Helaas, ik heb de herroepingszaak met ANP zoals ik in augustus al vreesde verloren omdat ik de verkeerde rechtsopvolger van Hollandse Hoogte dagvaardde.
ANP is ter zitting met maar liefst drie advocaten verschenen en ik heb onder andere Ywein van den Brande, een van de oprichters van Permission Machine, de hand mogen schudden. De aanwezige commercieel directeur Jessica van der Waal wekte de indruk dat zij niet op de hoogte is dat ANP wappert met de rechten van freelance fotografen. Ik vermoed fotografen zelf ook niet. Je moet kennis van de wet hebben om te doorzien dat ANP het auteursrecht moet BEZITTEN om schadevergoeding bij schending ervan te kunnen vorderen.
Tweede poging
Niet getreurd. Ik heb rekening gehouden met het risico dat de rechter de rechtspersoon niet zou wijzigen en heb afgelopen oktober de juiste rechtspersoon gedagvaard. Oktober 2025 volgt een nieuwe poging. Voor de proceskosten ben ik een crowdfunding opgestart.
Obstakel dit keer wordt de herroepingstermijn. Het dagvaarden voor een herroepingszaak dient te gebeuren binnen drie maanden nadat de gronden voor herroeping bekend zijn geworden.
Verkeerde rechtspersoon is geen grond, dat had ik de deurwaarder uit kunnen laten zoeken. $%!# Netjes gezegd: ik had meer klantgerichtheid verwacht van een deurwaarder die het dubbele tarief rekent.
Ik dagvaardde op basis van een vermoeden en dat vermoeden blijkt juist. Ik weet sinds 1 augustus dat de fotograaf een deel van de door mij betaalde schadevergoeding heeft gekregen. Het ultieme bewijs dat Hollandse Hoogte niet op EIGEN NAAM mocht vorderen.
De Rijdende rechter
Met de kennis van nu keek ik de uitzending van de Rijdende rechter van maart 2017 terug. Ik nam contact op met de ‘fotodief’ en ook bij haar bleek de naam van de fotograaf in het gehele voortraject en in de processtukken niet voor te komen. Uiteraard zal de fotograaf in deze kwestie vanwege alle publiciteit zijn rechtmatige deel hebben gekregen. Maar Hollandse Hoogte had, net als in mijn zaak, MEDE NAMENS de fotograaf moeten vorderen.
Grappig om mijn woorden van destijds, toen ik nog geen idee had van het misbruik van fotorechten, terug te lezen. Hoe ik er nu over denk lees je hier.
De dame uit de uitzending schreef een stukje naar aanleiding van ons telefoongesprek.
Overig nieuws
Het boek over fotorecht vordert gestaag. Door dingen uit te zoeken en op een rijtje te zetten leer ik er zelf ook een boel van. Dat de auteurswet gedateerd is blijft een ding. Onbegrijpelijk dat de term hyperlink, hyperlinks zijn de bouwstenen van internet, ontbreekt. Ik ontdekte de term echter wel in de wet voor uitgevers.
De meldingen van claims blijven binnen komen. En of ik al niet genoeg ‘munitie’ heb, ik vond een door ANP geclaimde foto terug bij Alamy onder een andere naam van de fotograaf.
Voorlopig moet ik dus nog wel even door. Teken en deel de petitie! Deel je ervaringen online. Een desinfecterend zonnetje is hard nodig met een pers die onderdeel is van het probleem.
En steun mijn gerechtelijke stappen tegen ANP door een donatie te doen of bekendheid te geven aan de crowdfunding: alle kleine beetjes helpen.
Groet! De petitionaris
'Boekwinkels behoren tot de niet-essentiële winkels. Dus zijn ze gesloten tijdens de lockdown.
Je kunt niet beweren dat ze dicht moeten blijven omdat er anders te veel reisbewegingen of boekenliefhebbersbewegingen zijn. In een boekhandel komen minder mensen dan in een supermarkt.
Mij verbaast de vanzelfsprekendheid bij een hoger echelon dat zegt dat boekwinkels niet essentieel zijn. De redenering om ze gesloten te houden (...)' lees verder
Tot mijn blijdschap reageerde de redactie direct en boetvaardig.
Hier het nieuwe artikel:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/tu-delft-maakt-eurocommissaris-timmermans-eredoctor-en-alumni-protesteren-met-een-petitie~b5fcd6b7/.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
BRON: LoBianco, 2016
Washington(CNN) One of Richard Nixon's top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper's Magazine.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said.
"We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Ehrlichman's comment is the first time the war on drugs has been plainly characterized as a political assault designed to help Nixon win, and keep, the White House.
It's a stark departure from Nixon's public explanation for his first piece of legislation in the war on drugs, delivered in message to Congress in July 1969, which framed it as a response to an increase in heroin addiction and the rising use of marijuana and hallucinogens by students.
However, Nixon's political focus on white voters, the "Silent Majority," is well-known. And Nixon's derision for minorities in private is well-known from his White House recordings.
The comments come as there has been a marked shift in attitudes toward handling drug use -- ranging from the legalization of marijuana in various states to White House candidates focusing heavily on treatment as an answer to New Hampshire's heroin epidemic while they were campaigning across the state.
RELATED: 2016 candidates on the front lines of N.H. drug epidemic
Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.
"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.
"The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way."
Ehrlichman's comments did not surface until now after Baum remembered them while going back through old notes for the Harper's story. Baum said he had no reason to believe Ehrlichman was being dishonest and viewed them as "atonement" from a man long after his tumultuous run in the White House ended.
