I sent them an e-mail last night threatening to contact INTERPOL if they didn’t remove my arms.  Now even the lists are removed?!  Call me paranoid, but I suspect that our arms are only temporarily removed.  They’ll likely keep our arms off for several weeks when the flame-mail have long since stopped.  Then they’ll re-post.  What are our options should our arms re-appear on their site?

Thank you, Loren, for alerting us to this site.  You did us—all of us—a HUGE service!  :D

Is there any way to determine if this was the only time that the AHS’s armorial had been pirated, or can it be done undetected, the Wayback Machine notwithstanding?

I wish there were a way of blocking this type of piracy without the use of a watermark.  I know that I enjoy looking at other heraldic sites and seeing arms in all their glory without having to "ignore" a watermark.  However, if this is the closest we can come to a "sure-fire fix," so be it.  I agree the watermark should say "American heraldry Society," not just "AHS."

I just received this lengthy response, which, when translated roughly, essentially states that the site was "only doing a service to the heraldic community at large." Of course, that doesn’t account for the implication that those of us with arms on the site approved their presence and paid the fees for same, so that others would be encouraged to do so.

Per his email, he is supposedly removing all "offending" arms, and I would recommend we continue to monitor the site. In the meantime, the College’s notice on our main page remains.

Estimado Sr. Wooten y demás asociados:

En contestación a su atento e-mail, me gustaría hacerle las siguientes consideraciones al respecto:

1º.-En primer lugar, decirle que no he cometido ningún acto de impropiación indebida de escudos ajenos a mi persona, ya que:

1.1.-En nigún momento he dicho o he explicitado que esos escudos los haya dibujado, descritos u organizados yo, me identifiquen o representen.

Siempre he citado las fuentes tanto del Registro al que pertenecen, como su propietario y dibujante de cada escudo.

1.2.-El Registro tiene como principal función el "derecho a la información", para evitar, precisamente, la duplicidad de armas y la apropiación indebida de las mismas.

1.3.-Nunca me he apropiado de ninguna de las armerías que aparecen en la página, ni las he usado como propias, logicamente a excepción de las mías.

1.4.-Al igual que sus asociados tienen derecho a que nadie les copie sus armas, también el resto de las personas tienen derecho a saber si sus asociados utilizan armas que ya existen o que cuentan con documento probatorio más antiguo distinto al suyo.

1.5.-Asimismo, decirle que me ampara la Legislación Mercantil española, en concreto, la LEY 22/1987 de 11 de noviembre de PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL (Boletín Oficial del Estado nº. 275, de 17 de noviembre), que en su artº

32 dice textualmente:

"Es lícita la inclusión en una obra propia de fragmentos de otras ajenas de naturaleza escrita, sonora, o audiovisual, así como la de obras aisladas de caracter plástico, fotográfico, figurativo o análogo, siempre que se trate de obras ya divulgadas y su inclusión se realice a título de cita o para su análisis, comentario o juicio crítico. Tal utilización sólo podrá realizarse con fines docentes o de investigación, en la medida justificada por el fin de esa incorporación e indicando la fuente y el nombre del autor de la obra utilizada.

Las recopilaciones periódicas efectuadas en forma de reseñas o revistas de prensa tendrán la consideración de citas".

Legislación que, en todo momento, se adecúa a la página y a sus fines, porque como hemos dejado claro anteriormente, en cada escudo aparecen sus

fuentes: registro en el que ha sido inscrito, titular del escudo y dibujante heráldico. Es decir, todos los datos referentes a los mismos.

Por otra parte, pienso que Vd. no ha entendido bien el significado y sentido de mi página. De todas formas, he procedido a eliminar de mi registro las armas de sus asociados tal y como ha sido su deseo, exceptuando aquellos que me han agradecido su inclusión en dicho Registro, así como los que me las han mandado personalmente para este fin.

El verdadero sentido de los Registros de Armas es que sean públicos, así en España tenemos el Registro de Don Vicente de Cadenas, del Marqués de la Floresta o el de Ciadoncha, cuyo contenido está publicado. Mi idea es crear un único Registro Internacional que unifique y simplifique la búsqueda y consulta.

Heráldicamente hablando, no tendría sentido organizar un escudo de armas si este no tiene publicidad, ya que iría contra el fin último de esta

Ciencia: distinguirse y diferenciarse unos de otros.

