Hmm, can't beleive you've got to remove the images Dann, that's bad news after all the work you guys put in, surely there must be something that can be worked out, especially as alot of them were available products, or old images etc, someone at Oakley must be able to get around it for you, maybe if you approach them explaining about the site and what it represents...

Do you think it was the Romeo II image that tipped the scales, and they just thought well, right that's it...

Is there anyone from Oakley registered on here in the US that can maybe say something about it, as you've mentioned speaking to someone from there before Dann about certain stuff, they're obviously watching the site.

Roger, what's your point of view on this matter, on a personal level, and as a representative of Oakley in the UK (only if you're authorised to give a view on Oakley's behalf, don't want you getting any greif at work)


Darren Taylor (rolyatnerrad - 11/24/2004 12:44:39 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I was dumb, she asked me to remove the Romeo II, which is understandable, but I was wondering when it would be okay to put it back on, since I have all the other images up. She then talked with the lawyer and got back to me saying that I had to remove everything. The images I've created are fine, as well as photos we take.

Funny how unknown e-retailer can put up those images, but we as avid promoters can't. I know they have every right, but I'm sure we're helping a lot more than hurting.

I've been very careful about my use of oakley images. My layout doesn't have a single icon or logo in it, and the images in the DB were for informational use only. The artwork was semi-sanctioned, insofar as I didn't get a 'No'. So I dunno, opinions?

Dann Thombs (Dann - 11/24/2004 1:25:20 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I think that the whole situation stinks. Oakley had a group of people contributing to this site out of pure love and appreciation for Oakley products. To call in the lawyers and have them tell you to remove all the reference images seems both extreme and mean spirited.

This reminds me of the time a few years back when the recording industry tried to prevent girl scouts from singing any of their songs on campouts because it infringed on copyright. They could hum the tunes, but they said that they couldn't sing the words... rediculous.

Actions such as this don't really surprise me anymore, but it's always sad to see.

keith okabe (LocoMoco - 11/24/2004 2:41:04 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

The Romeo 2 picture I can understand. All the other images, I do NOT understand.

This site exists for the appreciation of Oakley.

How can we appreciate what we cannot see?

Ed Chiu (eddyc - 11/24/2004 3:00:29 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, they said I could use the Romeo II images that I made, which doesn't make sense, because they were just Juliets, with a little shaved off. If I hack off the earstems on the other models, can I use those? I assume that means we can keep our signature model photoshops though.

But as Ed said, listing the different color combos doesn't help much without visuals. This is an archive for informational purposes, and usually that gives a bit of freedom.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 11/24/2004 3:06:15 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond that, this was the only site that I knew of that archived all the items that aren't even available or viewable on the Oakley.com website.

It's not like you were selling advertising or benefitting from this at all... it was a labor of love. If anything, this entire site was a FREE advertisement for Oakley and its products.

For them to do this is an insulting slap in the face.

Yeah - especially when you find out that people on this forum know more than some Oakley staffers.

E C (EastCoast - 11/24/2004 4:45:50 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(



:(

Darren Taylor (rolyatnerrad - 11/24/2004 3:20:29 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

This is ridiculous, if anything we are helping oakleys business by giving good reviews and incouraging other members to add to their collections.
Also Oakley dont list/photo all their old sunglasses, we did and now we cant, so how is anyone gonna see all the cool old designs and how the oakley brand has progressed through time.
oakley why have you done this to us?

Alexis Watkins (LEX7 - 11/24/2004 10:06:56 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

This is sad, and yes ridiculous. I cannot understand why Oakley has to get personal about removing images, I mean talking to lawyers? obviously is an example of the lengths they go to protect the brand. And yet we are their NO1 loyal supporters and customers! So unfair.

James Lenz (JL - 11/24/2004 6:43:44 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, it is pretty damn illogical for Oakley to do something like this. Like come on, its not like this site is making a profit from using the Oakley name. :(

Leo Wong (DarkGrieverX - 11/24/2004 7:32:14 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

EXACTLY!!!!!
oakley make alot of money out of us and this site fuels our addiction, so oakley should be thankful it exists, and should NOT be trying to ruin it.

Alexis Watkins (LEX7 - 11/25/2004 12:36:32 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

i come home from work to find out about this!? man... this is heavy sh*t, i really don't know what to say. a fan site that praises a brand or product has to go through legal issues with lawyers? this is a site with their most loyal customers and they feel the need to discourage their fans is utterly stupid. i find the whole situation ridiculous.
:-(
great way to celebrate a six month anniversary...

W.B. Ng (bong - 11/25/2004 12:52:33 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

It's a slap in the face. I think the pictures of current and old products should be available to view.

Very disappointing on Oakely's behalf. What do they care if a small internet community of Oakley fans posts pictures of their products??

LAME

Andrew Ford (ford - 11/25/2004 7:32:48 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I have been following this site since aug/sept and have only recently registered. I thought it was incredible that someone had gone to so much bother to do all this stuff and now oakley see fit to call out the dogs.

SUCKS

Dann, keep up the good work!!!

william brown (O.T.T. - 11/25/2004 3:22:39 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody have an email address we can forward our comments to?

Nate Hewett (Nate Dawg - 11/25/2004 9:05:47 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I would say leave it to Dann and the Mods to communicate with oakley. I can't see that it would help our cause if we flood them with emails. We know they're aware of the site and if they want to know what our feelings/opinions are I'm sure they'll check out the message board. Just my 2 cents...

adam moore (adamjmoore - 11/25/2004 5:13:24 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Let me know if there is anything i can do.

Factory Pilot (Monsterdog - 11/25/2004 10:26:21 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks FP, I'm going to call the woman today and see what's up. She contacted me again and hinted that maybe things could be worked out, but insisted that I call over the phone, so we'll see. Thanks for all thew support everyone. Just remember to not loose faith in Oakley as a company, as this issue probably never even reached them.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 11/26/2004 9:00:50 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

You should get her name or the name of someone at oakley so that we can all email him/her and let them know that we want this site running the way it was and that it's good free advertisement for them.

Phil H (njphil - 11/29/2004 8:37:35 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

i don't think a bucketload of e-mail from fanatics is going to help the matter...

John Heins (john - 11/29/2004 7:41:07 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'll handle it. She hasn't even responded to me lately anyway.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 11/29/2004 9:16:23 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------