Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Fake PINAC Blog Soliciting For Donations
I really didn’t want to make an issue about this but now I have no choice.
A guy who runs a site called Photography Isn’t a Crime doesn’t do much reporting of actual incidents but he is sure to remind people who stumble on his site that he is in dire need of donations.
His name is Allen Rockwell and he has written a total of seven blog posts since August 7, 2011 when he apparently launched the site.
I’ve written 270 blog posts since that date.
The problem is when you Google “Photography is Not a Crime,” his site pops up on the front page.
His site also pops up on the front page when you Google “Carlos Miller,” even though I am nowhere mentioned on the site, which tells me he is using my name for search engine optimization.
Because of that, when journalists mention me in an article, they often use his site instead of mine.
This happened today in this article in The Blaze in which I’ve since contacted the writer to correct, which she said she would.
It also happened last month in Reason where the writer appeared to want to link to my blog, but linked to his site instead in the fourth paragraph.
It’s happened a few times in the past as well, which is how I first came across his site.
The first thing you see when you click on his site is the following:
This site is meant to educate everyone about the rights and responsibilites of photographers
We hope to cut through the misinformation, confusion, hysteria and fear that surround the issue of photography in these times when many people are quick to limit freedoms and artistic expression in the name of secuity, privacy and protection of individuals and structures.
"In a post 9/11 age of paranoia and suspicion, public photography is increasingly seen as threatening, or mistaken as criminal...Amateur photographers are the documentarians of real life. We capture our world to help us understand it. We are not a threat. " - JPG Magazine
Notice to my users
The monthly hosting costs and annual domain costs have been coming out of my own pocket to keep this site online. I really think that sites like this are important to all photographers and I really want to keep this site alive. Therefore I am asking for donations to keep this site up and running. You can donate any amount for a few pennies to a few dollars ... the choice is totally yours and it's totally optional. If you feel that sites like this need to exist on the internet, please support it. Thanks a lot.
He hasn't done much educating but he's done plenty of soliciting.
Part of the problem is that even though I've called this blog Photography is Not a Crime since I launched in April 2007, I did not acquire the domain http://photographyisnotacrime.com until this year, so it doesn't come up often in Google searches. It just wasn't available until this year.
The difference from my newly acquired domain and Rockwell's domain is in the apostrophe in the word "not."
I’ve been talking about this with my lawyers who are deciding what action, if any, to take.
Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com
Comments
sue the bastard!
Wow! Carlos! You made it on Glenn Beck's Blaze, which reported on you favorably.
Has Huffington Post, MSNBC, CNN or any of the other liberal sites picked up your story?
I'd imagine you dislike Glenn Beck very much, yet he's the one publicizing your unfair arrest. Hmmm.
Notliberal
I think that a suit would be a hard battle. Carlos is not selling a product, and is not a widespread name. It might not net anything. Trademark Law is a little out of my realm (IANAL, but my wife has been in IP for several years), but just from my working experience, it would be a tough battle if the guy lawyers up. What has Carlos lost? What hasn't he gained? The other guy isn't trading on Carlos's name, nor the site name, just panhandling.
This guy may be scummy, but he's not likely doing anything in regards to the SEO end of it. That's mostly likely others (such as the author of the article you mentioned) referencing it as yours. Google puts a lot of weight into where the links are coming from and if those sites have a solid PageRank and tie the fake domain to you, it's going to assume your name and it are related.
In fact, even talking about it on this page is going to help that association even more and that you don't have a rel="nofollow" attached to that link just makes matters worse for you.
That said, you have a couple options here. The first is to contact PayPal and inform them that he's likely running a scam based on your success with that project. They tend to be very shot first, ask questions later when it comes to these sort of things, so that may work to your favor. Next, I'd contact his hosting provider and explain the situation to them. Most don't take kindly to this sort of crap on their network, so they'll be very receptive. Finally, it's worth trying to file a domain dispute with ICANN since he's trying to directly profit from a "brand" that you established before he picked up the domain and is selling products with that brand on them without a push for content. It doesn't help that he did pick up this domain before you, but given the evidence here, this could very well fall under their squatting regulations and allow them to strip him of his domain. If you can find, or already have one, my final step would be to hire a lawyer to try and scare him off.