Asimismo, pienso que el registro hace un gran servicio, ya que da a conocer gratuitamente tanto a Registros personales, a Asociaciones como la suya, así como a todos los dibujantes, que cuentan con un escaparate gratuito en mi página.

En su e-mail en inglés, creo haber entendido (aunque no es mi lengua

materna) que Vd. intentará evitar por todos los medios que todos sus afines accedan a mi página. Este comentario no se lo tendré en cuenta, ya que creo que ha sido un mal entendido. Tampoco tendré en cuenta los insultos, ofensas y perjurios vertidos contra mi por alguno de los miembros de su Asociación.

De todas formas, sigo insistiendo en mi derecho a informar, por lo tanto, me gustaría que me aconsejase sobre el método a seguir para informar a aquellas personas que me solicitan la organización de escudos de armas personales, para saber cuales están ya registrados.

¿Puedo, entonces, poner un enlace a su página?, para mi mucho más cómodo.

¿Puedo unicamente describirlas en castellano?

¿Puedo, dibujarlas yo personalmente, haciendo otra versión pero con la misma descripción?

Si esto no es posible, ¿Cómo se recopilan y publican los Armoriales y cómo han llegado a nuestros días?.

Espero que después de haberme podido explicar sobre el fin de mi página, se haya aclarado este mal entendido.

No obstante, respetando sus deseos, he procedido a omitir los escudos requeridos y por el momento, el Registro está fuera de conexión a la red, hasta que haya podido eliminar dichas armerías, para evitar causarle mayores "perjuicios".

Sigo teniendo las puertas de mi Registro a su disposición.

Reciba un cordial saludo.

Ignacio Koblischek.

Diplomado en Genealogía y Heráldica.

Perito Heráldico por la Junta de Andalucía.

Not if the watermark was of the clear embossed type.

Incedently, whoever posted the warning on HSS need not have bothered as they deleted the thread.

WBHenry;50209 wrote:

I wish there were a way of blocking this type of piracy without the use of a watermark.  I know that I enjoy looking at other heraldic sites and seeing arms in all their glory without having to "ignore" a watermark.  However, if this is the closest we can come to a "sure-fire fix," so be it.  I agree the watermark should say "American heraldry Society," not just "AHS."

Perhaps there is a way to create a members only section of the armorial that would display "unspoiled" versions…

The thread was not deleted on the HSS but was moved at the ‘Posters Request’ to the members area.

Sirs:

I have read with attention your posts and, althoug translate your language is for me very difficult, I think that I must write a few lines to express these ideas:

First: Around a year ago, I knew there was a web-page called: RIAG.ES; This page is a commercial web-page of heraldry. The director of the page is don Ignacio Koblischek. I wrote him an e-mail. He told me that he was making a registry of Arms. This is the meaning of the acronimous RIAG.ES=International Registgry of Gentilitious Arms. Spain.

Moreover, he offers to publish my arms in one of the books-Roll of Arms that he was editing. Absolutely free. And he re-painted my arms in a new design.

Second: What don Ignacio Koblischek has done is create a Roll of Arms. A roll of Arms is, as you know, a list of people that created for each one new Arms.

In Spain, (and I suppose that something similar happens in the US), the common people think that the appropiation of the Arms because of the coincidence of surname (family name) is a correct practice.

Then, when a person that studies heraldry founds a group that have designed its own new arms he includes in his web-page those Coat of Arms.

Third: Mr. Koblischek adds always who is the artist, author of the drawing.

Fourth: Then I don´t understand what is the problem. Mr. Koblischek has created a Roll of Arms with coat of Arms that are in the net.

Post Data: The use of the word “don” before the name is a very polite form to design anybody. Is the same that the person will be Spanish or foreigner. The word is an abreviation of the latin word: Dominus that means, in English, Lord.

The problem lies in the "appropriated" use of individuals’ arms without their (or their granting/registering authorities’) permission. Further, as it is evident that this gentleman is selling his wares for 150 Euros, the implication is that those arms shown on his website have sanctioned this practice, and paid for the service themselves, when in fact they have not.

If we are misunderstanding his intention with the above-mentioned pricing listed on his site, then of course we would appreciate clarification.

That being said, each organition from which he "lifted" arms to publish his armorial have their own individual website listings - they do not appropriate arms of individuals not in their organization to display on their website.

If they put something up that said who the arms were designed by, implicitly mentioning that they did not design those particular arms, I have much less of a problem with it. But as it stands right now it appears to me that the misconception that he designed my arms is there.

