vakras com logo

exhibition in 2009

Addenda, 12-19/5/2011-28/5/2011 vanished from the World Wide Web from 13-17 May 2011 inclusive. It was not available until 19 May 2011 on my mobile phone running Android (though it was available on iPhones).

Cripps’ lawyers managed to unnerve the company that had for close to 10 years hosted "". This, now previous host of “”, MYOB trading as Ilisys, acted without evidence and without any legal obligation to disable my site. They also disabled the site of my partner and co-exhibitor at Guildford Lane Gallery in 2009, Lee-Anne Raymond (“”). Around 5 days are needed for the re-delegation of a DNS. During this period both sites were unavailable.

This is expanded at the bottom of this page.

Above, photo of my mobile phone showing the unavailability of On the Android phone it was unavailable until around 11:30 (am) 19 May 2011. However, server problems on the Android phone continued until 21 May 2011 with “Proxy Error” messages.



According to the "Takedown Notice" sent by iinet on 7 June
Notice of claimed publication of defamatory content
We have received the attached correspondence from Tao Jiang Lawyers, who act on behalf of Mr Robert Cripps. Mr Cripps alleges that certain material published on the following web pages, which are hosted by iiNet, is defamatory:

This page is my right to summarise and then refute Cripps' claim that what I write is an "injurious falsehood". This is my online defence against a false claim, and I have been prevented from making it. This curtails my right to defend myself online and is now a freedom of speech issue. Even IF, it might be claimed that what I had written about my exhibition at Guildford Lane Gallery on my page "guildford_lane_gallery.html" is defamatory - AND IT IS NOT - a defence of why I wrote what I did DOES NOT constitute defamation, and is not therefore "defamatory". I have the right to write to explain why what I have written about Robert Cripps and his gallery is not defamatory. I have the right to explain why my website was unavailable for a number of days. I have a right to mitigate the perception created in the minds of those who have become aware of Cripps' action against me who might come to believe that there could have been some basis to Cripps' claim and for whom the removal of my site/pages consdtitutes some form of proof that the claim against me might be valid. I have every right to write that I am being sued, and every right to write about how the legal action against me is vexatious. The removal of this page is censorship.

After much effort this site came to be hosted on my own server. However, Australian telco TELSTRA decieded that they would act on behalf of Cripps and we were disconnected from the internet completely. While disconnected the domains and were hijacked. This hijacking is still under police investigation.

Read more on the hijacking.

The page "", elaborates on what I wrote about Guildford Lane Gallery on "". It provides some evidence to support what would otherwise have been broad sweeping statements. It was not in ignorance of the laws of defamation that I wrote this page. I have a duty of care to others - even if this is not a duty reciprocated by others toward me or by them to anyone else. It is this “duty” that compels me to write and to draw. It is my “duty” to forewarn others of this gallery, as much as it should have been the duty of others to have forewarned me. It is a duty akin to the “duty to rescue”. Yes, in the anglosphere no one feels they have a duty to anyone else (“In the … the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.”

I have refrained from publishing on the internet elements of the material that will be used to demonstrate our case in court. I will reluctantly make a number of exceptions with reference to one email from Cripps which is shown below.

In summary; his writ claims that the entire page ( defames him, and he (in the form of the SOC) quotes sentence after sentence from it claiming each to be defamatory; a series of "injurious falsehoods". Among Cripps’ many problems is that much of what is written on the page(s) that he has demanded be removed is taken directly from emails he had sent to us. For Cripps to claim that what is written is an “injurious falsehood” is therefore a deliberate abuse of process, a vexatious claim meant to harass. Instead of Cripps apologising and attempting to make amends for his poor behaviour, he, true to form, decides that a costly and vexatious legal claim is the best way to proceed. It shows that he is a bellicose belligerent just as I describe him. In his writ he claims that my describing him as a bellicose belligerent is an “injurious falsehood”.

