Councilor Madore, Have You No Shame?

by lewwaters

Madore, GlarePolitics is said to be a blood sport. But even politics is regulated by laws and regulations concerning campaigning and, more importantly a little common sense is needed in how a candidate or elected official acts in public if they desire to hold or win office.

Clark County Councilor David Madore seems to believe such measures do not apply to him as he continues to dig himself deeper and deeper into a hole of irrelevancy while announcing his intent of running for reelection.

His latest escapade is mind-boggling in that he claims to be ferreting out corruption, but engages in a form of corruption against a private citizen himself.

This blog and even the Lazy C has covered the Great Bocce Ball Party recently hosted by editor Lou Brancaccio and even questioned by some on the left as to its appropriateness so soon after being awarded the contract from the county to be the newspaper of record and reap thousands of dollars.

As was said then, no laws were broken but it gave an appearance of rewarding the ones voting for the awarding of the contract.

It was pretty much put to rest over a week ago as we all returned to our everyday business. Everybody that is, except Madore and his band of minions proclaiming to “promote wise and ethical local government.”

In doing so, they lifted a photo of the Republicans in attendance that was taken by a private citizen also in attendance and captioned it, “Local Republicans who are in overt collusion with Clark County liberal establishment to reclaim power for the establishment. Photo taken at at the home of liberal Columbian editor Lou Brancaccio.”

No credit given to the person who they took the photo from nor was any permission sought to use it.

For his part, Councilor Madore, on his facebook “newspaper” also included the image within a post he claimed was presenting confirmation of favoritism in regards to the contract award. He also did not credit the photo’s owner nor seek permission.

Seeing her photo being misused, the owner politely asked last evening that Councilor Madore remove the photo from his page.

Now you would think a decent person proclaiming to be a “God-fearing Christian” would comply with such a polite request. It is the only decent thing to do.

But not David Madore. No, instead he argued about the photo’s importance to his cause while all but telling her he can do whatever he desires with other people’s property.

What happened to respect for private property? Hasn’t such respect been one of the foundations of conservatism?

How can he proclaim to be a “good steward” of the people’s business when he displays nothing but disrespect and contempt for the people by refusing to comply with a request to remove an image that infringes on someone’s copyright?

You can bet that if I were the campaign manager of any one of his opponents this election that this contempt he showed on his page for a private citizens intellectual property would be on a campaign flyer and sent to every single home within his district.

Councilor Madore, what in the hell is wrong with you? You cry about decency, but show none towards a female with a polite request of her property.

You cry about corruption in the county, but show corruption yourself by using someone’s material without their permission and then refuse to comply with a simple, polite request to remove it.

Two wrongs do not make a right is what my parents taught me and I’m sure yours did too.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, Councilor Madore.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Help keep this blog active with a voluntary contribution at the PayPal button at the top of the sidebar on the right. Thank you.

For more information, see Connecting Clark County

26 Comments to “Councilor Madore, Have You No Shame?”

  1. I can’t say that I agree with his method (i.e. appropriating another person’s property), but he is correct in that the government is rife with corruption and Columbian Editor Lou Brancaccio and Publisher Scott Campbell have put themselves right in the middle of it (Brancaccio for the bocce thing and Campbell for not firing him for it). I didn’t see the photo you referred to when I clicked the link, so maybe he removed it.

    Like

  2. It’s down in the middle of the post, Craig. Still there along with the exchanges of him arguing with her over it.

    Like

  3. “The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, USERS GRANT THE SOCIAL NETWORK “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, WORLDWIDE LICENSE TO USE ANY IP CONTENT THAT YOU POST on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).”

    Facebook adds, “[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”

    While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook’s privacy and applications settings. For instance, PHOTOS, VIDEOS AND STATUS UPDATES SET TO PUBLIC ARE FAIR GAME.” (emphasis added)

    http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp

    Like

  4. Whether facebook removes the image Madore refuses to is neither here nor there.

    Bank on this being a campaign issue showing Madore’s interests do not lie with citizens.

    As said, if I were a campaign manager you can bet this would be the subject of a mailer or flyer.

    Snopes is not exactly the most reliable source, I keep hearing from conservatives 😉

    Like

  5. (I’ve been involved with small- and self-publishers for the last 15+ years.) The actual owner of the photo should immediately submit it to the U.S. Copyright Office to register the copyright … and then should file suit against Madore for infringement of her copyright. (Copyright “belongs” to the picture-taker from the moment that the photo is taken, registration, however, allows “statutory damages” for infringement. Without registration infringement of a copyright can only obtain “actual damages” — which are generally very difficult to prove. Councilman Madore may be rather wealthy, but he would find that “statutory damages” in light of his egregious infringement of copyright can be quite substantial. It would certainly get his attention.

