Claus-Dieter Zink takes measures against Lowlands Cup team

[Peter Millenaar]

Hi everyone,

Perhaps some of you already know the soaring simulator Condor. With around
1000 members Condor is becoming a really nice community. Every evening many
people fly against eachother in several different servers with challenging
tasks from 100 to sometimes 300km. These tasks are not only a lot of fun,
but they are also very educational since many pro's are helping and giving
tips to others.
On Thursday and Sunday evening there is a Lowlands Cup competition, which is
set up by several volunteers. Around 300 to 400 pilots are competing against
eachother in a friendly and educational way. Click the following link to
view the Lowlands Cup website: http://lowlands.sytes.net/

Let's get straight to the point now... Well known glider photographer
Claus-Dieter Zink has taken measures against the Lowlands Cup team because
the team had used a photograph originally taken by Mr. Zink for in their
banner on the Lowlands Cup website. The team did ask permission to use this
image, but never received a reply. Without even a warning or a request to
have the image removed, Mr. Zink immediately took legal action against the
Lowlands Cup team.
Well, I think this is the part where I should ask you to read the topic on
the Condor website at this link:
http://forum.condorsoaring.com/viewtopic.php?t=2293&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight

On behalf of the whole Condor community I would like to ask you to please
read the topic at the Condor forum and give your support. Also, after I read
that topic, I'll think twice before I will buy a calendar of Mr. Zink
again....

Regards,
Peter Millenaar,
Condor community.

[Raphael Warshaw]

As a general statement without reference to the particulars of the specific
situation Peter Millenaar reports below about which I don't know enough to
comment, I'm always struck by the sense of entitlement that those who
appropriate the copyrighted work of others feel and the degree to which they
feel unfairly singled out by the consequences.

Raphael Warshaw
Claremont, CA
1LK

"Peter Millenaar" > wrote in message
...
> Hi everyone,
>
> Perhaps some of you already know the soaring simulator Condor. With around

[Jack]

Raphael Warshaw wrote:

> ...I'm always struck by the sense of entitlement that those who
> appropriate the copyrighted work of others feel and the degree
> to which they feel unfairly singled out by the consequences.

Perhaps Herr Zink should learn not to leave important things lying about.


Jack

[[email protected]]

Jack wrote:

> Perhaps Herr Zink should learn not to leave important things lying about.

I don't follow.

Ray Warshaw

[Jack]

wrote:

Jack wrote:

>>Perhaps Herr Zink should learn not to leave important things lying about.

> I don't follow.

Ray,

If he wishes to guard his images so jealously, then he has much to learn
about how to post them on the web so that they cannot be useful to
anyone else.

Zink sounds like a great guy, alright. What is his point in harassing
people, in a case where he lost nothing and he stands to gain nothing? I
wonder if he has photo-releases from all the glider owners and pilots in
his published photos?

see: http://194.78.210.186:80/

Instead of working to increase his sales by cooperating, he has now cut
off numerous potential sales by his selfish and uncooperative attitude.


Jack

[[email protected]]

Seems to me that the copyright notice should have been sufficient. If
you borrow my car without my permission and return it undamaged and
with a full tank of fuel, it's still grand theft auto.

The images are the PROPERTY of the photographer, and, when protected by
copyright, cannot be used without his permission. Last year I needed
an image for a non-commercial poster. The late Neil Lawson supplied a
great one for a pittance, far less than what it cost him in time and
effort to provide. The terms were one-time use and it was reproduced
with the White Planes Picture Company copyright notice, thereby
crediting the artist and protecting his interests.

BTW, I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in the US, other than for
explicitly commercial purposes such as advertising, pictures taken in
the public commons don't require releases.

Ray Warshaw
1LK



Jack wrote:
> wrote:
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> >>Perhaps Herr Zink should learn not to leave important things lying about.
>
> > I don't follow.
>
> Ray,
>
> If he wishes to guard his images so jealously, then he has much to learn
> about how to post them on the web so that they cannot be useful to
> anyone else.
>
> Zink sounds like a great guy, alright. What is his point in harassing
> people, in a case where he lost nothing and he stands to gain nothing? I
> wonder if he has photo-releases from all the glider owners and pilots in
> his published photos?
>
> see: http://194.78.210.186:80/
>
> Instead of working to increase his sales by cooperating, he has now cut
> off numerous potential sales by his selfish and uncooperative attitude.
>
>
> Jack

[Jack]

wrote:

> Last year I needed an image for a non-commercial poster.
> The late Neil Lawson supplied a great one for a pittance,
> far less than what it cost him in time and effort to provide.

Thanks for using Neil Lawson as an example of how it should be done.

However the main beef with Zink seems to be that he went after the wrong
people, because they were conveniently available to the German legal
system. The man appears to be not only a poor businessman, but a bit of
a bully as well.

It will be of interest, in this dreary and too-long winter season, to
see whether or not he prevails. It beats another round of PW5- and
Schweizer-bashing.


Jack

[[email protected]]

I never met Mr. Lawson in person, but I had a number of long
trans-atlantic phone conversations with him. He hated the people who
stole his images. A common practice among the less reputable art
directors was to pay him for one-time use and then use the image in
multiple publications. He was better at picking his fights than Zink
seems to be, though.

His pictures are (were), BTW, one of only two reasons that this Yankee
maintains a subscription to "Sailplane and Gliding".

As it happens, I rather like the PW-5...............

Ray Warshaw
1LK

[Ronald Termaat]

Some clarification.

Yes, we are wrong because we used a picture without checking the
source/copyright. We just found it with Google and it was not coming
from the site of CDZ. Up till now we did not even found the picture
back on his website.

