Slashdot Mirror


Canon Tries To Shut Down "Fake" Canon Blog

Thomas Hawk writes "An interesting twist over at the Fake Chuck Westfall Blog. Fake Chuck (like Fake Steve before him) has a blog out parodying Canon's real Technical Information Advisor Chuck Westfall. It seems that Canon and their lawyers over at Loeb & Loeb are none too fond of all the fun that Fake Chuck and DSLR geeks everywhere have been having at their expense and have sent Fake Chuck's blog hosting company, WordPress, a notice to take the blog down. Canon's lawyers cite that Fake Chuck's blog is 'calculated to mislead recipients,' even though the blog has 'fake' in the title, 'fake' in the URL and 'fake' just about everywhere else in the blog. What in the heck is wrong with Canon? Do they really think that trying to shut down a parody blog is going to make their new 5D Mark II ship any faster?" After Fake Chuck removed the Canon logo from his site, WordPress is standing behind him and has rebuffed Canon's demand.

125 comments

  1. Fake First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This post has fake all over it, so you can't mod it down.

    1. Re:Fake First Post by theeddie55 · · Score: 1

      if you'd waited and got the post second, i'd have modded it funny.

    2. Re:Fake First Post by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

      I only have fake mod points today, so I fake modded you down.

    3. Re:Fake First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From TFS:

      Do they really thing...

      Yes...

      Yes, they do!

    4. Re:Fake First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they've got another thing coming!

  2. MS fakery by Goffee71 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there no fake Microsoft blog? If so, I'm guessing no one believes what they write anyway.

    --
    If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    1. Re:MS fakery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and naming it the "Real Steve Ballmer Blog" probably has potential legal issues.

    2. Re:MS fakery by Cally · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    3. Re:MS fakery by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Everything at http://blogs.msdn.com/ is guaranteed ridiculously satirical and over the top.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    4. Re:MS fakery by Dupple · · Score: 1

      It's nearly as good as the real fake steve

      --
      Watch those corners
  3. 5D Mk II by leromarinvit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I dont't have one, but it seems the 5D Mk II is already out. On Geizhals, an Austrian price comparison website (Google translation), numerous retailers list it as available. At €2380 (the cheapest one that actually has it in stock) it's not exactly cheap, but then again, most professional DSLRs aren't.

    --
    Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    1. Re:5D Mk II by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been available at Amazon for a while now, with several different retailers offering it and already over 50 customer reviews posted.

    2. Re:5D Mk II by Mascot · · Score: 1

      It's been available in limited stock since late November/early December. Can still be a chore to get a hold of many places.

    3. Re:5D Mk II by WillKemp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [......] already over 50 customer reviews posted.

      Looks like Canon's marketing dept have been busy then!

  4. Guess business is kinda slow by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More free press for Canon. The real intention all along. Good job.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Guess business is kinda slow by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the lack of interest I would have for starting a blog centered around a key individual of Canon as opposed to Nikon/Motorola/etc., I wouldn't doubt it if the whole thing was staged just for publicity like this, after somebody at Canon saw the "fake steve jobs" fiasco. It probably isn't likely, but hey you never know these days.

    2. Re:Guess business is kinda slow by suricatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      REad the blog, it's actually quite critical. Get a few posts in and it's enough to put you off Canon cameras entirely.

    3. Re:Guess business is kinda slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was quite sure Canon cameras have been known to eat kittens before reading that blog, but I'm glad I'm not the only witness!

    4. Re:Guess business is kinda slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks like a negative astroturfing campain to me. probably by some outsource marketing outfit working for Nikon.

      the blog isn't even remotely funny.

  5. You'd think by now... by DeadPixels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies would realize that not liking someone's views doesn't give them the right to censor the person.

    1. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In this case, though, the views expressed are decidedly noncanonical.

    2. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...that the above poster would have noticed the 'fake' in the author's pseudonym.

    3. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, though, the views expressed are decidedly noncanonical.

      :-/

    4. Re:You'd think by now... by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's not pretending to be a real person other than himself, he's pretending to be a fake person other than himself

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    5. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You geeks used to love my sparkling wordplay.

    6. Re:You'd think by now... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but there's no prohibition against making lots of noise and getting on the front page when you have a product you need to push.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on. Governments haven't realised that yet.

    8. Re:You'd think by now... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      And it has been clearly established that fake individuals have more rights and less responsibility than real individuals.

    9. Re:You'd think by now... by colourmyeyes · · Score: 2

      Agreed, which is why I tried to mod you up, but accidentally modded down, so now I'm undoing that moderation.

      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    10. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Absolutely! Canon are hurting as they've had nothing but immense quality problems with almost every major model released in the last 2 years. Canon just cannot stand being called out as making 'fake' cameras and watch their user base walk over to real Nikon.
      FACT: On a Luminous Landscapes trip to Antarctica, ZERO Nikon D700 failures, 6(six) Canon 5Dii failures of which 3 recovered and 3 were bricked.
      Can you smell the PANIC back at Canon HQ?

    11. Re:You'd think by now... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Risking being off-topic, but seeing these all the time since the new "Web 2.0" upgrades to the slashcode has now drawn out the 'troll'.

