To whom do I direct this to?

[Adam]

Though I don't really get involved with OB affairs, I just want to add that it would be good courtesy to remove his real name from the entry...

Adam

[Rick Hunter]

[quote name='Charles']Problem. As you should know, I made that image when I worked for AE Boards. As such, I have the image saved in several formats on my PC (which I still own from that time). That is, I have the individual layers that I used to make the image. Where do you think I got it for the article in the first place? heh

Technically, I am the owner and if you are using that image without providing me royalties, then it is I who have a problem with you.

I will remove your picture from the article though. That is a fair request that I always honor for anyone who asks (not because of legal ramifications but out of common courtesy).[/QUOTE]

Since I'm really in no mood to argue over an image that is currently not used anymore on current AE servers but older versions, I've deleted all traces of the logo since rightfully it is your image Charles, however on the record that image was given to me with your permission and used with your permission if you indeed did have a problem you should have "address that" since I take it you are addressing that matter now, I'm fairily reasonable person and will removed the use of that image on any old servers that may have it.

Since at least you are respecting my right to privacy by removing the image, I kindly thank you for acknowleding your fault, as I will acknowledge my fault in this thread, since that is common courtesy. The major issue here was not so much the logo as much as using, my personal image without consent. I would not have done the same to you, as I find literally the jest of the whole "Otakupedia" article rather unneccessary, and on top of that not 100% accurate and only one side of the story was told.

Anyway, the only matter to resolve so that I can go back to what I was doing, is the mock image with my face attached to that body should be removed as well since out of common courtesy I asked all images using my face be removed in my innitial requst. On top of that, I'd like to request that the user, who is using my picture in their signature (you know who it is, if not I'll point you to the link) be removed as well.

Last but not least, for all those who are "indeed" complaining that this thread was made. If you had "images" online posted in an article without your consent, along with your own name, you would be requesting they be removed as well. So for those making judgement calls without using "common sense" think about it from my standpoint. No one likes to google their name and find images of themself and mock images that were not authorized. Regardless of what the person who posted my image is at fault for that.

In closing, I kindly request that the use of my name, or images ever again for purposes of this site not be used. Unless I infact authorize the use of it, I suppose if this article was made with my consent I would have had no problem with it. So as long as, both sides are clear and granting each others request. This issue has been resolved and I have no need to discuss this further. I will check to see if my last two request are met, if you can't remove the signature based on the policy of Otakuboards that is fine but at least removed the Mock image.

Sincerely,
Kevin

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Well, I guess James [i]is[/i] actually away and won't be back for a few days. So I'll take the reigns on this issue then.

I also think it's fair to remove images of people if they request it, simply out of courtesy, so removing the mock-up with your face, as well as your real name, is fine with me. Though I don't actually have access to Otakupedia so I'll have to ask Charles to do that.

Unless the signature is explicitly derogatory (I can't recall seeing it), though, we wouldn't really have any grounds for removing it. And I'd really rather not set a precedent of policing signatures based on whatever another member happens to dislike. So you'll probably have to take it up with that member specifically and ask them to remove it.[/color]

[Odin M Yggdrasi]

I really see no reason to get involved in this, being far too new here to know what was really going on.

However, so far all of Rick Hunter's posts that I have read in this thread have proven the article correct to the letter. In fact, the last few lines of it need to be updated to include the events in this thread.

Still, this is an utterly pointless battle that should probably have ended a long time ago. Give it up already, go find some other site to pester. Seriously, people on GaiaOnline might actually buy your story and keep you some company. Likely GameFAQs would too, though I know someone who is a moderator there and he would not put up with such behavior either.

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']Since I'm really in no mood to argue over an image that is currently not used anymore on current AE servers but older versions, I've deleted all traces of the logo since rightfully it is your image Charles, however on the record that image was given to me with your permission and used with your permission if you indeed did have a problem you should have "address that" since I take it you are addressing that matter now, I'm fairily reasonable person and will removed the use of that image on any old servers that may have it.[/QUOTE]

Right off the bat, let me point out that for someone threatening legal action, your atrocious use of basic grammar and downright strange spelling errors lead me to question the actual standing of your claims.