But the moment we found out that it was possibly a picture of CDZ we
tried to contact him and ask for permission and support. No reply.
A mail discussion started with somebody who claimed to talk in the name
of CDZ (even wrote: CDZ is standing right next to me at the moment) who
wrote (after some unpleasant mails), it is ok. During this conversation
we again tried to contact CDZ (email and phone) but no response.
Because the Lowlandscup is for fun and promotion of gliding and
strictly non profit we had no reason to believe that it would hurt CDZ,
or his business and that of course he would not have any objection in
using the picture. Boy, we were wrong!
We received a letter from his lawyer demanding to pay an amount of 1400
Euros for copyright infringement. Again we tried to reach Mr. Zink
(email, phone and 3 different faxnumbers) trying to settle this in a
mature way. The only response we received from him, via the lawyer, was
that we committed a crime and he doesn't want to deal with thieves.

The only option available to us was seek assistance in the
glidingcommunity. We are spending a lot of time making the Lowlandscup
work, and we get no money for it at all. We do not have the funds to
pay for the claim of CDZ.

The picture we used is already removed and replaced by a picture
offered by the German C-kader (German Juniors team).

I'm flying for more than 25 years, have participated in everything from
Juniors up till Worldchampionships. It was always a pleasure to meet
new people from all over the world, and we have made many new friends.
All these people shared the joy of soaring.
The words from the website of CDZ: 'Mit Freundlichem Fliegergruss'
(with friendly soaring greetings) seems to me not very well chosen. We
tried to correct our mistake, mr Zink only contacted his lawyer and
never contacted us.

Sorry Mr. Zink, this is not how we handle with issues in the
glidercommunity!
And I also rather not be called a thief anymore...

Ronald Termaat
XT

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:25:18 UTC, wrote:

: Seems to me that the copyright notice should have been sufficient. If
: you borrow my car without my permission and return it undamaged and
: with a full tank of fuel, it's still grand theft auto.

In the Uk it would be Taking Without the Owners Consent, but not
theft, since theft needs the intention to permanently deprive someone
of something.

Ian


--

[Al Eddie]

A valuable lesson. Learn from it..!

I wouldn't call you a thief, nor any other kind of
criminal. I'd just say you were a bit daft, beleiving
that an attempt to contact CDZ gave you the right to
assume it would be OK.

It would have only been OK with his writen permission
and I'm sure CDZ has good reasons for not replying,
however a simple 'no' would have saved a whole bunch
of grief.

Good luck.

Al

At 11:36 30 December 2005, Ronald Termaat wrote:
>Some clarification.
>
>Yes, we are wrong because we used a picture without
>checking the
>source/copyright. We just found it with Google and
>it was not coming
>from the site of CDZ. Up till now we did not even found
>the picture
>back on his website.
>
>But the moment we found out that it was possibly a
>picture of CDZ we
>tried to contact him and ask for permission and support.
>No reply.
>A mail discussion started with somebody who claimed
>to talk in the name
>of CDZ (even wrote: CDZ is standing right next to me
>at the moment) who
>wrote (after some unpleasant mails), it is ok. During
>this conversation
>we again tried to contact CDZ (email and phone) but
>no response.
>Because the Lowlandscup is for fun and promotion of
>gliding and
>strictly non profit we had no reason to believe that
>it would hurt CDZ,
>or his business and that of course he would not have
>any objection in
>using the picture. Boy, we were wrong!
>We received a letter from his lawyer demanding to pay
>an amount of 1400
>Euros for copyright infringement. Again we tried to
>reach Mr. Zink
>(email, phone and 3 different faxnumbers) trying to
>settle this in a
>mature way. The only response we received from him,
>via the lawyer, was
>that we committed a crime and he doesn't want to deal
>with thieves.
>
>The only option available to us was seek assistance
>in the
>glidingcommunity. We are spending a lot of time making
>the Lowlandscup
>work, and we get no money for it at all. We do not
>have the funds to
>pay for the claim of CDZ.
>
>The picture we used is already removed and replaced
>by a picture
>offered by the German C-kader (German Juniors team).
>
>I'm flying for more than 25 years, have participated
>in everything from
>Juniors up till Worldchampionships. It was always a
>pleasure to meet
>new people from all over the world, and we have made
>many new friends.
>All these people shared the joy of soaring.
>The words from the website of CDZ: 'Mit Freundlichem
>Fliegergruss'
>(with friendly soaring greetings) seems to me not very
>well chosen. We
>tried to correct our mistake, mr Zink only contacted
>his lawyer and
>never contacted us.
>
>Sorry Mr. Zink, this is not how we handle with issues
>in the
>glidercommunity!
>And I also rather not be called a thief anymore...
>
>Ronald Termaat
>XT
>
>

[Ronald Termaat]

Hi All,

It was not the attempt to contact CDZ, it was the statement from the
person who spoke in the name of CDZ saying it was ok. To be sure we
also copied CDZ in this mailconversation. Now the claim from the lawyer
is that he was not an official spokesperson.

A simple NO (or maybe even 'no thanks') would have been enough. We did
something for the glidingcommunity and made a mistake by using a small
picture found on the Internet (not on cdz site). Not any way of
communication was possible with Mr Zink to settle this. Only paying
1400 Euro's. Not really a nice way of settling an issue.

Indeed two lessons learned:
1. Always check what you use.
2. All people in the gliding community are friendly, but some are more
friendly than others (original similar statements from G.Orwell)

[Nick Olson]

Well I'm glad I didn't decide to buy one of his calenders!


I can't really see what the guys problem is - you weren't
making any money out of it-you were trying to do something
to help promote gliding - surely if it caused him that
much offence he could have contacted you to remove
the item - strikes me Mr Zink is not much of a gentleman
- I think this action will harm him and his business
more than you.

