Four Blokes in One Shed?

.

In reply to my post 'Closing in on "Candice" ...' and obviously with the intent of creating a smokescreen, the person posing as Candice Jarman now claims to be four people, and owes the whole idea to Dorothy King (PhDiva):

Dr King suggested that from the language a group of radical collectors were behind my blog (how I like being called radical!). Exactly right! I like to think of my blog as my blog, but as I am often reminded, it is our blog. You see Mr Barford, although I front the blog, it is a group effort - there are four of us and behind us is an increasing number of correspondents which include metal detectorists, dealers, lawyers, collectors, and yes, Mr Barford, even one or two professional archaeologists - all people fed up with the strident, uncompromising and intolerant agenda of the radical archaeologists!!!!!

This I am pretty sure will turn out to be a lie too. Stylistically, there is a single person behind this, though some of the people sending the "comments" and at least some of the "followers" to the Candice Jarman hate-blog seem to be sock-puppets.

But yes, it is clear that there are "metal detectorists", dealer[s] (we know who), lawyer[s] (we know who), collectors, and "one or two" professional archaeologists (easy to guess who) joining in with the happy slapping. In the typically cowardly manner of the whole pro-collecting milieu, they prefer to see an anonymous guy pretending to be a girl who is now pretending to be four guys doing the dirty work than actually dealing with the arguments themselves. Pathetic.

.

Illustrating the words

.
Candice 'Gotcha' Jarman (who is probably a bloke) is disturbed by the fact that I try to make the pages of my texts about portable antiquites issues more palatable by putting pictures on them. Candice reckons there is something wrong with that:

Mr Barford regards the picking up of a Roman coin from a field as theft ...

wait, stop right there, I bet she cannot show anyone where I said that this is what I think:

...and yet he is happy to freely appropriate other people's artwork to illustrate his blog. If he see's an image on the internet, then he regards it as free for his taking - never mind the rights of struggling artists and designers. Does Mr Barford pay royalties to the owners of the images he is so happy to steal? Perhaps he would like to tell us.

No I do not. In the same way as she herself does not for those which she has posted up on her own blog, those for example that purport to show me (the copyright of which belongs to three different people) or the one she took from my Facebook profile. The artwork she uses with the mice has been stolen from the now-defunct "Barfordisation" (sic) blog by somebody calling himself "Bufet the Phantom Pie Slayer" who I presume drew them himself. In none of these cases does Candice indicate the source from which she took these pictures. I am assuming the reason why "she" does not feel the need to do this with Buffy's artwork is that she's really giving out the message that "Buffy is Back!".

If she would check the captions of each of the illustrations I use (unless I have forgotten which can of course happen) the source is given on the first use. I do not always give the source on the second use of the same vignette. In a number of cases where it seemed important to do so, I have contacted the owners of an image and obtained their permission to use them. In none was permission refused and I have had some nice correspondence with people about the issues raised by the posts in which I have used their illustrations. In many cases it seems the illustrations come from blogs where the blogger does no indicate where they got them from, so I link to them.

Also at the very beginning of my blog is a statement about the use of photos which I believe comes under 'Fair use'. I do however explicitly state that if anyone has an issue with my use of material to which they have the copyright to contact me and I will take it down.

In fact I have only been asked to do this twice. Once was when "Sheddy" Lincoln a Canvey Island garden shed retailer (with a penchant for sending Polish policemen dog excreta in a box through the post) made a fuss about a photo I reproduced showing the PAS table at a rally. He initially wanted me to pay him royalties for using it, but then did not. At the same time however the PAS lady which it showed (whom he'd photographed without her permission) also requested me to take it down. Her reasoning was that it did not show the PAS in the best light and the public clearly has not the right to know what a PAS lady in the middle of a field doing her liaison looks like. I took it down and started this blog (look what its really called) and put a white fluffy bunny picture on my blog.

Obviously UK metal detectorists are more concerned about the pictures I put on my blog than the words that surround them, here's another one.

