You seem to be both fair-minded and level-headed. I appreciate your advice. Again, I do understand your points here.
I don't want to bore you, but "since you commented" on the actual images, let me share this information with you. All Imageline illustrations and designs are originally created as vector digital files, in a process at least 15-20 more complicated, and costly, than simple scanning and clean-up. The resulting illustration/design is more like a complex puzzle, with dozens, hundreds, or sometimes even thousands of individual pieces that have to come together to form the final image. Thes pieces, or "ploygons" as they are called, are generated by mathematical algorisms in vector drawing programs. Imageline adds it own proprietary utitilies and processes to thes program to help us identify our images in the marketplace and improve our technically and asthestic qualities.
Someone generally never sees this background technical data behind each ilustration and design, but we assures us of what we origanally proiduced, and copyrighted, and what was producced independently by others.
Not many people know this, but it is why we can state with 99% accuracy that an infringed image is actually owned by Imageline after spending some time comparing the digital artwork.
So there. Now, aren't you glad you asked?
Anyway, thanks again for your sage advice. You will find me to be an advocate for the small designer and publisher when all of the truth surrounding this complex matter begins to surface.
I know exactly where you are coming from, and, believe me, I totally understand your points. Thank you so much for keeping an open mind and taking the time to communicate with me.
In many ways, you are exactly right. I have been a staunch supporter of small business enterprises for my entire career. The largest companies serving the embroidery industry are responsible for 95% of these infrigement problems. Several of "the little guys" simply have gotten themselves caught up in the fray and tried to make up a few things to get out of trouble. They should have asked the Nixons if that strategy works.
We are working as hard as we can to make new, highly relevent, information regarding these large graphic arts content publishers available to the public, and small embroiderers, as quickly as we can. Stay tuned.
Thanks again for sending us a note and keeping an open mind.
None of our illustrations/designs have even been available on any Jupiter Images (owners of clipart.com) web site in almost ten years, by the way. This has all been fabricated. Truly unbelivable if you ask me. You will soon see.
You've got that all wrong, tg, but I can understand that with all the confusion out there today in this crazy market.
We have always licensed our digital images on a "royalty free" basis. This means you, as the licensed user, can use it as often as you like, and on as many projects as you choose to... forever.
What you cannot do is sub-license or other wise convey the electronic file to others, whether its the orginal file or a derivative file format that you create.
Thanks for the help. Do the owners/moderators of this web site know it is being "self-censored" by the readers like this? I would not spend a second on a web site that encouraged that kind of one-sided activity. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of such things. George
Wow! My Google "clip art alert" system really does work!
Checking my e-mails at lunch today, I noticed this Slashdot article devoted entirely to me and my small electronic graphic arts content development company, Imageline. We are honored.
First of all, I would like to say "thank you" to those of you who chose not to simply jump on the "sensational" bandwagon, but took the time to carefully read what we are saying and understand what we are trying to do here at Imageline. We believe that our efforts, our experience, our creativity, and our tenacity, will benefit practically everyone who wants to participate in the wonders of the digital art world and the Internet legally.
And "hello, Jim!"... it was great to hear you are still 'active and kicking' after all of these years. I always admired the fact that you were not reluctant at all to speak your mind. That's what successful companies are made up of... excellent, dedicated, and intelligent people... with a great work ethic and a common cause.
There's a huge difference between what we trying to do here at Imageline and what the RIAA has been doing for the past few years. I do not believe that the appropriate way to curtail digital piracy over the Internet is to simply try to throw a few college students, uninformed end-users, and/on single moms into bankruptcy... or into jail.
At Imageline, we ALWAYS go after the "middlemen", exclusively. They are the most flagrant infringers, by far. Not the actual end-users, who, by and large, are the innocent recipients of stolen property, and the victims of the various distribution scams organized and orchestrated by these so-called legitimate "middlemen". The industry calls them "digital pirates".