[Mottley]

Mr. Zink is at present heading a very successfull campaign against the
new JAR regulations in Germany see http://jar-contra.de

As far as his Copyright is concerned i am not sure he followed proper
procedures
1. Provide proof that it is his picture and that it is copyrighted
2. Ask for it to be removed immediatly
3. Find where else his picture was used on the net and ask them to
remove it.
4. If no action is taken proceed through legal channels.

Bruno

[Mottley]

Mr. Zink is at present heading a very successfull campaign against the
new JAR regulations in Germany see http://jar-contra.de

As far as his Copyright is concerned i am not sure he followed proper
procedures
1. Provide proof that it is his picture and that it is copyrighted
2. Ask for it to be removed immediatly
3. Find where else his picture was used on the net and ask them to
remove it.
4. If no action is taken proceed through legal channels.

Bruno

[Eric Greenwell]

Ronald Termaat wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It was not the attempt to contact CDZ, it was the statement from the
> person who spoke in the name of CDZ saying it was ok. To be sure we
> also copied CDZ in this mailconversation. Now the claim from the lawyer
> is that he was not an official spokesperson.
>
> A simple NO (or maybe even 'no thanks') would have been enough. We did
> something for the glidingcommunity and made a mistake by using a small
> picture found on the Internet (not on cdz site). Not any way of
> communication was possible with Mr Zink to settle this. Only paying
> 1400 Euro's. Not really a nice way of settling an issue.
>
> Indeed two lessons learned:
> 1. Always check what you use.
> 2. All people in the gliding community are friendly, but some are more
> friendly than others (original similar statements from G.Orwell)
>

Perhaps you are still not dealing with an "official spokesman", despite
the claim the letter is from Mr. Zink's lawyer. Maybe Mr. Zink is not
and has not ever been involved in the situation, because his employees
(?) are not informing him.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ged McKnight]

Hi Ronald

I dont have millions of pictures but what ever I have
are freely available to any one who e mails me, including
CDZ.

If you do make some money from my pictures then a donation
to your natioanl team (and the proof) is all I ask.

Any one who is interested please e mail me direct

Regards

Ged

ps this could be a way of helping to fund your national
team
if others take it on board.

Their must be millions of private pictures out there
of good quality which could earn a penny or two for
the national team of the owners?


14:00 30 December 2005, Ronald Termaat wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>It was not the attempt to contact CDZ, it was the statement
>from the
>person who spoke in the name of CDZ saying it was ok.
>To be sure we
>also copied CDZ in this mailconversation. Now the claim
>from the lawyer
>is that he was not an official spokesperson.
>
>A simple NO (or maybe even 'no thanks') would have
>been enough. We did
>something for the glidingcommunity and made a mistake
>by using a small
>picture found on the Internet (not on cdz site). Not
>any way of
>communication was possible with Mr Zink to settle this.
>Only paying
>1400 Euro's. Not really a nice way of settling an issue.
>
>Indeed two lessons learned:
>1. Always check what you use.
>2. All people in the gliding community are friendly,
>but some are more
>friendly than others (original similar statements from
>G.Orwell)
>
>

[Ged McKnight]

Hi Ronald

I dont have millions of pictures but what ever I have
are freely available to any one who e mails me, including
CDZ.

If you do make some money from my pictures then a donation
to your natioanl team (and the proof) is all I ask.

Any one who is interested please e mail me direct

Regards

Ged

ps this could be a way of helping to fund your national
team
if others take it on board.

Their must be millions of private pictures out there
of good quality which could earn a penny or two for
the national team of the owners?


14:00 30 December 2005, Ronald Termaat wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>It was not the attempt to contact CDZ, it was the statement
>from the
>person who spoke in the name of CDZ saying it was ok.
>To be sure we
>also copied CDZ in this mailconversation. Now the claim
>from the lawyer
>is that he was not an official spokesperson.
>
>A simple NO (or maybe even 'no thanks') would have
>been enough. We did
>something for the glidingcommunity and made a mistake
>by using a small
>picture found on the Internet (not on cdz site). Not
>any way of
>communication was possible with Mr Zink to settle this.
>Only paying
>1400 Euro's. Not really a nice way of settling an issue.
>
>Indeed two lessons learned:
>1. Always check what you use.
>2. All people in the gliding community are friendly,
>but some are more
>friendly than others (original similar statements from
>G.Orwell)
>
>

[jb92563]

I contacted Mr Zink to assist with the cause, and his reply reveals him
to be a quite reasonable man that is not doing this out of spite.

He simply reacted as any reasonable person would that is trying to
protect their lively hood.

He would probably have forgiven the infringement, but due to the fact
that there are legal fees that he has incurred to investigate the
matter puts him at a loss for this infringement, which would not be
fair to him at all.

I think it is only right that he be reimbursed for his incurred costs
due to some wrong performed by others....he should not be made to pay
the price for anothers wrong.

Everyone knows that copyright infringement occurs when the owner does
not approve the publication of something they do as a living....it is
very clear!

You should have waited for approval, and assumed it not approved until
he has emailed you to confirm it.

How would you like it if someone stole things that you use to earn your
livelyhood and gave it out for free?

Im sorry but I believe you have made a mistake and need to be
responsible for your actions, even though it was not intentional and
pay the price.

He is a reasonable man and would likely deal with you directly if you
are honest and upfront with him...avoiding any additional lawyer fees.

Ray Buhr

[Doug Hoffman]

Ged McKnight wrote:

> If you do make some money from my pictures then a donation
> to your natioanl team (and the proof) is all I ask.

I applaud and agree with your position.

What makes this particular situation so utterly peculiar is that this
photographer is going after a small group of guys (three?) who simply
organized an online "computer flight simulation" contest held via the
internet. No real gliders involved. Not a penny was earned or paid by
anyone or to anyone. Innocent fun. A good time was had by all. Until
the lawyer called. Knowing the details I just have to shake my head
and wonder.