Sheddy the Gracious

Richard Lincoln, acting as though nothing had happened, attempted to post another comment on my blog last night:

Sheddy has left a new comment on your post "Excluding the stakeholders":
It turns out that Mr Lincoln did not have the permission of Judith Plouviez to disseminate her photo on the metal detecting forum where I found it (still less make commercial use of it as reported here). It has now, I am told, been removed from that forum too.
The image you used was not Ms Plouviez' image to decide as to its use and distribution. It is my image. It was taken in a place to which the public had access at the time it was taken and as such does not contravene any privacy laws.I posted the image onto Mr Rear's forum (www.detectorist.co.uk) and in doing so assigned licence by inference. Had you contacted me prior to your own use of the image and explained to me your reason for wanting to use it, I no doubt would have granted permission for its use. Instead, you took without asking, much in the same way that according to you metal detectorists take from the archaelogical record without thought toward the "stakeholders".Should you wish to use the image in your forthcoming book in order to illustrate the true face of the P.A.S. then please apply via email (you have my address). I will assign a fee-free licence and provide you with the high resolution original; Ms Plouviez has no legal right to stop its use.

So what was all the fuss about? Now we learn that in fact, he dislikes the PAS and only belatedly sees an opportunity to 'knock' it was missed because he did not read the text accompanying the photo?
No, I am not going to use "Sheddy"'s snapshots in my book, obviously collaboration with such a person would be a stressful experience. He is not the only person in the world with a camera. I think though if he does want to make commercial use of his photos, and is aware that the person shown in them objects, it would be only courteous to sort that out with them before trying to sell it or assign a "fee-free licence".

Mr Lincoln shares his thought (I)

Richard Lincoln, Canvey Island shed retailer tried to post the following comments to my "Portable Antiquities and Heritage Issues" blog as if nothing had happened. I rejected it because I really do not think discussion with him would lead anywhere. For the record this is what he sent.

Sheddy has left a new comment on your post "Excluding the stakeholders": The strange thing is that I think you and I share a common point of view with regard to the P.A.S., we both regard it with an amount of contempt. I am not fully au fait with the reasons you may have for your animosity toward them, but allow me to tell you mine. The database they have is flawed on a basic level. They only record finds which date from pre 1725. The reasoning they give is that after that date the historic environmental record is substantial enough that finds after that date are superfluous. this is something that I disagree with vehemently. Todays incidental finds are tommorrows archaeological record. If it is not recorded now, then it is lost. A partial record is as useless as no record at all.The database they have is unsearchable by those who you call "stakeholders". it is searchable by academics, that is those who have had formal archaeological training. To myself and the vast majority of other metal detectorists the search feature is of no use. As such it renders the whole of the database useless to the "stakeholders" for research purposes. So if the P.A.S. is assembling a database that is inaccurate and therefore, and what information that is there is not accessable, then what is the point of its existence?

Although I feel uninclined to discuss this in any detail (and it raises a number of points I fundamentally disagree with), I must point out that it would be incorrect to say that I feel "contempt" for the PAS. I think it is necessary, I'd like to see it prosper, but I'd like to see it developing in a different way than it has - that is my right as an archaeologist looking at Britain's biggest public archaeological outreach programme.

Canvey can use Google

In the comments to my other blog, Canvey Island shed maker and culture hero Richard Lincoln now writes:

Dear Mr Barford,You see fit to copy and paste from other websites onto your own so in accordance with your mode of operation, I have done likewise. Your contact details are on the internet on various websites for all to see.What's good for the Goose is godd (sic) for the Gander and all that.
Just to clarify the pseudonym situation, the vast majority of the pseudonyms used are just nicknames given by friends, nothing more, nothing less. You do not strike me as the sort of person that has friends so I would not expect you to understand.Toodle pip!Richard Lincoln

Canvey Island does not give up

More of the same from Canvey Island. I think the public should know.

From: Riohard Lincoln To: Paul Barford
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: copyright infringement

Dear Mr Barford, I gather that you ghave been in contact with Jude Plouviez regarding my request for confirmation of your address so that I might be enabled to invoice you for your unauthorised use of my photograph. This matter does not concern Ms Plouviez as she has no rights to the image nor its
useage. The image was taken in a place to which the public had access at that time and Ms Plouviez was well aware that the image was being captured.

