The internet is abuzz with news of Bonky's latest David Farrant fan site. Seen here, it's got all the usual hilarious Farrant-is-the-embodiment-of-evil stuff, but with a twist: it briefly featured a fleeting glimpse (posted by accident and quickly removed?) of a photo depicting a clay bust of the Bonky One himself. Rumour is that Bonky Church members are required to worship this sculpted likeness or be penalized with chores, such as cleaning out the loo!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Arminius Gone Wild
The internet is abuzz with news of Bonky's latest David Farrant fan site. Seen here, it's got all the usual hilarious Farrant-is-the-embodiment-of-evil stuff, but with a twist: it briefly featured a fleeting glimpse (posted by accident and quickly removed?) of a photo depicting a clay bust of the Bonky One himself. Rumour is that Bonky Church members are required to worship this sculpted likeness or be penalized with chores, such as cleaning out the loo!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
I'M A 'BONKY STAR'!
Well, as I'm the star of Bonky's new Blog (NOT 'Ariminous's for they are one and the same!)I'd be honoured to make the first comment here!..
You know, its almost an honour to have so much space dedicated to myself and other people who may have written about me (Pop star best selling French author, Jean-Paul Bourre for one example).
Its obvious this 'Bonky person' is obsessd with myself but with nobody left to help him or feed him 'yourshire puddings' (made fresh North of Wram in West Yorkshire) there is virtually nobody left to help him!
Poor old codger! But he's still trying to make some name for himself - even if he's got to use my name to do it!
Maybe he'll genuinely get recognition some day. But the only limits this has gone to so far, is of him being a complete and utter nutcase!
David Farrant
I very much like the bronze of M'lord Bishop Manchester. The definition in those sideburns is just gorgeous.
Matt
Yes, its funny Matt. But you know, the truly amazing thing is (well not really!, now Anonymous posters have been disabled, what has happened to people like "Ariminous" or "Demomologist" who were desperately claiming they were not really Bonky??
If that's really true, then why have these people not re-registered to post their independent views on their own computers? If these alleged people really exist, they would do so, surely?
But if they don't exist, of course, the whole thing makes sense, doesn't it!?
Ban Bonky and you also serve to silence the 'extensions' he has invented abput himself.
Little wonder he has created yet another new Blog. He was 'sused' here so he had no choice to leave with all his invented aliases!
Poor decuded old chap. But I feel more srry fot the people he was trying to dupe with all his nonsense.
There were not many - only one or two.
Still, won't go on. Am having Yorkshire Pudding being cooked for me for lunch, and I can hear it sizzling in the oven! So, before I get dragged away . . . !
David
Barbara just reminded me of another on my Blog, Cat.
"Mystery Magazine". I think she's right. The 'Bonky One' was banned from that as well!
David Farrant
His site has grown up virtually over night. Where does he get all those photos? Glad he is putting in some work to create "feud related satire". I can't do it all!
"Where does he get all those photos? Glad he is putting in some work to create "feud related satire". I can't do it all!"
The answer to that is very simple, Cat . . . The photographs are mostly all my copyright so he 'got' them of me - albeit illegally.
Let me explain:
In 2006 I copied a CD full of my personal photographs which I gave to my (then) secretary for agreed distribution. Nobody else had access to these photographs except herself.
In May of that year I was forced to terminate our relationship over another matter which resulted in her re-contacting Bonky and giving him confidential information about the Society and its members; these copyright pictures were among this 'information'. She acted illegally obviously by sending these, just as Bonky has now acted illegally: not only by using them, but by 'doctoring' them for his Blog/s.
That's the simple truth. Exceot perhaps to add that these are the actions of two people purporting to be practising Christians. They have obviously over-looked the words of the Founder of that Faith . . . "Thou shalt not steal" and . . . "Thou shalt not bear false witness".
Not that such Commandments would affect them when the pair have become embroiled in a world of personal spite.
Sad really when you think about it!
David Farrant
- "what has happened to people like "Ariminous" or "Demomologist" who were desperately claiming they were not really Bonky??"