Regards,

-Doug

[jb92563]

I had a better idea, instead of collecting money through paypal to
DEFEND the case, why not just take a collection to PAY the 1400 Euro's
and be done with the whole problem.

Seems like he is only asking to reimburse the legal fees and not even
charging for use of the picture.....a fair deal indeed!

If everyone sent a couple euros it will all go away in very short
order.

Just let him know what you are doing and ask for a bit of time to raise
the money.

There is absolutely NO reason to boycott his business since he has done
no wrong at all.

[[email protected]]

jb92563 schreef:

> He simply reacted as any reasonable person would that is trying to
> protect their lively hood.
>
> He would probably have forgiven the infringement, but due to the fact
> that there are legal fees that he has incurred to investigate the
> matter puts him at a loss for this infringement, which would not be
> fair to him at all.

Maybe you can also explain why in this case legal fees where required
at all ? There was no need to investigate anything, as *I* spontanously
contacted *him* after I found out about the source of the images (I
did, before we ever contacted by him, his lawyer or Mr Pfohl). A simple
'no" to my requests to maintain the banner and/or sponsor the event
would have seemed a lot more reasonable than having his lawyer send
€1.400 invoices, with liability claims in excess off €10.000.

Then also consider he sent those not to me, but to innocent young
people that had no responsability in this matter at all. That put me in
the situation of not being able to defend myself against these claims,
but having to choose between either paying (what i consider a grossly
unfair damage claim) or having friends face possible trial. Thats not
my idea of reasonable either.

> I think it is only right that he be reimbursed for his incurred costs
> due to some wrong performed by others....he should not be made to pay
> the price for anothers wrong.

You may want to read the entire text on the LLC site, even though i
know its long. I did offer to pay for his damages, but he won't
negotiate.

> You should have waited for approval, and assumed it not approved until
> he has emailed you to confirm it.
>
> How would you like it if someone stole things that you use to earn your
> livelyhood and gave it out for free?

That might be a somewhat fair comparison if:
1) I, or anyone else made any money with this
2) actual damages would have occured to Mr Zinks business. No one can
seriously believe if I had known the source and price of the images, i
would have considered spending €600 on them. instead, I would have
used other ones that are free, with no impact on my "business", nor on
that of Mr Zink.
3) I did any of this in bad faith (like stealing a car). Believe it or
not, with maintaining the images while offering credits / links, i
actually thought to be protecting Mr Zinks business and provide a
win-win situation for all of us.

> He is a reasonable man and would likely deal with you directly if you
> are honest and upfront with him...avoiding any additional lawyer fees.

Again, read the documents I have published. We tried dealing with him,
through email, phone, fax. We have been upfront and honest, all we got
was frivolous claims from his lawyer. If he is reasonable, he still has
to show it to me.

VT

[Don Johnstone]

He may have done no wrong but do you really want to
give money to someone who behaves as he has. If enough
people e-mail him to say that they are not buying his
calendar because of this it would probably go away
fairly quickly.
Call me old fashioned but I don't have to buy things
from...........anyone.

At 22:30 30 December 2005, Jb92563 wrote:
>I had a better idea, instead of collecting money through
>paypal to
>DEFEND the case, why not just take a collection to
>PAY the 1400 Euro's
>and be done with the whole problem.
>
>Seems like he is only asking to reimburse the legal
>fees and not even
>charging for use of the picture.....a fair deal indeed!
>
>If everyone sent a couple euros it will all go away
>in very short
>order.
>
>Just let him know what you are doing and ask for a
>bit of time to raise
>the money.
>
>There is absolutely NO reason to boycott his business
>since he has done
>no wrong at all.
>
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:57:30 UTC, "Ronald Termaat"
> wrote:

: It was not the attempt to contact CDZ, it was the statement from the
: person who spoke in the name of CDZ saying it was ok. To be sure we
: also copied CDZ in this mailconversation. Now the claim from the lawyer
: is that he was not an official spokesperson.

Sounds like a potentially strong defence to me. What does your lawyer
say? Have you tried writing to the man with a cheque for 100 euros in
full settlement?

Ian
:


--

[GK]

but due to the fact
that there are legal fees that he has incurred to investigate the
matter puts him at a loss for this infringement, which would not be
fair to him at all.

- "...fees he has incurred to investigate...." Investigate by
employing the lawyer and filing a claim?
What a BS...

[[email protected]]

This is one very nasty situation. Mr. Zink should not hire any lawyers,
if he is so pathetic about his "rights" ...well, he can keep his
calendars for himself. Hopefully nobody will buy his "art". I don't
think we need people like him involved with anything related to soaring
or aviation in general. I really feel sorry for the victims of his
"business practice". Sounds to me like "sovietizing"...I wonder, maybe
Mr. Zink is behind Russia cutting natural gas supply to Europe? Just a
thought....

[Jack]

jb92563 wrote:
> I had a better idea, instead of collecting money through paypal to
> DEFEND the case, why not just take a collection to PAY the 1400 Euro's
> and be done with the whole problem.
>
> Seems like he is only asking to reimburse the legal fees and not even
> charging for use of the picture.....a fair deal indeed!

A very interesting position to take -- something very much in line with
Zink's own approach of trying to get something for nothing, no matter
from whom it comes. Nothing posted here so far on the matter has shown
Zink's case to be built on anything but arrogance, greed, and bluster.
Any money contributed should go only to putting Herr Zink in his place.

"Fair" would be Zink learning to communicate constructively with someone
other than his lawyer. I notice he has not the courage to come here and
plead his own case, but finds others to do it for him. Perhaps he is
waiting for someone to make a gift to him of a keyboard.


