Website ripped off

[david_guthrie1]

John lets assume all that you say were true. Why on earth were you downloading someones entire site in the first place if not to copy it?

 

Also is it not true that you also informed Jeff that the site was down but because you liked the look of his site that you still intended to use it once you had replaced the images etc?

 

Even after all this 'fuss' do you still not understand the basic principles of copyright & copyright theft, something every 1st year photographer understands. (Though after 30 yrs I suppose that you could forget it)

[john_falk]

Eric, respectfully you did not answer the question at all for how you were sad by how I have handled it...rather you continue to slant untruths in an obvious fashion.

 

I have been in business since 1975-76, and the site was up for the very first time for 7-10 days... There is very little else I could have done to resolve this. The only other possible thing that would have prevented this whatsoever is having been more imformed of the help I was getting and how the web designing world works - of course I do wish I had.

 

Believe what you would like, but it nonetheless does not make even a bit of what you might decide to believe in true does it.

 

I did not have a single intention of soliciting business at the use of any one elses images - period. And nor was that what happened even in the slightest slant. I made an honest mistake that which I have expressed more than once.

 

"Some folks" and I repeat some-folks just enjoy the fight and blood seeking at just as much cost to others as can be no matter what and will press to that end regardless... That is sadness to all...

 

So is this damage control, not really whats done is done, how I too have a right to explain what really happened.

 

John

[EricM]

"Eric, respectfully you did not answer the question at all for how you were sad by how I have handled it...rather you continue to slant untruths in an obvious fashion."

 

Respectfully? You don't know the meaning of the word. What question from you warrants a response? How you handled what, John? That you were caught trying to use someone else's intellectual property and you yanked it right away for fear of law suits? You want a pat on the back for this?

 

"...rather you continue to slant untruths in an obvious fashion."

 

I've been lying here? F.O., you're a joke, go away. I hope this thread hangs around cyber haunting you, it's the least you deserve.

[john_falk]

You have perfectly executed my point exactly. You still have a right to say words of your choice, none true as of late, not even relevent actually, but spot on to my last point.

 

jf

[EricM]

site my lies then John...

[dave_smit]

{So if I understand you correctly, you are saddened by the fact that after getting a call at

2AM PST 3000 miles from home, I made every attempt to get the thing closed down in the

first minutes}

 

You don't understand me correctly.

 

There are 30 lines or so in my post pointing out your statements as inconsistent.

In those lines are the reason this issue has blown into a firestorm over the internet.

NOT THE FACT THAT YOU BORROWED ASCOUGH'S SITE. That was simply the first foul.

As you've done with other attempts at explanation you took the very last line and created a

defense, ignoring the rest of the post.

I'm saddened that with every opportunity you've had to offer either a genuine apology,

without rhetoric, or a clear explanation of the inconsistencies in your story, you've avoided

both.

I'm saddened that as a professional it looks like you made an attempt to steal another's

work and call it your own. I'm saddened that in your explanation there are more

inconsistencies that you can't or won't explain.

I can and have accepted that the instant you heard of Ascough's phone call, you acted to

remove the offending pages. I have accepted that when it was pointed out to you

additional pages were also removed a quick as humanly possible.

To be very clear, I'm saddened on two points.

 

1) That another professionals work was represented as your own.

 

2) That you won't explain the inconsistencies as I've outlined them above.

 

Once again John to be very clear.

This issue won't die because people view your posts as a poor attempt to hide the fact that

you LOOK LIKE you were caught plagiarizing someone else's work.

 

I have written to this thread because I hoped to engage you in conversation. I hope that as

things calm down and you've had a day or two to establish the facts as they happened, you

would provide a sequence of events that would cause all of us to think, Oh.. I could see

how that might have happened.

 

So now it's your turn.

 

In my previous post I made reference to 6-7 inconsistencies in your explanations to date.

How about it John? Everyone is listening... Can you address the points I've made. Here's

your opportunity to put this issue to bed as I believe you desire.

[john_falk]

Since you asked:

 

[Eric] John, you're just trying to do damage control... You were busted... you stole his site verbatim... you're so called posted apology is filled with smuggness and an attempt to duck the truth... John? That you were caught trying to use someone else's intellectual property and you yanked it right away for fear of law suits?... [all untrue not a single fact at-base]

 

ie; lets say that you have gone to a store with your son/daughter in tow. While your not exactly looking per se' your child somehow puts an item on the shelf in the cart and you leave. That does not make you stealing that item - are you responsible for your child, sure, it is your responsibility to see that the item is returned and the matter is handled appropriately.

 

Again, you can obviously continue to write untruths as long as you would like - still does not make any of it factually true.

 

jf

[EricM]

Oh, I get it. A web master coded all your images into some one else's web page without you knowing, then up loaded them under your domain without your permission, and then sent you an email saying when he/she was done "Tada, what do you think of your new site, John?"

 

Address David, he's talking to you. I?m done.

[john_falk]

Eric, that would seem appropriate because you completely inversed not only what happened, but the example I just gave as well. Again, you perfect my point [on your own free will of course]...

 

Thank you,

 

jf

[brian_tao]

FWIW, people here (and elsewhere) seem to lack the ability to think objectively, and separate fact from interpretation. As I see it, John Falk has acted to the best of his ability in handling the situation, given that the creation of his new web site was contracted out to an apparently inexperienced web designer. John must rely on the expertise of the college student, and trust that he has done "the right thing". Clearly, that student did not act in a manner that met with approval here. I believe John stated (perhaps in another forum) that the student is no longer under his employ. John, I do hope you hire an experienced professional for your web site work.... I'm sure you, as a long-standing professional photographer yourself, understand the value of that. ;-)

 

Hurling insults, making broad assumptions and overgeneralizations, and posting obviously inflammatory provactions (hello, Eric!) aren't needed. Frankly, I'm surprised that John has even bothered acknowledging some of the posts I've seen posted here. Had my site been the victim (and it *has* happened to me in the past), I would have long since considered the matter closed, trusting that John has dealt effectively with his college-student-cum-web-designer.

[mike dixon]

I'd be more willing to give John Falk the benefit of the doubt if he had addressed the very-substantive issues that Dave Smit has respectfully raised. Instead, he has chosen to focus his efforts on the (irrelevant to the central issue) tone of Eric's posts.

[EricM]

"FWIW, people here (and elsewhere) seem to lack the ability to think objectively, and separate fact from interpretation."

 

if you're having trouble with other people, maybe it's not them?

 

"As I see it, John Falk has acted to the best of his ability in handling the situation..."

 

He acted like anyone would violating copyright laws? Earlier up, I asked how long this site would have run if the owner didn't notice? It doesn't matter, a day, a week, a year, it was STOLEN.

 

"given that the creation of his new web site was contracted out to an apparently inexperienced web designer. John must rely on the expertise of the college student.."

 

a so called 30 year old pro would know better wouldn't you think? His excuses doesn't hold water. he pointed the kid in the direction of sites he likes and then somehow doesn't mind a carbon copy uplaoded under his name? Do you really buy it? You're just as big of a fool if you do.

 

"Frankly, I'm surprised that John has even bothered acknowledging some of the posts I've seen posted here."

 

Some people still face the music, Brian.

 

the next post from John should address Dave's reasonable questions above.

[dave_smit]

{FWIW, people here (and elsewhere) seem to lack the ability to think objectively, and

separate fact from interpretation.}

 

My post acknowledged that John acted appropriately in removing the site as he did, when

it was brought to his attention.

 

Again, the reaction isn't from John's website or the subsequent removal of pages from his

site.

 

I'm trying to engage John in a reasonable conversation that will answer questions created

in follow up posts on the matter.

It's those post that have people so worked up.

[john_falk]

Brian: I appreciate your ability at objectivity, its at all regards reasonable and respected.

 

As I am sure you know, it is very hard at times to refrain and do the right thing at times with some folks that press on no matter what. But I really have tried to be 100% forthright in all discussions, remove as much of the emotion as possible, and not try to put anything out-of-context.

 

Thank you again,

 

John

[brian_tao]

Sorry Dave, I didn't mean to tar and feather all users with the same brush (me being guilty of overgeneralization now!). I guess I just don't consider the inconsistencies you point out as smoking guns. I've already seen reasonable explanations for the points you raised. The explanations from John are consistent, believable and authentic. Everyone is free to ascribe a level of truthfulness to his statements, but from what I've seen here, most people will conveniently misinterpret his statements, no matter what he says. From what I've seen here, DWF, Digital Grin, DP Challenge, etc. those same people will not be satisfied until John capitulates and says that he did indeed knowingly download all of Jeff's photos and site design, with the full intention of passing them off as his own, for as long as he can get away with, yadda yadda yadda. And in the end, nothing valuable will have been accomplished.