He/they are probably assuming any comments they submit will be "moderated" into the rubbish bin. Not so. Only the one (or many) posting as 'anonymous' is auto-banned.
A majority of those in the poll voted that David and Bonky be allowed to interact on this blog. I would let him, Armi or Demo post here. But I reserve the right to edit out stuff targeting people other than David or Bonky. I might do that until I tire of it, or someone goes "mental" again.
is that stuff on armenius's site the work of a christian bishop someone behaving like a naughty schoolboy having a dickipoggy fit , or a cold blooded and very vindictive person venting his rage by making fun of disabled people?that is despicable, may as well poke fun at the blind, the small, the wheelchair bound etc
barbara
Or, indeed, someone mentally ill whom the less kind among us might refer to vindictively as "bonkers" or "bonky" ... ?
Farrant bleats on about copyright when, in fact, the copyright of the images in question are not his at all. I very much suspect the ones he is referring to are the copyright of his ex-partner who gave me her permission apart from one which showed them in an embrace which has now been removed.
Copyright infringement is not an area Farrant should be entering with all the picture theft he is guilty of down the years. Just take a look at the front cover of his recently released autobiography rehash of past scribblings from his self-published stable. Who does he imagine owns the copyright to that black and white picture depicting Farrant half in shadow? It is not the most intelligent act to put a stolen image on the front cover of a book but, of course, this is not the first time he has done this.
So, please, no more complaining about copyright infringement from Farrant.
Arminius,
On a completely different subject, regarding the meeting invitation that the bishop extended to David, or any meeting between them, hypothetical or otherwise, what do you imagine might be the "objectives" of such a meeting? Or would it be completely open ended? I'm asking you to speculate based on your rather 'extensive knowledge' of the bishop. Would he attempt to "exorcise" David? Would he propose a peace treaty? Would he issue an ultimatum? Would they wistfully thumb through an old photo album together? Let's hear your thoughts on this.
My own understanding is that the invitation was extended at the start of the new millennium but, since my knowledge of what the Bishop has in mind is nowhere near as extensive as you think, I would not like to conjecture the objective. If it were me I would not waste my time.
The best person to ask is the Bishop who only says the following on his blog when the matter was recently raised by someone else:
"I extended an open invitation earlier this century. Obstacles were put in the way then just as they are being created now. If anyone is serious about wanting to meet me face to face they would do so and not endlessly prevaricate. I fear the object of the exercise is being circumlocuted, subverted and derailed by pedantry."
FOR "ARIMINOUS"
I'll come back to Cat's query about the meeting after this. I will also deal with the latest 'bonky claim' about copyright claims.
But first, "Ariminous" a question for you:
Bonky recently posted on his new 'Blog' a photograph lifted from my own Blog which shoed 4 people in the grounds of Borley Rectory last August.
Now, you were not there "Ariminous" neither was your 'elusive doppelganger'Sean.
This picture without any prior permission being sought. As well as this it remains my copyright.
Could you perhaps explain to us all how this equates with your allegations of stolen copyright.
No prevarication please. I just want your explanation on this photograph at present - I'll deal with the other ones you mention later. But for a start; this one.
Well, everyone is waiting, "Ariminous"!
David Farrant
This picture was found on the internet when a google image search was done, but what I am not clear about is whether a request is being made for it to be removed.
The front cover of the recently self-published "David Farrant: In The Shadow Of The Highgate Vampire" displays a black and white photograph of the face of Farrant in half shadow from 1973.
No prevarication please. I just want an explanation of how Farrant has the right to infringe the copyright of this photograph?
FOR 'ARIMINOUS'
While we are still waiting for the question in my last post, about how one of my exclusive photographs of Borly Rectory from last August appeared on Bonky's new Blog, Perhaps you would also care to explain this previous comment of yours?
