🚀 go-pugleaf

TerryJWoodNoSpamPlease@Hotmail.com whined:

>In article <1146677459.994382.244730@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <mikecannibal1@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Looks like the direct links to his photos are hard to deny!
>
>>connections ... copywrite attached to many of the photos ... no answer
>>as to who gave Martin permission to post the material.
>.
>.
>.
>>Its just plain wrong to attempt capitolizing on the hard work of others
>>by theft. 
>.
>.
>.
>>Yes, direct evidence is hard to deny.
>
>It would be interesting to know if he has a license for, oh let's say,
>the Bo Derek photos.  Bo's late husband, John, was the only person that
>I know of who photographed her, even when she appeared in PLAYBOY.  I would
>guess that any license for the use of her photos would have to go through
>his estate or its licensee.
>
>I'm surprised that Bill hasn't just mentioned where he got the license
>for the photo.  Unless, *gasp*, he doesn't have one!
>
>In that case he'd be lucky that it's up to the copyright owner to enforce
>the copyright.  There is no copyright police.  (Maybe there should be).
>
>But that's only if Bill doesn't have a license for that photo (and all
>the others).  Surely Bill wouldn't put photos up on his site that he
>wasn't entitles to display, would he?  Would a good Christian man do
>that?  No, surely not!
>
>Bill, tell us who granted you a license for these photos.  How much does
>it cost per year?  Is there an RIAA or an ASCAP or BMI like organization
>that sells such licenses?  Let us know how WE can get a license for them too!
>
>Terry "Patiently waiting for your reply" Wood

You seem to know Bill's site better than he does Terry.  No doubt you
spend a lot of time there looking for pedo pics, ya fucking pervert.