Keep us in the loop here. I'd love to see this sort of scumbag go away.
He's got a list of "facts" at the bottom that are clearly misinformed.
"1. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space."
No, you can't take upskirt pictures, even if you're in public.
"3. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs."
No you're not. Though you're probably obligated to leave the property if ordered to by the property owner or their proxy.
Actually, he's been posting his blog since April of 2008. It's just that he only shows so many months of content on the intro page. Look to the right and you'll see his Archives.
That was also when he registered the domain according to internic.
So I think the accusations of "scam" might be a little overboard.
Oh yes, I remember this site. Not any action or updates so I deleted the bookmark. I was not aware of the other stuff. Thanks for the info.
Really?
So let's get this straight, there are blog standards of how many post should be posted for a certain period?
Also noted, it is now the fault of the OTHER guy bec/ journalist post incorrect links.
Glad we cleared that up.
smh
I'm reminded of the scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Bill Gates tells Steve Jobs that the real reason Jobs is mad is that Microsoft stole the TV that Apple had stolen from someone else. :)
If you're going to be asking for donations, you should at least produce some content. Don't you think?
Maybe this isn't his full time job. Maybe he doesn't have a profit motive. Maybe he just genuinely felt strong about something and decided to throw up a blog. Adding a donations button took, what, 30 seconds?
The point, Carlos, is that you made a mistake, then used your Pixiq blog to string him up like he was some kind of Nigerian scam artist.
In fact, if you take the time to read his _four years_ of material, you'd learn that he started the site not to make money but because of harassment that he was personally experiencing as a photographer. Sound familiar?
BTW, if your lawyer is thinking clearly, he'll tell you to pull down your accusatory post, issue a retraction/apology, and hope _his_ lawyer doesn't decide to go after you and/or Pixiq for defamation of character or loss of income from any real or perceived drop in the sales of his books.
Thank you Fred. Yes, I started the blog after being harassed and being forced by armed military police (on private/non-military property) to delete photos from my camera.
It seems that Mr. Miller did not look deep enough into the site to clearly determine my motivation for starting the site. My story is not too different than his own story.
I really thought Mr. Miller and I were fighting the same good fight together. I guess not. Now I have to question his motives and ethics :(
Mr. Rockwell, I think you just condemned yourself with those last two sentences.
You could have--privately--attempted to resolve the similarity-of-names problem, but you didn't; you chose to make a public statement here. That speaks either to bad judgment or dishonesty.
As far as I can see, you have not explained the use of Carlos Miller's name for SEO purposes.
I know from personal experience that trade name protection is far from ideal in the USA, and that resolving domain name issues is a labyrinthine process that in the end guarantees nothing except income for the lawyers involved.
But surely you could have made a more concerted, sincere, and mature effort than what you just did.
WOW!!!! Where did all this come from all of the sudden ?
I started my website in 2008 with one goal, to educate the public on the legality of photography and pointing out violations of photographers rights. The website was an outgrowth of the "Digital Photography Podcast" that I used to produce.
I have a full time job and rarely have time to update the site but I do what I can. I'm sorry if that's not enough for some people. This is not my job, it's a hobby.
Yes, there is a donate button on the blog, don't use it if you don't want to. It's only ever been used a few times in the last 4 years totaling about $30.00. Is that income that I somehow stole from Mr. Miller?
I have never tried to make anyone believe I was Mr. Miller nor have I ever done anything to cause any confusion between myself and Mr. Miller. As a matter of fact I think I have a good case to claim that Mr. Miller has done same to me by using a name for his blog that is so close to the domain that I registered 4 years ago. But, again, this is a hobby for me and I couldn't care less.
Someone please tell me what this is all about. I'm not hurting anyone with my website, I'm trying to do a good thing for the photography community. Sorry if I'm not doing enough or doing it often enough for some.
Allen
Ummmm, I'm thinking there may be an apology owed here.
.
I agree! What say you Mr. Miller? Man up and apologize!
