by the candidates or authors are the same pictures that they have supplied to the party webmaster. In such cases the party does not own the pictures, either the candidates or the photographers own them. The party is using them with the permission of the owner. In the case of Mr. Grafton’s image there is only one picture out there and it is on the CCO banner ad. Someone screen scraped the CCO ad which may be another issue and photo-shopped the mailer before sending it out. No permission has been granted to use this image by Mr. Grafton, the CCO or by myself. The image is therefore “PIRATED” and compensation is due to the owner for use and for mass distribution.

        • Again, I am talking about the same exact thing. The CCO has clipped photos from the Democrat party web site and used them without permission in articles printed here at the CCO online blog. I’m not talking about articles candidates sent in and asked for their photos to be printed. I’m talking about articles where the CCO clipped the art without permission from or pay to the owner of the art.

          • I intend to cite several examples when the time comes to do so. Meanwhile why don’t you continue to blindly believe anything you read in this rag.

          • The CCO does not own the picture of Grafton that was screen scraped, reprocessed, and mailed out to a broad audience. I as the person who took the photograph own the image. Grafton and the CCO use it with my permission and have paid for their use. The Vanderburgh County Democrat Party did not bother to ask my permission or pay for the use and neither did the company that they hired to produce the mailer.

          • Good luck with that since you would have to have knowledge of the inner workings and deals made with the CCO and it’s staff, just seeing a picture on the CCO that you’ve seen on another site doesn’t in the least constitute thief of IP.

            You should do a little research into IP, fair use, DMCA, and being a copyright troll, obtaining rights isn’t as difficult as one might think in a lot of cases, it can be done verbally, written, or by paying a royalty.

            Accusations of IP theft are very easy to make, proving them is a totally different matter, you might want to take a look at the link I posted earlier about Righthaven and how courts all over the country have ruled in their suits, as I type this the US Marshals are slicing up Righthaven to pay court ordered judgements for frivolous lawsuits over IP theft they have filed.

            This link may help you in your quest.

            http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/us-marshals-turned-loose-to-collect-6372080-from-righthaven.ars

            JMHO

          • Okay, here is one example. Does Joe Wallace or the City County Observer own the photograph shown attached in this article?
            https://city-countyobserver.com/2011/11/04/democrats-amend-campaign-finance-report-to-include-11474-64-of-debt/

            Is that photograph the same as the one found at the Vanderburgh County Democrat Central Committee web site?
            http://www.vanderburghdemocrats.com/about-us/mark-r-owen

            Considering the content of the CCO article, do you think Owen OK’d the use of that photograph?

            Do you think the CCO paid the owner of that photograph for it’s use?

            Do you think that is the only time the CCO has done the same thing with other photographs clipped from the Democrat party’s web site?

            Carry on my wayward son.

            • Facebook photographs that are not explicitly protected by a disclosure are considered public domain. Chairman Owen published the picture that you refer to on Facebook and it is available right now. It has been there for a long time. We went through this little battle before over a certain at-large candidate who was wearing a leprechaun hat with a big grin on his face that he had posted on Facebook. Nearly all of our pictures come from Facebook or Google Images.

          • LOL…not a question I can answer, maybe it’s a mug shot someone Photoshopped the booking number off of, if not it really should be because the guy in the picture sure does look like he has criminal intent. But that is just my opinion.

            You’ll have to wait for the CCO to answer your question or be satisfied with my answer. 😉

            JMHO

          • Okay, forget the Owen photo for the moment. I have other examples that have not been posted on Facebook. We will see what is what when the time comes.

            • Wanna have some fun? Do this exercise. Go to your search bar and type in the name of any person that you know followed by the + sign and images. For instance Curt John+Images as we did last week to find a public domain picture of Curt. We know Curt and his picture was there. The funny thing is that there are many people with that name. Have fun.

          • I’ll throw you another bone to chew on….

            If the picture of Chairman Owen was not taken by himself (obviously it wasn’t since he is the subject in the picture) it’s very possible that he doesn’t own the rights to the photo.

            If that is the case, and he posted it on Facebook (making it public domain) he could be in violation of copyright laws unless he has a fair use contract with the photographer.

            Being in possession of a photo or being the subject of that photo does not equate ownership, in all cases unless paid to relinquish rights or a license to use/reproduce the photographer retains all rights to the image captured.