I see no reason why you feel it neccessary to contact Ms Plouviez regarding this matter and ask you again to confirm your address (below) so that I might send you the invoice for the use of my photograph that you enjoyed.

I took the precaution of printing out both the page of your blog and the source code of the same to enable me to prove the
unauthorised useage of the image if neccessary.

Would you prefer that I telephone you to confirm the details?

Regards Richard Lincoln

Mr Lincoln, given the policies of Suffolk County Council (in whose emplyment Ms Plouviez was at the time you took your snapshot), I am prefectly at liberty to contact her to ask whether you have their a SCC permission for the commercial use of that image. It was taken on private property, not in a public place. It turns out that you do not have such permission.

I do not doubt that your attitude is that "Ms Plouviez has no rights to the use of that image or its use", the fact remains that she has objections. I am sure that as a "semi-professionsl photographer" you will have your own views on the ethicality of taking and using photographs of people in various situations and against their wishes making commercial use of them. I believe these people are called paparazzi in England and work for the less salubrious of newspapers and magazines.

I think your behaviour is doing a lot here to "strengthen links between archaeologists and detectorists" in Suffolk, but of course that does not concern you, because Canvey Island is the swampy bit the other side of Essex isn't it?

Now you admit to having downloaded a copy of my text onto your computer - are you sure (because last time I looked my copyright small print is in Polish) you are not in breach of my copyright? And what do you think this "code" tells you and anyone you intend to disseminate it to?

And no, I do not wish that you make any phone call to my home or place of work, or any other place. Neither am I going to pay you anything for the use of a snapshot taken of a SCC employee in a field that is not being used on my forum.

Shed retailer cum semi-professional photographer in error

Richard Lincoln, self styled "semi-professional photographer" and garden shed retailer from Canvey Island in darkest Essex wrote to me two times this evening:

In case you missed it the first two times -
Dear Mr Barford,

Could you confirm your address so that I may invoice
you for the use of my photograph on your blog.

Paul Barford
Wloscianska 8/10, 01-710 Warszawa; Poland

Kind regards

Richard Lincoln

Well, in case you missed it, I asked you to provide a link to this photograph you claim is yours on my blog. I think you are mistaken.

Secondly I assume you are referring to a photograph of Judith Plouviez of Suffolk County Council at work. Have you an official release form for the use of this image from SCC to allow you to make commercial use of this image of their personnel in their place of work? Have you the permission of the person involved to make commercial use of this image? I ask, because she informs me that you have neither, and the latter she will not grant you. Even if you decide to ignore her wishes, what basis do you have for trying to make commercial use of this image?

Neither have you stated what terms you are proposing, so even if I was interested in buying your snapshots, maybe you would inform readers of this blog what kind of rights you intend invoicing me for. Would they give full publication rights for the UK and the USA as well as foreign markets?
If I put a photo of one of your sheds on my blog and that it "can be bought from Sheddy Shed company Stray Dog Lane Canvey (or wherever it is you sell them from)" would you want to charge me for the use of that photo too?

I presume that the shed selling business is not going too well in these times of financial crisis, and can only assume from the number of times you have been trying to pressure me into buying something or other from you, that you are desperate for money. I really do not feel charitable enough to help you out, however, as it's possible that you would only spend it on batteries for your metal detector rather than on your hungry family.

I do not know where you got what you think is my "home address", or what right you think you have to this information. That is not my home address, I live in a gated community in entirely different part of Warsaw. Only old people live on that estate built in the Communist era. You've also spelt the street name wrongly. Your repeated attempts to obtain the address of my family's home strike me as a sinister invasion of my privacy, an invoice can equally be sent by a reputable firm by email or fax.

Actually Mr Lincoln, I do not need either any rights to any of your snapshots of metal detectorists and related topics, I have a better source of my own and think I now have enough for my book. (how many photos of stooping, bloated, balding British guys in army surplus clothes using metal detectors in muddy fields do you think I need?) Neither do I currently have any need for a garden shed (already got one, is very nice), so I think you'd better try and find someone else to harass with your spam mails. Thank you.