    I have generally been supportive of the “attitude” that Madore (with Mielke) brought to the County Commission, though some of his specific policies seemed to be a waste of time and taxpayer money for little point (e.g. the “in God we trust” sign in the meeting chamber). Madore, as many amateur politicians, often wastes his political capital and energy on pointless efforts.

    I will say that I visited a regional park this past weekend, and was pleased that I was not hit with a fee just to take a walk. Madore has achieved some good during his tenure, but it’s sad to see his lack of focus on the most important issues with distractions (and expenditure of political capital) on pointless exercises.

    The corruption of the local government and the bias of the local so-called newspaper is a constant annoyance (and expense to the taxpayers). However, the re-assignment of the “legal notices” to the Columbian may have violated state law, since it IS more expensive than the lower bid from the Reflector and the “excuses” for the contract award (to the Columbian) are apparently not among the factors that the state law allows to be considered in making the choice between competitive bids.

    Of course, in this day and age, the legal notice publication in a “newspaper of record” is a big waste of taxpayer money, since legal notices could easily be posted online and thereby be accessible to far more potential readers, and would be fully searchable using existing online tools. Suggestions to our state representatives ought to be made on this point.

    Like

  6. Kndalai –

    There’s a basic legal tenant that I’ve been told many times: “You cannot sign away your basic rights.” In this case, that photo belongs to an individual, making it their property. If this went before a judge, the original owner would win because no matter what you “agree” to, individuals don’t forfeit their rights.

    That excerpt you you posted states that FACEBOOK may use it. It doesn’t state FACEBOOK USERS can use it. It’s granting the entity known as Facebook to use the items mentioned. Last time I checked, David Madore is NOT “Facebook”.

    Lastly, Madore claims to be the Champion of the People, Defender of Citizen’s Rights. Apparently we’ve missed the caveat that states “when it’s convenient to me”.

    Kudos, Lou. Good piece.

    Like

  7. From Facebook’s policy page:

    “4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

    https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

    It’s not about FB removing an image. It’s commonplace to see content that’s posted on a FB page, reposted elsewhere. For example, C3G2 participants do this frequently with excerpts of threads from Madore’s FB page. It makes no difference if the content is the written word or photos.

    The whole point of participating in a social network is the sharing of information. While she may not like it now, when Dianna Kretzschmar posted that photo to her FB page, it became part of the public domain and she lost any claim of exclusivity.

    Like

  8. About Copyright

    In most countries, copyright is a legal right that protects original works of authorship (ex: books, music, art). Generally, copyright doesn’t protect facts and ideas, but it may protect the original words or images that express an idea.

    To learn more about the scope of copyright protection, visit the World Intellectual Property Organization’s website. For a list of country-specific copyright websites, please visit the WIPO’s directory.

    Learn more about copyright issues below.

    Reporting Copyright Infringements
    If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you may wish to fill out this form. You can also contact our designated agent. In that case, please be sure to include a complete copyright claim in your report. Keep in mind that you don’t need a Facebook account to submit a report.

    Before you report a claim of copyright infringement, you may want to send a message to the person who posted the content. You may be able to resolve the issue without contacting Facebook.

    https://www.facebook.com/help/249141925204375?ref=shareable&pnref=story

    Like

  9. Certainly, one cannot sell themselves into slavery. But ceding intellectual property rights to others can and does happen and is within the purview of the owner. No one is forced to join FB, and the FB position on community use of posted materials is clear. As mentioned above, it’s common place for others to repost FB threads. While hardly claiming to be knowledgeable about copyright or patent law, I really doubt that Ms. Kretzshmar has a case. Such a case would be sure to make big, big international news with international ramifications for social media.

    Like

  10. Bottom line, he was asked very politely by the owner to remove it and not use it such a manner and in effect, gave her the middle finger.

    Whether or not she has a case is up to attorney’s and the courts.

    But what it does to Madore’s effort to get reelected is enormous if his opponents use it.

    Like

  11. I believe the photographer has a copyright violation case against Clark County Info – – Or maybe it’s just plain theft. That group used the photo in their newsletter. And they placed it under their own copyright (see their web page). It is clearly just plain wrong to place a copyright on someone else’s work that you took without their permission. Madore’s secondary use of the photo taken from this site, is a further violation though, doubtless, he is involved in that site and so may have had their permission to use the photo.

    Like

  12. I won’t drag this out too far — so someone else can have the last word if they like.

    I’m failing to see the difference between this, or anything other content that’s posted on FB.

    FB makes use of the term “Public setting” suggesting that there are other settings which may have a different set of rules. I’d think that private messages fit in there for sure, maybe others. Since I, or anyone can view her FB page as it is now, she must be on a public setting. The phrase I’m reminded of is “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

    Considering the absolute trash that’s been heaped on Madore since the beginning, I don’t blame him for not acquiescing. Particularly when it involves posting a previously posted photo of public officials at Brancaccio’s private house function. In my opinion anyway.

