Oliver Schaper attempts take down of OliverSchaper.com

[AngryGayPope]

As the owner of http://www.OliverSchaper.com I got an email purportedly from Earthlink alerting me they would do a DMCA takedown. It could be faked though as the "to:" line mispelled my name.

I'll assume the email is legit for now and do a counterclaim. If the site is down temporarily it will be back up. Just like the video he tried to take down off youtube and couldn't.

Believe it or not Schaper is apparently trying to make a DMCA claim against the legal docs (and their icons) on my site:

URL of allegedly infringing document to be removed:

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... ruptcy.pdf

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/images/o ... n_icon.png

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... o_bail.pdf

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... d_bail.png

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... dition.pdf

Describe the work allegedly infringed: My Artwork

Name of Artwork: Personal Photograph used without permission or written consent. The image was taken from our system without permission and not published.

Country where copyright applies but not limited to: United States, Mexico, Germany and France

I state UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
This notification is accurate.
I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
Authorized Signature: /s/ Dr. Oliver Schaper

First of all am I not correct that open legal docs are public? And they have been up for an entire year Ollie. Also the photo was from facebook. Or, in Ollie's case, Fatbook!

Of course I am going to sic my pro bono lawyer Graham Berry on both Ollie and Earthlink.

Please understand that, in taking down this material or disabling access to it, EarthLink is complying with the DMCA and is in no way making a determination that any copyrights have been infringed. EarthLink apologizes for any inconvenience that this may cause you.

[YouGuysAreFunny]

As the owner of OliverSchaper.com I got an email purportedly from Earthlink alerting me they would do a DMCA takedown. It could be faked though as the "to:" line mispelled my name.

I'll assume the email is legit for now and do a counterclaim. If the site is down temporarily it will be back up. Just like the video he tried to take down off youtube and couldn't.

Believe it or not Schaper is apparently trying to make a DMCA claim against the legal docs (and their icons) on my site:

URL of allegedly infringing document to be removed:

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... ruptcy.pdf

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/images/o ... n_icon.png

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... o_bail.pdf

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... d_bail.png

http://www.harmlesswebsite.com/docs/oli ... dition.pdf

Describe the work allegedly infringed: My Artwork

Name of Artwork: Personal Photograph used without permission or written consent. The image was taken from our system without permission and not published.

Country where copyright applies but not limited to: United States, Mexico, Germany and France

I state UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
This notification is accurate.
I acknowledge that under Section 512(f) any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability for damages.
Authorized Signature: /s/ Dr. Oliver Schaper

First of all am I not correct that open legal docs are public? And they have been up for an entire year Ollie. Also the photo was from facebook. Or, in Ollie's case, Fatbook!

Of course I am going to sic my pro bono lawyer Graham Berry on both Ollie and Earthlink.

Please understand that, in taking down this material or disabling access to it, EarthLink is complying with the DMCA and is in no way making a determination that any copyrights have been infringed. EarthLink apologizes for any inconvenience that this may cause you.

Go ahead but you may want to have your ProBono lawyer to contact me first directly (or my lawyer) so I can send him the order which seals the documents, making them no longer public domain. But on the other hand, go ahead with your counter claim because this could be real fun in Federal Court where you would have to explain why you publish sealed documents.

In addition, I am not taking down your site, just images to which I hold copyrights and documents which are in violation of a court order protecting them.

If you noticed, I decided to keep the rest of you page alive because you have the right to speak your mind but not to use material that you don't have permission to use.

[YouGuysAreFunny]

First of all am I not correct that open legal docs are public? And they have been up for an entire year Ollie. Also the photo was from facebook. Or, in Ollie's case, Fatbook!

Donald, you should really understand that not all documents, pictures, music or video online is free or can be used without the authorization of the content owner. To make it clear, you take your own picture - You own the photo. I take a picture of you, I own the picture and can use it. Now it happens to be that no Anon ever took my picture and therefore the pictures that leaked online are not yours to work with. Take your own pictures and you are more than welcome to use them because I would not be able to file a DMCA claim against it. Use my material and I will make sure to go after you. To make this very simple, I am sure you don't want others to use your material without permission, right?

[Krautfag]

First of all am I not correct that open legal docs are public? And they have been up for an entire year Ollie. Also the photo was from facebook. Or, in Ollie's case, Fatbook!

Donald, you should really understand that not all documents, pictures, music or video online is free or can be used without the authorization of the content owner. To make it clear, you take your own picture - You own the photo. I take a picture of you, I own the picture and can use it. Now it happens to be that no Anon ever took my picture and therefore the pictures that leaked online are not yours to work with. Take your own pictures and you are more than welcome to use them because I would not be able to file a DMCA claim against it. Use my material and I will make sure to go after you. To make this very simple, I am sure you don't want others to use your material without permission, right?