I see Mr. Rockwell took the time to post at least 2 quite long comments. It would have nice to have him address the issue of has he in fact used the name "Carlos Miller" for any search engine optimization in any way shape or form, whatsoever. This past summer I had the pleasure to meet Carlos Miller while visiting my old neighborhood in Miami, Florida where I spent the majority of my childhood, and where my aunt lives only blocks down from Carlos Miller, and I can tell you that he is the real deal. Carlos is extremely passionate and dedicated to his work, and I believe him when he says that although he is not mentioned anywhere in Rockwell's site, then any internet search of the name "Carlos Miller" should not be directing viewers to Rockwell's site, unless Rockwell is utilizing Carlos Miller's name in order to direct people to his site. I found it quite interesting that Mr. Rockwell doesn't even address this in any of his posts.
Davey,
I did not address the issue of "using his name for search engine optimization" because I have no idea what that even means. I have no idea how the search engines decide what to display when someone searches or how (if it's even possible) to influence such results. This is not the 1980's or 1990's where you "submit" your site to the search engines, they find you now. I don't know how it all works nor do I care.
I do understand keywords and meta tags on web pages and I have not used Mr. Miller's name on any of my pages. Go look at my website yourself and see. The pages are HTML, you can view the source.
That's why I did not respond, it's just pure silly conspiracy talk. I'm sitting here waiting for someone to tell me what I've done wrong, not crazy theories of what I
might have done, but what I've actually done. I've run my website for 4 years without a single negative comment or complaint and then today somehow this whole fantasy conspiracy theory blew up for no good reason.
WHAT HAVE I DONE??????
I agree you have not used "Carlos Miller" for search engine optimization, because I looked at your HTML source and found no mention of "Carlos Miller", except in the recent blog article relating to Carlos's attack.
This probably occurs because "photography is not a crime" is associated/linked to "carlos miller". But the words "is not" is also associated/link/equivalent to "isn't".
Thus, "carlos miller" will get linked by search engines to both sites; one directly, and one indirectly.
It sounds like an honest mistake, but I really think the mistake is Carlos's lack of research, although it's not at all far-fetched.
I've been following carlos for a couple years now, and I did see Allen's site and initially thought it was a copycat scammer, too. Now, I do not believe it is.
Allen, it's a very common tactic of spam, porn, malware, and scammy search engine optimizers to register common misspellings of other sites, to direct traffic and increase rankings on search engines for other sites. It's almost universally a scammy practice (and often illegal), so it's very easy to understand why Carlos jumped to that conclusion.
But now and then, what seems obvious may not be correct.
Davey,
I just responded to you a minute ago and then I read your post again. It seems that you think there is some covert scheme to drive traffic away from Mr. Miller's site and to my site.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I rarely even think about that site. I couldn't care less if people visit the site or not. It's there if people want to see it, but if they don't I do not lay awake at night worrying about it ... it's a total non issue with me. I thought I was doing a good thing for the photography community by creating the site and that was the end of it.
So this theory that I'm somehow smarter than the software engineers at Google and I'm trying to grab someone visitors from someone else and drive it to my site is pure fantasy.
That website is about the least important thing in my life and the only time I think about it is when I stumble upon something online that I think should be posted there because someone might benefit from it, then I post it and move on ... I don't even know or care how much traffic my site gets. You and a few others are WAY more concerned about that than I am.
If I may -
your site's domain is 'photographyisntacrime.com'.
Your site's meta data title is "Photography Is Not A Crime".
Therein lies the confusion. To the search engines your website is called "Photography Is Not A Crime"
Who was first or what everybody's intentions are is academic to the problem.
You have two inexperienced website owners who need to work out what should be done about it. Carlos may have jumped the gun, but your site does look and feel like a knockoff in my professional opinion. Whether intentional or not.
You guys should just work this out between yourselves. Lawyers won't help much in this realm but they'll bill everyone anyway.
Yourself and your images are used in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XxlL0I5AWLI#!
I'm not a lawyer, but if neither of them have "Photography Is Not A Crime" trademarked or registered as a business in their respective states, there is not a thing they can do to each other.
If one site was first and the other followed with the "Photography Is Not a Crime" moniker, it's probably not right, but not illegal.
Case in point why people register their businesses and trademarks. Someone could register "Photography Is Not A Crime" as a business or trademark today and have their lawyers send over a C&D order to both websites.
In order to register a phrase as a trademark, a company must convince the United States Patent and Trademark Office that a substantial portion of the target market associates that phrase with your company. It is not a "First Come, First Served" standard.