Also, the article you are referring to is what is known as a "joke." If you want an example of someone who has been lampooned at least as much as you on Otakupedia and doesn't care at all, check out the article for "21st Century Digital Boy." It's all obviously written with humorous intent. Not that I would expect someone who's apparently had their sense of humor surgically removed to realize that. (< In the typical funny 101 class, we refer to this comment as "sarcasm.")

Finally, the issue you seem to have taken with Charles in the above quote is nonexistent. Charles never asked you to remove the image from your site. All he said was that you have no right to claim ownership of it and demand it be removed from the article in question. This is a stance which, if I understand correctly, is totally justified.

(And Des, the sig, if I remember correctly, is just an advert for Groupsounds. I haven't seen it in a few months, though. Maybe it's already been removed. All it says is "Follow [strike]Boris[/strike] Kevin to Groupsounds.")

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Ah, okay, I remember seeing that banner now. Considering that Group Sounds is dead now, there's not even any point to it anymore so whoever's using it would probably remove it if asked.[/color]

[Rick Hunter]

[quote name='Desbreko'][color=#4B0082]Well, I guess James [i]is[/i] actually away and won't be back for a few days. So I'll take the reigns on this issue then.

I also think it's fair to remove images of people if they request it, simply out of courtesy, so removing the mock-up with your face, as well as your real name, is fine with me. Though I don't actually have access to Otakupedia so I'll have to ask Charles to do that.

Unless the signature is explicitly derogatory (I can't recall seeing it), though, we wouldn't really have any grounds for removing it. And I'd really rather not set a precedent of policing signatures based on whatever another member happens to dislike. So you'll probably have to take it up with that member specifically and ask them to remove it.[/color][/QUOTE]

Alright that's fine with me, as long, as the image is removed in the article all is resolved. And yes James is away, I tried to discuss this with everyone in charge and got the run around for three days, enough to annoy anyone. I feel, my request was nothing outside of reasonable and with that I bid you an adieu and request this be closed.

If there is an issue in any regards to the subsquent requests please send the member my way so I can discuss the removal of the image with them personally. Staff can reach me at my available contact information located on my site.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']I tried to discuss this with everyone in charge and got the run around for three days, enough to annoy anyone.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]I can't imagine what kind of hell that must have been for you.

Personally, I would have simply waited for James' response before I went and tried to raise a ruckus. If your attempts spanned three days, though, it doesn't seem like you waited very long at all before trying the next person in line. I believe in the same position I would have waited at least a week and a half, out of courtesy. After all, that article had already been there a while; a few more days would have hurt nothing.



Glad we're all good and happy now.[/FONT]

[Konata]

No offense to anyone, but by making a topic like this and making a big deal out of it, it's only making the article seem more valid, lol. >_>

Also, in any case, I wouldn't make such a big deal about it anyway. The article wasn't even that bad in my opinion, and at least your picture and information wasn't posted elsewhere.

Of course, I'm just a newbie here so I wouldn't know much about it anyway =P

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Apologies for not being around; I'm currently in another city and I really don't have any regular access to a computer. I just dropped in to see if there was anything urgent to attend to.

I haven't read this thread other than the last couple of posts, so I don't want to make a comment here.

I will be back on the 2nd of January, which is when I'll be able to address this issue. In future, please send a PM or an email my way if there's something urgent to be dealt with.[/font]

[Charles]

Okay, I went back into the article and removed Rick Hunter's full real name.

Currently, the cartoon image at the bottom of the article is a sticking point for me. On one hand, I feel that the prudent thing to do would be to just save myself a lot of pointless complaining and aggrevation by just removing the damn thing. On the other hand, the caricature is harmless, fun, and creatively speaking, it adds character to the article. I think that, to come back after so long and be offended by such a silly image is not really a fault on my part, but a sign of insecurity on the original poster's part.

I feel that I have addressed whatever legitimate complaints there were here. I will give the removal of the image further consideration after talking to James about it.

