If anything at least it will ensure no on here put the two pictures together and though that you were that scumbag

_________________
"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you'll suck forever" Brian Wilson

I once sold my MK2 S , without knowing , to some escaped crims in the early 80s , finished up in court!

_________________
That's why it's good to be.............ME

I remember looking at a Cooper S in Cobram some time ago that belonged to a guy doing 14 years in Sale Prison at the time for burgling a house in East Oakleigh containign drugs, a pill press and bags of money. The former detective David Miechel thought it was going to be raided an hour later, and called them up just prior to tell the occupants the raid was on, then stepped in to clean up a few bags of money before the raid was due to start....but then the cops turned up...and then he got 15 years in prison...



His dad was selling the Cooper S, and he was a champion. The cops were corrupt, the jury was corrupt, the judge was corrupt, everyone was corrupt except David he said over and over. What I could take from all that was that his Dad would stick by his son through thick and thin.

Maybe Mini owners are shaky by nature...

_________________
SooperDooperMiniCooperExpertEngineering

All garage work involves equal measures of enthusiasm, ingenuity and a fair degree of irresponsibility.

I was horrified to see he was into Minis. I like Morris 1100s idea of passing this info along to ABC Media Watch.

Could have been worse......he could have been a suiside bomber, then the mini would have been no more as well.
He should be locked up just for bringing Mini's into disrepute.

OK here's a little run down of the current situation. After emailing The Age asking WTF the deal was, I received an extremely fast reply saying that they were supplied with the image by Victoria Police after it was presented as an exhibit during the trail. Basically telling me it wasn't their problem and to contact VIC Pol or the DPP.

I emailed the DPP on Friday evening and received a reply today, basically saying that the image was not produced by Victoria Police, but was supplied to the court by the defense, whom upon presenting it, announced to the court that the image was not of the actual car used by the defendant, but was a representation of what it would have looked like.

So, as I first suspected it is still a case of the age misrepresenting the photo because they were too lazy to read the transcripts of the court case. although now I am not sure where I stand on the copyright side of things. Not that I was looking to gain anything out of this anyway, I just dont want myself or my car associated with the case.

Maybe talk to the Australian Press Council.

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/making-a-complaint/

and/or the Law Society...in NSW

http://www.lawsociety.com.au/community/ ... /index.htm

and VIC

http://www.liv.asn.au/

_________________
"Show me the Mini!"

Its the role of the paper to verify its sources.

Otherwise they would just work off the claims of some other dodgy third party and circumvent the entire system. Just because they can get their information on Reddit (for example) doesn't mean its open source and therefore correct.

_________________
SooperDooperMiniCooperExpertEngineering

All garage work involves equal measures of enthusiasm, ingenuity and a fair degree of irresponsibility.

I don't know where you stand with the incorrect use of a pic of your car under these circumstances, BUT I think you will find the Terms and Cond. on PhotoBucket stipulate that anything posted becomes their intellectual property. Same as Facebook ??

_________________
'98 Mpi Sportspack + 7 port alloy head

Yep...and if you have the temerity to complain about something you get put on the gobbledegook merry ground that ends up with them quoting legislation, for example...this is how it kicks off:

From: Flickr Support <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:50 AM
Subject: [Flickr Case XYZ] Re: Abuse Report via email - Copyright

To: mick

Hello Mick,

Thank you for contacting Flickr Member Support.

Flickr Customer Care is unable to provide you with the specific feedback you have requested. Your message regarding the determination made by our Yahoo! Copyright agents raises legal issues that are not addressed by Customer Care.

We ask that you forward any questions or concerns to our Copyright agents directly. Here’s how:

By mail
Copyright Agent
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

By phone
(408) 349-5080

By fax
(408) 349-7821

By email

[email protected]

Please note that, due to security concerns, attachments cannot be accepted. Accordingly, any notification of
infringement submitted electronically with an attachment will not be received or processed.

Thank you again for contacting us. If you have any other questions, please feel free to reply to this email.

Regards,
Flickr staff

Then if you persist...they really lay it on thick...

Hello Mick,

Yahoo! would like to help you with your request. However, in order for us to process your complaint, we require that you comply with Yahoo!'s Copyright/IP Policy at: http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/copyright/en-us/ and the statutory requirements for a valid DMCA notice (set forth at 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)).

Specifically, in addition to the information you have provided below, please include in your notice:

1. A statement that you have a *good faith belief* that the use of the content in question is unauthorized.

2. A statement by you, *made under penalty of perjury,* that the information provided in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's behalf.

Until we receive a complete and effective notice of infringement, Yahoo! will not be able to address your complaint.

Regards,

Copyright/IP Agent, Yahoo! Inc.
[email protected]
****************************
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

THEN, YOU FIND OUT THAT ALL THE ISPS ARE COVERED BY A GIANT GET OUT OF JAIL/GOAL CLAUSE!

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional safe harbor for online service providers (OSP) (a group which includes internet service providers (ISP)) and other Internet intermediaries by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement (when they make unauthorized copies) as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop ... tation_Act

THEN, IF YOU HAVEN'T SLASHED YOUR WRISTS YET, YOU FIND THAT TO ACHIEVE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING YOU EITHER NEED AN ERIN BROCKOVICH, OR A FRIEND WHO IS LAWYER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

[SO GO FOR IT?]

_________________
"Show me the Mini!"

Thanks for all the advice guys. Surprise, Surprise i haven't heard from the paper since emailing them with the info i got from the DPP.
and RE Photobucket's terms of use:

"By making your content public, you are also giving other Members on Photobucket the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site, third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Members to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites), provided such use is not for a commercial purpose."

The paper didn't get the photo from the internet. So any discussion about facebook and photobucket terms and conditions is just wrong in this case.

Yeah sure, but...we were just discussing MinBob's words about Botophuket...

_________________
"Show me the Mini!"