      Please! Put the 'moderate' *button* back. Simply putting taking action on an index change on the drop down list makes it so that people can accidentally mod the wrong way. It's only by good fortune that there are some people who decided to post something in response to remove the moderation. By putting the button back to confirm the selection, you avoid the mess of people posting to remove moderation and posts like these to beg for that simple piece of functionality be put back.

      The Karma Whores will love you for it.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    12. Re:You'd think by now... by British · · Score: 1

      What about everyone that has a character on World of Warcraft?

    13. Re:You'd think by now... by g0at · · Score: 1

      By definition, a company can't censor a person.

      -b

    14. Re:You'd think by now... by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. A button rather than an autosubmit would have prevented my previous post.

      But I guess that just wouldn't be slick enough - buttons are SOOOO 'Web 1.0.'

      </offtopic>

      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    15. Re:You'd think by now... by roguetrick · · Score: 5, Funny

      I tried to mod you offtopic but I ended up modding you insightful.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    16. Re:You'd think by now... by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Also, but I'm not sure if it's because of my browser's ineptitude, posting something to undo moderation doesn't give you the modpoints back.
      I'd also like a way to just undo moderation without posting something.
      And a pony of course.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    17. Re:You'd think by now... by neumayr · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    18. Re:You'd think by now... by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, wrong.

      By definition, a company very much can censor.

      It is just legal if it is the context of forums under that companies control, or using copyright/trademark laws.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    19. Re:You'd think by now... by neumayr · · Score: 1

      They've got a Journalist class in WoW now? What's next, a Tourist class?

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    20. Re:You'd think by now... by Miseph · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Also, but I'm not sure if it's because of my browser's ineptitude, posting something to undo moderation doesn't give you the modpoints back."

      That is intentional, check the moderation FAQ. The stated reason is that it allows an abusive mod to mod up/down a post in a new article, then post once it comes off the front page (making it a lot less important) and get the points back to use again.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    21. Re:You'd think by now... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Someone wrote (and posted) a greasemonkey script a while back. Very useful and slick..

      http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/37311

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    22. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by fake individuals you mean corporations then yes they do.

    23. Re:You'd think by now... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      You, sir, win the pun-of-the-year award (at least so far).

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    24. Re:You'd think by now... by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      Personally if they'd just learn the ancient and mystical art of autofocus calibration, that would help... My last two DSLR bodies (20D, 40D) have needed to go back for re-adjustment (which made a world of difference).

    25. Re:You'd think by now... by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In contrast to that, I haven't had any problems with my 40D at all, and the 350D I had before that only occasionally had issues with dirty contacts on the lens throwing that nasty "error 99" every once in a while.

      I guess with DSLRs (or SLRs, really) you buy into whichever brand of dog food you are interested in, since lens cost will eventually eclipse camera body cost as you build a collection of lenses. We can bicker and argue about one brand being better than another, but as long as they take pretty faithful pictures, it doesn't really matter.

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
    26. Re:You'd think by now... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      You forget to mention that on the Antarctica trip you mentioned, of 77 total 70% of photographers were using Canon, and 30% Nikon. Fifty percent of Canon users, so 35% of the total, were using 5D IIs, or 26 people.

      They don't mention specifically how many people were using D700s, only "lots". I have no idea of course, but let's say for arguments sake that 50% of Nikon users had the D700 - though their wording lends me to believe it's probably less. That's approximately 12 D700s. Three dead 5D IIs out of 26 is 12%. Twelve percent of 12 rounds to 1. That means to have an equal failure rate, there had to be 1 dead D700.

      Can you see that there simply weren't enough Nikons to provide equivalent statistics? How about the fact that maybe those with the failed cameras were people who simply took more risks with their equipment? We can't know.

      Yes, it's disappointing of the 5D II that so many failed, but the 5D series and the XXD series are not marketed as being incredibly rough and rugged and waterproof. These are things you want in a camera you take to Antarctica.

      Despite that, I personally would not hesitate to take my 40D to Antarctica. In fact I hope to have the opportunity sometime in the next few years (though perhaps I will have upgraded to something newer, it won't be a much more expensive weather-sealed one - in fact, my next upgrade will likely be to the 5D series, or whatever the equivalent is in the future.) I have used the 40D in moderately extreme conditions before, including being splashed with salt water and in light rain and snow, with no problem. I would hope that it wouldn't fail, but I accept the possibility that it might if I let too much moisture in, because it is not designed for that. And I wouldn't trust an equivalent Nikon to be any better, unless it was designed for it, which they aren't.

      Not that I wouldn't ever use Nikon, I think they have good cameras and lenses. And Canon, I agree, is having serious problems right now. Having a few mediocre or problem-ridden releases is not enough for hobbyists, and most pros, to write them off completely, though. These companies go through cycles and you can guarantee that Canon will be back eventually. And they'll go through more downturns, too.

      Here's the Luminous Landscapes article, for reference: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml

    27. Re:You'd think by now... by penguinchris · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just want to add that with the same two cameras, the 350D and my current 40D, I also haven't had problems.

      I *have* had minor problems with lenses, especially third-party ones. That is where calibration/quality control is a major problem, even with Canon lenses (though I haven't had a problem with my Canon lenses, I know many others have.)

    28. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said that Slahbot !

    29. Re:You'd think by now... by MentlFlos · · Score: 1

      That is intentional, check the moderation FAQ. The stated reason is that it allows an abusive mod to mod up/down a post in a new article, then post once it comes off the front page (making it a lot less important) and get the points back to use again.