Supposing that Allen Rockwell established his site before Carlos Miller established his, Carlos may well be able show that a substantial portion of all those people in the United States concerned with street photography and the law associate "Photography Is Not a Crime" with Carlos's site. Carlos might eventually be able to register "Photography Is Not a Crime" as a trademark within that audience. Allen would then have to take steps to disassociate his site from Carlos's.
But that would take time.
David, I am not an IP lawyer, but I do have four or five on retainer. My understanding (just spoke with one of my lawyers about six months ago about this issue) is that if you use a common phrase, such as "hot biscuit maker" or "photography is not a crime" for a minimum of five years (my attorney said five years was the maximum you needed), then, you could trademark the term. But...if your phrase is used by anyone else, to describe their product or service in that five years, you could not claim a right to a common phrase. Or, if the phrase is used in common articles, or in common everyday usage.
A company can claim a made up name (think Allegra, or Claritin), because of course, that name is specific and has no common English meanings.
If someone should use your particular sentence before the five years (some judges think three is sufficient), then, you will have a very hard time copyrighting or trademarking the name or tag line.
I have numerous copyrights and 19 patents, so I have traveled down this road quite often. Some of my patented products have common phraseology that has been assigned an "SM mark, or service mark. Some of them are "TM, Trademarked and some of them are copyrighted, with the C in a circle.
Seems to me that Mr. Rockwell is a fairly nice guy. Perhaps he could simply change his HTML to reflect his web page title and remove any meta tags that reference Photography is not a crime.
Or, pixiq could buy his domain.
I think your attorney was explaining likelihoods of success and not the law.
I have numerous copyrights, though only one patent.
ANYONE can throw a 'TM' on a phrase. It does not establish a trademark. It STARTS the process toward establishing a registered trademark.
Do you have any R-in-a-circle trademarks?
It also seems to me that Mr. Rockwell is a nice guy. It also seems there is not a big problem here.
For the record, I launched this blog in April 2007. He said he started his in 2008.
When you two respectively started publicly using a phrase matters little in establishing a registered trademark.
Two factors matter most—how much of a target market associates the phrase with your site versus his, and how much time, effort, or money you want to spend on establishing a registered trademark.
It appears to me that the first factor is hugely in your favor, Carlos.
I think it likely that the second factor will preclude you from establishing "Photography Is Not a Crime" as your registered trademark.
Maybe if you apologize for your comments, Carlos, and politely go to him and ask him to add a clarification to his main page linking people wanting Carlos Miller's "Photography Is Not a Crime" to your site, he will.
And I was just about to donate $50
OK, guys, I received an email from Allen, which I just responded to. I am reposting both emails below for transparency purposes.
I've worked hard at building this blog, so maybe I'm a little sensitive when I come across a site with the same title that has hardly done anything, yet is asking for donations.
It's especially bothersome when the media links to his blog instead of mine because I get paid per page view, so it's literally money out of my pocket.
Now for the email exchange.
"Hey Allen,
Maybe I jumped the gun in posting that piece but it just seemed a little weird that your site would come up on the front page after Googling my name, when my name is not even mentioned on your site.
And it just got a little annoying when reporters would link to you when they meant to link to me. I know that's their fault, which is why I didn't say anything the first few times, including one time when your site was shown on a television newscast as my blog.
It also strikes me as weird that you're soliciting donations yet have only written a handful of blog posts.
I just don't want people to learn about my blog through a news article, only to come across your blog, then donate their hard-earned money when it's obviously not being put to use.
Other than that, I really don't want to get into this squabble because it undermines what I'm trying to do.
So let's just let it go. I apologize for accusing you of something you didn't do.
But I also think it's important to point out to my readers the situation before they make a donation.
On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:32 PM, Allen Rockwell wrote:
Carlos,
I just received an email from a very angry person claiming that I was impersonating you on my photographyisntacrime.com website.
Carlos, I've been running that site for many years and I've never tried to make anyone believe that I am you. My only goal is and has always been to bring attention to the plight of photographers like myself that have been harassed for the act of photography.
I have a "donation" button on the site that has over the years yielded me somewhere in the neighborhood of about $30.00 … apparently the person that wrote me today has a HUGE problem with the fact that I am "begging" for donations. ….nothing could be further from the truth.