Instead of Cripps apologising and attempting to make amends for his poor behaviour, he, true to form, decides that a costly and vexatious legal claim is the best way to proceed. It shows that he is a bellicose belligerent just as I describe him. In his writ he claims that my describing him as a bellicose belligerent is an “injurious falsehood”.

One of these claimed "injurious falsehoods" is what I write about his unilaterally imposed conditions and stipulations beyond anything both parties had agreed to. One such unilateral decision, and the one that I specifically refer to, was his demand that we agree to an additional condition otherwise he would not pay us monies owed. However, the screenshot below belies Cripps' claim that my reference to this is an “injurious falsehood”. The screenshot is of the last email in which Cripps demanded that we agree to conditions beyond the originally agreed to contract. These emails made essentially the same, though somewhat re-worded, demand. According to his writ, my writing about this unilateral demand is not only “unfounded”, but guided by malice (“malicious”).

Above, screenshot of Cripps’ email of 10 August 2009. It demands “Upon refund of Lee-Ann Raymond & Demetrios Vakars exhibition bond ($450.00) & proceeds from the sale of 1 work of art ($450.00) there will be NO outstanding business or legal issues regarding our exhibition at Guildford Lane Gallery”.

The first such demand was 6 August 2009 when Cripps’ demand was “confirm that upon receipt of these funds there will be no issues outstanding between yourselves and Guildford Lane Gallery. Both emails were sent to Lee-Anne Raymond’s email account. My response to his demand, sent on 7 August 2009 was “It is evident that you do not understand contractual law. You cannot insert clauses or  make stipulations to additional conditions being necessary before you honour what has already been agreed to.

It should be noted that Cripps’ email is dated to 10 August 2009. The exhibition had ended 5 July 2009. Five weeks and one day had elapsed since the exhibition had finished. By the time we had sought a legal opinion, and the time by which Cripps eventually paid us - which was after this email - a period of close to, or about, 6 weeks had elapsed since our exhibition had finished. Yet even with regard to this 6 week period, Cripps’ writ suggests that my reference to this timeframe is an “injurious falsehood”. His writ even seems to suggest that my writing that we sought a legal opinion with regards to his demand to be an “injurious falsehood” as well. (It could be that he objects to my writing “at the time of writing this”; however, the page was being composed during the time in question,and was not posted until after he made payment.) Remember, this is Cripps’ own email, and it is dated over 5 weeks after the exhibition finished. His payment, for which he should have an electronic record, was made later (as our own records show). So how could he claim that what I write here is an “injurious falsehood”? And, how could he claim that his case is anything but vexatious?

There are 3 options here: either Cripps has informed his lawyer, TaoJiang (and later Houghton), but TaoJiang (and Houghton) decided that it did not matter, and would make a false claim on Cripps' behalf just to harass us (as that is what he is paying for); or, Cripps deliberately denied to his lawyer(s) that he ever demanded agreement from us to any additional clauses so that he could claim that we "defamed" him; or Cripps simply forgot, which means that any testimony of his which is dependant on his memory is of dubious credibility.

It was not that Cripps made this one unilateral addition.
The contract for the hire of the space included set up of the exhibition which was to be on the Monday. This was confirmed by GLG on 2 January 2009 in an email to Lee-Anne Raymond. In an email from GLG to Lee-Anne Raymond on 1 June 2009 the Monday was again confirmed as the install day in a PDF sent as an attachment in that email. The PDF, entitled "Installation Procedure.pdf" requested:
it is three weeks to the exhibition of your work at the Guildford Lane Gallery...Installation will commence on the Monday of the exhibition-opening week at 10am. You will be orientated and introduced to necessary contacts at the Gallery at 10am sharp. Please be on time."

On 10 June another email from GLG (responding to a query by Lee-Anne Raymond) advised us that Tuesday instead was the day of install, not Monday, and attributed our reference to Monday as a consequence of our “confusion"! Transport had already been organised and paid for, for the Monday. Only after some frantic phone calls and an exchange of emails, were we "permitted", essentially as a favour, to take in our paintings, late Monday afternoon. We barely managed to drop off our works at GLG and make it to the transport hire depot to return the van. This was something that had never been been discussed with us. We never agreed to this change. And we had to comply with this change through no fault of our own.