You stated:
" I very much suspect the ones he is referring to are the copyright of his ex-partner who gave me her permission apart from one which showed them in an embrace which has now been removed"
Catherine did not have the Borley pictures so she is not responsible for that, but she had many other photographs of mine that I entrusted her with (on a CD) in 2005/6. Many of these photographs (including one's of French 'rock' author, Jean-Paul Bourre)also appeared on this new Blog and were given to you by Catherine with my prior permission being sought. Catherine would have needed this before she could have legally released my copyright pictures.
But the key line here 'Ariminous' is when you state . . . "who gave me her permission".
How do you equate this with previous statements you have frequently made that Catherine has never been in contact with 'Bonky' - except once a couple of years ago to 'apologise for he behaviour'? And that that was the sole purpose of her contact?
You are now admitting,however, that Catherine 'gave you permission' to use these photographs.
This, of course, merely confirms what I have been saying all along i.e that Catherine has been in contact with 'Bonky' all along, and is STILL in regular contact with him.
By this statement of yours, 'Ariminous' you have poved yourself to be a liar. But more than that, you have proved Catherine to be one as well!
Most unchristian if you ask me!!
David Farrant
I persevered to the end, but only just, finding it most arduous to trawl through the previous rant.
The Hunchback's ex-partner contacted me when she saw the pictures on my blog. In a private message she granted me permission for their use apart the one showing the Hunchback and her locked in some kind of weird embrace alongside the Hag, the Meddler and the Beast. She confirmed in the same private message via Facebook that the other pictures were her own copyright and not the Hunchback's. I do not include the Borley image which I already knew not to be hers. Once again I must enquire as to whether a request is being made to have this particular image removed?
The Satanist (described as such by the Hunchback in his own pamphlet Beyond the Highgate Vampire) Jean-Paul Bourre does not appear on the blog in question. The images I have of him with the Hunchback were found in a google search and were not provided by his ex-partner.
SAYS BONKY . . .
"Once again I must enquire as to whether a request is being made to have this particular image removed?"
IF the photo of Borley found its way onto Google, that does not give you any excuse to steal the copyright, "Ariminous" in lieu of askng permission.
That is tantamount to saying, that you could go into a public Library, steal a book, have it reprinted, and then claim the authorship as your own.
Grow up "Ariminous" for God's sake!
The picyures of French author Jean-Paul Bourre were not on the Internet, but they were on the CD I entrusted to the Yorkshire Dumpling. As indeed, was the photograph of Robin Hood's Grave which you also stole without permission.
But its a start, I suppose. You have finally admitted that the Yorkshire Dumpling (or 'Pudding' - amounts to the same thing really!) has been in contact with you.
Now why would she suddenly do that? That amounts to an admission on her part, surely, that she has been following your malicious Blogs.
(Well I knew for a fact she was anyway).
You really are digging yourself in
'deeper and deeper', "Ariminous"!
David Farrant
Farrant asks why his ex-partner was in contact with me. I thought I had already answered this by saying she wanted a particular image removed. She also consented to certain other images being used which she insists are her copyright. I am aware of Farrant's duplicity in most matters and am therefore less likely to take his word on this or anything else.
The Borley picture is academic as it has since been replaced with one of Farrant and one of his dupes being arrested at Monken Hadley churchyard around midnight on Hallowe'en 1972.
I know nothing of what Farrant claims about a disc. The images of Bourre were found on the internet and there is an end to it. Bourre is not present on the blog in question, so quite why this particular bleat is still being heard is really beyond me.
Farrant avoids all mention and indeed discussion of the front cover of his recently self-published "David Farrant: In The Shadow Of The Highgate Vampire" where a black and white close-up of Farrant's face in half shadow is displayed. That photograph is not his copyright and he has reproduced it without the consent of the lawful copyright holder. He has therefore published it illegally.
FOOT IN IT AGAIN!
I have never known a character who tells as many lies as you "Ariminous".
You now state:
"Farrant asks why his ex-partner was in contact with me. I thought I had already answered this by saying she wanted a particular image removed. She also consented to certain other images being used which she insists are her copyright."
Good, lets stay with this as you have 'put your foot in it' again, "Ariminous"..
