What kind of cut is this?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 10/19/2003 7:21:51 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:


Here's the real crux of the issue, and the reason I got angry.
Someone used one of my photos in a post here on PS to accuse me of wrongdoing. I wasn't informed of this till about a week after it had happened.
As I've made clear- I am open to critisism. The only way to progress professionally ( as well as personally) is to be open to critisism.

If, however, I don't even know I'm being accused of something, it's impossible for me to respond. And it was this use that really got me angry-it's always bad to write when you're angry, no?
----------------

David the post you refer to is https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-with-round-diamond-here-are-specs.9497/
And I said this:

"Hmmmm

"There are plenty of bonafide vendors who will send a stone for a serious client to be appraised without you needing to jump through all these hoops at your risk and expense Spic!

Will this guy send you ideal-scope photo's?
If not - why not?
And if he is who I think he is, and says he does not know how to take photos then run fast "

I thought there was a chance that you were the EBay dealer and the reason I posted the photo is that if you were then you are an expert photographer and would have no problem using an ideal-scope. That is why I posted your photo.
Turns out it was not you.

I did not slander you or anyone else.
I was doing what I do - helping a consumer avoid being ripped off.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Thank you aljdewey- I really appreciate your effort here.
I've already admitted being a big mouth- and having a sarcastic nature-
I did make a thoughtless comment. While I can't expect anyone to forgive my thoughlessness, I would like to explain what I said, and why.

When I made the comment, I was totally unaware of the forum at PriceScope. Not that the comment should have been made in any event, I made an error- I had meant to critisize the "database" method of selling- NOT the forum, or it's participants.

Believe it or not, my very first experience with any diamond forum ( or any internet forum for that matter) was in August of this year. Diamonds, I know. Forums, well I got a lot to learn!


I'm actually glad it's come up - because I own up to my mistakes. I would like to extend my sincere apology if my comment offended any member of this forum- or any vendor.

If I can make a worthwhile contribution here, and it is desired by the members, I hope to do so.


To CutNut, whom I did not name - Thanks for admitting what you did , and pointing it out.
I would say that accusing people in the manner you've admitted to using is underhanded at the very least- Basically, what you said was- here's a photo from Diamonds by Lauren, he's a crook if he says he can't take a picture. Except you did not use such direct language, or identify it as my photo. Why not just name the company if you're trying to protect the consumer? If you're concerned about discretion, this warning could always be given in a private message.

The fact is, aljdewey is 100% correct- I would have gotten angry at your accusation with or without a photo. For all who are not familiar, CutNut's accusation was totally baseless. There was no basis at all for the accusation, and I've yet to see an apology.
Gary, if you have any doubts about what we do, I welcome any questions- but I request that in the future you pose it directly, in an honest forthright manner

Thanks

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I knew the consumer was also participating on DT in threads you were invloved with.
I did not accuse you or the person referred to (as i did not know for sure who it was) of anything - just asked the consumer to get a photo and if the dealer said he could not do it - and if it was you - I indicated that the dealer was in fact a competent photographer.

We do things like that here with no malice.
PEople give us info about a stone and we help them.
We tell them specific questions to ask etc.

David if you think an apology is due then you clearly do not understand how this free service works.
I did not slander you - I advised a consumer.

BTW I do not sell diamonds on the web (I sell B&M to those who live in Oz).

I think this is quite enough now.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Knowing what Garry has spent a great deal of time developing and then reading this:

"...there's a complex formula for determining how well your diamond is cut. You take the table percentage then divide by the crown height then add the exact amount of hairs on your dog's ass. If that number is more than 37345.67 you know you've got a real winner!..."

makes me think that David is going to be waiting a loooong time for that apology.

 

[aljdewey]

R/A wrote: Knowing what Garry has spent a great deal of time developing and then reading this:

"...there's a complex formula for determining how well your diamond is cut. You take the table percentage then divide by the crown height then add the exact amount of hairs on your dog's ass. If that number is more than 37345.67 you know you've got a real winner!..."

makes me think that David is going to be waiting a loooong time for that apology.------------






R/A, are we to assume that you're posting this comment because you know it's attributable to David? Are you sure he was referring to HCA with this comment? (and not something else?)

 

[Serg]

Aljdewey,

Thanks for information.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Look this is just silly.

People can call me anything they want and it does not upset me.
If David said those things then i just think it is funny. Cant wait to meet up and have a beer with him.
So lets not start another war.

Let it rest folks ...pleeeese

 

[AGBF]

Dear Garry,

I will agree not to make this into "another" war (we don't really have that many here, you know ) if you or Leonid will repost the picture of you in your ski clothing. If I am to be deprived of violence, I at least want sex.

Very truly yours,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Oh...How terrible it be without that 3 letter word!

Oh what a wonderful world it is

Does this mean we are having an internat romance AGBF?

Like the young couples you see on the beach under a towel, pretending they are just cuddling......

You are very sweet

 

[canadiangrrl]

Hey AGBF, any ideas on how to get splattered coffee off of a Toshiba laptop??!

Yeah, post that pic again please, Leonid. I swear Garry, you look just like my Dad. But sexy.

*ducks yet again*

 

[Rank Amateur]

----------------
On 10/19/2003 11:23:37 PM aljdewey wrote:


R/A wrote: Knowing what Garry has spent a great deal of time developing and then reading this:

'...there's a complex formula for determining how well your diamond is cut. You take the table percentage then divide by the crown height then add the exact amount of hairs on your dog's ass. If that number is more than 37345.67 you know you've got a real winner!...'

makes me think that David is going to be waiting a loooong time for that apology.------------



R/A, are we to assume that you're posting this comment because you know it's attributable to David? Are you sure he was referring to HCA with this comment? (and not something else?)

----------------

and I assume what he is saying is "the proportions for this stone are generally regarded by the trade as crappy but to MY eyes it looks great and you can trust me because I sell stones for a living".

I was intrigued with the dogsbutt comment in the name of the stone, so I clicked on the auction. Kind of funny, really.
[/u]

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 3:17:10 AM Serg wrote:

Aljdewey, Thanks for information.

----------------

You're welcome, Serg......although keep in mind that I detailed U.S. copyright law. Specifics on copyright can vary from country to country, so what's written may or may not apply where you are.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Gary- I swear I did not call you a "Dogs Butt!" - and I'll definately take you up on the beer.




Nor did I think the 3.13 princess cut in question was cut like a dogs rear.


I DO feel that formulas do not work when considering diamonds- my dogs ass comment was a sarcastic way of saying it. It's true that my opinion puts Gary and I on opposite sides of the table. But I see now that there was no malice intended by Gary- as he sees about me- we can disagree and still sit at the same table like gentlemen-




Thank you Gary! I'm quite sure after this episode you'll feel comfortable coming straight to the "dogs butt" ( me) if you have any questions about my integrity-


I apologize if I over-reacted. My integrity is worth more to me than any diamond.




AGBF- did you know that my nickname is "Stud"? However this refers to the diamond in my ear- but I am single ( hint hint)




But most of all, I would like to acknowledge Aljdewey for the amazing contribution he's made to this thread.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 1:38:27 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:


Gary- Aljdewey for the amazing contribution he's made to this thread.
----------------

*he's*

I am going to run all my errands laughing my head off.

 

[valeria101]

--Case in point--

Dear David,
Obviously, I am guilty for the 'case in point'. With all due regret, I admit that I have not noted the request on your Ebay pages regarding the use of the pictures. Maybe I rely way too much on knowing what is an acceptable legal use to the point of forgetting courtesy. However, I am so used to 'collecting' pictures from WebPages that your warning did not chime in my mind! This is unacceptable behavior from my part and I sincerely hope that you may still accept my apologies.
The 'case in point' post was meant to settle a strain of debate, about whether internet buyers really pay a premium for higher clarity grades which are perceived as certainly eye clean (VS) given the shortcomings of the virtual means to communicate the visual impression of a diamond to someone who is not personally familiar with the stones. For me, you picture was an example of a large, intuitively eye-clean EC: an awesome stone (as someone wrote below my uninspired post) with a grade web buyers would probably shun; an example in a debate about all diamonds, not your diamonds. I intended to make this comment citing the replies to the post, but there is no way I will touch that object of discord again. Indeed, I hereby ask Leonid to wipe the shameful thing out of Pricescope. Sincerely,

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Fire and Ice- thanks for the correction.




Valeria- and everyone else- let me repeat and make it clear- It is a HUGE compliment that people use our photos to educate. Although I could not legally prevent their use, I wouldn't want to- as a mtter of fact, I invite anyone who wants to use our photos to help inform people about diamonds to do so. If the poster would inform me of the usage, I'd love to see where the pics are used, and get credit for my work- but I ask this only as a courtesy- I can't force anyone to inform or credit me.




Valeria's use is a great example of how to use our photos in a positive informaitve way. I am flattered and grateful to Val for posting our photos




As has been covered here, If there's a question about our company or products- I request the opportunity to respond




Thanks to everyone- Hey Gary, where's that beer already?!!!

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Wouldja look at that- the guy looks just like Ben Afflick, and he's smart too!


Thanks for the input Law Gem!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Not only is he smart, but he's deadly accurate with a law book.

I heard he squashed seven flies in one fell swoop.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 4:36:06 PM Richard Sherwood wrote:





Not only is he smart, but he's deadly accurate with a law book.

I heard he squashed seven flies in one fell swoop.



----------------

Richard, I would never go so far as to deploy my legal reference manuals against flies--that would be cruel and unusual punishment. I have one on my desk right now that's close to 2000 pages long and weighs in at nearly 15lbs. If I swung that one against a fly, it might go clean through the wall.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 3:42:39 PM LawGem wrote:



I think such an interdiction is warranted when we're talking about fair use.




Hey, LG, I knew this would get a rise out of you....although I wasn't aware that your specialty was copyright/intellectual property.




I'm sorry you felt this was "cut-and-dried"....I initially typed out this whole long response with about 48 nuances and clarifications in it, and then realized that it was a bit convoluted for the average bear, and the result may appear to be over-simplification.




Yes, the only party that can decide if a use is indeed fair is a court of law. Yes, there are potential instances of infringement even in an academic setting (i.e. mass copying of of coursepacks). Yes, it's possible to copy a tiny portion of a work and have it still qualify as an infringement if it represents the essence or substance of a work. For the sake of brevity, I did not discuss some of these to avoid writing a book here.




I, too, deal in copyright issues daily....it is my sole focus. While it is indeed always a good idea to get permission (and a position I typically support) to cover one's self, there are instances in which the law does not require that permission.




My point wasn't to absolutely state that R/A's use was unquestionably a fair use, and I realize some of my comments could be construed as such. It was to make David aware the law does recognize uses which exempt users from having to notify him or petition for his permission.




All of that aside, I do believe that the individual factors of this use would support R/A's use as fair.....given that it was a single photograph (limited in scope out of hundreds by DBL) of a diamond (which is not akin to the Hope diamond), used with the intent of self-education on a non-widespread basis, with no intent of selling the image, and unlikely to be construed as potentially damaging the marketplace given the access available on the net to DLB's pictures.




That's not legal advice...it's my personal opinion as one who is also exponentially and intimately familiar with the issue of copyright.




Could I TELL him that's 100% what the outcome would be? No. Would I feel confident in thinking there was an extremely high probability this use would qualify as fair? Absolutely.....enough to wager a significant amount on it.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 5:57:01 PM aljdewey wrote:









I'm sorry you felt this was 'cut-and-dried'....I initially typed out this whole long response with about 48 nuances and clarifications in it, and then realized that it was a bit convoluted for the average bear, and the result may appear to be over-simplification.

----------------

Well, that essentially was my point--that it's impossible to discuss this subject on an internet forum, composed almost entirely of laymen, and not have it become an oversimplification. People who actually work in this field--including non-lawyers like you--can appreciate the very subtle nuaces of fair use. I've found, however, that others simply cannot--especially on the internet. What almost always happens is that someone eventually takes something out of context and runs all over creation with it to justify behavior that is clearly not permitted. This is what's happened on DT, where Jamesd takes one narrow case on fair use of thumbnail images and uses it to declare that any posting of images to DT is unquestionably fair use, and even goes so far as to suggest that a lawyer complaining about such an act is guilty of an ethical violation! I'd like to avoid having that sort of thing happen here.

In any case, that wasn't really directed at you but at the whole course of the thread and at David's total capitulation on the use of his photos.

I don't know that I agree with you in this instance--IMO, the photo stands alone as a single, complete work, not a small portion of some larger whole, and I see some merit in David's concern about fraudulent misuse of his diamond images--but saying any more would violate my rule about not giving specific advice here.

So I've made my point, and we'll leave it at that.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 6:24:53 PM LawGem wrote:

In any case, that wasn't really directed at you but at the whole course of the thread and at David's total capitulation on the use of his photos.

end quote

Hey- I said I couldn't force anyone to do anything, I NEVER said wouldn't sue someone's butt off for using them- I mean, you should see my lawyer. He looks JUST like Ben Afflick ( heh, heh)

A point which does not escape me is that people actually want to look at my photos- to have one's work move people is truly gratifying.

If I had one regret about my posts on this topic it is: I made a lot of noise about the use of the photos- at no time was I angry at anyone but one person ( to be settled over a beer when I get down under)- in every other case I've seen, I was touched and grateful that folks chose to use my work here.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 6:24:53 PM LawGem wrote:

Well, that essentially was my point--that it's impossible to discuss this subject on an internet forum, composed almost entirely of laymen, and not have it become an oversimplification.
----------------

Well, in the interest of the "old college try", let's disregard previous comments on this issue and insert this one instead:

David, in asserting your rights under copyright law respective to your photos, please be aware copyright law does recognize some uses of copyrighted material that are exempt from the requirement to obtain permission from the copyright owner prior to use.

 

[sylvesterii]

Hehe…I am planning on going to law school next fall to study copyright/intellectual property rights law next fall. (though I am really interested in its application in the music industry, and may find myself moving into entertainment law to work w/ bands.)I find out what school I get to go to next Monday (aka I get my LSAT score.) law gem, you may be my new best friend.

 

[mike04456]

Oh dear x 2. Another prospective entertainment lawyer.

Sylvesterii, one must always have goals, but getting into that field is tougher than finding live brain cells inside Jessica Simpson's head. /idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif It's pretty much a closed shop unless you have relatives in the field and/or graduate at the top of your class from a top law school. I have several relatives in the entertainment business (not just lawyers), went to a top school, and I still couldn't get the time of day. You can try going out on your own with your own clients--something I also tried briefly--but the problem there is that the clients you'll find usually have no money, which means you generally don't get paid no matter how much you hassle them about it. Rewarding, perhaps, but one must eat.




Most entertainment lawyers don't start out that way; they move into the field after developing expertise in one area or another. Applying directly to an entertainment law firm right out of law school in hopes of starting at the bottom is kind of like going on American Idol hoping to be a rock star. It happens, but it's pretty rare.




Breaking into entertainment law is a lot like breaking into the movies, for a lot of the very same reasons. It's not impossible, but you've got to focus on it from day one and not get discouraged by all the doors that get slammed in your face. I would work on making yourself valuable as a copyright lawyer first, and worry about the entertainment angle later. /idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 10/20/2003 6:58:20 PM aljdewey wrote:

Well, in the interest of the 'old college try', let's disregard previous comments on this issue and insert this one instead:

David, in asserting your rights under copyright law respective to your photos, please be aware copyright law does recognize some uses of copyrighted material that are exempt from the requirement to obtain permission from the copyright owner prior to use.

----------------

Works for me.

 

[sylvesterii]

oh beleive me, i want nothing to do with the hollywood glam. i am a punk-rock kid born and raised. i want to work with bands that are "trying to make it" and hopefully help them from getting run up a creek by record labels. i have been pretty active within the music scene, have some connections, and by no means think i am going to "strike it rich." Copyright law is my interest, but music is my passion.

beleive me, i don't want anything to do with mtv, clear channel, or any other things of such types. Which is also why i want to pursue copyright law as my main objective. Artist get screwed every day.

i am not a radical, nor am i a dreamer, but i do want to be able to help.

I have an interest in working with small time touring bands, not wanting to make a career out of it. I guess i forget that people don't really know me here.

 

[winyan]

Hey AGBF, that's not fair, I've been drooling over Garry for years!

Waaah!

win