Then I went to Pixiq.coma and saw your post calling my site a "Fake" site soliciting for donations.
After many years of operating this site I am frankly blown away by this recent turn of events. FYI, last year I converted the site to a "blog" format, this is why it appears that it's a new site … in reality it's been around for many years serving the photography community, it was a outgrowth of the Digital Photography Podcast that produced for many years.
So, anyways, to get to the point, what is your problem with me and my site? I thought we were working together toward a common goal. I did not start this site to start fights with other activists, I started it to educate the public. I have a full time job and I do not have much time to deal with the site but I try as best as I can to keep it alive.
What do you want from me?
Allen "
one would think some people are still in HS
Allen, can you post the "angry" email?
Mr Rockwell: If that blog is not all that important to you and does not affect what you do for your primary income, it is obvious what you could do to resolve the conflict: shut it down, or change the name and arrange to link your material to Miller's.
The fact that you are prolonging this discussion, not to mention the way you are conducting it, does not make you look good. As "Engine Charley" Wilson once observed, "perception is reality." QED.
Stan, I don't think forcing anyone to give up his domain/blog is appropriate. You're basically stating "Oh so you got falsely accused about some hobby of yours by someone who does this full-time, therefore you should give up your hobby. And hand over all your equipment, too." That's what you just said, and then had the amazing gall to accuse him of poorly prolonging the conversation when he defends himself. You need to reexamine your piss-poor evaluation of this.
By the time Allen started his site (claiming it was an extension of a related podcast), Carlos's site would not have been very popular. I only found out about it a couple years ago myself, and I'm a privacy advocate. So, it's not like carlos would have had much "brand recognition" at that point.
Here is my proposal:
Voluntary redirect from Allen's site to pixiq.
Allen is allowed to post articles on pixiq when he has time, as a guest author.
Carlos agrees that he has no claim to Allen's domain.
This is a win/win. Allen doesn't have to pay for hosting and thus doesn't need to ask for donations, nor does he have to deal with running a blog. Carlos doesn't run into confused reporters again, and gains a guest author that's been doing this a while. Allen keeps his domain and if things go sour, there aren't any issues and he can just restore his old blog, and things would go on as they are now.
Carlos, that email you sent is hardly an apology. It reads more like justification of your attack on Mr. Rockwell and his website. Why attack the guy via your blog instead of initially contacting him directly? If he was unwilling to resolve your issues, then consider going public. It appears that this guy was blindsided by all of this.
He even added a banner at the top directing traffic to your site.
It appears Mr Rockwell has been falsely accused,and is worthy of an apology. Carlos we all make mistakes when we get to big for our britches. It just happened to me a few days ago. I had to take a big bite of humble pie,admit I was wrong,and apologize. IMHO Mr Rockwell is an ally in the fight for photographers rights.
I am astonished by the PINAC followers attempting to bully Mr Rockwell into taking down his blog!
Carlos, you know I've always admired the work that you do regarding photographer's rights. The absolute aggression of your followers here, their blind bias, and the way you've handled this, though... I feel really badly for Mr. Rockwell. I know it's hard to simply apologize without trying to justify yourself, but really... you and your fanbase just completely blindsided a guy that's doing the exact same thing born out of the same motivations.
Suddenly, his character is called into question over a donation button, too? Really? Take his blog down? Really? Does he have to have the same dedication to his own site that Carlos does? This is what Carlos does for a living, and he's made that clear. Similarly, Mr. Rockwell made it clear that he DOESN'T do it for a living.
This is so absurdly immature. I just can't believe that a simple apology wasn't issued a long time ago and everyone didn't walk away a little happier.
You're on the same side.
Keep up the good work Carlos AND Mr. Rockwell. You're doing good things.
So there was a question raised whether Carlos would man up and apologize. I guess the answer is "no".
So let me explain what's happening: "We", the readers of PINAC, read PINAC because we all feel passionately about the topic. Some of us are conservative, some of us are liberal. But we all agree on the need to protect our freedom as photographers. Maybe for different reasons, but we all agree that they need to be aggressively protected.
That is no longer the purpose of Carlos Miller's PINAC blog. His purpose is now to make money. As he said above, this is all about page views translating into income for him. And he's worried that Allen's blog might hurt his income.