Anyone reading the above is entitled to ask how you got hold of Catherine's photogrphs to publish when these were NOT on the Internet. She must have given you these beforehand, or you wouldn't have been able to publish them. Well?
That she contacted you the last time, I do not doubt. All I want to know is how you came into posession of Catherin's private copyright photographs taken with her own camers (the one of me sitting in Highgate Woods for example) if she had not given these to you beforehand?
It is that simple. A straight answer please - for a change.
David Farrant
PS You had already published the images when Catherine saw them. Indeed, that's how she knew about them in the first and contacted you to have one of them removed.
Explain please.
Farrant is yet to grasp the way a discussion works. It is two way, meaning you cannot demand answers of one party while ignoring what is being asked by that party.
Anyone reading what I have previously stated is entitled to ask how Farrant reproduced someone else's copyrighted photograph on the front cover of his autobiography without their consent?
It is that simple. A straight answer please - for a change.
CAUGHT - WELL AND TRULY!
"Farrant is yet to grasp the way a discussion works. It is two way, meaning you cannot demand answers of one party while ignoring what is being asked by that party."
In other words - which everybody will note - you are unable to answer my question about Catherine giving you her photographs because you know that its true!
I am not obliged to answer anything about my book cover to you Ariminous, other than that I obviously had the copyright to that picture (which is made up of two images actually, one from the early 1970's and one from last year) or I would not have used it.
YOU are the one now making an allegation about that image, '"Ariminous", so it is yourslf who must prove such an allegation - I am under no obligation to prove anything. I have the copyright to that picture.
There, now you have your answer - end of story!
But to keep you happy, I would invite you here to identify the person you now say owns the copyright. Well?
If that person really DID own the copyright, he would then have no trouble in coming forward to verify this.
Well? "Ariminous"? Ball is now in your court. Who is the person?
In the meantime, while you're 'stalling' on that, perhaps you could answer my question about Catherine's copyright pictures and how you were able to publish these if she hadn't given them to you beforehand. Well?
David Farrant
Farrant used a stolen image for the front cover of his self-published autobiography. He knows who the lawful copyright holder is because it is obviously the photographer who took the picture and sold one reproduction right to a magazine who pusblished it. So it would not be very difficult to prove a case against Farrant's theft. I am not the photographer. I recognised the image used by Farrant for his autobiography and commented.
As Farrant is responding by saying that he is "not obliged to answer anything" about this stolen image, I shall return the compliment by not discussing the images on my blog any further, even though I have satisfactorily dealt with where I came across the ones which seem to interest him.
"As Farrant is responding by saying that he is "not obliged to answer anything" about this stolen image, I shall return the compliment by not discussing the images on my blog any further,"
What you really mean "Ariminous" is that you CAN'T discuss Catherine's photographs you published on your Blog 'any further, as you are well aware (as is Catherine) that Catherine gave you these photographs prior to their publication.
Which of course proves what I have been saying all along i.e. that Catherine has been in close contact with yourself for some time.
I have already answered your allegation about the cover of my book.
I am not going to keep repeating it. You mare a contary allegation which you can't back up. If you could, you would have named the photographer.
Case closed!
David Farrant.
Farrant's ex-partner has not been in "close contact" with me.
I have explained already, and more than once, how I came upon the images in question.
Farrant knows full well that the image on the front cover of his autobiography is not his copyright and that the lawful owner of that image has not given consent for its use. Nor would he. Therefore the reproduction of the image is in breach of copyright law.
"I have explained already, and more than once, how I came upon the images in question"
You most certainly have NOT explained, "Ariminous" - indeed, we are all still waiting.
I am talking about Catherine's own personal photographs (the one of myself sitting in Highgate Woods for example) none of which were up on the Internet.
So how could you have got them? unless she sent them to you?
That's what I was asking. And that's what you're still unable to answer.
David Farrant
I must enquire exactly who is "we"?
Is that a royal "we" or is Farrant speaking on behalf of others?
If the latter. who exactly are these others Farrant represents?
"So how could you have got them? unless she sent them to you?
That's what I was asking. And that's what you're still unable to answer"
You are still trying to avoid my simple question by attempting to dirvert it by asking you some 'nebulous we' are.
I asked you quite simply "Ariminous" how you posted Catherine's personal photographs (which were NOT on the Internet) had she not previously sent these to you?
THAT was my question and, as I pointed out, you are obviously unable to answer.
Which is good in a way, because you, yourself, are showing people your devious 'diversion tactics'.
Well? Are you going to answer the question?
David Farrant
I have given my answer. Farrant does not want to accept it. This is his problem, not mine.
All Farrant needs to do is get someone to ask his ex-partner whether she provided me with any material. There must be someone? Carol is in touch with his ex-partner, I believe, and Farrant is in touch with Carol by private email. She is in receipt of his obsequious, grovelling messages which are in stark contrast to what he publishes on this blog about her. But that is his devious and deceitful method of trying to insinuate himself into someone else's confidence. However, it hasn't worked.
So Farrant could get her to ask his ex-partner if he isn't man enough to do it himself.
NOT MAN ENOUGH?
"So Farrant could get her to ask his ex-partner if he isn't man enough to do it himself".
I have no wish to talk to Catherine, "Ariminous" as you have apparently been doing.
Neither do I wish to involve a 3rd party who, as far as I am aware, knows next to nothing about the person concerned.
But you have really given yourself away again with the words 'not man enough'.
Exactly! YOU are not 'man enough' to answer. I am sure everyone has noted this!
David Farrant
" Carol is in touch with his ex-partner, I believe, and Farrant is in touch with Carol by private email. " Armenius.
Carol and Catherine--blimey, --we may be in for some even stranger versions of events from the highly creative talents of those two bonkyfan ladeees.Dearie me.
barbara
Knows nothing about the person concerned? They were Facebook friends until recently when both deleted their accounts due to Farrant's cronies taking too close an interest in their activities. Neither understandably want anything to do with Farrant or anyone remotely associated with him.
As I have no reason to communicate with his ex-partner there is nothing I can add to my earlier response to Farrant's false allegations.
Farrant has never been man enough to do anything without involving third parties to do his dirty work.
"Knows nothing about the person concerned? They were Facebook friends until recently when both deleted their accounts due to Farrant's cronies taking too close an interest in their activities. Neither understandably want anything to do with Farrant or anyone remotely associated with him"
How on earth would I know if Carol was/is? friends with the Dumpling on Facebook? - that's if its even true!
That's really none of my business.
What I asked YOU "Ariminous" IS my business. I asked how YOU had had posted up private copyright pictures of Catherine's showing myself (which had not been on the Internet) on your Blog if Catherine had not given you these beforehand?
That's what I was asking, and everybody here will see you're 'not man enough' to give me a straight answer.
David Farrant
Both Facebook accounts were open to scrutiny. They did not conceal themselves as Farrant does from one day to the next on Facebook.
The straight answer I have already given is that Farrant's ex-partner did not provide me with the images in question. If contacted, she will confirm this herself.
What I want to know is what right does Farrant have to use a stolen image of himself from 1972/3 on the front cover of his autobiography?
Would he care to identify who took the photograph of him and then explain how he is not violating copyright law?
EVIDENCE PLEASE
"Would he care to identify who took the photograph of him and then explain how he is not violating copyright law?"
I have already answered this accusation, "Ariminous" by telling you I have not 'violated anybody's copyright' i.e. the photograph (rather photographs as there were tow seperate images 'fused' into one)was used with permission.
YOU are the one now making an allegation of 'copyright theft', so it is up to yourself to substantiate your allegation as you were the one that made it.
Your accusations are all 'back to front' "Ariminous". Using your warped logic, it would be tantamount to accusing somebody of, say, murder, then saying that they were guilty unless they could prove they didn't do it.
The law, of course, does not work like that in any civalised country.