Jack

[[email protected]]

I am wondering why the fraudulent representative for Mr. Zink isn't more the
focus of this group????
Both by the group and Mr. Zink! He strikes me as being the one who should
be paying.

Alpha

[[email protected]]

So far, only one side seems to be talking. I suspect that, as is usual
in these situations, Mr. Zink has been advised by his attorney not to
make public statements while the case is in progress. We've got lots
of opinions and virtually no verified facts.

Character assassination is a popular and effective defense as any
number of politicians, whistle-blowers, CIA agents with out-of-favor
husbands, rape victims, etc. can tell you.

Until the dust settles, I think it's completely inappropriate to be
urging a boycott of Mr. Zink's calendar.

Raphael Warshaw
1LK

[Doug Hoffman]

wrote:

> Character assassination is a popular and effective defense as any
> number of politicians, whistle-blowers, CIA agents with out-of-favor
> husbands, rape victims, etc. can tell you.

I personally find it very inappropriate to lump this issue in with
"rape victims" and so forth. We're talking about a few online gamers
who posted a picture in a website. Can we keep this in perspective?


> Until the dust settles, I think it's completely inappropriate to be
> urging a boycott of Mr. Zink's calendar.

After searching this thread I find that you are the first to use the
term "boycott". No one here has urged any kind of organized action
against purchases.


-Doug Hoffman

[[email protected]]

Actually I'm not the first to use the word boycott in this thread and
the suggestion that not buying Mr. Zink's calendars would "quickly make
this go away" was posted by someone else as well.

The analogy of "rape victims" was in the context of character
assassination, not copyright infringement and I make no apology for it.

Raphael Warshaw
1LK


Doug Hoffman wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Character assassination is a popular and effective defense as any
> > number of politicians, whistle-blowers, CIA agents with out-of-favor
> > husbands, rape victims, etc. can tell you.
>
> I personally find it very inappropriate to lump this issue in with
> "rape victims" and so forth. We're talking about a few online gamers
> who posted a picture in a website. Can we keep this in perspective?
>
>
> > Until the dust settles, I think it's completely inappropriate to be
> > urging a boycott of Mr. Zink's calendar.
>
> After searching this thread I find that you are the first to use the
> term "boycott". No one here has urged any kind of organized action
> against purchases.
>
>
> -Doug Hoffman

[Jack]

wrote:

> So far, only one side seems to be talking. I suspect that, as is usual
> in these situations, Mr. Zink has been advised by his attorney not to
> make public statements while the case is in progress. We've got lots
> of opinions and virtually no verified facts.

In resorting to the legal system (a much over used ploy in Germany, if
what I have heard is correct) Herr Zink has denied himself the
opportunity to present his version of the story. That is his choice, and
we need not be limited by it. His actions are not the sort which should
arouse much sympathy.

We will never have the "facts" in the case. What we do have is a
plausible complaint from one party and no response from the other,
except for a lone apologist who, quite remarkably, urges _us_ to pay the
alleged damages. Disregarding that bit of lunacy, what we are left with
amounts to a simple "no contest" plea on the part of Herr Zink, perhaps
indicating a return to sanity.

We do look forward to receiving Herr Zink's version of the story.
Whether he comes out of his shell or not, the final, official decision
should be publicised here for all the world to see.


Jack

[Don Johnstone]

I was responsible for the 'quickly make this go away'
quote. This has nothing to do with character assassination
but everything to do with doing business with trustworthy
people. I have no intention of ever entering into a
business transaction with anyone who carries on as
CDZ has done when there are so many people in the world
who do not resort to legal remedies at the drop of
a hat.
If CDZ has any business accumen at all he would realise
that the action he is taking can only harm his business,
it is cetainly not going to encourage anyone to do
business with him, matters little even if he is right.
I suppose I am suggesting that gliderpilots should
band together to help other members of our comminity,
is there something wrong with that?
First rule of selling, don't **** the customers off.


At 00:54 01 January 2006, wrote:
>Actually I'm not the first to use the word boycott
>in this thread and
>the suggestion that not buying Mr. Zink's calendars
>would 'quickly make
>this go away' was posted by someone else as well.
>
>The analogy of 'rape victims' was in the context of
>character
>assassination, not copyright infringement and I make
>no apology for it.
>
>Raphael Warshaw
>1LK
>
>
>Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Character assassination is a popular and effective
>>>defense as any
>> > number of politicians, whistle-blowers, CIA agents
>>>with out-of-favor
>> > husbands, rape victims, etc. can tell you.
>>
>> I personally find it very inappropriate to lump this
>>issue in with
>> 'rape victims' and so forth. We're talking about
>>a few online gamers
>> who posted a picture in a website. Can we keep this
>>in perspective?
>>
>>
>> > Until the dust settles, I think it's completely inappropriate
>>>to be
>> > urging a boycott of Mr. Zink's calendar.
>>
>> After searching this thread I find that you are the
>>first to use the
>> term 'boycott'. No one here has urged any kind of
>>organized action
>> against purchases.
>>
>>
>> -Doug Hoffman
>
>

[Steve Hill]

Had to catch up on what I'd missed over New Years and have to say...

This one STINKS. Why in the heck is it that someone would actually let their
lawyer speak for them instead of just working out the situation in a
reasonable fashion? As an owner of copyrights and patents, I could never see
a situation where I'd go to my lawyer as a first method of resolution,
particularly not for something this innocuous.

Just out of curiosity...has anyone thought to re-direct the owner of the
picture, to the website which illegally posted it on the web without its
appropriate copyrights guards?? The thought of a judge upholding a suit for
someone who has suffered no damages seems like a frivolous worry...presuming
the German legal system is similar to the U.S. in a civil matter CDZ would
have had to have suffered provable "damages". Forcing someone to cease and
desist the use of his product is one thing, but...winning a judgment is
another.

For my two cents worth...I'll just not buy his calendar in support of the
Lowlands Cup lads and cough up a few bucks to help their cause. This
definitely isn't the way to show ones support of our little soaring
community and its patrons.



Steve.

[309]

jb92563 wrote:
> why not just take a collection to PAY the 1400 Euro's
> and be done with the whole problem.
>

This sounds like caving in to extortion.

I don't need a calendar...so I'm not boycotting...I'm just not buying!

This is bad press, for both sides. My images have been pilfered, too,
but since I don't rely on that to make my living, I suffer no
"damages."

Good luck to the Lolanders...I guess I'm just cheering for the little
guys (and habitually jeering the lawyers).

[Ronald Termaat]

New update.

We tried to settle this with cdz in a friendly way. Didn't work. We are
now facing a higher threat and going to court.
Where will this lead to? Going to prison?

When you have a calendar of cdz, and look at the nice foto's, remember
that behind the photo is someone that seems only interested in money
and rather bring us to court than try to find a solution.

Any help in this case would be welcome. If you know CDZ please talk to
him and try to convince him that this is not what he wants.

For details and all correspondence with cdz etc. see:
http://lowlands.sytes.net

[Knacklappen]

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but...

.... I think the injunction the lawyer is threatening you with, will not
be enforcable since you already changed the picture on your website. As
far as I know, "einstweilige Verfügungen" (injunctions) are used to
set an immediate but temporary stop to an activity. I can't see how
this is applicable in your case.

.... I believe that only commercial sites need to have an impressum. I
am bot even sure if this is European law, in my mind this is just a
German thing.

.... I do not believe that the LLC team is constituting a GbR (manily
due to its non-commercial mission). This link seems to support that:
http://www.frankfurt-main.ihk.de/english/business/start-up/idem/gbr/
Anyhow, how can German law can be used to prosecute an Internet
activity is beyond my understanding, but a sad fact nevertheless...

.... CDZ's case seems to be weakened since the picture in question was
indeed freely available on his site. However, you unknowingly violated
the license agreement by not stating the copyright on the LLC site. My
advise would be to get a German lawyer. The Glider community is a large
on, there clearly should be a kind fellow among the lawyer faction who
can help out..?

.......

As a sideliner, I am very troubled to say that I unfortunately already
ordered and received this year's "Fotokalender Segelflug"... As a
redemption I will transfer the same amount of money to your PayPal
account. The tone in CDZ's letters is irritatingly arrogant. This man
clearly has to be made aware of certain courtesy standards and limits.

I wish you all the best for your case!
Reno

_____________

Ronald Termaat wrote:
> New update.
>
> We tried to settle this with cdz in a friendly way. Didn't work. We are
> now facing a higher threat and going to court.
> Where will this lead to? Going to prison?
>
(...)
>
> For details and all correspondence with cdz etc. see:
> http://lowlands.sytes.net

[Knacklappen]

Hi again,

yesterday evening I had a brief mail discussion with CDZ on that topic.
I don't know... he seems to be one of the "old Germans" who thinks that
the whole world would better speak their language... :-(
I explained the situation in detail to him - in German - and he
actually agreed that probably this conflict could have been avoided if
Vertigos first mails would have been in German. Since he does not speak
English, he throws away all non-German mails as spam. =:-o

Well, to me he seems to be a bitter man, his mails were full of
suppressed rage. I don't know if he always is like this, if he has far
too many copyright cases to deal with, or if he is annoyed over the
mails and telephone calls he gets on this current issue.

Anyway, our little chat did not change anything, he still blames the
LLC team for everything and he wants to see money. It was worth the
try, though...

/Reno

Knacklappen wrote:
> IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but...
>

(...)

> I wish you all the best for your case!
> Reno
>
> _____________
>

[Doug Hoffman]

Knacklappen wrote:

> Anyway, our little chat did not change anything, he still blames the
> LLC team for everything and he wants to see money.

Too bad. The world doesn't like a bully. My opinion, this is going to
hurt CDZ himself more than anyone.

> It was worth the try, though...

Thanks for trying.

Regards,

-Doug

[Doug Hoffman]

Knacklappen wrote:

> Anyway, our little chat did not change anything, he still blames the
> LLC team for everything and he wants to see money.

Too bad. But the world doesn't like a bully. In my opinion this is
going to hurt CDZ himself the most.


> It was worth the try, though...

Yes. Thanks for trying the gentleman's approach.

Regards,

-Doug

[pjakobs]

Knacklappen schrieb:

> I explained the situation in detail to him - in German - and he
> actually agreed that probably this conflict could have been avoided if
> Vertigos first mails would have been in German. Since he does not speak
> English, he throws away all non-German mails as spam. =:-o

If this is true, you should forward this message to the LLC guys. That
puts CDZ's whole case into the dustbin.

Despite this, there's things that make him look bad:

Why did he have to employ a lawyer before trying to communicate, even
though the two parties don't share a common language, there's enough
Germans with fluent English that could have helped out. (maybe the
initial "unauthorized spokesperson" was such a helping hand? Wonder why
he's unauthorized now, then)

The claim that now he has to pay the legal cost and thus he doesn't
want to settle the case in a good-will scenario is, let's say, slightly
blue eyed. Giving the above quote that he probably threw away the first
e-mails that tried to get his ok to use the picture based on the fact
that he was unable to read the predominant language in international
business, I assume that a court would find that throwing away business
messages because you don't understand them is not good practice, which
will not help his case. The LLC guys have, thus, behaved correctly in
asking permission as soon as they found out that it was copyrighted
material. They should have removed it while there was no positive
feedback, however.
I firmly believe that, if this case goes to court, it will come out as
a draw with two unhappy parties and two happy lawyers.
We Germans have been known for feeding haystacks of money to the
lawyers over such stupid things as fences between neighbouring yards,
trees on those fences, cars parked in "wrong" locations etc. etc. etc.
It seems that CDZ is continuing this "good" practice by not even
considering a peaceful settlement of this case, which might be easy to
get. If he had to hire the lawyer because of his own lack of
proficiency in English, that's his problem and thus the cost he'll
have to pay. He could have gotten translator services for less money.