    Like

  13. Regardless of what supposedly was heaped on Madore, he has a history of heaping plenty of trash himself, he was politely asked to remove the photo and instead of complying, argued and refuses to.

    This wasn’t something from the paper or another politician, but a private citizen that does not appreciate her private property being used in the manner it is being used.

    Do you feel Madore has the absolute right to just take whatever he desires from any citizen to suit his whims? Is he somehow now above all levels of decency and good manners we hold others to?

    Like

  14. The reality is that once posted on Facebook via public settings, copyright does not apply.

    “When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

    https://www.facebook.com/terms

    Like it or not, Madore has every right to use this picture per the terms of use. Thus, there is precisely ZERO legal claim to the contrary.

    The person originally posting the picture can complain to Facebook that it’s been used in a way she doesn’t happen to like, but she agreed to that when SHE posted it. FB is likely to ignore her were she to make such a request.

    Not liking Madore doesn’t change that. It doesn’t make it legal or illegal. And agree with Madore or not, he violated nothing by using it and his continued use of that picture is entirely up to him.

    “Shame” has no place in this issue. Nor does crediting the original poster.

    But in the end, this will NOT become a campaign issue because the LAST thing these RINOs want is to be portrayed the way this picture portrays them. They certainly don’t want to draw attention to this evidence of collusion with Lefty Lou out there with an election coming up… that’s why the original poster is so upset about it.

    Sorry.

    Like

  15. The reality is, he was politely asked to remove the photo, numerous times and not use it in the manner he and his cronies were using it.

    He continues to refuse.

    This is campaign gold to show he doesn’t give a damn about the citizens, only his narrow point of view.

    I’ve already posted a link to facebooks copyright notice. Posting to facebook does not mean you lose ownership of your images.

    Like

  16. About Intellectual Property

    Facebook is committed to helping people and organizations protect their intellectual property rights. The Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities does not allow posting content that violates someone else’s intellectual property rights, including copyright and trademark.

    Copyright
    Copyright is a legal right that seeks to protect original works of authorship (ex: books, music, film, art).

    Generally, copyright protects original expression such as words or images. (emphasis added) It does not protect facts and ideas, although it may protect the original words or images used to describe an idea. Copyright also doesn’t protect things like names, titles and slogans; however, another legal right called a trademark might protect those.

    Learn more about reporting copyright violations.

    https://www.facebook.com/help/399224883474207/

    Regardless of the above, being an elected official or even a wealthy business owner does not exempt Madore from expectations of common decency.

    Like

  17. This work is not copyrighted. Neither is it being used for profit, and even if it were copyrighted, would likely be covered under the Fair Use doctrine.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with decency. Instead, this has to do with common sense; specifically, if you don’t want someone to use a picture, don’t post it on Facebook.

    But when you do, as FB says in the terms SHE AGREED TO, “… you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

    Everyone, by definition, also includes Madore.

    Like

  18. Good luck with that come November

    If you will recall, that I Tinker ilk used this same argument with me over stealing and defacing my photo from the top of my blog.

    They lost!

    Like

  19. Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:

    the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

    Like

  20. Maybe Madore can quote that when addressing the inevitable flyer showing him refusing and essentially giving a citizen the finger over stealing her photo.

    Like

  21. Lew, is this a good time to point out that taking something from your blog is one thing, and using a picture from Facebook that the poster GAVE LEGAL PERMISSION TO USE is something else quite different?

    I pointed out by quoting the Facebook terms of usage that Madore has done nothing illegal vis this picture from Facebook.

    Taking a picture from your blog is something quite different.

    And, as I pointed out, they will do nothing about it because the subject matter of the picture does far more damage to the RINO cause than using the use of the picture in the first place.

    I get that you WANT it to damage him because of your feelings. For me, feelings have nothing to do with it.

    I deal in both the legal (There was nothing illegal here) and the political reality (The LAST thing the RINOs will want to do is make an issue of this picture because of what the picture represents) and I put feelings aside when I arrive at a conclusion.

    Your outrage is your business, no matter how misplaced it may be. But there is no way it can remotely be attempted to be used to damage him without it damaging everyone in the picture… since it shows what seems to be a rather unpleasant truth that has been long suspected and is now verified.

    And do you honestly believe that your situation with a picture is what cost those guys anything?

    Nevertheless, my concern is far more the contents of the picture in question than it’s source.

    Like

  22. I never said it cost anybody anything, just that they lost on using my photo and it was taken down.

    And you’re dead wrong on my wanting to hurt anybody. He’s doing that all on his own. I actually pity him for his continually digging himself into obscurity.