The "middlemen" I am referring to here are the dealers, the distributors, the "pushers", the web site operators, and the product bundlers (even the counterfeiters), who try to feather their own nests by sub-licensing and re-distributing the hard-earned digital artwork and other property owned by others. From my own personal experience, most of these "middlemen" not only do not respect copyrights or the laws of this country, they do not respect property rights in general, unless, of course, that property is theirs or something they have stolen. It is all very shameful, in my opinion.
Those that have made an honest mistake (and we all do that on occasion) are ALWAYS treated with respect and given several reasonable options by Imageline in an attempt to resolve our disputes and protect their end user customers at the same time. In fact, some of our best friends, and best customers, are people who inadvertently were caught infringing at some time in the past, but certainly do not do that sort of thing anymore. By and large, they are happy people, as well, and have no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror each day.
Every single company we have contacted over the past few years is a "middleman" trying to earn money from goods and services (and sweat and tears) of others, to which they have no rights.
Most of the people responding to this web posting apparently have not even bothered to take the time to read our various communications carefully. Yet they are not hesitant at all to criticize what we are doing. That is a very dangerous, and not particularly useful, way to interact, in my humble opinion.
Imageline owns one of the largest archives of digital vector-based artwork in the entire world, and we have just recently doubled our exclusive libraries with the acquisition of the Image Club Graphics libraries from Getty Images. All of our artwork had previously been developed in-house by talented artists, designers, animators, and digitizers, and by a number of what I consider "world class" independent illustrators under tight "work-for-hire" agreements. The new Image Club libraries begin an entire new chapter for Imageline, and we are all very excited about our future.
Sorry... I agree with you. Nothing is more annoying to me than reading un-formatted text. It looked nice when I posted it, but I am new to Slashdot and apparently hit the wrong key. I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to look at both our e-mail communications and our digital images. Thanks for your support, by the way. I forgot to mention that in my earlier post.
Wow! My Google "clip art alert" system really does work!
Checking my e-mails at lunch today, I noticed this Slashdot article devoted entirely to me and my small electronic graphic arts content development company, Imageline. We are honored.
First of all, I would like to say "thank you" to those of you who chose not to simply jump on the "sensational" bandwagon, but took the time to carefully read what we are saying and understand what we are trying to do here at Imageline. We believe that our efforts, our experience, our creativity, and our tenacity, will benefit practically everyone who wants to participate in the wonders of the digital art world and the Internet legally.
And "hello, Jim!"... it was great to hear you are still 'active and kicking' after all of these years. I always admired the fact that you were not reluctant at all to speak your mind. That's what successful companies are made up of... excellent, dedicated, and intelligent people... with a great work ethic and a common cause.
There's a huge difference between what we trying to do here at Imageline and what the RIAA has been doing for the past few years. I do not believe that the appropriate way to curtail digital piracy over the Internet is to simply try to throw a few college students, uninformed end-users, and/on single moms into bankruptcy... or into jail.
At Imageline, we ALWAYS go after the "middlemen", exclusively. They are the most flagrant infringers, by far. Not the actual end-users, who, by and large, are the innocent recipients of stolen property, and the victims of the various distribution scams organized and orchestrated by these so-called legitimate "middlemen". The industry calls them "digital pirates".
The "middlemen" I am referring to here are the dealers, the distributors, the "pushers", the web site operators, and the product bundlers (even the counterfeiters), who try to feather their own nests by sub-licensing and re-distributing the hard-earned digital artwork and other property owned by others. From my own personal experience, most of these "middlemen" not only do not respect copyrights or the laws of this country, they do not respect property rights in general, unless, of course, that property is theirs or something they have stolen. It is all very shameful, in my opinion.
Those that have made an honest mistake (and we all do that on occasion) are ALWAYS treated with respect and given several reasonable options by Imageline in an attempt to resolve our disputes and protect their end user customers at the same time. In fact, some of our best friends, and best customers, are people who inadvertently were caught infringing at some time in the past, but certainly do not do that sort of thing anymore. By and large, they are happy people, as well, and have no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror each day.
