Stolen business name?

You did? Well, if you make things up, what do you expect?

My posts in this thread are your evidence of my threats and bullying? Are you kidding? Now we get back to the previous paragraph - quotes or you're a liar. So let's see some actual evidence.

And you were privy to what exactly?

I'm just being honest and truthful, which can't be said for you.

1) This thread exists
2) You said:

..which was, at best, equivocal on your stance.
3) It wasn't long before you and your "supporters" had put him on the defensive in this thread alone (by post #93, in fact).
4) Further discussion in this thread, and in-world indicated that he felt that he was being bullied unnecessarily by you and others, including an absurd request to submit to the "opinion of the masses" here on the forums.



Just his words, Phil. I can't ask you to post private chat here, but knowing your normal tactics with "opponents", I don't have much doubt that it was mishandled enough to put him on the defensive.



I have explained it enough to be satisfactory, and I don't have any private IMs of yours with others, as that would be against the ToS for me to have without your knowledge or permission. The evidence is in the thread, and from Floyd's own claims.



I'm not "fading into the background", I'm right here. There is evidence in this thread. The existence and flow of this thread demonstrates mishandling and a lack of professionalism on your part. More than one person has pointed this out, too.

Apologies for misconstruing your statement, had my synapses been firing properly I would have actually written something relevant rather than firing off rubbish. I've noticed I've done that a few times down the last month so I think it's time for me to STFU.. Which might be a good plan for a few others around here too..

In response to me asking how you know that I used hamfisted tactics, was impolite and unprofessional, and that I told Floyd off, you wrote:-

Yes? I started the thread to ask opinions because, as I said in a post, I hadn't got a clue in these matters. Perhaps you would care to go to the beginning and read it, huh?

AND...

And that was hamfisted or unprofessional or impolite or telling him off - how?

AND...

Aha. So people offering genuine opinions put him on the defensive? Judging by what he's done, that doesn't surprise me, but you didn't accuse "people" - you accused me, so let's stick to me, shall we. You're saying that my posts/discussions here put him on the defensive. I say that my turning up at his store, which was prior to this thread, put him on the defensive, as it should have done in the circumstances. He walked past me and then IMed me, saying that he'd heard of me and my store. We then had a short, polite conversation in which I told him that he is using my business name - he disagreed. That was right at the start - before this thread - so where is the hamfistedness, unprofessionalism, impoliteness, and me telling him off? None of it was in that conversation, which I can prove, and none of it is in this thread, which you can disprove if you find anything - but it doesn't exist.

AND...

Show us precisely what I posted in this thread that made you make those accusations. It doesn't exist but give it a go anyway. The "absurd request", as you put it, was started by Floyd when he entered the thread claiming to be "open to discussion". Because of that, I think the idea of going with a general concensus wasn't absurd at all. If he felt he was being bullied by other people, it happens - and he chose to enter the thread. Nobody could bully him if he wasn't here. But you can't find any post by me that bullies him - and you are defending your accusations against me - remember?

Oh, I see. You've changed from hamfisted and unprofessionsl and impolite and bullying to "mishandling" now. Ok. Perhaps you would suggest how I could have handled it differently, so that Floyd would have changed his business name? Remember that Floyd disagreed from the very start that PrimSavers and Prim Savers are the same business name, so what could I have done that would have caused him to change his use of it?

Talarus, you are either incredibly gullible, or you simply choose to believe anything and everything as long as it is against me personally.

You haven't explained anything other that your apparent gullibility. For instance, if I've bullied him, I want the quotes. Saying "it's all contained in this thread" doesn't explain anything.

Btw, logging IMs without the other person's permission isn't against the ToS, and I have logs of the two conversations between Floyd and myself.

No, you didn't fade into the background - you just didn't come up with any evidence - you just waffled your way through it. If it's all here in this thread, show it to us. Where is my bullying? Where is my unprofessionalism? Where was I impolite? Where is my hamfistedness? Where are the quotes? The only quote you've come up with demonstrates none of those, and all that you've shown is how gullible you are.

I've got a good idea, Talarus Let's make it easy. Let's deal with each accusation one at a time, shall we? It'll be much easier for you to come up with evidence and it will make for much shorter posts. So let's start with your accusation that I told Floyd off.

Where is the evidence for this? Is it something you can quote? If so, please quote it. Or is it something that Floyd told you? If so, tell us what he told you - you don't need to post actual conversations, or even word for word, to do that. Or is it something that you invented - a flight of fancy - a lie?

Phil has artwork for sale by the following artists:

Boris Vallejo
Julie Bell
Luis Royo
Lorenzo Sperlonga
Jose Del Nido
Chris Achilleos

Recognize any of them? If not, google 'em. Now tell me, do you suppose Phil has permission? A year ago he said he did not.

You already posted this. Post #544. Attempting to make this about Phil's activities will not make what Floyd is doing acceptable.

Thank you for the plug again, Anya. It's appreciated.

For those who aren't familiar with the work of those artists, they are fine examples of fantasy art, and can be found by following the "Art" signs in my store. For the store, see my sig line.

I'm curious, Phil. To the best of your knowledge have the artists named above made their work open source for anyone to copy, or have they perhaps sold a licence to permit their work to be sold in SL? I'm not making accusations here, but anyone who buys these from you deserves to know their provenance in case LL are asked to remove them in the case of the artists not having given permission. There have been debates about similar issues on other forums, so I think it is in the public interest to know how you obtained the images. Thank you.

The arrangements between the artists and myself are private, Pixie, and not the topic of this thread, which in spite of one or two people's attempts to derail it, has stayed remarkably on topic for such a long thread.

Hi Phil!
Awwwww! You missed me. That's so sweet!


You might be wearing out your refresh button but I've got other stuff to do.