If he had simply asked us for permission, then I might have considered allowing him to use mine, but he didn’t even bother to ask.  It’s not gentlemanly, it’s cowardly and thievery.  I agree with David in that the site should be monitored for further unscruplous activities.  I also agree that watermarks should be used in the armorial.  I dislike watermarks, but I dislike piracy far more.

JOSE CARRION RANGEL;50221 wrote:

Fourth: Then I don´t understand what is the problem. Mr. Koblischek has created a Roll of Arms with coat of Arms that are in the net.

In our armorial it says: "PLEASE NOTE: Any personal coat of arms and all alternative emblazonments displayed or linked in this armorial are the sole property of the armigers. They may not be used, copied, transferred, stored electronically, reproduced, nor used in any way whatsoever without the written permission of the armiger."

Linusboarder;50223 wrote:

If they put something up that said who the arms were designed by, implicitly mentioning that they did not design those particular arms, I have much less of a problem with it. But as it stands right now it appears to me that the misconception that he designed my arms is there.

No, at least on my arms, when they were up on his site, he credited the artists for the artwork.

The problems are two:

1.  The issue of copying and republishing copyrighted artwork without permission.

2.  The use of people’s identities (names and arms) in a way that falsely implied their endorsement of his commercial enterprise.

Number 1 is against the law virtually everywhere, number 2 in many places.

Contrary to what some have suggested, I do not believe that any grant or certification of arms gives the armiger (or the granting authority) full control over any and all display of his arms.  If it did, we could not run our American Presidential arms series, because we would have to have permission from Bill Clinton and the the descendants of all the other presidents represented to be able to depict their arms.  But we don’t have to do that, any more than Boutell’s Heraldry would have to get permission from the families who own all those arms in the book.  The artwork is protected by copyright, the design itself from usurpation, but there is no protection I’m aware of against the original depiction of someone else’s arms, properly attributed, in a non-commercial setting.

Joseph McMillan;50230 wrote:

Contrary to what some have suggested, I do not believe that any grant or certification of arms gives the armiger (or the granting authority) full control over any and all display of his arms.  If it did, we could not run our American Presidential arms series, because we would have to have permission from Bill Clinton and the the descendants of all the other presidents represented to be able to depict their arms.  But we don’t have to do that, any more than Boutell’s Heraldry would have to get permission from the families who own all those arms in the book.  The artwork is protected by copyright, the design itself from usurpation, but there is no protection I’m aware of against the original depiction of someone else’s arms, properly attributed, in a non-commercial setting.

This is my understanding.  Copying someone else’s arms for your own private (noncommercial) use constitutes "fair use".  The arms must be properly attributed to the armiger and as a courtesy to the artist else it may amount to plagarism.

The problem here is you had a person in a commercial setting copying arms without permission.  This is not fair use!  The outrage of the group is justified.  On the otherhand, I think the webmaster of the offending site was not a bucket shop vendor, but simply misunderstood copyright issues and ettiquette.

A watermark has been added to the AHS armorial graphics and a copyright notice has been added to each page.

Joseph McMillan;50230 wrote:

No, at least on my arms, when they were up on his site, he credited the artists for the artwork.

The problems are two:

 

1.  The issue of copying and republishing copyrighted artwork without permission.

 

2.  The use of people’s identities (names and arms) in a way that falsely implied their endorsement of his commercial enterprise.

 

Number 1 is against the law virtually everywhere, number 2 in many places.

 

Contrary to what some have suggested, I do not believe that any grant or certification of arms gives the armiger (or the granting authority) full control over any and all display of his arms.  If it did, we could not run our American Presidential arms series, because we would have to have permission from Bill Clinton and the the descendants of all the other presidents represented to be able to depict their arms.  But we don’t have to do that, any more than Boutell’s Heraldry would have to get permission from the families who own all those arms in the book.  The artwork is protected by copyright, the design itself from usurpation, but there is no protection I’m aware of against the original depiction of someone else’s arms, properly attributed, in a non-commercial setting.

I didn’t notice Louis’s name when I saw my arms on his site, but I had difficulty following following the site since I don’t know much Spanish. I have to rely on much of the hearsay on this message board to understand whether these two conditions are avoided, and from the sounds of it our arms were presented as designed by him, which I had a problem with. If he gave full credit to the design by (which he didn’t because they were designed by me, with help from this society).