On Using Others' Pictures

I actually can no longer follow your point.

If the point was "ask first" - that makes sense, and you apparently got the last word which seems important to you.

If the point was that things in real life don't look like standard waza - which I thought you were trying to say in the previous post (right before you wrote "see my point") - then in THIS section of aikiweb, we actually discuss what the body looks like using aiki regardless of if you are doing waza or just plane old fighting. So I don't think there will be too much moving on from that particular point.

Maybe we can move on by asking:
1) so can we use the picture to talk about aiki now?
2) if not, any volunteers? I have no pictures of me doing aikido to upload. If someone has one, by all means, feel free. (try to airbrush me to looking more handsome if at all possible though!)

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: ..//.. you apparently got the last word which seems important to you.

Sarcasm = Fail

You'll have to excuse me while I go do something more important like train for my next deployment to Iraq.

Sometimes I feel like I'm caught in a Star Wars movie where I'm watching some of the characters turn evil as The Force they attempt to conquer becomes too powerful and it conquers them! Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!



Mike

Oh my gosh...

Okay, well my advice would be if someone shoots at you in friendly fire, shooting them back 4 or 5 times after they try to explain themselves will probably start drawing negative attention to you despite your having been shot first.

Mike, I guess I'm just confused. It seems like we have one of those situations where I think - we'll which one is it? Are you the pentagon of internet virtue where you can sit and judge others from on high or not? If I say I'm trying to live up to your standard then I see 2 choices for you. Choice 1, assume I am sincere and then your offense to what I wrote is misplaced. Choice 2, decide I am insincere then I assume that means that that is the way you see yourself and then your offense to many, MANY, MANY (did I say MANY?) others is misplaced. But I could be wrong. Is there a third option? You got my apology already. Do you also need the last word?

Maybe I am just struggling with new aiki power and it is clouding my analysis. Did that happen to you? Maybe you are still clouded. How would you know? This can be the reason why this kind of power is so hidden...

Rob

Rob Liberti wrote: Okay, well my advice would be if someone shoots at you in friendly fire,

There's no such thing as "friendly fire"

When were you last involved in a fire fight as a matter of interest?

Dave Humm wrote: There's no such thing as "friendly fire" When were you last involved in a fire fight as a matter of interest?

Dave,
I think most took Rob's post as an analogy of sorts. And I think, Dan, Rob, and I have tried to be nice. Dan apologized. Yet, this last post of yours seems like you want to keep stirring up trouble. I hope that isn't the case. Because what does it matter when Rob was "last involved in a fire fight"? Does being involved in gun battles have something to do with discussing structure? Did I miss something here?

And according to U.S. military reports, major news agencies, and U.S. politics, there is such a thing as "friendly fire". Google shows 3.63 million hits for it. There's a wiki page for it. It's quoted quite often in discussing wars. Unless, you want to argue with all of that ... I don't see how your statement that there isn't any is valid.

Oh for pitties sake.

Are you for real, honestly?

Have someone you know shoot at you, see if it feels "freindly"

Dave Humm wrote: Oh for pitties sake. Are you for real, honestly? Have someone you know shoot at you, see if it feels "freindly"

Yep, for real. Rob took an analogy that most people understand and you tried to turn it into some sort of qualifications for Rob. When called on it, you now seem to want to downplay me with some "have someone you know shoot at you" response. The analogy stands, your dissection of it does not. But, I'll let you have the last word if you want and I'll stop being off topic.

Mark

I have moved the above posts to this thread as well as removed the links to the image and the attached images themselves.

I have been out of town for eight days (with limited time for Internet access) and will not return until tomorrow night. I have not had nor will I have time to fully address what I see in this thread. Suffice it to say that the behavior exhibited by some in this thread sorely disappoints me and the behavior is not one that I wish to condone.

-- Jun

This is a website that provides accurate information on copyright.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Here is what is wrong with using a picture that is posted to a website and express consent was not given, it is a violation of copyright law.

Beyond that, from a picture, criticism was doled out as to a teachers ability to perform his art, which further criticizes his ability to teach and may negatively impact his lively hood. This amounts to liable - Defamation of Character.

David, the elements that must be present for you take legal action in the US are:

1. Has to be a statement, in the case of liable it must be written, that is false
...in this case it is an attack on your ability to perform your art and therefore teach.
2.The written statement must be published to a third party.
...in this case the forum counts.
3. You must have suffered personal or professional damage.