      I can't believe people care that much.

    30. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the part of the notice included in the "fake blog" you'll see that it is fairly reasonable. The point being remove logo, and reference to chuck's family and violence. I for one consider that reasonable in regard to the second two if a company's logo is being used.

      If the blog had been simple satire about the original blog itself, that might not have raised the concern of Canon.

      Canon does not appear to be saying you can't say bad things about our products, or even about them. But family and words of violence may be improper.

      Good luck to FC on this.

    31. Re:You'd think by now... by kybosch · · Score: 1

      As someone who had a blast with the Fake Chuck Westfall blog, even going so far as to make suggestions for stories the author could cover, I would like to chime in on my experiences with the same two cameras the above posters mentioned: Canon's 350D (Rebel XT) and 40D.

      I shot for two years with the 350D with no problems, going as far as China and New Zealand and once even over the handlebars of my bike to land on my face with the camera strapped to my back, and yet I never had any problems. I am a recent convert to the 40D and so far have not had any problems.

      As techies here at Slashdot we always have to be mindful of the big picture, and make sure that our sample sizes in surveys are large enough to be representative of most people's experiences. Just as myself and the two posters above had great experiences with our cameras, the fact is that there are balancing stories of camera failures and disappointments.

      That being said, I loved the Fake Chuck Westfall blog for calling Canon on real problems. He cites over expensiveness as one problem of all cameras, which is good for all of us as consumers. Then he goes on to cite real technical problems that have cropped up, like the "black dots issue" that plagued super high contrast areas of pictures taken by the 5D Mark II, a $3000 camera.

      As a half Japanese person, I felt like Fake Chuck Westfall brought an extra dimension to his blog in calling out Canon for the cultural differences in the way that the Japanese approach business versus the West. He made fun of the over-reverence for tradition, and the difficulty in changing direction that plagues Canon right now.

      This is speculative rumor, but I have heard stories that Nikon got sick of their second place sales position several years ago and decided to finally blast their middle management out of office. It seems that the current crop of fantastic offerings from Nikon is a result of their hard efforts. As much as Fake Chuck Westfall makes fun of Canon, you can tell that truly in his heart, he wants to see Canon succeed with fantastic products.

      It is for that reason that I hope his blog is not unceremoniously shut down, and it looks at this point that he will continue.

    32. Re:You'd think by now... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      ...idiots would realize that pretending to be a real person other than themselves on the Internet is going to get them sued.

      Yes, because after all, people are illiterates and who don't see the word "fake".

      I think we should alter the legal system for when an obvious nuisance suit is lodged, the company in question is fined 50% of their balance sheet assets, payable to the person they tried to sue within twenty minutes or the companies legal team or consultants go to jail for the rest of their lives.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:You'd think by now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epic... purple... Yendorian Express card....

      /drool

      The major problem with the NetHack expansion for WoW is that the prerequisite quests, the attunement chain, and the Wizard of Yendor raid itself is TOO LONG. Fix it, Blizz. Kthxbye.

    34. Re:You'd think by now... by WNight · · Score: 1

      I agree about these fakes. They aren't there to needlessly harass, they're there to show a better way. FakeChuck may not even care who gets the message, Nikon, Canon, or whoever, just that someone does.

      More important, imho, than any product defects is how a company responds to them. I haven't looked into it, but if Canon swaps a bricked camera without hassle, even with modded firmware and such, then I'll be more apt to take the risk than if they had better quality but were hard to get to fix something that did go wrong.

  6. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF has any of their products got to do with this? I smell a shameless plug.

    1. Re:WTF by Teun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because this is one of their flagship products and it has according to early reports performed a bit sub-par?
      Canon

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You know, I went to that link and was dismayed that so much emphasis was placed on what was owned. I shot a lot back in the Stone Age and always deflected equipment questions because they are of no merit. What is of merit is the quality of the work produced and the few pictures I saw on that page look no better than PHO-202 student work. The technical aspects might be bang on, but I'll thank the hardware for that, not the photographer. Those images provided no engagement, no questions. They were pretty, like much of Ansel Adams's work (which, if you haven't noticed, rarely contained people.)

      It is obvious to anyone in the biz that the Big Names are in a fight to the death. They know that there is an enormous amount of money out there in even the amateur ranks, let alone the pro-sumer, and it is easy to relieve some person of thousands of dollars by making various technological claims for your product vs. a different product.

      Photography for me has always been a very personal method of exploring the world. Much of my work meant a lot to me. Some meant enough to others that they were willing to pay a good deal of money for a print, although money is probably a very poor metric of value.

      In any event, considering as I am to pick up a camera again, I don't know if I'm interested in any of the digital dreadnoughts now being pushed farther and farther down-market. Marvels they are, but I see them impotent in pushing ahead any kind of frontier of photography; visual, emotional or psychological. And even if they could I suspect the viewing public is existentially emasculated anyway, so advances are moot.

      Maybe an F or M6 full of Tri-X. Art's even better when married to alchemy...

    3. Re:WTF by neumayr · · Score: 1

      I agree with your assessment of the pictures on the linked page, but I wouldn't, in any way, blame the tech. Maybe it encourages people to take some rather bland pictures because it's cheap to do so, as you don't have to care about film and development cost at all, but there's always been postcard photography.

