Looking to pay for simple graphic.

In alt.design.graphics fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

I should clarify: Payment is in Canadian dollars ($100CDN=~$85US).

—
…………………………………………………… ………………

Beauty comes cheap in a wealthy country

…………………………………………………… ………………

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:33:19 GMT,
fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

In alt.design.graphics fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

I should clarify: Payment is in Canadian dollars ($100CDN=~$85US).

Maybe you should clarify by telling us what EXACTLY it is that you’re looking for. You know…that way people can create mockups…you then look at the mockups, decide if you want that artist to make it for ya, then you pay them, then they make a final finished version for you. You should also state HOW the graphic is going to be used and if you have any specific requirements as far as format, size, etc.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:40:58 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:33:19 GMT,
fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

In alt.design.graphics fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

I should clarify: Payment is in Canadian dollars ($100CDN=~$85US).

Maybe you should clarify by telling us what EXACTLY it is that you’re looking for. You know…that way people can create mockups…you then look at the mockups, decide if you want that artist to make it for ya, then you pay them, then they make a final finished version for you. You should also state HOW the graphic is going to be used

And by HOW, I mean is it for the web or for like a print publication.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I have a fairly simple graphic in mind, but lack the skill to make it.

Can’t be /that/ simple then…

I’d
like to pay someone to create it for me, but am not sure hot to go about this.

You give money, we do work.

Ideally, I’d like to see a few samples from different artists,

Samples of my work can be seen on my website (it’s in the sig).

and then pay the artist I would use

You agree terms of business, sign a contract, and then I do work. Then you pay me.

With the understanding that I have no rights to the
ones I didn’t pay for.

Well, yes, that’s the law in most places.

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

I expect it’s about 30-60 minutes work (tops) for someone who knows what they are doing.

Well, thats a big assumption. Post a proper brief of what you want, so I, and others, can judge for myself whether it can be done in that time, or whether it would take longer, or less.

Is this a fair arrangement?

Not really. You get loads of free work done. You’re paying for the skills and the time of the designer, not just for the end result. You also want complete rights over the work, which means that the design must be important to you in some financially beneficial way.

If somone is willing to do work for free, you have to question how much value their skills actually have, or why they’re so desperate as to sell themselves for nothing.

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk

In article <Psxjf.142559$>,
fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I have a fairly simple graphic in mind, but lack the skill to make it. I’d like to pay someone to create it for me, but am not sure hot to go about this.

that’s where you should stop and ask us.

Ideally, I’d like to see a few samples from different artists, and then pay the artist I would use – With the understanding that I have no rights to the ones I didn’t pay for. I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

I expect it’s about 30-60 minutes work (tops) for someone who knows what they are doing.

what makes you think you know how long work will take if you have no graphic skill?

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

next time, introduce yourself (name, location, type of business), provide a url and/or email contact.

explain what the job is, what budget you have and when you want it done by (deadline).

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:58:44 +0000, Davémon wrote:

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I have a fairly simple graphic in mind, but lack the skill to make it.

Can’t be /that/ simple then…

I’d
like to pay someone to create it for me, but am not sure hot to go about this.

You give money, we do work.

Ideally, I’d like to see a few samples from different artists,

Samples of my work can be seen on my website (it’s in the sig).

and then pay the artist I would use

You agree terms of business, sign a contract, and then I do work. Then you pay me.

With the understanding that I have no rights to the
ones I didn’t pay for.

Well, yes, that’s the law in most places.

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

And what about the format? If it’s complex, does he want just a final flat version or is he asking for the layered, development version, which would allow him to make additions, edits and use it for multiple background colors and images.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:15:05 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:58:44 +0000, Davémon wrote:

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

And what about the format? If it’s complex, does he want just a final flat version or is he asking for the layered, development version, which would allow him to make additions, edits and use it for multiple background colors and images.

If he’s bought the exclusive, worldwide rights, he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t think it matters what file format he gets, as the value is in the IP itself, not the file.

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:49:32 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:15:05 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:58:44 +0000, Davémon wrote:

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

And what about the format? If it’s complex, does he want just a final flat version or is he asking for the layered, development version, which would allow him to make additions, edits and use it for multiple background colors and images.

If he’s bought the exclusive, worldwide rights, he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t think it matters what file format he gets, as the value is in the IP itself, not the file.

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…especially if he has no skillz in teh graphic arts. *shrugs*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:33:15 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:49:32 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:15:05 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:58:44 +0000, Davémon wrote:

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

And what about the format? If it’s complex, does he want just a final flat version or is he asking for the layered, development version, which would allow him to make additions, edits and use it for multiple background colors and images.

If he’s bought the exclusive, worldwide rights, he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t think it matters what file format he gets, as the value is in the IP itself, not the file.

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…

Without the full, exclusive, world-wide rights, he wouldn’t be legally entitled to do that (i.e. create derivative works), whether he’s got access to the orignal files or not.

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:00:55 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:33:15 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:49:32 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:15:05 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:58:44 +0000, Davémon wrote:

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

And what about the format? If it’s complex, does he want just a final flat version or is he asking for the layered, development version, which would allow him to make additions, edits and use it for multiple background colors and images.

If he’s bought the exclusive, worldwide rights, he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t think it matters what file format he gets, as the value is in the IP itself, not the file.

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…

Without the full, exclusive, world-wide rights, he wouldn’t be legally entitled to do that (i.e. create derivative works), whether he’s got access to the orignal files or not.

Sure he could, if he had the skills he could alter the image and then claim it falls under the de minimis doctrine of fair use laws. And if you wanted to try and sue him over it he would have more leverage since it’s the name of his business. In effect, even if you make the design, he owns the name, not you (assuming its a logo he’s wanting). As a graphic designer, you wouldn’t really hold much power as far as any sort of copyright. To put it as bluntly as possible…you’re wrong. *shrugs*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ ha scritto:

I have a fairly simple graphic in mind, but lack the skill to make it. I’d like to pay someone to create it for me, but am not sure hot to go about this.
Ideally, I’d like to see a few samples from different artists, and then pay the artist I would use – With the understanding that I have no rights to the ones I didn’t pay for. I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

I expect it’s about 30-60 minutes work (tops) for someone who knows what they are doing.

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

It sounds interesting…but..what’s the brief?? I’m a Visual designer from Italy. I think it could be amazing to work with you, but only if I could take a look to the briefing before accepting 100 $..

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:00:55 +0000, Dav

Onideus Mad Hatter arranged shapes to form:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:00:55 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:33:15 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:49:32 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:15:05 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in ascii :

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:58:44 +0000, Davémon wrote:

fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$ wrote:

I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

You mean you want exclusive, worldwide distribution rights to the single graphic you select, for $100?

And what about the format? If it’s complex, does he want just a final flat version or is he asking for the layered, development version, which would allow him to make additions, edits and use it for multiple background colors and images.

If he’s bought the exclusive, worldwide rights, he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t think it matters what file format he gets, as the value is in the IP itself, not the file.

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…

Without the full, exclusive, world-wide rights, he wouldn’t be legally entitled to do that (i.e. create derivative works), whether he’s got access to the orignal files or not.

Sure he could, if he had the skills he could alter the image and then claim it falls under the de minimis doctrine of fair use laws.

Fair use means he wouldn’t be using it for commercial advantage, or in a morally objectionable way, so it wouldn’t really matter to the designer.

And if
you wanted to try and sue him over it he would have more leverage since it’s the name of his business. In effect, even if you make the design, he owns the name, not you (assuming its a logo he’s wanting).

You’re confusing copyright and trademarks. You can’t copyright a name.

UK: http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm
US: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp

As a graphic designer, you wouldn’t really hold much power as far as any sort of copyright.

The visual representation of text comes under a seperate copyright to the text itself, and as the designer I have sole rights of ownership to the visual aspect.

Obviously, I do actually have to do some design work, not just type it out in Times Roman, for it to be copyrightable at all.

To put it as bluntly as possible…you’re wrong. *shrugs*

Really? The UK and US governments seem to agree with me…

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

"Dav

"Fred Doyle" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:00:55 +0000, Dav

<fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$> wrote in message

I have a fairly simple graphic in mind, but lack the skill to make it. I’d like to pay someone to create it for me, but am not sure hot to go about this.

Ideally, I’d like to see a few samples from different artists, and then pay
the artist I would use – With the understanding that I have no rights to the
ones I didn’t pay for. I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the
work.

I expect it’s about 30-60 minutes work (tops) for someone who knows what they
are doing.

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

Asking several people to do the work and then not paying most of them is not a fair agreement. Contract with someone and pay them is the fair way.

Flo

"Flo Nelson" wrote in message

Asking several people to do the work and then not paying most of them is

not

a fair agreement.

that’s not an agreement at all; it’s an offer waiting for someone to accept it, on terms they can either make fair or pass on ..

In article <Psxjf.142559$>,
<fl0w3r_w13ld1ng_$> wrote:

I have a fairly simple graphic in mind, but lack the skill to make it. I’d like to pay someone to create it for me, but am not sure hot to go about this.
Ideally, I’d like to see a few samples from different artists, and then pay the artist I would use – With the understanding that I have no rights to the ones I didn’t pay for. I’m willing to pay $100, and want all rights to the work.

I expect it’s about 30-60 minutes work (tops) for someone who knows what they are doing.

Is this a fair arrangement? Anyone interested?

The most fair arrangement would be to ask to see past examples of their work from those interested and base your decision on what’s closest to your preferred style/brand of creativity. Anything else would be working on SPEC – something that’s not encouraged or really very ethical.

You have to consider that even though you believe that it would only take 30-60 minutes, it’s still time that the "unlucky" would have spent and not gotten paid for. Especially if they could have been working on another job that they could be getting paid for.

If you make your arrangement on those merits, I’m sure you will find more willing artists.

Good luck!!
Max

"Elizabeth" wrote in message

"Fred Doyle" wrote in message

He could claim de minimis use (you can claim anything) but wouldn’t likely
prevail if the artist decided to litigate. I work at a university and fair
use is frequently under discussion here. De minimis is a very, very

limited

doctrine, and hardly universally settled law, but most of the decisions would indicate that the use described would hardly fit this defense. Look
at some of the decisions that have been handed down in this area. http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol4/issue3/lucas.html#ent3

generalizations are actually not useful to a discussion like this;

This discussion is entirely a generalization and speculation. There is no specific instance here to really look at and evaluate.

here, a
commercial user is not going to win if you own the copyright and have not licensed him explicitly or implicitly

I agree. I think that’s what I was trying to say.

meanwhile, are all of you folks SO busy that a guy waving $100 can’t get anyone to take him up on the offer instead of debating IP rights ?

Happily, yes, in my case individually. I can’t speak for anyone else. I do have an interest in IP law, as it is an issue I deal with a lot in my job, however. I’ve said for a long time now, if you are young and really want to make moeny in your career, go into IP law.

Fred Doyle

"Fred Doyle" wrote in message

generalizations are actually not useful to a discussion like this;

This discussion is entirely a generalization and speculation. There is no specific instance here to really look at and evaluate.

well, there was $100 on the table for exclusive use of an image .. that’s reasonably specific; but what I meant was that fair use determinations are very fact-specific; even if somebody could say that 95% of fair use litigation was decided adversely to the putative infringer, it doesn’t mean much. There clearly are uses which are fair (and therefore non-infringing) and they are reasonably, though not perfectly, identifiable

Happily, yes, in my case individually. I can’t speak for anyone else. I do have an interest in IP law, as it is an issue I deal with a lot in my job, however. I’ve said for a long time now, if you are young and really want

to

make moeny in your career, go into IP law.

SOME people make "a lot of money" in IP law; assuming we’re talking about lawyers (and not patent agents, licensing professionals, etc) it’s a very small percentage of the profession that practices any IP law at all; in the main, it’s only larger entities who can afford to play the game so we’re dealing with a limited client base. Yes, there are garage and basement inventors who decide to pay the cost of obtaining patents but very few of them give much thought to what they’ll do to exploit the invention and what they will do if someone infringes it. It typically costs $1-2 million to litigate a patent case and basically only corporations can afford it. In the patent prosecution world, if you’ve ever actually read a patent, you might wonder whether you want to spend the next xx years writing such things or do something more interesting, like manipulate digital images.

Copyright is not quite so resource-intensive but I would venture a guess that if anyone came around offering legal services on this board in this area they would get somewhere between zero and no takers. And this is (theoretically) prime turf; virtually everyone here creates work protectable under copyright law on a daily basis. But I would bet that few have ever paid a lawyer for a copyright matter for any reason whatsoever. In part that’s because there is RELATIVELY little infringement which you can recover on; in most cases it’s a Herculean task just to discover the infringement at all. Most commercial people know better and cover themselves and the non-commercial infringers aren’t usually worth pursuing (which isn’t to say that lawyers don’t send out cease and desist orders to teenage kids all the time .. ’cause they do).

Here’s the bottom line, Fred: if you’re really smart, really ambitious and don’t mind spending anwyhere from 3-8 years or so of your life in preparation, go for it. A very small percentage will hit the big time and land a job with a prestigious law firm, work their asses off, make partner, and earn > $500K per annum. The others will make about what a top Photoshop pro makes. $450 (and up) per hour sounds great until you understand that you have get those hours.

Sorry for the OT but I think people should have a clear idea about this stuff … and value what they like to do without suffering too many illusions about fame and fortune in other endeavors.

In alt.design.graphics Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…especially if he has no skillz in teh graphic arts. *shrugs*

You raise a valid technical point… This is likely something I should request as well.

—
…………………………………………………… ………………

"Be wary of enraging a little man, for he will retaliate with the force of a hundred little men"
-My Girlfriend, Lisa

…………………………………………………… ………………

In alt.design.graphics Dav

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:51:31 GMT, "Elizabeth" wrote:

And if
you wanted to try and sue him over it he would have more leverage since it’s the name of his business.

not relevant

Entirely relevant actually, it’s what keeps fan communities from making money off other people’s ideas. For example, on that CB site of mine, I couldn’t ever actually publish that fan fic without permission from the AGC, because they own most of the rights. Just because I wrote it and even if I significantly alter character names and such I could still get sued and the AGC would most likely win.

In effect, even if you make the
design, he owns the name, not you (assuming its a logo he’s wanting). As a graphic designer, you wouldn’t really hold much power as far as any sort of copyright. To put it as bluntly as possible…you’re wrong. *shrugs*

graphic designers have fewer rights in original works of authorship ??

In a perfect world I suppose not, but then we don’t live in a perfect world, now do we? The bottom line is that most court cases involving litigation are largely about money, so unless you have a special interest group like the ACLU backin you…yeah…yer not gonna win. In the minor leagues, a contract graphic artist against a small busniess owner…yeah you might be able to win…but the other thing to keep in mind is that things like copyrights and trademarks are usually less about solid rules and regulations and more about your ability to convince the judge that you deserve the rights.

Again, using my CB site as an example, at one point the AGC actually threatened me with litigation…so then I went and contacted Disney, who owns the broadcast rights and convinced them that the site shouldn’t be taken down. They sided with me, made me a "Friends of Disney" alliance member and basically told the AGC to back off. Now the AGC owns more rights to the Care Bears than Disney, but Disney has a much greater degree of power (money) and could effectively hammer the AGC into the ground and buy out all their assets (including ALL the rights to the Care Bears).

Why do you think I have the only CB site in existence that has every single CB song from all the major movies and TV shows? You can’t find any other CB site that has the content I have simply because Disney, Nelvana and the AGC don’t allow anyone else to have the content and go after anyone who tries to copy and redistribute content off my site.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:17:46 GMT,
l3gl3$$ wrote:

In alt.design.graphics Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…especially if he has no skillz in teh graphic arts. *shrugs*

You raise a valid technical point… This is likely something I should request as well.

You should probably request a layered final product, so at the very least you can put it on different backgrounds. If the graphic design you’re looking for is simple enough you might also want to request it in vector format rather than raster, because then it can be easily resized, otherwise you might want to request a very LARGE version of the graphic, as you can always make it smaller. If the graphic is small and raster based making it larger later is only going to make it look horrible. You should also keep in mind that just because something looks good on your screen doesn’t mean that it’ll look good when printed, so you should specify whether you want the image for print or web use. Or just specify the dpi you want. For web graphics 72 to 150 dpi is good, for print graphics you should think about requesting 300 to 600 dpi.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

"Fred Doyle" wrote in message

This discussion is entirely a generalization and speculation. There is no specific instance here to really look at and evaluate.

"Elizabeth" wrote

what I meant was that fair use determinations are
very fact-specific; even if somebody could say that 95% of fair use litigation was decided adversely to the putative infringer, it doesn’t mean
much.

Absolutely. And with no specific image created and subsequent a reuse of that image to look at for the facts, we are only talking in generalities here. There is no way anyone could ever determine if a de minimis fair use, or any other form of fair use, could prevail absent of specifics. So we are only talking in generalizations and speculation.

SOME people make "a lot of money" in IP law; assuming we’re talking about lawyers

Yup, that’s who I was thinking of.

in the
main, it’s only larger entities who can afford to play the game ….It typically costs $1-2 million to
litigate a patent case and basically only corporations can afford it.

Yup. That’s true. That is where the money you can make in IP law comes from, and this is an area of litigation that I, personally, think will be booming, both patents and copyrights. As copyrighted material continues to get easier and cheaper to reproduce and distribute, I think the law will evolve dramatically over the next couple of decades. It is a personal opinion, but I expect to see copyright law be re-written to reflect new technologies. What the outcome of that re-writing will be is yet to be determined. IMHO.

Here’s the bottom line, Fred: if you’re really smart, really ambitious and
don’t mind spending anwyhere from 3-8 years or so of your life in preparation, go for it.

Not me, ma’am. I’m too way old and way too happy with my life and work, as it is, to want to retrain and go into the field.

Sorry for the OT but I think people should have a clear idea about this stuff .

Yes, and thanks for your perspective and input. It was very interesting and informative. Not much is OT here, as you can tell if you read many of the messages. You appear to have more than a passing knowledge on the subject. Can I ask what is your background in the field?

and value what they like to do without suffering too many illusions about fame and fortune in other endeavors.

Good advice. I always have pursued my personal interests and the joy that they give me. I’ve been very fortunate to find a way to make those interests and my talents pay enough to support a small but happy family. Fame has never been a lure to me. The fortune they have brought me is small but sufficient for our needs. Perhaps what I should have said is that if you have an interest in the law, want the potential to make a lot of money, and desire to be on the cutting edge of an evolving field, IP law is an area that will provide that.

Thanks, again, for your perspective.
—
Fred Doyle

l3gl3$$ wrote:

In alt.design.graphics Davémon <"dav?mon"@nospam.com> wrote:

Wow, I didn’t know things would get so "Legal". Ultimately, I’m seeking a gentleman’s agreement that I have full rights to use the image – Although I’d have no problem at all with the person using the image in their portfolio.

A "gentleman’s agreement," as you put it, would be a huge mistake.

Many of the comments posted are from a designer’s perspective. You should be thinking about your side of things, and just like a designer working without a contract, the less you have in writing, the less protected you are.

By default, copyright stays with the creator. Therefore, assuming that the graphic you are requesting isn’t derivative of some previous work, then it will be owned by whoever creates it for you.

Let’s assume this graphic is going to be a logo for your company. You hire someone for $100 and other than a receipt for a "simple illustrated graphic" and a cancelled check, you have nothing in writing. Down the road, your company becomes successful enough that you think you might want to trademark your name and logo. Can you prove ownership of the logo? Not without a contract, you can’t, and this could jeopardize the legitimacy of your trademark claim.

Furthermore, now your business is successful, and now this graphic artist comes after you for illegally using this image without owning the rights. You requested a "simple graphic," but it’s really being used as a logo. The artist could very well claim you misrepresented the scope of the project and that he thought he was giving you a "simple graphic" and not a "logo." Now your business is in very real danger of a lawsuit all because you assumed you could do whatever you wanted with this graphic.

Without getting into the complexities of fair pricing, there is a lot more to graphic design than simply, "hey, can you make me a picture?" It is a very real business and involves a fairly strict set of laws regarding usage rights.

Making sure that you work with a designer who offers a contract that clearly explains your rights to the image is as much for your protection as the designer’s. (And as a general rule, the more ownership rights you want, the more it costs.)

— Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creative Director | Freshly Squeezed Design
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com

Very well put, Robert. It’s a 2-way street offering protection for both parties.

inez

"Fred Doyle" wrote in message

Yup. That’s true. That is where the money you can make in IP law comes

from,

and this is an area of litigation that I, personally, think will be

booming,

both patents and copyrights. As copyrighted material continues to get

easier

and cheaper to reproduce and distribute, I think the law will evolve dramatically over the next couple of decades. It is a personal opinion,

but

I expect to see copyright law be re-written to reflect new technologies. What the outcome of that re-writing will be is yet to be determined. IMHO.

I think your ideas sound more correct than they actually are; sure, technology is "changing everything" … everything except the core principles of copyright law, that is … of course we have things like the DMCA amendments but is that really a fundamental change in the way the law protects original works of authorship ? I don’t think so; it looks more like the usual handiwork of trade association lobbyists who make a living getting favored language written into the US Code (not to mention the states) … the difference between the Betamax case and the Napster-Grokster-Aimster cases is fundamentally one of scale and not of kind

It seems to me that the real changes are actually occurring outside of copyright and even outside of law more generally … once upon a time if you were an ad agency AD and wanted to license an image it was kind of a hassle …. now you go to Corbis, click a few buttons, pay the fee and you’re done; it can be online in a couple of hours and in Cosmo in print in a couple of weeks. IP rights, like everything else under the sun, are being commoditized .. want to record a ZZ Top song ? Go to songfile.com, tell ’em how many copies you’re going to press, pay your money, and they’ll email you a license. I heard that someone recently auctioned off a 7% interest in the copyright to a Britney Spears song on EBAY for $180,000 ! THAT is revolutionary (but it’s still just an ordinary assignment of copyright). There are services now that will scour the web 24×7 to see if somebody is reproducing your copyrighted (textual) work … these are all enormous changes in the landscape.

Personally I think the real action is in the global harmonization of IP rights, though I’m not entirely sure that "harmonization" is the right term for all that’s going on. It seems to me that the Chinese, for one, simply don’t think about IP the way we do, and they really don’t want to start doing so. They pay some lip service to the issue every now and again to mollify Western businessmen and the politicians that do their bidding but fundamentally they just don’t play by the same rules. Smart people realize this and prosper by learning the "law" of the marketplace jungle and gloss over the lofty and pretentious "rule of law" …

So, this could go on forever but I will stop. Tell me how you think Copyright law will evolve … and what it means for digital artists …

Yes, and thanks for your perspective and input. It was very interesting

and

informative. Not much is OT here, as you can tell if you read many of the messages. You appear to have more than a passing knowledge on the subject. Can I ask what is your background in the field?

Sure … I’m a lawyer and a Photoshop enthusiast when I have time to be … I enjoy helping creative and inventive people keep their focus on being creative and inventive and making a living at it if they have the fortitude to do so …

and value what they like to do without suffering too many illusions about fame and fortune in other endeavors.

Good advice. I always have pursued my personal interests and the joy that they give me. I’ve been very fortunate to find a way to make those

interests

and my talents pay enough to support a small but happy family.

it’s been my experience that that’s what most successful people do .. however you define success

Fame has never been a lure to me.

it’s not worth much, IMO

The fortune they have brought me is small but
sufficient for our needs. Perhaps what I should have said is that if you have an interest in the law, want the potential to make a lot of money,

and

desire to be on the cutting edge of an evolving field, IP law is an area that will provide that.

MIGHT provide that 😉

Thanks, again, for your perspective.

and thanks for the kind words …

*/ E */

"Elizabeth" wrote

So, this could go on forever but I will stop. Tell me how you think Copyright law will evolve … and what it means for digital artists …

Long answer so be prepared, but you asked 😉

Well, as I said, I think a lot of this is yet to be determined, but I think the biggest change is going to be in an area you touch on in your post, i.e. the internaionalization of copyright and patent law. I’m no lawyer or expert on this, but as I see it, copyright laws are not going to be a country by country, region by region issue. I suspect new multi-party treaties will form a body of consistent international copyright standards, including a body that will judge and enforce these international cases. Again, I’m no expert, but wouldn’t that require some severe restructuring of copyright law in many countries so that all concerns will be addressed?

I suspect this will be driven by the industrial giants and the developed nations, and those that refuse to agree will be severly limited in their ability to attract industry, despite the size of the market they represent (read China). To counter the objections of non-developed nations, I believe some pressure will be there to create a tiered system which might allow poorer, developing nations more latitude in the area of things like software piracy or patent infringement. (Think Kyoto Accords but not in the area of greenhouse gas emmisions, in the area of copyright and patents.) Whether or not that happens is a big question.

But that is not very relevant to the smaller guy; digital artists, like me, which is the second part of your question. For me, I suspect it will be in the area of developing an ability to collect royalties on images, sounds, words, etc. that have been created. I foresee an international equivalent to music’s ASCAP/BMI being created that will collect and distribute royalties based on individual access to images, etc.

I can’t find the article right now, but William Gibson (the science fiction writer who created the term cyberspace) in Wired Magazine said something to the effect that when you publish on the Internet you work becomes part of a big amalgam of content available for use by anyone. Despite the bots that track down text on web sites that has been pirated, this is very, very true. Believe me, no bot or team of lawyers could ever keep up with the amount of piracy that takes place on the internet.

I host a moderately popular web site (1500-2000 unique visitors per month) that holds a lot of images. It is amazing to me to see the places that those images end up, and I don’t mean web pages that I create. One big use is in the area of blogs and forums where people use web hosting, that I pay for, to serve images to those other sites. Many images I have created and placed on my site end up as icons that people use when writing messages on blogs or forums. The pages they end up on have advertising and are commercial endeavors, yet I get nothing for the use, and the host of those pages probably don’t even know they are not the property of the person writing to the forum, but the fact remains that someone is using my work, getting money for it, and I’m actually paying for that to happen. This isn’t a complaint, just the reality of what is happening today.

Beyond even that, many, many other images of mine are served up by my paid host and appear on more traditional, highly popular, highly profitable web sites (much more popular than my own) created by others who are receiving a lot of money from the ads they also place on those pages with my images. And my images are the main content on those pages. I don’t mean the images are copied from my host and served by other hosts. I mean those page creators are having me pay for serving images to pages they create and receive money for from the ads on them, but I have created the main content on those pages. They are relying on me to create the content for those pages. They are relying on my server, which I pay for, to serve up those images. These are commercial pages, making a good deal of money. I get none of that.

You may be thinking that this is clearly an actionable issue, but the biggest offender here is Google Images. Who gave them permission to display my images on their pages? Beyond that, who said I agreed to pay for those images to be served to those commercial pages and receive no compensation in return? I don’t mind really, but this kind of indexing is an area where I see major copyright issues arising and the potential for re-writing of the copyright law. This is where I see the ASCAP/BMI model coming into play, allowing smaller artists like me to capture small royalties for each viewing of images we create and serve.

There is much speculation here, and I’ve got more but I’m running out of steam after this very long answer, but then again, you asked 😉 —
Fred Doyle

wrote in message

[…]
Let’s assume this graphic is going to be a logo for your company.

Pure impressionistic bull-roar. What you posted is a lot of ‘common sense’, but the law is ‘uncommon sense’. Don’t ever try to represent yourself.

Fred Doyle arranged shapes to form:

"Elizabeth" wrote

So, this could go on forever but I will stop. Tell me how you think Copyright law will evolve … and what it means for digital artists …

Long answer so be prepared, but you asked 😉

Well, as I said, I think a lot of this is yet to be determined, but I think the biggest change is going to be in an area you touch on in your post, i.e. the internaionalization of copyright and patent law. I’m no lawyer or expert on this, but as I see it, copyright laws are not going to be a country by country, region by region issue. I suspect new multi-party treaties will form a body of consistent international copyright standards, including a body that will judge and enforce these international cases. Again, I’m no expert, but wouldn’t that require some severe restructuring of copyright law in many countries so that all concerns will be addressed?

Well, there is the Berne convention, which has been going since erm 1886. There isn’t so much an enforcement, but it creates a broad basis for international trade in IP.

To counter the objections of non-developed nations, I believe some pressure will be there to create a tiered system which might allow poorer, developing nations more latitude in the area of things like software piracy or patent infringement. (Think Kyoto Accords but not in the area of greenhouse gas emmisions, in the area of copyright and patents.) Whether or not that happens is a big question.

It’s already happening with the ongoing work of the Berne convention. I mean, the USA only signed up in 1989, 103 years after the major economies of Europe… I really don’t know what the developing world should do. But if the developed world want the developing world as a market, then they’ll need to obey copyright, the same as everyone else.

I foresee an international equivalent to
music’s ASCAP/BMI being created that will collect and distribute royalties based on individual access to images, etc.

Only if the designers band together and demand it. Otherwise it won’t get lobbied.

Beyond that, who said I agreed to pay for those
images to be served to those commercial pages and receive no compensation in return? I don’t mind really,

If you did mind and you’re on an Apace webserver, you just need to set a ..htaccess file to send nothing if the referrer isn’t your site:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://yousite.com/ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.yousite.com/ [NC] RewriteRule [^/]+.(gif|jpg)$ – [F]

but this kind of indexing is an area where I
see major copyright issues arising and the potential for re-writing of the copyright law.

Or perhaps a more stringent upholding of the current law. Google has no legal right to serve your images, or ‘snippets’ of your web text content. You can stop them at any time using a robots.txt file, but they do hand value back to you by driving visitors to the site, so its sort of ok?

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

"Fred Doyle"
<snip>

| > meanwhile, are all of you folks SO busy that a guy waving $100 can’t get | > anyone to take him up on the offer instead of debating IP rights ? | >
|
| Happily, yes, in my case individually. I can’t speak for anyone else. I do | have an interest in IP law, as it is an issue I deal with a lot in my job, | however. I’ve said for a long time now, if you are young and really want to
| make money in your career, go into IP law.
|
| Fred Doyle

Even if you don’t want to make it a career, study the subject with some seriousness as in business, and this business especially, it is critical to keeping what is yours from being abused with the side effect that your portfolio is money in the bank. In my case it means my grand kids will have the money necessary for a good education. (copy rights/patents/IPR are in a trust for that purpose, they get some of the cash but most of the left overs go forward to scholarships.

arranged shapes to form:

l3gl3$$ wrote:

In alt.design.graphics Davémon <"dav?mon"@nospam.com> wrote:

Wow, I didn’t know things would get so "Legal". Ultimately, I’m seeking a gentleman’s agreement that I have full rights to use the image – Although I’d have no problem at all with the person using the image in their portfolio.

Hey! watch your quoting Robert. I said nothing of the sort, l3gl3$$ said that!

WRT things getting legal, getting design work done is all about creating intellectual property and then transfering the rights of it.

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Pure impressionistic bull-roar. What you posted is a lot of ‘common sense’, but the law is ‘uncommon sense’.

So you say. However, to paraphrase a famous quote, it’s amazing how uncommon common sense really is.

The original poster displayed a rather significant lack of understanding about the work he was attempting to purchase. So, while it may very well have been common sense to "you," I didn’t specifically post in response to you, did I?

Furthermore, nothing in what I posted was outside the realm of possibility. The lack of a contract could very well cause dispute on BOTH sides. Note that in my post I did not predict any outcome of dispute, because as you so helpfully pointed out:

Don’t ever try to represent yourself.

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever portrayed myself as such. However, I have been in the design business long enough, and consulted enough lawyers on the matter, to know that a clearly spelled-out contract will remove most avenues for dispute regarding the usage rights for artwork.

Copyright law is complex and often confusing, and a contract may not prevent someone from suing the other, but spelling out who retains what rights in writing before money changes hands certainly helps in establishing who is right and who is wrong.

And if what I posted was so "common," why is the necessity for contracts a perpetual discussion in this and other message forums for this industry?

— Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creative Director | Freshly Squeezed Design
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com

"Dav

"Elizabeth"

| > > generalizations are actually not useful to a discussion like this; | >
| > This discussion is entirely a generalization and speculation. There is no
| > specific instance here to really look at and evaluate. |
| well, there was $100 on the table for exclusive use of an image .. that’s | reasonably specific; but what I meant was that fair use determinations are
| very fact-specific; even if somebody could say that 95% of fair use | litigation was decided adversely to the putative infringer, it doesn’t mean
| much. There clearly are uses which are fair (and therefore non-infringing)
| and they are reasonably, though not perfectly, identifiable |
| > Happily, yes, in my case individually. I can’t speak for anyone else. I do
| > have an interest in IP law, as it is an issue I deal with a lot in my job,
| > however. I’ve said for a long time now, if you are young and really want | to make money in your career, go into IP law.
|
| SOME people make "a lot of money" in IP law; assuming we’re talking about | lawyers (and not patent agents, licensing professionals, etc) it’s a very | small percentage of the profession that practices any IP law at all; in the
| main, it’s only larger entities who can afford to play the game so we’re | dealing with a limited client base. Yes, there are garage and basement | inventors who decide to pay the cost of obtaining patents but very few of | them give much thought to what they’ll do to exploit the invention and what
| they will do if someone infringes it. It typically costs $1-2 million to | litigate a patent case and basically only corporations can afford it. In | the patent prosecution world, if you’ve ever actually read a patent, you | might wonder whether you want to spend the next xx years writing such things
| or do something more interesting, like manipulate digital images. |
| Copyright is not quite so resource-intensive but I would venture a guess | that if anyone came around offering legal services on this board in this | area they would get somewhere between zero and no takers. And this is | (theoretically) prime turf; virtually everyone here creates work protectable
| under copyright law on a daily basis. But I would bet that few have ever | paid a lawyer for a copyright matter for any reason whatsoever. In part | that’s because there is RELATIVELY little infringement which you can recover
| on; in most cases it’s a Herculean task just to discover the infringement | at all. Most commercial people know better and cover themselves and the | non-commercial infringers aren’t usually worth pursuing (which isn’t to say
| that lawyers don’t send out cease and desist orders to teenage kids all the
| time .. ’cause they do).
|
| Here’s the bottom line, Fred: if you’re really smart, really ambitious and
| don’t mind spending anywhere from 3-8 years or so of your life in | preparation, go for it. A very small percentage will hit the big time and | land a job with a prestigious law firm, work their asses off, make partner,
| and earn > $500K per annum. The others will make about what a top Photoshop
| pro makes. $450 (and up) per hour sounds great until you understand that | you have get those hours.
|
| Sorry for the OT but I think people should have a clear idea about this | stuff … and value what they like to do without suffering too many | illusions about fame and fortune in other endeavors.
|

There is merit in what you say but it is the narrow view. As for myself and many of my associates we have done the kitchen table work on patents and in my case graphic arts. For folk like us, many do not gather the publicly of the likes of Bill Gates or the two men that started HP (they baked the paint on their first product in one or the other’s kitchen oven) but we do make a contribution and a good bit of money in the process. As for myself I license (note: not sell) only such rights as are necessary for the client to do the job at hand. Most of the time this is all I get for the work product but I still have rights to other derivations of the work for other projects. On more than a few occasions (enough that I’m early/semi-retired) there has been a spin off that would have been a windfall for the client and nothing for me if I had given away the farm from jump. As it was in all instances both of us did well with the unintended spin offs.

What it takes is an enterprising spirit and a working knowledge of the issue involved in IPR law. Basically finding out how things CAN be accomplished and leaving the reason why they can’t be done for others to contemplate.

Perhaps I should add the comment that a good attorney is more important in the front to avoid the need for legal action in the future. Don’t know about anyone else but I’ve avoided a lot of problems that way.

"Onideus Mad Hatter"

| Why do you think I have the only CB site in existence that has every | single CB song from all the major movies and TV shows? You can’t find | any other CB site that has the content I have simply because Disney, | Nelvana and the AGC don’t allow anyone else to have the content and go | after anyone who tries to copy and redistribute content off my site.

Care to share the link? My grand kids would be delighted that I "know’ someone with a link to CB (power and prestige is in reflected fame) <g>

<fsdstudio@<snip>

Wow, I didn’t know things would get so "Legal". Ultimately, I’m seeking

a

gentleman’s agreement that I have full rights to use the image – Although

I’d

have no problem at all with the person using the image in their portfolio.

A "gentleman’s agreement," as you put it, would be a huge mistake.

Many of the comments posted are from a designer’s perspective. You should be thinking about your side of things, and just like a designer working without a contract, the less you have in writing, the less protected you are.

By default, copyright stays with the creator. Therefore, assuming that the graphic you are requesting isn’t derivative of some previous work, then it will be owned by whoever creates it for you.

Let’s assume this graphic is going to be a logo for your company. You hire someone for $100 and other than a receipt for a "simple illustrated graphic" and a cancelled check, you have nothing in writing. Down the road, your company becomes successful enough that you think you might want to trademark your name and logo. Can you prove ownership of the logo? Not without a contract, you can’t, and this could jeopardize the legitimacy of your trademark claim.

