“Shooter Jobs” facebook is a bunch of bitchy hysterical women.
I assume it is run by some menopausal woman who is having a bad day, it’s not entirely clear. But now they are sending people to my email. Which is actually good, because I can explain exactly what “Shooter Jobs” did.
So let’s backtrack, remember this Meme that was written by my friend “The Sniper”:
You’ll notice it has no logo on it. That’s because The Sniper wanted it freely shared, to any and all. But what he found today was something different. See, “Shooter Jobs” took that Meme, and above it in the black area just photoshopped in “www.shooterjobs.com”. (This is actually like the third time this has happened with this meme, everyone else was an adult about it.)
You see the difference of course. Sniper wanted to share it without attribution and let whoever wanted to see it see it. It encompassed all the things that made what we did as infantrymen easily understood. What he DIDN’T want was a for-profit company, “Shooter Jobs” to use it as an advertisement. If someone can’t see the difference between a meme to be shared because it espouses the value of honor among troops, and using someone else’s work to advertise your company, there’s not much I can do about it.
So, Sniper asked me to contact them to take it down. I did. The reason he asked me to do it is he is actually at the memorial service for a lieutenant we served with in Afghanistan who died last week. It’s been weighing heavily on all of us, so when Sniper saw someone appropriating his work, he asked me to get them to take their logo off it.
So now I’ve had a back and forth with the bitchy woman who runs their site, who apparently can’t understand the differences I tried to explain above. Apparently the woman on the other end doesn’t understand the subtle difference between sharing something, and affixing your own logo to it. To wit, I give you what she is selling to her minions:
Warning to other pages. If you post this photo then the lawyer of Michael St. Jacques will write you and say that his client has this meme copyrighted. It’s his meme. He made it and no one else can post it without his permission damn it. His lawyer is Mark Seavey, you can contact him at [my email] and tell him what you think about him and his client. Michael you have been credited for this picture just how you demanded buddy. The credit is all yours.
Here’s the thing, I made it clear no fewer than 3 times to this woman that it wasn’t credit he wanted, what he wanted was for them not to appropriate it as their own.
But then she banned everyone from explaining that, which is what you would expect from real hard chargers with a name like “Shooter Jobs.”
I did time attached to DynCorps. I love the PMFs in general. But it’s asstards like this person who give them a bad name.
BRIEF UPDATE: Shooter Jobs too it down, but I wanted to note something else. I largely avoided discussing the Copyright aspect here, because in my mind it was complicated. As is usual, one of our readers is WAY smarter than me, and far more eloquent. So, I wanted to post “gitarcarver” comment from below that lays it out way better than I could.
NSOM,
You are incorrect. In 1989 the copyright law was changed to where one does not have to affix a copyright or tm symbol to claim ownership of the work. The copyright is still in place no matter what. By law, the copyright is “birthed” at the time the idea is put to a medium – ie paper, a recording, a disc, etc
People in the Facebook thread claimed that as Sniper had not created the picture, he could not claim a copyright. That too is false.
Sniper’s attachment of words to to picture substantially “transformed” the work. It gave the picture a different meaning. That transformative work is protected under copyright laws.
The company merely adding their name does not transform the work. They did not create a new work – they merely stole an existing work.
Finally, copyright laws are negative / exclusionary laws. Copyright laws do not grant who MAY publish or use a work, they say who may not use the work.
Sniper was correct and the company was wrong. I suspect the removal of the Facebook thread was due to a counselor saying, “are you nuts? We stole his work!”
People need to understand that just because something is on the net does not mean it is “public domain.
Category: Politics
get at em Mark, school these little bitches
So will the twatmold remove its logo, or do I need to go all PMSing female on her ignorant, pimply ass?
I have this posted on my wall at work minus the logo.
The comments on their copy of the pic are pretty ignorant. Here’s rooting for that whole Rapture thing real soon…
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=616588998392165&set=pb.136113726439697.-2207520000.1381175196.&type=3&theater
Wow.
This is copyright 101 here. The fact the woman doesn’t know how to treat graphics of other people is appalling.
I would send a DMCA takedown notice to her ISP and let her deal with them.
That way, you aren’t suing them or anything, but you are protecting the rights of the owner.
Geez I hate people whho think that once something is on the internet, they can take it as their own.
They just do not understand that whole copyright/unauthorized use of the work of another thing? It’s seriously not that complicated.
Besides, it’s just rude to appropriate what someone else has created.
Yeah, I can see that it is sometimes difficult to discover from whom one needs to get permission to use a pic for a commercial enterprise. Once the owner of a pic tells someone who has not paid for the use of said pic to stop using it, there should be no need for further dialog.
But, it happens entirely too often. No, I’m not a photog myself, but have several friends whose pics have appeared in odd places on the ‘net and in print media, without permission, payment, or credit. Usually the mistake is quickly corrected, but sometimes the stupid argument “but it was on the ‘net” is used, as if that makes it OK. It’s called theft when you appropriate the property of another! (Even intellectual property.)
The issue is not that they are sharing the meme. It is not copyrighted. The issue is that they are putting their name on it. The request was for them to remove their name from the meme, NOT that they quite sharing it. Michael wants it shared, but with no accreditation. Am I right?
I knew a Maggie Goff once, long ago and far away. She was gorgeous redhead.
Awww, I always wanted to be a redhead. 😉
Judging from my ex-wife you don’t want to be a natural redhead. My daughter is also a redhead and has the stereotypical attitude to match.
Well, Maggie, if they are putting their logo on it they are claiming ownership, or at least a right to make money using it. They do NOT have the permission, or the right, to do that.