      While shooting analog on old, high quality cameras can produce superior pictures compare to what digital can do (at least it could last time I checked), that's only achievable when you also develop and enlarge those pictures yourself. If you can, good for you. If not, I feel pretty much everyone is better off with a digital camera and a good raster graphics editor.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    4. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. But to clarify, in case I wasn't clear, I give the tech ('nology, not 'ician), not blame, but credit.

      As an aside, I held out for a long time with two demands: I wanted a 24mm x 36mm CCD, so that my 20 remained a 20, and I wanted 25 million plus pixels in that CCD, because then I'd have the granular resolution of Kodachrome (if not the skin tones). I would imagine both of those demands have now at least been met if not exceeded. And I still don't own a box newer than 1975.

      'Shit or get off the pot', my grandmother used to say.

    5. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They're not yet met, but getting there. You're after a 25MP+ full frame. There is the Canon EOS 5D mk II, which is 21 MP, and the Nikon D3X, which is 24.5 MP. (That's the top of the line from Nikon, and one-shade-from-top for Canon.)

      However, generally the lens is less sharp than the current generation of sensors anyway.

      Plus, you can usually not print anywhere near these megapixel ratings unless you're printing very large format or very small crops, it's not really that useful or as important as you might at first think.

      6"x4"x400dpi is 2400px x 1600px, or 3.84 MP - cellphone cameras can be better than this!

      Concentrating on MP for photographic quality is a little like concentrating on MHz for computer performance - only relevant when all else is equal and isn't the bottleneck.

    6. Re:WTF by penguinchris · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that it has been performing sub-par for many people, but I don't think the failure rate on that Antarctica trip is the right thing to point to. See my earlier comment at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1128757&cid=26869539 for my analysis.

      There are reports of earlier Antarctica trips on that site from previous years, with similar tallies of failed cameras. It doesn't tell you a whole lot other than that if you use your camera in extreme conditions it wasn't necessarily designed for, you have to expect that it may have problems.

      The bigger issues (that haven't supposedly been fixed by firmware) - as discussed on the fake blog - are noise even at low ISOs and auto-focus performance. These are disappointing problems for this camera, especially the noise. This is marketed as a low-noise camera, even at high ISOs, yet many are saying the original 5D is better in that regard (I haven't looked into it too much myself, I can't afford an upgrade from my 40D anytime soon anyway.)

    7. Re:WTF by Teun · · Score: 1
      Indeed, the MP rush is misplaced.

      Would you read a bit more on the site I linked to you'd see them gushing about the picture qualities of the 12.7 MP Nikon D700, because it shows so little noise.
      Form my own digital experience I can say some old 3-5 MP camera's give a performance present yet cheaper 10-12 MP camera's can't match.

      But luckily with the advent of full-frame 35mm SLR camera's we can again use our old 'super' lenses to get the best of the higher resolutions.

      Years ago Kodak was the only supplier of Hi-Res backs and I still trust their claim 16MP was about the sweet spot for quality 35mm.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    8. Re:WTF by Teun · · Score: 1
      I think you missed what this site is about: equipment reviews.
      The art of composing a brilliant picture is something hard to quantify, this site does not comment on the artistic aspects of photography, it just helps people decide on the products available.

      Whether a picture was made via chemical processes, digital imaging or a brush and paint is irrelevant for the beauty and even the message it conveys.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  7. Thanks to Canon and Slashdot by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Streisand effect has now hit the Fake Chuck blog. I wasn't aware of the blog but thanks to Canon's own doing more people will be aware of it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Thanks to Canon and Slashdot by RichardJenkins · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wha says that's not what they were going for? These are sneaky bastards these corporate types. It's difficult tfor us straight thinking peeps to get a handle on them.

    2. Re:Thanks to Canon and Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But have you heard of Canon before?

  8. Fake MWoody says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I'm a complete moron!

    --Fake MWoody

  9. Bad Summary by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The take down letter asked for 4 things:

    1. Stop using the Canon logo.
    2. Remove references to violence.
    3. Remove references to Chuck's family.
    4. Changes to the look and feel of the blog so it would not be
    confused with actual Canon corporate sites.

    It wasn't a totally unreasonable blanket take-down demand, and as such Fake Chuck will easily be able to comply and continue as a source of satire and humor.

    1. Re:Bad Summary by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 0, Troll

      If your item 4. and 3. are complied to, 1. seems to me unnecessary, and 2. 'Remove references to violence' seems totally unreasonable.

      bjd

    2. Re:Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      totally unreasonable blanket take-down

      You must be new here... wait your uid is 20k nevermind.

    3. Re:Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. and 4. are unreasonable - if a parody can't, well, parody the original, it's pointless.

      I can't say whether 2. and 3. are reasonable (in particular, I'm not sure in what context violence or the guy's family are mentioned), but unless he's actually asking anyone to - say - commit violent crimes against the guy's family, I fail to see how it would not be covered by free speech.

      Put another way - Canon's actual demands may be more reasonable (2. and 3., anyway; 1. and 4. obviously aren't, as detailed above), but I still think the blogger in question has no ethical obligation to comply.