However it started, PINAC is now a business for Carlos, and the very phrase "Photography is not a crime" is (in his view of the world) his. He thinks he owns it, because he makes money off it. He is now the 1%.
Bookmark deleted. Pixiq account deleted. Allen, the torch may have just gotten passed to you. Hope you're up to it.
Fred, isn't that just as much of an overreaction?
Carlos just got out of jail in miami, falsely accused of resisting arrest, gets back online and finds another site being linked by reporters and even linked to his name when ego surfing. He immediately thinks "Goddamn it, someone is trying to make money off my name." That's what I would immediately think, and it looks pretty obvious.
So he reacts. And when finding out it's probably not an attempted ruse, reacts poorly again.
Nevertheless, you're reacting poorly, too. People make mistakes.
I do remember when Carlos was having some money troubles and IIRC was soliciting funds when pixiq picked him up. After that, the reporting got a lot more consistent. Did you really not know how he made money by putting his blog here? Do you think that admitting that this pays his bail so that you can get better reporting is somehow full of fraud? Of course he gets income based on page view or ads or something similar.
But just because he can get ends to meet doesn't mean he's in the 1%. You really think he's added an extra digit or two to his yearly income? I don't. Why don't you call him a nazi while you're at it?
I have a suggestion, how about both of you run PINAC? Both should pick one website and join forces to cover events on a regular basis. Carlos does an awesome job, but he is just one person with other obligations. Having more writers for PINAC would do nothing but bring more content to this blog along with more readers. Hell, I would contribute stories as well.
I run a freelance news video company and have suggested to my competitors in the past that we join forces. That way we don't duplicate effort, we're able cover more events, share leads and information, and become a one stop shop for local news video. It's a shame they were so short sided. But I think the same principal of having more PINAC writers would apply here and do nothing but benefit the cause.
*short sighted
Wow. What a revealing image of Carlos!
The email wasn't an apology in the simplest definition of the term.
What I get from it is that he's trying to bully this guy into shutting his blog down.
And this coming from a sell-out that doesn't even use his own domain name any longer. Carlos sold his blog to Pixiq; with not only horrid ads, but a horrendous "you have to register to comment" system.
What a shill!
The other guy came here and explained himself adequately and there's not one iota of an apology from "Mr. Miller".
The move to Pixiq was bad enough for me. Now this?
I'm done giving this Miller guy any credibility. What a fool. Way to show your motivations, Miller!
And, Allen, you should open up commenting on your blog.
I have just done that. I closed the commenting some time ago when I got tired of dealing with the Viagra ads. I'll keep and eye on it and see what happens this time. Thanks.
Thank you all for your support and positive comments.
Just an update:
In my last correspondence with Mr. Miller (on Feb 9th) I made the following offer to him in the attempt to be the better man: "If you would be so kind as to post a retraction/apology on your website I would be happy to put a permanent note at the top of my site stating "this site is in no way connected with Carlos Miller" and I'll even put a link to your site for those that have mistakenly come to my site looking for your. I am more than happy to drive people to your site, you are far more active in this issue than I am and you are in a better position to serve the people we aim to serve."
Mr. Miller responded with "I might write a retraction over the weekend".
I took Mr. Miller at his word and immediately (within minutes of his response) posted the statement at the top of my website and linked it to his blog. Perhaps I gave too much weight to the word "might", who knows? ... there are a few hours left in the weekend and retractions can take more than 4 days to type sometimes (OK, that last bit was sarcasm).
Anyways, I'm over this whole affair. I thought Mr. Miller and I would iron this out and we could be friends (or at least allies) and continue the fight for photographer's rights.
At this point I'm putting this whole episode behind me and continue doing what I do and Mr. Miller can continue doing what he does.
This entire episode has taught me a lot. I will not say anything negative about about Mr. Miller in this or any public forum, but I certainly feel that I know him, his character and his motivations a lot better after all this.
Allen, you're the better man. Period.
Carlos has apparently given over to pure greed, and that explains everything.
You've been libeled online in front of the pro photography community. The emails you're received are proof of that. It very well may hurt you as a photographer.
Your should:
- Remove the link you added to your site (for legal reasons).
- Find a libel attorney and pay them a hundred bucks to craft Crease and Desist letters to GoDaddy (Pixiq's hoster), Pixiq.com, and Carlos Miller.