Furthermore, now your business is successful, and now this graphic artist comes after you for illegally using this image without owning the rights. You requested a "simple graphic," but it’s really being used as a logo. The artist could very well claim you misrepresented the scope of the project and that he thought he was giving you a "simple graphic" and not a "logo." Now your business is in very real danger of a lawsuit all because you assumed you could do whatever you wanted with this graphic.

Without getting into the complexities of fair pricing, there is a lot more to graphic design than simply, "hey, can you make me a picture?" It is a very real business and involves a fairly strict set of laws regarding usage rights.

Making sure that you work with a designer who offers a contract that clearly explains your rights to the image is as much for your protection as the designer’s. (And as a general rule, the more ownership rights you want, the more it costs.)

good points all especially in the case were the copy rights are inherited by others, as for me I’m an honorable individual and take care to see that both parties are protected and treated fairly (means a lot in reputation and long term business relationships) but that does not say that when I die my estate will not be inherited by an ‘evil step sister’ (see Disney for examples).

Good and fair contracts like good fences make for peaceful neighborhoods.

In alt.design.graphics Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:

All the exclusive, worldwide rights in the world aren’t going to do him any good at all though if he suddenly decided six months from now he wants to take a flat graphic originally matted on a blue background and put it on a red background…especially if he has no skills in the graphic arts. *shrugs*

There are always hired guns with the technical sills but not the creative skills. Consider ‘backward engineering’.

"NotMe" wrote in message

"Elizabeth"

There is merit in what you say but it is the narrow view.

actually I think you are in the narrow class of savvy "creatives" who take the time to understand and manage their IP at the front end; if you sat in a law office for a while you would find that most people come looking for post-facto counsel …. when it’s often too late to do anything useful

on their first product in one or the other’s kitchen oven) but we do make

a

contribution and a good bit of money in the process. As for myself I license (note: not sell) only such rights as are necessary for the client

to

do the job at hand.

precisely what people should do, of course

Most of the time this is all I get for the work product
but I still have rights to other derivations of the work for other projects. On more than a few occasions (enough that I’m early/semi-retired) there has been a spin off that would have been a windfall for the client and nothing for me if I had given away the farm

from

jump. As it was in all instances both of us did well with the unintended spin offs.

yup, happens all the time … but let’s be clear: these days (your) clients are a lot more savy about IP too … and they know what bargaining power means; if you have a name and a track record, you may well be able to hold firm on licensing terms because you can afford to walk away from the deal .. a lot of other people get stuck with the take it or leave it deal … and since they need to eat tonight, they take it

Perhaps I should add the comment that a good attorney is more important in the front to avoid the need for legal action in the future. Don’t know about anyone else but I’ve avoided a lot of problems that way.

let me add that it’s almost always cheaper up front too (but not always affordable for all people)

you always want to MAKE your deal rather than SAVE your deal …

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Or just specify the dpi you want. For web graphics
72 to 150 dpi is good, for print graphics you should think about requesting 300 to 600 dpi.

"*DPI*" or "dots per inch" actually refers to the quality of the output of an imagesetter or printer (printers print in "dots" not continuous tone). Also common in use is "*LPI*" or "lines per inch." That’s refering to the fact that the "dots" were arranged in lines and you used the number of lines per inch as a standard. More lines per inch=higher quality resolution. Just as more dots per inch also indicates better quality.

What you mean is actually "*PPI*" or "pixels per inch." That refers to the quality/resolution of the original artwork itself.

You can have an image or artwork that’s 4000 ppi, and is the best quality, but if you print it at, say, 100 dpi, it’ll look like crap. So for web, since it’s not a printed product, per se, you want it to be at approximately 72-96 ppi.

For a printed piece, you need it roughly one & a half times the LPI that the printer will use to print the actual piece. Perhaps 300 ppi for a printed lpi of 150. Most printers, unless they’re "high quality" (and most *aren’t*) print somewhere between 150 and 250. Anything higher, if memory serves me correctly, is high quality output.

I think that DPI has been so overused by the office printing industry that no one really remembers what is the correct term. DPI has become an apparent catch-all acronym for the LPIx1.5= Necessary PPI equation, although that is really not what it means.

Also, most home/office printers print at 600 DPI (if not better) so how can the quality of a home printer be better than that of a Heidelberg that prints at 250LPI??

So , *Swan*, the LPI is the magic term when talking to whoever outputs the final piece (meaning, the printer). The higher the LPI, the better the printed product. The artist will have to give you whatever is best for final output, whether it be 72 ppi or 300 ppi or even 600ppi.

The best method would be to have a printer lined up and available to speak to the artist directly. If you go that route, you can’t go wrong.

"NotMe" wrote

A "gentleman’s agreement," as you put it, would be a huge mistake.

"A verbal contract ain’t worth the paper it’s written on."

"Elizabeth"

| > There is merit in what you say but it is the narrow view. |
| actually I think you are in the narrow class of savvy "creatives" who take | the time to understand and manage their IP at the front end; if you sat in
| a law office for a while you would find that most people come looking for | post-facto counsel …. when it’s often too late to do anything useful

Perhaps I am in a select group but only from learning via expensive lessons over a long time line. Regardless there is nothing that says anyone else cannot/should not make every effort to learn the lessons (but at a lower cost) to avoid the mistakes. A good source of that is the Graphic Artist Guild (www.gag.org) and their hand book of pricing and ethnical practices.

| > on their first product in one or the other’s kitchen oven) but we do make
| a contribution and a good bit of money in the process. As for myself I | > license (note: not sell) only such rights as are necessary for the client
| to do the job at hand.
|
| precisely what people should do, of course
|
| > Most of the time this is all I get for the work product | > but I still have rights to other derivations of the work for other | > projects. On more than a few occasions (enough that I’m | > early/semi-retired) there has been a spin off that would have been a | > windfall for the client and nothing for me if I had given away the farm | from jump. As it was in all instances both of us did well with the unintended
| > spin offs.
|
| yup, happens all the time … but let’s be clear: these days (your) clients
| are a lot more savvy about IP too … and they know what bargaining power | means; if you have a name and a track record, you may well be able to hold
| firm on licensing terms because you can afford to walk away from the deal …
| a lot of other people get stuck with the take it or leave it deal … and | since they need to eat tonight, they take it

Good that they’re being savvy about IP. That take it or leave it stuff works both ways. Recently had a client that attempted to restructure to a totally one sided IP arrangement on the presumption we were not that sharp, a bit hungry and more likely since the work was completed we would give in to save the income. What they did not figure into the process was that they had a hard (and very short) drop dead time line (we knew it) with their printer and we had our nut made. (can we spell micro-give-a-s*it?) Like the word of Joplin’s song ‘Freedom is just another work for nothing left to lose’. BTW they almost missed it all as we (on the advise of council) did not ship the work product until the bank assured us the client’s check had cleared the FDIC system for returns. (the delay option was in the original contact)

| > Perhaps I should add the comment that a good attorney is more important in
| > the front to avoid the need for legal action in the future. Don’t know | > about anyone else but I’ve avoided a lot of problems that way. |
| let me add that it’s almost always cheaper up front too (but not always | affordable for all people)

As to the expense, it’s always cheaper to keep vs bail yourself out of jail. Just as I formed working relationships with the printer, baker, candle stick maker I’ve networked with my attorney from the get go and as such had a working relationship that was beneficial to us both. She knows what I’m about and what I’m up to as well. There is no expensive learning curve for either of us. Bonus, she is an art and technology lover and has often expressed an envy that we get to make a living from something she would love to be able to do, which means she likely has a better understanding of our needs than another attorney might have.

In reality the secret is to learn as much as you can about all aspects for your trade less someone be successful in teaching you the hard and expensive way. (that said I’ve been had by some of the best)

Perhaps I should take a moment to clear up a critical point for those that don’t understand the task of an attorney. A good attorney, like a good doctor, can help keep your business alive and viable. Might, just like a good doctor, actually keep you from having a real heart attack by reducing your business stress level.

FWIW I have, on more than one occasion, been advised by my attorney to pass on a client/contract and found that on those times I failed to heed that advise that it was a very costly lesson. Now if she as much as raises an eyebrow…

wrote in message

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Pure impressionistic bull-roar. What you posted is a lot of ‘common sense’,
but the law is ‘uncommon sense’.

So you say. However, to paraphrase a famous quote, it’s amazing how uncommon common sense really is.

Yeah, right. To perfectly quote the source from "Introduction to Legal Reasoning" by E. Levi, law is "uncommon sense". Every single first-year neophyte learns this stuff even before law school. I am not pulling this out of the Internet. It’s my real-life experience having been a student under Dr. Levi, and later the U of Chicago School of Law. Make my day; you prattle on. Do that and amuse us.

"Fred Doyle" wrote in message

"Elizabeth" wrote

Well, as I said, I think a lot of this is yet to be determined, but I

think

the biggest change is going to be in an area you touch on in your post,

i.e.

the internaionalization of copyright and patent law. I’m no lawyer or

expert

on this, but as I see it, copyright laws are not going to be a country by country, region by region issue. I suspect new multi-party treaties will form a body of consistent international copyright standards, including a body that will judge and enforce these international cases. Again, I’m no expert, but wouldn’t that require some severe restructuring of copyright

law

in many countries so that all concerns will be addressed?

well, as pointed out already, there already IS the Berne convention; I’m sure it will be amended as time goes by … yes, it does require some statutory re-tooling, as it were … which we’ve done here in the US since accession … but Berne does not actually "unify" copyright law among signatory nations, and I’m not sure we’ll ever see that .. nor do I think we really need to. (but who knows ?)

I suspect this will be driven by the industrial giants and the developed nations, and those that refuse to agree will be severly limited in their ability to attract industry, despite the size of the market they represent (read China).

the balance of power is ever-shifting; for the time being, China more or less gets away with whatever they want to since everyone continues to salivate over the 1.3 B people and cheap labor

To counter the objections of non-developed nations, I believe some pressure will be there to create a tiered system which might allow poorer, developing nations more latitude in the area of things like

software

piracy or patent infringement.

that’s a de facto reality as things stand already; you don’t sue people who are judgment-proof; in the case of the Chinese, their position really amounts to, "if you want access to cheap labor, we get free software"

But that is not very relevant to the smaller guy; digital artists, like

me,

which is the second part of your question. For me, I suspect it will be in the area of developing an ability to collect royalties on images, sounds, words, etc. that have been created. I foresee an international equivalent

to

music’s ASCAP/BMI being created that will collect and distribute royalties based on individual access to images, etc.

yes, I think that’s correct … you have the beginnings of that already with Corbis .. but they are not pro-active on enforcement in the manner of a BMI or ASCAP .. they don’t go looking for infringers, at least so far as I am aware

Believe me, no bot or team of lawyers could ever keep up with the amount

of

piracy that takes place on the internet.

that’s true .. but a lot of times you don’t (or shouldn’t) really care; there have been software companies which "made it" because people first stole a copy, liked it, and then bought it … the Greatful Dead allowed bootlegging to their advantage; and, as Napster showed, people will steal a lot more music than they would ever buy (don’t believe everything the RIAA tells you)

on my site end up as icons that people use when writing messages on blogs

or

forums. The pages they end up on have advertising and are commercial endeavors, yet I get nothing for the use, and the host of those pages

an irritant, but this sounds like the kind of use that, if you were able to charge for it, these users would simply do without

You may be thinking that this is clearly an actionable issue, but the biggest offender here is Google Images. Who gave them permission to

display

my images on their pages? Beyond that, who said I agreed to pay for those images to be served to those commercial pages and receive no compensation

in

return? I don’t mind really, but this kind of indexing is an area where I see major copyright issues arising and the potential for re-writing of the copyright law. This is where I see the ASCAP/BMI model coming into play, allowing smaller artists like me to capture small royalties for each

viewing

of images we create and serve.

I think this one is really knotty; I personally have not sorted out my own thoughts on it. One of the questions that intrigues me is, if the solution were an opt-out, I wonder how many rightsholders would actually opt out ? The solution I would personally prefer is that when Google indexes my work they also provide a path to a site I designate where I can sell it, add value, etc. My instinct is that legislation barring Google’s activity is not the best way to go .. it’s going to be interesting

"Dav

"NotMe" wrote in message

Let’s assume this graphic is going to be a logo for your company. You hire someone for $100 and other than a receipt for a "simple illustrated graphic" and a cancelled check, you have nothing in writing. Down the road, your company becomes successful enough that you think you might want to trademark your name and logo. Can you prove ownership of the logo? Not without a contract, you can’t, and this could jeopardize the legitimacy of your trademark claim.

rights in trademarks are established by use of them in commerce; whatever rights there are in the actual design or words are a separate matter altogether. Purchaser can perfect the trademark rights and at the same time designer **may** have some kind of copyright claim

Furthermore, now your business is successful, and now this graphic artist comes after you for illegally using this image without owning the rights. You requested a "simple graphic," but it’s really being used as a logo. The artist could very well claim you misrepresented the scope of the project and that he thought he was giving you a "simple graphic" and not a "logo."

If I ask you to do a simple graphic why does that preclude using it as a logo ? I didn’t deceive you as to intended use unless I said, "oh no, don’t want to use this for a logo … nope, not THAT …" Knowing that I am engaged in business, approached you for a business purpose, paid you with a company check would suggest that designer should be fully aware that purchaser intends to use the graphic for a business purpose or even a number of business purposes. Designer may own the graphic but if I have paid for it, and designer has not imposed limitations on use, my take is that I am licensed for all uses. Designer can sell/license the graphic to others but if one of those others should attempt to use it as a trademark in competition with me, I will win a trademark infringement suit against such other person … and maybe even against designer if he has knowingly aided and abetted the infringement. And the result does not hinge on how much I paid for it.

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Yeah, right. To perfectly quote the source from "Introduction to Legal Reasoning" by E. Levi, law is "uncommon sense". Every single first-year neophyte learns this stuff even before law school. I am not pulling this out of the Internet. It’s my real-life experience having been a student under Dr. Levi, and later the U of Chicago School of Law. Make my day; you prattle on. Do that and amuse us.

Enlighten us: what exactly is your point of disagreement? My post was encouraging the original poster that a written contract was a benefit to him as much as the designer. Are you disputing this? Please, amuse us with your point.

— Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creative Director | Freshly Squeezed Design
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com

On 2 Dec 2005 20:20:00 -0800, wrote:

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Yeah, right. To perfectly quote the source from "Introduction to Legal Reasoning" by E. Levi, law is "uncommon sense". Every single first-year neophyte learns this stuff even before law school. I am not pulling this out of the Internet. It’s my real-life experience having been a student under Dr. Levi, and later the U of Chicago School of Law. Make my day; you prattle on. Do that and amuse us.

Enlighten us: what exactly is your point of disagreement? My post was encouraging the original poster that a written contract was a benefit to him as much as the designer. Are you disputing this? Please, amuse us with your point.

You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Elizabeth wrote:

If I ask you to do a simple graphic why does that preclude using it as a logo ? I didn’t deceive you as to intended use unless I said, "oh no, don’t want to use this for a logo … nope, not THAT …" Knowing that I am engaged in business, approached you for a business purpose, paid you with a company check would suggest that designer should be fully aware that purchaser intends to use the graphic for a business purpose or even a number of business purposes. Designer may own the graphic but if I have paid for it, and designer has not imposed limitations on use, my take is that I am licensed for all uses.

Your exactly right, of course. My point wasn’t who would be right or wrong in any dispute, but that trying to hinge work on a "gentleman’s agreement" creates the possibility for dispute. Then you get into a "he said, she said" kind of battle.

As a designer, I would charge very differently for a "simple graphic" that a client intended to use as some sort of embelishment, versus a logo intended to become the identity of a company. Depending on the situation, I might even impose usage restrictions on a "graphic," similar to the rights granted with stock photography. Whereas, most logo projects involve granting significant ownership rights to the client. Thus the need for a contract to spell all of this out.

No contract = potential confusion and dispute. It’s as simple as that. Bringing me back to the point of my message: the original poster would be making a mistake to rely on a "gentleman’s agreement" for his project.

— Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creative Director | Freshly Squeezed Design
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Yeah, right. To perfectly quote the source from "Introduction to Legal Reasoning" by E. Levi, law is "uncommon sense". Every single first-year neophyte learns this stuff even before law school. I am not pulling this out of the Internet. It’s my real-life experience having been a student under Dr. Levi, and later the U of Chicago School of Law. Make my day; you prattle on. Do that and amuse us.

Enlighten us: what exactly is your point of disagreement? My post was encouraging the original poster that a written contract was a benefit to him as much as the designer. Are you disputing this? Please, amuse us with your point.

— Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creative Director | Freshly Squeezed Design
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com

On 2 Dec 2005 21:02:40 -0800, wrote:

Lorem Ipsum wrote:

Yeah, right. To perfectly quote the source from "Introduction to Legal Reasoning" by E. Levi, law is "uncommon sense". Every single first-year neophyte learns this stuff even before law school. I am not pulling this out of the Internet. It’s my real-life experience having been a student under Dr. Levi, and later the U of Chicago School of Law. Make my day; you prattle on. Do that and amuse us.

Enlighten us: what exactly is your point of disagreement? My post was encouraging the original poster that a written contract was a benefit to him as much as the designer. Are you disputing this? Please, amuse us with your point.

You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On 2 Dec 2005 20:34:05 -0800, wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:

If I ask you to do a simple graphic why does that preclude using it as a logo ? I didn’t deceive you as to intended use unless I said, "oh no, don’t want to use this for a logo … nope, not THAT …" Knowing that I am engaged in business, approached you for a business purpose, paid you with a company check would suggest that designer should be fully aware that purchaser intends to use the graphic for a business purpose or even a number of business purposes. Designer may own the graphic but if I have paid for it, and designer has not imposed limitations on use, my take is that I am licensed for all uses.

Your exactly right, of course. My point wasn’t who would be right or wrong in any dispute, but that trying to hinge work on a "gentleman’s agreement" creates the possibility for dispute. Then you get into a "he said, she said" kind of battle.

As a designer, I would charge very differently for a "simple graphic" that a client intended to use as some sort of embelishment, versus a logo intended to become the identity of a company. Depending on the situation, I might even impose usage restrictions on a "graphic," similar to the rights granted with stock photography. Whereas, most logo projects involve granting significant ownership rights to the client. Thus the need for a contract to spell all of this out.
No contract = potential confusion and dispute. It’s as simple as that. Bringing me back to the point of my message: the original poster would be making a mistake to rely on a "gentleman’s agreement" for his project.

You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

Last time I checked, e-mail was still "written." ; ) Paper, e-mail, parchment, papyrus leaves…I *still* recommend something that clearly spells out what work is being done, and what rights are being granted.

— Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Creative Director | Freshly Squeezed Design
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:15:05 -0600, max wrote:

Or just specify the dpi you want. For web graphics
72 to 150 dpi is good, for print graphics you should think about requesting 300 to 600 dpi.

"*DPI*" or "dots per inch" act<snip>

Blah, blah, blah…quit paraphrasing your Print Graphics 101 textbook fer fuck sake.

I meant exactly what I said. DPI and PPI are for all intents and purposes the same thing. One is dots, the other is square pixels, but it’s the same measurement "per inch" either way, which is why you can use them interchangeably.

A graphic with a PPI of 150 is going to be 150 DPI when you print it (unless you alter a setting…or you’re a fracking idiot whose over quoting his text book to try and sound "informative"). *rolls eyes*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

An e-mail can be an instrument to help satisfy part of a contract, but it is not the contract.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

I meant exactly what I said. DPI and PPI are for all intents and purposes the same thing. One is dots, the other is square pixels, but it’s the same measurement "per inch" either way, which is why you can use them interchangeably.

A graphic with a PPI of 150 is going to be 150 DPI when you print it (unless you alter a setting…or you’re a fracking idiot whose over quoting his text book to try and sound "informative"). *rolls eyes*

Pull that on a pre-press person and job-printer and you will be fortunate if they simply *roll their eyes* rather than show you the door.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

An e-mail can be an instrument to help satisfy part of a contract, but it

is

not the contract.

emails, faxes, typed documents, spoken words are all EVIDENCE of contract — NONE of them IS THE CONTRACT notwithstanding that people think about contracts as typed documents on paper; legally, "contract" is an abstraction which refers to the actual agreement of the parties, the so-called "meeting of the minds"

although putting something down in a writing, and having the parties sign, is often (but not always) advisable, there is no guarantee that the writing will be sufficient and unambiguous unless it is done with some care, precision and skill … and even then it might be ambiguous and require interpretation

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen independent free-lancers in various fields INSIST upon a formal written contract, only to find that they then get stuck with the client’s standard form requiring warranties, insurance, bonds, indemnification, compliance with onerous time requirements, unfavorable allocations of rights in the work, and so on. They could have simply dispatched an email reciting price, delivery time, a reasonable description of the work to be performed and a brief plain-English statement of what can be done with the work product … and requested a return email confirming the arrangement. You can enforce that.

"Elizabeth" <

| > Let’s assume this graphic is going to be a logo for your company. You | > hire someone for $100 and other than a receipt for a "simple | > illustrated graphic" and a cancelled check, you have nothing in | > writing. Down the road, your company becomes successful enough that | > you think you might want to trademark your name and logo. Can you | > prove ownership of the logo? Not without a contract, you can’t, and | > this could jeopardize the legitimacy of your trademark claim. |
| rights in trademarks are established by use of them in commerce; whatever | rights there are in the actual design or words are a separate matter | altogether. Purchaser can perfect the trademark rights and at the same time
| designer **may** have some kind of copyright claim
|
| > Furthermore, now your business is successful, and now this graphic | > artist comes after you for illegally using this image without owning | > the rights. You requested a "simple graphic," but it’s really being | > used as a logo. The artist could very well claim you misrepresented | > the scope of the project and that he thought he was giving you a | > "simple graphic" and not a "logo." |
| If I ask you to do a simple graphic why does that preclude using it as a | logo ? I didn’t deceive you as to intended use unless I said, "oh no, don’t
| want to use this for a logo … nope, not THAT …" Knowing that I am | engaged in business, approached you for a business purpose, paid you with a
| company check would suggest that designer should be fully aware that | purchaser intends to use the graphic for a business purpose or even a number
| of business purposes. Designer may own the graphic but if I have paid for | it, and designer has not imposed limitations on use, my take is that I am | licensed for all uses. Designer can sell/license the graphic to others but
| if one of those others should attempt to use it as a trademark in | competition with me, I will win a trademark infringement suit against such | other person … and maybe even against designer if he has knowingly aided | and abetted the infringement. And the result does not hinge on how much I | paid for it.

My experience is that lacking a specific agreement to the contrary ALL rights remain with the originator unless specifically (in hard copy) transferred to the buyer.

For example if I purchase a painting from an artist in Jackson Square (downtown French Quarter New Orleans) all I am buying is the original. I can (lacking a specific agreement to the contrary) only show, burn, give away or sell the copy I have purchased but cannot copy, archive, or otherwise duplicate the work product. In the extreme, without permission I cannot render the work in a promotional advertisement as I do not have ANY reproductive rights.

FWIW even ALL RIGHTS sale is time limited and the original artist (or their estate) can legally recapture the rights to the work. This is the way, to my understanding, that Elvis’ Estate reclaimed the rights to his works.

I’ve seen no case law on the subject but I would expect copy right to trump Trade Mark as Trade Mark requires the item to be legally used, at lease once, in commerce to be valid. I’m told this is akin to the requirement of public disclosure in the patent process.

"Onideus Mad Hatter"

| >> If I ask you to do a simple graphic why does that preclude using it as a
| >> logo ? I didn’t deceive you as to intended use unless I said, "oh no, don’t
| >> want to use this for a logo … nope, not THAT …" Knowing that I am | >> engaged in business, approached you for a business purpose, paid you with a
| >> company check would suggest that designer should be fully aware that | >> purchaser intends to use the graphic for a business purpose or even a number
| >> of business purposes. Designer may own the graphic but if I have paid for
| >> it, and designer has not imposed limitations on use, my take is that I am
| >> licensed for all uses.
| >
| >Your exactly right, of course. My point wasn’t who would be right or | >wrong in any dispute, but that trying to hinge work on a "gentleman’s | >agreement" creates the possibility for dispute. Then you get into a | >"he said, she said" kind of battle.
| >
| >As a designer, I would charge very differently for a "simple graphic" | >that a client intended to use as some sort of embellishment, versus a | >logo intended to become the identity of a company. Depending on the | >situation, I might even impose usage restrictions on a "graphic," | >similar to the rights granted with stock photography. Whereas, most | >logo projects involve granting significant ownership rights to the | >client. Thus the need for a contract to spell all of this out. | >
| >No contract = potential confusion and dispute. It’s as simple as that. | > Bringing me back to the point of my message: the original poster would | >be making a mistake to rely on a "gentleman’s agreement" for his | >project.
|
| You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right?

BUZZ has yet (does not mean that it never ever will be) to be upheld in case law. FWIW it took years before a FAX could be considered a legal document.

"Elizabeth"

| > > You do know that emails can be used as contractual agreements, right? | >
| > An e-mail can be an instrument to help satisfy part of a contract, but it
| is not the contract.
|
| emails, faxes, typed documents, spoken words are all EVIDENCE of contract —
| NONE of them IS THE CONTRACT notwithstanding that people think about | contracts as typed documents on paper; legally, "contract" is an | abstraction which refers to the actual agreement of the parties, the | so-called "meeting of the minds"
|
| although putting something down in a writing, and having the parties sign, | is often (but not always) advisable, there is no guarantee that the writing
| will be sufficient and unambiguous unless it is done with some care, | precision and skill … and even then it might be ambiguous and require | interpretation

All the more reason to have an attorney involved IN THE FRONT before the contract is signed.
|
| I can’t tell you how many times I have seen independent free-lancers in | various fields INSIST upon a formal written contract, only to find that they
| then get stuck with the client’s standard form requiring warranties, | insurance, bonds, indemnification, compliance with onerous time | requirements, unfavorable allocations of rights in the work, and so on. | They could have simply dispatched an email reciting price, delivery time, a
| reasonable description of the work to be performed and a brief plain-English
| statement of what can be done with the work product … and requested a | return email confirming the arrangement. You can enforce that.

AKA a letter of understanding/agreement. Not as tight as a formal contract but goes a long way to minimizing problems and misunderstanding.

We do a considerable amount of pro-bono work and are hard and fast on the issue of a letter of agreement always including a clear statement that we are licensing the use of the work product for a specific purpose and time period.

No ‘get started and we’ll handle the paper work later’. We’re had a few paying as well as pro bono clients that could not seem to grasp the part about ‘No paperwork no work PERIOD!’ in our terms. They have sadly missed some critical printing dates but never more than once. As for the paying clients, no deposit no work also applies.

The very few times we have deviated from that policy each and every one has been a problem.

We have a small graphic on the office wall of a child’s potty training char with the caption ‘the job does not start until all the paper work is in hand’

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Blah, blah, blah…quit paraphrasing your Print Graphics 101 textbook fer fuck sake.

I’m just "quoting" experience as someone who works for a high-powered ad agency. You’re the one who’s not a professional in the field, doofus.

I meant exactly what I said.

Good, then we’ve established that you’re an idiot. *whew* That was easy!

DPI and PPI are for all intents and
purposes the same thing. One is dots, the other is square pixels, but it’s the same measurement "per inch" either way, which is why you can use them interchangeably.

Not to a reputable printer it’s not. And I find it funny that someone who is so technically anal would make such a mistake. As a web designer (and again, I use the term loosely) one would think you’d think in terms of PPI – since that’s the resolution of your "medium."

A graphic with a PPI of 150 is going to be 150 DPI when you print it (unless you alter a setting…or you’re a fracking idiot whose over quoting his text book to try and sound "informative"). *rolls eyes*

It’s like comparing horsepower and mileage . . . one is the capability and the other is the result, doofus. Tell PPI to a printer and he’s going to look at you like you’re stupid (which, in your case, would be a foregone conclusion).

If you can’t use the correct terms or accept some gentle correction (as one colleague to another), then you’re a moron or so ignorant that you can’t stand to be corrected.

I agree with your position that it’s basically semantics, but not your dimwitted way of saying so. *rolls eyes*

"NotMe" wrote in message

"Elizabeth" <

My experience is that lacking a specific agreement to the contrary ALL rights remain with the originator unless specifically (in hard copy) transferred to the buyer.

You’re reading Title 17, Sec 204 too narrowly; transfers of ownership, other than by operation of law, must be evidenced by a writing … the net effect of this is that an exclusive license must be done by a writing BUT a non-exclusive license can be granted orally AND may be inferred from the conduct of the parties (note that a non-exclusive license is not a "transfer of ownership") … there is an abundance of case law on the topic

For example if I purchase a painting from an artist in Jackson Square (downtown French Quarter New Orleans) all I am buying is the original. I can (lacking a specific agreement to the contrary) only show, burn, give away or sell the copy I have purchased but cannot copy, archive, or otherwise duplicate the work product. In the extreme, without permission

I

cannot render the work in a promotional advertisement as I do not have ANY reproductive rights.

well, let’s not get into your reproductive rights .. but yes, the sale of an original embodiment does not, by itself, contitute a "transfer of ownership" of the copyright … that said, depending upon the circumstances of the sale, it may well be that the copyright owner HAS given an implied license to the purchase to do more than is provided under the statute as a default …. reverting back to the proposition presented by the OP here, I think it’s beyond much question there would be an implied license to use the work for "business purposes" .. that’s the entire basis for the transaction … if you purchase it for $25 in the French Quarter, probably a different result

FWIW even ALL RIGHTS sale is time limited and the original artist (or

their

estate) can legally recapture the rights to the work. This is the way,

to

my understanding, that Elvis’ Estate reclaimed the rights to his works.

copyrights are of course time limited .. and then the work enters the public domain; I’m not sure that this is what you mean here but the implied license to do X, Y and Z will not evaporate with time; I am not too familiar with how the Presley estate "reclaimed" the rights to his works … please tell

I’ve seen no case law on the subject but I would expect copy right to

trump

Trade Mark as Trade Mark requires the item to be legally used, at lease once, in commerce to be valid. I’m told this is akin to the requirement

of

public disclosure in the patent process.

the point is moot if there is an implied license … also note, in the original context, that the OP does not need an exclusive license to use the work as a logo … I can create the Exxon logo, give the company all the rights it needs to use it as a trademark, and still retain the right to license it to Tonka toys for a non-trademark-infringing use)(although this is probably unlikely to happen in the case of an Exxon, of course)

I don’t really see the analogy to disclosure in patent law …

"NotMe" wrote in message

although putting something down in a writing, and having the parties

sign,

is often (but not always) advisable, there is no guarantee that the writing
will be sufficient and unambiguous unless it is done with some care, precision and skill … and even then it might be ambiguous and require interpretation

All the more reason to have an attorney involved IN THE FRONT before the contract is signed.

ok … but that wasn’t the main issue here

They could have simply dispatched an email reciting price, delivery time, a reasonable description of the work to be performed and a brief plain-English statement of what can be done with the work product … and

requested a

return email confirming the arrangement. You can enforce that.

AKA a letter of understanding/agreement. Not as tight as a formal

contract

but goes a long way to minimizing problems and misunderstanding.

you’re missing or evading my point; those emails ARE evidence of a present contract — NOT an intent to contract at a later time — if that is what is intended by the parties in exchanging them

We do a considerable amount of pro-bono work and are hard and fast on the issue of a letter of agreement always including a clear statement that we are licensing the use of the work product for a specific purpose and time period.

No ‘get started and we’ll handle the paper work later’. We’re had a few paying as well as pro bono clients that could not seem to grasp the part about ‘No paperwork no work PERIOD!’ in our terms. They have sadly missed some critical printing dates but never more than once. As for the paying clients, no deposit no work also applies.

all well and good, but there’s no legal problem with "getting started" (complete and deliver is another matter) pre-paper or pre-agreement … that’s just a business judgment you have formed … different businesses have different tolerances for risk and the associated costs/benefits

"Elizabeth" wrote in message

legally, "contract" is an
abstraction which refers to the actual agreement of the parties, the so-called "meeting of the minds"

Not so much an abstraction at all. A meeing of the minds is part, mutual consideration (that’s something of value, usually money), competent parties, lack of duress – those are also requisites. The term ‘lack of duress’ has changed to ‘willingness to engage’. Same thing.

although putting something down in a writing, and having the parties sign, is often (but not always) advisable, there is no guarantee that the writing
will be sufficient and unambiguous

A party who intentionally, or negligently creates an ambiguous contract is usually deemed the loser in a challenge.

"NotMe" wrote in message

My experience is that lacking a specific agreement to the contrary ALL rights remain with the originator unless specifically (in hard copy) transferred to the buyer.

There are cases in which a brief verbal exchange suffices as a binding contract.

"Elizabeth" <
|
| > My experience is that lacking a specific agreement to the contrary ALL | > rights remain with the originator unless specifically (in hard copy) | > transferred to the buyer.
|
| You’re reading Title 17, Sec 204 too narrowly; transfers of ownership, other
| than by operation of law, must be evidenced by a writing … the net effect
| of this is that an exclusive license must be done by a writing BUT a | non-exclusive license can be granted orally AND may be inferred from the | conduct of the parties (note that a non-exclusive license is not a | "transfer of ownership") … there is an abundance of case law on the topic

Lacking a specific written transfer of copy rights/license the element of doubt typically falls to the author of the work. BTDT, I understand that our experience is not unique but freely admit that the result may not be universal. I should note that the same does not apply to patents.

| > For example if I purchase a painting from an artist in Jackson Square | > (downtown French Quarter New Orleans) all I am buying is the original. I
| > can (lacking a specific agreement to the contrary) only show, burn, give | > away or sell the copy I have purchased but cannot copy, archive, or | > otherwise duplicate the work product. In the extreme, without permission
| I cannot render the work in a promotional advertisement as I do not have ANY
| > reproductive rights.
|
| well, let’s not get into your reproductive rights .. but yes, the sale of an
| original embodiment does not, by itself, constitute a "transfer of ownership"
| of the copyright … that said, depending upon the circumstances of the | sale, it may well be that the copyright owner HAS given an implied license | to the purchase to do more than is provided under the statute as a default | … reverting back to the proposition presented by the OP here, I think it’s
| beyond much question there would be an implied license to use the work for | "business purposes" .. that’s the entire basis for the transaction … if | you purchase it for $25 in the French Quarter, probably a different result |
| > FWIW even ALL RIGHTS sale is time limited and the original artist (or | their estate) can legally recapture the rights to the work. This is the way,
| to my understanding, that Elvis’ Estate reclaimed the rights to his works. |
| copyrights are of course time limited .. and then the work enters the public
| domain; I’m not sure that this is what you mean here but the implied | license to do X, Y and Z will not evaporate with time; I am not too | familiar with how the Presley estate "reclaimed" the rights to his works ….
| please tell

My understanding is the limit for passing into PD is 70 years after the death of the originator (was less not too long ago but for the efforts of Disney and Elvis’ estate) or in the case of a collaboration 70 years after the death of the longest lived of the originators. So in theory if I were to publish a children’s book in collaboration with my grand kids the copy right would ‘live’ until 70 years after the death of the last surviving child.

| > I’ve seen no case law on the subject but I would expect copy right to | trump Trade Mark as Trade Mark requires the item to be legally used, at lease
| > once, in commerce to be valid. I’m told this is akin to the requirement | of public disclosure in the patent process.
|
| the point is moot if there is an implied license … also note, in the | original context, that the OP does not need an exclusive license to use the
| work as a logo … I can create the Exxon logo, give the company all the | rights it needs to use it as a trademark, and still retain the right to | license it to Tonka toys for a non-trademark-infringing use)(although this | is probably unlikely to happen in the case of an Exxon, of course)

As I recall the way Exxon did their deal the folk doing the work were, however limited in scope/time, full time employees of Esso and thus the logo/TM was ‘work product for hire’ and lock stock and barrel belonging to Esso/EXXON.

BTW Exxon was the only universally pronounceable word that did not have some off color meaning in any language in the world.

I’ve not seen any case law supporting an implied license. In my, admittedly limited, experience if there is not a hard copy explicit transfer of rights then the rights are not transferred. We’ve had claims of implied license, with and without contracts, and no case has not survived a move for summery judgment on our part. Basically the judge said ‘pay’em’ and in every case we negotiated a favorable settlement without an appeal. In one case the opposing attorney later admitted it was a very loooong shot but their client had deep pockets and wanted to try regardless. Ironic part, if they had been honorable about the deal in the first place they could have had the rights for 1/10 of what they paid for legal fees alone. They paid both their and our attorney plus court cost and the judgment. We kept what we would have received originally and put the rest in a scholarship fund.

| I don’t really see the analogy to disclosure in patent law …

Copy right is created the instant the work is rendered into some form (not just an idea in the mind of the creator). A trade mark must be used (however limited the scope) in commerce before it can be filed as a trade mark. Since the copy right is instantaneous and the trade make is only after the fact of use then copy right comes before TM. Since the author of the work owns all rights to the work (lacking a license/sale to a second party) the second party cannot claim a legitimate use without a license/sale from the author.

In a patent I can have the idea for years but if I do not make a public disclosure the time limits on filing for patent protection are not triggered. (Which is why the formula/process for Coke is a trade secret and not a patent) Likewise during this development time I do not have the protection afforded by disclosure. By the same measure a TM must be used in some commercial application before it can be legally filed. A letter head to a second/third party introducing the TM is typically sufficient as would the announcement at a stock holders’ but not a directors’ meeting. There are some specific requirements as you can’t go from first to third base without touching second.

Again I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on the internet

"max" wrote in message

Not to a reputable printer it’s not. And I find it funny that someone who is so technically anal would make such a mistake. As a web designer (and again, I use the term loosely) one would think you’d think in terms of PPI – since that’s the resolution of your "medium."

PPI/DPI doesn’t really mean anything on a computer monitor (the web) … pixels count; that’s it.

"Elizabeth"

| >> although putting something down in a writing, and having the parties | sign, is often (but not always) advisable, there is no guarantee that the | >> writing will be sufficient and unambiguous unless it is done with some care,
| >> precision and skill … and even then it might be ambiguous and require | >> interpretation
| >
| > All the more reason to have an attorney involved IN THE FRONT before the | > contract is signed.
|
| ok … but that wasn’t the main issue here
|
| > They could have simply dispatched an email reciting price, delivery time,
| > a reasonable description of the work to be performed and a brief | > plain-English statement of what can be done with the work product … and
| requested a return email confirming the arrangement. You can enforce that.
|
| > AKA a letter of understanding/agreement. Not as tight as a formal | contract but goes a long way to minimizing problems and misunderstanding. |
| you’re missing or evading my point; those emails ARE evidence of a present | contract — NOT an intent to contract at a later time — if that is what is
| intended by the parties in exchanging them.

Not missing the point but there is no case law, as yet, making emails primary evidence. The general view by many/most judges is that emails can be faked and unlike some photographs are hard to prove to be either real or forged. As example look at the efforts on both sides with regards to spam.

| > We do a considerable amount of pro-bono work and are hard and fast on the
| > issue of a letter of agreement always including a clear statement that we
| > are licensing the use of the work product for a specific purpose and time
| > period.
|
| > No ‘get started and we’ll handle the paper work later’. We’re had a few | > paying as well as pro bono clients that could not seem to grasp the part | > about ‘No paperwork no work PERIOD!’ in our terms. They have sadly missed
| > some critical printing dates but never more than once. As for the paying
| > clients, no deposit no work also applies.
|
| all well and good, but there’s no legal problem with "getting started" | (complete and deliver is another matter) pre-paper or pre-agreement … | that’s just a business judgment you have formed … different businesses | have different tolerances for risk and the associated costs/benefits

Not a legal problem but a matter of policy. If all know the rules and know likewise that we don’t start until the paperwork is done it makes the job of getting the paperwork through the system much simpler. Also stops dead any attempt to play games.

As you say it is a business decision that has proven to be very wise and many in the adg news group have multiple tales reflecting the consequences of not adhering to that policy.

If a client or studio is serious about doing the work then the requirement for following procedure on paperwork/contracts is not a problem. OTOH any lack of sincerity on the part of either party is facilitated by not doing the paperwork in a timely fashion.

Like they say in Texas ‘Money talks and Bull S*it Walks’ My nut is made so I don’t have to care but even when money was very tight I found that following the paperwork rule was a nut cutting test. I lost a few good deals but passed on a lot, lot more bad deals as a result.

FWIW I’ve been had, often by the best but never more than once.

"Lorem Ipsum"

| > My experience is that lacking a specific agreement to the contrary ALL | > rights remain with the originator unless specifically (in hard copy) | > transferred to the buyer.
|
| There are cases in which a brief verbal exchange suffices as a binding | contract.

True but I’ve not seen any cases involving copy rights or patents for that matter. I can’t find the cite but there is case law to the effect that without a written grant of license no transfer is considered to have occurred.

In article <5%rkf.2070$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

PPI/DPI doesn’t really mean anything on a computer monitor (the web) … pixels count; that’s it.

Well, they do in that if you create an image for use on the web that’s only 10PPI, it’s going to look like crap (or be horribly small) even on a monitor capable of of only 72 ppi display. In that instance, ppi does very much count. Trying to use an image that’s only 72 ppi and is only one inch square as a background or large focal image illustrates the point. The end result would be horribly pixelated . . .

I’ve had clients give me images that were horrible ppi-wise with the expectations that it would look great as a background or as a large image on the site – that it would merely be a matter of enlarging the image (not understanding that the amount of pixels per inch needed to be increased as well). The resulting images looked bad and were unusable as is. Once they supplied better quality images, the project worked out well.

So, yes, actually, ppi does count in web design when it comes to images for use on sites. But you’re right that DPI doesn’t matter whatsoever when it comes to use on the web. DPI refers only to the output of printed materials.

Can I ask what you meant by that???

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:11:29 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

I meant exactly what I said. DPI and PPI are for all intents and purposes the same thing. One is dots, the other is square pixels, but it’s the same measurement "per inch" either way, which is why you can use them interchangeably.

A graphic with a PPI of 150 is going to be 150 DPI when you print it (unless you alter a setting…or you’re a fracking idiot whose over quoting his text book to try and sound "informative"). *rolls eyes*

Pull that on a pre-press person and job-printer and you will be fortunate if they simply *roll their eyes* rather than show you the door.

And who the fuck are you to be saying that, Kiddo? Are you a graphic/print artist? Step the fuck up and show us the goods, cause runnin at the mouth is just runnin at the mouth no matter what froup yer in. If you want to posture like you know fuck all about what yer talkin about, then by all means, show everyone that you’re better than the person you’re foolishly attempting to correct. Let me give you a basis of comparison by showing you some of my work:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/transmov e/

Now then, are you gonna post some links or are are you just gonna start typin more shit?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:21:13 -0600, max wrote:

Blah, blah, blah…quit paraphrasing your Print Graphics 101 textbook fer fuck sake.

I’m just "quoting" experience as someone who works for a high-powered ad agency.

Let’s see some of yer work then! …oh shit, here’s where you start backpedalling, huh? You can talk shit all you want, Kiddo, hell you CLAIM you work for GOD for all that any fuck on Usenet could give a shit…don’t much matter though unless you have REAL examples of work you’ve done.

You’re the one who’s not a professional in the field, doofus.

Yeah, I’m not a professional, I’m an artist, which pretty much makes me about a bazillion times more knowledgeable than some college flunkie like you.

DPI and PPI are for all intents and
purposes the same thing. One is dots, the other is square pixels, but it’s the same measurement "per inch" either way, which is why you can use them interchangeably.

Not to a reputable printer it’s not. And I find it funny that someone who is so techni<WHACK>

Look, stupid, this is NOT a hard concept to grasp. Watch this…

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi unless you alter your default print settings. I’m not makin this shit up, Stupid, go ahead and try it out for yourself. *rolls eyes*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Pull that on a pre-press person and job-printer and you will be fortunate if they simply *roll their eyes* rather than show you the door.

And who the fuck are you to be saying that, Kiddo? Are you a graphic/print artist? Step the fuck up and show us the goods, cause runnin at the mouth is just runnin at the mouth no matter what froup yer in. If you want to posture like you know fuck all about what yer talkin about, then by all means, show everyone that you’re better than the person you’re foolishly attempting to correct. Let me give you a basis of comparison by showing you some of my work:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/transmov e/
Now then, are you gonna post some links or are are you just gonna start typin more shit?

Look, doofus, it’s a *fact* that a printer will laugh in your face if you start talking about image resolution in terms of DPI – or think you’re a complete novice or DTPer. It has nothing to do with a designers talent – it’s just a matter of technical expertise.

No one’s trying to "foolishly correct" you . . . the only one being foolish is *you*. Why don’t you pull out that Print Graphics 101 that you accused me of quoting and look it up yourself instead of getting defensive about being wrong?

Shesh . . did that professor you work for molest you or something? You certainly are projecting some serious attitude about being caught making a mistake.

And FWIW, *you’re* the one running at the mouth. You get so pissed off any time anyone disagrees with something you’ve said. You’re wasting a lot of energy. Seek help.

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

"Elizabeth" wrote in message

legally, "contract" is an
abstraction which refers to the actual agreement of the parties, the so-called "meeting of the minds"

Not so much an abstraction at all. A meeing of the minds is part, mutual consideration (that’s something of value, usually money), competent

parties,

lack of duress – those are also requisites. The term ‘lack of duress’ has changed to ‘willingness to engage’. Same thing.

the classic paradigm of contract formation consists of three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration …. things like capacity, duress, fraud and the like can make a contract variously void, voidable and unenforceable … I say it’s an abstraction because the essence of contract lies not in the concrete, tangible and formal manifestations of contract but rather in the intangible intersection of intention between and among the parties. "Contract" is, in a sense, "larger" than the physical manifestation of contract … which is why we commonly use the phrase, "REDUCE the agreement to writing."

It takes many people a while to grasp the concept; first year law students not uncommonly expect their Contracts course to involve the review and study of hundreds of long documents printed in small typefaces and written in arcane language. Typically, you will see NO such documents in the course of your study of contract. What you learn is the principles of law which pertain to enforceable consensual relationships.

although putting something down in a writing, and having the parties

sign,

is often (but not always) advisable, there is no guarantee that the writing
will be sufficient and unambiguous

A party who intentionally, or negligently creates an ambiguous contract is usually deemed the loser in a challenge.

not at all; the rule I believe you’re referencing is that ambiguous terms in a contract are resolved in favor of the non-drafting party .. however, this rule ONLY comes into play after all extrinsic evidence (things not within the four corners of the document) is given due consideration ..

so, if A sends a memo to B saying, "Send me 10 copies of Photoshop by Wednesday; and I need a good price" .. and B responds, "Ok, we’ll get right on it" and then B delivers 10 copies of Photoshop 7, two Wednesdays after the memo was sent, along with an invoice for $6,000, where are we ? In effect, A drafted the ambigous contract by not specifying (a) version, (b) WHICH Wednesday, and (c) what he was willing to pay. Will this be construed against him ? Not likely, as A will probably produce evidence that the last 12 shipments of PS he received from B were PS-CS2, the prevailing wholesale price for 10 copies is about $2600, and the average delivery time is two days. It’s almost a certainty that B breached.

Don’t forget that B had an opportunity to say, "what do you mean?" … you can’t stick your head in the sand and get away with it ….

"NotMe" wrote in message

Not missing the point but there is no case law, as yet, making emails primary evidence.

Are you certain? Have you consulted Westlaw? Lexis-Nexis? The later is available at your local university that has a federal mandate – probably any Texas state university.

The general view by many/most judges

How are you so privileged to know view of most judges?

Like they say in Texas ‘Money talks and Bull S*it Walks’

Ah, so shall we make a bet on your claim that there is no "case law". Draw up the agreement here. 🙂 Don’t worry. I can’t enforce a wager via Usenet.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Pull that on a pre-press person and job-printer and you will be fortunate if
they simply *roll their eyes* rather than show you the door.

And who the fuck are you to be saying that, Kiddo? Are you a graphic/print artist? Step the fuck up and show us the goods, cause runnin at the mouth is just runnin at the mouth no matter what froup yer in. If you want to posture like you know fuck all about what yer talkin about, then by all means, show everyone that you’re better than the person you’re foolishly attempting to correct. Let me give you a basis of comparison by showing you some of my work:

I left all the above quoted so posterity can be sure to see what a jerk you are.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/transmov e/

That ain’t print. In fact, it isn’t even clever.

http://www.backwater-productions.net

No print productions there, either, just web crap.

Looks like you really don’t have any authority whatsoever. I do. But you are new around here, and clueless. And by the way you talk, I’m sure you’ve had your ass kicked often enough and you probably like it, so I’ll just relax and watch you implode.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi unless you alter your default print settings. I’m not makin this shit up, Stupid, go ahead and try it out for yourself. *rolls eyes*

You can roll your eyes like a little girl but it doesn’t change the fact that DPI and Pixels per Inch are not the same in the print media world. Bring your ppi image to a magazine printer and in the manner above, order them to print it ‘ppi’. Just say that. It’s all you need to say, because they are the same, right Web Girl?

Now jump off a roof; give us an example of Human Dot Gain. Big-time.

"Elizabeth" wrote

the classic paradigm of contract formation consists of three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration …. things like capacity, duress, fraud
and the like can make a contract variously void, voidable and unenforceable

You aren’t addding any information. Now remember what you just wrote: the three elements of formation, and the conditions that only lend to negation.

It takes many people a while to grasp the concept; first year law students
not uncommonly expect their Contracts course to involve the review and study
of hundreds of long documents printed in small typefaces and written in arcane language. Typically, you will see NO such documents in the course of
your study of contract. What you learn is the principles of law which pertain to enforceable consensual relationships.

What law school did you go to?

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Look, stupid, this is NOT a hard concept to grasp. Watch this…
What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi unless you alter your default print settings. I’m not makin this shit up, Stupid, go ahead and try it out for yourself. *rolls eyes*

No, *you*, Moron, watch *this* :

Printers think in terms of LPI, not DPI, Dumb Ass. Line screens are what matter to them. DPI is a term for home and office printers, Dumbo. Otherwise, how can a "300 DPI" print off a Heidelberg be better than a home office printer capable of 1200 DPI??!! Why? It’s cause printers don’t use DPI. Printers don’t print using DPI, Moron. They use *LINE SCREENS*!! Line screen (or LPI) is NOT the same as DPI. A 100 line screen (or LPI) has about 10,000 DPI (free lesson for the pet stupid: 175 line screen is standard for a decent print). So you go into a printer and tell them you want a 300 DPI print, they’re going to fucking laugh at you – that wouldn’t even be an 85 Line Screen (the worst and crappiest EVER).

And Smart Ass, you’re wrong about 100 ppi equaling 100 DPI . . . it’s not a matter of substituting square "dots" for round "dots." The clarity of the "dots" created by a printer rely on the method used by the printer: "stochastic" or not stochastic. The size of the dots vary by printer, Doofus. There’s no giant watchdog out there who polices the office printing industry. Pixels on the other hand, never change. A pixel is digital and doesn’t vary depending on the program its in.

Geez, consult that Print Graphics 101 before you look even dumber than you do *now*. Now why don’t you educate us all about your theories about stochastic printing, Fool? *rolls eyes*

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Yeah, I’m not a professional, I’m an artist, which pretty much makes me about a bazillion times more knowledgeable than some college flunkie like you.

Oh yeah? Well, you’re SO stupid that you think 100 ppi equals 100 DPI! Moron!!

In article <031220052156156207%>, max
wrote:

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Yeah, I’m not a professional, I’m an artist, which pretty much makes me about a bazillion times more knowledgeable than some college flunkie like you.

Oh yeah? Well, you’re SO stupid that you think 100 ppi equals 100 DPI! Moron!!

Yeah, I was SO fucking disgusted at your ignorance that I HAD to post twice to the same post!
*shudder*

In article , Lorem Ipsum
wrote:

"Elizabeth" wrote

the classic paradigm of contract formation consists of three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration …. things like capacity, duress, fraud
and the like can make a contract variously void, voidable and unenforceable

You aren’t addding any information. Now remember what you just wrote: the three elements of formation, and the conditions that only lend to negation.

It takes many people a while to grasp the concept; first year law students
not uncommonly expect their Contracts course to involve the review and study
of hundreds of long documents printed in small typefaces and written in arcane language. Typically, you will see NO such documents in the course of
your study of contract. What you learn is the principles of law which pertain to enforceable consensual relationships.

What law school did you go to?

My best friend is an Intellectual Property lawyer (a partner, no less) for a big firm in VA and litigates this stuff *all* the time for the big boys (though he takes many pro bono cases) . . . I’ll print everyone’s posts out and send them to him. Would ya’ll like the opinion of a professional? ( : Unlike most, he loves giving out free advice! LOL

I think that one of the biggest concerns in this area (at least to me, whenever I draw a contract between a client and myself) is that the contract is *always* construed *against* the one who draws it. That little nugget always forces me to be very, very careful in what I put in the contract – whether it deal with copyrights or anything else that may be relevant to me later if I have to sue.

"Lorem Ipsum" <

| > Not missing the point but there is no case law, as yet, making emails | > primary evidence.
|
| Are you certain? Have you consulted Westlaw? Lexis-Nexis? The later is | available at your local university that has a federal mandate – probably any
| Texas state university.
|
| > The general view by many/most judges
|
| How are you so privileged to know view of most judges?

Could it be that we run in many of the same professional circles or I track IPR law (it’s how I’ve made my living) or that I follow the discussions in the peer reviews or that I’ve been in business for almost 50 years or that I just keep my head out … who knows and more so who cares?

| > Like they say in Texas ‘Money talks and Bull S*it Walks’ |
| Ah, so shall we make a bet on your claim that there is no "case law". Draw | up the agreement here. 🙂 Don’t worry. I can’t enforce a wager via Usenet.

Since I obviously can’t prove a negative perhaps it would help if you offered cites were email is now a generally accepted, clear proof of a contract. What I’ve said is consistent with the history of case law with regard to FAXes. I fully expect that emails will eventually be, as a matter of course accepted as legal proof but we are not, currently, at that point.

Again I’m not a lawyer and must defer to the advice of the one I pay on how to conduct my business. She says I can’t rely on email for a court case. Ergo I don’t rely on emails as proof. Hard copy worked for years, generations in fact, and I’ve no reason to depart from that practice. I guess I’m like the old safety engineer who wares a belt and suspenders less he bears his all before god and the world.

There is nothing that says you have to do anything with regard to the practices I follow in my business. Differences of opinions are what make horse races. I’m coming to the end of my racing days and my winnings are in the bank against my retirement. The world is changing, I’ll not have to deal much with the change but my kids and my grand kids will. That’s their and others, younger than I, responsibility, options and challenges. It’s up to them to make the most of what they have as I have with what was open to me.

As such I will continue to use all forms of communications to run my business but I will likewise continue to have the results of that communications codified in, at the very least, a letter of understanding for small projects and formal contract for those that involve substantial work and/or money. Like I said in another post I’ve been had by the best but never more than once.

I have, personally used digital transfer and early forms of email as far back as the late ’50s/early ’60s (think ARPNET) and FAXes before that. Understand that is only in the last 10 years or so that FAXes have been accepted by the courts and even less that on line filings are allowed.

I hale from a time and a place when a person’s word and handshake were in fact a valid agreement. Not because of law but one of ethics, reputation and honor.

I must be doing something right as I’m engaged less and less in legal disputes and the ones I am unable to avoid I come out on top so something I am doing must be right.

"max" wrote

[…] the
contract is *always* construed *against* the one who draws it.

Never say Always. 🙂 Anyway, that’s the idea I was conveying concerning intentional or negligent ambivalence.

"NotMe" wrote in message

I hale from a time and a place when a person’s word and handshake were in fact a valid agreement. Not because of law but one of ethics, reputation and honor.

Me too. And it’s past my bed-time.
—
LI – I’ve been using a View Camera for so long everything outside the camera looks up-side-down

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:51:22 -0600, max wrote:

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Pull that on a pre-press person and job-printer and you will be fortunate if they simply *roll their eyes* rather than show you the door.

And who the fuck are you to be saying that, Kiddo? Are you a graphic/print artist? Step the fuck up and show us the goods, cause runnin at the mouth is just runnin at the mouth no matter what froup yer in. If you want to posture like you know fuck all about what yer talkin about, then by all means, show everyone that you’re better than the person you’re foolishly attempting to correct. Let me give you a basis of comparison by showing you some of my work:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/transmov e/
Now then, are you gonna post some links or are are you just gonna start typin more shit?

Look, doofus, it’s a *fact* that a printer will laugh in your face if you start talking about image resolution in terms of DPI

Look, doofus, quit trying to spin the argument to save face. In pure technical terms as far as sheer numbers DPI is NO DIFFERENT from PPI. Any print artist or any artist with half a brain would agree with that statement…but then yer just a mouthy fuck who doesn’t know shit.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:11:23 -0600, max wrote:

In article , Lorem Ipsum
wrote:

"Elizabeth" wrote

the classic paradigm of contract formation consists of three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration …. things like capacity, duress, fraud
and the like can make a contract variously void, voidable and unenforceable

You aren’t addding any information. Now remember what you just wrote: the three elements of formation, and the conditions that only lend to negation.

It takes many people a while to grasp the concept; first year law students
not uncommonly expect their Contracts course to involve the review and study
of hundreds of long documents printed in small typefaces and written in arcane language. Typically, you will see NO such documents in the course of
your study of contract. What you learn is the principles of law which pertain to enforceable consensual relationships.

What law school did you go to?

My best friend is an Intellectual Property lawyer (a partner, no less)

Yeah and my best friend is the Pope…no seriously, don’t you guys believe me?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

"NotMe" wrote in message

I’ve not seen any case law supporting an implied license.

You can’t just go by the cases you or your company have been involved in; here’s one that you’ve now seen:

In Jacob Maxwell, a song had been written for the Miracle, a minor league baseball team. We concluded that an implied, nonexclusive license had been granted because the owner of the copyright, JMI, had allowed the Miracle to play the song at its games. See id. at 752-53. We explained: "JMI cannot reasonably deny, given its subsequent conduct here, that it granted to the Miracle the sort of lesser, nonexclusive license to play the piece during the summer of 1993 that federal law recognizes may result from a purely oral transaction." Id. at 753.

As in Jacob Maxwell, the conduct of the parties in this case establishes that a nonexclusive license was granted. Korman wrote jingles for WQBA for seven years, [**7] and during that time she allowed the station to air those jingles, including the one at issue in this case. Given that conduct, she "cannot reasonably deny" that she granted WQBA a nonexclusive license to use her jingle.

Korman v. HBC Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999)

then the rights are not transferred. We’ve had claims of implied license, with and without contracts, and no case has not survived a move for

summery

judgment on our part.

I don’t recall saying that every claim of implied license is valid; if you manage IP properly, you don’t inadvertently create good claims for implied license … maybe you guys are good at managing the portfolio, but that’s beside the point

| I don’t really see the analogy to disclosure in patent law …

mark. Since the copy right is instantaneous and the trade make is only after the fact of use then copy right comes before TM. Since the author

of

the work owns all rights to the work (lacking a license/sale to a second party) the second party cannot claim a legitimate use without a

license/sale

from the author.

we’re just back to the implied license issue again

In a patent I can have the idea for years but if I do not make a public disclosure the time limits on filing for patent protection are not triggered. (Which is why the formula/process for Coke is a trade secret

and

not a patent)

Coke is not patented presumably because they elected not to seek one … very shrewd in this case; of course Coke is a good illustration of how important trademarks and trade dress can be, as well as how strong trade secret protection can be .. even if others could copy the formula they probably would not compete well with that mark

protection afforded by disclosure. By the same measure a TM must be used

in

some commercial application before it can be legally filed. A letter head to a second/third party introducing the TM is typically sufficient as

would

it really doesn’t take much at all to "qualify" … but the scope of protection is limited by the scope of the commercial activity, geographically and otherwise …

Again I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on the internet

"NotMe" wrote in message

"Elizabeth"

Not missing the point but there is no case law, as yet, making emails primary evidence. The general view by many/most judges is that emails can be faked and unlike some photographs are hard to prove to be either real

or

forged. As example look at the efforts on both sides with regards to

spam.

Nonsense. I recently got summary judgment based largely on emails which obliterated a damages claim.

Here’s two cases (neither of them mine):

The email, however, apparently will be admissible on another basis. Defendants represent that, based on her deposition testimony, Curro’s testimony will not support plaintiff’s version of events. Defendants further represent that, at his deposition, plaintiff testified that Curro is lying about the events because she is a vindictive, spurned lover. The email, however, supports that, at least as of November 2004, plaintiff was the spurned lover, not Curro. To the extent plaintiff attempts to raise questions as to Curro’s credibility by presenting evidence that he had spurned her, the email would be admissible to show the contrary. If presented by defendants, it would be admissible as an admission of a party-opponent. Defendants may present the email for that purpose. However, it will only be admissible if plaintiff first presents evidence supporting that Curro was a spurned lover. If plaintiff [*10] does not attempt to make such a showing, there is no basis for admitting the email into evidence. Therefore, defendants shall not mention the email during opening statements unless plaintiff, in his opening statement, states something to the effect that the evidence will show that Curro was a spurned lover. The email shall not be presented at trial unless plaintiff first presents evidence that Curro was a spurned lover.

Carthans v. Jenkins, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23294 (D. Ill. 2005)

The August 30 email from Friedman quoted above offers proposals to resolve the "open orders." It also, in the very sentence in which we find language sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, mentions the possibility of lawsuits and arbitration. Nevertheless, there is still no dispute over the validity or amount of the alleged contracts. Thus, to the extent that it can be read to evidence a dispute over Commonwealth’s claim, it is a one-sided dispute not protected by Rule 408. Therefore, we find that these letters, including the August 30, 1999, email, are admissible to satisfy the statute of frauds.

Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. 5. Stanley Metal Assocs., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21132 (D. Ky. 2000)

Not a legal problem but a matter of policy. If all know the rules and

know

likewise that we don’t start until the paperwork is done it makes the job

of

getting the paperwork through the system much simpler. Also stops dead

any

attempt to play games.

I don’t second-guess business judgment

Like they say in Texas ‘Money talks and Bull S*it Walks’

hmmmm … I recall some pretty serious bullshit with one Texas ad agency trying to play fast and loose with my client’s IP …

btw, re your note that emails can be faked .. yes, of course they can … and traditional paper documents cannot ? are you actually saying that in THIS group ??

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Look, doofus, quit trying to spin the argument to save face. In pure technical terms as far as sheer numbers DPI is NO DIFFERENT from PPI. Any print artist or any artist with half a brain would agree with that statement…but then yer just a mouthy fuck who doesn’t know shit.

Jeez . . . how are you *still* missing the fucking point?? Are you a *complete* moron or just a masochist?? Can you *really* be this retarded?? Or have you gone too far to actually admit that you have no fucking clue about getting a printed piece?? You *are* a retarded 15 year old ass!!

Go in to your local printers’ (not a Kinkos, Dipshit – even those people are nearly as cluless as you) and ask them to print something at 300 DPI (or even 600, for that matter – oh hey! let’s get even crazier and say 1200). You’ll be telling them to print it at a quality lower than that of your local newspaper. A 100 line screen, which is damn near the lowest you can go will *STILL* be over 10,000 dots per inch (or, Dumb Shit, 10,000 DPI). How many 10,000 DPI images have *you* sent to a printer?! Cause again, 10,000 DPI = 10,000 ppi, right?? *ROTFLMAO*

So how much fucking sense is it to tell some poor schmuck to tell his graphic artist to give him an image at 300 *DPI*, Poser Boi? By your logic the Volvo that takes my ass to work everyday is the *same* as the fucking beat up, 20 year old Golf you drive everyday to your gofer "job." Cause PPI and DPI are the same, right? Cause you go every day to every single fucking office and home printer on earth and measure the dots, right? Make sure they’re all the same and adhere to a strict set of standards, right? Cause 300 DPI = 300 ppi, right?? Do you even *know* the difference between a Heidelberg and a Canon BubbleJet? Have you ever even *seen* a Heidelberg? Or a BubbleJet, for that matter?

For fuck’s sake, do you need someone to sit your dumb ass down and explain this to you?? Cause if you do, I go back to work on Monday – I don’t have the time to school you, Poser Boi. Cause it would take *weeks* obviously, to teach you about graphic design. No wonder you’re a fucking teacher’s gofer – you couldn’t fucking *BE* anything else.

So don’t hand us this bullshit about how you’re an "artist" in print, web or any fucking else. You’re a fucking moron who’s full of shit. You may have tricked a few people in to believing that you have "experience" but reality, Poser Boi, says you’re cl00less. If you think that 100 DPI = 100 ppi, then *you’re* the fucking n00b.j0b. *snicker*

And before you fucking fall back on your horseshit of "let’s see your work" – just fuck off and stop whining when you’re thrust in a corner, Idiot. Stop saying you’re an artist, you fucking Child. Stop saying you’re a "designer" you retarded fat doorknob. It’s clear you know less than nothing and are completely useless as either of those. And as to *your* work, well . . erm . . everyone thinks their own farts smell like roses . . . and you’re no different. It’s just that your farts smell worse than anyone else’s here. Including Mike’s – who you seem to think is less a designer than you (but I’ll bet that *HE* knows the difference between DPI and PPI), Alan, Lorem and *EVERYONE* else. In fact, the only retard in this newsgroup is, um . . . te he he . . . *YOU*!!
*snort*

In fact, if it weren’t for the fact that there’s people out there who might be dumb enough (or gullible) to believe you’re a designer, print or otherwise, you wouldn’t be worth my time. You’re just a fucking idiot who can’t admit that he’s got some learning to do. And the last thing anyone who wants to learn about the biz needs is to hear the *WRONG* bullshit you’ve been spewing.
*shudder*

Now, go get me some fucking coffee!!

"NotMe" wrote in message

"Lorem Ipsum"

| > My experience is that lacking a specific agreement to the contrary ALL | > rights remain with the originator unless specifically (in hard copy) | > transferred to the buyer.
|
| There are cases in which a brief verbal exchange suffices as a binding | contract.

True but I’ve not seen any cases involving copy rights or patents for that matter. I can’t find the cite but there is case law to the effect that without a written grant of license no transfer is considered to have occurred.

As I wrote previously, there is no "transfer of ownership" in a copyright without a writing:

[Title 17]

"Lorem Ipsum" wrote in message

"Elizabeth" wrote

the classic paradigm of contract formation consists of three elements: offer, acceptance and consideration …. things like capacity, duress, fraud
and the like can make a contract variously void, voidable and unenforceable

You aren’t addding any information. Now remember what you just wrote: the three elements of formation, and the conditions that only lend to

negation.

I will remember it regardless, but why should I ?

I was distinguishing contract formation from enforceability because nobody was making it clear. And that was all part of the larger point that the document is not the contract, it’s evidence of contract … which all lies right at the heart of this thread if you still remember its beginnings

It takes many people a while to grasp the concept; first year law students
not uncommonly expect their Contracts course to involve the review and study
of hundreds of long documents printed in small typefaces and written in arcane language. Typically, you will see NO such documents in the course of
your study of contract. What you learn is the principles of law which pertain to enforceable consensual relationships.

What law school did you go to?

sorry, I’m just not comfortable answering that one; I know all too well how to piece together a pattern of facts that can get you to a person’s front door in no time at all …

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:28:22 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

And who the fuck are you to be saying that, Kiddo? Are you a graphic/print artist? Step the fuck up and show us the goods, cause runnin at the mouth is just runnin at the mouth no matter what froup yer in. If you want to posture like you know fuck all about what yer talkin about, then by all means, show everyone that you’re better than the person you’re foolishly attempting to correct. Let me give you a basis of comparison by showing you some of my work:

I left all the above quoted so posterity can be sure to see what a jerk you are.

A jerk? No, I’m just eight shades of ass blistering reality coupled with a few sharp bitch slaps of hard, biting sarcasm.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/transmov e/

That ain’t print.

Woah, how incredible of you to notice, Captain Obvious!

In fact, it isn’t even clever.

….a fully cross browser and cross platform PNG alpha transparent image isn’t clever, eh? Do be sure and let the guy who runs the PNG format website in on yer stunning revelation, cause he had this to say when I told him his site was misleading about IE not supporting PNG alpha transparencies:

"Indeed, very nice examples. But tell me, from the point of view of a simple browser-user, how are you going to do that to the other 100 billion web pages out there? It’s not "next to" impossible; it’s completely impossible."

So I guess you’re right, that example isn’t clever, it’s achieving the impossible. Tell me…when was the last time YOU achieved the impossible in your particular field? And again, provide examples.

http://www.backwater-productions.net

No print productions there, either, just web crap.

Nice spin, Kiddo, but this debate is regarding both print and computer/web graphics, so as long as I’m fulfilling one side of the coin it’s all good. Where as with you…you don’t have
ANYTHING…neither print graphics nor web graphics.

Looks like you really don’t have any authority whatsoever.

Considering I made a calendar for the New England Patriots that sold millions of copies…yeah, I’d say I am, actually:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/august.png

^_^

Like I said…where is YOUR work? Oh, yeah, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY. Now backpedal…and do a REAL shitty job of it too. `, )

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:31:28 -0600, max wrote:

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Look, doofus, quit trying to spin the argument to save face. In pure technical terms as far as sheer numbers DPI is NO DIFFERENT from PPI. Any print artist or any artist with half a brain would agree with that statement…but then yer just a mouthy fuck who doesn’t know shit.

Jeez . . . how are you *still* missing the fucking point?? Are you a *complete* moron or just a masochist?? Can you *really* be this retarded?? Or have you gone too far to actually admit that you have no fucking clue about getting a printed piece?? You *are* a retarded 15 year old ass!!

Go in to your local printers’ (not a Kinkos, Dipshit – even those people are nearly as cluless as you) and ask them to print something at 300 DPI (or even 600, for that matter – oh hey! let’s get even crazier and say 1200). You’ll be telling them to print it at a quality lower than that of your local newspaper. A 100 line screen, which is damn near the lowest you can go will *STILL* be over 10,000 dots per inch (or, Dumb Shit, 10,000 DPI). How many 10,000 DPI images have *you* sent to a printer?! Cause again, 10,000 DPI = 10,000 ppi, right?? *ROTFLMAO*

Again with the spin, where did I ever say ANYTHING about LPI? Like…NO WHERE. o_O

I mean…who the fuck are you arguing with? Cause uh, it ain’t me, Stupid.

Jesus fuck all, where is your head?

Now, go get me some fucking coffee!!

….considering you replied to the same post twice in a row and you’re having an argument with an imaginary friend…I’d say you’ve had plenty.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Now, go get me some fucking coffee!!

…considering you replied to the same post twice in a row and you’re having an argument with an imaginary friend…I’d say you’ve had plenty.

No, I just wanted to make sure that *you* and *everyone* else knows what a fucking moron you are.

As to the coffee . . . I’m still waiting, Gofer.

In article <6wwkf.76706$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

What law school did you go to?

sorry, I’m just not comfortable answering that one; I know all too well how to piece together a pattern of facts that can get you to a person’s front door in no time at all …

From reading the posts, I think it was a rhetorical question . . . ?

"max" wrote in message

In article <5%rkf.2070$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

PPI/DPI doesn’t really mean anything on a computer monitor (the web) … pixels count; that’s it.

Well, they do in that if you create an image for use on the web that’s

Max, open a decent quality image in PS, set it to 10ppi with Image->Size and retain the original pixel dimensions of the image … on your monitor, on the web (same thing of course) you will see the exact same image … PPI does not matter on a monitor. Of course if you print it, it will be very large and look horrible, but that’s another story.

only 10PPI, it’s going to look like crap (or be horribly small) even on a monitor capable of of only 72 ppi display. In that instance, ppi does very much count. Trying to use an image that’s only 72 ppi and is only one inch square as a background or large focal image illustrates the point. The end result would be horribly pixelated . . .

I’ve had clients give me images that were horrible ppi-wise with the expectations that it would look great as a background or as a large image on the site – that it would merely be a matter of enlarging the image (not understanding that the amount of pixels per inch needed to be increased as well). The resulting images looked bad and were unusable as is. Once they supplied better quality images, the project worked out well.

So, yes, actually, ppi does count in web design when it comes to images for use on sites. But you’re right that DPI doesn’t matter whatsoever when it comes to use on the web. DPI refers only to the output of printed materials.

Can I ask what you meant by that???

"max" wrote in message

In article <6wwkf.76706$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

What law school did you go to?

sorry, I’m just not comfortable answering that one; I know all too well

how

to piece together a pattern of facts that can get you to a person’s

front

door in no time at all …

From reading the posts, I think it was a rhetorical question . . . ?

meaning what, Max ?

"max" wrote in message

My best friend is an Intellectual Property lawyer (a partner, no less) for a big firm in VA and litigates this stuff *all* the time for the big boys (though he takes many pro bono cases) . . . I’ll print everyone’s posts out and send them to him. Would ya’ll like the opinion of a professional? ( : Unlike most, he loves giving out free advice! LOL

why don’t you invite him to join in the discussion personally ? I just hope he’s not like the blowhards, usually lawyers for rock stars, who send my clients nasty and legally uninformed demands to stop doing this, that and everything else under the sun … all of which they have every right to do ….

I think that one of the biggest concerns in this area (at least to me, whenever I draw a contract between a client and myself) is that the contract is *always* construed *against* the one who draws it. That little nugget always forces me to be very, very careful in what I put in the contract – whether it deal with copyrights or anything else that may be relevant to me later if I have to sue.

why don’t you have your best friend draft them ?

meanwhile, keep this in mind:

HN8In interpreting a contract whose language is ambiguous, the jury should also consider that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter of the contract. n11 Herweyer v Clark Hwy Services, [**455] Inc, 455 Mich. 14, 22; [*471] 564 N.W.2d 857 (1997). n12 This is known as the rule of contra proferentem. However, this rule is only to be applied if all conventional means of contract interpretation, including the consideration of relevant extrinsic [***17] evidence, have left the jury unable to determine what the parties intended their contract to mean. n13 Accordingly, if the extrinsic evidence indicates that the parties intended their contract to have a particular meaning, this is the meaning that should be given to the contract, regardless of whether this meaning is in accord with the drafter’s or the nondrafter’s view of the contract. In other words, if a contract is ambiguous regarding whether a term means "a" or "b," but relevant extrinsic evidence leads the jury to conclude that the parties intended the term to mean "b," then the term should be interpreted to mean "b," even though construing the document in the nondrafter’s favor pursuant to an application [*472] of the rule of contra proferentem would produce an interpretation of the term as "a."