Every single company we have contacted over the past few years is a "middleman" trying to earn money from goods and services (and sweat and tears) of others, to which they have no rights.
Most of the people responding to this web posting apparently have not even bothered to take the time to read our various communications carefully. Yet they are not hesitant at all to criticize what we are doing. That is a very dangerous, and not particularly useful, way to interact, in my humble opinion.
Imageline owns one of the largest archives of digital vector-based artwork in the entire world, and we have just recently doubled our exclusive libraries with the acquisition of the Image Club Graphics libraries from Getty Images. All of our artwork had previously been developed in-house by talented artists, designers, animators, and digitizers, and by a number of what I consider "world class" independent illustrators under tight "work-for-hire" agreements. The new Image Club libraries begin an entire new chapter for Imageline, and we are all very excited about our future.
Unlike most of our competitors, all of Imageline's digital artwork is also registere
Hello Slashdot,
This is my first post through your network. From what I read, it may not be all that popular, but I can tell you from "direct experience" (I wonder how many of your readers can say that?) that what I say is the market reality, not simply my opinion.
Thanks for bringing this "debate" to the members of the Slashdot community. These DMCA issues are extremely relevant, and vitally important, in today's world.
I know Ms. Peters and I think she is an excellent Register of Copyrights. I also know the former Register. Ms. Peters is both intelligent, analytical, and fair-minded. She won't be swayed by the massive truckloads of anti-copyright advocates, lawyers, and PR agents employed by companies like Google, and others, these days. She understands the importance of property rights, both physical and intellectual, to this country.
Whether she has a computer at home or not is none of any of our business. Since when do we have the right to impart our values on others? This is a matter of law... it's all that pure and simple. If you don't like the law, then invite one of your congressmen/women to join you at Google for a free gourmet lunch, and see if they'll try to change it for you.
The market is solving the anti-circumvention "debate" on its own, but why copyright infringers believe they have a vote is simply beyond me. I wonder what they (the infringers) would say if we told them they couldn't put up a fence around their back yard or pool?
And how can Google help to organize all of the world's information, including the infringers' (whether we want them to or not) with those security systems in place in all their houses?
There is no real need to change the DMCA here. Our problem is enforcement, and ethical industry leadership, not Constitutional rights or the law.
Ms. Peters makes an excellent point about the "safe harbor" provisions of that same law (the DMCA), however. It was NEVER meant to give known pirates a safe harbor to sail their infringement vessels into. I have never seen a clause so incorrectly interpreted (purposely I might add) by so many, with such market power, in my entire career. And I've been at this game since the mid 70s.
Google, and other major search engine players in this country, and in others, intentionally, and routinely, misuse, and misrepresent the "safe harbor provisions" of the DMCA. In short, they break the law. I know. I was in the middle of a huge copyright infringement lawsuit when the DMCA first became law in 1998. It was NOT designed to encourage copyright infringement, to give unscrupulous web site publishers and distributors a place to hide, or to place the burden of policing violations on those who cannot control the distribution networks.
Statements to the contrary are NONSENSE!
The law was never intended to give a large publicly funded company, such as Google, an escape from liability for obvious copyright infringement activity. They are not analogous to the telephone company. They deliver proprietary content, and sell advertisements, every single time they infringe. Google's attorneys have simply used the technical confusion to mislead those in our "judicial" society that decide such things - the court appointed mediators, arbitrators, judges, and juries... let alone uninformed politicians. Back in my IBM days, we called it the spreading of the "FUD factor"... Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
We are fortunate to have a strong woman, such as Ms. Peters, at the helm up here in Washington. If only her judicial counterparts would use a little "common sense", we'd all have a better, and safer, Internet to browse, surf, and search.
Please let me hear from you if you disagree and have real "facts" to back up your claims.
It's a pleasure to join your network.