Your ability to perform your art is what is in question here. You most certainly must have established that in order to teach. In a comment to others here on the forums, your credibility as a teacher has been brought into question. If you lose even one student as a result or fail to gain a student as a result, you may be able to prove #3.

Dan, check with a lawyer to see if if this is BS. I'm sure you must have a follower who has legal experience. In the meantime, I'd watch my 6, when it comes to what I post about others, if I were you.

Aikiweb, Jun, you moved this discussion to a completely new thread indicating you are not only aware of this indiscretion, but approve of it. IMHO, you should have done something to sanction the use of David's picture without his express consent. I believe the obligation is not a legal one, but an ethical one.
In addressing the ethical implications, there are the loyalty implications that go along with trust when someone posts a picture to your site. Do you tell them ahead of time that their picture may be used to discredit their abilities and that they post at their own risk? Why would anyone post a picture to Aikiweb when such a breach of trust and law is at the very least ignored and at the very worst encouraged?

Since I was the original poster I would like to see the thread closed after this post.
After much private discussion-I think it was a mistake in judgement for me to have used pictures that someone didn't intentionally put up for discussion. That's why I apologized to Dave. Dave said he didn't need an an apology he just wanted to point out that it was in bad taste. Done and agreed.
Think of it like this. People are putting up pictures to share their training and experiences. Not to have them critiqued.Since my *intentions* were never to single out people- I only wanted to discuss body movement- it makes my error in judgment-all the more obvious.

Body movement as a model
I would like to try it again, but this time using graphics. Why graphics instead of pictures? Even were I to block out faces it would still leave guessing, as to what dojo and what art. I am hoping to make the discussion art neutral and people neutral. So with graphics I can leave out all arts, all individuals and just talk about the human frame in movement and motion.
So once again, I'm sorry for even attempting to
use pictures as an approach.
I hope no one else feels the need to enter into the discussion. It really was between Dave and I to resolve. I hope this can be more of an amicable end to a bad idea.

Dear readers
The following is a Juns comments on Video in one of his sticky's

Hi everyone, I've been noticing an increase in the number of posts consisting basically of links to videos (eg to YouTube). Although I can certainly understand the use of videos as a discussion point, I find videos in and of themselves more a supplement for discussions. Therefore, I would like to ask of all of you: Rather than just posting links, please add your thoughts to the videos. For example, your thoughts could answer questions such as: • What is your interpretation of the videos? • Why are these videos important to you in the thread? • How do these videos contribute to the discussion at hand? • How do these videos reflect your own thoughts in the thread? Please let's try to use links to videos to further discussion by using them as supplementary points to discussion rather than replacing discussion itself. Thanks, -- Jun

I've noticed this is a very common policy well in keeping with the standard set on most other forums and boards. Some of whom have whole sections devoted to posting and comments on video and pictures. It is worth noting that discussions of video and pictures has been going on for as long as the net has been in existence. Critiques of waza, and effectiveness and motion has been reviewed of all manner of arts, to include boxers and MMA.
After checking with an attorney it appears that it is perfectly fine to comment on materials submitted to a public site by one of the parties appearing, or even by any third party. The discussion of copyright has nothing to do with that. The infringement of a copyright has to first demonstrate a copyright existed, and further that financial damage was caused and people taking part in public exhibitions and having the material critiqued is perfectly fine. It greats more complicated with people having their images from a private venue without their knoweldge, but the activity being discussed being critiqued is still not the issue, its the person placing an image withoot authorization that is the issue. So the standard of what is to be acceptable is really set on any given board.

The fellow, who wrote in of potential legal issues and suggestions to sue, is himself a student of a well known teacher who is setting a new standard to control his arts teachings through legal means and has mentioned it in a series of interviews-his ideas of defemation of character in discussing pictures is highly unusual.

It seems Judo, MMA, BJJ, Boxing, CMA and many other arts openly and willingly discuss their abilities in public venue across all boards- third party being the typical means to do so. Thousands have been doing this on Aikiweb, Ebudo, Empty flower, Judo forum, for years. Could we get some feedback on what readers think about the use of public pictures, videos and commentary? I've already made a personal choice of what direction I am taking. Could we get a clear(er) idea of policy for the site?

Aikiweb has certainly been on the cutting edge of a lot of information these day. I noticed continual references back to this site from all manner of forums; Judo, ICMA, E-budo, MMA, Bullshido, etc. What sort of standards are we looking at regarding the discussion of ....well...everything?