Let the record show, that in article
, Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Somewhere in the range of *negative*10,000 ppi – in other word, it can’t be done Dipshit.

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

Um, again, the answer is: *You’re WRONG!*

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi

Um, once again, survey says . . . NOPE!

<Damn! Did you have this hard a time getting potty-trained? Is that why everyone calls you "Diaper Boi??" Shesh . . . > *shrugs*

unless you alter your default print
settings.

Has everything to do with *nothing* – altering "print settings" won’t do shit. It’s like putting a Volvo hood ornie on a broken down Golf won’t turn your piece of shit, 20 year old Golf into a Volvo like mine. *DUH!*

I’m not makin this shit up, Stupid, go ahead and try it out for yourself. *rolls eyes*

Um, yes you are. Otherwise, you’re a *complete* and *utter* idiot. *rolls eyes*

No, really, I have seen idiots like *you* at play before. I belonged to a Corel User Group a long, long time ago and everything was cool until this woman stood up at the end of the session and remarked:

"The transparency lens is amazing! I can now get a 4 color print and only pay for a 3 color job"

Do you get it, Moron? She *really* thought that by having a transparency lens, she could "fool" the printer into giving her 4 colors for the price of a 3 color print job. That is one hundred ways to stupid, isn’t it? Well, even *she* understood that DPI *doesn’t* equal PPI . . . so how many blistering shades of *stupid* does that make *you*??!! Maybe a few *bitch slaps of fuckwit*, to boot?

Let’s give a big hand for the Retard, folks! He’s a complete idiot for our entertainment! If anyone would like to see the slo mo, just check out this topic in ADG! ^ _ ^
*snicker*

No, really, just admit that you’re wrong and I’ll leave you alone. It’s that simple – you insulted me and called *me* stupid, when *you* were *clearly the fuckwit* in the conversation. So be a *man* and apologize. Or be a pathetic moron so we can laugh at you some more (especially me and Lorem) and don’t apologize. Decision is yours . . . but seeing your track record in stupidity, I doubt you’ll make the right one. *shrug*

And, I’m *STILL* waiting for my fucking coffee, you pathetic teacher’s gofer! So stop being such a fucking twit and get me my fucking coffee! *whip crack*

In article <8Cxkf.8839$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

Well, they do in that if you create an image for use on the web that’s

Max, open a decent quality image in PS, set it to 10ppi with Image->Size and retain the original pixel dimensions of the image … on your monitor, on the web (same thing of course) you will see the exact same image … PPI does not matter on a monitor. Of course if you print it, it will be very large and look horrible, but that’s another story.

No, I get what you mean . . . but what *I* meant is that if your client gives you an image that’s say 40 pixels wide and only a res of say 72, it will not blow up to say, 600 pixels, and look good, even on the web. In that case, the ppi *does* matter. A design is only as good as it’s weakest link . . .

I wasn’t refering to a decent quality image – I was refering to the *worst* possible image (which I have gotten in spades from clients who don’t know better).

Especially if they want it blown up to be a focal point on the site. (been there *many* a time)

In article <DExkf.8879$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

From reading the posts, I think it was a rhetorical question . . . ?

meaning what, Max ?

Meaning that I think everyone’s taking you as a *designer* and not as a *lawyer* so it might be a call for you to prove you’re a lawyer or have any real law experience. I think everyone’s taking you at face value because you’re talking about such a subject on a graphic design newsgroup. If you were in a law NG and talking about design, I’m sure the other lawyers would ask you to *prove* what artwork you’ve created. It’s a matter of context, nothing more.

That being the case, since I think that lawyer-cum-graphic designers are rare, they’re assuming that you’re just googling the info and cases that you’re citing. Or making it up. I’m not implying in any way that you are . . . but the image of a lawyer turning down 6 figures to become a "starving artist" isn’t one that most can imagine. It’s easier to think that you’re googling the info and putting a "lawyerly" spin on it.

My lawyer friend actually did that for a while – but he became an research scientist. After about 2 years of waaaay smaller paychecks and same size bills (couldn’t give up the lifestyle he was accustomed to), he went back to law. But still, everyone he knew had a hard time believing that he had been a lawyer before turning to science. It was just too unbelievable that he traded six figures (pre-partner salary – about 120K? Can’t remember) for a lower 5 (75K). Such a person is probably more rare than a unicorn – or rather, it’s easier to believe in unicorns than it is the other.

So, when reading everyone’s posts and arguments, please remember that . .. . and don’t be quick to take offense when none is intended (as I think you may have from my post) ( :

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

What do you have to take to get as stupid as you?

DPI = Dots Per Inch
PPI = Pixels Per Inch

DPI is used to measure the resolution of a printed image. How many dots per inch should the inkjet output?

PPI is used to measure the resolution of a monitor display. It can’t be used to describe an image resolution. Put up a 100×100 pixel image on your monitor, measure with a ruler how big that 100×100 is on your monitor and you get the PPI.

In short, PPI has absolutely nothing to do with DPI. Nothing. I can have a 600 DPI 10×10 pixels big image on my 100 PPI screen.

I’ll go over it again:

The PPI of any given image displayed on screen is dependant on which screen it is displayed on – it can only be altered by changing screen or changing your screen resolution.

The DPI of any given image says nothing about the image itself, only how big it will end up when printed to a physical media.

This will, of course, fly way over your head.

—
Sandman[.net]

Edwin, on protecting against malware:
"I use Avast AV, the Yahoo anti-spy toolbar, the MS anti-spy software, Windows SP2 with its firewall, AdAware, Spybot Search and Destroy, and SpywareBlaster."

In article <Y%xkf.261674$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

My best friend is an Intellectual Property lawyer (a partner, no less) for a big firm in VA and litigates this stuff *all* the time for the big boys (though he takes many pro bono cases) . . . I’ll print everyone’s posts out and send them to him. Would ya’ll like the opinion of a professional? ( : Unlike most, he loves giving out free advice! LOL

why don’t you invite him to join in the discussion personally ? I just hope he’s not like the blowhards, usually lawyers for rock stars, who send my clients nasty and legally uninformed demands to stop doing this, that and everything else under the sun … all of which they have every right to do …

He’s actually a *really* nice guy and one of the most humble you’d ever meet. There’s not a bit of blowhard or "rockstar" mentality about him. In fact, he’s pretty much a "good ol boy." Very southern, very gentlemanly. (very cute, too, but that’s immaterial) He’s also probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. When he graduated from college (top of his class) he was courted by several firms in VA, DC and MD. Well, I was impressed at least . . . but then, you can probably tell that I think he’s special . . . ( : I don’t call him my best friend for nothing!

He’s about as computer savvy as a 10 year old. Won’t touch the NGs although I spout off about them all the time. Right now, he’s too busy with his fiancee’s two kids to do much of anything . . .

I think that one of the biggest concerns in this area (at least to me, whenever I draw a contract between a client and myself) is that the contract is *always* construed *against* the one who draws it. That little nugget always forces me to be very, very careful in what I put in the contract – whether it deal with copyrights or anything else that may be relevant to me later if I have to sue.

why don’t you have your best friend draft them ?

Because we tried a "working relationship" a few years ago and it didn’t work out. He’s been such a close friend for so long that we didn’t use money for services – more like bartering favors. But in the end, even that was kind of creepy. We always valued the others’ services more than our own . . . he’d have to give me 10 hours of billing time for a mere 5 of mine and vice-versa. He’s there to give me advice when I need it, but I try not to need it. The last thing I want to do is "use" him for advice.

meanwhile, keep this in mind:

HN8In interpreting a contract whose language is ambiguous, the jury should also consider that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter of the contract. n11 Herweyer v Clark Hwy Services, [**455] Inc, 455 Mich. 14, 22; [*471] 564 N.W.2d 857 (1997). n12 This is known as the rule of contra proferentem. However, this rule is only to be applied if all conventional means of contract interpretation, including the consideration of relevant extrinsic [***17] evidence, have left the jury unable to determine what the parties intended their contract to mean. n13 Accordingly, if the extrinsic evidence indicates that the parties intended their contract to have a particular meaning, this is the meaning that should be given to the contract, regardless of whether this meaning is in accord with the drafter’s or the nondrafter’s view of the contract. In other words, if a contract is ambiguous regarding whether a term means "a" or "b," but relevant extrinsic evidence leads the jury to conclude that the parties intended the term to mean "b," then the term should be interpreted to mean "b," even though construing the document in the nondrafter’s favor pursuant to an application [*472] of the rule of contra proferentem would produce an interpretation of the term as "a."

No thanks – not my area or interest. I’ll stick to graphic design . . . I don’t have the kind of mind needed for citing cases and the like. Though I *do* love crime non-fiction. Those kind of cases I can handle reading about. ( :

It’s always been so fascinating to me how someone can seem so normal and lead a horrible double life . . . like BTK. I mean, it’s just interesting – what made this guy do what he did? I believe we have a little voice inside of all of us that tells us right from wrong (a conscience, if you will) – what happened to his?? How about Manson? The Green River Killer? Zodiac? He’s especially interesting because he was never caught . . . what did he do right that the others did wrong? How did he hide his madness from everyone else??

So true crime is about as far as I can go into law discussions. And even then, I know it’s not the same (obviously).

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:47:37 +0100, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

What do you have to take to get as stupid as you?

DPI = Dots Per Inch
PPI = Pixels Per Inch

DPI is used to measure the resolution of a printed image. How many dots per inch should the inkjet output?

PPI is used to measure the resolution of a monitor display. It can’t be used to describe an image resolution. Put up a 100×100 pixel image on your monitor, measure with a ruler how big that 100×100 is on your monitor and you get the PPI.

In short, PPI has absolutely nothing to do with DPI. Nothing. I can have a 600 DPI 10×10 pixels big image on my 100 PPI screen.

I’ll go over it again:

The PPI of any given image displayed on screen is dependant on which screen it is displayed on – it can only be altered by changing screen or changing your screen resolution.

The DPI of any given image says nothing about the image itself, only how big it will end up when printed to a physical media.

This will, of course, fly way over your head.

….why do you MORONS keep arguing against shit that I NEVER SAID!

Look, Stupid…figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…that’s it, that’s all I’m saying. And as such you can use them interchangeably. If someone tells you that an image is 72 PPI then YOU KNOW WHAT THE DPI IS! I’m not saying fuck all about how it’s going to print or how it’s going to look on the screen I’m ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BASE NUMBERS.

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:47:37 +0100, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

What do you have to take to get as stupid as you?

DPI = Dots Per Inch
PPI = Pixels Per Inch

DPI is used to measure the resolution of a printed image. How many dots per inch should the inkjet output?

PPI is used to measure the resolution of a monitor display. It can’t be used to describe an image resolution. Put up a 100×100 pixel image on your monitor, measure with a ruler how big that 100×100 is on your monitor and you get the PPI.

In short, PPI has absolutely nothing to do with DPI. Nothing. I can have a 600 DPI 10×10 pixels big image on my 100 PPI screen.

I’ll go over it again:

The PPI of any given image displayed on screen is dependant on which screen it is displayed on – it can only be altered by changing screen or changing your screen resolution.

The DPI of any given image says nothing about the image itself, only how big it will end up when printed to a physical media.

This will, of course, fly way over your head.

….why do you MORONS keep arguing against shit that I NEVER SAID!

Look, Stupid…figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…that’s it, that’s all I’m saying. And as such you can use them interchangeably. If someone tells you that an image is 72 PPI then YOU KNOW WHAT THE DPI IS! I’m not saying fuck all about how it’s going to print or how it’s going to look on the screen I’m ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BASE NUMBERS.

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:07:25 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:47:37 +0100, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

What do you have to take to get as stupid as you?

DPI = Dots Per Inch
PPI = Pixels Per Inch

DPI is used to measure the resolution of a printed image. How many dots per inch should the inkjet output?

PPI is used to measure the resolution of a monitor display. It can’t be used to describe an image resolution. Put up a 100×100 pixel image on your monitor, measure with a ruler how big that 100×100 is on your monitor and you get the PPI.

In short, PPI has absolutely nothing to do with DPI. Nothing. I can have a 600 DPI 10×10 pixels big image on my 100 PPI screen.

I’ll go over it again:

The PPI of any given image displayed on screen is dependant on which screen it is displayed on – it can only be altered by changing screen or changing your screen resolution.

The DPI of any given image says nothing about the image itself, only how big it will end up when printed to a physical media.

This will, of course, fly way over your head.

…why do you MORONS keep arguing against shit that I NEVER SAID!
Look, Stupid…figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…that’s it, that’s all I’m saying. And as such you can use them interchangeably. If someone tells you that an image is 72 PPI then YOU KNOW WHAT THE DPI IS! I’m not saying fuck all about how it’s going to print or how it’s going to look on the screen I’m ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BASE NUMBERS.

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

Wait, wait, even better example…which weighs more…a ton of bricks…or a ton of a feathers!

LOL

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

What do you have to take to get as stupid as you?

DPI = Dots Per Inch
PPI = Pixels Per Inch

DPI is used to measure the resolution of a printed image. How many dots per inch should the inkjet output?

PPI is used to measure the resolution of a monitor display. It can’t be used to describe an image resolution. Put up a 100×100 pixel image on your monitor, measure with a ruler how big that 100×100 is on your monitor and you get the PPI.

In short, PPI has absolutely nothing to do with DPI. Nothing. I can have a 600 DPI 10×10 pixels big image on my 100 PPI screen.
I’ll go over it again:

The PPI of any given image displayed on screen is dependant on which screen it is displayed on – it can only be altered by changing screen or changing your screen resolution.

The DPI of any given image says nothing about the image itself, only how big it will end up when printed to a physical media.
This will, of course, fly way over your head.

(which you will now demonstrate:)

…why do you MORONS keep arguing against shit that I NEVER SAID!

We’re not.

Look, Stupid…

Stop talking to yourself.

figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…

Which is 100% wrong since they are in no way, shape or form connected to each other as I educated you above.

that’s it, that’s all I’m saying.

Than all you’re saying is wrong – which I have no argument against.

And as such you can use them interchangeably.

100% incorrect, as I have just told you. It flew over your head.

If someone tells you
that an image is 72 PPI then YOU KNOW WHAT THE DPI IS!

Incorrect due to two reason:

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.
2. PPI says nothing about DPI. Nothing. Nothing at all.

I’m not saying fuck all about how it’s going to print or how it’s going to look on the screen I’m ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BASE NUMBERS.

You are using them incorrectly and ignorantly – much like everything else you ever said in this group.

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…

This is the same analogy as saying that one image on screen is one image on the printer. You can’t use this analogy for PPI or DPI. You will not understand why since reality is a unfamiliar concept to you.

not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping?

How you got this stupid. Since birth or did you take drugs?

I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

But you just don’t know how to use the words correctly.

I think you’re one of the most ignorant teenager wannabes I’ve seen on usenet. Which is a feat in itself. You’re not just stupid and ignorant – you actually think you’re not. Hilarious.

—
Sandman[.net]

"Kudos to Apple for being the first to bring affordable 64 bit computing to the PC market"
– Edwin

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

Wait, wait, even better example…which weighs more…a ton of bricks…or a ton of a feathers!

You’re ignorance weighs more than anything I ever seen.

—
Sandman[.net]

"Kudos to Apple for being the first to bring affordable 64 bit computing to the PC market"
– Edwin

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:59:53 +0100, Sandman wrote:

Your stupidity is beyond amazing…check this out…

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

2. PPI says nothing about DPI. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Um, yeah it does, Stupid. For example, if you tell me you have an image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Here, let me Wikislap you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."

Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

I think yo<COCK SLAP>

Wikipedia thinks you’re an idiot, how do you feel about that?

Oh hey, BTW…yer site looks like shit: http://www.sandman.net/

Is that the style for Mac addict wannabe web artists these days? *snicker*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

My stupidity is beyond amazing…check this out:

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch

Incorrect.

count them out if you’re
feeling especially stupid, MORON.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. No idea. See my earlier posts where I – in plain English – teach you about PPI and DPI.

2. PPI says nothing about DPI. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Um, yeah it does, Stupid.

Nopes.

For example, if you tell me you have an
image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Given that fact that a image can’t even have any PPI, that above is just yet another in your endless line of stupidities.

Here, let me Wikislap you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

You do realise that that Wiki page agrees with me 100% and disagrees with you 100%? No? What, English is a fourth, fifth language to you? Your incoherent babbling would be explained by that of course.

I think yo

Wikipedia thinks I’m an idiot

I know.

Oh hey, BTW…yer site looks like shit: http://www.sandman.net/

Thanks for the endorsement. Having jealous wannabe teenagers saying my site looks like shit is the best endorsement I can get.

—
Sandman[.net]

Edwin, on protecting against malware:
"I use Avast AV, the Yahoo anti-spy toolbar, the MS anti-spy software, Windows SP2 with its firewall, AdAware, Spybot Search and Destroy, and SpywareBlaster."

"Onideus Mad Hatter"
<snip >
| >My best friend is an Intellectual Property lawyer (a partner, no less) |
| Yeah and my best friend is the Pope…no seriously, don’t you guys | believe me?
|

I had lunch with His Excellency last week and he spoke well of you. (Hey you lie and I swear to it, how’s that for support?)

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:59:53 +0100, Sandman wrote:

Your stupidity is beyond amazing…check this out…

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

2. PPI says nothing about DPI. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Um, yeah it does, Stupid. For example, if you tell me you have an image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Here, let me Wikislap you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

If youre going to try and have a go at them, at least fucking make the effort to READ something first.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/DPI_and_PPI.pn g

—
Mimic

First day it opened I went down there, was doing a few laps and pulled over and the manager comes over to me and says "Oi, mate! No professionals." I said I’m not a professional. He said "Well, you should be with moves like that you could be the best in Britain". I said, "No thanks I’m making shit loads from computers".

[email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
Help Stop Spam – www.hidemyemail.net

"I have come to realise that, only in death, will I find true perfection."

"Elizabeth"

| > Not missing the point but there is no case law, as yet, making emails | > primary evidence. The general view by many/most judges is that emails can
| > be faked and unlike some photographs are hard to prove to be either real | or forged. As example look at the efforts on both sides with regards to | spam.
|
| Nonsense. I recently got summary judgment based largely on emails which | obliterated a damages claim.

Thats a start in the process of having email as a standard of proof. Same happened to FAXes, one then two then four then more now faxes are routinely accepted by business and the courts as confirmation without a need for a serious hearing much more than a perfunctory review.

| Here’s two cases (neither of them mine):
|
| The email, however, apparently will be admissible on another basis. | Defendants represent that, based on her deposition testimony, Curro’s | testimony will not support plaintiff’s version of events. Defendants further
| represent that, at his deposition, plaintiff testified that Curro is lying | about the events because she is a vindictive, spurned lover. The email, | however, supports that, at least as of November 2004, plaintiff was the | spurned lover, not Curro. To the extent plaintiff attempts to raise | questions as to Curro’s credibility by presenting evidence that he had | spurned her, the email would be admissible to show the contrary. If | presented by defendants, it would be admissible as an admission of a | party-opponent. Defendants may present the email for that purpose. However,
| it will only be admissible if plaintiff first presents evidence supporting | that Curro was a spurned lover. If plaintiff [*10] does not attempt to make
| such a showing, there is no basis for admitting the email into evidence. | Therefore, defendants shall not mention the email during opening statements
| unless plaintiff, in his opening statement, states something to the effect | that the evidence will show that Curro was a spurned lover. The email shall
| not be presented at trial unless plaintiff first presents evidence that | Curro was a spurned lover.

|
| Carthans v. Jenkins, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23294 (D. Ill. 2005) |
| The August 30 email from Friedman quoted above offers proposals to resolve | the "open orders." It also, in the very sentence in which we find language | sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, mentions the possibility of | lawsuits and arbitration. Nevertheless, there is still no dispute over the | validity or amount of the alleged contracts. Thus, to the extent that it can
| be read to evidence a dispute over Commonwealth’s claim, it is a one-sided | dispute not protected by Rule 408. Therefore, we find that these letters, | including the August 30, 1999, email, are admissible to satisfy the statute
| of frauds.

| Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. 5. Stanley Metal Assocs., 2000 U.S. Dist. | LEXIS 21132 (D. Ky. 2000)

Again a crack in the Rules/Procedures and not yet a universal acceptance but a clear indication of what’s ahead and a confirmation, to my thinking, that the process will track what happened with FAXes.

| > Not a legal problem but a matter of policy. If all know the rules and | know likewise that we don’t start until the paperwork is done it makes the job
| of getting the paperwork through the system much simpler. Also stops dead | any attempt to play games.
|
| I don’t second-guess business judgment.

I expect from the though process in this tread you would likely agree with the advice received from my attorney. Again might be the suspender/belt approach but you have to admit it does make her job a lot easier.

| > Like they say in Texas ‘Money talks and Bull S*it Walks’ |
| hmmmm … I recall some pretty serious bullshit with one Texas ad agency | trying to play fast and loose with my client’s IP …

And just how much money was involved? Texans are not know to spend much time or effort fighting over BS … money and politics on the other hand…

| btw, re your note that emails can be faked .. yes, of course they can … | and traditional paper documents cannot ? are you actually saying that in | THIS group ??

It’s currently harder to prove that emails are faked/real as compared to FAXes. FAXes leave a trail with the phone company records, emails are only logged in the ISP records and those logs are first of all very volatile and second subject to being disposed of without regard to the need for the legal system (in some cases as a direct action to avoid complications) and are much easier to tamper with than phone company records.

As for our studio we use email, FAX and phone extensively but send confirming hard copy by mail with the pertinent details specifically leaving a trail and as a method of reiteration so that there are fewer misunderstandings. Like I said we don’t have near the legal problems we had in the early days of our business (low even then) but then we will resign a project before we will accept the stress of being hassled. We don’t leave the client in the leach as we endeavor to find someone else to undertake the project. That works about 99% of the time but sadly some folk are their own worst enemy. We also log phone calls and meetings but more to track expenses/cost/billing than as a concern for possible legal action.

Forensics can prove hard copy documents are faked as exampled by the Air NG documents used by the TV news media were proven to be fake by the use of a type writer fonts that did not exist when the documents were purported to have been generated. The same cannot be said of digital documents or internet traffic. The law often accepts the mere fact of mailing via the USPS as proof of notice (insurance company cancellation comes to mind) but there is no precedent for email at this time.

"Elizabeth" <

| > What law school did you go to?
|
| sorry, I’m just not comfortable answering that one; I know all too well how
| to piece together a pattern of facts that can get you to a person’s front | door in no time at all …

Wise choice.

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

…why do you MORONS keep arguing against shit that I NEVER SAID!
Look, Stupid…figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…that’s it, that’s all I’m saying. And as such you can use them interchangeably. If someone tells you that an image is 72 PPI then YOU KNOW WHAT THE DPI IS! I’m not saying fuck all about how it’s going to print or how it’s going to look on the screen I’m ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BASE NUMBERS.

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

Shesh . . . what part of: *YOU* are the fucking moron do *YOU* not get?? Is everyone in your family this retarded or just you?? Bet you *STILL* ride the short bus to that gofer job of yours, right? *rolls eyes*

Must we go through this *AGAIN*?? DPI and PPI are not interchangeable. DPI is not a digital standard, per se. It refers to the printed piece (Heidelberg) or the possible resolution on an office printer (though that’s a term that the home printing industry molested just to make Morons like you feel smart and like real designers), no more, no less, Dumb Ass.

Over the years, idiots (like you) have used the two interchangeably and in casual conversation, it’s okay. But you’re at a fucking graphic design NG, you Moron. I have clients who use the two interchangeably and I smile and ignore it – because they’re not *artists* you Retard (yeah, I know you’re not an artist either, but I’m humoring you). *rolls eyes*

I don’t expect them to know the difference. But you? You keep spouting off how you’re an artist *snicker* According to your resume, you went to fucking college for design! You should know better, Fuckwit. Or did you lie on your resume? If so, you did a crappy job – most people lie to the *good*, not to the pathetic.

So, one more time: DPI = Heidelberg or imagesetter (home office printers? No, *Dumb Ass*, they ass raped the word like you do PP filters for your stupid fucking sites) printer resolution; 250 line screen = OVER 27,000 dpi for a decent print. But the images for this print can be 300 ppi and look awesome. So, Doofus, let’s play it your way, using them they way your wee little mind can handle: 27,000 DPI = 300 ppi – so how the fuck are those the "same base numbers?"

DPI and PPI, no matter what the poverty of graphic design *snicker* web sites you google into tell you, are not interchangeable. They don’t have the same "base numbers" No such thing, Twit. Jeez, can you *really* be *that* stupid? I mean, if I told you that I worked for God would you believe me? No? But you would if it was on a web site, right? Yeah, Dumbo . . . I really think you would.

Do you even know what a fucking line screen is? Oh wait, you’re just a teacher’s gofer, so no, I doubt you do. All you’re good for is sharpening pencils and fetching coffee. AKA Completely *USELESS.* *shrug*

But what kills me is that you are too fucking stupid to get it. Unlike everyone else, here, you’re the Moronic Fuckwit who just can’t get the simple concept. Really, either you should go back to school or demand a refund, becaue d00d, you got *ripped off.* Or better yet, why don’t you go and ass rape a few more Photo Paint filters?
*rolls eyes*

Now go get me my fucking coffee, Gofer!

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

Oh wait!! Waiit!! I *just* read this and realized what the Moron was saying!! *snicker*

It *IS* about size, Dumb Ass!! It’s *ALL* about size! And if they aren’t the same size, how can they equal the same number in a given inch?? That’s like saying that one foot equals one inch, you Fuckwit. It’s *ALL* part of the equation or measurement you walking pussy fart!

Jeez, someone *PLEASE* unplug this moron’s computer . . . cause he’s *DONE*

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:59:53 +0100, Sandman wrote:

Your stupidity is beyond amazing…check this out…

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

<SNIP>

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

This thread proves two things:

1 – hatter can piss off people in any news group. It’s his special talent.

2 – most people (even [alleged] professionals) interchange and misuse DPI vs PPI. I don’t really give a shit.

However, I can’t pass up the chance to point out the obvious absurdity of hatter’s above comment. The specified image is 400 pixels across. On my 19inch LCD at 1024×768 resolution, the image is 4.625 inches across or 400/4.625 = 86.5 pixels per inch.

If I change my screen resolution to 800×600 the image appears to be
7.375 inches across or 400/7.375 = 54.2 pixels per inch.

I am sure there is some setting that would *render* the image at 72 pixels per inch, but the image itself exists independent of any specific claim of being "EXACTLY 72..blah.blah.blah"

-oldami

<In article <QiGkf.32707$>,
oldami wrote:

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

<SNIP>

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

This thread proves two things:

1 – hatter can piss off people in any news group. It’s his special talent.

Piss off? Surely you mean that he can be made fun of in any news group. We’re having a bowl here in comp.sys.mac.advocacy where we’re laughing our asses off at his ignorance.

2 – most people (even [alleged] professionals) interchange and misuse DPI vs PPI. I don’t really give a shit.

That’s true – most misuse DPI mainly because it’s too hard to keep track of PPI, DPI, LPI and SPI. BUt that’s not what we’re doing here – we’re making fun of this poor old 16 year old guy that wants to insist that they’re they mean the exact same thing, or that they have anything to do with each other.

However, I can’t pass up the chance to point out the obvious absurdity of hatter’s above comment. The specified image is 400 pixels across. On my 19inch LCD at 1024×768 resolution, the image is 4.625 inches across or 400/4.625 = 86.5 pixels per inch.

As if his tiny brain could ever hope to comprehend that 🙂

I gave him a thorough education avout DPI and PPI, he didn’t understand a single word. 🙂

If I change my screen resolution to 800×600 the image appears to be
7.375 inches across or 400/7.375 = 54.2 pixels per inch.

Noooo, the PPI is in the *image*!! 😀

I am sure there is some setting that would *render* the image at 72 pixels per inch, but the image itself exists independent of any specific claim of being "EXACTLY 72..blah.blah.blah"

"Duuuuhh, whatevvah – my sk1llz ar f4r bettah than yers, so wazzah!" <- The expected response from Hatter. 🙂

—
Sandman[.net]

"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
– Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.

"NotMe" wrote in message

Thats a start in the process of having email as a standard of proof. Same happened to FAXes, one then two then four then more now faxes are

routinely

accepted by business and the courts as confirmation without a need for a serious hearing much more than a perfunctory review.

the biggest problem with emails is non-production; you ask for "all emails pertaining to X" and you get less than all of them .. along with some garbage about their "retention policy" (normally meaning their ad-hoc destruction policy) .. however, some judges don’t put up with it … they know companies use email extensively, and if you demonstrate that, and then the other side says, "well, we didn’t retain THOSE emails pursuant to our policy" you can get an adverse inference instruction in some cases …

keep in mind that there’s a sent copy and a received copy … does a party really want to manipulate the contents ? when the other side shows their copy, the jury knows somebody isn’t telling the truth and if they can’t figure out who from context they’ll just disregard both of them .. any form of evidence can be weighed; in my experience, if it’s produced, it’s genuine

Again a crack in the Rules/Procedures and not yet a universal acceptance

but

a clear indication of what’s ahead and a confirmation, to my thinking,

that

the process will track what happened with FAXes.

consider FRE 1001 (1):

(1) Writings and recordings. "Writings" and "recordings" consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other form of data compilation.

I expect from the though process in this tread you would likely agree with the advice received from my attorney. Again might be the suspender/belt approach but you have to admit it does make her job a lot easier.

I’m always in favor of clarity in agreements .. but as I said before, there are times when an excess of formality is not necessarily in a client’s interest, especially when there’s significant disparity in bargaining power … who’s going to win the war of the words … BIG COMPANY and its battalion of lawyers or free-lance designer ? Since I assume there are many free-lancers hanging around here I thought some might benefit from an understanding that they DID have a leg to stand on when they make (or have to make) informal arrangements with a client .. it’s hard to tell, but I think some of the people who might benefit from such counsel are resisting it … but I’ve been there before

And just how much money was involved? Texans are not know to spend much time or effort fighting over BS … money and politics on the other

hand…

Texas is not Texas anymore … look at the migration patterns over the past 20 years; in any event, there was not an especially large amount of money involved in the instance I referenced .. but enough to warrant paying my fees …

It’s currently harder to prove that emails are faked/real as compared to FAXes. FAXes leave a trail with the phone company records, emails are

only

phone company records will yield no information about content of the FAX, though

misunderstandings. Like I said we don’t have near the legal problems we had in the early days of our business (low even then) but then we will

actually, most people/businesses DON’T have a lot of legal problems and normally, if they do, they deserve them … the overwhelming majority of contracts, no matter how they are formed or documented, are simply performed to expectation

have been generated. The same cannot be said of digital documents or internet traffic. The law often accepts the mere fact of mailing via the USPS as proof of notice (insurance company cancellation comes to mind) but there is no precedent for email at this time.

well, for one, if I file a document on the federal CM/ECF system, it’s filed … and all parties have notice .. not exactly what you are referring to but …..

"max" wrote in message

He’s actually a *really* nice guy and one of the most humble you’d ever meet. There’s not a bit of blowhard or "rockstar" mentality about him.

well, then too bad he wouldn’t be interested in joining in

In fact, he’s pretty much a "good ol boy." Very southern, very gentlemanly. (very cute, too, but that’s immaterial) He’s also probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. When he graduated from college (top of his class) he was courted by several firms in VA,

pretty unusual for law firms to recruit *college* graduates, although engineering grads are sometimes approached by patent firms and talked into going to law school

I think that one of the biggest concerns in this area (at least to me, whenever I draw a contract between a client and myself) is that the contract is *always* construed *against* the one who draws it. That little nugget always forces me to be very, very careful in what I put in the contract – whether it deal with copyrights or anything else

that

may be relevant to me later if I have to sue.

this is why I gave you the case squib which addresses the issue directly … but you say you’re not interested in it

"max" wrote in message

Meaning that I think everyone’s taking you as a *designer* and not as a *lawyer* so it might be a call for you to prove you’re a lawyer or have any real law experience.

Max, when I got involved in this thread there was a legal issue on the table; being a lawyer, I jumped into the conversation instinctively .. and then apologized for being OT … when somebody indicated that virtually nothing is OT around here, I continued on … and later responded to an inquiry saying that I’m a lawyer and Photoshop enthusisast.

newsgroup. If you were in a law NG and talking about design, I’m sure the other lawyers would ask you to *prove* what artwork you’ve created.

and if it was relevant and I was in the mood to do so, I might show some of my artwork, just as I’ve showed the tangible manifestations of my profession here: words, legal reasoning, and authoritative citation … not to PROVE anything, but to share something useful … this is a **newsgroup** … do you really think I’m going to post my bar card numbers or law school transcripts ??

That being the case, since I think that lawyer-cum-graphic designers are rare, they’re assuming that you’re just googling the info and cases that you’re citing. Or making it up. I’m not implying in any way that you are

you can’t Google a lot of the stuff I’ve posted but I suppose you have no way of knowing that … you can, however, verify both it’s non-Google-ability and its authenticity it if that should matter to anyone (come to think of it, I guess as of now you probably can Google it in the newsgroups section pointing to this thread)

. . . but the image of a lawyer turning down 6 figures to become a "starving artist" isn’t one that most can imagine.

I don’t recall turning down anything or indicating that was about to

It’s easier
to think that you’re googling the info and putting a "lawyerly" spin on it.

don’t always take the easier route is my advice

My lawyer friend actually did that for a while – but he became an research scientist. After about 2 years of waaaay smaller paychecks and same size bills (couldn’t give up the lifestyle he was accustomed to), he went back to law.

so he’s in it for the money ? I withdraw my previous regrets about his non-participation in the group

But still, everyone he knew had a hard time
believing that he had been a lawyer before turning to science.

yeah … well, I have a hard time believing that a mediocre MBA turned to politics and is now our President ..

So, when reading everyone’s posts and arguments, please remember that . . . and don’t be quick to take offense when none is intended

this is: "Now look, don’t be offended .. but I think you’re a fraud …" lol … too funny .. really, it’s not all that offensive; but I think it would be a shame if you disregarded what I will shamelessly say is good counsel because you assume a graphic designer (which I’m not, by profession) cannot be a lawyer …

In article <JIGkf.153948$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

"max" wrote in message

He’s actually a *really* nice guy and one of the most humble you’d ever meet. There’s not a bit of blowhard or "rockstar" mentality about him.

well, then too bad he wouldn’t be interested in joining in

Yeah, he’s a really interesting guy. He has hobbies and interests that would blow most of us away in terms of finding the time for them (hiking, SCUBA diving, biking, mountain climbing, skiing – you name it, he’s more than likely done it). He and his girlfriend (who’s a world class chef) do all of those things together. Sometimes, when me and the hubby have time, we join in. He knows the waters off the East Coast like the back of his hand . . . he’s the most amazing SCUBA instructor and "guide."

Though, to be honest, he’d probably more than likely talk about his diving or his family more than anything else . . . ( :

In fact, he’s pretty much a "good ol boy." Very southern, very gentlemanly. (very cute, too, but that’s immaterial) He’s also probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. When he graduated from college (top of his class) he was courted by several firms in VA,

pretty unusual for law firms to recruit *college* graduates, although engineering grads are sometimes approached by patent firms and talked into going to law school

I don’t know anything about that – but I do know that his father was one of the best litigators in the field and was a partner in his firm by the age of 30-something.

And yes, he’s actually an engineer as well . . . I don’t know how many degrees he holds, but I know he has a Masters in Psychology, PhD in Engineering, and Masters something in Law ( I *do* know, however, that he passed the Bar on his first try – I got to be there for the celebration!).

He’s also got a Bachelors in Art as well . . . though that was just for fun. I talked him into that one. His family is (obscenely) rich, so for a while his "career" was college. He was never able to figure out what exactly he wanted to do (hence giving up his law career to be a researcher for a few years).

My husband, too, also has several degrees . . . Masters in Psych and Business and a PhD in Engineering. It took him forever to decide what he wanted to do, too. But me, I always knew I wanted be a designer. Though I don’t have nearly the education that those two have, I feel like my life was simpler because I didn’t have to "audition" majors or careers.

