[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Even if it's true, I somehow doubt Roger would be interested in some arguments about fake autographs...[/QUOTE]
I guarantee he wouldn't give a shit..;-)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Even if it's true, I somehow doubt Roger would be interested in some arguments about fake autographs...[/QUOTE]
I guarantee he wouldn't give a shit..;-)[/QUOTE]
Unless they were signed on naked female bodies ;-)
I guarantee he wouldn't give a shit..;-)[/QUOTE]
Unless they were signed on naked female bodies ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Unless they were signed on naked female bodies ;-)[/QUOTE]
That's about right! LOL
That's about right! LOL
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'm more curious about the fucker who claimed to be Roger Taylor's friend. Other dealers seem to trust him, they keep on telling me "RT will take care of it" etc. Even if it's true, I somehow doubt Roger would be interested in some arguments about fake autographs...[/QUOTE]
He won't give a shit. And if he does, well, cheer up... you could end up meeting Mr. Taylor in person (and he might give you a real autograph) ;-)
I'm more curious about the fucker who claimed to be Roger Taylor's friend. Other dealers seem to trust him, they keep on telling me "RT will take care of it" etc. Even if it's true, I somehow doubt Roger would be interested in some arguments about fake autographs...[/QUOTE]
He won't give a shit. And if he does, well, cheer up... you could end up meeting Mr. Taylor in person (and he might give you a real autograph) ;-)
> you could end up meeting Mr. Taylor in person (and he might give you a real autograph) ;-)
I think he already has, there are some pix in his website.
I think he already has, there are some pix in his website.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ducksoup wrote: [/QUOTENAME](dunno if that's the correct word... in The Netherlands it's called "smaad" )[/QUOTE]
'Slander' in English. THEY'd have to prove that the autographs they are selling are *not* fake then, though, I think.
[QUOTE]you are accusing the dealers of committing fraude (by putting their ads marked as fake on your website and naming their names in the "hall of shame" gallery)
The question here is not who is doing the correct thing (cause we all know YOU are) but which rights prevail. OK, you have freedom of speech, but does that freedom of speech also mean you have the right to accuse the autograph dealers of selling fakes, committing fraude if you like, (regardless wether you are telling the truth or not) OR is that contumely behaviour?
I'm really not an expert on these kinda things, but I think putting a disclaimer on the website could be a thing to consider
[/QUOTE]
A disclaimer stating that these verdicts are not absolute, etc. "only a guideline", "personal views", "author accepts no liability for use of these indications", etc. would be a very good idea. Also, as was previously advised, rephrasing "fake" as "suspicious" or "of undetermined nature" would get you off anything they could possibly throw at you (which is very little to begin with; empty threats, more like)!
'Slander' in English. THEY'd have to prove that the autographs they are selling are *not* fake then, though, I think.
[QUOTE]you are accusing the dealers of committing fraude (by putting their ads marked as fake on your website and naming their names in the "hall of shame" gallery)
The question here is not who is doing the correct thing (cause we all know YOU are) but which rights prevail. OK, you have freedom of speech, but does that freedom of speech also mean you have the right to accuse the autograph dealers of selling fakes, committing fraude if you like, (regardless wether you are telling the truth or not) OR is that contumely behaviour?
I'm really not an expert on these kinda things, but I think putting a disclaimer on the website could be a thing to consider
[/QUOTE]
A disclaimer stating that these verdicts are not absolute, etc. "only a guideline", "personal views", "author accepts no liability for use of these indications", etc. would be a very good idea. Also, as was previously advised, rephrasing "fake" as "suspicious" or "of undetermined nature" would get you off anything they could possibly throw at you (which is very little to begin with; empty threats, more like)!
Ducksoup or ThomasQuinn - could you please have a look at QueenAutographs.com (I updated it on Thursday) and let me know (via email or here on the board) your personal opinion about the current statements on the site? Is the disclaimer enough or should I avoid using the word "fake" at all? I just want to be 100% sure...
I'm not a lawyer either Mr Scully, but I am the Voice of Reason!
It might be worth making a distinction between saying that someone is selling a fake (which they could be doing unintentionally) and saying that they actually faked the signatures themselves.
You just need to be careful about anything that you cannot prove.
Cheers,
The Voice
It might be worth making a distinction between saying that someone is selling a fake (which they could be doing unintentionally) and saying that they actually faked the signatures themselves.
You just need to be careful about anything that you cannot prove.
Cheers,
The Voice
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Voice of Reason 2006 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm not a lawyer either Mr Scully, but I am the Voice of Reason!
It might be worth making a distinction between saying that someone is selling a fake (which they could be doing unintentionally) and saying that they actually faked the signatures themselves.
You just need to be careful about anything that you cannot prove.
Cheers,
The Voice[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right. But I think I have already rewriten it on my site. Now I basically say "I would not buy an autograph from these sellers" and I mark their auctions as "IMO fake". I don't even suggest they might have faked the signatures themselves...