            In a case like this the CCO would be held harmless by the court because of they could not know the origins of the photo, but Mr Owen he would know since he posed for the picture.

            JMHO

  7. I can assure you that he does no printing. And you are correct, graphic design does take time, but not necessarily a lot of talent. I have seen every postcard for every candidate he has worked for this election and quality design is not his strong suit. This one was no different. By the way, I mean no disrespect to graphic designers. I know quite a few and most of them are brilliant and work very hard.

    • Since I haven’t seen the mailer I can’t comment on the quality of the design, although to support your earlier statement it is the responsibility of the printer/designer to insure that everything submitted to them for use is either licensed IP or that the IP being used is owned by the customer…so it could come back to bite him.

      People use to turn a blind eye to the theft of IP, the internet has made it very easy to lift content from sites for reuse, but with the advent of the DMCA and companies like Righthaven sending a C&D is normally not even in the picture anymore, most corporations go right for the throat with a law suit.

      http://righthavenlawsuits.com/

      But then again filing a lawsuit doesn’t necessarily mean you will win as Righthaven has found out, the fair usage clause does come into play…but not in this case which is a blatant disregard for IP ownership.

      JMHO

  8. Joe Wallace (owner of photo): here are your entries for today:

    DR A/R $3,500
    CR Photo Sales $3,500

    DR Bad Debts $ 3,500
    CR Allow. for DA $ 3,500

    DR Legal Fees $ 15,000
    CR Accrued Legal $ 15,000

  9. Watts did the same thing to Lindsey in the primary but the Weinzapfel Times alias the C&P didn’t seem to think that it was a big deal to steal one of their photo’s to use for a negative ad. Imagine that. They love them some Weinzapfel.

  10. I did not know you could kill yourself by shooting yourself in the foot but the Democrat party has proven you can.

  11. I notice a few things from reading stories on this website and the newspapers. It seems to me that the Democrat that is on the right side of the issue is Rick Davis. I now see why they have a disdain for him. He is too honest. I also notice that when I open up the secret meeting press release Lloyd Winnecke, Jonathan Weinzapfel and Curt John all have their names involved. . It speaks volumes to me they support the Republican in this race. It leads me to think that they need someone with this scandal tied to his name to win an election to give them political release from accountability to the voters. They think that if they can collectively push one through than the others can follow in his footsteps. Lloyd Winnecke is the guinea pig. I think Lloyd Winnecke has some mud on his face and there isn’t enough soap and water to wash it off. This isn’t going to work. I won’t fall for their scheme.

    • Bingo.

      Which is why ALL Republicans should vote for Davis. If Winnecke wins, he becomes a stalking horse for Weinzapfel to get back into state politics.

  12. If what the editor stated below is true, then Joe Wallace doesn’t have a valid claim. This link will take you to Mr. Grafton’s Facebook page where you will find the photo.

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Grafton-for-City-Council/195829553807835

    editor on November 4, 2011 at 11:36 am
    Facebook photographs that are not explicitly protected by a disclosure are considered public domain. Chairman Owen published the picture that you refer to on Facebook and it is available right now. It has been there for a long time. We went through this little battle before over a certain at-large candidate who was wearing a leprechaun hat with a big grin on his face that he had posted on Facebook. Nearly all of our pictures come from Facebook or Google Images.

    • You may have a point but the picture on Facebook has a Grafton for City Council banner across the bottom that is not included in the mailer. It would be advisable for the Party and the printer to familiarize themselves with “Fair Use” laws.

        • Careful you don’t poke yourself in the eye with that stick your waving around.

          JMHO

          • Blanger..not sure what you mean by that remark, but I’m trying to make a point that Mr. Wallace went a little overboard with the picture issue.

          • LOL….think about awhile….it might come to you.

            On the picture issue…I have for a number of years dealt with IP, DMCA, copyrights and trademarks and while I’m certainly not an attorney versed in all the ins and outs, I do have a very good working knowledge of the subject and Mr Wallace is well within his rights to demand compensation.

            A lot of folks would say it’s just a picture what’s the big deal, unfortunately a paid photographer has a wide array of rights when it comes to usage of any imagery he may capture.

            But then again it is just my opinion.

Comments are closed.