I think that one of the biggest concerns in this area (at least to me, whenever I draw a contract between a client and myself) is that the contract is *always* construed *against* the one who draws it. That little nugget always forces me to be very, very careful in what I put in the contract – whether it deal with copyrights or anything else

that

may be relevant to me later if I have to sue.

this is why I gave you the case squib which addresses the issue directly … but you say you’re not interested in it

In article <6lHkf.271324$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

Max, when I got involved in this thread there was a legal issue on the table; being a lawyer, I jumped into the conversation instinctively .. and then apologized for being OT … when somebody indicated that virtually nothing is OT around here, I continued on … and later responded to an inquiry saying that I’m a lawyer and Photoshop enthusisast.

I didn’t see that post . . . but it did seem that whoever asked you the name of the law school you attended sounded challenging – not so much in the way of inquisitive. *That* is what I responded to.

and if it was relevant and I was in the mood to do so, I might show some of my artwork, just as I’ve showed the tangible manifestations of my profession here: words, legal reasoning, and authoritative citation … not to PROVE anything, but to share something useful … this is a **newsgroup** … do you really think I’m going to post my bar card numbers or law school transcripts ??

No, and I never suggested that you should post personal info – in fact, if you notice, I’ve not posted anything personal about my background either – at least nothing that could lead to a physical confrontation.

I don’t recall turning down anything or indicating that was about to

No, and again, I didn’t say that you did. I was pointing out what the immediate assumption of the group might be. Typcially we lesser mortals picture lawyers as being too busy or drowned in paperwork to take time to post to humble NGs such as ours. Same as with doctors, politicans and the like – any time that you have such a field where the stress is high, you assume that the relaxation level is commiserately low.

don’t always take the easier route is my advice

I rarely do, but many others see no other path.

so he’s in it for the money ? I withdraw my previous regrets about his non-participation in the group

No, he’s not, but with a ready-made family (not only her children, but her disabled parents as well), he had to make sure they had enough to make a living. If anything, he was naive.

I don’t do what I do for the money — I do it because I love it. However, if I had a ready-made family to take care of and was offered more money, I would more than likely take it. Especially if it was in a field that I was comfortable with and didn’t feel that my current work was rewarding as much.

Because it was OT, I didn’t mention that another reason he left is because of the treatment of the test subjects.

yeah … well, I have a hard time believing that a mediocre MBA turned to politics and is now our President ..

Would you find it any harder to believe that he’d post to our group? See, I would. Just as I said earlier in this post, one assumes that people with that high of a stress-level profession would spend their "off-time" elsewhere.

For us, this nearly a neccesity – belonging to NGs such as this. This is where we can learn about the latest techniques, technology, get help with software issues, etc. Or just ask someone’s op on a job we’re in the middle of.

I’ve been in this business now for close to 20 years (started with paste-up and a PantherPro — long before computers made everything easier). I’ve been lucky enough to be on the forefront of the newest technologies. And the way that I’ve stayed on that forefront was to "relax" with my job and the groups, seminars, social events, etc that go with that job. Too, that sort of thing has always been interesting and fun for me — I love what I do and wouldn’t do anything else. I’m not sure if I’ve read a non-graphics or Mac magazine in the past 10 years — other than the occasional Pop Sci or Mech. Why? Because I love what I do and I love reading about it.

So the same assumption is made about *you* (making assumptions is, after all, a human trait) — that you would love what *you* do so much that you would spend as much time as poss (when not spending time with loved ones) reading, talking and breathing law. Otherwise, why would you have made it your career? Something that concievably, you’d be doing for the next 20 years? So one would assume that you’d be spending that time in a law NG as opposed to a GD NG.

this is: "Now look, don’t be offended .. but I think you’re a fraud …" lol … too funny .. really, it’s not all that offensive; but I think it would be a shame if you disregarded what I will shamelessly say is good counsel because you assume a graphic designer (which I’m not, by profession) cannot be a lawyer …

I never once stated that *I* thought you were a fraud – I have no legal exertise or experience one way or the other so I would be the *last* person on earth to accuse you of such a thing. I was merely stating that others might not know that you are in the legal profession and that you should take their responses with a grain of salt.

Somewhere you took the mistaken notion that I was purposefully trying to insult you. I will say it again: I meant no disrespect. I noticed everyone’s posts and it seemed that you were being challenged so to speak. Why else the huge debate? If you told me "such and such" and I knew you were a lawyer (and that I wasn’t) I’d say, "okay, she knows what she’s talking about and I don’t." I’d shut up then. I could argue (and might, if I felt the need to — we all like to argue every once in while) — but more than likely, I’d take advantage of your education and background and try to learn something. I’d not, frankly, waste the time I could be listening to argue to try to test my intellect against yours. (no offense to other posters) Some might be arm-chair lawyers, some might be just in the mood to argue?? who knows?

But it seemed that with each and every post, you were being argued with: so I simply said that some of the people here, rightly or wrongly, might not *know* or understand that that *is* your profession. They might not know that in this case, you are an expert on the matter. That could save a lot of time and trouble — and they could begin learning whatever you might feel like sharing.

But now, if you feel the need to feel offended, I have that right, too. On my post about ppi mattering you disagreed. You didn’t read my post fully (for whatever reason) and stated that no, ppi doesn’t matter. I get files *every* day that are in, believe it or not: ppi. Some good, some bad. Some I can "make" better, some I can’t. If you have an image that is 40 pixels wide and only 72 ppi and you need it blown up to say, 600 pixels wide for a web site, it’s going to looko crappy. Then, you can try a few tricks of the trade to make it less crappy – doesn’t always work, but sometimes, you’re lucky. But in the end, if the image is bad, it’s bad. The ppi is only *part* of the equation. If the ppi is bad, yes, even for web, it has a domino effect on the rest of the project.

Again, while you’re an enthusiast, I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years. Your assumption that I am an amateur in my profession is no different than my assuming that you are one as well in yours. The difference? I didn’t assume that you were an amateur at law. However, when you felt that I was (which, as I have said, what? 6 times now?? I did not make that assumption) making that assumption, you responded extremely defensively. Um, what was it you said? Oh yes, LOL . . . too funny.

FYI, just as law is what you do, this is what I do. If I didn’t know the diff between ppi and dpi (and the pre-requisite lpi), I wouldn’t be a very successful designer, would I? And yet, I am. So I *do* know what I’m talking about. But you made the assumption that I didn’t know the *basics* of my profession. So far, the only person on this group who’s been clueless about the basics of input and output has been Mad Hatter.

But instead of feeling challenged, I responded *nicely*. I never accused you of being insulting or offensive. I just thought: Hey! She didn’t know what I meant. I didn’t get huffy. You seemed to take my above response (even though I thought I explained myself best I can . . .. I’m a visual thinker — not very eloquent) as more insult still. When it was not intended that way. Again, I’ve only ever insulted Hatter.

And on the subject of Hatter . . . he’s the only person that I’ve been unkind to or insulted. And that was only because he has spent 99% of his time here to harass and insult other people here – people I respect as colleagues. He’s made numerous self-grandiose threats to disolve our NG. If he had just been a bit less ignorant I would have ignored him completely.

PS — and yes, I snipped my previous response. I felt that it would have been too long and unwieldy to read otherwise.

wrote:

Max, when I got involved in this thread there was a legal issue on the table; being a lawyer, I jumped into the conversation instinctively .. and
then apologized for being OT … when somebody indicated that virtually nothing is OT around here, I continued on … and later responded to an inquiry saying that I’m a lawyer and Photoshop enthusisast.

"max" wrote

I didn’t see that post . . . but it did seem that whoever asked you the name of the law school you attended sounded challenging – not so much in the way of inquisitive. *That* is what I responded to.

The post Elizabeth is referring to is mine, way up in this thread. This thread is cross posted to a couple of alt groups where not much is off topic. A look around ADG will confirm that. I also asked about her background because her perspective appeared well informed, beyond the "legal advice" you usually get in newsgroups. From what I can see in her posts, I still have that opinion of her expertise.

—
Fred Doyle

In article <WBJkf.95261$>, Fred Doyle
wrote:

The post Elizabeth is referring to is mine, way up in this thread. This thread is cross posted to a couple of alt groups where not much is off topic. A look around ADG will confirm that. I also asked about her background because her perspective appeared well informed, beyond the "legal advice" you usually get in newsgroups. From what I can see in her posts, I still have that opinion of her expertise.

Fred:
I’m sorry — I’m so used to hearing (well, reading) challenges whenever anyone purports to be an expert in any given field.
*Not saying that Elizabeth isn’t an expert in her field* I automatically assumed that’s what was going on . . .

I think part of it is that you can really be talking to *anyone.* I could claim that I invented the Inet — we all know I didn’t, and in a case like that it’s easy to decipher who’s making up tales and who’s not. But otherwise, it’s not that easy. Since it’s anonymous, we can "be" anyone, we can have any background we decide to invent.

So I admit I tend to be a bit on the skeptical side . . . but usually I try to err on the side of caution. I try to remember that the guy who says he’s just a junior graphic designer one year out of art school could very well be the fellow who’s written numerous respected tomes on graphic design (my personal favorite is Jim Krause — I just love his style!). Who knows what persona we each hide behind and for what reason?

But really, I thought it was another case of "yeah? and who are you to say that?" — and I meant no offense to E or anyone. As I said earlier, I’ve only gone out of my way to insult Hatter, which I know I should feel guilty for, but it’s just too easy and too tempting. But I think it’s healthy to have a *bit* of skepticism. Especially in a NG. I think you learn more if you question who you’re talking to. But absolutely in no case I have ever offended anyone purposefully (except, again, for Hatter – and even then, I would’ve ignored his posts if he hadn’t have been so ignorantly vicious to fellow posters).

I mean, when it comes right down to it (and perhaps I’m naive), we’re here for a greater purpose than to insult each other and "dissolve NGs" — we’re here to exchange ideas, learn from each other, get tips and solutions on software issues, and the like. It’s only the morons like Hatter who make it hard to do that. And to be totally honest, I’ve only become skeptical of other posts since his ravings.

So, once again, I meant no disrespect to *anyone*. I didn’t mean to stir up trouble in any way, shape or form. I was making an misinformed observation (though I fully admit that I made it when I was in a bit of a bitchy mood and lacking Midol).

So, please, accept my apologies. ( :

"Elizabeth"

<snip>

| > have been generated. The same cannot be said of digital documents or | > internet traffic. The law often accepts the mere fact of mailing via the
| > USPS as proof of notice (insurance company cancellation comes to mind) but
| > there is no precedent for email at this time.
|
| well, for one, if I file a document on the federal CM/ECF system, it’s filed
| .. and all parties have notice .. not exactly what you are referring to but

If my assumptions are correct the fed CM/ECF system is an online process and something that is comparatively new and one that the court system has control. Email/internet OTOH is not something that is under anyone’s effective control.

For example I can play with this computer and it’s programs and appear to be you on this news group. A bit more effort and I can fool most here, a lot more effort and I can be indistinguishable from you as far as the data contained in the post is concerned.

The only way you might prove you were not the one positing is with the logs of your ISP … something that can/may be accomplished today but for how long in the future?

You may produce files from your network that reflects that you did not send an email at that time but I can produce a *lot* of support that your system likely did dump the data.

"max" wrote in message

Max ..

Thanks — sincerely — for the reply; rather than another point-by-point, I’m just gonna top-post a few (hopefully brief) reply comments ..

First of all, one way or the other, apparently I attributed some comments of others to you … unintended … it’s gotten to be a bit of a long thread (127 messages with this subject actually) so I probably began responding "globally" to some extent even though addressing you at the outset

Perhaps I should — but don’t — think there’s anything at all unusual about a lawyer posting to graphic design group; many of my colleagues and friends have multiple interests, as apparently do yours … so, to me, if I say I’m a lawyer who fools around with PS, it’s no big deal … nor is getting involved in a thread of this sort … yeah, I’m busy … isn’t everyone these days ? That’s why I like to open up PS when I have a chance and do something for the soul .. not involving advocacy. But that post, and the response to it, just grabbed me .. and I want to try to tell you why. I’m sure you’re quite well aware that people do a LOT of complaining about lawyers … we cost too much, we’re nitpicky, cantankerous, caustic, blah blah blah. A lot of that’s true, some of it being an occupational hazard. But I was stunned to be in a group of creatives, and here’s an offer of $100 to do "a simple graphic" and I don’t see a single taker ! What I do see is a lot of all-too-familiar "stuff" about copyrights, contracts, business practices, and so on. It’s a $100 deal for God’s sake ! You can say, "nah …," "NAH !," "thanks but no thanks" or how about even, "dude, my stuff is
at www.something.com … have a look and let me know if you wanna talk … I’m willing to give you 45 minutes if you can give me a pretty good idea of what you want in a hurry." I know very well that there are a lot of people doing this kind of work for $40-50 per hour so, in broad terms, if it’s really a simple graphic, a competent pro can "do ok" on the proposition. But nobody seems to want to touch it ! I’m astounded.

So, I HAD to step into the fray on this … and make some kind of attempt to suggest that, yes, it’s possible for two parties to do a little business without a ton of formalities and without the assistance of one of us prickly and expensive IP lawyers. Maybe you say, "look, $100 doesn’t fly but make it $200, not a work for hire, and you can post it on your web site [+ this, that, – that, this] … deal ?" Even if you don’t cut a great deal, what’s the likelihood of this becoming a blockbuster that earns the guy who commissioned it millions ?

Sometimes I’m afraid we’re all not really talking to one another in authentic human terms anymore… it’s all come down to a series of interwoven technocratic scripts … and I see a LOT of this in the world of NGs … and I can’t really think it’s a great thing going on. I have not figured out WHY it happens and whether there’s anything to be done about it, but I believe you when you say groups like this are a necessity .. this is where you learn things, solve problems, make contacts, etc. btw, it’s the same kind of thing in legal NGs … some good things happen but there is far too much bickering, flaming, back-biting and so on …

Well, I said "brief comments" … and I’m well past that … re your complaint: I scarcely intended to suggest that I have more PS or design skill than you; without even knowing what your skill level is, that’s a laughable notion. I was just throwing into the mix one little thing I think I know, which is that on a computer screen the only currency that matters is pixels. I hear you; if you get a 90×60 image … whatever the PPI … it’s not likely to look like much printed out at 30" x 20" … there’s just not enough visual information and that’s that. If I was gruff, abrasive, or both, I apologize.

With that, I will stop my rambling and let those of you still listening return to the hornet’s nest 😉

Liz

In article <6lHkf.271324$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

Max, when I got involved in this thread there was a legal issue on the table; being a lawyer, I jumped into the conversation instinctively ..

and

then apologized for being OT … when somebody indicated that virtually nothing is OT around here, I continued on … and later responded to an inquiry saying that I’m a lawyer and Photoshop enthusisast.

I didn’t see that post . . . but it did seem that whoever asked you the name of the law school you attended sounded challenging – not so much in the way of inquisitive. *That* is what I responded to.

and if it was relevant and I was in the mood to do so, I might show some

of

my artwork, just as I’ve showed the tangible manifestations of my

profession

here: words, legal reasoning, and authoritative citation … not to

PROVE

anything, but to share something useful … this is a **newsgroup** …

do

you really think I’m going to post my bar card numbers or law school transcripts ??

No, and I never suggested that you should post personal info – in fact, if you notice, I’ve not posted anything personal about my background either – at least nothing that could lead to a physical confrontation.

I don’t recall turning down anything or indicating that was about to

No, and again, I didn’t say that you did. I was pointing out what the immediate assumption of the group might be. Typcially we lesser mortals picture lawyers as being too busy or drowned in paperwork to take time to post to humble NGs such as ours. Same as with doctors, politicans and the like – any time that you have such a field where the stress is high, you assume that the relaxation level is commiserately low.

don’t always take the easier route is my advice

I rarely do, but many others see no other path.

so he’s in it for the money ? I withdraw my previous regrets about his non-participation in the group

No, he’s not, but with a ready-made family (not only her children, but her disabled parents as well), he had to make sure they had enough to make a living. If anything, he was naive.

I don’t do what I do for the money — I do it because I love it. However, if I had a ready-made family to take care of and was offered more money, I would more than likely take it. Especially if it was in a field that I was comfortable with and didn’t feel that my current work was rewarding as much.

Because it was OT, I didn’t mention that another reason he left is because of the treatment of the test subjects.

yeah … well, I have a hard time believing that a mediocre MBA turned

to

politics and is now our President ..

Would you find it any harder to believe that he’d post to our group? See, I would. Just as I said earlier in this post, one assumes that people with that high of a stress-level profession would spend their "off-time" elsewhere.

For us, this nearly a neccesity – belonging to NGs such as this. This is where we can learn about the latest techniques, technology, get help with software issues, etc. Or just ask someone’s op on a job we’re in the middle of.

I’ve been in this business now for close to 20 years (started with paste-up and a PantherPro — long before computers made everything easier). I’ve been lucky enough to be on the forefront of the newest technologies. And the way that I’ve stayed on that forefront was to "relax" with my job and the groups, seminars, social events, etc that go with that job. Too, that sort of thing has always been interesting and fun for me — I love what I do and wouldn’t do anything else. I’m not sure if I’ve read a non-graphics or Mac magazine in the past 10 years — other than the occasional Pop Sci or Mech. Why? Because I love what I do and I love reading about it.

So the same assumption is made about *you* (making assumptions is, after all, a human trait) — that you would love what *you* do so much that you would spend as much time as poss (when not spending time with loved ones) reading, talking and breathing law. Otherwise, why would you have made it your career? Something that concievably, you’d be doing for the next 20 years? So one would assume that you’d be spending that time in a law NG as opposed to a GD NG.

this is: "Now look, don’t be offended .. but I think you’re a fraud …" lol … too funny .. really, it’s not all that offensive; but I think it would be a shame if you disregarded what I will shamelessly say is good counsel because you assume a graphic designer (which I’m not, by

profession)

cannot be a lawyer …

I never once stated that *I* thought you were a fraud – I have no legal exertise or experience one way or the other so I would be the *last* person on earth to accuse you of such a thing. I was merely stating that others might not know that you are in the legal profession and that you should take their responses with a grain of salt.
Somewhere you took the mistaken notion that I was purposefully trying to insult you. I will say it again: I meant no disrespect. I noticed everyone’s posts and it seemed that you were being challenged so to speak. Why else the huge debate? If you told me "such and such" and I knew you were a lawyer (and that I wasn’t) I’d say, "okay, she knows what she’s talking about and I don’t." I’d shut up then. I could argue (and might, if I felt the need to — we all like to argue every once in while) — but more than likely, I’d take advantage of your education and background and try to learn something. I’d not, frankly, waste the time I could be listening to argue to try to test my intellect against yours. (no offense to other posters) Some might be arm-chair lawyers, some might be just in the mood to argue?? who knows?

But it seemed that with each and every post, you were being argued with: so I simply said that some of the people here, rightly or wrongly, might not *know* or understand that that *is* your profession. They might not know that in this case, you are an expert on the matter. That could save a lot of time and trouble — and they could begin learning whatever you might feel like sharing.

But now, if you feel the need to feel offended, I have that right, too. On my post about ppi mattering you disagreed. You didn’t read my post fully (for whatever reason) and stated that no, ppi doesn’t matter. I get files *every* day that are in, believe it or not: ppi. Some good, some bad. Some I can "make" better, some I can’t. If you have an image that is 40 pixels wide and only 72 ppi and you need it blown up to say, 600 pixels wide for a web site, it’s going to looko crappy. Then, you can try a few tricks of the trade to make it less crappy – doesn’t always work, but sometimes, you’re lucky. But in the end, if the image is bad, it’s bad. The ppi is only *part* of the equation. If the ppi is bad, yes, even for web, it has a domino effect on the rest of the project.

Again, while you’re an enthusiast, I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years. Your assumption that I am an amateur in my profession is no different than my assuming that you are one as well in yours. The difference? I didn’t assume that you were an amateur at law. However, when you felt that I was (which, as I have said, what? 6 times now?? I did not make that assumption) making that assumption, you responded extremely defensively. Um, what was it you said? Oh yes, LOL . . . too funny.

FYI, just as law is what you do, this is what I do. If I didn’t know the diff between ppi and dpi (and the pre-requisite lpi), I wouldn’t be a very successful designer, would I? And yet, I am. So I *do* know what I’m talking about. But you made the assumption that I didn’t know the *basics* of my profession. So far, the only person on this group who’s been clueless about the basics of input and output has been Mad Hatter.
But instead of feeling challenged, I responded *nicely*. I never accused you of being insulting or offensive. I just thought: Hey! She didn’t know what I meant. I didn’t get huffy. You seemed to take my above response (even though I thought I explained myself best I can . . . I’m a visual thinker — not very eloquent) as more insult still. When it was not intended that way. Again, I’ve only ever insulted Hatter.

And on the subject of Hatter . . . he’s the only person that I’ve been unkind to or insulted. And that was only because he has spent 99% of his time here to harass and insult other people here – people I respect as colleagues. He’s made numerous self-grandiose threats to disolve our NG. If he had just been a bit less ignorant I would have ignored him completely.

PS — and yes, I snipped my previous response. I felt that it would have been too long and unwieldy to read otherwise.

"Elizabeth"

| Thanks — sincerely — for the reply; rather than another point-by-point, | I’m just gonna top-post a few (hopefully brief) reply comments .. |
| First of all, one way or the other, apparently I attributed some comments of
| others to you … unintended … it’s gotten to be a bit of a long thread | (127 messages with this subject actually) so I probably began responding | "globally" to some extent even though addressing you at the outset |
| Perhaps I should — but don’t — think there’s anything at all unusual about
| a lawyer posting to graphic design group; many of my colleagues and friends
| have multiple interests, as apparently do yours … so, to me, if I say I’m
| a lawyer who fools around with PS, it’s no big deal … nor is getting | involved in a thread of this sort … yeah, I’m busy … isn’t everyone | these days ? That’s why I like to open up PS when I have a chance and do | something for the soul .. not involving advocacy. But that post, and the | response to it, just grabbed me .. and I want to try to tell you why. I’m | sure you’re quite well aware that people do a LOT of complaining about | lawyers … we cost too much, we’re nitpicky, cantankerous, caustic, blah | blah blah. A lot of that’s true, some of it being an occupational hazard. | But I was stunned to be in a group of creatives, and here’s an offer of $100
| to do "a simple graphic" and I don’t see a single taker ! What I do see is
| a lot of all-too-familiar "stuff" about copyrights, contracts, business | practices, and so on. It’s a $100 deal for God’s sake !

<snip>

The problem like as not is not that everyone thinks it’s *only* one hundered dollars and what the hey it contains all rights as well. But that the presumption is constant in the news groups, other places on the web and in general commerce that graphic arts is not a real job and the work product is done just for fun.

I’m an engineer by training, an entrepreneur by outlook and involved in GA by luck. All those things involve contracts, pricing, sales, risk and management. But while the fact that a lawyer would have GA skills is an astonishment to many here I find it something I would expect to see as people in general have multiple skill sets and multiple interest.

I can personally recount instances were a $100/$1000 deal eventually developed into an ongoing cash cow of many times the original fee. Not watching the finer points of IPR would have cost us dearly. I can also recount an instance were signing an engineering employment contract with out benefit of legal advise cost me big money.

Another point is the estimation that the work product will ‘only involve a few minutes of your time’ ergo the price should be low. Good Art by Lucy for 5 cents only exists in the mind of Charles Shultz (who was paid many times that amount for reprint rights of his work product.)

Perhaps the reason no one picked up on the offer of a project is the job is worth much more than $100 regardless of the requirement for all rights. Could I or anyone here do the deed? Must assuredly but the diversion of time from more productive work makes it unlikely many would even entertain the options. Were that I were desperate for $100 bucks I’d give it some consideration but not for all rights.

As to lawyers being land sharks and robbers much of that is propaganda put forward by those that are pushing TORT reform. That effort is, in part, because they no longer have the option, as put forward in Shakespeare ‘to kill all the lawyers’ (BTW the rest of the quote, and I paraphrase, is ‘if you would destroy liberty, first kill all the lawyers’.

As support of that might check into how much tort reform is pushed in B2B circles, it’s all about keeping the little guy from his day in court. Want an eye full about the level of abuse? Do a google search on key words ERISA and insurance.

I give my lawyer friends a ration of grief about lawyer jokes and other matters but I fully understand the contribution they make to an ordered society and I know that many of the things that they are hammered for are the result of bad/poor decisions on the part of their clients or those that harmed their clients.

For $100/$1000 I am a bit careful about what I do but, as a friend of mine once said for $10M+/- … with an elephant, on a stage, with his wife and kids in the front seats.

In article <7mLkf.277853$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

Max ..

Thanks — sincerely — for the reply; rather than another point-by-point, I’m just gonna top-post a few (hopefully brief) reply comments ..
First of all, one way or the other, apparently I attributed some comments of others to you … unintended … it’s gotten to be a bit of a long thread (127 messages with this subject actually) so I probably began responding "globally" to some extent even though addressing you at the outset

PLEASE accept my apology . . . I really wasn’t trying to offend you! I actually thought I was "helping" (yeah, I admit . . . I’m actually about as helpful when it comes to interpersonal relationships as I am at fixing my car or designing a rocket for NASA . . . I don’t "do" people, I’m a Mac Geek — give me a computer over a person anyday and I’m a happy camper!)

Perhaps I should — but don’t — think there’s anything at all unusual about a lawyer posting to graphic design group; many of my colleagues and friends have multiple interests, as apparently do yours … so, to me, if I say I’m a lawyer who fools around with PS, it’s no big deal … nor is getting involved in a thread of this sort … yeah, I’m busy … isn’t everyone these days ?

I think part of my bias comes from the fact that the typical stereotype of lawyers (or doctors, for that matter) is that of being too intellectual to be artistic – the whole right vs left side of the brain. See, you cited the law in one of your past posts to me . . . that’s not how my brain works. I could *never* remember all of that, much less convince anyone else that I had ever heard of it before. It literally made no sense to me. I honestly think with the left side of my brain . . . and what you do so clearly requires absolute right side superiority.

So I guess what I’m trying to say (though doing a horrible job of it) is that while I don’t think my profession is a "no-brainer" kind of gig, I think it takes more right-brain thinking to do what *you* do. Not saying one bit that you have no left brain ability . . . I’m just saying I would assume (yes, I know ass out of me) that left brain pursuits would be not as interesting to someone who so clearly has so much strength on the right side.

Okay, how about this (again, I’m about as eloquent as a 3rd grade dropout). . . I picture you, from reading your posts (and from my assumptions about your profession and what it took, intellectually and time-wise, to get you there), relaxing by critiquing the summation of some famous attorney. Or perhaps completing the NY Times crosswords in *pen* in five minutes and shaking your head at yourself, *knowing* you could have done better. Because of your intellect and the type of brain you *must* have, I make that assumption.

So, that being said, yes, I do find it strange, in a way, that you would find PS relaxing. Why? Because it’s relaxing to me, and you see, I *don’t* have the same kind of brain you have. So to me, someone like you wouldn’t find that relaxing . . . you’d look at PS and say "Why would I want to do that? What would be the point?" and then get back to the latest issue of Mensa (yeah, I know that Mensa’s not all it’s cracked up to be, but it was all I could thinl of that was brainy).

BUT that being said, too, I *could* see you being an artist as well. With all the stress that *does* come from a profession such as yours, I can easily see you needing to express yourself with art. It’s creative, helps you solve problems otherwise unrelated, and is a way of venting, so to speak. It’s completely different from what you do on a day to day basis, so I can see how it would help you unwind and be something other than "just" a lawyer, wife (?), mother (?), woman. I often read true crime novels for that very reason. For those few hours, I am not pigeon-holed into what I am otherwise in my life. (not sure if all that made sense — I understand what I’m trying to say, but don’t know if I’m getting across)

That’s why I like to open up PS when I have a chance and do something for the soul .. not involving advocacy. But that post, and the response to it, just grabbed me .. and I want to try to tell you why. I’m sure you’re quite well aware that people do a LOT of complaining about lawyers … we cost too much, we’re nitpicky, cantankerous, caustic, blah blah blah. A lot of that’s true, some of it being an occupational hazard.

I really don’t think that way . . . first off, I think you all *are* expensive . . . but so are doctors. It’s a fact that we couldn’t live without doctors or lawyers. And considering how intellect and time-intensive both professions are, I think the fees are worth it. How hard did you have to work to get through law school? How many hours did you sacrifice for furthering your study (when you could have spent those hours doing "fun stuff" or just relaxing?)?

When you factor in all the time that you’ve spent preparing and studying for your profession, don’t you think that you deserve a commiserate fee?! I sure as hell do. If I hire a lawyer, I expect them to be able to speak for me . . . and I expect to pay for such. Too, I think most people want a high-priced lawyer . . . you don’t look for a bargain basment doctor to operate on your loved one, do you? A lawyer isn’t going to operate on a loved one, obviously, but a lawyer can keep your butt out of jail, or from having a judgement posed against you. Having a lawyer can mean the difference between life and death, freedom and imprisionment, wealth and bankruptcy. Having to pay a lawyer a higher fee kind of makes you feel better about your chances of winning. The higher the fee = (in most minds) the better the counsel. Though I’ve known many who work pro bono for many, long, hours because they believe in the truth and in their clients (like my friend).

And quite honestly, I’ve known many lawyers . . . and I’ve never known any that fit that stereotype one bit. But if you were, as a group, caustic and cantankerous, could we *really* blame you?? No., we couldn’t. How many times a day does someone try to put something past you? How many times a day are you lied to by, often, the very people who you’re trying to help? How hard do you have to work to get at the truth?

How many times a week are you handicapped by the "system?" By rules and rulings that really make no sense in a practical world? How many times do you see those who should have won, based on the evidence, but don’t because of the opposition’s deep pockets? Honestly? I’d be pissed and bitter after a few of those kinds of experiences. And, getting back to $$ — we pay you higher fees so *we* don’t have to deal with that stress. Personally, I think we get off easy as a whole. I’d much rather pay big bucks for you to do your magic and fight the system (or circumvent it where necessary for the "good guys"). Cause I’d be screwed if *I* had to do it.

But I was stunned to be in a group of creatives, and here’s an offer of $100 to do "a simple graphic" and I don’t see a single taker ! What I do see is a lot of all-too-familiar "stuff" about copyrights, contracts, business practices, and so on. It’s a $100 deal for God’s sake ! You can say, "nah ..," "NAH !," "thanks but no thanks" or how about even, "dude, my stuff is
at www.something.com … have a look and let me know if you wanna talk … I’m willing to give you 45 minutes if you can give me a pretty good idea of what you want in a hurry." I know very well that there are a lot of people doing this kind of work for $40-50 per hour so, in broad terms, if it’s really a simple graphic, a competent pro can "do ok" on the proposition. But nobody seems to want to touch it ! I’m astounded.

So, I HAD to step into the fray on this … and make some kind of attempt to suggest that, yes, it’s possible for two parties to do a little business without a ton of formalities and without the assistance of one of us prickly and expensive IP lawyers. Maybe you say, "look, $100 doesn’t fly but make it $200, not a work for hire, and you can post it on your web site [+ this, that, – that, this] … deal ?" Even if you don’t cut a great deal, what’s the likelihood of this becoming a blockbuster that earns the guy who commissioned it millions ?

Ugh *roll eyes*, you’re touching on a sore subject, there, with copyright issues. Who knows why? For some, I’m sure that they believe they’re soooo talented and soooo good that they don’t want anyone else to steal their perfect masterpiece. For some it might be that they are afraid that someone might abuse or mistreat their "child" by slapping a different color scheme to it, poor font choice, etc. And for a few others it might be that they’ve been burned by clients in the past and are "jaded" by that experience. So taking that $100 job doesn’t mean netting $100 when you consider the stress some night have of worrying about getting rooked/not paid, having your "baby" mistreated or what have you.

Too, when you consider the time you spend getting the specs, drafting concepts, and then making revisions, it puts $100 into perspective, so to speak. I mean, there *are*, I’m sure, some who feel that way. What’s specced as a two hour job is rarely just that. Usually you have to consider time spent in meetings/communicating in addition to the actual design work.

<And, I’ve learned, that typically a job that the client states is "simple" is rarely ever so. >

Too, although slim, there *is* always the slightest chance that that one "simple graphic" we do for a few bucks might end up a cash cow for the client. I think that paranoid greed is what keeps us from taking many jobs.

Too, I’ve always been told by my mentors that artists are a notoriously insecure lot. We’re either afraid that we’re not good enough (if we compare ourselves to those at the ad agencies working for NIKE) or that we’re too good and not being recognized (or paid enough) for it.

Take a look at in-house artists vs out-of-house designers . . . you have the in-house designers upset that an outsider is designing such and such, and alternatively you have the outsider upset because they know that they have no real "comittment" on the job. The in-house AD can fire them/end the project on a whim. So you have two groups that *should* be playing nice with each other that’s actually at each other’s throats.

But on the subject of copyright, I don’t get too concerned about it for the most part . . . I figure (incorrectly?) that there have got to be nearly (if not more) a million designers in the world — with that number in mind, assuming that they’re all producing art, what are the chances that the awesome piece you created today wasn’t similarly created by someone else the day before? Too, art is continually being recycled . . . there are "new" designs being created and new movments being started, but most mainstream design is based on classic designs.

Too, if I have a client who makes millions off my design, good for them. No . . . really. That’s what I’m here for. My job is to make *them* look good. And frankly, I don’t think just a design is going to make or break their business. Their business, product, and ethics will do that. My logo design is just an enhancement, so to speak.

Furthermore, how many products have you bought *solely* because you liked the logo? Let’s take a car – – would you buy a crappy death machine on wheels if the company had a cool logo? No, you wouldn’t. How many products have you bought *despite* the logo? Probably quite a few. I know I have . . . So here’s a question: how could a designer prove that his logo helped make the company it’s millions? I don’t think he could, really. So in the end, I really think it’s the business that should reap the rewards of it’s labor, not the designer who created it’s logo.

Now on illustrations, I make sure to have clearly outlined copyrights – an illustration for a book, I think, can make or break the book to an extent. I’ve had illustrations made into jewelry (that did quite well on the market) so I expected to be compensated for it and the copyright. The esthetic quality of the jewelry – the selling point – *was* of my creation. Too, I’ve done posters – again, I had copyright contracts drawn up. Again, the illustration is an intregal part of why it sells – *my* creation. But logos? No, they should be the property of the client. Besides, how would a logo for a tennis shoe help me? I’m not selling shoes . . . as long as I can have it in my portfolio to get more projects and further my company’s interests, I’m happy.

Sometimes I’m afraid we’re all not really talking to one another in authentic human terms anymore… it’s all come down to a series of interwoven technocratic scripts … and I see a LOT of this in the world of NGs … and I can’t really think it’s a great thing going on. I have not figured out WHY it happens and whether there’s anything to be done about it, but I believe you when you say groups like this are a necessity .. this is where you learn things, solve problems, make contacts, etc. btw, it’s the same kind of thing in legal NGs … some good things happen but there is far too much bickering, flaming, back-biting and so on …

Well, I’m not going to touch that . . . *rolls eyes* I’ll bet you’ve seen my posts to Hatter. So, I can’t talk one bit. I didn’t just toe the line of good taste and decent upbringing, I think I peed all over it. *shudder* But for the most part, I’m a mice person — or at least I try to be. I don’t criticize other’s work, sites, religious creeds, etc. If I post, I try to post to share or help or just plain ask questions. But I *DID* go overboard with hatter. And I *AM* embarassed about that. Will that stop me next time he ticks me off? Probably not. He’s great for venting! ( :

But for the most part, everyone here is wonderful (there are exceptions – Hatter obviously . . . and now, me, right?). NotMe is amazing – I really respect him and Inez (iesmith) is one of the sweetest and most intelligent people I’ve met here, Amgine is very clever, and so is Lorem Ipsum- just to name a few . . , in other words, I don’t know how long you’ve been here, but I already know you fit in just fine. ( :

Well, I said "brief comments" … and I’m well past that … re your complaint: I scarcely intended to suggest that I have more PS or design skill than you; without even knowing what your skill level is, that’s a laughable notion. I was just throwing into the mix one little thing I think I know, which is that on a computer screen the only currency that matters is pixels. I hear you; if you get a 90×60 image … whatever the PPI … it’s not likely to look like much printed out at 30" x 20" … there’s just not enough visual information and that’s that. If I was gruff, abrasive, or both, I apologize.

Okay, a little soul-baring here . . . I think I was on the defensive (think? did I say "think?" I’m pretty sure I meant "definitely was") in both areas because of your previous posts (not to me — to the group in general) . . . I have to tell you — you lost me early on in the thread. You were quite intimidating. Not in a mean or offensive way, but intellectually. I definitely felt out of my league, so I got snippy and was more in-tuned to looking for insult where there was none. If you’re being a jerk, I can say to myself "yeah, she’s brilliant, but she’s a jerk" and I don’t feel so inferior, so to speak. So I can totally see myself "inventing" your insults because it will make me feel better about my intelligence (or lack thereof).