Also, I would like to point out three things:

1) In the original post, you (Rick Hunter) said that Otakupedia focused too much on the banning of members. I need to address your assertation by pointing out that the "banned members" category is only one of [i]many[/i] categories featured on Otakupedia. Of course bannings of established members are big stories here on OtakuBoards. We do not focus on the banning of any member as something to be proud of or exemplify. However, some of the bannings occur under such wild circumstances that they are worth documenting and poking fun at.

2) I understand that you were getting impatient and wanted your situation to be dealt with. However, you should have exercised more patience simply because drawing everyone's attention to a year-old article that most people probably aren't even thinking about anymore is counterproductive to what you are trying to accomplish.

3) There were never legal remifications here (as if I even need to go there). I will not pick apart every aspect of this argument because the problems there are obvious. However, I will say this: Even if I did not create the AE Boards logo, the use of a copyrighted Square Enix property (Aeris) in advertising Ae Boards, would certainly hinder any legal standing you may think you have. The use of a Cowboy Bebop character in AE Boards image in your signature would face much the same problem in a courtroom. I'll just stop there. heh

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]I can see where you're coming from about the cartoon image, Charles, but it seems to me like there's not much point in removing the full image of him if we leave his face displayed in the cartoon. Since the face is by far the most important feature in a picture of someone.[/color]

[Charles]

[quote name='Desbreko'][color=#4B0082]I can see where you're coming from about the cartoon image, Charles, but it seems to me like there's not much point in removing the full image of him if we leave his face displayed in the cartoon. Since the face is by far the most important feature in a picture of someone.[/color][/QUOTE]

Well, here's where I'm coming from with this.

The image of Rick Hunter that I removed was a fairly large, color image with a sarcastic subtitle. In the image, I think you could clearly make out Kevin's location if you are familiar with New York City based on the wide shot of the background shown. Of course, I know that no one is going to track down and stalk Kevin based on that picture in our article, but out of courtesy and the respect for his privacy, I removed the image.

The picture at the bottom of the article, however, is far smaller, less prominant, in black and white, and the tone there is far less insulting. The use of the cartoon image is much more playful and falls more to the side of harmless satire. Also, I doubt that someone could effectively use the image to steal Kevin's identity in any way due to its poor quality.

As I said, I'm still considering the removal of the image--going back and forth with it. If you think it's a good idea to remove it, I'll go ahead and do it.

Edit: Okay, I've thought about it and I have just decided to go ahead and remove the image. In the end, I liked the image and didn't think it was worth the probable argument that would have kept going. I don't really have the time or energy for that thing right now, so I figured that instead of fighting over something so minor, I may as well just remove it.

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Yeah, I get all that. The cartoon image obviously isn't harmful at all. I'm just saying that if we're going to honor requests to remove people's pictures but then turn around and still use their face in other images, that seems a bit hypocritical. Regardless of reason or other circumstances, the face is still recognizably theirs and I think they have as much right to request that it be removed as a full picture.

[b]Edit:[/b] OMG stealth edit. :o Looks like this post was unnecessary.[/color]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Ah, well it seems like this has been settled then. Thanks for attending to this.

My only general comment is that I think Otakupedia is clearly written with a tongue-in-cheek perspective most of the time. I don't believe the intent is ever to harm or degrade anyone in particular.

Anyone who has a picture or an artwork that is their property does have the right to request its removal from Otakupedia - I do think that's fair. We also have the right to mention in the article that the creator/owner requested the image's removal.

I think Charles adequately covered the copyright issue, so I won't say anything further about that.

My advice would be to take Otakupedia and its contents with good humor and grace. Most members who have had funny/satirical articles written about them have done this. In this way Otakupedia can remain fun and entertaining without being too bogged down in restrictions, for fear of offending people.

Also I want to add that defamation cases can only be won on the basis that someone is outright lying about you. The contents of our articles - while obviously written in a humorous/entertaining manner - are 100% factually correct. In any cases where facts are not represented correctly, then of course, I am happy to have edits or removals made to content.[/font]