- Demand the removal of this entire thread, an immediate apology and retraction, from both Carlos and Pixiq, that a link to YOUR site be added to this site, and a $500 donation to your favorite charity by Carlos.
Let me say it again: you've been libeled online. The accusations made by Carlos were were "patently false and provable wrong". The comments were intentional, malicious, and intended to cause you financial harm. For him to be swinging the "I'm talking to my attorney" shlong is simple Internet Tough Guy BS. He libeled you. Legally, you OWN him at this point.
I've been following this since the original post.
Do you really think there's libel there? Tell me, exactly IN QUOTES, what was defamatory? Of course, you are aware, being a read of PINAC and knowing rights of the press, that truth and opinion is an affirmative defense against libel (except in the UK, but this is in the US). So, what was stated as fact that is defamatory which wasn't either truth or opinion and simultaneously harmful? From what I see, everything Miller stated in the original post was either true or clearly opinion.
The idea that Allen was libelled online is stupid. I don't mean to sound mean, but your entire position is just stupid. In addition, libel lawsuits are rarely won, and fairly expensive. Are you really recommending someone invest that much time and money in it? That's also simply stupid. And frankly, I believe you are stupid for suggesting it. Are you going to sue me for libel now? Hypothetically, I could even say "You are stupid" and truth would clear me. Idiot.
Anyone who immediately resorts to the idea of a lawsuit before considering legitimate options is, in my opinion, a jackass (see how that I protected myself against libel there?). Those people are totally missing the point, and IMHO are as bad for society as the people who think photography should be a crime. IT'S YOUR DUTY to protect not only your rights, but other people's rights, too. Got that? YOUR DUTY as a good citizen.
The more comments I read, especially on this thread, the more I realize some people just don't "get it". Photography is NECESSARY to protect our rights and help prevent abuses. Stomping on other people's rights is completely against the purpose of exercising rights to protect them. Yet, advocating a lawsuit for libel would be abuse of process for the stated harm of what... $30 over 4 years?
Disavowing this site because it makes money to do its reporting is likewise ridiculous; although it's certainly within anyone's rights to no longer visit, it just makes no sense. You're an idiot if you don't think money motivates, including motivating producing useful news. Carlos produces useful news and I think his arrangement with pixiq has improved his reporting significantly.
I'm certainly no Carlos apologist, but it takes a kind of headstrong, angry, stubborn person to do what he does. Let's see you do the kind of shit he does. Go for it. Then let's see if your blog has anywhere near the same quality.
Stef, are you really that stupid? Seriously, really? In quotes? Fark you here are some quotes:
"Fake" Hope you and Pixiq can prove that in court.
"His name is Allen Rockwell and he has written a total of seven blog posts since August 7, 2011 when he apparently launched the site."
Whoops! That sure falls in to the realm of "provable false".
So there, there are some quotes you idiot. But I'm sure you have some weasily excuse that these don't count.
The entire point of Carlo's post was to defame Mr. Rockwell and to deny him income. So once again I ask, are you really that stupid?
> "Fake" Hope you and Pixiq can prove that in court.
That burden is on the plaintiff to prove libel. The word "Fake" doesn't even mean much in today's context. What is "Fake hair" or "Fake personality"? There's simply no way any attorney would take this idiotic case you suggested. Way above I suggested a very good solution to this whole issue.
Everything you quoted above is opinion or apparently true. Getting a date wrong is not harmful any more than getting your age wrong is libellous. If he believed it (and he obviously did), it's legal to state your beliefs. You can argue that a proper reporter would correct misstatements, and carlos hasn't done that... but libel? Get. Fucking. Real.
Libel is to stop people from outright lying in an attempt to harm, and libel suits have always heavily burdened the plaintiff. How do you think all those supermarket rags can get away with the outlandish stuff they publish? The authors actually believe it.
You stated that carlos's post was to deny him income... well ask yourself, how much income could be denied? $30 over several years? Okay, let's say he was somehow denied $10/year. Does it make sense to sue someone for a loss of $10/year with the likely result you would not only lose, but have to pay attorney fees for both parties?
Perspective. Get some. And next time you advocate a lawsuit, ask yourself why you're such a pawn.
Post new comment