And again, I’m very sorry about that. It’s not your fault that you’re bloody brilliant! ( : And thank God there’s someone like you to counteract the women we see on the screen . . . brilliant vs vapid, passionate vs spazzy, crusader vs don’t-give-a-shit.
<that may not have come out the way I’m hoping it will, but hopefully, you get the sentiment>

With that, I will stop my rambling and let those of you still listening return to the hornet’s nest 😉

Actually, I’d like to hear more from you — that is, if I haven’t totally bored you or been too much of a jerk! ( :

For one thing, how in the world did you ever get into PS? What do you do with it/in it? When did you first start? What do you like best about it? What do you hate? C’mon! Don’t make me use my pathetic interrogation skills . . . I know you’d beat me, hands down, but do you really want to see me make a fool out of myself? ( ;

Liz

In article <toNkf.14732$>, NotMe
wrote:

The problem like as not is not that everyone thinks it’s *only* one hundered dollars and what the hey it contains all rights as well. But that the presumption is constant in the news groups, other places on the web and in general commerce that graphic arts is not a real job and the work product is done just for fun.

Tell me about it . . . most people think that artists are "bohemians" and hippies . . .

Too, how about all the ads you see for getting a graphic design education online? I’ve seen many that tout "graphic design is so easy, the software does everything for you!" As if a program could be fired and forgotten – by the time you come back from getting a cup of joe, you have an entire ad laid out *for you* by the computer! I’ve seen those ads on the telly, so I know that others see them too. And so the misconception grows . . .

I think another complication is that the notion is alive today that if you buy the software, you’re automatically an artist. So every Tom, Dick and Harry believe that if they go and make an investment of $3K (computer, printer for proofs, software, etc) they can start their own business. And quite often, the client that you’ve been serving for years sees that example and then believes that one artist’s work is the same as another’s. So why not take his project to a DTPer and save money, right? Unfortunately for him, he’ll more than likely lose more $$ than he saves — in time, printer’s fees (don’t even ask how many times I’ve heard of a DTPer getting his client penalized at press for bad files or re-runs), inferior product, and overall marketing fiascos.

Elizabeth arranged shapes to form:

But I was stunned to be in a group of creatives, and here’s an offer of $100 to do "a simple graphic" and I don’t see a single taker ! What I do see is a lot of all-too-familiar "stuff" about copyrights,

Which started as an attempt to show to the Hatter that the value of GD is in more than just playing with computer files.

contracts, business
practices, and so on. It’s a $100 deal for God’s sake !

It’s only a $100 deal *if* the OP selects your work. So its work for free, money if the OP feels like it.

At the point where the OP has 5 designs to choose from, each is as valuable as each other, as they all help the OP reach a conclusion. So why does only one designer get paid, if each has contributed to that process? It’s about understanding the value of what a designer does.

You can say, "nah
..," "NAH !," "thanks but no thanks" or how about even, "dude, my stuff is
at www.something.com … have a look and let me know if you wanna talk …

and we can also try to educate the OP (and amature designers) a little to the value of what he’s asking for.

But nobody seems to want to touch it ! I’m astounded.

If the OP were asking for legal advice in the same way, would you take his case?

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

I’d just like to relate that I’ve successfully completed the transaction, and would to thank those who responded – My apologies for not getting back to you, but it was done pretty quickly.

I am completely thrilled with the work, and the artist seems happy with the transaction as well. It was, overall, low-overhead and seamless.

While many of you offered sarcasm, derision, and debated minutiae, another artist got US$100 richer for ~1.5 hours of work.

—
…………………………………………………… ………………

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist "
-Salman Rushdie

…………………………………………………… ………………

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:53:56 GMT,
wrote:

I’d just like to relate that I’ve successfully completed the transaction, and would to thank those who responded – My apologies for not getting back to you, but it was done pretty quickly.

I am completely thrilled with the work, and the artist seems happy with the transaction as well. It was, overall, low-overhead and seamless.
While many of you offered sarcasm, derision, and debated minutiae, another artist got US$100 richer for ~1.5 hours of work.

If you had asked, I probably would have done it for free. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Look, Stupid…figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…that’s it, that’s all I’m saying. And as such you can use them interchangeably.

Why is there ‘dot gain’ and not ‘pixel gain’?

Come on. Yer head’s gonna EXPLODE! Tape if for is, eh?

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:34:07 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi unless you alter your default print settings. I’m not makin this shit up, Stupid, go ahead and try it out for yourself. *rolls eyes*

You can roll your eyes like a little girl

Only little girls roll their eyes, huh? Maybe you should stop trying to hit on them all the time.

but it doesn’t change the fact that DPI and Pixels per Inch are not the same in the print media world.

I never said they were the same thing, Retardo. I simply said you can use them interchangeably if you want so long as you keep it in the proper context.

Bring your ppi image to a magazine printer and in the manner above, order them to print it ‘ppi’. Just say that. It’s all you need to say, because they are the same,

Why would I tell the printers anything? I mean, if I’m the one who MADE the image I don’t need to tell the printers anything other than what size they need to print it at. Printers aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to print. They’re monkey, button pushers, nothing more than that.

right Web Girl?

You REALLY don’t like girls much, do you?

Now jump off a roof; give us an example of Human Dot Gain. Big-time.

Wishing for my death already, huh? Tsch, tsch, tsch…how weak of you. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:34:07 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

Only little girls roll their eyes, huh? Maybe you should stop trying to hit on them all the time.

Exactly . . . molest little boys like Hatter does.

but it doesn’t change the fact that DPI and Pixels per Inch are not the same in the print media world.

I never said they were the same thing, Retardo. I simply said you can use them interchangeably if you want so long as you keep it in the proper context.

That makes no sense . . . if they’re not the same thing how can you use them interchangeably?

Bring your ppi image to a magazine printer and in the manner above, order them to print it ‘ppi’. Just say that. It’s all you need to say, because they are the same,

Why would I tell the printers anything? I mean, if I’m the one who MADE the image I don’t need to tell the printers anything other than what size they need to print it at. Printers aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to print. They’re monkey, button pushers, nothing more than that.

Spoken like someone who’s either never taken a project to press or who’s completely ignorant of the whole process.
Good pressmen are worth their weight in gold. And they’re paid as such (how many monkey button-pushers do you know that pull down over $50-60K a year?). The reputations of printers such as Balmar rely wholy on the skills of their pressmen. Mixing inks, preventing "ghosting" or crocking, choosing the correct inks for the job – those are all tasks that require skill, experience and "intuition"

You should always tell your printer "everything" about the project. Many times, they can find cheaper alternatives to get as good, if not better, print. Also, they can often help you greatly in the creative process. But, really, it’s absolutely essential to a successful print. If you went to graphic design school (?) surely you would know that? I’m not sure of your background, but you clearly have no "real-world" experience.

I have been to your site and I have seen your calendar (you boasted of its sales in another thread, I believe) – but personally, I think it sold out because of the context (football fans can often be obsessive – buying everything with their team’s logo on it, from calendars to bobble-heads) and/or the attractive women. Beautiful women have been selling inferior products since the dawn of time. Fortunately, the terribly amateur design of the piece didn’t disguise their beauty.

It is possible that with time and good listening skills you could actually become an artist (instead of merely "artistic" as you are now). However, holding on to your ignorance won’t be an asset in that pursuit. Honestly, you seem to have a passion for art/graphic design, but until you develop the practical skills and use of the technical terms (dpi vs ppi), you will never be more than an amateur.

right Web Girl?

You REALLY don’t like girls much, do you?

I think he’s actually calling *you* a little girl, Poindexter. How ignorant of you to miss the point.

Wishing for my death already, huh? Tsch, tsch, tsch…how weak of

you. ^_^

Why shouldn’t he? You’re clearly ignorant in the field of graphic design (as illustrated by your comments above), yet you profess to be a designer. Buying the equipment and publishing sub-par work to the webg doesn’t make you a designer, Chum. It makes you a poser or possibly a scam artist.

Again, if you take the time to *learn* what you can, you may very well be an artist someday. You seem to have a burgeoning talent, but that will wither and die unless you develop it practically (doing other than stealing other designer’s concepts and creating self-serving "brag" peieces). Otherwise, you are a fraud and a scam artist, or at the very least self-delusional.

Good luck on your journey!
Harold

Who am I? I am a graphic designer who’s been in this industry since the early 50’s. I now own a press company capable of "show quality" production, and we print over 20 well-known magazines, including marketing material for many "household name" companies.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

harold wrote:

Spoken like someone who’s either never taken a project to press or who’s completely ignorant of the whole process.
Good pressmen are worth their weight in gold. And they’re paid as such (how many monkey button-pushers do you know that pull down over $50-60K a year?). The reputations of printers such as Balmar rely wholy on the skills of their pressmen. Mixing inks, preventing "ghosting" or crocking, choosing the correct inks for the job – those are all tasks that require skill, experience and "intuition"

SNIP

Again, if you take the time to *learn* what you can, you may very well be an artist someday. You seem to have a burgeoning talent, but that will wither and die unless you develop it practically (doing other than stealing other designer’s concepts and creating self-serving "brag" peieces). Otherwise, you are a fraud and a scam artist, or at the very least self-delusional.

Good luck on your journey!
Harold

Who am I? I am a graphic designer who’s been in this industry since the early 50’s. I now own a press company capable of "show quality" production, and we print over 20 well-known magazines, including marketing material for many "household name" companies.

—

amen.

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Why would I tell the printers anything? I mean, if I’m the one who MADE the image I don’t need to tell the printers anything other than what size they need to print it at. Printers aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to print. They’re monkey, button pushers, nothing more than that.

That statement demonstrates conclusively the low level of experience, expertise and quality in the graphic arts being dealt with here. Anyone who has been in the graphic arts for any length of time will recognize the idiocy of the statement (not to mention the money that will be lost due to this attitude). Next time this gentleman states anything regarding his ability as a designer, this can be quoted back to him. Nothing more needs to be said.

Fred Doyle

In article <al247i8hphcb$.1tojiz2482rdt$>, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

You can say, "nah
..," "NAH !," "thanks but no thanks" or how about even, "dude, my stuff is
at www.something.com … have a look and let me know if you wanna talk …

and we can also try to educate the OP (and amature designers) a little to the value of what he’s asking for.

That’s a bit unfair — the thread had really devolved to the point where the OP was pretty much excluded. Near the end, was anyone really talking to him?

But nobody seems to want to touch it ! I’m astounded.

If the OP were asking for legal advice in the same way, would you take his case?

That’s not very fair to ask, either. To be honest, I think she’s a bit of a "newcomer" to our group and probably hasn’t heard our rants on work-for-hire/work-for-spec. Too, for all she knows, it could be industry standard. Just as for all we know, work-for-hire/work for spec could be an industry standard in her profession (I doubt it, but I really wouldn’t know for sure).

But really, she’s got a point . . . instead of his getting answers like "no, thanks, we’re not interested" it devolved into another matter entirely. I know that my own responses weren’t addressed to the OP. I’m not saying that we’re "required" to answer him, but I can see how she’d be confused . . . after all, we were being offered a "job" so to speak, and no one bit.

Not completely sure if that made sense . . . ( :

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:19:07 -0500, "Fred Doyle" wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Why would I tell the printers anything? I mean, if I’m the one who MADE the image I don’t need to tell the printers anything other than what size they need to print it at. Printers aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to print. They’re monkey, button pushers, nothing more than that.

That statement demonstrates conclusively the low level of experience, expertise and quality in the graphic arts being dealt with here. Anyone who has been in the graphic arts for any length of time will recognize the idiocy of the statement (not to mention the money that will be lost due to this attitude). Next time this gentleman states anything regarding his ability as a designer, this can be quoted back to him. Nothing more needs to be said.

I’ve already killfiled the moron within 15 minutes of signing on here for the first time. If everybody else would, this groups signal to noise ratio might improve.

"peevee_hermann" wrote in message

I’ve already killfiled the moron within 15 minutes of signing on here for the first time. If everybody else would, this groups signal to noise ratio might improve.

I don’t killfile anyone. That’s a personal choice. I can and do ignore most of his messages without a kf, but picked up on this incredibly ignorant statement from harold’s reply. Actually, that statement is so demonstrative of a lack of experience, and so unbelievably, stupidly arrogant that I wanted to go back to see where it came from. Maybe I should have known.

Fred Doyle

Onideus Mad Hatter

Why would I tell the printers anything? I mean, if I’m the one who MADE the image I don’t need to tell the printers anything other than what size they need to print it at. Printers aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to print. They’re monkey, button pushers, nothing more than that.

I hope, for the sake of your clients, that the printers you’re doing business with are not a fly on the wall in any of these news groups.

Long time back I had a client with that attitude and he made the mistake of letting his staff know it in no uncertain terms.

FWIW there was no organized ‘we’re going to get him’. What happened was everyone did EXACTLY what he told them to do no more no less.

He was gone in less than a year.

In article , Fred Doyle
wrote:

"peevee_hermann" wrote in message

I’ve already killfiled the moron within 15 minutes of signing on here for the first time. If everybody else would, this groups signal to noise ratio might improve.

I don’t killfile anyone. That’s a personal choice. I can and do ignore most of his messages without a kf, but picked up on this incredibly ignorant statement from harold’s reply. Actually, that statement is so demonstrative of a lack of experience, and so unbelievably, stupidly arrogant that I wanted to go back to see where it came from. Maybe I should have known.
Fred Doyle

Greetings all,

Does anyone know this fellow’s background (i.e., design school attended, if any; employer; etc)? It might be interesting to see if he holds a degree and who his professor might have been. Tho, I can’t imagine a professor who would skip that topic in the curriculum.

On the topic of having a good relationship with your printer, I can’t describe the number of times that a few simple questions would have saved my clients a great deal of money (for one, merely specifying a "house" paper for a large job can save quite a bit of money – and even $100 can be a substantial savings on a low budget project). Sadly, the trend seems today to be "fire and forget" as I often see many clients merely drop off their files, asking only when they may pick up the pieces later. Tho, it seems those are typically the "DTPers" who know nothing about the process and don’t seem to care how much money they cost their clients.

As well, from personal experience, I can tell you that I have more problems than I care to tell concerning DTPers and files. An important question to ask any printer is the file formats he accepts, his platform, setting bleeds (there is no true "industry standard" for those – it’s at the printer’s discretion), etc. As to formats and platform, each year, great strides are made in the printing industry and the newest technologies are not always as "backward compliant" as you might believe. The most problematic seems to be Corel products. CorelDraw most often.

I know that I am "preaching to the choir," from reading many of your posts in this group, but I am concerned most about the lurkers about. If they are not actively having pieces printed, they might, I fear, listen to the novice Oneidus, and be terribly disappointed if they try to learn from the likes of him.

Please, any lurkers hanging about: please do not listen to the ignorance of Mr. Hatter in regards to print design. The posts of his that I have read have been absolutely ridiculous and ignorant and are not to be taken seriously. I would recommend listening to the professionals here and learning what you can from them – and of course, asking questions when you don’t understand a poster’s points. You could lose your client a great deal of money (and yourself) if you do not.

Regards, all!
Harold

"max"

| > and we can also try to educate the OP (and amateur designers) a little to
| > the value of what he’s asking for.
| That’s a bit unfair — the thread had really devolved to the point | where the OP was pretty much excluded. Near the end, was anyone really | talking to him?
| >
| > > But nobody seems to want to touch it ! I’m astounded. | >
| > If the OP were asking for legal advice in the same way, would you take his
| > case?
| That’s not very fair to ask, either. To be honest, I think she’s a bit | of a "newcomer" to our group and probably hasn’t heard our rants on | work-for-hire/work-for-spec. Too, for all she knows, it could be | industry standard. Just as for all we know, work-for-hire/work for | spec could be an industry standard in her profession (I doubt it, but I | really wouldn’t know for sure).
|
| But really, she’s got a point . . . instead of his getting answers like | "no, thanks, we’re not interested" it devolved into another matter | entirely. I know that my own responses weren’t addressed to the OP. I’m | not saying that we’re "required" to answer him, but I can see how she’d | be confused . . . after all, we were being offered a "job" so to | speak, and no one bit.
|
| Not completely sure if that made sense . . . ( :

Makes sense. Recall this is a the internet and topic drift is a given, almost a standard. Not unlike the discussions among friends at the coffee shop.

As for myself I gained considerably from the discussion and sincerely hope she sticks around.

<h41ry_p0073r@

| I’d just like to relate that I’ve successfully completed the transaction, | and would to thank those who responded – My apologies for not getting back to
| you, but it was done pretty quickly.
|
| I am completely thrilled with the work, and the artist seems happy with the
| transaction as well. It was, overall, low-overhead and seamless. |
| While many of you offered sarcasm, derision, and debated minutiae, | another artist got US$100 richer for ~1.5 hours of work.

Glade you’re happy.

Which is less than the guy that works on my car, the tech that services our dishwasher, the lady that made the drapes for my office, but more than the guy who picks up my garbage.

Recall that Elvis got the big bucks and the Elvis impersonators got the chump change yet both sang the same songs …

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:06:13 -0600, max wrote:

…considering you replied to the same post twice in a row and you’re having an argument with an imaginary friend…I’d say you’ve had plenty.

No, I just wanted to ma<SLAP>

Nobody wants to hear your excuses.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:08:04 +0100, Sandman wrote:

You have no idea what you’re talking about. No ide<COCK SLAP>

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

WOAH, reading is teh HARD!

For example, if you tell me you have an
image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Given that fact that a image can’t even have any PPI, that above is just yet another in your endless line of stupidities.

If an image has zero pixels per inch it wouldn’t even be there, you fucking retard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

You do realise that that Wiki page agrees with me 100% and disagrees with you 100%?

You do realize you’re completely delusional, right?

‘considered by SOME to be inaccurate and misleading, THOUGH the intended meaning is usually clear BASED ON CONTEXT’

WOAH, there’s some more of that HARD reading, huh?

Oh hey, BTW…yer site looks like shit: http://www.sandman.net/

Thanks for the endorsement. Having jealous wannabe teenagers saying my site looks like shit is the best endorsement I can get.

….

o_O

Autoflame Grade: A+

You know it’s so much fun when you attack yourself out of stupidity.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:13:11 +0000, Mimic wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:59:53 +0100, Sandman wrote:

Your stupidity is beyond amazing…check this out…

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

2. PPI says nothing about DPI. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Um, yeah it does, Stupid. For example, if you tell me you have an image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Here, let me Wikislap you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

If youre going to try and have a go at them, at least fucking make the effort to READ something first.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/DPI_and_PPI.pn g

Um…that’s an IMAGE, Retard…how do you figure one can READ a PICTURE. o_O

Put it down, child, yer done.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:12:14 -0500, oldami
wrote:

This thread proves two things:

1 – hatter can piss off people in any news group. It’s his special talent.

Oh it’s more than that…it’s like an infectious disease, spreads through a froup like wildfire and in some extreme cases can cause some groups to rip themselves apart completely.

2 – most people (even [alleged] professionals) interchange and misuse DPI vs PPI. I don’t really give a shit.

For kids like you I’m sure it’s VERY important to differentiate between the two, but when you not in the junior league you can interchange them easily as long as you’re keeping them in a particular context…printing, scanning, screen, etc.

However, I can’t pass up the chance to point out the obvious absurdity of hatter’s above comment. The specified image is 400 pixels across. On my 19inch LCD at 1024×768 resolution, the image is 4.625 inches across or 400/4.625 = 86.5 pixels per inch.

If I change my screen resolution to 800×600 the image appears to be
7.375 inches across or 400/7.375 = 54.2 pixels per inch.

I am sure there is some setting that would *render* the image at 72 pixels per inch, but the image itself exists independent of any specific claim of being "EXACTLY 72..blah.blah.blah"

Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass who thinks you can resize a raster image to any size and it’ll retain the same quality. Free cl00, kiddie, even if you up yer res, it’s still 72 pixels per inch, altering the res essentially just changes the size of the pixels, but it’s STILL 72, you fucking moron. What, do you think your computer can just MAKE UP pixels that don’t exist? LOL

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:08:32 -0600, max wrote:

Must we go through this *AGAIN*??

However many times it’s gonna take for you to get it, Stupid.

DPI and PPI are not interchangeable.

As long as you keep it in context you can. Granted AMATEURS like you probably can’t use them interchangeably, but that ain’t my deficiency, it’s yours.

Over the years, idiots (like you) have used the two interchangeably and in casual conversation, it’s okay. But you’re at a fucking graphic design NG, you Moron. I have clients who use the two interchangeably and I smile and ignore it – because they’re not *artists* you Retard (yeah, I know you’re not an artist either, but I’m humoring you). *rolls eyes*

Actually, they are the artists, you’re the n00b.job. You got LIED TO, stupid. As long as you keep it in the context of print, scanning or screen you can use them interchangeably.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:02:32 -0600, max wrote:

In article <JIGkf.153948$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

"max" wrote in message

He’s actually a *really* nice guy and one of the most humble you’d ever meet. There’s not a bit of blowhard or "rockstar" mentality about him.

well, then too bad he wouldn’t be interested in joining in

Yeah, he’s a really interesting guy. He has hobbies and interests that would blow most of us away in terms of finding the time for them (hiking, SCUBA diving, biking, mountain climbing, skiing – you name it, he’s more than likely done it). He and his girlfriend (who’s a world class chef) do all of those things together. Sometimes, when me and the hubby have time, we join in. He knows the waters off the East Coast like the back of his hand . . . he’s the most amazing SCUBA instructor and "guide."

Have you noticed how the story gets more and more exaggerated? LOL, tweenage muppet fuck dreams.

My friend, the Pope, he’s an even MORE amazing SCUBA instructor and "guide"!

LOL

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:18:41 -0600, max wrote:

In article <DExkf.8879$>, Elizabeth
wrote:

From reading the posts, I think it was a rhetorical question . . . ?

meaning what, Max ?

Meaning that I think everyone’s taking you as a *designer* and not as a *lawyer* so it might be a call for you to prove you’re a lawyer or have any real law experience. I think everyone’s taking you at face value because you’re talking about such a subject on a graphic design newsgroup. If you were in a law NG and talking about design, I’m sure the other lawyers would ask you to *prove* what artwork you’ve created. It’s a matter of context, nothing more.

….so Maxypad, when are you going to *prove* that you know fuck all about design with some artwork that you’ve created? ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:13:48 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

"Elizabeth"

| Thanks — sincerely — for the reply; rather than another point-by-point, | I’m just gonna top-post a few (hopefully brief) reply comments .. |
| First of all, one way or the other, apparently I attributed some comments of
| others to you … unintended … it’s gotten to be a bit of a long thread | (127 messages with this subject actually) so I probably began responding | "globally" to some extent even though addressing you at the outset |
| Perhaps I should — but don’t — think there’s anything at all unusual about
| a lawyer posting to graphic design group; many of my colleagues and friends
| have multiple interests, as apparently do yours … so, to me, if I say I’m
| a lawyer who fools around with PS, it’s no big deal … nor is getting | involved in a thread of this sort … yeah, I’m busy … isn’t everyone | these days ? That’s why I like to open up PS when I have a chance and do | something for the soul .. not involving advocacy. But that post, and the | response to it, just grabbed me .. and I want to try to tell you why. I’m | sure you’re quite well aware that people do a LOT of complaining about | lawyers … we cost too much, we’re nitpicky, cantankerous, caustic, blah | blah blah. A lot of that’s true, some of it being an occupational hazard. | But I was stunned to be in a group of creatives, and here’s an offer of $100
| to do "a simple graphic" and I don’t see a single taker ! What I do see is
| a lot of all-too-familiar "stuff" about copyrights, contracts, business | practices, and so on. It’s a $100 deal for God’s sake !
<snip>

The problem like as not is not that everyone thinks it’s *only* one hundered dollars and what the hey it contains all rights as well. But that the presumption is constant in the news groups, other places on the web and in general commerce that graphic arts is not a real job and the work product is done just for fun.

I’m an engineer by training, an entrepreneur by outlook and involved in GA by luck. All those things involve contracts, pricing, sales, risk and management. But while the fact that a lawyer would have GA skills is an astonishment to many here I find it something I would expect to see as people in general have multiple skill sets and multiple interest.
I can personally recount instances were a $100/$1000 deal eventually developed into an ongoing cash cow of many times the original fee. Not watching the finer points of IPR would have cost us dearly. I can also recount an instance were signing an engineering employment contract with out benefit of legal advise cost me big money.

Another point is the estimation that the work product will ‘only involve a few minutes of your time’ ergo the price should be low. Good Art by Lucy for 5 cents only exists in the mind of Charles Shultz (who was paid many times that amount for reprint rights of his work product.)
Perhaps the reason no one picked up on the offer of a project is the job is worth much more than $100 regardless of the requirement for all rights. Could I or anyone here do the deed? Must assuredly but the diversion of time from more productive work makes it unlikely many would even entertain the options. Were that I were desperate for $100 bucks I’d give it some consideration but not for all rights.

As to lawyers being land sharks and robbers much of that is propaganda put forward by those that are pushing TORT reform. That effort is, in part, because they no longer have the option, as put forward in Shakespeare ‘to kill all the lawyers’ (BTW the rest of the quote, and I paraphrase, is ‘if you would destroy liberty, first kill all the lawyers’.

As support of that might check into how much tort reform is pushed in B2B circles, it’s all about keeping the little guy from his day in court. Want an eye full about the level of abuse? Do a google search on key words ERISA and insurance.

I give my lawyer friends a ration of grief about lawyer jokes and other matters but I fully understand the contribution they make to an ordered society and I know that many of the things that they are hammered for are the result of bad/poor decisions on the part of their clients or those that harmed their clients.

For $100/$1000 I am a bit careful about what I do but, as a friend of mine once said for $10M+/- … with an elephant, on a stage, with his wife and kids in the front seats.

Yeesh, at this point I’ll make the guy his graphic for free if it’ll get all you kids to stop dribbling on and on and ON about fuckin contracts ‘n shit.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:08:58 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Look, Stupid…figure this out, all I’m saying is that if the DPI is 100, then the PPI is gonna be 100…that’s it, that’s all I’m saying. And as such you can use them interchangeably.

Why is there ‘dot gain’ and not ‘pixel gain’?

Come on. Yer head’s gonna EXPLODE! Tape if for is, eh?

"Tape if for is"

….wow, yer head exploded simply by trying to "get back" at me. LOL

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:15:19 -0600, max wrote:

Think of it like this….10 albums on cassette tape are equal to 10 identical CDs of the albums…not in their SIZE, obviously the CDs are smaller than the cassette tapes, but in THE NUMBER OF THEM. What part of that are you MORONS not grasping? I mean, it’s not like I’m speakin a funny language here, plain simple sarcastic English last I checked.

Oh wait!! Waiit!! I *just* read this and realized what the Moron was saying!! *snicker*

You figured out what you were trying to say, huh Moron?

It *IS* about size, Dumb Ass!!

Now, now, don’t insult yourself.

It’s *ALL* about size!

Is that what your exgirlfriend told you, Maxypad?

Jeez, someone *PLEASE* unplug this moron’s computer . . . cause he’s *DONE*

The only one who can unplug your computer is you, Moron.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:10:16 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

But I was stunned to be in a group of creatives, and here’s an offer of $100 to do "a simple graphic" and I don’t see a single taker ! What I do see is a lot of all-too-familiar "stuff" about copyrights,

Which started as an attempt to show to the Hatter that the value of GD is in more than just playing with computer files.

It’s unfortunate that you can’t even seem to do that much though, huh? Davey thinks being able to throw together a color a color scheme and knowing the definition of say a noir ambiance is what being a REAL GD is all about…LOL.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:47:36 -0600, max wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Somewhere in the range of *negative*10,000 ppi – in other word, it can’t be done Dipshit.

It can’t be done, huh dipshit? So let’s say you have an image that was originally printed at 100 dpi and you want to scan it…what DPI are you gonna scan it at, Stupid? Now after you scan it, Stupid, assuming you did it correctly, how many pixel per inch is it gonna be?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

Um, again, the answer is: *You’re WRONG!*

Throwing a tantrum and screaming that over and over again isn’t going to magically make it come true.

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi

Um, once again, survey says . . . NOPE!

Wouldn’t it be neat if you could just SAY THAT and it would magically come true?

<Damn! Did you have this hard a time getting potty-trained? Is that why everyone calls you "Diaper Boi??" Shesh . . . > *shrugs*

I completely obliterated the online adult baby community…and then exposed my endeavors in said community in order to get the volatile Usenet froups (namely AUK) to try and target me. It was a wonderful honey pot, they thought they found the ultimate kook…and then I suddenly turned on them and nearly wiped their entire froup off the face of Usenet and started one of the largest intrafroup flame wars in Usenet history. ^_^

unless you alter your default print
settings.

Has everything to do with *nothing* – altering "print settings" won’t do shit. It’s like putting a Volvo hood ornie on a broken down Golf won’t turn your piece of shit, 20 year old Golf into a Volvo like mine. *DUH!*

….there ya go arguing against things I never said, nor implied. Gosh Dribbles, yer AWFULLY confused, aren’t you?

No, really, I have seen idiots like *you* at play before.

Are you trying to meet some kind of quota on asterisks or something, Maxypad?

I belonged to a Corel User Group a long, long time ago

Did they kick you out for being an ignorant little snit?

No, really, just admit that you’re wrong and I’ll leave you alone.

You make it sound like your stupidity is bothering me or something. LOL

It’s that simple – you insulted me and called *me* stupid, when *you* were *clearly the fuckwit* in the conversation. So be a *man* and apologize.

I love it when you whine like that. ^_^

Or be a pathetic moron so we

Retarding back into the sheeple mentality for support again?

And, I’m *STILL* waiting for my fucking coffee,

Well yer gonna be waiting an AWFULLY long time, Maxypad.

you pathetic teacher’s gofer!

My, my, such insults. Yer cute when you lash out like that, Dribbles.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:10:17 -0600, harold
wrote:

In article , Fred Doyle
wrote:

"peevee_hermann" wrote in message

I’ve already killfiled the moron within 15 minutes of signing on here for the first time. If everybody else would, this groups signal to noise ratio might improve.

I don’t killfile anyone. That’s a personal choice. I can and do ignore most of his messages without a kf, but picked up on this incredibly ignorant statement from harold’s reply. Actually, that statement is so demonstrative of a lack of experience, and so unbelievably, stupidly arrogant that I wanted to go back to see where it came from. Maybe I should have known.
Fred Doyle

Greetings all,

Does anyone know this fellow’s background (i.e., design school attended, if any; employer; etc)? It might be interesting to see if he holds a degree and who his professor might have been. Tho, I can’t imagine a professor who would skip that topic in the curriculum.
On the topic of having a good relationship with your printer, I can’t describe the number of times that a few simple questions would have saved my clients a great deal of money (for one, merely specifying a "house" paper for a large job can save quite a bit of money – and even $100 can be a substantial savings on a low budget project). Sadly, the trend seems today to be "fire and forget" as I often see many clients merely drop off their files, asking only when they may pick up the pieces later. Tho, it seems those are typically the "DTPers" who know nothing about the process and don’t seem to care how much money they cost their clients.

As well, from personal experience, I can tell you that I have more problems than I care to tell concerning DTPers and files. An important question to ask any printer is the file formats he accepts, his platform, setting bleeds (there is no true "industry standard" for those – it’s at the printer’s discretion), etc. As to formats and platform, each year, great strides are made in the printing industry and the newest technologies are not always as "backward compliant" as you might believe. The most problematic seems to be Corel products. CorelDraw most often.

I know that I am "preaching to the choir," from reading many of your posts in this group, but I am concerned most about the lurkers about. If they are not actively having pieces printed, they might, I fear, listen to the novice Oneidus, and be terribly disappointed if they try to learn from the likes of him.

Please, any lurkers hanging about: please do not listen to the ignorance of Mr. Hatter in regards to print design. The posts of his that I have read have been absolutely ridiculous and ignorant and are not to be taken seriously. I would recommend listening to the professionals here and learning what you can from them – and of course, asking questions when you don’t understand a poster’s points. You could lose your client a great deal of money (and yourself) if you do not.

Isn’t it cute how the retards who keep trying to claim I’m the one whose wrong don’t seem to have ANY work of their own to show? All they do is talk shit and run at the mouth…of course, these are the same people who CAN’T DO THEIR OWN PRINTING…LOL…what a fuckin joke you kids are. `, D

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:08:13 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:

Why would I tell the printers anything? I mean, if I’m the one who MADE the image I don’t need to tell the printers anything other than what size they need to print it at. Printers aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to print. They’re monkey, button pushers, nothing more than that.

I hope, for the sake of your clients, that the printers you’re doing business with are not a fly on the wall in any of these news groups.

Actually I do my own printing, most "with it" graphic artist do…seriously, if you were a competent graphic artist…what would you need an idiot who only knows how to hit a button on a printer for? The "profession" of "print artist" is nothing but a fucking joke, it’s not like it’s some huge secret or anything.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass

<SNIP the rest of the expected rant>

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Exactly the response I expected – all rant and no facts. It is way too easy to yank your chain.

It would be easier for you to explain where I was wrong if you were not always responding emotionally. I was attacking your explanation because it was so lame. I knew what you were trying (and failing) to explain and I knew I was wrong when I said a file has no "inherent" DPI. (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t)

You, as always, respond like a child with screams of moron and dumbass, when an intelligent answer would have been far more effective. That, of course, assumes that you don’t do this for the enjoyment. I believe that most of us know that assumption is wrong.

This whole argument can easily be settled by referring to http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/ppi/ppi.html
partially quoted below.

<QUOTE>
Many image formats, including JPG, include a "dots per inch" (dpi) or "pixels per inch" (ppi) setting as part of the file. This setting is a single number stored as part of the JPG file, and is used my most programs in determining the scale at which to print the image. This setting has no effect on screen image size in nearly all web browsers. (Are there any that do?) The number is ignored by most software in displaying images on screen, but is used frequently in determining print size.
</QUOTE>

I doubt this will settle this issue, even though it supports your position. -oldami

In article , Onideus Mad
Hatter wrote:

What’s 100 dpi converted to ppi?

Somewhere in the range of *negative*10,000 ppi – in other word, it can’t be done Dipshit.

It can’t be done, huh dipshit? So let’s say you have an image that was originally printed at 100 dpi and you want to scan it…what DPI are you gonna scan it at, Stupid? Now after you scan it, Stupid, assuming you did it correctly, how many pixel per inch is it gonna be?

Oh yeah, ONE HUNDRED! You fuckwitted MORON!

Um, again, the answer is: *You’re WRONG!*

Throwing a tantrum and screaming that over and over again isn’t going to magically make it come true.

The number is ALWAYS THE SAME, if you have something that’s 100 ppi it is GOING TO PRINT at 100 dpi

Um, once again, survey says . . . NOPE!

Wouldn’t it be neat if you could just SAY THAT and it would magically come true?

Actually, Chum, she’s right. DPI and PPI aren’t the same and are not "interchangeable." "DPI" is a convention of the home and business printing industry, not the commerical (where it all started). Actually, the correct term for scanned resolution is SPI, or to those who aren’t dinosaurs like me, "spots per inch." SPI and PPI are more alike than DPI and PPI. Scanners for use in Service Bureuas (and many printing companies) use SPI or PPI.

DPI is, in fact, a printing term and not a "digital" term. Miss Max was correct in that, altho obviously quick-tempered about it. And rude. But DPI is a term for the "dots-per-inch" in a line screen (the appropriate term in my trade). She was also correct in the conversion of line screen, or LPI, to DPI, altho off by a thousand and change or so.

But no, Chum, the belief that you can use DPI and PPI interchangeably, as terms or as standards, technically is a fallacy. However, over the years, it has become the "lingo" so to speak with DTPers and novice designers alike. I can easily tell the DTPer from the seasoned designer by their choice of words – DPI or line screen. If they use DPI, more than likely they are novice designers, DTPers, or trying to conform and use the current buzzwords. Those that come in requesting a specific line screen for their project are the ones that we assume are professionals or avid enthusiasts. Or at the very least, those who are willing to learn the art of graphic design.

But to respond to your statement that that is a way of "converting" PPI to DPI, no, you are wrong. You are still not converting anything . . . DPI is strictly, at least in accuracy, a printing term. *Too, you cannot "convert" a printed item to a digital one. You can however, *reproduce* it using a scanning device. However, obviously, as the printed item (or photograph) stays intact and is not, in itself changed, you have not "converted" it. If a man and a woman have a child, they have not "converted" into that child, they have "reproduced" – created a reasonable facsimile. I think that your confusion is of the two words themselves, and therein lies your mistake.