At an earlier time, we both visited GLG on 21 January 2009 (this is evidenced in the exchange of emails). On that day we met Cripps and Pickett. Part of the discussion concerned our illustrated catalogue. That discussion with regard to the catalogue involved the fact that it would be for sale. Not only did GLG have no concern over the selling of this catalogue, but that they would also import publications of Les Barany's Carnivora (ISBN 9780979513213 , a copy of which we had taken along to the meeting) to sell as well. To expedite the importation of Carnivora, details of the publisher, Scapegoat Publishing, were sent to GLG by email by Demetrios Vakras on 24 January 2009. However, during the set up of the exhibition we were both advised that GLG would not sell our catalogue at all, and that we would have to be present to look after any sales ourselves if we wanted to sell any catalogues.

Another element of the "injurious falsehood" claim by Cripps is that we describe his conduct as unprofessional! The constant unilateral alterations by Cripps GLG, with which we had no option but to comply, appear to be demonstration enough of the amateurish nature of this gallery.

This exhibition, our worst ever, is even worse, and will no doubt become worse still. Cripps’ vexatious claim has already cost us close to AUD$8000 (= USD$8456; Euro€5,998; currency conversion, 15/5/2011). I write that exhibiting at Guildford Lane Gallery was a waste of money. Cripps’ writ claims this to be an “injurious falsehood”. I can’t see how this is money well spent.

Another element claimed by Cripps to defame him is that I write that he made a profit. To restate what kind of gallery Guildford Lane Gallery is: it is a for hire gallery. Whether your show is a success or failure, Cripps has been paid. Whether or not you make any sales is irrelevant to him, as his costs have already been covered. One expects that he runs his gallery to make a profit, unless he is running it as a loss for the sake of making it a tax write-off? These kind of for hire galleries exhibit the works of not so successful artists. The kind of galleries that exhibit successful artists (artists who survive off the income made from the sales of their works), are NOT for hire galleries. These galleries choose artists who they then represent, in essence acting as these artists’ agent. These artists then become a part of what is described as the gallery’s “stable”. Such galleries actively promote the artists in their stable because they only make money when and if works are sold. Every sale earns the gallery an income via a commission on any sales. Cripps gets no commission and needs no commission, as artists have already paid him for the hire of the space. Cripps has made the money necessary to keep his enterprise going, and that’s the end of of it. Cripps does not need to promote you. Whether he treats you poorly or whether he treats you well is of no relevance to him - he has made the money he needs, and your interests are irrelevant to him.

ANOTHER POSSIBILITY? It could be that Cripps’ objection with my writing that “he made a profit” is because his site, registered as a “dot org”, could mean that he claims himself to be a not for profit organisation? It could be that his ability to gain “volunteers” is predicated on his venue being a “not for profit” organisation? If he is a “not for profit” organisation, then it begs the question of why in his original claim he was claiming damages for loss of earnings because of what is written on mine and Lee-Anne Raymond’s pages; damages to the tune of (approx.) AUD $150,000 (made to our solicitors at or about 18/4/2011, and communicated by telephone to us).

Quoted from:,2542,t=Internet+domain+name&i=45215,00.asp

Generic Top Level Domains
Following are the original top level domains, known as "generic" TLDs (gTLDs). The .com is the most desired because all major corporations adopted it early on, and it became the best known and most relevant. However, if a .com name has already been registered, the only alternative is to use another gTLD such as .net or .biz.

gTLD Purpose
.com commercial
.net network oriented
.org non-profit organization
.edu U.S. educational only
.gov U.S. government only

If the problem Cripps has is predicated on my writing that he makes a profit when he (in the form of GLG) is a not for profit organisation, then what could his loss be if he makes no profit? He has “volunteers” who as far as I understand are unpaid, and he charges an amount (I consider) exorbitant for artists to show at his venue. At the time we exhibited another three other artists were exhibiting in the downstairs section. In addition, musical bands, who also pay him, perform on weekends. Considering the amount of money charged to artists to hire his space(s), and the money paid by musicians to perform in his space, any claim that he simply runs his gallery as a not-for-profit space is open to question. Maybe his “not for profit” status (if indeed he has a “not for profit” status) is being reviewed?

