von mcknelly wrote:
Get a release no matter what is my rule.

if that's your rule then fine.  it is, however not a rule that should be advocated to others as a release need not always apply.

TXPhotog wrote:

I believe any advice given on this forum about legal requirements for something ought to have some basis in law, not just the perversity of the human soul.  Yours has none.  If you want to make the case that you personally are something of an ass who would abuse the legal system with a meritless lawsuit, at least say that is what you are doing, instead of acting as though somehow it answered the OP's question.

Please don't make a mountain out of a mole hill....If you want to get nailed in the backside by all means please do so....don't get a release.

StephenEastwood wrote:
No, some use it, I did at first, and had a shitstorm occur over hiding two posts of LOL cat photos and one gif of samuel L jackson.  So I decided to ask what the members preferred, they said leave it and brig, so I will.

But in this case that's not an available option.  So I still vote for hiding.

von mcknelly wrote:
Please don't make a mountain out of a mole hill....If you want to get nailed in the backside by all means please do so....don't get a release.

Again, bullshit.  You are spreading paranoia over an issue for which there is no legal foundation at all.  That is really not helpful.

If you want to do something useful, find a legal basis for your claim that a release is needed.  "I'm paranoid" isn't good enough.

TXPhotog wrote:
What is that "decent base"?  What is the cause of action?  Which tort?

I can find no case law - none, zero, zilch - which supports your lawyer's position.  That is particularly true in New York, where you are, since there is NO right of privacy other than Civil Rights laws 50 and 51.  No common law cause of action at all, for people, let alone for dogs.  If you can find any justification for that alleged statement by your lawyer, I'd really like to see it.  Otherwise I have to believe one of the following:

1.  He was willing to take your money to file a meritless suit (not unheard of among lawyers)

2.  There is more to the story you haven't told us that somehow made for a cause of action other than the obvious one

3.  You misunderstood or misremembered

4.  He was incompetent in this area of the law.

Really,
Wow,
That is funny.
For I asked the same question on a forum,
Back in 05 and you told me I would have a case to pursue.

And that if pressed I would likely get a settlement before the case was heard.

Later on I went to a lawyer and did ask.
I was told I would have a case.

TXPhotog wrote:

von mcknelly wrote:
OK say that is true. If I make a living out of taking people to court, I have the best lawyers and a false name. Find me if you can.

That's easy.  We don't have to find you.  We serve your lawyer.

You really, seriously don't understand this stuff, do you?


For all I care you can also have a rule to bay at the moon on alternate Thursdays.  But if you are going to give advice to someone else, you'd damned well better have a good reason for it . . . and you don't.

Being rude in a forum isn't showing your best side. These are MY opinions and I wish to express them without being berated...thank you.

TXPhotog wrote:

Again, bullshit.  You are spreading paranoia over an issue for which there is no legal foundation at all.  That is really not helpful.

If you want to do something useful, find a legal basis for your claim that a release is needed.  "I'm paranoid" isn't good enough.

Thank you for your somewhat valid input.

空 wrote:
Really,
Wow,
That is funny.
For I asked the same question on a forum,
Back in 05 and you told me I would have a case to pursue.

And that if pressed I would likely get a settlement before the case was heard.

Later on I went to a lawyer and did ask.
I was told I would have a case.

I may have.  I've done some research since then.  I've gotten smarter on the issue.

Unlike politicians, I believe I have the right to change my mind when presented with new evidence.  I don't feel obliged to continue to hold the same opinions for years.

von mcknelly wrote:

What I'm saying is how complicated could I make your life if I was to drag you into court. (win or lose)

How much would you be willing to spend, as you say, win or lose, just to make someone's life miserable? If you really know you don't stand a chance of winning, than you know that you would end up bearing the court costs and legal fees if you lose. So is it worth it?

von mcknelly wrote:
Being rude in a forum isn't showing your best side. These are MY opinions and I wish to express them without being berated...thank you.

It is your opinion that you really, no shit, would make my life a living hell in court over an issue for which there is no legal justification?  That you would do it anonymously, and never be findable by the court?  Really?  Those are your opinions?

You have said those things.  They are utter nonsense.  You could not and would not do any of them . . . and in my view, a little berating is appropriate when people give totally bogus advice on the forums, since there seems to be no other recourse.

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:

How much would you be willing to spend, as you say, win or lose, just to make someone's life miserable? If you really know you don't stand a chance of winning, than you know that you would end up bearing the court costs and legal fees if you lose. So is it worth it?

Missing the point here. WHAT if I could as the dog owner take a photographer to court for making tons of money (or even $5) from my pet. Win or lose I still will make his/her life hell, no? If one doesn't have a release one could suffer. And I stress the word "could".

von mcknelly wrote:
Missing the point here. WHAT if I could as the dog owner take a photographer to court for making tons of money (or even $5) from my pet. Win or lose I still will make his/her life hell, no? If one doesn't have a release one could suffer. And I stress the word "could".

This is the "if pigs could fly" argument.  And I stress the word "could".

dave wright sf wrote:
Unfortunately, blatant misinformation is allowed on MM.

There has been a change, Dave.  MM has a new capability.  The moderators can hide individual posts, and there is at least in principle an intent to do that when utter nonsense is posted, even though it isn't "against the rules".  However, you can see from the preceding conversation that the moderators aren't willing to actually do it.

von mcknelly wrote:
Missing the point here. WHAT if I could as the dog owner take a photographer to court for making tons of money (or even $5) from my pet. Win or lose I still will make his/her life hell, no? If one doesn't have a release one could suffer. And I stress the word "could".

honestly, if you have a release, I can bring you to court also, if my intention was to make your life hell.  Win or lose.....