    4. Re:Bad Summary by rcw-home · · Score: 4, Informative

      I looked at the PDF of the takedown. Yes, it mentioned those four things as "particularly egregious" but it was a blanket take-down demand. Let's examine the basis they list for their complaint and their demand:

      http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/ (the "Blog") - is using our client's trademark and Mr. Westfall's name and likeness without authorization

      Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately remove the above-mentioned objectionable and harmful content from your website, as well as terminate the Blog author's account.

      (emphasis mine)

      If Wordpress hadn't exhibited some common sense, Fake Chuck would have had to find a new home.

    5. Re:Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically if I posted anything related about your family pretending to be its going to be OK?

      Pretending someone you are not even if you put fake in it doesnt give you the right to trashtalk about me.

    6. Re:Bad Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it does. You're an idiot. I have a right to say what I please. You have a similar right to SAY what you please in return. Nothing more.

    7. Re:Bad Summary by Dreadneck · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that requests 1. and 4. are unreasonable. After all, Canon's logo is a registered trademark. Besides, if you're going to parody the company and its employees, it's not a huge leap to parody the company logo as well.

      Look at it as an opportunity to further lampoon Canon by coming up with a hilarious reworking of their logo.

      As for requests 2. and 3., there's no need or justification for bringing Mr. Westfall's wife and daughter into the fray and certainly no call for references to violent acts against Mr. Westfall and his fellow employees.

      Furthermore, Wordpress.com's TOS (which hosts the 'Fake Chuck Westfall' blog) clearly states:

      Responsibility of Contributors. If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, post material to the Website, post links on the Website, or otherwise make (or allow any third party to make) material available by means of the Website (any such material, âoeContentâ), You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content. That is the case regardless of whether the Content in question constitutes text, graphics, an audio file, or computer software. By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:

      • the downloading, copying and use of the Content will not infringe the proprietary rights, including but not limited to the copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret rights, of any third party;
      • the Content is not libelous or defamatory (more info on what that means), does not contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;

      It seems to be a fairly open-and-shut case to me.

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    8. Re:Bad Summary by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      #20178 wrote:

      If you had read the take down letter, you'd know it asked for six things:

      1. Stop using the Canon logo.

      2. Remove references to violence.

      3. Remove references to Chuck's family.

      4. Changes to the look and feel of the blog so it would not be confused with actual Canon corporate sites.

      "Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately remove the above-mentioned objectionable and harmful content from your website, as well as (5) terminate the Blog author's account. We further demand that you (6) provide us with the name and current contact information ... for the author of the blog."

      It was a totally unreasonable blanket take-down demand, and as such Fake Chuck will have to pick another corporate target in order to be able to fully comply and continue as a source of free speech, satire and humor.

      There, fixed that for you. Corporate censorship, in all its ways, is totally reasonable.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    9. Re:Bad Summary by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Request 1 is probably unreasonable as parody is a protected usage of a trademark. Imagine if I couldn't use a MS trademark when making a parody of one of their ads. Wouldn't work at all.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    10. Re:Bad Summary by TheCybernator · · Score: 1

      1. Stop using the Canon logo.
      2. Remove references to violence.
      3. Remove references to Chuck's family.
      4. Changes to the look and feel of the blog so it would not be confused with actual Canon corporate sites.

      5. ???
      6. Profit.

      There. Fixed it for you.

  10. Fwd: Thanks for the heads up about your blog! by samj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Sam Johnston <samj-at-".net>
    Date: Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:31 PM
    Subject: Thanks for the heads up about your blog!
    To: Chuck Westfall <cwestfall@cusa.canon.com>
    Cc: Toni Scheinder <toni@automattic.com>, "Douglas E. Mirell" <dmirell@loeb.com>

    G'day Chuck,

    It's not every day that something truly entertaining comes to my
    attention but thanks to my mates at Slashdot[1] and your mates at Loeb
    & Loeb with their (surely fake?) letter[2] I was drawn attention to
    your refreshingly entertaining fake blog[3]. Anyway I'm sure I'm one
    of many who have immediately added your blog to my reader - it's truly
    amazing what a bit of viral marketing can do for you!

    Kodos to the guys at Automattic too for identifying the letter for
    what it was so quickly and taking appropriate action - those guys
    rock!

    Eagerly awaiting your next post,

    Your [virtual] friend,

    Sam

    1. http://fakechuckwestfall.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/982873542.pdf
    2. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/15/1830217
    3. http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/

    1. Re:Fwd: Thanks for the heads up about your blog! by Spatial · · Score: 1

      I wanted to put in a [citation needed], but you cited your email. Bastard!

  11. What? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Who is fake canon, or chuck for that matter and why should I give a shit? If DSLR wasn't mentioned I wouldn't have a clue this is something to do with photography.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:What? by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The story's not about photography. It's about a major multinational corporation using its lawyers and money to bully into silence bloggers who point out its failures.

      You didn't get that?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congrats. you don't know something. why should *we* care?

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean bloggers that are too scared to come out with their own name but build 'satire' (read trolling) blogs / websites that attack people on personal level and hide behind their anonymity?

      If this was about "Canon" as a company rather than focusing on a person and using their name (even with the fake text in it) to promote their own agenda..

    4. Re:What? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      So writes "Anonymous Coward".

      Can you spell, "irony"? I knew you could.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is about one anonymous, abusive and mean-spirited blogger harassing a Canon employee.