Finally, the claim the lawyer makes on LLC being a GbR (Gesellschaft
des bürgerlichen Rechts) is pretty dubious. While a GbR can be
constituted without a written contract to pursue basically any joint
interest, I doubt that it will hold in this case. The finer point
behind it is this: if those guys really were a GbR, they would all
jointly be liable with their private wealth (with the word wealth
probably being too big a word in this case) and thus they could go
after those that are here in Germany who themselves, as far as I
understand, were not involved in copying the picture, just because they
were members of the same legal body. Boy this smells bad. It's a trick
to avoid having to go to court in Belgium.

Oh, and finally one thing you need to know about Lawyer fees in
Germany:
There's something called the BRAGO (federal regulation for legal
attorneys fees). This lists, in detail, what a lawyer is allowed to
charge for a certain service. It does this, for most things, in
relation to the case value. If you're fighting over 200EUR, the
attorney will make much less money than when you're fighting over
10000. That's the reason why every lawyer has a vested interest in
inflating the case value to something "sensible" for his own purse.

> > I wish you all the best for your case!
> > Reno
> >
> > _____________
> >

Disclaimer: IANAL, all above is laymen's knowledge

pj

[Don Johnstone]

At 10:36 05 January 2006, Ronald Termaat wrote:
>New update.
>
>We tried to settle this with cdz in a friendly way.
>Didn't work. We are
>now facing a higher threat and going to court.
>Where will this lead to? Going to prison?
>
>When you have a calendar of cdz, and look at the nice
>foto's, remember
>that behind the photo is someone that seems only interested
>in money
>and rather bring us to court than try to find a solution.
>
>Any help in this case would be welcome. If you know
>CDZ please talk to
>him and try to convince him that this is not what he
>wants.
>
>For details and all correspondence with cdz etc. see:
>http://lowlands.sytes.net
>
Having read all I could of the correspondence on the
link I am now even more convinced that the Lowland
Cup Organisers need our support in this. On the one
hand we have an organisation CDZ whose only wish is
to make money from us, not a crime per se; and on
the other hand a group of glider pilots seeking to
provide a service to glider pilots when we cannot fly
for real at no cost to us. I know who I support. I
have e-mailed CDZ with my view and I would urge others
to do the same. Money appears to be important to him
and perhaps the potential loss of custom may bring
him to his senses.
The majority of suppliers in the gliding world do not
act as CDZ has, thankfully.

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

I
> have e-mailed CDZ with my view and I would urge others
> to do the same.

Apparently, it will be best to do this in German, if indeed he simply
deletes emails in all other languages.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[01-- Zero One]

So how does one say "jackass" in german?



Larry





"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
:

> Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> I
> > have e-mailed CDZ with my view and I would urge others
> > to do the same.
>
> Apparently, it will be best to do this in German, if indeed he simply
> deletes emails in all other languages.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Don Johnstone]

I doubt he deletes the ones addressed to his sales
address. You can do that from his site.



7:12 07 January 2006, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> I
>> have e-mailed CDZ with my view and I would urge others
>> to do the same.
>
>Apparently, it will be best to do this in German, if
>indeed he simply
>deletes emails in all other languages.
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:35:17 UTC, "Ronald Termaat"
> wrote:

: We tried to settle this with cdz in a friendly way. Didn't work. We are
: now facing a higher threat and going to court.

Am I right in thinking that you attempted to make contact with this
man, and that your email to him was replied to by someone claiming to
be writing on his behalf and giving you permission to do what you did?
If that reply can be proved to have been made to an email you sent
Zink, I'd have thought that would make a pretty strong case.

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:39:12 UTC, "Doug Hoffman"
> wrote:

: Too bad. But the world doesn't like a bully. In my opinion this is
: going to hurt CDZ himself the most.

Is anyone writing a report on this for Soaring, Sailplane and Gliding
and the other mags?

Ian
--

[bumper]

I sent my email to the address on his website. He responded to me in German.
Using one of the on-line language translators (not the best way for sure) I
could make out that he was not a happy camper and was leaving this in the
hands of his attorney.

bumper


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> I
>> have e-mailed CDZ with my view and I would urge others
>> to do the same.
>
> Apparently, it will be best to do this in German, if indeed he simply
> deletes emails in all other languages.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Don Johnstone]

At 08:06 08 January 2006, Pjakobs wrote:
>Knacklappen schrieb:
>
>a draw with two unhappy parties and two happy lawyers.
>We Germans have been known for feeding haystacks of
>money to the
>lawyers over such stupid things as fences between neighbouring
>yards,
>trees on those fences, cars parked in 'wrong' locations
>etc. etc. etc.
>It seems that CDZ is continuing this 'good' practice
>by not even
>considering a peaceful settlement of this case, which
>might be easy to
>get.

It seems that where ever you live in the world that
we all have the same high regard for lawyers :-)

[1MoClimb]

If memory serves me right (after living in the US for 18 years now),
this scheme is a time honored tradition in Germany as well as in the
US. Just try and put a product on the market that rhymes with WalMart
or Sony and wait what happens. This is just another form of ambulance
chasing that lawyers initiate to make a quick buck.
I would not be surprised if Zink had turned over this entire business
of fighting unauthorized usage of his pictures to lawyer that can't
hack it in business law or other more mainstream councel activities.
He may even have signed away his right to interfere with the
enforcement process once the lawyer determined that money might be
extracted.
A more benign point: Just because Zink doesn't speak English he should
not be considered a mindless redneck by this international and no doubt
multilingual forum.

