Jersey Devil pictures

How does the second pic relate to the first sketch? Or is it possibly a fake?

*edit*
The copyright holder has requested we remove the photos from this post. What was posted here, along with some other neat photos, can be viewed here:
sargel18.iwarp.com...



[Edited on 17-11-2003 by Bob88]

I believe that most reports of the jersey devil has the defining characteristic of wings. I really have no idea where I'm going with this. Animorphism?

Looks like a perosn in the second photo.

I dont see it
looks like a guy in an overcoat to me ?

Mhmm, thats what i was thinking. Probably fake??

Originally posted by straterx
I dont see it
looks like a guy in an overcoat to me ?

Thats what I was thinking too.

-Dagger

Looks like a dude with a sheet over him,,,but I am from jersey,,it could be some old perv in a overcoat ready to flash his weenier!!!!

That second pic looks like a guy in a trench coat no more than that. Most stores of the JD have him with wings or at least demonic like.

One story I heard about the JD is this one.

These people where hiking int he Jeresy woods one winter day and came to a clearing. Perched on a stone was this winged beast ,it shouted at them in some unkown language and flew off.

why exactly would a sensible person think this picture was good evidence of anything? Blurry photos are not proof.

~I can't even make out those photos. They are pictures of ghosts for all I know. But yea, all I've heard is the jersey devil being of a strange mix of creatures. Like the sphinx of egypt.

Originally posted by JediMaster
That second pic looks like a guy in a trench coat no more than that. Most stores of the JD have him with wings or at least demonic like.

if you look close enough you'll see small bat like wings.

The pic is just too blurry and enlarged to make anything of it. It could be anything, there are no reference points or anything.

Since it appears to be an enlargement of something, can we get a look at the whole picture? Right now it's just a Rorschach test.

Hi,

My name is Sandra and Im sargel18's partner..

I am very happy that you all have expressed an interest in our research but I have a request .. Please REMOVE the above photo and replace it with a link to the site.. The above photo ( all photos from sargel18 site) is/are copyrighted material and can not be reproduced on any site ..so on, etc.. without his expressed permission.

Monk, dont take this the wrong way.. just trying to make sure we are all protected .

If you have any questions about the site,photos,etc feel free to contact me

Thans
Sandra

I didnt get it from there. I got it from the surfing the apocalypse magazine site.

posted on 16-11-2003 at 10:55 AM Post Number: 256002 quote
I didnt get it from there. I got it from the surfing the apocalypse magazine site.


Hey Monk,
The copyright warning is on that site also (It states that no picture can be copied without his permission) and you dont even have his copyright included in the photo..
Just do me the favor and remove it and just add the link..

Thanks,
Telequa

Hey Monk,

Just to make it easier on you. This is the direct link to the photo(s) on this topic and Sargel18's explaination of it.

So can you please remove the actual photo ..

sargel18.iwarp.com...

Thank you
Telequa

How is it a copyright violation when it's linked from another source? He didn't put it on the page it's on! Go after them. As for

you dont even have his copyright included in the photo

look. closely...there in the bottom left hand corner is the Copyright 1999 Sargel18......
____________________________________________
Please also consider the following.

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of �fair use.� Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered �fair,� such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between �fair use� and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: �quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author�s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.�

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of �fair use� would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered �fair� nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, June 1999

www.copyright.gov...

Must just be my eyes but I can't make jack-sh*t out in either of those two photos - they don't look anything like the sketch!?!

Hi,

I know about the fair use act and I have contacted our lawyer just to make sure about this.. I have been told that
this is not "fair use" and that the photo should be removed.
below is the legal notice of copyright and instructions for use from surfing the apocalypse's editor.

This is a very simple request. And Im not going to be childish about this. I enjoy this site but I also have to protect our rights.

Thank you
telequa

This interview was conducted by Theresa de Veto for Surfing The Apocalypse.

Copyright � 2000 Surfing The Apocalypse www.surfingtheapocalypse.com... All Rights Reserved. Photos used by permission and are Copyright �1997-2000 Sargel 18. Article and Photos May NOT be reprinted, reproduced or otherwise distributed without the written permission of copyright owners. Permission is granted to link to this page.

To request authorization for use of interview, contact Surfing The Apocalypse at: [email protected]. To request authorization for use of photos, contact: [email protected]

Now that youve made it perfectly clear where these photo's have come from by destroying a thread, I think we can all move on...