      The real Chuck has a good reputation among photographers. He has been a great resource for photographers, responding to their questions on various web sites and forums for years now. So this is about one really mean jerk being abusive toward Chuck, allegedly as a way to criticize Canon.

      Fake could have made the site about Canon and their products. Instead he created a personal attack site against a good individual. Truly shameful.

      You didn't get that?

  12. PHB's have no sense of humour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they just have a sense of malice

  13. Bad lawyers by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The take down letter made other, unreasonable demands. As I've posted before, it's often the case that from the plaintiff point of view, the weaker the case the stronger the language, and contrariwise for the defendant. This was a weak case so L&L tried to boost it with strong language demanding that Wordpress cease to allow the fake CW to publish any blogs. Wordpress detected it was a weak case and offered the minimum actually needed to comply. And now, people who had no idea that some people think Canon DSLRs are not very good, and have inadequate QA, are suddenly informed on the subject.

    I had to issue a takedown notice last year when I discovered that a fake business had stolen the identity of our legitimate business. As a result, we could have been raided by the police and had our equipment taken by them, which could have driven us out of business. The initial response of the website host was to go away. Before I could respond to this, which would have involved a High Court injunction, they obviously took legal advice and I suddenly got a grovel. So I am sympathetic to legitimate takedowns. As you say, part of this one was legitimate. But L&L should have done better than have it drafted by a paralegal, and simply insisted that the genuinely infringing material be removed or fixed, and requested as a matter of courtesy that the blog confine itself to technical matters. Despite their claims to the contrary, lawyers are frequently not the shiniest apples in the barrel.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Bad lawyers by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. It's too bad that large companies hire poor Law Firms. Just because you have a lot of money to through around doesn't mean that you should. Maybe Canon should dump L&L and hire a firm that would have acted responsibly and then take the extra cash and put into Q&A or maybe hire someone to actually read the complaints from consumers.

      Sadly for Canon, now I know about their poor Customer Service and dedication to quality. They won't be on my list.

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
  14. I would not even have removed the logo by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    since using it in obvious parody is protected fair use.

    1. Re:I would not even have removed the logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the USA.

      Would it be possible of Canon Inc. to sue Wordpress in Japan?

    2. Re:I would not even have removed the logo by Phred+T.+Magnificent · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      "Protected fair use" applies to copyright, but AFAIK not to trademarks. The Canon logo is a trademark.

      --
      Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
      Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
  15. Loeb & Loeb - have at 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawyers who do this kind of crap need to feel some of the heat, too.

    Have at 'em:

    http://www.loeb.com/

    http://www.loeb.com/Firm/Contact/

    1. Re:Loeb & Loeb - have at 'em! by Thalagyrt · · Score: 0

      I just sent them the following:

      ---

      May I provide some information to the moron who sent a letter off to Wordpress about Fake Chuck Westfall? Maybe you guys should research what you proclaim to have degrees in, namely THE LAW, before you send out frivolous complaints.

      1. Parody.

      ---

      A parody, in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon (2000: 7) puts it, "parody ⦠is imitation with a critical difference, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith (2000: 9), defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice."

      Parody may be found in art or culture, including literature, music (although "parody" in music has a rather wider meaning than for other art forms), and cinema. Parodies are sometimes colloquially referred to as spoofs or lampoons.

      ---

      According to Aristotle (Poetics, ii. 5), Hegemon of Thasos was the inventor of a kind of parody; by slightly altering the wording in well-known poems he transformed the sublime into the ridiculous. In ancient Greek literature, a parodia was a narrative poem imitating the style and prosody of epics "but treating light, satirical or mock-heroic subjects" (Denith, 10). Indeed, the apparent Greek roots of the word are par- (which can mean beside, counter, or against) and -ody (song, as in an ode). Thus, the original Greek word parodia has sometimes been taken to mean counter-song, an imitation that is set against the original. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, defines parody as imitation "turned as to produce a ridiculous effect" (quoted in Hutcheon, 32). Because par- also has the non-antagonistic meaning of beside, "there is nothing in parodia to necessitate the inclusion of a concept of ridicule" (Hutcheon, 32).

      Roman writers explained parody as an imitation of one poet by another for humorous effect. In French Neoclassical literature, parody was also a type of poem where one work imitates the style of another for humorous effect.

      ---

      Parody is a frequent ingredient in satire and is often used to make social and political points. Examples include Swift's A Modest Proposal, which satirizes English neglect of Ireland by parodying emotionally disengaged political tracts, and, in contemporary culture, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which parody a news broadcast and a talk show, respectively, to satirize political and social trends and events. Some events, such as a national tragedy, can be difficult to handle. A 9/11 update of George Orwell's novella Animal Farmâ"Snowball's Chance by U.S. author John Reedâ"raised the ire of the George Orwell estate, and critics such as Christopher Hitchens. Chet Clem, Editorial Manager of the news parody publication The Onion, told Wikinews in an interview the questions that are raised when addressing difficult topics:
      âoeI know the September 11 issue was an obviously very large challenge to approach. Do we even put out an issue? What is funny at this time in American history? Where are the jokes? Do people want jokes right now? Is the nation ready to laugh again? Who knows. There will always be some level of division in the back room. Itâ(TM)s also what keeps us on our toes.â

      Parody is by no means necessarilly satirical, and may sometimes be done with respect and appreciation of the subject involved, while not being a heedless sarcastic attack.