Herb

wrote:
> This is one very nasty situation. Mr. Zink should not hire any lawyers,
> if he is so pathetic about his "rights" ...well, he can keep his
> calendars for himself. Hopefully nobody will buy his "art". I don't
> think we need people like him involved with anything related to soaring
> or aviation in general. I really feel sorry for the victims of his
> "business practice". Sounds to me like "sovietizing"...I wonder, maybe
> Mr. Zink is behind Russia cutting natural gas supply to Europe? Just a
> thought....

[Tony Verhulst]

> Why did he have to employ a lawyer before trying to communicate, even
> though the two parties don't share a common language, there's enough
> Germans with fluent English that could have helped out.

You don't understand the Dutch. You simply can not get a job selling
train tickets unless you are fluent in English, German, and French. I'm
serious. Although I have never met them, I assure you that the group is
able to communicate with CDZ in his native German.

Tony V.

[Claudia Buengen]

Hi,

I don't know the exact background apart from what was published here and
on segelflug.de, but I wonder whether any of you has actually heard the
whole story from CDZ's point of view. This whole campaign against him
might not be entirely justified for all we know, and it could cause him
a lot of damage.
For anyone who's interested (and speaks German), here's a posting he
obviously asked the webmaster of segelflug.de to publish in the
segelflug.de gliding forum:
http://www.segelflug.de/wwwboard/index.html

Go to: Segelflug - Streitthemen, Gegendarstellung C.D.Zink

Claudia

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:20:09 UTC, Claudia Buengen
> wrote:

: I don't know the exact background apart from what was published here and
: on segelflug.de, but I wonder whether any of you has actually heard the
: whole story from CDZ's point of view.

I have read several pieces by him and his lawyer. Their reaction would
seem to be to be entirely understandable ... if someone had used his
images without permission on a calendar or other commercial product.
For a brief usage of small images on a non-commercial website whose
organisers actively sought his permission it seems sadly ill-judged to
me. That's a shame - this does seem like a very, very trivial matter
to get so terribly upset about. My sympathies on the affairs in
question are wholly with the LLC people - but I'm quite sorry for
Herr Zink, too. I'd hate to be as unhappy as he seems to be.

Ian

--

[[email protected]]

> I don't know the exact background apart from what was published here and
> on segelflug.de, but I wonder whether any of you has actually heard the
> whole story from CDZ's point of view.

You can read it all here:
http://lowlands.sytes.net/cdzfiles.asp

This page includes all correspondence, unaltered, including Mr Zinks
and Mr Kreimers POV, so unless you want think I forged them and would
risk a suit for libel, it should give anyone the opportunity to make up
his own mind.

> This whole campaign against him
> might not be entirely justified for all we know, and it could cause him
> a lot of damage.

Just for the record; LLC never set up a "campaign" against Mr Zink. We
simply published what was going on, by giving the bare facts, and
requested assistance. Mr Zink is now complaining about receiving
threads and insults, but I dare anyone to point out where exactly we
asked to do that. The opposite is true, we've asked people to refrain
from such actions, as we do not condone them.

And indeed, this issue might cause some considerable damage to his
business and/or reputation, but it was Mr Zinks choice, not ours, not
to negotiate with us and instead immediately take legal steps. We've
kept this quiet for as long as we could, but when 3 young german
volounteers (one of them even underage), that bare no responsability in
this matter whatsoever, where facing trial, with no possibility to even
negotiate a resonable settlement, I no longer had a choice but go
public.

Again, anyone is free to make up their own mind on this; possibly we
did do something illegal, but wether that warrants the actions by Mr
Zink or not, is up to you do decide. To what extent using these images
the way we did, caused any damage to Mr Zinks business, is up to a
court to decide.

> For anyone who's interested (and speaks German), here's a posting he
> obviously asked the webmaster of segelflug.de to publish in the
> segelflug.de gliding forum:
> http://www.segelflug.de/wwwboard/index.html
>
> Go to: Segelflug - Streitthemen, Gegendarstellung C.D.Zink

I saw those threads. To bad they are locked, as some of them contain
some huge misunderstandings. For instance, it is claimed there LLC
would be a commercial organization, which is of course, ridiculous.

[Knacklappen]

>> I explained the situation in detail to him - in German - and he
>> actually agreed that probably this conflict could have been avoided if
>> Vertigos first mails would have been in German. Since he does not speak
>> English, he throws away all non-German mails as spam. =:-o

>If this is true, you should forward this message to the LLC guys. That
>puts CDZ's whole case into the dustbin.

Already done. Actually with written permission by CDZ himself... :)

[[email protected]]

I have posted a comment on his visitors board and have received a mail
direct from CDZ in reply. I suggest everyone who cares about this does
likewise. Eventually he might just get the idea.

Ian

[Jack]

Claudia Buengen wrote:

> ...I wonder whether any of you has actually heard the
> whole story from CDZ's point of view.

Sorry, I don't have time for German language web sites. Perhaps you
would like to translate -- or are you worried that Herr Zink might claim
that you would have damaged his copyright?


Jack

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:40:03 UTC, wrote:

: I have posted a comment on his visitors board and have received a mail
: direct from CDZ in reply. I suggest everyone who cares about this does
: likewise. Eventually he might just get the idea.

Or he might sue every r.a.s reader in Germany for a thousand euros
damages (plus twenty thousand in legal fees) as part of a GbR formed
to harass him.

Ian