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be both fair-minded and level-headed. I appreciate your advice. Again, I do understand your points here.
I don't want to bore you, but "since you commented" on the actual images, let me share this information with you. All Imageline illustrations and designs are originally created as vector digital files, in a process at least 15-20 more complicated, and costly, than simple scanning and clean-up. The resulting illustration/design is more like a complex puzzle, with dozens, hundreds, or sometimes even thousands of individual pieces that have to come together to form the final image. Thes pieces, or "ploygons" as they are called, are generated by mathematical algorisms in vector drawing programs. Imageline adds it own proprietary utitilies and processes to thes program to help us identify our images in the marketplace and improve our technically and asthestic qualities.
Someone generally never sees this background technical data behind each ilustration and design, but we assures us of what we origanally proiduced, and copyrighted, and what was producced independently by others.
Not many people know this, but it is why we can state with 99% accuracy that an infringed image is actually owned by Imageline after spending some time comparing the digital artwork.
So there. Now, aren't you glad you asked?
Anyway, thanks again for your sage advice. You will find me to be an advocate for the small designer and publisher when all of the truth surrounding this complex matter begins to surface.
George
I know exactly where you are coming from, and, believe me, I totally understand your points. Thank you so much for keeping an open mind and taking the time to communicate with me.
In many ways, you are exactly right. I have been a staunch supporter of small business enterprises for my entire career. The largest companies serving the embroidery industry are responsible for 95% of these infrigement problems. Several of "the little guys" simply have gotten themselves caught up in the fray and tried to make up a few things to get out of trouble. They should have asked the Nixons if that strategy works.
We are working as hard as we can to make new, highly relevent, information regarding these large graphic arts content publishers available to the public, and small embroiderers, as quickly as we can. Stay tuned.
Thanks again for sending us a note and keeping an open mind.
None of our illustrations/designs have even been available on any Jupiter Images (owners of clipart.com) web site in almost ten years, by the way. This has all been fabricated. Truly unbelivable if you ask me. You will soon see.
George
You've got that all wrong, tg, but I can understand that with all the confusion out there today in this crazy market.
We have always licensed our digital images on a "royalty free" basis. This means you, as the licensed user, can use it as often as you like, and on as many projects as you choose to ... forever.
What you cannot do is sub-license or other wise convey the electronic file to others, whether its the orginal file or a derivative file format that you create.
George
Thanks for the help. Do the owners/moderators of this web site know it is being "self-censored" by the readers like this? I would not spend a second on a web site that encouraged that kind of one-sided activity. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of such things. George
Wow! My Google "clip art alert" system really does work!
Checking my e-mails at lunch today, I noticed this Slashdot article devoted entirely to me and my small electronic graphic arts content development company, Imageline. We are honored.
First of all, I would like to say "thank you" to those of you who chose not to simply jump on the "sensational" bandwagon, but took the time to carefully read what we are saying and understand what we are trying to do here at Imageline. We believe that our efforts, our experience, our creativity, and our tenacity, will benefit practically everyone who wants to participate in the wonders of the digital art world and the Internet legally.
And "hello, Jim!" ... it was great to hear you are still 'active and kicking' after all of these years. I always admired the fact that you were not reluctant at all to speak your mind. That's what successful companies are made up of ... excellent, dedicated, and intelligent people ... with a great work ethic and a common cause.
There's a huge difference between what we trying to do here at Imageline and what the RIAA has been doing for the past few years. I do not believe that the appropriate way to curtail digital piracy over the Internet is to simply try to throw a few college students, uninformed end-users, and/on single moms into bankruptcy ... or into jail.
At Imageline, we ALWAYS go after the "middlemen", exclusively. They are the most flagrant infringers, by far. Not the actual end-users, who, by and large, are the innocent recipients of stolen property, and the victims of the various distribution scams organized and orchestrated by these so-called legitimate "middlemen". The industry calls them "digital pirates".