      Parody has also been used to facilitate dialogue between cultures or subcultures. Sociolinguist Mary Louise Pratt identifies parody as one of the "arts of the contact zone," through which marginalized or oppressed groups "selectively appropriate," or imitate and take over, aspects of more empowered cultures.

      Shakespeare often uses a series of parodies to convey his m

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    2. Re:Loeb & Loeb - have at 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their response:

      tl;dr

  16. That's great and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I wonder how OSDN/Red Hat/Mozilla/EFF would react if I set up a similarly themed fake blog. For instance, a fake EFF blog extolling the virtues of proprietary software. I don't know if they would try a C&D (I doubt it), but I don't think they would be particularly happy about it.

    captcha: flattery (imitation being the sincerest form)

    1. Re:That's great and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the major difference is how they'd react to it. Both Canon and EFF would think "My God, this terrible person!", then EFF would post on their site about the fake, pointing out that it is a fake, probably give them a friendly letter requesting that they note on their site that they're a fake, and leave it there. (Maybe further posts on their own website). Anything more serious would probably only happen when or if it was no longer called the "fake EFF blog" but instead called the "EFF blog" -- but that's a whole different situation now, isn't it? Canon, however, is now taking legal action. If they were really concerned about bad publicity, they should post on their website that this fake isn't real, make sure their customer service reps know this, too, and send a friendly letter asking the author to note on their site that they are, in fact, fake (as if it were necessary). Anything more should only happen when they're no longer called the "Fake Canon Blog", but instead are called the "Canon blog". Overkill doesn't make the company look any better, IMO.

  17. Obama's Stimulus Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words: whitewashed turd. And let's be honest. This is really Pelosi's stimulus bill. Good thing it was crammed through with only 11 or so hours for Congressmen and their staff to read an 1100+ page document so that Pelosi could make her flight to Rome on Friday night. Ah, the privileges of being Queen Cunt...

  18. Fake chuck of fake canon receives a letter by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Are we absolutely sure this isn't fake news?

  19. the biggest threat to Canon profits by alizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is probably Canon corporate policy, not a fake blog.

    My experience with Canon printers has been good. They are very well constructed, using actual metal parts where it makes sense, they aren't the typical plastic shells surrounding mostly air one sees in the great majority of consumer printers.

    I will not buy a new Canon printer.

    Canon's PIXMA IP3000/4000/5000/6000 printers had the easiest to refill cartridges around. I've got an IP3000, which I bought for $60 with a $20 rebate when new. (and yes, Canon did actually send me the rebate money) Well, it's aging and developing enough signs of wear that I'm thinking of replacing it.

    There are a few IP3000s left that were never sold in sealed retail boxes. The price at Amazon starts at $209. The cheapest used IP3000 available at Amazon starts at $110. People in the know would rather chance a used printer than buy a new Canon printer.

    How often do you see computer peripherals go up in price years after they are manufactured to the point where they are far more expensive than comparable new ones? The demand for the old ones comes down to drastically reduced cost of ownership. I've been printing for the last year on $30 worth of high-quality fourmilabs bulk ink, and my printed photos have never looked better.

    If Canon were to make a new line of printers with chipless cartridges, I'd be happy to pay $100+ for one. If they made one that could be used directly with bulk ink, I'd be delighted to pay $150.

    1. Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits by karnal · · Score: 1

      Is there any manufacturer of inkjet printers that allows for chipless refilling nowadays?

      I stopped caring about inkjets when I had an epson that I couldn't change out the print heads on. Bought a 50$ brother 2040 - to be honest, I don't print much in color. My wife bought a Samsung 300 something laser that does color; I haven't done any photos on it, but honestly if I'm gonna do photos, I've had good luck in the past via the internet.

      I know that certain printers you could buy add-ons (3rd party) to basically add ink tanks.... of course, I'd probably buy one of those if I could, but the prices would probably be higher than most consumers would want to pay.

      --
      Karnal
    2. Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When Canon started chipping their cartridges I finally took the plunge and bought a Xerox color laser printer. I haven't looked back since.

      FUCK the whole cheap printer/expensive ink business model.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Actually PIXMA was the start down the dark road of proprietary inks. Before that, the inks were just a plastic box with a sponge, they had a separate tank for each color, and the inks and print heads were separately removable.

      I really couldn't guess what they're doing now, though. I haven't bothered with color inkjet printers since my i550 died and I noticed that CVS had decent photo prints for a fraction of the cost per m^2 I'd have paid for printer ink.

      I'm all about the cheap black laser printers now. The only thing I miss about not having color is printing google maps, which lose something, I think due to being rasters with "just enough" dpi.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brother inks are easy to refill and chipless. They have an ink bladder that makes them unsuitable for Drill-and-Fill, but a little messing about makes it possible to refill them through the valve. Of all the new ink printers, it would be the only one I'd contemplate.

    5. Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits by dangitman · · Score: 1

      There are a few IP3000s left that were never sold in sealed retail boxes.

      They were never sold in retail boxes? That seems a bit weird, as I've seen plenty of IP3000s in sealed retail boxes.

      How often do you see computer peripherals go up in price years after they are manufactured to the point where they are far more expensive than comparable new ones?