In this case, you have offerred an unsubstantiated allegation agaist myself concerning my book cover. Well, lets see your evidence (from 39 years ago let us remember)to back up this current allegation
"Ariminous".
David Farrant
It is now claimed that the infringed photograph on the front cover of a self-published autobiography is in fact being "used with permission."
Whose permission?
What is the name of the photographer and lawful copyright holder of that black and white picture?
If Farrant has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong he would have no reason to conceal the identity of the person who gave him permission to use this image on the cover of his publication.
SPEAK NOW - OR FOREVER HOLD THY PEACE
You say "Ariminous" . . .
"If Farrant has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong he would have no reason to conceal the identity of the person who gave him permission to use this image on the cover of his publication"
Have you gone completely mad, "Ariminous"?!
I have answered this at least two times. I have stated that the front cover picture on my book "David Farrant - In Search of the Highgate Vampire" is my copyright and was used with all necessary permission (which applies to all the other photographs in that book).
YOU "Ariminous" are the only person who seems to be disputing my answer.
Well, the first thing I would say to you is, what business is it of yours? You know nothing about the book's production, much less those people involved in it.
YOU are the one (and the only one) making the counter-claim about 'copyright'.
So, let me ask you again, just how can this possible concern yurself?
Secondly, I have answerewd your repetitios question at least twice now.
If you dispute my answer, it is really up to you to produce evidence that can support your wild claim.
You have not done so. So I invite you to do this here . . . and now!
Failure to do so, will only prove you are making yet another false claim, "Ariminous".
So name the person you say really holds the copyright?
Don't try and 'wriggle out of this' by saying you are being asked to name real names. You can put initials only - that will do.
So can we see your 'evidence' please, "Ariminous"?
If you 'can't speak now' (as they say in the churches), then 'forever hold thy peace'!
But please DO produce your 'evidence' - everyone is waiting!
David Farrant.
What business is it of mine?
I know, as does the person in the picture, the name of the lawful copyright holder and photographer who took the photograph of Farrant.
I also happen to know that consent has not been given for use of that image which use by Farrant is in breach of copyright law.
The picture first appeared in a magazine where the photographer and copyright holder granted one black and white reproduction right to the editor of the publication. That was way back in the 1970s.
It is clear that Farrant is unwilling to identify the photographer who took the photograph of him. This in itself is an indication of guilt.
A LOT TO LEARN
As I said, "Ariminous" the picture was made up of two images 'fused together, so its really two seperate images, not one.
Lets remember, it is YOU who is making this allegation 'Ariminous, there the onus of proof must lie with yourself: not some nebulous unnamed person. Aside from which it is really none of your business, is it?
Quite apart from this, if the picture of this unamed person appeared in a magazine as you now claim, it is therefore a public domain photograph and no one person can claim copyright to photographs in magazines or nespapers in the public domain which have been lodged with the British Library.
Afraid there's a lot you have to learn about copyright law, "Ariminous"!
David Farrant
All Farrant has to do is just name the person who took the photograph of him in the early 1970s which he is now using on the front cover of his self-published autobiography.
What is the big secret?
Why can't he do that simple thing?
Surely he knows who it was who pointed the camera at him and took the picture?
Why can't Farrant name him without all this prevarication and stalling?
NO - WHY CAN'T YOU?!
"Why can't Farrant name him without all this prevarication and stalling?"
I don't have to name anybody, "Ariminous" - especially from 39 years ago. I really don't know which picture you are referring to - let alone who took it.
Virtually 100's of photographs were taken of myself in the 1970's, so I couldn't answer truthfully even if I wanted to.
But the truth is, I don't even have to.
YOU are the one making the allegation, "Ariminous", so the onus is on yourself to back up your own allegations - if indeed you can. Which is probably why you have not done so!
Any 'prevarication' has been on your part, "Ariminous", so 'be a man' for a change and tell us all here exactly what it is you are talking about.
David Farrant
Is Farrant really expecting readers of this blog to believe that he doesn't know what picture I am referring to?
Just for him I shall clarify which one:
THE BLACK AND WHITE IMAGE ON THE FRONT COVER OF HIS RECENTLY SELF-PUBLISHED AUTOBIOGRAPHY WHICH SHOWS HIS FACE IN HALF SHADOW FROM THE EARLY 1970s.
Farrant says he doesn't have to name the photographer.
Well, of course, he doesn't have to.
Equally, he doesn't have to post abuse and lies about the Bishop every day of his life as he has been doing for the last goodness knows how many years!
He nevertheless chooses to defame the Bishop in an infantile manner almost every time he posts anything.
I am choosing to ask Farrant to name the photographer of the image on his front cover.
Farrant doesn't want conversation, debate or discussion.
He just wants a platform to post juvenile abuse about people he has taken a dislike to for whatever reason, principal among them the Bishop.
"Farrant says he doesn't have to name the photographer.
Well, of course, he doesn't have to"
Quite. But as YOU are the one making the allegation, you really ARE obliged to name your 'mysterious photographer' to substantiate what you say relating to 39 years ago.
If you won't - or perhaps more accurately 'can't'- then I can only quote to you that old saying . . . "Either put up, or shut up"!
Make one of those two choices please "Ariminous". Bacause at the moment your'e just starting to sound like a parrot with the hiccups!
David Farrant
Ironically, it is Farrant who carried the nickname "Birdman" in the late 1960s as he pub crawled with a parrot stuck on his shoulder. Some people in Highgate Village still refer to him as "The Birdman" - though I'm confident "The Hunchback" will quickly replace that well-worn tag even in that quarter.
Farrant's inability to answer a straightforward question is truly astounding. He will do absolutely anything to avoid saying the truth.
I asked the question. Farrant turned it around and put the question back to me. This is how he operates. Nice try, but no bird seed.
The very fact Farrant avoids giving the answer renders him suspect as to who owns the copyright of the image he used to sell his autobiography.
Would Farrant please now identify the photographer of the picture of him that appears on the front cover of his recent publication?
"Would Farrant please now identify the photographer of the picture of him that appears on the front cover of his recent publication?"
But it is yourself who keeps referring to this nebulous photographer, "Ariminous", not myself.
I have already given you my answer that that picture is my copyright and used with all elevant permission. Question answered.
It is YOUSELF who is now trying to 'reverse it'!
You have made an allegation contary to my answer. So it therefore remains for yourself to back this up. Simple as that!
You won't, of course, because you can't do so!
David Farrant
How can the person who held the camera and operated it be a "nebulous photographer"?
How is the picture Farrant's copyright when Farrant himself is the subject?
The same picture was published in a magazine. The lawful copyright holder released a reproduction right for that to happen. Yet Farrant appears to know absolutely nothing about it. If he was the copyright owner he would not only know about it, but would have been reimbursed and have contractual evidence of the image's ownership.
Farrant claims that if something appears in publications "which have been lodged with the British Library" it is in "the public domain" and "no one person can own it." He obviously has an awful lot to learn about copyright law.
Farrant won't identify the photographer because he used the image without consent and willfully infringed copyright law.
ITS THAT SIMPLE!
"Farrant won't identify the photographer because he used the image without consent and willfully infringed copyright law"
That is why I invited YOU to identify this photographer, Sean, so we can all see you back up your claim.
Its that simple!
David Farrant
Whoever I am, I cannot be the Bishop by Farrant's own reckoning. It is Farrant who declared Anonymous to be the Bishop and, as we all know, Anonymous has been banned.
Farrant should try answering a straightforward question with a straightforward answer just for once. It would make history, but he really should try it.
So here is the question, again, for Farrant:
What is the name of the photographer?
I guarantee he cannot answer it because he has never given a straightforward answer to anything.
As a user of Blogspot.com yourself, you should know that individual IP's cannot be tracked and "banned", Arminious. All anonymous comments can be disallowed and individual comments can be further rejected on a case-by-case basis. If Jesus Christ himself was posting anonymously, he'd have been effectively "banned". So I honestly don't see what you're gaining by this argument except to seem petty. You might as well start accusing Farrant of dying his hair again.
"So here is the question, again, for Farrant:
What is the name of the photographer?
I guarantee he cannot answer it because he has never given a straightforward answer to anything"
I really don't understand this "Ariminous" (I mean Sean, of course) becuse only a little while back you said that 'of course Farrant is under no obligation to answer this question'. (Check back on your own words).
So your answer again, "Ariminous" is that its none of your business!
However I am still inviting you here to complete your own allegatin and identify this person that YOU introduced here.
I am sure everyone is waiting for your answer, "Ariminous" now that I have given mine.
well, "Ariminous"??
David Farrant
It stands to reason that Farrant is under no obligation to answer anything on this blog because we are not in a court of law.
While not obliged to do so, why would Farrant refuse to answer the question if there is nothing to hide?
Who took the photograph of him which appears on the cover of his autobiography?
A simple enough question, I would have thought? Yet he absolutely refuses to answer it. Why?
MORE BONKY SILENCE
"Who took the photograph of him which appears on the cover of his autobiography?
A simple enough question, I would have thought? Yet he absolutely refuses to answer it. Why?"
I have already answered this several times, Sean, by telling you that I own the legal copyright to the cover of my book: indeedto all the twxt and pages contained therein.
You have made some obscure allegation which I quite franky just can't understand (like many of your other wild allegations about myself you past here.
You have been sked to clarify your own claim and so far you have been unable to do so.
So it is YOURSELF who is refusing to answer the question Sean, not me.
David Farrant
I know who took that photograph, possesses the negative film, and holds exclusive copyright and is the only lawful owner.
It is Seán Manchester.
"I know who took that photograph, possesses the negative film, and holds exclusive copyright and is the only lawful owner.
It is Seán Manchester."
Now that is extremely interesting. "Demonologist" because how could you possibly know who took a photograph dating back 39 years ago?! And not only being able to recognise the photograph, but indentify all the other negatives on the film without seeing them?
This is really incredible "Demonologist", as how could you possibly know this.
Please don't say you were told this by 'bonky', because he never reads anything here, remember? so 'he' couldn't have any knowledge about this dispute!
Well, "Demonologist'?? We are all waiting!
David Farrant
Incredible?
I don't think so.
I emailed a copy of the cover shown on your website to Seán Manchester and asked if he knew anything about who took the picture.
He replied that it was him and that he possesses the negative film. He also confirmed that he is the exclusive owner of the picture and that no consent has been given by him for its use.
Well,
this really is an incredible admission, "Demonologist" as you are now admitting that you 'contacted' yourself, to admit that Sean admits to photographing myself (David Farrant) before the date he claimed to have acually met myself (on March 13 1970)..
The mind truly boggles at this . . . unless, of course, David Farrant could be right in saying that he first met Bonky many months before this date.
You've 'put you foot in it' again Sean!
Never mind! You never seem to learn!
David Farrant
Farrant's deceits do not cloud the facts.
Seán Manchester met Farrant a couple of weeks before 13 March 1970.
The photograph stolen by Farrant was taken at least two years later.
Seán Manchester, as confirmed by him, is the legal copyright owner of the image on the cover of Farrant's self-published "autobiography."
If not Seán Manchester, who does Farrant say took the photograph of him which appears on the front cover?
I should point out a couple of things that have not yet been mentioned in respect of the infringed copyright image.
The photograph taken by Seán Manchester has been modified on the right-hand side with a superimposed half-face of Farrant taken by someone else at a later period.
Seán Manchester's photograph shows a close-up of Farrant's face in half shadow. The left "shadow" side of that picture remains intact, as it was in the original.
The lawful copyright owner also released one reproduction right of the original photograph to a magazine in the mid-1970s. The exclusive copyright remained with Seán Manchester. This is what occurs when a single reproduction right only is sold to an editor.
Farrant has used the original picture and has had someone modify one half of it slightly with a superimposed image. This does not alter the infringement offence under the UK's copyright law.
Post a Comment