The US court cannot seal the German documents and their translations, even if they want to. They were paid for by the German taxpayer and as these are documents in a criminal case, they are public domain. The US court can however seal the actual filings to which the documents are evidence to. Also, by posting your picture to facebook, you transferred the ownership and rights to that particular picture to facebook, check their user agreement.

[YouGuysAreFunny]

The US court cannot seal the German documents and their translations, even if they want to. They were paid for by the German taxpayer and as these are documents in a criminal case, they are public domain. The US court can however seal the actual filings to which the documents are evidence to. Also, by posting your picture to facebook, you transferred the ownership and rights to that particular picture to facebook, check their user agreement.

This shows that you have no idea what the court can or can't do. In addition, Germany court records are not public and protected by privacy laws. A U.S. court can seal all documents that have been filed if such request was made. I hope he makes a counter claim so I can file a report with the Feds and Donald needs to deal with the Government.

[Krautfag]

The US court cannot seal the German documents and their translations, even if they want to. They were paid for by the German taxpayer and as these are documents in a criminal case, they are public domain. The US court can however seal the actual filings to which the documents are evidence to. Also, by posting your picture to facebook, you transferred the ownership and rights to that particular picture to facebook, check their user agreement.

This shows that you have no idea what the court can or can't do. In addition, Germany court records are not public and protected by privacy laws. A U.S. court can seal all documents that have been filed if such request was made. I hope he makes a counter claim so I can file a report with the Feds and Donald needs to deal with the Government.

The court can also decide that the moon has to turn blue every next monday and still it won't happen.
Court records of criminal cases are public property, and can as such be requested to be reviewed by interested public and/or law teachers, law students, lawyers. In case of common interest even the privacy clause is void. I'd give it to you that you would be Oliver S. at the moment though, but don't count on it.

[TheEvilOfScientology]

Scientology works, and it provides hours of humorous entertainment.

[The Doxtor]

First of all am I not correct that open legal docs are public? And they have been up for an entire year Ollie. Also the photo was from facebook. Or, in Ollie's case, Fatbook!

Donald, you should really understand that not all documents, pictures, music or video online is free or can be used without the authorization of the content owner. To make it clear, you take your own picture - You own the photo. I take a picture of you, I own the picture and can use it. Now it happens to be that no Anon ever took my picture and therefore the pictures that leaked online are not yours to work with. Take your own pictures and you are more than welcome to use them because I would not be able to file a DMCA claim against it. Use my material and I will make sure to go after you. To make this very simple, I am sure you don't want others to use your material without permission, right?

Dear dummy, Just because someone does not own a photo does not mean that you own the photo either. If you don't and you filed a DMCA then you committed a crime (false DMCA claim) but we all know your past with civil and criminal actions Loons like you never learn, just cry when they do get caught. Furthermore, there is this thing called Fair Use. I know you are in a Nazi like draconian cult so I will explain Fair Use to you in a way even someone who has been shrinking their brain on Scientology can understand.

What About Fair Use?

Fair use is not the same as free use. Fair use is a legal exception to the exclusive rights an owner has for his or her copyrighted work.

It has little to do with what we may think is fair, and everything to do with keeping the balance tipped in favor of the public interest. It’s a delicate balance, mind you, but one that often leaves the copyright owner wanting to scream.

Fair use is in place for the greater good, to allow copyrighted works to be used without permission for the benefit of the public. Imagine not being able to use images of a dead dictator to tell the story of how he died (Hubbard). Or not being able to talk about fashion without showing the outfit you’re referring to (Xenu's robe).

Here is just one of the reasons you can use a photo (Quoted from a site that covers this issue)
#2: Why are you using the image? If it is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” you’re on the right track.

Another reason
#3: Have you transformed the image? If the new work which incorporates the copyrighted image is a “transformative work”—what you created no longer resembles the original—there is a greater likelihood of finding an exception to copyright infringement. (Maybe Pope can give you horns or fangs or a real dick?)

I think he can argue that it is in the public interest to mock, criticize and report on a cult douche bag. What he is doing is called satirical commentary and Larry Flynt reaffirmed our rights to mock douches before the Supreme Court. Your photos regardless of who took them are in a public domain (the web) and used as such and they become subject to counter points, arguments and critiques in relation to how they were used and how you are seen.