As to your response to my last post (wondering about your background), I (and I think many other will share this position) do not "share" my work here at the NGs for many reasons:
For one, I am not here to "network": as much as I am here to relax and socialize. My son introduced me to the NGs a week or so ago and I’ve found it quite interesting, so here I am.
Secondly, I am not interested in sharing – I like the anonymity and I do not feel the need to "prove" myself to you or anyone else here. My days of being a "young buck" and desperately trying to prove myself and validate my existance are long ago.
Thirdly, my "product" is of the printed form. I do not have a website (except for basic informational purposes) showcasing my talents. I have never needed one (altho my son, who I suspect will take over the business in a few years, will more than likely commission one. LOL. He can’t wait to "bring us to the web") – our clients come by word of mouth and by their notice of press releases. We are an institution of sorts, on the East Coast and as such, we enjoy the perks. ‘,) Lastly, I am, to be quite blunt, an old man. And as such, I am uncomfortable with the thought of being visited in person. As the delightful Miss Elizabeth said, I am not about to give out information that could lead to my door.
FWIW, I have probably given enough insight to who I am to the seasoned among you – at the least those who might perchance reside and do business on the East Coast. For those of you, I would welcome a friendly visit. ‘,)

And to your statement that business printing is every bit as good as commerical, I must tell you that you have either not seen a decently printed piece in a long time, or you must do very, very short, uncomplicated runs. Or possibly you are rich?? When factoring in the costs of on-demand printing per piece and those of commerically printed pieces per unit, the savings are obvious. When you can print a sheet at $.15 a page/unit, why pay $1?? And of course, on long runs, or even mildly short, DIY trimming and folding is ridiculous, no matter how "crafty" you are. And when it comes to quality, even with the newest and most expensive of business printers, the difference in quality is obvious. The "dots" (or DPI for our young novice)produced by printer’s using stochastic printing (i.e., business printers) are much, much larger than those of a press’ nonconcentric impressions. As well: you cannot have varnishes on a desktop printer. Varnishes are often necessary to protect the printed piece. Also, desktop ink is not waterproof (many have come along way, but are still not up to the task as well as a press’ inks), nor is it reliably UV resistant. Am I to assume that you do not design pieces with those needs? Do you limit your design to web or DTP projects?

* Whereas your struggle to preserve the English language is laudable, Miss Max, here, too, is correct in her use of the word "Too." As per most dictionaries, online and otherwise, the definition of "too" is also "in addition; also" When I use the word "too" in this context, I am using it as "Also, you cannot "convert" . . . I belive that was her intention as well.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Isn’t it cute how the retards who keep trying to claim I’m the one whose wrong don’t seem to have ANY work of their own to show?

You are so new in the world that you actually think that what you posted is good; how pathetic. You will burn out like a moth in a bonfire, girl. It’s not good. It is not even clever or exceptional. Get over it.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Actually I do my own printing, most "with it" graphic artist do…seriously, if you were a competent graphic artist…what would you need an idiot who only knows how to hit a button on a printer for?

Now we know that this girl is pre-puberty, not of the real world. Pity her. Kill.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:16:36 -0600, harold
wrote:

Actually, Chum, she’s right. DPI and PPI aren’t the same and are not "interchangeable." "DPI" is a co<SLAP>

Look, kid, have you been to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"Owing in part to its conceptual similarity with other measurements of graphical resolution, the DPI measurement is frequently misused. For instance, it is common for an image scanner’s sampling resolution to be specified in terms of DPI, though a more accurate measurement would be samples per inch. The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."

The most important part being:
"the intended meaning is usually clear based on context"

If you get them to change it to say that it is NEVER clear, even when keeping it within a specific context, you’ll have some ground to stand on. Until then…they can be used interchangeably so long as you’re using them within a specific context (print, scanning, screen).

At this point, you’re not arguing against me, you’re arguing against Wikipedia. Go whine to them, Child.

In the mean time, if someone tells me that they have a graphic that’s 72 PPI, I KNOW what DPI I should print with in order for that image to look decent when it’s printing (granted it’s gonna be small, but I KNOW what to use). Don’t you? By your own deficient logic YOUR PRINTING BLIND! HOW RETARDED ARE YOU?!

And to show you just how interchangeable they are:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

When you create a new image in Paint Shop Pro it lets you set the PPI, later, when you save the image, Windows see’s that number as the DPI…IF THEY AREN’T INTERCHANGEABLE HOW IS IT DOING THAT YOU STUPID RETARDED FUCKS!

OH…MY…GAWD!

And to that other RETARD and the people who were slurping his ass who was saying that PPI is meaningless and doesn’t matter…YOU’RE A BUNCH OF FUCKING MORONS!

Let me educate you stupid, ignorant FUCKS:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html

PPI doesn’t matter? Well if that’s true, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING AT! There’s only ONE image being used on that site, you deficient freshmen dropouts!

Think McFly, THINK!
What, you need to see the ~magic~ code?

<img src="test.png">
<br>
<img src="test.png" width=100% height=100%>

WOAH, amazing! Now granted if you’re just a retarded fuck who doesn’t know shit all about web coding maybe PPI is a meaningless number, but when you’re playing on the web design level that peeps of MY caliber are on…yeah, it matters, it matters A LOT.

You stupid tards lose…you lose bad. `, )

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:16:36 -0600, harold
wrote:

Actually, Chum, she’s right. DPI and PPI aren’t the same and are not "interchangeable." "DPI" is a co<SLAP>

Look, kid, have you been to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"Owing in part to its conceptual similarity with other measurements of graphical resolution, the DPI measurement is frequently misused. For instance, it is common for an image scanner’s sampling resolution to be specified in terms of DPI, though a more accurate measurement would be samples per inch. The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."

The most important part being:
"the intended meaning is usually clear based on context"
If you get them to change it to say that it is NEVER clear, even when keeping it within a specific context, you’ll have some ground to stand on. Until then…they can be used interchangeably so long as you’re using them within a specific context (print, scanning, screen).
At this point, you’re not arguing against me, you’re arguing against Wikipedia. Go whine to them, Child.

In the mean time, if someone tells me that they have a graphic that’s 72 PPI, I KNOW what DPI I should print with in order for that image to look decent when it’s printing (granted it’s gonna be small, but I KNOW what to use). Don’t you? By your own deficient logic YOUR PRINTING BLIND! HOW RETARDED ARE YOU?!

And to show you just how interchangeable they are:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
When you create a new image in Paint Shop Pro it lets you set the PPI, later, when you save the image, Windows see’s that number as the DPI…IF THEY AREN’T INTERCHANGEABLE HOW IS IT DOING THAT YOU STUPID RETARDED FUCKS!

OH…MY…GAWD!

And to that other RETARD and the people who were slurping his ass who was saying that PPI is meaningless and doesn’t matter…YOU’RE A BUNCH OF FUCKING MORONS!

Let me educate you stupid, ignorant FUCKS:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-

matters/test.html

PPI doesn’t matter? Well if that’s true, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING AT! There’s only ONE image being used on that site, you deficient freshmen dropouts!

Think McFly, THINK!
What, you need to see the ~magic~ code?

<img src="test.png">
<br>
<img src="test.png" width=100% height=100%>
WOAH, amazing! Now granted if you’re just a retarded fuck who doesn’t know shit all about web coding maybe PPI is a meaningless number, but when you’re playing on the web design level that peeps of MY caliber are on…yeah, it matters, it matters A LOT.

You stupid tards lose…you lose bad. `, )

I didn’t read your drivel.

But ‘pixels per inch’ is independent of ‘dots per inch’. Everything displays at 72ppi on screen, but the same file can contain much more printable (dpi) data.

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

On 6 Dec 2005 03:43:35 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:16:36 -0600, harold
wrote:

Actually, Chum, she’s right. DPI and PPI aren’t the same and are not "interchangeable." "DPI" is a co<SLAP>

Look, kid, have you been to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"Owing in part to its conceptual similarity with other measurements of graphical resolution, the DPI measurement is frequently misused. For instance, it is common for an image scanner’s sampling resolution to be specified in terms of DPI, though a more accurate measurement would be samples per inch. The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."

The most important part being:
"the intended meaning is usually clear based on context"
If you get them to change it to say that it is NEVER clear, even when keeping it within a specific context, you’ll have some ground to stand on. Until then…they can be used interchangeably so long as you’re using them within a specific context (print, scanning, screen).
At this point, you’re not arguing against me, you’re arguing against Wikipedia. Go whine to them, Child.

In the mean time, if someone tells me that they have a graphic that’s 72 PPI, I KNOW what DPI I should print with in order for that image to look decent when it’s printing (granted it’s gonna be small, but I KNOW what to use). Don’t you? By your own deficient logic YOUR PRINTING BLIND! HOW RETARDED ARE YOU?!

And to show you just how interchangeable they are:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
When you create a new image in Paint Shop Pro it lets you set the PPI, later, when you save the image, Windows see’s that number as the DPI…IF THEY AREN’T INTERCHANGEABLE HOW IS IT DOING THAT YOU STUPID RETARDED FUCKS!

OH…MY…GAWD!

And to that other RETARD and the people who were slurping his ass who was saying that PPI is meaningless and doesn’t matter…YOU’RE A BUNCH OF FUCKING MORONS!

Let me educate you stupid, ignorant FUCKS:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-

matters/test.html

PPI doesn’t matter? Well if that’s true, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING AT! There’s only ONE image being used on that site, you deficient freshmen dropouts!

Think McFly, THINK!
What, you need to see the ~magic~ code?

<img src="test.png">
<br>
<img src="test.png" width=100% height=100%>
WOAH, amazing! Now granted if you’re just a retarded fuck who doesn’t know shit all about web coding maybe PPI is a meaningless number, but when you’re playing on the web design level that peeps of MY caliber are on…yeah, it matters, it matters A LOT.

You stupid tards lose…you lose bad. `, )

I didn’t read your drivel.

Not much for being humiliated, eh Stupid?

But ‘pixels per inch’ is independent of ‘dots per inch’.

Proof #1
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

Everything displays at 72ppi on screen,

Proof #2
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html

You lose, Stupid, next time learn to read…or at least how to click a fucking link, you drooling deficient.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On 6 Dec 2005 03:43:35 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:16:36 -0600, harold
wrote:

Actually, Chum, she’s right. DPI and PPI aren’t the same and are not "interchangeable." "DPI" is a co<SLAP>

Look, kid, have you been to Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"Owing in part to its conceptual similarity with other measurements

of

graphical resolution, the DPI measurement is frequently misused. For instance, it is common for an image scanner’s sampling resolution to be specified in terms of DPI, though a more accurate measurement

would

be samples per inch. The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."

The most important part being:
"the intended meaning is usually clear based on context"
If you get them to change it to say that it is NEVER clear, even when keeping it within a specific context, you’ll have some ground to

stand

on. Until then…they can be used interchangeably so long as you’re using them within a specific context (print, scanning, screen).
At this point, you’re not arguing against me, you’re arguing against Wikipedia. Go whine to them, Child.

In the mean time, if someone tells me that they have a graphic that’s 72 PPI, I KNOW what DPI I should print with in order for that image

to

look decent when it’s printing (granted it’s gonna be small, but I KNOW what to use). Don’t you? By your own deficient logic YOUR PRINTING BLIND! HOW RETARDED ARE YOU?!

And to show you just how interchangeable they are:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
When you create a new image in Paint Shop Pro it lets you set the

PPI,

later, when you save the image, Windows see’s that number as the DPI…IF THEY AREN’T INTERCHANGEABLE HOW IS IT DOING THAT YOU STUPID RETARDED FUCKS!

OH…MY…GAWD!

And to that other RETARD and the people who were slurping his ass who was saying that PPI is meaningless and doesn’t matter…YOU’RE A

BUNCH

OF FUCKING MORONS!

Let me educate you stupid, ignorant FUCKS:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-

matters/test.html

PPI doesn’t matter? Well if that’s true, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING AT! There’s only ONE image being used on that site, you deficient freshmen dropouts!

Think McFly, THINK!
What, you need to see the ~magic~ code?

<img src="test.png">
<br>
<img src="test.png" width=100% height=100%>
WOAH, amazing! Now granted if you’re just a retarded fuck who

doesn’t

know shit all about web coding maybe PPI is a meaningless number, but when you’re playing on the web design level that peeps of MY caliber are on…yeah, it matters, it matters A LOT.

You stupid tards lose…you lose bad. `, )

I didn’t read your drivel.

Not much for being humiliated, eh Stupid?

But ‘pixels per inch’ is independent of ‘dots per inch’.

Proof #1
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

Everything displays at 72ppi on screen,

Proof #2
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-

matters/test.html

You lose, Stupid, next time learn to read…or at least how to click a fucking link, you drooling deficient.

When you’re wrong, Hatter, leap right in with both feet, eh?

Did PoE get tired of you again?

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

"Lorem Ipsum"
|
| > Actually I do my own printing, most "with it" graphic artist | > do…seriously, if you were a competent graphic artist…what would | > you need an idiot who only knows how to hit a button on a printer for? |
| Now we know that this girl is pre-puberty, not of the real world. Pity her.
| Kill.

I fully expect the next claim to self-sufficiency/fame will be a self administered lobotomy employing a #2D chisel point pencil

On 6 Dec 2005 03:53:36 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

When you’re wrong, Hatter, leap right in with both feet, eh?

If I’m wrong, then how do you explain the two links I posted? What’s the matter, Deficient, all bitter and stupid cause you fucked up real bad and made yourself look like an idiot across more than a half dozen different Usenet froups cause you were TOO GAWD DAMN STUPID TO READ…LOL…boy I bet you won’t make THAT mistake again, will ya?

Did PoE get tired of you again?

Chet had a little bit of a meltdown…completely obliterated one of his own news forums (over 3,000 posts in size) just to try and shut me up and then he went on a frothy screaming rampage telling all his users to stop replying to my posts:
http://friends.portalofevil.com/sp.php?si=3&fi=000028623 &ti=1000653631&pi=1000653884

At which point I decided to let them all breath…no telling how long I’ll let that last though…considering how fun it is to I love you stupid n00bs up…mmm…I’d say they’ve got some well earned RR.

Do be sure and let us all know when you come up with a reaching, lame ass, backpedalling explanation for these though:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html

I’ll be waiting! ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:16:42 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Actually I do my own printing, most "with it" graphic artist do…seriously, if you were a competent graphic artist…what would you need an idiot who only knows how to hit a button on a printer for?

Now we know that this girl is pre-puberty, not of the real world. Pity her. Kill.

Wow…yer rambling incoherently already…huh, you kids are even weaker than the PoEtards, they went a good two weeks before they started obliterating their own forums just to try and shut me up. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On 6 Dec 2005 03:53:36 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

When you’re wrong, Hatter, leap right in with both feet, eh?

If I’m wrong, then how do you explain the two links I posted? What’s the matter, Deficient, all bitter and stupid cause you fucked up real bad and made yourself look like an idiot across more than a half dozen different Usenet froups cause you were TOO GAWD DAMN STUPID TO READ…LOL…boy I bet you won’t make THAT mistake again, will ya?

Indeed. I feel so very foolish and humbled, now.

Did PoE get tired of you again?

Chet had a little bit of a meltdown…completely obliterated one of his own news forums (over 3,000 posts in size) just to try and shut me up and then he went on a frothy screaming rampage telling all his users to stop replying to my posts:
http://friends.portalofevil.com/sp.php?si=3&fi=000028623 &ti=1000653631& pi=1000653884

At which point I decided to let them all breath…no telling how long I’ll let that last though…considering how fun it is to I love you stupid n00bs up…mmm…I’d say they’ve got some well earned RR.

N00b?

Do be sure and let us all know when you come up with a reaching, lame ass, backpedalling explanation for these though:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.ht ml

I’ll be waiting! ^_^

Your graphics have nothing to do with the difference between screen resolution and printed resolution.

But of course, you know that.

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

Chet had a little bit of a meltdown…completely obliterated one of his own news forums (over 3,000 posts in size) just to try and shut me up and then he went on a frothy screaming rampage telling all his users to stop replying to my posts:

I honestly think the moment he cracked and realized that he couldn’t defeat PoE or even Keisterize his forum (damn y’all for making me a KAK addict, BTW. That stuff’s funnier than distilled essence of funny.) was when I started pounding in all the special education flames hard and heavy. You could notice a change in his "poasting" style. He went from swaggering "I’M THE ULTRA-STRONG FATHER OF MODERN PERFECT LIQUID LEGO CARE BAREZ WAREZ" bravado to one-line posts, whining about "post editing" (aka fixing tags, snipping boring bits, and other things everyone normally does) and bashing Kthor, nocash, and capt. j when they were barely even participating.

Killing Aletheia’s forum didn’t dent him, if anything it gave him a second wind to renew his spamtardery all over this place. Chet nipped that in the bud and came to a independent decision that Matt was also a sped. Then everyone started pitying him. Bye, bye, Hatter.

Anyone read alt.2600 or alt.hackers.malicious lately? Did he really go to Cali or is he just sitting in his reinforced potty chair with a Screaming Orgasm made with Mt. Dew Code Red and bitching about us?

Sounds like they finally figured you out, though.

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

On 6 Dec 2005 05:00:47 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

Sounds like they finally figured you out, though.

After Chet posted this anyway:

"Seriously, you stupid fucks. Quick posting in here you dumb retarded fucks. And don’t reply to this with your excuses. Just shut the fuck up."

LOL

Seriously kid, when was the last time you got a board owner as big as Chet to froth and scream like that? Yeah, never. When was the last time you got a board owner to sever his left arm off, obliterating a multi-thousand post FORUM just to try and shut you up because the traffic you were incurring was choking their server to death? Yeah, never.

Get the fuck outta here, N00b, you ain’t even on my level. And just because I’m taking the time to xpost to your filth ridden shit hole of a froup doesn’t mean I’m sharing any of my new toys (teh graphics froups and the Mac addict froup). Go get your own play things, you fuckin wannabe.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On 6 Dec 2005 05:00:47 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

Sounds like they finally figured you out, though.

After Chet posted this anyway:

"Seriously, you stupid fucks. Quick posting in here you dumb retarded fucks. And don’t reply to this with your excuses. Just shut the fuck up."

LOL

That is very impressive, Hatter. ‘Chet’ may be dumber than you are.

Seriously kid, when was the last time you got a board owner as big as Chet to froth and scream like that?

I had Slashdot admins calling my house.

Yeah, never. When was the last
time you got a board owner to sever his left arm off, obliterating a multi-thousand post FORUM just to try and shut you up because the traffic you were incurring was choking their server to death? Yeah, never.

Better yet, I had Everything2.com trolling their own board in my name. See April 1, 2000, I think it was?

Message boards are way too easy, of course.

Get the fuck outta here, N00b, you ain’t even on my level. And just because I’m taking the time to xpost to your filth ridden shit hole of a froup doesn’t mean I’m sharing any of my new toys (teh graphics froups and the Mac addict froup). Go get your own play things, you fuckin wannabe.

And you honestly think the above represents good trolling?

Did you already back down from your silly ‘ppi’ = ‘dpi’ claim?

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

In alt.design.graphics max wrote:

Shesh . . . what part of: *YOU* are the fucking moron do *YOU* not get?? Is everyone in your family this retarded or just you?? Bet you *STILL* ride the short bus to that gofer job of yours, right? *rolls eyes*

drink.
less.
coffee.

—
…………………………………………………… ………………

"The bomb throwers have discredited the cause of freedom, in whose name they threw the bombs."
-Mahatma Gandhi

…………………………………………………… ………………

On 6 Dec 2005 05:28:38 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

After Chet posted this anyway:

"Seriously, you stupid fucks. Quick posting in here you dumb retarded fucks. And don’t reply to this with your excuses. Just shut the fuck up."

LOL

That is very impressive, Hatter. ‘Chet’ may be dumber than you are.

No one is as dumb as you, Kiddo. Chet had no choice, the traffic I was incurring was choking his server to death, it simply couldn’t handle the Hatter effect. `, )

Seriously kid, when was the last time you got a board owner as big as Chet to froth and scream like that?

I had Slashdot admins calling my house.

Probably to tell your mother that they were worried her handicapped son was being naughty on the Internet again.

Yeah, never. When was the last
time you got a board owner to sever his left arm off, obliterating a multi-thousand post FORUM just to try and shut you up because the traffic you were incurring was choking their server to death? Yeah, never.

Better yet, I had Everything2.com trolling their own board in my name. See April 1, 2000, I think it was?

Everything2.com, WOW, there’s a real happ’nin board. *snicker*

Message boards are way too easy, of course.

….actually they’re generally harder because teh peeps can put up more of a fight as far as trying to ban you and so forth…of course there’s tactics for that, but it’s not as easy as it is on Usenet where people simply can’t do anything about you other than putting on blinders…which is proven time and time again to be highly ineffective. Peeps on Usenet also generally tend to have thicker skin than your average tweenage muppet fuck webbie.

Get the fuck outta here, N00b, you ain’t even on my level. And just because I’m taking the time to xpost to your filth ridden shit hole of a froup doesn’t mean I’m sharing any of my new toys (teh graphics froups and the Mac addict froup). Go get your own play things, you fuckin wannabe.

And you honestly think the above represents good trolling?

Kids like you troll yourselves out of stupidity, you don’t need any help from me.

Did you already back down from your silly ‘ppi’ = ‘dpi’ claim?

Unfortunately no one seems to be able to formulate a counter to my two images:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html

Tsch, tsch, tsch…such a disappointment, I guess there’s just no fight left in them. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass who thinks you can resize a raster image to any size and it’ll retain the same quality. Free cl00, kiddie, even if you up yer res, it’s still 72 pixels per inch, altering the res essentially just changes the size of the pixels, but it’s STILL 72, you fucking moron. What, do you think your computer can just MAKE UP pixels that don’t exist? LOL

Your *computer* can’t do much of anything. But your computer, running Photoshop, most certainly CAN, and DOES, "make up pixels that don’t exist." Just what is it you think is happening when you "upsize" an image ? Depending upon who you care to listen to, the process is known as extrapolation or interpolation (interpolation is probably the more accurate, though perhaps less intuitively correct, term) and what’s going on is that PS, though the use of some fairly sophisticated linear sampling algorithms, is essentially making guesses/approximations on what pixels WOULD be in the gaps created by expansion of the image boundaries had such been of the target bounds originally.

If you think about the problem, you’ll understand why degradation, while inevitable, is really quite variable, depending upon the nature and density of the source information, choice of algorithm, and extent of interpolation … moreover, if you think beyond PS, there are more sophisticated signal processing systems which can do an even better job of "making up pixels" … not a knock on PS … but as good as it is, it’s still a mass market, albeit professional grade, product that has to run on all kinds of off-the-shelf hardware configurations … high end medical imaging systems, for one, have no such constraint and can use adaptive interpolation techniques with even better results .. but that stuff requires a LOT of processor cycles

You need to think about PS and related processes (printing) in more operational terms. You have a lot of energy; it’s just a little unfocused.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:46:44 GMT, "Elizabeth" wrote:

Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass who thinks you can resize a raster image to any size and it’ll retain the same quality.

Here let me add some space between the two SEPERATE thoughts, maybe you’ll be less confused that way.

Free
cl00, kiddie, even if you up yer res, it’s still 72 pixels per inch, altering the res essentially just changes the size of the pixels, but it’s STILL 72, you fucking moron. What, do you think your computer can just MAKE UP pixels that don’t exist? LOL

Your *computer* can’t do much of anything. But your computer, running Photoshop, most certainly CAN, and DOES, "make up pixels that don’t exist." Just what is it you think is happening when you "upsize" an image ?

….you’re talking about RESIZING an image, that last section is talking about CHANGING THE RESOLUTION of an image.

*shakes head*

Jesus you kids are slow.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

You have no idea what you’re talking about. No ide<COCK SLAP>

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
WOAH, reading is teh HARD!

Shit, you’re clueless.

For example, if you tell me you have an
image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Given that fact that a image can’t even have any PPI, that above is just yet another in your endless line of stupidities.

If an image has zero pixels per inch it wouldn’t even be there, you fucking retard.

Incorrect, Einstein. Pixels per inch says nothing about the image, just about the screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

You do realise that that Wiki page agrees with me 100% and disagrees with you 100%?

You do realize you’re completely delusional, right?

Shit, you’re clueless. Does it hurt?

‘considered by SOME to be inaccurate and misleading, THOUGH the intended meaning is usually clear BASED ON CONTEXT’

WOAH, there’s some more of that HARD reading, huh?

But *YOUR* context is that they’re the same thing – which they are not. PPI and DPI *are not related* and *can be totally different* and *does not mean the same thing*.

I have, of course, educated you on this already, but since you are a clueless teenager, you have no hope of ever understanding this.

—
Sandman[.net]

"Apple beat Wintel to market with 64 bit personal computers" – Edwin

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:34:13 +0100, Sandman wrote:

You have no idea what you’re talking about. No ide<COCK SLAP>

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
WOAH, reading is teh HARD!

Shit, you’re clueless.

Shit, you fucked up!

LOL

I mean, come on, Kiddo, if Microsoft has no probs mixin the two around then why should anyone else?

For example, if you tell me you have an
image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Given that fact that a image can’t even have any PPI, that above is just yet another in your endless line of stupidities.

If an image has zero pixels per inch it wouldn’t even be there, you fucking retard.

Incorrect, Einstein. Pixels per inch says nothing about the image, just about the screen.

Okay, Smarts, then go ahead and post an image with zero pixels per inch. Go on, we’re ALL waiting! LOL…man this is gonna get REALLY funny!

*Hatter pops himself a beer.*

You do realise that that Wiki page agrees with me 100% and disagrees with you 100%?

You do realize you’re completely delusional, right?

Shit, you’re clueless. Does it hurt?

Shit, Microsoft AND Wikipedia have bitch slapped you, does it hurt?

‘considered by SOME to be inaccurate and misleading, THOUGH the intended meaning is usually clear BASED ON CONTEXT’

WOAH, there’s some more of that HARD reading, huh?

But *YOUR* context is that they’re the same thing

….they’re the same thin in that they both represent a set number of units within an inch measurement. Whether it’s pixels, samples, dots or bananas per inch, it’s all CONCEPTUALLY the SAME THING.

Woah, reading is teh HARD for you, huh?

I have, of course, educated you on this already, but since you are a clueless teenager, you have no hope of ever understanding this.

So have you let Microsoft in on this little theory of yours? http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

Look in a mirror and read the file name out loud kiddo, maybe it’ll help you.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

arranged shapes to form:

I am completely thrilled with the work, and the artist seems happy with the transaction as well. It was, overall, low-overhead and seamless.

Excellent! So you didn’t go for your "multiple choice – pay only one" deal in the end? Can we have a look? It’s always nice to see the end results.

While many of you offered sarcasm, derision, and debated minutiae,

This is usenet, did you expect less? Someone posts something, and ‘the group’ discuss whatever they want to out of it. Most of the posts won’t have been relevant to anyone who isn’t a practicing designer with an interest in intellectual property and professional business practice, but hey, you got what you wanted, we had an interesting debate. Everyone wins.

—

Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:49:28 +0000, Davémon <"davémon"@nospam.com> wrote:

arranged shapes to form:

I am completely thrilled with the work, and the artist seems happy with the transaction as well. It was, overall, low-overhead and seamless.

Excellent! So you didn’t go for your "multiple choice – pay only one" deal in the end? Can we have a look? It’s always nice to see the end results.

While many of you offered sarcasm, derision, and debated minutiae,

This is usenet, did you expect less? Someone posts something, and ‘the group’ discuss whatever they want to out of it. Most of the posts won’t have been relevant to anyone who isn’t a practicing designer with an interest in intellectual property and professional business practice, but hey, you got what you wanted, we had an interesting debate. Everyone wins.

Winning? Pfft, it’s never been my intention to do anything so prosaic as "winning"…LOL… `, D

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Incorrect, Einstein. Pixels per inch says nothing about the image, just about the screen.

Okay, Smarts, then go ahead and post an image with zero pixels per inch.

I can’t post a image with ANY pixels/inch – the pixels/inch come into effect when the image is displayed *on a monitor*.

PPI is in reference to the *monitor resolution*, and has *nothing* to do with any image. If I have two monitors connected to my Mac that have two different resolution and the image spans both monitors – the image will be displayed with *two different* PPI’s.

Again – the PPI is the amount of pixels your monitor displays per inch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch

"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of a computer display, related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions."

DPI is in reference to the *printed resolution* and has *nothing* to do with the quality of the image.

A 100×100 pixel image in 72 dpi is *the exact same size* as a 100×100 pixel image in 300 dpi – they will just print in different size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI" resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

—
Sandman[.net]

"I am loyal to Apple and love my Mac because I have PCs to compare it to." – Edwin

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:56:08 +0100, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Incorrect, Einstein. Pixels per inch says nothing about the image, just about the screen.

Okay, Smarts, then go ahead and post an image with zero pixels per inch.

I can’t post a image with ANY pixels/inch – the pixels/inch come into effect when the image is displayed *on a monitor*.

Then how do you explain this, Stupid:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

DUM, DUM, DUM!

LOL…gosh yer slow!

PPI is in reference to the *monitor resolution*, and has *nothing* to do with any image. If I have two monitors connected to my Mac that have two different resolution and the image spans both monitors – the image will be displayed with *two different* PPI’s.

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html

It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

Again – the PPI is the amount of pixels your monitor displays per inch.

PPI has nothing to do with your monitor nor it’s resolution, Stupid.

DPI is in reference to the *printed resolution* and has *nothing* to do with the quality of the image.

Then how do you explain this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

Boy, it’s like the link that just keeps haunting you, huh? ^_^

A 100×100 pixel image in 72 dpi is *the exact same size* as a 100×100 pixel image in 300 dpi – they will just print in different size.

They’ll display in different sizes too…depending on WHAT you’re doing with them and how…for example if you’re in Photoshop and you change to a print workspace. Not ALL programs ignore the ppi and go by the pixels, Rimjob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI" resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

….where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts? Uh oh, looks like yer fucked again! LOL

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Incorrect, Einstein. Pixels per inch says nothing about the image, just about the screen.

Okay, Smarts, then go ahead and post an image with zero pixels per inch.

I can’t post a image with ANY pixels/inch – the pixels/inch come into effect when the image is displayed *on a monitor*.

Then how do you explain this, Stupid:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

I’ve told you many times – and you’ve even linked to a wiki page that clearly shows you that the term is misused. Can’t read? Not my problem.

PPI is in reference to the *monitor resolution*, and has *nothing* to do with any image. If I have two monitors connected to my Mac that have two different resolution and the image spans both monitors – the image will be displayed with *two different* PPI’s.

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html
It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

Again – the PPI is the amount of pixels your monitor displays per inch.

PPI has nothing to do with your monitor nor it’s resolution, Stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch

"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of a computer display, related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI" resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

…where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts?

On the web page I just linked to.

—
Sandman[.net]

"Apple beat Wintel to market with 64 bit personal computers" – Edwin

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:29:58 +0100, Sandman wrote:

Then how do you explain this, Stupid:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

I’ve told you many times – and you’ve even linked to a wiki page that clearly shows you that the term is misused. Can’t read? Not my problem.

So now you’re claiming that MICROSOFT is "misusing" the term, huh?

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html
It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

You can alter your monitors resolution any way you like, Stupid, it’s not going to magically make the source image have any more or less pixels no matter how much you grab at your crotch and start rubbing.

Again – the PPI is the amount of pixels your monitor displays per inch.

PPI has nothing to do with your monitor nor it’s resolution, Stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch

"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of a computer display, related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions."

Monitors use dot pitch, not PPI, Stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI" resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

…where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts?

On the web page I just linked to.

No, it’s say "DPI"…lol…I thought you were claiming they COULDN’T be interchanged…and yet, now you’re trying to claim that they are?

HAHAHAHAHA…the poor retard is so confused he’s actually arguing against himself now! ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Then how do you explain this, Stupid:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

I’ve told you many times – and you’ve even linked to a wiki page that clearly
shows you that the term is misused. Can’t read? Not my problem.

So now you’re claiming that MICROSOFT is "misusing" the term, huh?

Duh.

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html
It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

You can alter your monitors resolution any way you like, Stupid, it’s not going to magically make the source image have any more or less pixels no matter how much you grab at your crotch and start rubbing.

That’s because PPI doesn’t have *anything to do with the image*.

Again – the PPI is the amount of pixels your monitor displays per inch.

PPI has nothing to do with your monitor nor it’s resolution, Stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch

"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of a computer display, related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions."

Monitors use dot pitch, not PPI, Stupid.

Oh my god. And the sad story is – you really ARE this stupid. Not only are you being lectured by me and Wiki – you really want to lie on the floor and scream that the world is wrong and your ignorance is right 😀

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI"
resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

…where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts?

On the web page I just linked to.

No, it’s say "DPI"…lol…I thought you were claiming they COULDN’T be interchanged…and yet, now you’re trying to claim that they are?

Only to someone with 0% english comprehension. I.e. you.

read again.

—
Sandman[.net]

"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
– Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:23:07 +0100, Sandman wrote:

So now you’re claiming that MICROSOFT is "misusing" the term, huh?

Duh.

Microsoft controls/owns most of the computing industry though, so by the sheer volume they make it a standard, just as the sheer volume of people posting material to Usenet in yEnc make it a standard…whether it has an RFC or not.

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html
It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

You can alter your monitors resolution any way you like, Stupid, it’s not going to magically make the source image have any more or less pixels no matter how much you grab at your crotch and start rubbing.

That’s because PPI doesn’t have *anything to do with the image*.

Then why is there a setting for it when you create a new image, Sandypants:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

DUM, DUM, DUM!

LOL…yer just runnin in circles today, aren’tcha?

Monitors use dot pitch, not PPI, Stupid.

Oh my god. And the sad story is – you really ARE this stupid. Not only are you being lectured by me and Wiki – you really want to lie on the floor and scream that the world is wrong and your ignorance is right 😀

Funny, I could have sword that’s what you were doing, I mean, you’re the one whose practically screaming and bawling your eyes out about how you think you’re right in every other post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI"
resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

…where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts?

On the web page I just linked to.

No, it’s say "DPI"…lol…I thought you were claiming they COULDN’T be interchanged…and yet, now you’re trying to claim that they are?

Only to someone with 0% english comprehension. I.e. you.
read again.

Woah…10 to 1 says the irony of your last statements just flew right on over yer pointed little head. Most people with a sufficient level of English comprehension know when to capitalize words and how to form sentences that aren’t fragments. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On 6 Dec 2005 05:28:38 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

After Chet posted this anyway:

"Seriously, you stupid fucks. Quick posting in here you dumb retarded fucks. And don’t reply to this with your excuses. Just shut the fuck up."

LOL

That is very impressive, Hatter. ‘Chet’ may be dumber than you are.

No one is as dumb as you, Kiddo. Chet had no choice, the traffic I was incurring was choking his server to death, it simply couldn’t handle the Hatter effect. `, )

Delusions of grandeur.

Seriously kid, when was the last time you got a board owner as big as Chet to froth and scream like that?

I had Slashdot admins calling my house.

Probably to tell your mother that they were worried her handicapped son was being naughty on the Internet again.

Like wearing adult diapers?

Yeah, never. When was the last
time you got a board owner to sever his left arm off, obliterating a multi-thousand post FORUM just to try and shut you up because the traffic you were incurring was choking their server to death? Yeah, never.

Better yet, I had Everything2.com trolling their own board in my name. See April 1, 2000, I think it was?

Everything2.com, WOW, there’s a real happ’nin board. *snicker*

Compared to Portal of Evil?

Message boards are way too easy, of course.

…actually they’re generally harder because teh peeps can put up more of a fight as far as trying to ban you and so forth…of course there’s tactics for that, but it’s not as easy as it is on Usenet where people simply can’t do anything about you other than putting on blinders…which is proven time and time again to be highly ineffective. Peeps on Usenet also generally tend to have thicker skin than your average tweenage muppet fuck webbie.

Which makes message boards…all too easy.

Get the fuck outta here, N00b, you ain’t even on my level. And just because I’m taking the time to xpost to your filth ridden shit hole

of

a froup doesn’t mean I’m sharing any of my new toys (teh graphics froups and the Mac addict froup). Go get your own play things, you fuckin wannabe.

And you honestly think the above represents good trolling?

Kids like you troll yourselves out of stupidity, you don’t need any help from me.

How old are you, Hatter?

Did you already back down from your silly ‘ppi’ = ‘dpi’ claim?

Unfortunately no one seems to be able to formulate a counter to my two images:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-

matters/test.html

Tsch, tsch, tsch…such a disappointment, I guess there’s just no fight left in them. ^_^

No one needs to "forumulate a counter" to a couple of wonky images you’ve put on your site.

Is there some sort of point to them, somehow?

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

<Hatter ignorance snipped as a public service>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch

"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of a computer display, related to the size of the display in inches and the total number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical directions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI" resolution until it comes time to print the image"

*whip* – dance for me monkey boy!

—
Sandman[.net]

"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
– Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.

On 6 Dec 2005 12:14:13 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

That is very impressive, Hatter. ‘Chet’ may be dumber than you are.

No one is as dumb as you, Kiddo. Chet had no choice, the traffic I was incurring was choking his server to death, it simply couldn’t handle the Hatter effect. `, )

Delusions of grandeur.

Then why did Chet obliterate a multi-thousand post FORUM and scream at his users to shut themselves the fuck up? Face it d00d, yer a jealous bitch.

I had Slashdot admins calling my house.

Probably to tell your mother that they were worried her handicapped son was being naughty on the Internet again.

Like wearing adult diapers?

Is that what you were doing? LOL, no wonder you’ve got such a hardon for me, I mean what with how I destroyed your entire online community and all. ^_^

Better yet, I had Everything2.com trolling their own board in my name. See April 1, 2000, I think it was?

Everything2.com, WOW, there’s a real happ’nin board. *snicker*

Compared to Portal of Evil?

D00d, PoE generates like 1,000 times the traffic of that stain you posted. Yeesh, get it the fuck together already.

Message boards are way too easy, of course.

…actually they’re generally harder because teh peeps can put up more of a fight as far as trying to ban you and so forth…of course there’s tactics for that, but it’s not as easy as it is on Usenet where people simply can’t do anything about you other than putting on blinders…which is proven time and time again to be highly ineffective. Peeps on Usenet also generally tend to have thicker skin than your average tweenage muppet fuck webbie.

Which makes message boards…all too easy.

Oh boy, I knew there was a reason there was a "slow children" sign on your street.

And you honestly think the above represents good trolling?

Kids like you troll yourselves out of stupidity, you don’t need any help from me.

How old are you, Hatter?

I’m afraid age doesn’t denote intelligence nor experience, Kiddo.

No one needs to "forumulate a counter" to a couple of wonky images you’ve put on your site.

Oh, but they *DO* have a need..a terrible itching one at that.

Is there some sort of point to them, somehow?

Yeah, the one you ran away from…not that YOU should be replying to that sort of thing, but uh…well I guess it’s no secret what an idiot you are, is it?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:24:11 +0100, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

<Hatter ign<COCK SLAP>

Running away already I see. Let me go ahead and repost the parts that make you all pissy and indignant:

So now you’re claiming that MICROSOFT is "misusing" the term, huh?

Duh.

Microsoft controls/owns most of the computing industry though, so by the sheer volume they make it a standard, just as the sheer volume of people posting material to Usenet in yEnc make it a standard…whether it has an RFC or not.

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html
It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

You can alter your monitors resolution any way you like, Stupid, it’s not going to magically make the source image have any more or less pixels no matter how much you grab at your crotch and start rubbing.

That’s because PPI doesn’t have *anything to do with the image*.

Then why is there a setting for it when you create a new image, Sandypants:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

DUM, DUM, DUM!

LOL…yer just runnin in circles today, aren’tcha?

Monitors use dot pitch, not PPI, Stupid.

Oh my god. And the sad story is – you really ARE this stupid. Not only are you being lectured by me and Wiki – you really want to lie on the floor and scream that the world is wrong and your ignorance is right 😀

Funny, I could have sword that’s what you were doing, I mean, you’re the one whose practically screaming and bawling your eyes out about how you think you’re right in every other post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI"
resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

…where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts?

On the web page I just linked to.

No, it’s say "DPI"…lol…I thought you were claiming they COULDN’T be interchanged…and yet, now you’re trying to claim that they are?

Only to someone with 0% english comprehension. I.e. you.
read again.

Woah…10 to 1 says the irony of your last statements just flew right on over yer pointed little head. Most people with a sufficient level of English comprehension know when to capitalize words and how to form sentences that aren’t fragments. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

<roadkill>

Nothing to see here folks. I broke Hatter.

—
Sandman[.net]

"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
– Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:41:28 +0100, Sandman wrote:

No<COCK SLAP>

Running away already I see. Let me go ahead and repost the parts that make you all pissy and indignant:

So now you’re claiming that MICROSOFT is "misusing" the term, huh?

Duh.

Microsoft controls/owns most of the computing industry though, so by the sheer volume they make it a standard, just as the sheer volume of people posting material to Usenet in yEnc make it a standard…whether it has an RFC or not.

Um, no it won’t:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/ppi-matt ers/test.html
It’ll change the SIZE of the pixels, but it’s not going to change the number of them, ya fuckin fruitkook.

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

You can alter your monitors resolution any way you like, Stupid, it’s not going to magically make the source image have any more or less pixels no matter how much you grab at your crotch and start rubbing.

That’s because PPI doesn’t have *anything to do with the image*.

Then why is there a setting for it when you create a new image, Sandypants:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png

DUM, DUM, DUM!

LOL…yer just runnin in circles today, aren’tcha?

Monitors use dot pitch, not PPI, Stupid.

Oh my god. And the sad story is – you really ARE this stupid. Not only are you being lectured by me and Wiki – you really want to lie on the floor and scream that the world is wrong and your ignorance is right 😀

Funny, I could have sword that’s what you were doing, I mean, you’re the one whose practically screaming and bawling your eyes out about how you think you’re right in every other post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

"Another misuse results from an incomplete understanding of what the DPI measurement means. In order for any "per inch" measurement to be meaningful, some number of inches must be specified. A digital image captured by a scanner or digital camera has no inherent "DPI"
resolution until it comes time to print the image"

So, in other words – you’re still 100% wrong.

…where does it say that it has no inherent "PPI", Smarts?

On the web page I just linked to.

No, it’s say "DPI"…lol…I thought you were claiming they COULDN’T be interchanged…and yet, now you’re trying to claim that they are?

Only to someone with 0% english comprehension. I.e. you.
read again.

Woah…10 to 1 says the irony of your last statements just flew right on over yer pointed little head. Most people with a sufficient level of English comprehension know when to capitalize words and how to form sentences that aren’t fragments. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:47:40 -0500, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Then why is there a setting for it when you create a new image, Sandypants:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
DUM, DUM, DUM!

You are wrong. The pixels or dots per inch is contained in a meta area in the file for devices or applications that want to know the intent. It does not affect the core nature of the file … it remains X dots wide by Y dots tall, period. How the next device or app in the chain expresses it — prints it or shows it on the screen — is a function of that next device or app.

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:47:40 -0500, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

So now you’re claiming that MICROSOFT is "misusing" the term, huh?

Duh.

Microsoft controls/owns most of the computing industry though, so by the sheer volume they make it a standard, just as the sheer volume of people posting material to Usenet in yEnc make it a standard…whether it has an RFC or not.

Even Adobe misuses the term, as well as an app called Art Directors Toolkit for Mac. They have some mathematical functions to convert measurements to pixels and dots per inch, but they way they are using it is misleading. I wrote them about it, and they agreed, but said that so many users (such as yourself) have this incorrect concept in their heads about 72 pixels per inch that they chose to leave it in.

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

<Hatters pride spread thinly over the floor>

Please come back when you’ve learned about DPI and PPI and then we can talk.

Now, bang your head in the wall once more, monkey boy 🙂

—
Sandman[.net]

"Kudos to Apple for being the first to bring affordable 64 bit computing to the PC market"
– Edwin

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:13:11 +0000, Mimic wrote:

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:59:53 +0100, Sandman wrote:

Your stupidity is beyond amazing…check this out…

1. An image can not (I repeat: *can* *not*) be 72 PPI.

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

2. PPI says nothing about DPI. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Um, yeah it does, Stupid. For example, if you tell me you have an image that has a PPI of 72, I can tell you it’s going to print like shit! WOAH…I must be like Miss fuckin Cleo, huh?

Here, let me Wikislap you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

"The number of pixels per inch in a computer display is sometimes specified in this way as well. Usage of the DPI measurement in these cases is considered by some to be inaccurate and misleading, though the intended meaning is usually clear based on context."
Oh ho…you got BITCH SLAPED! ROTFL…tsch, tsch, tsch…it’s too bad stupidity like yours isn’t painful.

If youre going to try and have a go at them, at least fucking make the effort to READ something first.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/DPI_and_PPI.pn g

Um…that’s an IMAGE, Retard…how do you figure one can READ a PICTURE. o_O

—

Onideus Mad Hatter

Well done have a biscuit. You can have another one when you work out what "read" means.
Its funny, you’re drawn a picture that clearly shows the difference between PPI and DPI, and you *still* can’t understand it.

—
Mimic

First day it opened I went down there, was doing a few laps and pulled over and the manager comes over to me and says "Oi, mate! No professionals." I said I’m not a professional. He said "Well, you should be with moves like that you could be the best in Britain". I said, "No thanks I’m making shit loads from computers".

[email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
Help Stop Spam – www.hidemyemail.net

"I have come to realise that, only in death, will I find true perfection."

Onideus Mad Hatter said the following on 05/12/2005 23:45:

even if you up yer res, it’s still 72 pixels per inch,
altering the res essentially just changes the size of the pixels, but it’s STILL 72, you fucking moron.

I’ll step you through the complicated maths for this…

For any given on-screen image:

Pixels per inch = P / W

where P = Number of pixels across,
W = Number of inches across (physical width as measured by a ruler)

If you alter the resolution of screen (let’s say you increase it), you reduce the size of the pixels, therefore the on-screen image shrinks,
i.e. W reduces. As P stays the same, the result is that PPI (as viewed
on screen) increases.

It can easily be shown that the same value occurs for *any* image on a given screen, i.e. it’s a constant for a given monitor and given resolution.

Which is kind of obvious, because PPI of an on-screen image is entirely determined by the number of pixels the screen is displaying per inch (note: this is the reciprocal of "dot pitch").

As an example, in a previous post when you stated in an earlier post:

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/mine3.png

That image has EXACTLY 72 pixels per inch, count them out if you’re feeling especially stupid, MORON.

That image is 400 px wide, and on my current resolution (1280×1024), displays at 4.125" wide. Which works out at 400/4.125 = 97.0 PPI. Definitely not 72 PPI as you claimed.

And look, almost magically, my (viewable) screen is 13.2" wide, which works out at 1280/13.2 = 97.0 PPI. How convenient.

In the case where the software attempts to compensate for screen resolution (e.g. in "Actual size" Print Preview), there’s no longer a one-to-one mapping between image pixels and physical screen pixels; i.e. all it’s doing is applying an extra zoom factor.

If it’s an integer mapping, e.g. 3 screen pixels to 1 image pixel (in 1D for simplicity), then an interpolation method is used to fill in the gaps. For a non-integer mapping, e.g. 1.38 screen pixels to 1 image pixel, the interpolation results in very few (potentially none) of the original image pixels actually being displayed.

Either way, the number of physical pixels being displayed in an inch is still determined by the screen resolution and size.

So when you ask:

What, do you think your computer
can just MAKE UP pixels that don’t exist? LOL

The answer is: yes! How else could it display a resampled/scaled/zoomed form of the image? Whether its using nearest-neighbour (zero-order), higher-order polynomial (linear, cubic, etc.), spline, or bandwidth-limited interpolation, your computer is displaying pixels that aren’t specified in the original image file. By definition, interpolation is the process of making up values that don’t exist.

This applies whether you’ve manually resampled the image, or your software is doing it on-the-fly for scaling or zooming purposes.

—
Oli

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:46:44 GMT, "Elizabeth" wrote:

Apparently Oldami is the kind of dumbass who thinks you can resize a raster image to any size and it’ll retain the same quality.

Here let me add some space between the two SEPERATE thoughts, maybe you’ll be less confused that way.

Free
cl00, kiddie, even if you up yer res, it’s still 72 pixels per inch, altering the res essentially just changes the size of the pixels, but it’s STILL 72, you fucking moron. What, do you think your computer can just MAKE UP pixels that don’t exist? LOL

Your *computer* can’t do much of anything. But your computer, running Photoshop, most certainly CAN, and DOES, "make up pixels that don’t exist." Just what is it you think is happening when you "upsize" an image ?

…you’re talking about RESIZING an image, that last section is talking about CHANGING THE RESOLUTION of an image.

*shakes head*

Jesus you kids are slow.

Read carefully:

Images don’t *have* a resolution. Images are so many dots high by so many dots wide. Any "resolution" listed for them is a *suggestion*, not an inherent part of the image.

A lot of people have tried to explain this to you, now try and learn something for once.

—
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you’ll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On 6 Dec 2005 12:07:35 -0800, wrote:

Oli Filth wrote:
<snip>

This applies whether you’ve manually resampled the image, or your software is doing it on-the-fly for scaling or zooming purposes.

—
Oli

Nice explanation. However…

The mistake is in thinking that it is at all possible to "win" an argument with Hatter. For there to be a winner, both sides must a) be playing to win, and b) playing the same game. However, it doesn’t appear that arguing a point to a conclusion is Hatter’s intention at all. Everyone keeps trying to prove him wrong, but all he wants to do is get a rise out of everyone, so you’re playing different games.
I doubt there are any examples of design, logic, proof or anything else you can post that will sway his comments — because they are all irrelevant to his game, which is prolonging the exchange as long as possible. For him to succeed at his game, he doesn’t need to be right or wrong, he only needs you to respond.

I’ve noticed that when he is genuinely seeking advice or answers, his posting style is completely different and his responses are civil.
Some people collect stamps. Some people play video games. Hatter trolls Usenet. Everyone needs an outlet.

I’m not suggesting anything so pretentious that everyone just stop responding to him. That would be pointless, because someone will *always* respond. But at least know which game you’re playing. ; )

….well, you’re partially right…but you are missing something. These debates and arguments of mine are actually specifically engineered, I’m not just picking random topics here you know, with something like DPI/PPI/SPI/LPI/<anything else related to image resolution> there is enough ambiguity within the subject that there simply is no "right answer". And what you call "trolling" I actually think of as "research"…10 to 1 says I’ll be in some other graphic design community arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I’m currently arguing with so many of you kids. Fact is, I RARELY ever actually have a definite position on ANYTHING, I’m simply using other people’s rage and stupidity to examine the various sides of the argument for my own personal benefit. Some might think that makes me a "bad" person, but get the fuck over yerself already, this is Usenet, not RL. If you’re having trouble differentiating between the two you ought to go and get yer head checked.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 12:14 PM:

I’m not just picking random topics here you know, …I’m simply using other people’s rage and stupidity to examine the various sides of the argument for my own personal benefit.

This is exactly why he does not respond to me any longer. I was playing the same game as he is. There is no "benefit" to playing the game with someone that is playing the same game.

So he quit.

hahahaha.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:47:05 -0800, mike wrote:

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 12:14 PM:

I’m not just picking random topics here you know, …I’m simply using other people’s rage and stupidity to examine the various sides of the argument for my own personal benefit.

This is exactly why he does not respond to me any longer.

….actually I just think you’re an idiot Mike…no, REALLY.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 12:49 PM:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:47:05 -0800, mike wrote:

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 12:14 PM:

I’m not just picking random topics here you know, …I’m simply using other people’s rage and stupidity to examine the various sides of the argument for my own personal benefit.

This is exactly why he does not respond to me any longer.

…actually I just think you’re an idiot Mike…no, REALLY.

So you can’t be believed to tell the truth, not too surprising.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:55:36 -0800, mike wrote:

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 12:49 PM:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:47:05 -0800, mike wrote:

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 12:14 PM:

I’m not just picking random topics here you know, …I’m simply using other people’s rage and stupidity to examine the various sides of the argument for my own personal benefit.

This is exactly why he does not respond to me any longer.

…actually I just think you’re an idiot Mike…no, REALLY.

So you can’t be believed to tell the truth, not too surprising.

….no, you REALLY are an idiot Mike. Seriously, you wanna take a poll?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

"Fred Doyle" wrote

Beyond even that, many, many other images of mine are served up by my paid host and appear on more traditional, highly popular, highly profitable web sites (much more popular than my own) created by others who are receiving a lot of money from the ads they also place on those pages with my images. And my images are the main content on those pages. I don’t mean the images are copied from my host and served by other hosts. I mean those page creators are having me pay for serving images to pages they create and receive money for from the ads on them, but I have created the main content on those pages. They are relying on me to create the content for those pages. They are relying on my server, which I pay for, to serve up those images. These are commercial pages, making a good deal of money. I get none of that.

You may be thinking that this is clearly an actionable issue, but the biggest offender here is Google Images. Who gave them permission to display my images on their pages? Beyond that, who said I agreed to pay for those images to be served to those commercial pages and receive no compensation in return? I don’t mind really, but this kind of indexing is an area where I see major copyright issues arising and the potential for re-writing of the copyright law. This is where I see the ASCAP/BMI model coming into play, allowing smaller artists like me to capture small royalties for each viewing of images we create and serve.

Related to this, I was surprised to see the following news report: BRUSSELS, Belgium – European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content. "The new models of Google and others reverse the traditional permission-based copyright model of content trading that we have built up over the years," said Francisco Pinto Balsemao, the head of the European Publishers Council, in prepared remarks for a speech at a Brussels conference.

His stance backs French news agency AFP, which is suing Google for pulling together photos and story excerpts from thousands of news Web sites.

"It is fascinating to see how these companies ‘help themselves’ to copyright-protected material, build up their own business models around what they have collected, and parasitically, earn advertising revenue off the back of other people’s content," he said.

"This is unlikely to be sustainable for publishers in the longer term." ………….

For a full link: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/06/D8EAUDM04.html

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 1:01 PM:

…no, you REALLY are an idiot Mike. Seriously, you wanna take a poll?

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:19:18 -0800, mike wrote:

…no, you REALLY are an idiot Mike. Seriously, you wanna take a poll?

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

*snicker*

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 1:28 PM:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:19:18 -0800, mike wrote:

…no, you REALLY are an idiot Mike. Seriously, you wanna take a poll?

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

You are not in a position to know the amount of money I make from my site. You are only able to fantasize and guess, based upon your own values and judgement. By the way, your own values and judgements are only valid to you, and not everyone. Try and remember that.

Chuckle.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

"Tim Murray" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:47:40 -0500, Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Then why is there a setting for it when you create a new image, Sandypants:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/are-u-slow.png
DUM, DUM, DUM!

You are wrong. The pixels or dots per inch is contained in a meta area in the
file for devices or applications that want to know the intent. It does not affect the core nature of the file … it remains X dots wide by Y dots tall,
period. How the next device or app in the chain expresses it — prints it or
shows it on the screen — is a function of that next device or app.

Sometimes this is carried over. Sometimes it is not. Very annoying and I do not know a good way around it.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:39:39 -0800, mike wrote:

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

You are not in a position to know the amount of money I make from my site.

….what does money have to do with it? Actually, in your case, maybe that is it. You seem like the type…spoiled little rich boi whose mommy and daddy bought him some real expensive software…LOL…too bad you’re too deficient to actually make some creative use of it.

You are only able to fantasize and guess, based upon your own values and judgement. By the way, your own values and judgements are only valid to you, and not everyone. Try and remember that.

Mike, your "art" is shit, it’s gaudy lookin, it relies WAY to heavily on default filter effects without absolutely NO thought put into HOW you’re using them. You have an incredibly deficient lack of comprehension regarding image formats and image encoding methodology. You seem to have NO understanding AT ALL of layer blending techniques. You color schemes are plainly awfully, practically spitting in the face of color theory. All your work is just a mish mosh of garbled colors and misused filters with no sense of style, design or theme. Yer just a stupid kid whose playing around…you’re no artist, Mikey…just a fuckin poser.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 2:06 PM:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:39:39 -0800, mike wrote:

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

You are not in a position to know the amount of money I make from my site.

…what does money have to do with it?

You were attempting to say the value of artwork is voted on, shitty or not shitty. I then suggested that if you wish to count "votes" then money is a way to see the actual value that people place upon the work.

Was that too complex a jump for you?

You seem like the type…spoiled little rich boi whose
mommy and daddy bought him some real expensive software…LOL…too bad you’re too deficient to actually make some creative use of it.

Thank you for sharing your fantasies with me. Can you take a wild guess and tell me the value I place upon your fantasies?

Chuckle.

You are only able to fantasize and guess, based upon your own values and judgement. By the way, your own values and judgements are only valid to you, and not everyone. Try and remember that.

Mike, your "art" is shit, it’s gaudy lookin…

That is a value judgement that is only valuable to you. Try and remember that your values are only important to you. You are not in a position to be of any value to me, so naturally your judgements are of even less value.

You have an incredibly deficient lack of
comprehension regarding image formats and image encoding methodology.

Such topics are of no interest to me.

You seem to have NO understanding AT ALL of layer blending techniques. You color schemes are plainly awfully, practically spitting in the face of color theory. All your work is just a mish mosh of garbled colors and misused filters with no sense of style, design or theme.

Thank you for sharing, but your opinions are of no value to me. Move on.

Yer just a stupid kid whose playing around…you’re no artist, Mikey…just a fuckin poser.

That seems to be a problem for you. That’s too bad.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:39:39 -0800, mike wrote:

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

You are not in a position to know the amount of money I make from my site.

…what does money have to do with it? Actually, in your case, maybe that is it. You seem like the type…spoiled little rich boi whose mommy and daddy bought him some real expensive software…LOL…too bad you’re too deficient to actually make some creative use of it.

You are only able to fantasize and guess, based upon your own values and judgement. By the way, your own values and judgements are only valid to you, and not everyone. Try and remember that.

Mike, your "art" is shit, it’s gaudy lookin, it relies WAY to heavily on default filter effects without absolutely NO thought put into HOW you’re using them. You have an incredibly deficient lack of comprehension regarding image formats and image encoding methodology. You seem to have NO understanding AT ALL of layer blending techniques. You color schemes are plainly awfully, practically spitting in the face of color theory. All your work is just a mish mosh of garbled colors and misused filters with no sense of style, design or theme. Yer just a stupid kid whose playing around…you’re no artist, Mikey…just a fuckin poser.

Sorry, phat-boi.

His stuff is *creative* and your is just copying.

—
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you’ll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:28:27 -0800, mike wrote:

You were attempting to say the value of artwork is voted on, shi<snip>

PoserMike, I went into FULL detail about what was wrong with your so called "art" and the fact that you thought they were aesthetic critiques REALLY shows just how n00b you are. Every critique I made of your work was from a pure design standpoint, if you’re so lacking that you can’t even recognize that…you’re in the wrong biz.

Saying that art is subjective is poser boi nonsense, the kind of dribbling slop that comes from philistines who have no concept of design or style. When you become an artist or an art critic you have to move beyond that amateurish mentality of subjectiveness and judge the art by the form, technique and style…of which you have none. You want me to prove it? Simple Mikey…on your main site: http://www.artistmike.com

….what specific THEME or STYLE are you using? Wait, wait, even better, what specific TYPE of color scheme are you using and WHY are you using it? If you can’t answer those two VERY BASIC questions Mikey…yer no artist, yer just a fuckin poser.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:32:59 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:39:39 -0800, mike wrote:

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

You are not in a position to know the amount of money I make from my site.

…what does money have to do with it? Actually, in your case, maybe that is it. You seem like the type…spoiled little rich boi whose mommy and daddy bought him some real expensive software…LOL…too bad you’re too deficient to actually make some creative use of it.

You are only able to fantasize and guess, based upon your own values and judgement. By the way, your own values and judgements are only valid to you, and not everyone. Try and remember that.

Mike, your "art" is shit, it’s gaudy lookin, it relies WAY to heavily on default filter effects without absolutely NO thought put into HOW you’re using them. You have an incredibly deficient lack of comprehension regarding image formats and image encoding methodology. You seem to have NO understanding AT ALL of layer blending techniques. You color schemes are plainly awfully, practically spitting in the face of color theory. All your work is just a mish mosh of garbled colors and misused filters with no sense of style, design or theme. Yer just a stupid kid whose playing around…you’re no artist, Mikey…just a fuckin poser.

Sorry, phat-boi.

His stuff is *creative* and your is just copying.

Sorry, fat-boi.

His stuff is *shit* and you’re just seeking verbal retribution cause you got boot fucked by dat mean ‘ol Mad Hatter.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:32:59 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 13:39:39 -0800, mike wrote:

Such things are not decided by vote, you are very silly.

Well not directly Mikey, they’re actually decided by your shit work: http://www.artistmike.com

You are not in a position to know the amount of money I make from my site.

…what does money have to do with it? Actually, in your case, maybe that is it. You seem like the type…spoiled little rich boi whose mommy and daddy bought him some real expensive software…LOL…too bad you’re too deficient to actually make some creative use of it.

You are only able to fantasize and guess, based upon your own values and judgement. By the way, your own values and judgements are only valid to you, and not everyone. Try and remember that.

Mike, your "art" is shit, it’s gaudy lookin, it relies WAY to heavily on default filter effects without absolutely NO thought put into HOW you’re using them. You have an incredibly deficient lack of comprehension regarding image formats and image encoding methodology. You seem to have NO understanding AT ALL of layer blending techniques. You color schemes are plainly awfully, practically spitting in the face of color theory. All your work is just a mish mosh of garbled colors and misused filters with no sense of style, design or theme. Yer just a stupid kid whose playing around…you’re no artist, Mikey…just a fuckin poser.

Sorry, phat-boi.

His stuff is *creative* and your is just copying.

Sorry, fat-boi.

Bzzzt. Doesn’t apply to me. Does apply to you.

His stuff is *shit* and you’re just seeking verbal retribution cause you got boot fucked by dat mean ‘ol Mad Hatter.

LOL

Yeah *rolls eye*, you showed me.

Tell you what, you claim you’re an artist. Let’s see a *pencil* sketch. No "layer blending methodologies", just draw.

And just to make sure you don’t *copy* it (because it appears to be all you’re good at) please have the sketch include… …oh, a trident… ….pointing down and to the right. The rest of the subject matter, I leave to you, if you’re up to the challenge.

—
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you’ll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 2:43 PM:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:28:27 -0800, mike wrote:

You were attempting to say the value of artwork is voted on, shi<snip>

PoserMike, I went into FULL detail about what was wrong with your so called "art" and the fact that you thought they were aesthetic critiques REALLY shows just how n00b you are.

Once again, your value judgements are of no value to me. The reason your judgements are of no value is because I don’t value you. You are not a person of any consequence to me. So repeating that your "critiques" were based upon something outside of your own opinions is irrelevant. I don’t accept that your "critiques" were based upon anything but your own values. Saying that they were based upon something else does not convince me, because I don’t believe you.

Chuckle.

Every critique I made
of your work was from a pure design standpoint…

You saying that does not make it so. You have yet to understand that I don’t value your opinions. So naturally your pronouncements have no value to me.

Saying that art is subjective is nonsense

Each viewer decides the value of art based on his or her own value system. If you feel the need to use "objective design criteria" that is your choice. To me that is an excuse to prop up your own choices because you really think your own choices are not valid on their own.

When you become an artist …

An artist just is, there is no becoming one.

or an art critic you have
to move beyond that amateurish mentality of subjectiveness and judge the art by the form, technique and style.

That is one facet of being a critic. There are other elements that also come into the mix that you are not aware of, or that you are choosing to ignore.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote in
news::

On 6 Dec 2005 12:14:13 GMT, Spaulding Greystoke
wrote:

That is very impressive, Hatter. ‘Chet’ may be dumber than you are.

No one is as dumb as you, Kiddo. Chet had no choice, the traffic I was incurring was choking his server to death, it simply couldn’t handle the Hatter effect. `, )

Delusions of grandeur.

Then why did Chet obliterate a multi-thousand post FORUM and scream at his users to shut themselves the fuck up? Face it d00d, yer a jealous bitch.

Oh, I’m sure you were melting his servers. Naturalmente.

I had Slashdot admins calling my house.

Probably to tell your mother that they were worried her handicapped son was being naughty on the Internet again.

Like wearing adult diapers?

Is that what you were doing? LOL, no wonder you’ve got such a hardon for me, I mean what with how I destroyed your entire online community and all. ^_^

You destroyed my community, DiaperMatt?

Whatever gave you that impression?

Better yet, I had Everything2.com trolling their own board in my name. See April 1, 2000, I think it was?

Everything2.com, WOW, there’s a real happ’nin board. *snicker*

Compared to Portal of Evil?

D00d, PoE generates like 1,000 times the traffic of that stain you posted. Yeesh, get it the fuck together already.

That must explain how you melted their servers, eh?

And PoE is a mere shitstain on the internet. Zero respect. You might as well go troll Brawl Hall.

Message boards are way too easy, of course.

…actually they’re generally harder because teh peeps can put up more of a fight as far as trying to ban you and so forth…of course there’s tactics for that, but it’s not as easy as it is on Usenet where people simply can’t do anything about you other than putting on blinders…which is proven time and time again to be highly ineffective. Peeps on Usenet also generally tend to have thicker skin than your average tweenage muppet fuck webbie.

Which makes message boards…all too easy.

Oh boy, I knew there was a reason there was a "slow children" sign on your street.

Is there?

And you honestly think the above represents good trolling?

Kids like you troll yourselves out of stupidity, you don’t need any help from me.

How old are you, Hatter?

I’m afraid age doesn’t denote intelligence nor experience, Kiddo.

Clealy.

No one needs to "forumulate a counter" to a couple of wonky images you’ve put on your site.

Oh, but they *DO* have a need..a terrible itching one at that.

Try Preparation H.

Is there some sort of point to them, somehow?

Yeah, the one you ran away from…not that YOU should be replying to that sort of thing, but uh…well I guess it’s no secret what an idiot you are, is it?

Tell us more about how screen resolution and printed resolution are the same thing, DiaperBoy.

—
http://www.bedoper.com

You have been banned for the following reason:
You broke about every forum rule possible.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 05:29:58 -0500, Sandman wrote:

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

Umm, you’re a lot more on-center than the Hatter, but this sentence is a bit off if you take it verbatim.

The size of the pixel itself never changes, because the pixel is nothing more than an addressable construct with a color; it is a dimensionless unit. However, it will *appear* different sizes because the application, if it has the ability to examine the nonimage data where the ppi is located, say to itself, "the image is 100 pixels per inch as specified in the nonimage data area, and it consists of 100 by 100 pixels. So, at 100 per cent size, I’m going to try to show it or print it as one inch across." In this case the pixel is expressed as 1/100 of an inch, but the pixel has no *real* size. Change the view to 200 per cent and the *pixel* does not double in size, only the number of monitor pixels used to *show* it does.

"Tim Murray" wrote in message

The size of the pixel itself never changes, because the pixel is nothing more
than an addressable construct with a color; it is a dimensionless unit.

Pedantic mode: If it were a point (dimentionless) then images could be compressed almost infinitely. Sorry, no black holes allowed.

Non-scanning imaging sensors have pixel dimensions.
Imaging screens have pixel dimensions.
So do ink-jet printers.
They vary, but pixels IN PRACTICE have dimensions.

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 22:49:39 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum" wrote:

"Tim Murray" wrote in message

The size of the pixel itself never changes, because the pixel is nothing more
than an addressable construct with a color; it is a dimensionless unit.

Pedantic mode: If it were a point (dimentionless) then images could be compressed almost infinitely. Sorry, no black holes allowed.

Actually it is essentially dimensionless on a pure code level. He, he, he…it’s cute that you kids still don’t get even after I already explained it though. Some things can’t be argued to a solidified point…this happens to be one of them. Change the basis of perspective and you can alter what’s wrong to right and vice versa. For example throughout most of this debate I’ve been going from the perspective that they’re all the same from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint, which, they are…part of my intended purpose was to test how many people in this froup would see it from that perspective or whether they would go by book slurped knowledge. Coincidentally, I’m of the opinion that a TRUE artist who can think on their own would actually be able to see it from a CONCEPTUAL stand point quite
easily…essentially, the lot of you have proven your ignorance and naivety as far as art is concerned…at least to me. Oh hey, this is the part where you respond with something like, ‘we don’t care what you think’…but the thing is, you do, I know because I’ve been testing and experimenting with your reactions, especially with kids like Mikey and Sandman, their posts are VERY revealing, much more so than I believe they ever intended. Oh, and just for clarification, I’m not so much a troll as a social engineer…BIG difference. ^_^

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

in article , Onideus Mad Hatter at
wrote on 12/06/2005 9:01 PM:

BIG difference. ^_^

There is no difference at all, goofball.

Mike
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Certificate Design at: http://www.artistmike.com/CertificateDesigns/1.html Logos at: http://www.artistmike.com/NewLogos2002/Logos2002.08a.html

In article <DNslf.6788$>,
Tim Murray wrote:

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

Umm, you’re a lot more on-center than the Hatter, but this sentence is a bit off if you take it verbatim.

The size of the pixel itself never changes, because the pixel is nothing more than an addressable construct with a color; it is a dimensionless unit. However, it will *appear* different sizes because the application, if it has the ability to examine the nonimage data where the ppi is located, say to itself, "the image is 100 pixels per inch as specified in the nonimage data area, and it consists of 100 by 100 pixels. So, at 100 per cent size, I’m going to try to show it or print it as one inch across." In this case the pixel is expressed as 1/100 of an inch, but the pixel has no *real* size. Change the view to 200 per cent and the *pixel* does not double in size, only the number of monitor pixels used to *show* it does.

You’re talking about something else.

This is a discussion about PPI. PPI is the pixel density of your monitor and has nothing to do with images on your computer at all. The on-screen display of a 15" wide monitor that displays 1280 across is 85ppi. Everything on the screen including any images that is being shown will be at 85ppi.

This has actually nothing to do with any specific pixels found as bitmap data inside a image, since a picture zoomed 2x will still be shown at 85ppi on this particular screen, but interpolation would invent pixels in between actual pixel representations.

Now, change the resolution to be 800 across, and suddenly the ppi drops to 53, which affects everything on-screen.

DPI, on the other hand, is a value you can attach to a image, where it defines how dense the pixels should be when it is printed. DPI doesn’t affect the image in any way, shape or form.

A 300 dpi image shown on the above screen would still be shown at 85ppi.

What you talk about requires the applications to know the inches – which I believe Windows has a tool for (where you put a ruler up to your screen, and then set a on-screen ruler to be the same) to let the computer know just how wwide an inch is in the "real world". Without this, any application can’t even begin to try to show a "1 inch wide" image as 1 inch on the screen. As far as the computer and applications knows, your screen is 1280×1024 (for instance) and have no idea what ppi that is displayed in.

—
Sandman[.net]

"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
– Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.

In article ,
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Actually it is essentially dimensionless on a pure code level. He, he, he…it’s cute that you kids still don’t get even after I already explained it though. Some things can’t be argued to a solidified point…this happens to be one of them. Change the basis of perspective and you can alter what’s wrong to right and vice versa. For example throughout most of this debate I’ve been going from the perspective that they’re all the same from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint, which, they are…part of my intended purpose was to test how many people in this froup would see it from that perspective or whether they would go by book slurped knowledge. Coincidentally, I’m of the opinion that a TRUE artist who can think on their own would actually be able to see it from a CONCEPTUAL stand point quite
easily…essentially, the lot of you have proven your ignorance and naivety as far as art is concerned…at least to me. Oh hey, this is the part where you respond with something like, ‘we don’t care what you think’…but the thing is, you do, I know because I’ve been testing and experimenting with your reactions, especially with kids like Mikey and Sandman, their posts are VERY revealing, much more so than I believe they ever intended. Oh, and just for clarification, I’m not so much a troll as a social engineer…BIG difference.

Keep running, boy. 🙂

—
Sandman[.net]

"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
– Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

Pedantic mode: If it were a point (dimentionless) then images could be compressed almost infinitely. Sorry, no black holes allowed.

Actually it is essentially dimensionless on a pure code level.

So is your personality.

For example throughout most of this debate I’ve been going from the perspective that they’re all the same from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint,

You should have said that right up front rather than ranting on endlessly.

In article , Lorem Ipsum
wrote:

For example throughout most of this debate I’ve been going from the perspective that they’re all the same from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint,

Just as he’s been speaking from the perpective that he, from a CONCEPTUAL standpoint, is an artist. ^ o ^

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 03:18:45 -0500, Sandman wrote:

In article <DNslf.6788$>,
Tim Murray wrote:

It will change how many of them that fit within a INCH since their size is chhanged. I mean – you’re just a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?

Umm, you’re a lot more on-center than the Hatter, but this sentence is a bit
off if you take it verbatim.

The size of the pixel itself never changes, because the pixel is nothing more
than an addressable construct with a color; it is a dimensionless unit. However, it will *appear* different sizes because the application, if it has
the ability to examine the nonimage data where the ppi is located, say to itself, "the image is 100 pixels per inch as specified in the nonimage data area, and it consists of 100 by 100 pixels. So, at 100 per cent size, I’m going to try to show it or print it as one inch across." In this case the pixel is expressed as 1/100 of an inch, but the pixel has no *real* size. Change the view to 200 per cent and the *pixel* does not double in size, only
the number of monitor pixels used to *show* it does.

You’re talking about something else.

This is a discussion about PPI. PPI is the pixel density of your monitor and has nothing to do with images on your computer at all. The on-screen display of a 15" wide monitor that displays 1280 across is 85ppi. Everything on the screen including any images that is being shown will be at 85ppi.
This has actually nothing to do with any specific pixels found as bitmap data inside a image, since a picture zoomed 2x will still be shown at 85ppi on this particular screen, but interpolation would invent pixels in between actual pixel representations.

Now, change the resolution to be 800 across, and suddenly the ppi drops to 53, which affects everything on-screen.

DPI, on the other hand, is a value you can attach to a image, where it defines how dense the pixels should be when it is printed. DPI doesn’t affect the image in any way, shape or form.

A 300 dpi image shown on the above screen would still be shown at 85ppi.
What you talk about requires the applications to know the inches – which I believe Windows has a tool for (where you put a ruler up to your screen, and then set a on-screen ruler to be the same) to let the computer know just how wwide an inch is in the "real world". Without this, any application can’t even begin to try to show a "1 inch wide" image as 1 inch on the screen. As far as the computer and applications knows, your screen is 1280×1024 (for instance) and have no idea what ppi that is displayed in.

Absolutely correct.