If we want to speculate, why not speculate about what copyright infringements they would talk about? His portfolio is at DT if anyone wants to see.

Ok, I'll bite since this is my favorite topic now. I'll venture a guess, because until OP reports back there is no way to know. Looking at his portfolio, and ruling things out, maybe he had an agreement with a friend to share shots, and there was a falling out. He is moving, where such a situation might arise. Maybe the friend is now arguing over copyright, and agreement wasn't in writing or is otherwise invalid.

If the friend submitted the RAWs of his files and there is a significant quantity, there might be enough justification to take his whole portfolio down while the matter gets sorted out. Granted if it's only a few shots, then agency is in the wrong in my opinion because they could just deactivate those files. The point being, we don't know the facts, and to jump down the agencies throat without knowing the facts is premature. As gostwky elegantly stated, the OP chose to bring this into a public forum (NOT the agency), and proclaim his innocence, giving good cause for other contributors to question the agencies action, now it is the OP responsibility to give an update to either alleviate or validate these concerns, not just let everyone hang on his one and only post, even if it's just to say "The case is ongoing" or something like that.

I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.

Thanks, and it's totally OK if you disagree with me. My opinion on Hugo remains unchanged however. His anti-corporation rant against a company I used to work for, one which I know does a significant amount of community outreach, implying their sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their software, formed my opinion about the guy, and however the case turns out, I�ll still feel the same way. For me it smacks of hypocrisy to state those feelings and then have a large "copyright education" section on his own web site:

http://tinyurl.com/2658hcl

I guess when it comes to his own work is where he draws the line on copyright infringement since apparently he has no problem if it�s perpetrated against corporations.  That�s my opinion, and I can respect people who feel otherwise, but if you�re going to tell me I can�t express my opinion, your wasting your time (not referring to you madelaide)

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2010, 22:02

I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.

+1

+2
It's totally uncalled for, they should have the guts to say it here if they disagree rather than insulting anyone by PM or email, grow up!

My opinions are very much in line with nruboc with regards to copyright infringement and disagreeing strongly with what FD said in the other thread. But I got the distinct impression that FD was playing devil's advocate there, giving a perspective that's prevalent in the part of the world where he lives, rather than putting forward the opinions as his own.

Yes it was a lot more recent then that. FD said that Adobe was repricing software for some markets where piracy was the norm.
I'll dig out the link and update this post.
ETA, here you go:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/off-topic/the-logics-behind-the-pirates/msg170413/#msg170413

Double ETA: I reread the thread and realised it was jbarber873 that made the comments in response to FD that I agree with, not nruboc!!! I guess they are broadly in line?

Amazing how a little tease can make such a commotion.

His anti-corporation rant against a company I used to work for, one which I know does a significant amount of community outreach, implying their sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their software, formed my opinion about the guy, and however the case turns out, I�ll still feel the same way.

I didn't understand what he said this way, to me he was just explaining how things worked in reality. Explaining, not justifying it. It's worse than in Brazil, but in many cases not much different (a lot of foreign mail disappears along the way).

MS doesn't sell upgrades for Windows XP to Windows 7 here because "Brazilians don't like to upgrade software, they prefer to get a new system with the new OS". In fact I'm sure they just don't want to make the upgrade available because it will be highly pirated.

A colleague wanted to buy the student version of a technical software and it is simply not available from their local distributor, but it also can not be purchased from their website.

BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.

These are examples of defenses companies do because of infractors, but then the ones who want to do the right thing are the only ones punished: infractors will get a copy of the latest OS (many use the English version already, so they may just only upgrade with a pirate copy from the USA), will use a "free" copy of the technical software and will download BBC videos from rapidshare & such.

Hmm, I think I've diverted too much from the original thread.

...BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.

Don't they do that in all countries outside the UK?  We have to pay a licenses fee, �142.50, paid by anyone that owns a screen, even if they never watch the BBC.  I think most people in the UK don't mind paying the fee, there's no adverts and the BBC make a lot of good programmes.

Yes... It seems a lot of people don't realise that Brits pay for the BBC via annual licence fee - which is why programmes aren't interrupted by adverts.

Looks as though they are planning a subscription service for international viewers though:

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-bbc-plans-subscription-only-u.s.-iplayer-on-ipad/

Amazing how a little tease can make such a commotion.

True, let's chill down, it's becoming ridiculous

Quote from: madelaide on December 20, 2010, 09:32

BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.

As far as I know, a lot of their video is locked outside the UK, as it's intended for licence payers, though I don't think they can check on whether you have a licence in the UK before you can access it. But abroad, it (virtually?) no-one will have paid for the licence.
Probably (?) they make any BBC worldwide materials available abroad.

The BBC TV programmes are subject to various rights issues which is why they are restricted to a UK audience and available on-line for one week only. The unions would want more money for the performers if it were to be extended for example. A lot of the Beeb's content is made by external production companies too so again where the programme is shown, how often, etc are all price issues.

The Beeb pays about $300M (of license-payers' money) annually in support of it's website but that is available for free all over the world.

Most agencies are reading here and the links to his portfolios are under his posts. He is not trying to be anonymous. If you are intelligent (and I don't know FD, but he is for sure) should you cry out on a forum to all other agencies where he has a portfolio too: "Look: SS and BS found out that I'm cheating..."?
Sounds not very logical. No one is going to undermine his own bussiness.
I am sure there must be a misunderstanding.
But let's stop this!
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
Like someone earlier wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.

Most agencies are reading here and the links to his portfolios are under his posts. He is not trying to be anonymous. If you are intelligent (and I don't know FD, but he is for sure) should you cry out on a forum to all other agencies where he has a portfolio too: "Look: SS and BS found out that I'm cheating..."?
Sounds not very logical. No one is going to undermine his own bussiness.
I am sure there must be a misunderstanding.
But let's stop this!
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
Like someone earlier wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.

I agree. FD is not new here, until nothing is proved he has my trust.

Quote from: Colette on December 20, 2010, 18:58

Most agencies are reading here and the links to his portfolios are under his posts. He is not trying to be anonymous. If you are intelligent (and I don't know FD, but he is for sure) should you cry out on a forum to all other agencies where he has a portfolio too: "Look: SS and BS found out that I'm cheating..."?
Sounds not very logical. No one is going to undermine his own bussiness.
I am sure there must be a misunderstanding.
But let's stop this!
It seems to me that this discussion 'behind his back' is not fair to someone who write on this forum for years.
Like someone earlier wrote: Innocent until proven guilty.

I agree. FD is not new here, until nothing is proved he has my trust.

And who are you exactly?.... lol

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2010, 22:02

If we want to speculate, why not speculate about what copyright infringements they would talk about? His portfolio is at DT if anyone wants to see.

Ok, I'll bite since this is my favorite topic now. I'll venture a guess, because until OP reports back there is no way to know. Looking at his portfolio, and ruling things out, maybe he had an agreement with a friend to share shots, and there was a falling out. He is moving, where such a situation might arise. Maybe the friend is now arguing over copyright, and agreement wasn't in writing or is otherwise invalid.

If the friend submitted the RAWs of his files and there is a significant quantity, there might be enough justification to take his whole portfolio down while the matter gets sorted out. Granted if it's only a few shots, then agency is in the wrong in my opinion because they could just deactivate those files. The point being, we don't know the facts, and to jump down the agencies throat without knowing the facts is premature. As gostwky elegantly stated, the OP chose to bring this into a public forum (NOT the agency), and proclaim his innocence, giving good cause for other contributors to question the agencies action, now it is the OP responsibility to give an update to either alleviate or validate these concerns, not just let everyone hang on his one and only post, even if it's just to say "The case is ongoing" or something like that.

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2010, 22:02

I'm sorry about the harassment, nruboc, it's completely uncalled for, even if I disagree with your position.

Thanks, and it's totally OK if you disagree with me. My opinion on Hugo remains unchanged however. His anti-corporation rant against a company I used to work for, one which I know does a significant amount of community outreach, implying their sociopaths for not giving more back to the people who steal their software, formed my opinion about the guy, and however the case turns out, I�ll still feel the same way. For me it smacks of hypocrisy to state those feelings and then have a large "copyright education" section on his own web site:

http://tinyurl.com/2658hcl

I guess when it comes to his own work is where he draws the line on copyright infringement since apparently he has no problem if it�s perpetrated against corporations.  That�s my opinion, and I can respect people who feel otherwise, but if you�re going to tell me I can�t express my opinion, your wasting your time (not referring to you madelaide)

No takers on this scenario above? Probably much more likely than the scenario about his website being the source of banning that got so much attention. What do you think, what if someone the OP was partnered with and maybe shot alot of the photos had a falling out with him, and the agreement was shaky. Lets say the partner now claims copyright of his files supplying his RAWs. Do you think this would warrant removal of his portfolio until it got sorted out? I believe if there were enough photos, it would justify it. What say you?