[alltrue]

Of course I am going to sic my pro bono lawyer Graham Berry on both Ollie and Earthlink.

Corners of the internet have become like the wild west, 1800's, lawless and brutal.

[YouGuysAreFunny]

The court can also decide that the moon has to turn blue every next monday and still it won't happen.
Court records of criminal cases are public property, and can as such be requested to be reviewed by interested public and/or law teachers, law students, lawyers. In case of common interest even the privacy clause is void. I'd give it to you that you would be Oliver S. at the moment though, but don't count on it.

Krautfag, I am not expecting you to understand U.S. law and therefore there is no further need to school you on this matter.

[YouGuysAreFunny]

Dear dummy, Just because someone does not own a photo does not mean that you own the photo either.

That is correct but in this case, I took the picture and therefore own the content and its rights.

If you don't and you filed a DMCA then you committed a crime (false DMCA claim) but we all know your past with civil and criminal actions Loons like you never learn, just cry when they do get caught.

If you think that I committed a crime, please feel free to contact law enforcement and file a report. Again, you use ME material, to which I have a copyright than expect me to take it down unless you have permission.

Furthermore, there is this thing called Fair Use. I know you are in a Nazi like draconian cult so I will explain Fair Use to you in a way even someone who has been shrinking their brain on Scientology can understand.

What About Fair Use?

Fair use does not apply to personal content which is not intended for distribution.

Fair use is not the same as free use. Fair use is a legal exception to the exclusive rights an owner has for his or her copyrighted work.

You still need permission and he got none. He was asked to remove the content and he refused. Me taking action is just on the line.

It has little to do with what we may think is fair, and everything to do with keeping the balance tipped in favor of the public interest. It’s a delicate balance, mind you, but one that often leaves the copyright owner wanting to scream.

Well, there is nothing newsworthy on his site and I gave him plenty of time and now it is time to enforce my rights. I know how copyrights work and I follow it to the letter. Again, if he taken the picture I would have been unable to claim ownership.

Fair use is in place for the greater good, to allow copyrighted works to be used without permission for the benefit of the public. Imagine not being able to use images of a dead dictator to tell the story of how he died (Hubbard). Or not being able to talk about fashion without showing the outfit you’re referring to (Xenu's robe).

I don't really care about your views on Scientology as this is not a matter of the church but a matter of use of a private picture used without permission.

Here is just one of the reasons you can use a photo (Quoted from a site that covers this issue)
#2: Why are you using the image? If it is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” you’re on the right track.

I can claim that he is using the picture is used for the purpose of harassment on a website which contains false facts.

Another reason
#3: Have you transformed the image? If the new work which incorporates the copyrighted image is a “transformative work”—what you created no longer resembles the original—there is a greater likelihood of finding an exception to copyright infringement. (Maybe Pope can give you horns or fangs or a real dick?)

There has been case law on this matter and I am sure Graham will educate him on this matter.

I think he can argue that it is in the public interest to mock, criticize and report on a cult douche bag. What he is doing is called satirical commentary and Larry Flynt reaffirmed our rights to mock douches before the Supreme Court. Your photos regardless of who took them are in a public domain (the web) and used as such and they become subject to counter points, arguments and critiques in relation to how they were used and how you are seen.

The web is not public domain per se and not everything on the web is free and available. I would not expect you to care but the matter is clear and simple. If he wants to make a counter claim, I will welcome the challenge and take him to Federal Court.

[The Doxtor]

Dear dummy, Just because someone does not own a photo does not mean that you own the photo either.

That is correct but in this case, I took the picture and therefore own the content and its rights.

If you don't and you filed a DMCA then you committed a crime (false DMCA claim) but we all know your past with civil and criminal actions Loons like you never learn, just cry when they do get caught.

If you think that I committed a crime, please feel free to contact law enforcement and file a report. Again, you use ME material, to which I have a copyright than expect me to take it down unless you have permission.

Furthermore, there is this thing called Fair Use. I know you are in a Nazi like draconian cult so I will explain Fair Use to you in a way even someone who has been shrinking their brain on Scientology can understand.

What About Fair Use?

Fair use does not apply to personal content which is not intended for distribution.

Fair use is not the same as free use. Fair use is a legal exception to the exclusive rights an owner has for his or her copyrighted work.

You still need permission and he got none. He was asked to remove the content and he refused. Me taking action is just on the line.

It has little to do with what we may think is fair, and everything to do with keeping the balance tipped in favor of the public interest. It’s a delicate balance, mind you, but one that often leaves the copyright owner wanting to scream.