Funny, yesterday another seller theatened that he is "friend of Mack" and "in contact with Brian May"... and he was selling really BAD fakes. Incredible how pig headed some people are...
It might be worth making a distinction between saying that someone is selling a fake (which they could be doing unintentionally) and saying that they actually faked the signatures themselves.
You just need to be careful about anything that you cannot prove.
Cheers,
The Voice[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right. But I think I have already rewriten it on my site. Now I basically say "I would not buy an autograph from these sellers" and I mark their auctions as "IMO fake". I don't even suggest they might have faked the signatures themselves...
Funny, yesterday another seller theatened that he is "friend of Mack" and "in contact with Brian May"... and he was selling really BAD fakes. Incredible how pig headed some people are...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr. Scully wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now I basically say "I would not buy an autograph from these sellers" and I mark their auctions as "IMO fake".[/QUOTE]
I don't think you should recant at all. On the front page, simply state that everything on this website is the opinion of the webmaster. Saying "IMO fake" looks weak, and will diminish your strong arguments against fake autographs. Stand firm, Martin!
I don't think you should recant at all. On the front page, simply state that everything on this website is the opinion of the webmaster. Saying "IMO fake" looks weak, and will diminish your strong arguments against fake autographs. Stand firm, Martin!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ducksoup wrote: [/QUOTENAME](dunno if that's the correct word... in The Netherlands it's called "smaad" )[/QUOTE]
'Slander' in English. THEY'd have to prove that the autographs they are selling are *not* fake then, though, I think.
It's def. NOT slander. In the meantime I looked it up and it's called libel in English. Slander is something like "laster" in the Netherlands wich is something different to smaad.
And offcourse they don't have to proof their autographs are "not" fake.
@ Martin: I will take a look at the new website and send you an e-mail.
Cheers,
D
'Slander' in English. THEY'd have to prove that the autographs they are selling are *not* fake then, though, I think.
It's def. NOT slander. In the meantime I looked it up and it's called libel in English. Slander is something like "laster" in the Netherlands wich is something different to smaad.
And offcourse they don't have to proof their autographs are "not" fake.
@ Martin: I will take a look at the new website and send you an e-mail.
Cheers,
D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Yes, it's correct that stating that an autograph (or recording, etc) is fake doesn't necessarily mean the seller is being considered a crook; but, as far as I know, Martin could be accused of defamation even if he's merely "implying" so. It'd all depend on how manipulative and convincing those "lawyers" are ;)[/QUOTE]
There is no prophylactic measure strong enough to prevent anyone from being the target of a lawsuit. Nuisance lawsuits are filed every day and are dismissed every day. The only sure way for Mr. Scully to avoid any possibility being sued is to not have the website. He obviously doesn't want to do that, so the best he can do is take reasonable measures and make his statements in a responsible way. Lawyers and the filing of lawsuits are not inexpensive, which is generally enough of a prohibition to prevent most people without some kind of serious claim from filing, but there is no measure he can take short of not having the website that can stop someone from filing a weak or even baseless lawsuit today that will be throw out of court the next day. There is no magic word, no silver bullet, no deflector shield that will completely protect anyone from being named in any lawsuit. There's also no total protection from being struck by lightning or crushed by a meteor, but we generally take the best protective measures we can and get on with our lives because its very unlikely that we're going to be crushed or struck. And so it is with Mr. Scully's website.
Yes, it's correct that stating that an autograph (or recording, etc) is fake doesn't necessarily mean the seller is being considered a crook; but, as far as I know, Martin could be accused of defamation even if he's merely "implying" so. It'd all depend on how manipulative and convincing those "lawyers" are ;)[/QUOTE]
There is no prophylactic measure strong enough to prevent anyone from being the target of a lawsuit. Nuisance lawsuits are filed every day and are dismissed every day. The only sure way for Mr. Scully to avoid any possibility being sued is to not have the website. He obviously doesn't want to do that, so the best he can do is take reasonable measures and make his statements in a responsible way. Lawyers and the filing of lawsuits are not inexpensive, which is generally enough of a prohibition to prevent most people without some kind of serious claim from filing, but there is no measure he can take short of not having the website that can stop someone from filing a weak or even baseless lawsuit today that will be throw out of court the next day. There is no magic word, no silver bullet, no deflector shield that will completely protect anyone from being named in any lawsuit. There's also no total protection from being struck by lightning or crushed by a meteor, but we generally take the best protective measures we can and get on with our lives because its very unlikely that we're going to be crushed or struck. And so it is with Mr. Scully's website.
Hello Mr Faron Hyte,
Saw in your profile you are from Aruba. Did you visit the Q+PR show? Please contact me. My e-mailadress is in my profile.
Hope to hear from you!
Saw in your profile you are from Aruba. Did you visit the Q+PR show? Please contact me. My e-mailadress is in my profile.
Hope to hear from you!