Since you kindly invited me to yet again quote you on your stated position on right and wrong, I will repost what's already been posted by and by when I have time.
I know that I will have to respond or else you'd be very very predictably doing what you are doing now. So worry not. It's on the way. You've been more than helpful in explaining your standards for what's right and wrong.



In the meantime, since you seem to have time and since you seem to think that a question unanswered is a sign that the questioned one has faded away.... try this for size.

It's absolutely central to your position here.

You insist that Floyd has clearly broken the law.
What law *specifically* has he broken? Please supply a reference.
"There are laws about trademarks" is not enough.

We're talking about a law under which a court would undoubtedly give you a court order to have the infringement within SL stopped. The court would see the case as a clear infringement under the laws under which it operated.

Would you get this court order without belatedly registering a trademark in the UK?
Would you get this order without belatedly registering a trademark in the USA?

Show how the specific law is breached.
Show how it is *clearly* breached.

That shouldn't take too long, since in order to assert a *clear* breach of the law, you must have all the material at your fingertips.


All we have is you asserting that something is so. This is no guide to reality.





When you've done with that, have a go at:



Eh?
I'm not aware of a definition of "double standards" other than the one just quoted me as giving.
A longer form, meaning the same thing would be "any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another".

If you have seen me defining double standards as anything else, please share.

Because that would simply be just to easy Treasure.

I can't wait - I'm so excited. Don't take long now.


The questions don't fade away, Sling. You just ignore questions that you can't answer because the answers will show you to have been wrong. I'm looking forward to you answering the one you referred to above - I'm looking forward to showing that you are wrong - yet again!

That's something that I don't know. My research involved reading overviews in the UK government's website. If the overviews say it, I don't need to know the precise law.

According to the government's own website, yes.

I think so. Trademark law throughout the western world is based on British trademark law.

Nope. (see above)

You have me passing information on that I got from the government's own website concerning trademarks. If you want to verify it, you can read it for yourself. If you want to claim it is not so, where does your information come from? So...

Are you saying that I'm wrong about trademarks?

If you are, which part do you think is wrong:-

1. That unregistered business names are not automatic trademarks in the U.S.?

2. That unregistered business names cannot be defended as trademarks in the U.S.?

Let's have you views, shall we.

In that case, I've shown you to be totally wrong in your assessment - multiple times in this thread. As you well know, I've never asked anyone to abide by rules and laws that I don't abide by myself. You keep on saying "double standards" but it's just hot air - you haven't shown it to be true. Perhaps you could end this "double standards" talk but showing it instead of repeatedly throwing it as an unsupported accusation.

I can't say for the others, but I can say Boris Vallejo did NOT authorize the use of his work in SL. And won't. See his website for why. http://www.imaginistix.com/

A little 'thing' that I happen to know about: I have a friend (yeah he's USA, your mileage may vary). He's a knife/cutlery maker, of some renown. Not a big company, just a guy. He made a knife. It got popular, within certain cooking circles. He never trademarked it or even sold it outside of a few people. Say he named it 'MyKnife'. Well, years later, a big company came along, and created a knife. They wanted to name it MyKnife. They had their attorneys do a search for existing knives, and they found my friends knife, named 'MyKnife'. They attorneys were beating his door down trying to get him to sell them the rights to the name. (He should have actually, could have made some money there, but he chose not to). The big company then named their new knife something else, because they didn't want trouble from my friend, down the line somewhere, because he'd been using the name first, even though never trademarked it. They knew that there was a great possibility he'd receive a favorable result in court, at any future point in time, as long as he could prove (which he could) that he'd been using the name, first, even though never trademarked.

I did originally say to my knowledge, I missed your earlier post. it would seriously hurt phil's case in more than one way if those artists chose to pursue infringement. (and I happen to own works by several of them, legitimately if there is any question)


no, but it could make a judge queasy and toss the whole thing out


it could be argued that they have implicitly relinquished their works to public domain by not making a better effort to control unauthorised reproduction. not all jurisdictions accept such an argument though. until one of the artists pursues it, it's rather a moot point though.


I'm not seeing any obvious statements about use of works in SL, would that be buried in the blog somewhere? a more specific link would help.

For copyright, that's not an argument. You don't need to try to enforce copyright the way you do a trademark. You can let infringement go on as long as you want, then suddenly decide to enforce it. That seems a little silly to me, but that's the way the law works.

For the Boris Vallejo info, I'm looking for the specific quote - if I can find it again, I'll post the link. A lot harder to find now that I want it than when I first ran into it by accident .

Read: *dodge* I don't actually have any agreements. I am a copyright infringer (among other things).

depends on the jurisdiction... but I think I remember LL's arbitrage clause bases all decision in Cali law, which should support what you're saying.

Copyright doesn't work that way; if you own the copyright, you can pursue it or not at your leisure, up to 3 years after the fact (in the US). The government will never force works into the public domain simply from not protecting the copyrights on them.

Trademarks and patents, on the other hand, can be invalidated from lack of action to protect them.



They've changed their site, but it is well-known that several popular artists simply do not license their works except to a very narrow set of publishers (and those that pay for commissions, of course). Hence:

http://www.webmaggic.com/tutor/copy.html

"12. Paintings, photography or graphics by artists known to withhold all rights and permission to use their work - Luis Royo, Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell are very good examples of this."

Actually, copyright is a federal statute in the US. All jurisdictions in the US (must) handle it the same.

I didn't doubt the claim, just couldn't find the citation


I was thinking international... not all countries handle it the same, but as I said above, IIRC LL requires arbitrage based in California law, although I'm not sure that can't be challenged, it would mean that LL will act consistently with it.... in theory.

One interesting fact. I can tell you for a fact that Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell have never agreed with their art being sold in SL.

Not speculating.