Well, there is nothing newsworthy on his site and I gave him plenty of time and now it is time to enforce my rights. I know how copyrights work and I follow it to the letter. Again, if he taken the picture I would have been unable to claim ownership.

Fair use is in place for the greater good, to allow copyrighted works to be used without permission for the benefit of the public. Imagine not being able to use images of a dead dictator to tell the story of how he died (Hubbard). Or not being able to talk about fashion without showing the outfit you’re referring to (Xenu's robe).

I don't really care about your views on Scientology as this is not a matter of the church but a matter of use of a private picture used without permission.

Here is just one of the reasons you can use a photo (Quoted from a site that covers this issue)
#2: Why are you using the image? If it is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” you’re on the right track.

I can claim that he is using the picture is used for the purpose of harassment on a website which contains false facts.

Another reason
#3: Have you transformed the image? If the new work which incorporates the copyrighted image is a “transformative work”—what you created no longer resembles the original—there is a greater likelihood of finding an exception to copyright infringement. (Maybe Pope can give you horns or fangs or a real dick?)

There has been case law on this matter and I am sure Graham will educate him on this matter.

I think he can argue that it is in the public interest to mock, criticize and report on a cult douche bag. What he is doing is called satirical commentary and Larry Flynt reaffirmed our rights to mock douches before the Supreme Court. Your photos regardless of who took them are in a public domain (the web) and used as such and they become subject to counter points, arguments and critiques in relation to how they were used and how you are seen.

The web is not public domain per se and not everything on the web is free and available. I would not expect you to care but the matter is clear and simple. If he wants to make a counter claim, I will welcome the challenge and take him to Federal Court.

WOW you are as delusional as everyone said you are. Looks like you are mocking up your own reality. LOL What a nut. Keep telling yourself your BS, does not make any of it real. LOL

[YouGuysAreFunny]

WOW you are as delusional as everyone said you are. Looks like you are mocking up your own reality. LOL What a nut. Keep telling yourself your BS, does not make any of it real. LOL

Btw. "Doxtor", I am still waiting on the hard evidence that I had anything to do with the massive YouTube take downs.
Look at people like QAnon or Dlaney, they removed the copyrighted material and I even made sure that their accounts on YouTube were restored. I know this does not fit into the image you have of me, but at the end I am not expecting you to like me or not.

[Sea Horse]

The US court cannot seal the German documents and their translations, even if they want to. They were paid for by the German taxpayer and as these are documents in a criminal case, they are public domain. The US court can however seal the actual filings to which the documents are evidence to. Also, by posting your picture to facebook, you transferred the ownership and rights to that particular picture to facebook, check their user agreement.

This shows that you have no idea what the court can or can't do. In addition, Germany court records are not public and protected by privacy laws. A U.S. court can seal all documents that have been filed if such request was made. I hope he makes a counter claim so I can file a report with the Feds and Donald needs to deal with the Government.

No. Judges in the USA do NOT have carte-blanche authority to decide if documents are sealed or not. Judges must follow the law, and earlier precedents, in their decisions. A party may request that documents be sealed, and more often than not the request is denied. Judges don't particularly want to hide documents from public scrutiny. For ages, court records have been RECORDS... intended to be kept for posterity. The requesting party would have to have a very compelling reason to seal records.

[Dorothy]

What's remarkable to me is that with all their study tech and IQ testing, scientologists (and perhaps ex-scientologists in this case) cannot seem to duplicate/understand the concept of Fair Use. It's as if they read this sentence:

Fair use is a legal exception to the exclusive rights an owner has for his or her copyrighted work.

But to them the sentence reads like this:

(Blank) is a legal exception to the exclusive rights an owner has for his or her copyrighted work.

Most scinos I know are hopeless opportunists: if money cannot be made on it then it has no purpose and therefore no right to exist. So maybe it is simply a refusal to accept that such a repulsive thing as fair Use even exists? I just noticed that Olie seems to completely avoid the concept, or rejects it. This is something that could be handled with M2 W/Cing, FDSing, CRMU-finding, etc. (study tech remedies for inability to learn new things). Here's Olie's statement re" Fair Use:

Fair use does not apply to personal content which is not intended for distribution.

Says who? You completely made that up. That is why you were called delusional. Unfortunately, you do look delusional when you make delusional statements.

Or maybe it's the word "educational" that they have a problem with. To them, education is just another concept that is worthless unless someone is getting rich off of it, or using it as a means to funnel more cash to little Dave.

Fair use is really not that difficult to understand:

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

If someone is really slandering Olie then he should be able to prove it and get a judgement against the perp. But this has been going on a while and nothing's been proven yet.