    And I reiterate, regardless of any legalities, his opponents will be fools not to use this in their campaigns.

    I am astonished none of you are advising him to knock this crap off and stop giving his detractors all of the ammunition against him they could ask for.

    As for the pictures content, that was well known without the photo being used and he looks really petty by refusing to take it down.

    But, he’s made his own bed and will be forced to lie in it.

    None of you will be able to say you weren’t warned.

    Like

  23. KJ, you may or may not be right about Madore’s legal “right to use the photo” (side question: are you a BAR certified attorney or like a legal aide or something? I ask because of your statement “I deal in both the legal……….”).
    Anyway, dealing with the issue at hand, when someone- and their husband- politely ask you to remove a photo from your FB page, you do it. Everyone knew about the Bocce party, and who attended. Even some people that thought it was inappropriate (including some of us “haters” at C2G2) shrugged their shoulders and moved on. There’s bigger fish to fry.
    What you, Berrigan, Madore and many others over at .info are failing to realize is you have a county council with 5 Republicans governing. There’s an opportunity here over the next few months for them to get all kinds of conservative agenda items passed. But no- instead you are too focused on minutiae, alienating everyone from the Independents all the way up to that really far right land you live in. When liberals like myself are rallying behind a group of Republicans, you have to know you’re doing it wrong. Agree?
    Madore won’t be re-elected, even Republicans see him as, if nothing else, a financial liability to the county coffers. Even if he does- what can he, and by extension you, get accomplished with 3-2 voting on everything.

    Sorry to hijack Lew- another great post by you!

    Like

  24. Mr. Hinton, I question your expertise as a political person. You think this posting of the picture will only cause harm to those in the picture. Baloney. Dianne K appears to be someone most people admire and she made an honest request to Mr. Madore to take down the picture. His ridiculous response to her harms him alone. He can make all sorts of goofy claims as to why it is better for him to keep the picture present on his FB page “exposing” some criminality in his mind. Go for it. Madore’s the one running for office again, he’ll pay a price for his nastiness. Lew’s giving good advise here, take it.

    Like

  25. Copyright law is very complex, and requires analysis of the multitude of published court opinions as well as the statutes themselves. From what I can tell, copyright law covers photographs and copyright is intended for the copyright owner to “control” the use of material covered under copyright. The copyright applies from the moment that “a work” is rendered into “fixed form” … and in the case of digital photographs, that would be the instant that the “shutter” (switch) is pressed to capture the image in question.

    Facebook may have it’s own “terms and conditions” that apply to users of the Facebook service. Indeed, they ask Facebook members to give Facebook the right to “use” words and images that copyright owners may place on a Facebook page. However, Facebook can not change the Copyright Law nor the multitude of controlling court decisions. So, any use objected to by the copyright holder that is OUTSIDE of Facebook may well open the matter as an infringement of the copyright. Potentially, the Facebook terms and conditions may give other Facebook users the “permission” to use and re-post words and images within their own Facebook pages — This does not mean that any copyrighted work (appearing on Facebook) is transferred “into the Public Domain” — THAT can only be done by the specific statement of the copyright holder.

    Registration of a copyright is not required. But registration of a copyright is required to enable an infringed party to receive the “statutory” damages allowable under Copyright Law. Failure to register a copyright does not make the copyright any less valid, but only limits an infringement to receive “actual damages.” Since the photo in question has a very limited market (perhaps a news outlet would want to use it), then the “actual damages” is likely to be quite limited.

    There are other “rights” that can be conflicted, as well. There are rights to privacy (usually quite limited for “public persons” which would include most politicians), but non-politicians that might appear in the photo may still retain such rights, opening user’s of the photo (including the copyright holder) to legal liability.

    The “fair use” rules are also highly complex, and are NOT spelled out in any statute. Fair use is determined through practices that have been adjudicated over the years. The most common “fair use” relates to “newsworthy” value, and that might apply here. It gets murky if/when the publisher using the copyrighted material is a non-commercial news source. Clearly, there are issues that might need to be litigated to fully determine if fair use is involved, or not. (Since my experience is with book publishing, the “newsworthy” issue was rarely involved.)

    The bottom line is that the copyright holder asked someone to not use their work. The moral thing to do would be to have honored that request. The legal validity of using the work is open to some question … but the RIGHT thing is not always clearly the legally required thing.

    Like

  26. Sometimes it’s an accumulation of little things that topples. This picture is one, Madore’s whining about where Boardtime meetings are held is another. Bigger things like his odd conspiracy theories re the Planning department combined with his untimely decision to redredge up the Benton hiring are also in the mix. K J Hinton, you may have blocked me from FB, but I, and others like me are still here, with long memories, and who vote.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: