Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dear Brian,
Further to your post above, this has already been covered in considerable detail in my previous post and there is no need for repetition.
All other claims/allegations/comments have been noted.
Al Macleod
Director
Flamingo Springs S.A.Dear Brian,
Thank you for your reply and will comment briefly, if this is possible.
There are no ulterior motives involved, but more an aim of total transparency and honesty in the interests of all victims involved and where your company may, or may not, also be included on that list. Statements made are not intended to be negative and are simply statements of fact and we have no problem in presenting evidence and witness testimony to a competent authority/court.
Concerning property, I understand from what you have said, Monterra Developers S.A./OCR Properties Group Inc. were in a “joint venture partnership” and that they are not going ahead with this joint venture at this time. However, it now appears you are claiming you have development rights on some of these fincas.
You are correct in that the 360 hectare property does indeed comprise five fincas. You are telling me about the land we funded. I cannot expand on detail of the current action, though it would be an understatement to say this was simply a dispute. It would be fair to say we are taking whatever steps necessary to recover every square meter of this property and introduce the concept of justice to all parties involved.
Quote: “The 360 Hec parcel that you are referring too is actually made up of 5 separate fincas and many images have been taken from some of these properties that we have development rights over.”
If you are saying that OCRPG Inc. or an associated corporation has development rights or financial interest in any of five fincas on the 360 hectare estate, it is clear there is a problem and better lawyers consult on this. By way of clarification, Martinez et al do not represent either shareholders or funders of this property. I also appreciate OCR would not knowingly be involved in property where possible possession complications exist. Site/plotting plans are obviously sub-extracts of larger areas and are not a verifiable method of identifying actual land areas from documents at the Registro Nacional, hence we are in no position to comment on these. If OCR were to publish detail on their websites of actual property owned, other than Registro Nacional filings by Carlos Barrantes, this would obviously avoid possible identity confusion.
Concerning images and violation of copyright, we have recorded data of OCR-related websites over a period of time amd have today checked the “Our Properties” sections of a sample of currently published web sites, namely owncostarica.com, monterracostarica.com and wealthy2.owncostarica.biz. All images which previously illustrated that the 360 hectare area of land was purportedly owned by OCR, have been removed from the “Our Properties” section on OCR websites on September 5th 2007, although it is fair to assume you are already familiar with this action before you elected to respond to this chat board thread.
Regarding your statement, “ALL images on our site show property we own, develop, have option on and have purchased”. This may well now be correct in that there are now no images of any property under “Our Properties”. To quote your website, – “Our Properties – No image to display in this album”. I think I understand your meaning, however, it is somewhat grandiose to claim “ALL” properties on the OCR websites are instances where you “own, develop, have option on and have purchased”. There are a number of properties on your web site of the surrounding area, a fair number of which were photographed by us, and these are certainly not for sale or owned by OCR/Monterra Developers and it would be inaccurate to make claims otherwise.
A considerable number of other images which are the copyright of both myself and others remain on OCR websites, including those specified previously on this thread. Since last posting, we have had confirmation from several other copyright holders and this is not in any doubt. In OCR’s interest, it would be appropriate to remove all images where there is not a written license to publish specific images. By the way, there is no member of my family with the name ‘Leslie Lyon’. As previously suggested, it may be relevant to perform due diligence on companies and individuals you do business with. Responsiblity rests with the publisher to ensure reproduction rights exist and would invite you to prove valid rights to reproduce any of the subject images, otherwise remove these images from OCR-related web sites as already requested. This statement does not limit any action we may elect to take in seeking remedy for infringement at a future time.
I agree that it would be more appropriate to take issues off this board. This already was the case with my last post where it was indicated what action we are taking. Generally, other than that which was blatantly obvious, specifically image copyright violation, there was a lack of transparency and this has now become clearer – to a degree. You may appreciate that it may not be a surprise to see a reaction when companies, OCRPG Inc./OCR S.A./Monterra Developers S.A., surface and appear to be claiming ownership/rights on property funded by us and using images photographed specifically for our own project in Tambor while illustrating our project land on their web sites, – forgetting the use of images photographed by us of the surrounding area.
Concerning the “professionalism” you refer to. After having multiple instances of copyright violation and while still publishing our images on OCR-related web sites, along with claims of owning property which neither OCRPG Inc. or Monterra Developers S.A. et al do own, perhaps it may be appropriate to refrain from opinions/implications about “professionalism” and address the subject of due diligence within your corporate structure. There is no need for justification or defense in your posts as a confidence booster to clients with feeble attempts at scoring points – we don’t operate in that swamp and have an interest only in facts and transparency. Your clients/prospective clients are not our business and our sole concern is misuse of image content, misrepresentation/claims of owning property funded by us and an apparent change of course in that you now appear to be saying that OCR has development rights in the property you previously said OCR had no interest.
You are assured that I/we have no interest whatsoever in posting “negative opinions” and only have an interest in fact and remedy to obvious issues and wish you success in your venture in Tambor.