The "middlemen" I am referring to here are the dealers, the distributors, the "pushers", the web site operators, and the product bundlers (even the counterfeiters), who try to feather their own nests by sub-licensing and re-distributing the hard-earned digital artwork and other property owned by others. From my own personal experience, most of these "middlemen" not only do not respect copyrights or the laws of this country, they do not respect property rights in general, unless, of course, that property is theirs or something they have stolen. It is all very shameful, in my opinion.
Those that have made an honest mistake (and we all do that on occasion) are ALWAYS treated with respect and given several reasonable options by Imageline in an attempt to resolve our disputes and protect their end user customers at the same time. In fact, some of our best friends, and best customers, are people who inadvertently were caught infringing at some time in the past, but certainly do not do that sort of thing anymore. By and large, they are happy people, as well, and have no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror each day.
Every single company we have contacted over the past few years is a "middleman" trying to earn money from goods and services (and sweat and tears) of others, to which they have no rights.
Most of the people responding to this web posting apparently have not even bothered to take the time to read our various communications carefully. Yet they are not hesitant at all to criticize what we are doing. That is a very dangerous, and not particularly useful, way to interact, in my humble opinion.
Imageline owns one of the largest archives of digital vector-based artwork in the entire world, and we have just recently doubled our exclusive libraries with the acquisition of the Image Club Graphics libraries from Getty Images. All of our artwork had previously been developed in-house by talented artists, designers, animators, and digitizers, and by a number of what I consider "world class" independent illustrators under tight "work-for-hire" agreements. The new Image Club libraries begin an entire new chapter for Imageline, and we are all very excited about our future.
Unlike most of our competi
Sorry ... I agree with you. Nothing is more annoying to me than reading un-formatted text. It looked nice when I posted it, but I am new to Slashdot and apparently hit the wrong key. I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to look at both our e-mail communications and our digital images. Thanks for your support, by the way. I forgot to mention that in my earlier post.
Wow! My Google "clip art alert" system really does work! Checking my e-mails at lunch today, I noticed this Slashdot article devoted entirely to me and my small electronic graphic arts content development company, Imageline. We are honored. First of all, I would like to say "thank you" to those of you who chose not to simply jump on the "sensational" bandwagon, but took the time to carefully read what we are saying and understand what we are trying to do here at Imageline. We believe that our efforts, our experience, our creativity, and our tenacity, will benefit practically everyone who wants to participate in the wonders of the digital art world and the Internet legally. And "hello, Jim!" ... it was great to hear you are still 'active and kicking' after all of these years. I always admired the fact that you were not reluctant at all to speak your mind. That's what successful companies are made up of ... excellent, dedicated, and intelligent people ... with a great work ethic and a common cause.
There's a huge difference between what we trying to do here at Imageline and what the RIAA has been doing for the past few years. I do not believe that the appropriate way to curtail digital piracy over the Internet is to simply try to throw a few college students, uninformed end-users, and/on single moms into bankruptcy ... or into jail.
At Imageline, we ALWAYS go after the "middlemen", exclusively. They are the most flagrant infringers, by far. Not the actual end-users, who, by and large, are the innocent recipients of stolen property, and the victims of the various distribution scams organized and orchestrated by these so-called legitimate "middlemen". The industry calls them "digital pirates".
The "middlemen" I am referring to here are the dealers, the distributors, the "pushers", the web site operators, and the product bundlers (even the counterfeiters), who try to feather their own nests by sub-licensing and re-distributing the hard-earned digital artwork and other property owned by others. From my own personal experience, most of these "middlemen" not only do not respect copyrights or the laws of this country, they do not respect property rights in general, unless, of course, that property is theirs or something they have stolen. It is all very shameful, in my opinion.
Those that have made an honest mistake (and we all do that on occasion) are ALWAYS treated with respect and given several reasonable options by Imageline in an attempt to resolve our disputes and protect their end user customers at the same time. In fact, some of our best friends, and best customers, are people who inadvertently were caught infringing at some time in the past, but certainly do not do that sort of thing anymore. By and large, they are happy people, as well, and have no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror each day.
Every single company we have contacted over the past few years is a "middleman" trying to earn money from goods and services (and sweat and tears) of others, to which they have no rights.
Most of the people responding to this web posting apparently have not even bothered to take the time to read our various communications carefully. Yet they are not hesitant at all to criticize what we are doing. That is a very dangerous, and not particularly useful, way to interact, in my humble opinion.
Imageline owns one of the largest archives of digital vector-based artwork in the entire world, and we have just recently doubled our exclusive libraries with the acquisition of the Image Club Graphics libraries from Getty Images. All of our artwork had previously been developed in-house by talented artists, designers, animators, and digitizers, and by a number of what I consider "world class" independent illustrators under tight "work-for-hire" agreements. The new Image Club libraries begin an entire new chapter for Imageline, and we are all very excited about our future.
Unlike most of our competitors, all of Imageline's digital artwork is also registere
Hello Slashdot, This is my first post through your network. From what I read, it may not be all that popular, but I can tell you from "direct experience" (I wonder how many of your readers can say that?) that what I say is the market reality, not simply my opinion. Thanks for bringing this "debate" to the members of the Slashdot community. These DMCA issues are extremely relevant, and vitally important, in today's world. I know Ms. Peters and I think she is an excellent Register of Copyrights. I also know the former Register. Ms. Peters is both intelligent, analytical, and fair-minded. She won't be swayed by the massive truckloads of anti-copyright advocates, lawyers, and PR agents employed by companies like Google, and others, these days. She understands the importance of property rights, both physical and intellectual, to this country. Whether she has a computer at home or not is none of any of our business. Since when do we have the right to impart our values on others? This is a matter of law ... it's all that pure and simple. If you don't like the law, then invite one of your congressmen/women to join you at Google for a free gourmet lunch, and see if they'll try to change it for you.
The market is solving the anti-circumvention "debate" on its own, but why copyright infringers believe they have a vote is simply beyond me. I wonder what they (the infringers) would say if we told them they couldn't put up a fence around their back yard or pool?
And how can Google help to organize all of the world's information, including the infringers' (whether we want them to or not) with those security systems in place in all their houses?
There is no real need to change the DMCA here. Our problem is enforcement, and ethical industry leadership, not Constitutional rights or the law.
Ms. Peters makes an excellent point about the "safe harbor" provisions of that same law (the DMCA), however. It was NEVER meant to give known pirates a safe harbor to sail their infringement vessels into. I have never seen a clause so incorrectly interpreted (purposely I might add) by so many, with such market power, in my entire career. And I've been at this game since the mid 70s.
Google, and other major search engine players in this country, and in others, intentionally, and routinely, misuse, and misrepresent the "safe harbor provisions" of the DMCA. In short, they break the law. I know. I was in the middle of a huge copyright infringement lawsuit when the DMCA first became law in 1998. It was NOT designed to encourage copyright infringement, to give unscrupulous web site publishers and distributors a place to hide, or to place the burden of policing violations on those who cannot control the distribution networks.
Statements to the contrary are NONSENSE!
The law was never intended to give a large publicly funded company, such as Google, an escape from liability for obvious copyright infringement activity. They are not analogous to the telephone company. They deliver proprietary content, and sell advertisements, every single time they infringe. Google's attorneys have simply used the technical confusion to mislead those in our "judicial" society that decide such things - the court appointed mediators, arbitrators, judges, and juries ... let alone uninformed politicians. Back in my IBM days, we called it the spreading of the "FUD factor" ... Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
We are fortunate to have a strong woman, such as Ms. Peters, at the helm up here in Washington. If only her judicial counterparts would use a little "common sense", we'd all have a better, and safer, Internet to browse, surf, and search.
Please let me hear from you if you disagree and have real "facts" to back up your claims.
It's a pleasure to join your network.
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com