Bill Quick is the brother in law who has been a frequent troll on this site. He even created a website named Steveshits and used that to claim my father plagiarized the pictures. That site, unlike TA, never allowed comments. STEVESHITS was put on the wevb twice, then was taken down.
Bill even once wrote of me “This toad should crawl back into his swamp and stop annoying the world with his misinformation and bigotry.”
Yesterday Bill sent me a comment about the graphic on the left. Bill is upset that the image might be mistaken as being one of the images my brother Hugh Schwartz has confiscated and is letting “rot” rather than allowing them to be made public.
Misinformation was not my intent when I chose this image. Actually, I do not know if it is in the collection my brother has confiscated since it is now three years since he took the images from secure storage at a secure safe deposit facility, The Fortress, in Boston. After that, the last I knew these precious and fragile materials were left sitting in an unlocked conference room at his lawyer, Day Pitney.
Hugh has refused to allow me to see them for that time and has not allowed Day Pitney to do an inventory. Nor has any log of access been kept, at least none Hugh will admit to. Now he will not even stipulate that these fragile materials still exist or that they even remain at Day Pitney.
Back to the image, Bill tells me that it was “probably made by Pvt. H. Miller. And it seems most unlikely that this photo presently is in the safe at DP.” Sadly, I have no way of knowing.
If Bill has seen the pictures and knows what is there and is not, perhaps he will leave a comment?
You are totally untrustworthy. Period. Exclamation point! Here’s still more proof:
1) Three of my comments which you posted although I asked you not to do so (comments 19, 21 and 24) are mislabeled as coming from Facebook, although they came to you via e-mail. Are you too intellectually lazy to correctly identify the source of incoming information?
2) You continue to publish my e-mail although I have asked you not to. I am asking you not to publish this either.
3) You refuse to answer my concern about your malicious and false claim against me. There is no documentation that I ever said your father plagiarized the pictures, simply because I never said that. Yet you continue to claim it to be a “verifiable fact” in your comment at http://handbill.us/?p=67276 “let me just refer you to three verifiable facts: 1. William Quick, presumably with your approval, has posted on his website and on FB the assertion that Dad plagiarized the pictures.” Come on, admit you screwed up, and delete that comment!
In regard to your references to comment numbers, these are different in different posts. If you want me to change the info to say you sent the comment by email, you need to tell me which post and which comment you refer to.
Here is a bit of a tutorial on Fair Use for Bill’s Perusal
What’s the fair use defense?
In the US, the fair use defense is a way to defend an allegation of copyright infringement. In essence it’s a way of saying “yes, I infringed, but I have an excuse.” The fair use defense rests on the theory that an individual should be excused due to public policy reasons such as the copying benefits society due to educational purposes or if the copying is considered commentary, criticism, news reporting or scholarly reports. If the copying is for commercial use (if an artist copies and sells the work), this fact often weighs against the finding of fair use.
Many artists use the fair use defense as a loophole to copy. This is not wise. Artistic uses are not explicitly protected by fair use. The fair use defense is complicated and difficult to prove.