Mark Zuckerberg's stalker has offered an apology. Not sure how much better it will make the CEO of Facebook and millionaire feel.
Mark Zuckerberg filed a restraining order against Pradeep Manukonda for stalking him at work and home. The stalker allegedly showed up at his home and claims he was seeking the advice of Facebook’s creator.
While details are scarce and understandably so, the restraining order was protective of Zuckerberg, his sister and his girlfriend.
CBS reports that Manukonda claims, "I'm a peaceful guy ... I'm sorry he thought I was trying to harm him," he added, "I understand he's a busy man... I'll respect his privacy."
In the same report, Manukonda claimed his issue that needed resolving with Zuckerberg’s help had nothing to do with computers. Reasonable and smart, the right decision was made to file an order of restraint against this man. Was this just a fan, looking for some publicity? He got his wish.
Mark Zuckerberg's stalker appears to be backing off by extending his apology. The question is for how long?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 50
This will likely not be Mark's last stalker, or restraining order.
By the way, from one member to another (and from a regular contributor to Flickr Creative Commons), you're not allowed to hotlink to Flickr photos for commercial use (display content on Flickr servers within your content on Gather) ...even if the photo/image is in the public domain or made available under a Creative Commons license. Also, your citation/attribution for the image is not in accordance with the requirements specified under the licensing for the image.
The code provided by Flickr is not associated with Creative Commons, and does not function as citation for most viewers of the image in your content. If you have any questions, please let me know.
a) I don't 'patrol'....at all. I run across content in the community as I peruse the site...just as you or anyone else does.
b) I share my advice with all members, irrespective of a person's position in the community. However, trained writers that have their content reviewed by trained editors/managers should be held to a higher standard.
c) Attribution, copyright, and 'fair use' is serious business (or should be) to all writers, as well as to the site where that content is published. Getting it 'right' should be a goal for everyone, and assistance in that effort should never be condemned. It's not personal, and my comment is only provided in an effort to help the writer in exercising their craft.
You're welcome.
This image is being used for editorial purposes and according to Fair Use Christine can use this photo unless contacted by the photo owner and asked to remove it.
Chuck,
If you review my initial comment above, you will see that I NEVER stated that the image could not be used. It CAN be used, even commercially.
However:
- Flickr does not allow for images to be HOSTED on their service that are used for a commercial purpose.
- The image can be used commercially under Creative Commons, but you must use the correct attribution in accordance with the license. The image above does NOT.
Therefore, my concerns are not addressed by your comment/information, as the USE of the image is not in dispute...only HOW the image is presented in the content.I hope that helps.
It may be helpful to know that Flickr and Creative Commons are two entirely separate entities. The requirements of one is not accommodated by the other. Therefore, the 'share this' code provided by Flickr does not meet the requirements of the license for Creative Commons.
Ric,
Evidently you did not read my initial comment. As a regular contributor to Creative Commons, I have a personal interest in ensuring that licensing is adhered to for myself, as well as other photographers and artists that join me in making our work available for your use. All we ask in return is that you provide attribution correctly.
Hopefully your fellow writers don't share in your evident apathy toward copyright law and intellectual property rights.
"Wow, that's really something! I've seen your work! I'm sorry, but it wasn't quite to my liking. ;) Nothing personal."
Renee,
My work under Creative Commons is never available within a site like Photobucket. Therefore, unless you know my company name, your statement could not possibly be true. However, I understand the spirit of your comment, and it is therefore clear whom is striving to "keep relations hostile and unfreindly" (direct quote).
I thought by saying "nothing personal" you would understand that by me not really enjoying your er... interesting(?) body of work, I wasn't at all trying to be "hostile or unfriendly." Perhaps we just have creative differences?
Spelling aside (I don't know how that happened), there is a significant difference between photography developed for release under Creative Commons, which is the focus of this discussion, and simple images used for Gather.
Despite your words, I think your true intent is abundantly clear...and it goes well beyond creative differences.
"It must be tiring to be so self-righteous."
Rude public comments like those, and then SWs wonder why the regular Gather members do not want to interact with you all.
Renee,
I have NO problem or issue discussing images I use or store for Gather. In fact, I would welcome a public discussion on the matter. Placing image storage in context would be beneficial, while referring to them out of context is certainly not.
Again however, this is not the focus of my comments above, or this discussion...and perhaps that is your intent.