There are several issues arising out of this thread which clearly need clarification and transparency and this may probably be in both our interests. At this time, we have no interest in direct communication concerning either land or images other than in writing and therefore, will introduce our legal representative and where OCR will be provided with contact data.
Meantime, if you wish to fax any concerns/questions you may have, or state your position, this can be faxed to 506 228 8452. Alternatively, email using the ’email us’ link on the flamingosprings.com web site. We will be happy to address any points you may care to raise.
Al Macleod
Director
Flamingo Springs S.A.
flamingosprings.comDear Brian,
This is a very simple issue and one where OCR is, and has been, portraying property belonging to other parties on their web sites claiming to own these properties, when in fact, this is untrue.
An almost similar situation exists with Carlos Barrantes’s land registry documents where publishing this image under the “Property Research” section on OCR web sites selling an OCR project, is simply semantics and game-playing and while OCR gives no indication, illustration or map of any property they actually own.
I understand that you may have written permission to use images, however no such permission has been provided by the copyright holder/s and Martinez et al are not in the business of acting as agents for photographers. Dealings OCR may have with any other party over land or images is OCR’s business entirely and their responsibility to resolve. I have already stated twice that I personally, along with others, own the copyright of a number of images on OCR web sites and no rights to publish images, either on the internet, print, or any other media, has been granted. This is not a discussion or dispute about image ownership – it is a fact that OCR is currently using photographs without legal permission. OCR is responsible for it’s own conduct and performing it’s own due diligence on those who it elects to have “joint ventures” with. That is not my/our concern or responsibility.
If you do not have a “joint venture” with another party regarding land, it is obvious these images should not have been used until such a situation did exist, and where normal due diligence was performed on the rights of use. If a “joint venture” did exist and was subsequently aborted, all imaging should have been immediately removed otherwise OCR clients and potential clients are clearly being misled into thinking OCR actually own these properties.
Please note that it is not my/our responsibility to remedy OCR’s copyright violations and misrepresentation of the corporate status of OCR in relation to these properties. This rests entirely with OCR officers and their relationship with Martinez et al.
I request that you remove all relevant images from all OCR web sites immediately and leave no suggestion that OCR owns our properties and also ensure that copyright belonging to me and others is not used on any other media or as seminar content.
It is becoming clearer that this issue involves more than copyright violation and may involve mispresentation on the selling of land to potential unsuspecting clients. We will also pass this information to appropriate parties since this involves a “joint agreement” with an entity which is operating outside the Costa Rica Commercial Code to sell property which we paid for and is not for sale.
Al Macleod
Director
Flamingo Springs S.A.Edited on Sep 03, 2007 14:28
Edited on Sep 03, 2007 14:30
Dear Brian,
Thank you for posting back.
Concerning the 360 hectare property and the images used on your website under “Our Properties”. Many of these images depict land which is not the property of OCR, but owned by us and most images are my copyright. In effect, features of properties which are not for sale and which OCR does not own, are being used to market your project. A number of these images were shot by me on property we purchased.
In this respect it is obviously misleading in that claims are being made that OCR are the owners of property illustrated. Also under “Property Research” you show a copy of a land registry document covering property owned by Carlos Barrantes. By doing this there is implication that you own this property. Why not show the Land Registry document for the property OCR actually owns?
There are a fair number of our images used on your website and these can be identified as file names beginning with cr2004, but not limited to images with that prefix in the filename. Other examples are the three Red McCaw images, the pelican, two crocodile images and more currently being published in your photo gallery under “Nature”. Apart from “Our Builders” and “People”, there are copyright violations in every section of the photo album. I would add that OCR certainly do not have permission to use any of these photographs from me or from a few other copyright holders – no such permission has ever been issued to any party by the legitimate/legal copyright holders.
I would appreciate your comments.
Al Macleod
Director
Flamingo Springs S.A.Brian,
This is an awkward subject for a chat board, but just noticed your posts/comments and will say briefly.
Concerning images, I am not familiar with any presentations you may do in Canada or elsewhere.
However, a considerable number of images used on owncostrica.com, owncostarica.biz, monterracostarica.com and several sub domains promoting your project are my copyright and several other images are for our own land project which is next door to you in Tambor.
It is entirely possible your company is an innocent party regarding use of these images, however, I would urge you do perform due diligence on the source of the images.
It may also be that there is another issue regarding the possible purchase of land, specifically property where you may be awaiting the titling process prior to completing a purchase. Again, I can only stress due diligence, despite land registry documentation, and if any property involves an Ltda which currently holds 360 hectares of land (including 64 hectares of primary forest) covering five fincas – this Ltda is currently the subject of legal action by us where we seek recovery of our land assets in that area, specifically 360 hectares.
Our lawyers or I will contact you or Jack Cohen shortly regarding the images.
Al Macleod
Director
Flamingo Springs S.A.Edited on Sep 01, 2007 08:08
