What does Wolf have to gain from faking a newspaper article here? More credibility? No, Wolf is a pretty well-respected person on these board so faking something just doesn't make sense.... there is nothing in it for him.
Either way, Congrats Wolf!

7

No, I wasn't saying that, I'm just saying that the picture he posted originally looked like it was faked, but he cleared that up.  

Hey,..... now what if he gets in trouble for copying that NEWSPAPER?!

^lol  

Why would you need to 'censor' a public news paper's article.  Obviously it is common knowledge wherever the article is distributed.

I doubt that you are saving the parties involved from an emotional hardship by removing their names when law enforcement seized their computer and issued them a public trial.  It just seems like alot of effort for very little, to me.

Congradulations on your victory anyhow.  It's good to see that in non-commercial individuals can stand up for themselves against Internet Fraud and Copyright Infringement.

Am I understanding this correctly, though, that you asked them to either remove your material or credit you to your work and then, when they did not comply, you filed suit?

i censored it because i don't want you lot going to the sites in question and causing trouble yes it is common knowledge regarding the case (it was in the newspaper after all) but i don't want you lot visiting my client's website....i like to keep my "real life" as seperate as possible.

basically i designed the site (about 5 years ago now) and it's used to sell a commodity. my client acts as an agent for the seller. another site, who make their money from advertising, decided to copy every photograph and the details of every item on sale and place them on their own website. they then offerred to put any buyers in touch with the seller for a small fee, £99 IIRC.

my client was incensed to be told (by one of his customers) that this was happening and called in the authorities. they siezed the equipment and ordered the removal of photographs etc. the defense of the offender (as mentioned in the article) was that he'd assumed the internet to be a copyright free zone, and because no mention of copyright is on the site (because legally, none is needed) he thought he'd be OK. the courts disagreed with him, and the result was mentioned in the article. i posted this here because we've had discussions in the past regarding copyright (and the fact it's not needed, legally) and i thought this might be of interest.
it clearly shows that "theft of intellectual property" is against the law (in the UK at least) and that while copyrighting will help, it's not absolutely necessary. as long as you can prove authorship of something, then you're covered by the law. in the case of mapping and texturing this can be achieved by having work in progress versions of the map/texture and saving these to CD or backing them up to a website. this will help to prove authorship. in my client's case it was the fact thst an item of his was in almost every photograph stolen.

5 years ago? That was a while ago. I was sittin' with my P 200Mhz Not even a dail up back then. *Brings back memories*

i know, it seems like an age ago.
but the site is updated weekly and has evolved a little over the years (although nowhere near as much as i would have liked, the client is very happy with it and doesn't want to change a thing) the "theft" took place about 6 months ago and has been going through the legal process since then.

6 months ago? That was a while ago. Things like this must take time.