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

TXPhotog wrote:
There has been a change, Dave.  MM has a new capability.  The moderators can hide individual posts, and there is at least in principle an intent to do that when utter nonsense is posted, even though it isn't "against the rules".  However, you can see from the preceding conversation that the moderators aren't willing to actually do it.

that this one moderator!!! I have no knowledge of what other moderators may or may not do.  I am going by popular vote.  The members said they prefer to be brigged for an infraction and handle things on their own.  Check site related.  There are threads currently active on this very thing.  So, if its not a rule violation (and even minor ones of that) and is not an outing or something that would cause the thread to be locked, I don' hide it.  And misinformation by a member is not against the rules, and we have no rule that says I need to protect them from being seen as wrong, by hiding their wrong information..

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

291 wrote:

if that's your rule then fine.  it is, however not a rule that should be advocated to others as a release need not always apply.

I believe I stated it was MY rule. It is NOT a rule that is advocated to others.

StephenEastwood wrote:
honestly, if you have a release, I can bring you to court also, if my intention was to make your life hell.  Win or lose.....

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I could make a case that a person would have a stronger case (although not necessarily a winning one) if there is a release.  A release shows the intent of the parties, and forms a contract, and one might sue for violation of the terms of the release.  Or any other claim (such as duress, or fraud, or any old bullshit claim at all) about the contract and the photographer's actions with respect to it.  But if the release doesn't exist . . . it's a lot harder.

So, never get a property release.  It just opens you up to someone making your life a living hell. 

StephenEastwood wrote:

honestly, if you have a release, I can bring you to court also, if my intention was to make your life hell.  Win or lose.....

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

You get my point...thank you.

von mcknelly wrote:
I believe I stated it was MY rule. It is NOT a rule that is advocated to others.

It was posted in a thread where the OP asked whether or not she needed a release.  Unless your post is completely off topic, it is responsive to that question.  So . . . are you guilty of threadjacking or blatant nonsense?

von mcknelly wrote:

You get my point...thank you.

Yes, I am the politician of the mod crew 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

von mcknelly wrote:
You get my point...thank you.

No, his point is that your proposed solution does not in fact solve the problem . . . if there is one.

TXPhotog wrote:

No, his point is that your proposed solution does not in fact solve the problem . . . if there is one.

that so could have ended this, why, why why.....


Oy vey..

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

空 wrote:
Wow, this thread has become silliness.

Chest pounding back and forth,
Children stamping their feet to get their way.

That's what happens when people post bullshit and then try to defend it.  It's a good reason for the mods to exercise their new power . . . and evidently they don't want to.  Drama comes from that failure.

空 wrote:
Wow, this thread has become silliness.
Chest pounding back and forth,
Children stamping their feet to get their way.

What was the topic again?
I can't recall.

Boys will be boys...nothing ever changes except change.
This thread has gone to the dogs.

TXPhotog wrote:
That's what happens when people post bullshit and then try to defend it.  It's a good reason for the mods to exercise their new power . . . and evidently they don't want to.  Drama comes from that failure.

read here

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=454624


and the current one   https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=460074


feel free to argue on behalf of heavy handed hiding of BS posts.  As a mod, I am seen as " THE MAN" and cannot make the case without the members claiming bias and abuse of power.  And then we get those who claim censorship and have failed to read or understand the following statement. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

and how that applies to private companies. 



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

TXPhotog wrote:

That's what happens when people post bullshit and then try to defend it.  It's a good reason for the mods to exercise their new power . . . and evidently they don't want to.  Drama comes from that failure.

Thank you for the debate, it's been fun to say the least. Your retorts to my comments has been the highlight of my quarter hour.

von mcknelly wrote:
Thank you for the debate, it's been fun to say the least. Your retorts to my comments has been the highlight of my quarter hour.

Everyone needs their fifteen minutes of fame, I suppose.  I'm happy I was able to provide you with yours.

StephenEastwood wrote:
read here

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=454624


and the current one   https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=460074


feel free to argue on behalf of heavy handed hiding of BS posts.

It's a no-win.  The rules of engagement were publicly stated by IB in this post:

MiguelIB wrote:
Currently a lot of great threads get locked and hidden due to a single or a couple of posts that violate site and/or forum rules.

Given that, only posts which violate site and/or forum rules may be hidden unless you want to be surrounded by peasants with pitchforks.  It's unfortunate that it was announced that way, but that's what was done, so we are stuck with it.

TXPhotog wrote:

StephenEastwood wrote:
read here

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=454624


and the current one   https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=460074


feel free to argue on behalf of heavy handed hiding of BS posts.

It's a no-win.  The rules of engagement were publicly stated by IB in this post:
Given that, only posts which violate site and/or forum rules may be hidden unless you want to be surrounded by peasants with pitchforks.  It's unfortunate that it was announced that way, but that's what was done, so we are stuck with it.

worse yet, even if the post does violate a rule, once hidden, the conspiracy theorists come out and want to know what was hidden to make certain it is in fact a violation of a rule, and then they want to argue that rule 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

worse yet, even if the post does violate a rule, once hidden, the conspiracy theorists come out and want to know what was hidden to make certain it is in fact a violation of a rule, and then they want to argue that rule 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Spoken truth has never in modern times been said so well under the guise of cover.