Share this comment
The grand lodge of NC it self has fallen victim to this type of scam. and through multiple plea's Facebook has refused to act. This page pretends to be the GL of NC. "facebook.com/profile.php" My understanding is that they have written letters, legal has been involved and nothing will be done.
The grand lodge of NC it self has fallen victim to this type of scam. and through multiple plea's Facebook has refused to act. This page pretends to be the GL of NC. "https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091944556244" My understanding is that they have written letters, legal has been involved and nothing will be done.
Ya'll send someone to check on that Wo. Bill Werner.. Its been over a year since i visited him last.
I talked with him not long ago.
tell him he needs to travel to "Munrow" NC.
I was with Bill yesterday and we talk all the time. I'll tell him you asked about him
I think that's why, as the Magpie suggests, we would need to get a firm that specializes in this specific area of law. Certainly we've got them on copyright violations when they use our photographs, at the least.
I think that would be a wild goose chase as it assumes:
1. the offender is with in a legal framework where by one could file for recourse.
2. that the photos you put on social media are not considered public domain due to the agreements you sign.
3. the offender can even be identified
4. our legal team could even be able to match that of a hyperscale multinational corp
5. this wouldn't create immense public backlash if not handled discreetly.
My understanding is that using the dmca takedown process doesn't involve needing to contact the scam guy. It is rather utilizing the process set up by the large social media platforms to let them know when someone posts copyrighted material, so that it can be removed. Therefore there is no need for recourse to whatever country the scammer might be in, as the platforms are located here.
A lot of photos are indeed public domain, because they are very old. And of course a lot of others are licenced under less restrictive frameworks like Creative Commons, but for any artistic work in this country, again, where these platforms are located, Copyright is in effect from the instant the work is created, and continues until or unless it is assigned elsewhere. Just using myself as an example, no one else would ever be in any position to claim that any photo I took was somehow in the public domain.
I think that the process is utilized every single day without backlash. The examples I know about are I think mostly with You Tube. Someone posts a recording from a concert or something on You Tube, the musician sends You Tube the notice, and You Tube removes it. I've read about that in the past, but I know that every large Social Platform utilizes a similar system.
Ultimately, it is something that impacts what I do here on Emeth. The images I use on these posts are either:
-Images that I own
-Images that are so old as to be in the Public Domain (First published prior to 1928)
-Images that are posted under various Creative Commons licenses and are therefore legal to use, provided that I include a link to the specific license.
-Images that I properly and legally license from a company called Unsplash
-Drawings that I create using a tool provided by Substack
I've done that from the start here, because I've known that if a notice was sent to Substack from a creator that I was using their intellectual property (images), Substack would be required to remove my posts. Therefore the only images used on this site are images I have a legal right to use, and importantly, that I can prove I have a legal right to use. I think that is a responsibility of anyone who publishes.
Yes then perhaps a collaboration with grand lodges to protect identities would be effective.
I would imagine the grand lodges should start by copyrighting their own logos and officer images.