      Frequently.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:the biggest threat to Canon profits by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The thing that bugs me most about Cannon printers is that they sprinkle their Linux drivers all over the internet. I've never found a Cannon Linux driver on Cannon's US website. I have to either go to their Australian website or their Asian one. Can anyone explain this?

      I welcome a fake Cannon website, if it organizes their drivers in a logical manner.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  20. 3 words... by pig-power · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thank You Wordpress

  21. His lawyers letter may constitute mail /wire fraud by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

    Since the site is marked 'fake' it clearly is a parody. There may be grounds to argue that references to his wife and child are unacceptable because they might not be public figures, but the guy he's parodying clearly is. His own lawyers in the letter have conceded he is a public figure. Thus the standard for defamation is much higher than with a private party. While I'm not a lawyer, based on supreme court decisions such as New York Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, no reasonable person could believe this was from the guy or that what is being said was anything but parody and satire. They have to show that the material was known to be untrue and was posted for malice, or was done with reckless neglect for the truth, and that someone could believe it to be true.

    Thus the claim of defamation and almost all of the claims they are making are on their face at best obviously incorrect as negligence, or quite possibly intentional lies.

    Given this to be the case, his lawyers should know this, and their threats in their Cease & Desist letter may be intentional misinformation given by mail or communications system for the purpose of causing others to expend money or resources over reliance upon their misinformation. Thus the lawyers bluster and hyperbole may constitute mail and/or wire fraud in interstate commerce (it mentions it was both mailed and faxed) since either they knew that, based on current court decisions, that it was false, or should have known that it was. Thus their threat letter may, in and of itself, either give rise to a fraud claim, or might be grounds to have his lawyers prosecuted for mail and/or wire fraud.

    I'm waiting for someone to someday nail some lawyers who make claims in C&D letters that they know to be false.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  22. Loeb? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the name of that evil gollum-attorney in Cryptonomicon? :P

  23. "before that"? by alizard · · Score: 1

    . Before that, the inks were just a plastic box with a sponge, they had a separate tank for each color, and the inks and print heads were separately removable.

    That's a pretty good description of what I like about my PIXMA IP3000. I think what you're talking about started the model year after the x000 seriies.

  24. threat to HP profits too by vaporland · · Score: 1

    HP too. I have a Hewlett-Packard CP1700 Color Ink Jet Printer. The refilled cartridges are 1/3 the price of new ones. I bought a 100baseT JetDirect card for it on eBay for $20, and now I have a great printer that is economical to use - up to 13x19 sized paper. If I see another one on eBay or Craigslist, I'm going to buy it also.

    After I took the "watch battery" out of the printer, it no longer told me that there was "a problem" with the refilled cartridges. They now last for what seems like forever, and this printer prints fantastically.

    Fuck a new HP printer - they're shiny like Vista, and just as DRM laden. No thanks!

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  25. Honestly, who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this really news? Who cares? It is a frivolous suit lodged against a site about someone most people have never heard of and don't care about.

  26. The problem-- like soylent green --is people. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People think stupid stuff. All it takes is that x% of people too stupid to grasp the concept, to then pass the 'information' on to their friends. Give it another iteration or two, and it starts to become a problem. Human beings readily accept the easiest to digest and most palatable information available to them. Canon is just trying to head that shit off.

    Think about it this way; you have someone like Jack Thompson, devoting his every waking hour to convincing people that videogames are solely responsible for the breakdown of society. Bullshit, of course. But a percentage of people take it seriously enough to tell someone else, whether or not these people have any idea what in the hell they're talking about is irrelevant, with only a little help, such ideas can silently seep into common knowledge until a majority of people believe-- or at the very least, take seriously --such things.

    To put it another way, if you're subjected to someone yelling about something loud enough, long enough, sooner or later it's going to have an effect.

    I'm not saying Canon took the right tact, I mean the blog looks fairly harmless, I'm just saying I can think of a few reasons they'd want to do something about someone taking pokes at them in such a way.

    For the record, I'm fairly brand-agnostic. Though I haven't used a Nikon SLR since the days of film.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  27. Viral by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 1

    What part of viral and gorilla (sick) marketing do we not get?

  28. Andrew Loeb by finkployd · · Score: 1

    Watch our for that Andrew Loeb, he is a goddammed nutcase.

  29. go wordpress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good on wordpress for standing behind the blogger after removing the logo. you don't see enough of this. eww rah.

  30. Slower now by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    I'm about to buy a new camera. It was between Canon and someone else. Seeing this, the someone else wins. Boycott the morons.

  31. Fuck Chake Westfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Chake Westfall!!!

  32. Fake is an unfunny, abusive idiot. Shut him down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is one thing to be a critic of Canon, but another thing to create a site that personally abuses and harasses a Canon employee.

    The Fake site is utterly tasteless in that Fake has made his attack so damned PERSONAL.

    Chuck has been helping photographers for years and has been an exemplary representative of his company. Other camera manufacturers should be so lucky and wise as to have such a person responding to their customers.

    Chuck does not deserve this abuse and harassment. Photographers should stand up for him now, and WordPress should shut down this idiot Fake for abuse and harassment.

    The whole point and effect of the site is to VICTIMIZE an individual. That is just despicable mean-spirited crap. I wonder whether Fake would be receptive to having his own real name and image used in this way? Would YOU??