[john_falk]

Dave: I am sorry I lost track of some of the posts in failing to update or refresh the page; then going past some of your very decent remarks and Q's...

 

Here is exactly the seq as best as I can recall them from a bit over a couple of weeks ago to now:

 

A college student that has been doing basic grip and general lighting assistance for me made an offer that he would like to help me get a web site going with him expressing that he knows how, and he fully aware I knew little to nothing actually about it.

 

He asked me to look over some site to get an idea what I liked and I had cot togehter a group of maybe a couple dozen, Jeff's being one of them - at the same time I and he signed up for my page name which I also right then put the addr in my DPC site profile - at that point the site was totally blank.

 

Then I gave him my favorite 4 sites of the bunch and on the phone I finalized that I liked the simple look and feel of Jeff's site. He said that he would work on it, asked me for a cover shot, which I gave him.

 

A few days later he asked me for some bio info narative and a snapshot, I gave it to him.

 

He helped me with a wedding the following weekend and mentioned that I could look at it online and said its not done but take a look, its part way.

 

I did the following Sunday and we discussed on the phone about getting some of the info such as my info sheet handout as a pdf and some of the pricing up. We did talk about the photos that will be needed and not even thinking further that this was open in the least because I couldnt find it searching for it at any stretch or engine, I asked that I would like the gallery of photos to be different, I would like rather than the way Jeff had it with the two branches of weddings, I wanted one to be Portraits, and the other to be Weddings, could we do that. He went off to start working on that while in the evenings I tried to sort though shots. We are now up to that following Thursday.

 

Then that day I got a national commerical shoot in Miami Beach to do at the drop of a hat, and it required all of my time to schedule, plan, and procure; as I would be flying out on the 15th to the 20th.

 

At just before 2am PST and 5am EST I got the call from my wife. I called him at home at just after 2am PST and told him that the thing is online and people are getting to it some how - he did get defensive initially arguing how they should not have been able too - I told him I didnt care how it happened its happening, get the page down right now. I did not have internet access in my room only at a remote lobby. He called and said that their was nothing on the page that says anything, goes anywhere etc. I called my wife back and asked he to look and she said nothing shows.

 

I got dressed and went to the remote lobby verified myself personally that the site was down [and it looked that way to me I didnt know at the time that you could still type in the addr thing manually] and sent an email to jeff and publically appologized to jeff on the dpc site which at the time was the only place I had input from. Still understanding he was upset, I felt nonetheless that Jeff was inappropriate with my wife. And some of the things he was saying without even knowing, but he was on the emotional reaction track.

 

I then went to my morning location call. I then later began to get some calls that indicated that though the main page was down, if you manually enter the addr text you can still get to the data or something. Several trys to reach him found him unavail in school.

 

I handled perhaps 2-3 dozen calls from mostly decent people wanting to know what was going on, and I took the time to explain to each and every person other than the cursing hang ups.

 

I did get back to him later that afternoon, and instructed him that I wanted 100% of the site down no-how no-way. And while I was in the remote lobby I was now online at the same time and saw that it was then 100% down. He did leave my cover shot up in some sort of manual directory, sub link or whatever, and I told him that it was fine - I would be seeing him the minute I got home. That meeting has taken place needless to say...

 

That is just about as much detail as I can recall.

 

Obviously I have many times explained that I will seek out far more professional web design help...

 

John

[dave_smit]

{I guess I just don't consider the inconsistencies you point out as smoking guns. I've

already seen reasonable explanations for the points you raised. The explanations from

John are consistent, believable and authentic.}

 

Respectfully Brian this is where we will disagree. There is a tenant in newspaper

journalism that seasoned writers avoid. The single source story. It's the story that always

gets a writer into trouble. Usually the trouble comes when the next journalist writing the

story starts to examine the facts again.

For example, Have you identified the web design student?

John is hanging the whole misunderstanding on this individual.

Going forward there are explanations offered by John that if true and John simply

misspoke in the rush of writing a response in the middle of a national marketing shoot

should be easy to address and clarify. He has failed to take the opportunity on a number

of occasions.

The furor here is not that John posted his website. It's that John's answers to basic

questions don't make sense AND he has failed to provide reasonable explanation without

inflammatory rhetoric.

I've stated that I'm willing to hear his explanation. On that point alone he should engage

in a conversation with me here.

It's just to convenient to simply write off all the angry people with, "why should I bother,

they won't change their minds anyway."

John's been a professional photographer at a national level for 30 years. He's not a man

lacking in intelligence.

The way he's managed this crisis really makes no sense to me.

[EricM]

"He helped me with a wedding the following weekend and mentioned that I could look at it online and said its not done but take a look, its part way.

 

I did the following Sunday and we discussed on the phone about getting some of the info such as my info sheet handout as a pdf and some of the pricing up."

 

It's black and white to me. You proofed, consulted, and approved with this web designer, an online verbatim copy of Jeff's site. If he would have been experienced enough to disable the hit counter and prevent Jeff from tracking it, you'd still be using this site. Yes?

[john_falk]

Dave I did just expand the detail as much as possible, perhaps we are having some kind of timeing thing here.

 

Incidentally, one correction in your last post: I have not been professing as a national pro for 30 years, what I have said is that I have been in business for that long. Yes I have done national shoots, but not for 30 years. Sorry if it came across that way...

 

jf

[john_falk]

Eric you continue to misread and twist the facts. Its obvious to many that you are not ever going to be accurate or objective at all.

 

take care,

[brian_tao]

Thanks, John... again, your latest explanation is fully consistent with any assumptions I had made along the way. No insult to you whatsoever, but your lack of experience with how web sites are built and deployed can be easily be misconstrued as malicious intent (as has clearly been the case here). I have seen it happen many times in the past, just by the nature of my first career (Internet hosting).

 

To the others reading this thread: John is first and foremost a photographer... not an Internet specialist, not a web designer, not a computer techie. Some people find it impossible to believe that someone with 30 years of experience in commercial photography does not yet grasp the intricacies of the Internet. Believe me, it's a lot more common than some of you may think.

 

I have no doubt that John is well aware of copyright and ownership issues. John's intention was *not* to pass of Jeff's work as his own. John did *not* instruct his student to copy all of Jeff's site. John was *not* aware the site had gone "live". The web site was *not* completed and launched when Jeff discovered it via the sitemeter hits.

 

Yes, Jeff's photos were copied and re-uploaded on someone else's site. Swift and appropriate action has been taken (all pages were removed in less than 24 hours, and the student has been released from his obligations). Beating up on John for something he already knows accomplishes nothing at this point, other than satisfying the need to punish someone (and not necessarily the right person) for a misdeed.

 

Actually, I'm not sure why I'm even posting this on behalf of John... but since I took the trouble of typing it up, I'll just hit the Submit button anyway. ;-)

[dave_smit]

A point of clarification for readers. I posted my response to Brian WITHOUT having read

John's reply to me at 12:11 am.

[john_falk]

No problem Dave, I got lost in the seq of posts too. However, I hope that the detail of things has helpped those that objectively were/are concerned?

 

John

[EricM]

"Eric you continue to misread and twist the facts."

 

How? You just spelled it out for us. Blimey man.You just told us in print that you where adding your bio and pdf prices to Jeff's temmplate. Please site how and what i've twisted as fact? And answer my question please;

 

"If he would have been experienced enough to disable the hit counter and prevent Jeff from tracking it, you'd still be using this site. Yes?"

[brian_tao]

Dave,

 

We're not talking about investigative journalism here. This is more he-said-she-said. John is the single source of information here. Given the consistencies in his story so far, I have an easier time believing him than most other people contributing (and I use that term loosely) to this thread, who don't know him from a hole in the ground. What makes you think he is not telling the truth? Do you want him to provide the name, address and phone number of the student so you can verify the facts yourself?

 

Yes, people are getting all bent out of shape with the way John is answering his critics... that's the part that amazes me. He is addressing people's concerns patiently and methodically. But people are continuing to nitpick every detail and misinterpreting the "facts". Like I said, there will be no satisfaction unless John "admits" to the crime that the court of public opinion believes him to be culpable.