"I think Ehrlichman was waiting for someone to come and ask him. I think he felt bad about it. I think he had a lot to feel bad about, same with Egil Krogh, who was another Watergate guy." Baum told CNN.
Baum interviewed Ehrlichman and others for his 1996 book "Smoke and Mirrors," but said he left out the Ehrlichman comment from the book because it did not fit the narrative style focused on putting the readers in the middle of the backroom discussions themselves, without input from the author.
Baum equated Ehrlichman's admission with traumatic war stories that often take decades for veterans to talk about and said it clearly took time for Ehrlichman and other Nixon aides he interviewed to candidly explain the war on drugs.
"These guys, they knew they'd done bad things and they were glad finally when it was no longer going to cost them anything to be able to talk about it, to atone for it." Baum said. "Nobody goes in to public service, I don't think, on either side of the political aisle, to be repressive, to be evil. They go in because they care about the country."
Ha! een artikel in de volkskrant!
Dit schreef ik de redactie:
Geachte redactie,
Blij met de aandacht voor mijn petitie. Die sloeg om in wanhoop bij het lezen van deze zinsneden:
"Asselbergs en zijn medestanders kritiseren Timmermans’ positieve opvattingen over onder meer kernenergie. Hij zou daarmee de transitie alleen maar in de weg staan.
“
Dit is een dusdanige omkering van wat in de openingen van mijn petitie staat, dat van een typefout geen sprake kan zijn.
Ik beschouw het maar als kwade wil.
Hoogachtend,
Jan Asselbergs
allereerst de beste wensen! We hebben van het weekend een begeleidende brief geschreven om de petitie aan te bieden aan de toekomstige minister van VWS dhr E. Kuipers.
We hopen op een positief resultaat.
TU Delft wants to award Frans Timmermans an honorary doctorate for his alleged contributions to energy transition policy. However, Frans Timmermans is a champion of biomass plants and he claims that nuclear power is too expensive and that the construction of a plant takes 20 years.
This, and the message that Delft University publicly announced that doubt is excluded from climate discussions brought me to start a petition.
It would be nice if alumni include their titles. An anonymous vote has some value, but anonymity often is not necessary..
Open New Year message to the Rector of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) The Hague, January 1, 2022
Dear colleague van der Hagen,
In the capacity as former MSc student, former PhD student, former professor, former member of the Executive Board of the TU Delft – and also as an active member of the KNAW – I address you on the following at the first day of the new year.
Scientific organizations serve society by fostering, creating and passing on new scientific knowledge through research and teaching.
Today, quality universities have become a primary source of prosperity in the area where they are located. The higher the scientific level realized, the greater the contribution to prosperity.
Universities, therefore, should promote excellence at all times. This means that they should not settle for followership, but aim for leadership in their scientific fields. It also means that universities are communities without ideological and political purposes. And above all, at universities the principle of Freedom of Speech and Inquiry are by no means negotiable. History shows that new insights come from doubters and dissenters; they ensure scientific progress. Those scientific 'rebels' must therefore be given every freedom to question what already exists and to present new concepts, with the aim of getting closer to the truth. Universities should nurture these creative scientists. After all, consensus in science means the end of progress.
How different it is in politics. Politics is not about truth, but about power. In the most favorable situation, power is obtained democratically. Whoever manages to gather the most votes comes to power. We know that political rebels end up badly. So, searching for the truth has nothing to do with what the political majority wants. Every university should therefore keep far away from politics.
In short, truth-seeking (argumentum ad verecundiam) and power-seeking (argumentum ad populum) do not fit together at all. Even worse, they obstruct each other. The conclusion is therefore that University Boards should not ‘play little parliament’ in their boardrooms.
The foregoing brings me to the honorary doctorate you are going to confer on Frans Timmermans. This politician has done just about everything in his career to abuse science. He did so by intertwining searching for the truth with political majority building. That has led to the glorification of a climate theory that does not correspond to what we observe in nature, meaning it is scientifically wrong. And this wrong science has resulted into the introduction of a climate policy that has plunged Europe into an energy crisis. And that energy crisis means that Europe has been thrown into a negative socio-economic spiral. Colleague van der Hagen, with all respect, which technical or economic or social merits of Timmermans do you have in mind?
I invite you to watch and listen to this historic interview with Frans Timmermans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgEcIQ_WoiU
It was already clear even at that time that Timmermans intended to abuse science for his own political gain. The last ten years have only confirmed that. TU Delft, as a so-called 'climate university', went along with this. Now, you award an honorary doctorate to this person?
Finally, I repeat, Frans Timmermans, with his climate policy, has plunged Europe into an energy crisis with major socio-economic consequences. Please, look at the facts! I therefore urge you nót to award this man with an honorary doctorate. TU Delft will go down in history as the technological university that - under your leadership - scientifically supported the destructive climate policy of this politician and then even awarding him with an honorary doctorate.
Colleague van der Hagen, start the new year well and show courage by retracing your steps. Please, do nót confer an honorary doctorate on this politician.
With collegial regards, Guus Berkhout MSc student from 1952 -1957 Ph.D. Cum laude in 1971 Professor 1976 - 2016 Member of the Delft University Board from 1997 - 2001 Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences since 1990
https://www.voordewereldvanmorgen.nl/artikelen/wordt-rotterdam-the-hague-airport-een-groene-oase.