If you would like to discuss MY use of images outside of Gather, please share your own post about it, or stop by mine...and bring Kat.
I also won’t drive any more traffic to your post so that you can further profit from this disagreement. It is clear that you are not willing to have an amicable relationship, which is a shame. Your intent, my friend, has been made quite clear.
Renee,
I am certainly willing to have an amicable relationship...and there is nothing in this thread that would suggest otherwise. I am trying to help a writer on Gather. Other writers appearing here, including you, chose to view that assistance in a different light. That is a reflection on you, not on me.
Didn't Photobucket actually remove multiple photos because you violated their TOS? You can question that but I've emails from actual humans on Photobucket about removing your defamatory photos... you know which ones, the same ones GATHER came down on you about... you know, the harassing ones. If you forget, I’ve got all the info that is only a few clicks via a mouse for anyone to find.
Seriously, you've become quite the joke to many and your whole blah blah blah about regulations is not only old but false, however, I’ll save those details for another day
Evalynn,
Please share! - Sadly, you are laboring under a misconception. Photobucket takes action based upon a rigid set of rules, which I agree with. These rules follow very specific actions when content is reported. Basically, they act first, and ask questions later...which is appropriate.
Images you are referring to were from the summer of 2009, and retained for purposes relating to Member Support issues involving the creator of those images.
As I have stated above, I have no issue or problem discussing ANY photo, image or content I use or have stored online.
The continual insults on this thread, and elsewhere, only serve to blacken the eye of the entire Skywriting program.
Leigh,
I would encourage you to address any negative comments of mine when you see them occur. I would be more than happy to explain and justify any comments I make in the community...both good and bad. Obviously this is not the venue to accomplish that.
1. a link between two files, as between a spreadsheet and a document, such that a change in one effects a change in the other. (Taken from dictionary.com.)
I find this thread interesting. "Defense" becomes important, not in that what was suggested was a reasonable concept (after all, as-is this picture can turn into a fat naked lady or the Great Wall of China at any given moment), but....but what? You're feeling put-upon because you didn't know? "Why's everybody always picking on me?" You demand private lessons to learn something you need to know in your profession and obviously those who should know, don't either? (And why do private, when it's obvious a large group didn't know either?)
This really came down to stopping you from the possibility of looking silly when you've long forgotten this story. It really came down to how another website (and most, if not all, websites) work. It came down to another website doing what is in their best interest, while letting you use their stuff for free. But, no, that's not enough for you?
Given - Kevin has a thing about integrity when it comes to Skyword. No doubt. Why? I don't know exactly why he does this, but it matters to 900,000 (last I heard) of us who use this site for purposes other than money. I've got nothing against Skyworders for using this site to make money either. It wasn't that big a deal - simply don't use that image like that. It didn't even come down to "don't use that image."
I can guess why you went on the offensive. (There was no defense.) It seems you have no problems guessing at why Kevin does his thing, but, so far, all you've done is guess - and poorly at that.
What's bothering me now, is how unprofessional several of you (and I think I have a good handle on who the Skyword people are and who aren't by this thread alone) have become.
Until now, I had no problems with Skyword. I thought it might be a good way to keep the social network aspect of Gather afloat. You Skyworders are supposed to be acting professionally and giving a good image for Gather News.
Really? How do you think this reflects on that image? The only thing this temper tantrum has done is make me wonder about this idea. Business has changed drastically since my working days. It used to be, it didn't matter what your emotions were - it was all about company image.
From what I see, the only one worrying about company image doesn't even work for the company. It certainly matters to more than you could guess.
Was it really that hard to simply download the image and then upload it again? "It must be tiring to be so self-righteous." Great company image portrayed!
If you're seeking to reach out to the community in any way, or at least have some sort of conversation, this thread has been counterproductive.
Kevin's comment started in a civil tone and Skywriters stooped to a lower level.
I do not defend name calling, insults, etc. from any member; unfortunately, some from both sides have engaged in this behavior. Let's stop making excuses for it.
The truth of the matter is that Gather/Skyword management failed to properly introduce the SW program to the community; that- combined with the nature of the content, was likely perceived as an intrusion by the community. It is not the fault of individual Skywriters that it happened this way; but knowing this, they shouldn't be as upset at the community as much as the management.
Possibly, or possibly just that he is a misguided soul.