Wednesday, May 16, 2012

character, or lack thereof

a few days ago, i received an email from an infamous person. i suppose one could call him a food blogger.... although he has had various jobs in behind the scenes media roles throughout the years. i only know this because i did some research on him. i had never heard of him before. he is a man who is used to having power. the key words here are "used to" in past tense. so he approaches life as if he is still some kind of "c" level executive type where he believes he is entitled to people, their attention, and their work ...and seeks to do so through manipulative inflammatory belittling comments.

the thing is, he does not inhabit that role within my life so why the fuck should i care who he is or what he has done? why should i let him use me? or my pictures? he has no right to me or mine.

i'm pretty good for standing up for myself and my rights. i've had enough practice. these days, i'm no longer some poor kid that can't afford lawyers. these days, i am fortunate as i have no issues dipping into the bank account for lawyers.

the email stated that he was a publisher of a survey site and referenced that he wanted to use a picture that i took of a sweet. never mind that i have taken and published thousands of pictures and there were actually quite a few of that particular sweet...and he didn't say which one. also, the email was from some [insert_oddname]@msn and there was nothing in the subject heading of the it just seemed like spam to me. why should i respond to spam?

then i get a follow up email indicating that "my pictures" were on the web site.

fascinating huh?

i didn't grant permission for the pictures to be used.

the two venues where i publish the pictures...both on this blog and on flickr...clearly indicate that i obtain all rights to my pictures.

for someone who "found" my email address and not know quite fascinating, no?

that is like someone sending an email saying, "hey, i'm going to use your song for my product campaign and if i don't hear from you, i am going to assume that you are giving me rights to use it."

what is even more fascinating is that this person's background, as i later found out, means that he clearly knew he was in violation.

i sent him an email indicating that i wanted him to take down the pictures as i did not provide permission and permissions are not an "opt out" process.
his response? he responds by berating me for not responding to his original request and that i need to tell him which pictures of mine he used...and that my not responding was not a "no".

ummm. excuse me?is there anyone else out there that thinks this is really odd?

then when i respond to him by indicating that it was his responsibility to know what content of mine he used for his web site and to take it down, he actually argued with me....and wrote things like

"Now stop bothering me and just let me know which one it is. If I don't hear back from you I will get to it as soon as I can. But then again, if you are never going to check, I guess I could just leave it up there forever and you will never know."

"What would you do if I said no I can use them under the fair use provisions of the copyright law?"

 well, my response included the following:

"Therefore, I believe you have willfully infringed my rights under 17 USC Section 101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000.

I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by tomorrow indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, I shall consider taking the full legal remedies available to rectify this situation."

and i started an email to a lawyer, quite ready to provide the correspondence and take it to the next level.

then his response was to back off and say:

"I am just busting your chops because you have been such a prick (assuming you are a man)."

which isn't true.

he wasn't "just kidding" ....he wanted to see if he could argue enough with me so that i'd back down. it is a total negotiation tactic....hounding/berating/trying to wear down someone....seeing how well someone knows their rights. i know my rights.  he also peppered in quite a few negative qualitative statements about me which i found quite fascinating....i never go into the name calling stage when i'm directly arguing with anyone. i just get very detail oriented. also, his tactic of using belittling comments and attempts at intimidation then crying "just kidding" when faced with legal implications and being held accountable for his behavior are evidence of his cowardice and that he is, really, an immature child.

his behavior is that of a child bully...who cries "i'm just kidding" when being called on his behavior.

his tactics are ones that i recognize quite well when negotiating deals.

it shows how short term thinking oriented he is. when i negotiated deals, i always approached it from a long term perspective and was extremely detailed oriented with contract negotiations....which is why i was very good at it. my approach to ethics is also why i have the job i have now and why former employers still let me know of job openings.

i never veered into those kinds of tactics when i was negotiating large deals in a former life. i think this says a lot about someone's character....or lack there of...when they decide to implement these kinds of tactics.

i have a feeling that he burned so many relationships in former industries that he's had no choice but to enter new ones....because that only works when you are at the top of your field....when you are no longer at the top....then no one wants anything to do with you and will figure out a way to cut you out.

i also think that he wanted to deliberately start a beef...because if i publicized it, then it would drive traffic to his web site. this tactic is seen quite often in the music industry....starting shit with someone start publicity.

i'm not going to play that game.

i write about what i think of this whole thing but i don't have to say who it is.
this is why i have not named him in any social media outlet. i know that there are people that love me and want to come to my defense....which is a reminder to me of how fortunate i am in be surrounded by people that i care for and that care about me.

this is what is the most important.

not some asshole who is trying to be relevant and uses a food blog as a weapon against food industry folks. hell no would i want to be affiliated with anyone like him. i wrote about how i feel about people like him years ago..."food bloggers"  who write for ego masturbation and power trips.....and my perspective hasn't changed.

i realized later when i did research that there are some very famous and well respected industry folks that have called him out in the past for various lack of professionalism on his part. also, as i did more research on him, i found out that his lack of attention to certain legal details regarding business has occurred before in non-food related industries.

he deliberately says, does, and writes negative things for a response....any power he perceives that he has is obtained through the attention he craves.

now, i sit here....with a bit more longer angry at all.

i realize that i can look back on my life and stand behind my actions and the way that i have treated people professionally and personally.

i doubt he can do the same.

No comments: