A new low for Smart Parts?! Or should I say DLX Technologies...

[snoopay700]

couldnt someone just contact Sirimo.co.uk and tell them a smart farts is using their images without compensation? seems easier than trying to talk to pbn or smart tards directly


(I'm assuming that images that are paid for would not contain the watermark)

Done and done. I doubt it's illegal for the myspace image as you can see where they got it from, but they don't say where they got it from on pbnation and that could be a problem.

[Hexis]

I also contacted the photographer. Technically any use of the images is copyright violation. I doubt there is any legal remedy that's worth anything other than a standard DMCA takedown notice.

[questionful]

There is clearly enough evidence now. God, I'm so angry even though I didn't even go on PBN.

Anyway, there is clearly enough evidence now to convince the agglets, right? I mean, they can't be that stupid, can they? . . .They can't right?!

[Hexis]

Anyway, there is clearly enough evidence now to convince the agglets, right? I mean, they can't be that stupid, can they? . . .They can't right?!

Never underestimate the sheer power or volume of human stupidity.

[Mayvik]

I also contacted the photographer. Technically any use of the images is copyright violation. I doubt there is any legal remedy that's worth anything other than a standard DMCA takedown notice.

It's entirely possible that DLX/SP paid that photographer for use of the image. If they stole it, why not steal all of the ones of "Audrey" to lend more creedence to her MySpace. As all e-creeps know, 1 picture = debatable, multiple pictures = more likely to be real, multiple pictures from multiple sources = best likelihood.

Paying for the use of "canned" photos doesn't necessarily mean the watermark gets removed, it's basically how the photographer advertises.

Regardless, it's fairly clear that "Audrey" is not the woman in the picture based on her unwillingness to provide alternate pictures, SP Sean's comments, and how quickly posts are getting shut down. Isn't the main DLX dude (wayne? dwayne? dwight?) supposedly from CA, which is where she is supposedly from as well? It's probably his SO, who is "involved" in the industry via him.

[B-Pow]

that's okay I've had a back and forth with fallNangel that I kept sending to snoopay where I keep proding him on where the thread does belong then....

He tried to distract me with the idea of a marker that made waffles....


mmmm....waffles.

[snoopay700]

that's okay I've had a back and forth with fallNangel that I kept sending to snoopay where I keep proding him on where the thread does belong then....

He tried to distract me with the idea of a marker that made waffles....


mmmm....waffles.

Haha, yeah, and now he's saying that there's no place for that thread to be, when before he said that just the DLX forum was no place for that. As i said before, he's not the brightest, he's very inconsistent.

Also, hexis, it's sad but you're right.

[questionful]

Man, if the techPB guy even briefly mentioned any of these claims, everyone would consider them fact in a heartbeat.

I feel like Robespiere. Maybe the masses are just too stupid. Maybe dictatorial control is what's best for them, maybe chopping heads is the way!

[Hexis]

It's entirely possible that DLX/SP paid that photographer for use of the image. If they stole it, why not steal all of the ones of "Audrey" to lend more creedence to her MySpace. As all e-creeps know, 1 picture = debatable, multiple pictures = more likely to be real, multiple pictures from multiple sources = best likelihood.

Paying for the use of "canned" photos doesn't necessarily mean the watermark gets removed, it's basically how the photographer advertises.

Paying for imagery on iStockPhoto (where that image is offered) gives the licensee the right to use with image, and I have never seen any maintain a watermark after the image is licensed. That's kind of the point of buying the imagery. The purchased imagery is the product, not the advertisement. The watermark is the protection against inappropriate usage. That said, anything is possible.

[J_Kizzy]

I find myself sickened to no end that some poor girl's picture is being exploited to reap profits for a paintball company!!!! For shame!!!

Okay, not really. Honestly, who cares? I really can't see how this is still an issue. People are going to buy whatever they want regardless of how much muck you rake, or attempt to in this case; you can't change people's minds for them.

[Mayvik]

Haha, yeah, and now he's saying that there's no place for that thread to be, when before he said that just the DLX forum was no place for that. As i said before, he's not the brightest, he's very inconsistent.

Also, hexis, it's sad but you're right.

How about in one of the Small Talk forums? Aside from pr0n, I thought pretty much anything goes?

[Spider-TW]

At least if you're worried about what AO has become ("such a hell-hole"), you can be happy with what it hasn't become.

[insixdays777]

There is no excuse for a company to LIE and MISLEAD its custormers on any level products or personel.

SmartParts is now the, 45 yr old man living in his parents basement pretending to be a chick and chatting up with all those available guys, of the paintball industry.

[snoopay700]

How about in one of the Small Talk forums? Aside from pr0n, I thought pretty much anything goes?

According to FallN it doesn't belong anywhere on there and it will warrant a ban if i remember, after i'm done with this i'll post what he said to B-Pow.

Oh, and J_Kizzy, i feel so stupid now, i can't change people's minds? Well i'm not trying to change their minds, i'm just trying to show people what kind of company they are, and if that changes their minds, then so be it, but that's not my main concern. I honestly don't care if they buy it, i think it's overpriced, and it's almost as long as a tippy so it's their loss. The thing i care about is how they mislead their customers, but you know, it's not that big a deal i suppose.

Anywho, here's exactly what he said:

Yes I made a ludricus leap, but jumps down are easier on a slippery slope. However my initial question is still unanswered, where is it approprate to question a company and their marketing, claims, ethics...etc.

The thread in question I do not really see as trolling or inflamitory. It was a basic statement of fact about the validity of an internet persona, it was not slanderious or lacking any evidence.

The reason it's unanswered is because there's really no good answer for where it *can* go. Normally, I'd say Paintball Talk, but again, all you're going to do is rile people up again. I don't see how you can think that going into a forum and suggesting to people that a company made a fake account to lie to customers *wouldn't* get people riled up.

You also said the thread was a statement of fact about the validity of an internet persona, yet in the text you posted, it says

Let me say right now that this is ALL speculation and I have no real life proof at all that Audrey is in fact not female.

Really, there is no proof and it's also fairly obvious that talking about it right now just riles people up. So really, you're asking where a good place to post a conspiracy thread and the answer is, we don't have one.

~Angel

[insixdays777]

I wonder is she has a "Magic Box" ?

I think it is more like a "Magic Barrel"