I had red hair. It had spring curls. When I cut it short, a girlfriend asked for it so I gave it to her. Somewhere, perhaps, there’s a jar–a blue jar–with my red hair in it. I want it back. A few pieces of tape, maybe a staple or two, and I’d be back in business.
Yeah, I had freckles too. Red hair and freckles. Lots and lots of freckles.
Maggie,
That is the issue but by putting their name on it (either directly or with a watermark) they have appropriated the work of a person and claimed it as their own.
People think that to be copyrighted, a work has to be registeted. It does not.
They stole this guys work and claimed it as their own. I run across this all the time and it ticks me off. People who will post “No Trespassing” signs and protect their property at the end of a gun have no issues stealing people’s work because it is on the internet.
The work is copyrighted by its mere creation. The adding of the site name does not tranform it into a new work. The creator of the work has every legal right to say “everyone in the world but you can use it.”
This woman and company should be ashamed of themselves.
To everyone, I know they are wrong. I’m on Mike’s and CV’s side. I was banned from Shooter Job’s FB page for posting this link. From what I understand Mike just wants it to be shared with NO ONE taking credit for it. Sorry if I’m not expressing myself well.
The site is now down. Joe
From my perspective, gitarcarver’s advice in comment 5 is sound. Provided the originator can demonstrate a credible date of origin predating Shooter Job’s use of the image, he should be able to get their ISP to assist in enforcing his copyright to the work (copyrights need not be registered and remain in effect even if liberal permission is given for noncommercial use of the work). Most ISPs terms of service forbid copyright infringement.
Maggie,
I took your questions to be that of an honest inquiry.
If you felt my response to you was over the top or accusing you of anything, I apologize. That was not my intention.
I think you should get Psul on their case. This is internet fraud felony that will be punished and he is the man to do it. What a popcorn watching Super Bowl that would be if we could get those two fighting each other on the net.
gitacarver, I didn’t think that your response was over the top or accusatory. Thank you, but an apology is definitely not necessary.
Shooter Jobs took the Facebook post down.
BTW … Maggie is a hot sexy Irish nickname!
Maggie got a pic?
Oh, criminy, you guys are too much. LOL
Maggie, some of us aren’t even guys! 😉
@24. I suspect some of the guys aren’t either.
Some of those memes are pretty damn idiotic, I wonder if I can post a pic of me sunbathing on my pool saying “I just have to type on the keyboard and I make 2 times more than any contractor on this site, and don’t even have to type everyday I can rest” on their “we can golf and even make more money” relating to the military getting less money and stuff …
I swear it sounds like a website James Yeager would like, but then again I’ve seen the “get of the X” video of his Edinburgh Risk and Security Management video .. not impressed #FAIL
And for the record I bet you didn’t miss my random rants 😛 but unfortunately for you I’m back, still insane and all but back 😛
In all fairness, once you release something into the internet, without copyright or trademark, it’s no longer yours. x100 for memes.
Copyright attaches to the photograph when it is created. It is the property of the photographer unless the photographer is under contract to create the photograph and assigns the rights to another party. registered copyright can be easily done through the .gov website.
My photographs are on my site on the web. That means that there is a probability that they will be copied and passed around, become desktop backgrounds, show up anywhere. As long as someone is not trying to make money or claim credit for them (like putting their website watermark on my photo) I don’t care,
Do one of those things and you will get a letter from a lawyer just like what happened here.
Maggie, you know Bob who used to work in Prishtina?
Hey, at least they were nice enough to welcome me to the “fucking internet”. (I thought that was damn nice of them). Of course they also told me to quit my whiny bitching. I stopped posting at that point and just forwarded a screen shot of the conversation to Sniper.
It’s just wrong to put a logo on something you didn’t originate. I noticed they had other memes posted without it, so their “everybody does it to everything” defense kind of lost it’s lift there and crashed. Too bad. It’s an awesome meme, and one of my favorites. It doesn’t deserve to be plagiarized for profit, but it sure as hell deserves to be shared.
NSOM,
You are incorrect. In 1989 the copyright law was changed to where one does not have to affix a copyright or tm symbol to claim ownership of the work. The copyright is still in place no matter what. By law, the copyright is “birthed” at the time the idea is put to a medium – ie paper, a recording, a disc, etc
People in the Facebook thread claimed that as Sniper had not created the picture, he could not claim a copyright. That too is false.
Sniper’s attachment of words to to picture substantially “transformed” the work. It gave the picture a different meaning. That transformative work is protected under copyright laws.
The company merely adding their name does not transform the work. They did not create a new work – they merely stole an existing work.
Finally, copyright laws are negative / exclusionary laws. Copyright laws do not grant who MAY publish or use a work, they say who may not use the work.
Sniper was correct and the company was wrong. I suspect the removal of the Facebook thread was due to a counselor saying, “are you nuts? We stole his work!”
People need to understand that just because something is on the net does not mean it is “public domain.
Thanks for that clear explanation!
Not an attorney here, but have gone through this a time or three with friends. I know that terms like “intellectual property” apply even to the internet. Pictures and writing cannot simply be used without permission any more than I can use my neighbor’s truck for either commercial or personal stuff without his permission.
This has fot to be the biggest waste of energy and time Ive ever witnessed…Its a fricken MEME… people read it and its out of their lives two seconds later… If u think anyone is making money of it, youre a fucking moron, and its no wonder you felt the need to waste this much effort over a picture no one is going to care about five minutes after they finish wastin THEIR time reading all this crap ……just like i did…Stupid bitches, i swear