Thanks to the efforts of others, the following link was forwarded to us, refer screenshot below:

above screenshot of
This blog appears to have been organised on behalf of Guildford Lane Gallery. It predates our exhibition at this venue. It promotes what is claimed as this venue's progressive nature. According to this, Guildford Lane Gallery has
"the intention of fostering marginal, peripheral and/or ephemeral art forms, as well as critical forums. It encourages exploration and collaboration; cross-discipline, cross-genre, cross-media, you name it!"

Effusive descriptions such as this help set what from our experience turned out to be the "Guildford Lane Gallery ARTIST TRAP".

As one reader of this blog wrote in 2009, only a few months before we exhibited there:
"...without intending to cause disention, if [I've] heard reports from people who've organised stuff at the Guildford lane Gallery and it hasn't worked out that well. I'm thinking of Rod Cooper and Dale Gorfinkle most recently. So I'm not sure how sincere Guildford is in it's commitment to experimental music in Melbourne.
And their requirement for the program organisers to brunt [bear] the costs is pretty rich if you ask me.
Sean. 1 March 2009 23:07"

"Stelarc" is defined as an "artist" within the ambit of a Duchampian re-definition of the term "art" at least in England and its minion nations (for example, Australia). He appears to be less well known in the US which is less servile to English sensibilities.

Above, screenshot of the Artabase page on the Stelarc exhibition at Guildford Lane

It was because of the Stelarc exhibition that we became aware of Guildford Lane Gallery (via a mutual acquaintance of Stelarc and Lee-Anne Raymond). (Note: technically speaking, it was the photographic record of the surgical procedure undergone by Stelarc that was exhibited.) Guildford Lane Gallery (Cripps) is obviously aware of Stelarc who is described as “the experimental and internationally renowned artist Stelarc” on the Artabase page (above). During the opening of this show Stelarc was called on by Cripps, with great pride, to make a speech. (Yes, I was there.)

It seems evident, at least anecdotally, that at Guildford Lane Gallery there is probably one rule for "known" artists, and another for unknown artists. My work, obviously, falls into the latter category, at least in the "Real World" Australian art scene. However, in the "Virtual World", my art is "virtually" as well known as Stelarc's. A search for “fantastic art”, on Google(AU) places "" on page 1, second only to the Wikipedia entry for "Fantastic Art" ( "Fantastic Art" ). A Google(AU) search for “dark surrealism” places "" in 3rd place on page 1 ( "Dark Surrealism" ). A search for "σουρεαλιστικές εικόνες" (surrealist images) on Google(GR) finds in third position on page 1 ( "Surrealist Images" ). This success rate has taken many years to achieve, and has resulted in my works being exhibited in the US and being published in American and German books. With such a hit rate it was always likely that the Vakras Guildofrd Lane Gallery page would become visible.

Above, screenshot of the placement of on a Google (AU) search for “fantastic art”.

Above, screenshot of the placement of on a Google (GR) search for “surrealist images”.

IT IS EXTRAORDINARY that my page and that of Lee-Anne Raymond discussing Guildford Lane Gallery have become popular enough that both appear on the first page of a search on Google (AU) for “Guildford Lane Gallery”. However popular my site is, or that of Lee-Anne Raymond is, it is not enough to explain why these pages rank so highly, unless many people have put links on their own sites/pages to our pages. Google’s “PageRank” system is based (in the simplest terms) on how many pages link to any page or site, and explains how our pages would have become so prominent.

PageRank is a link analysis algorithm, named after Larry Page and used by the Google Internet search engine, that assigns a numerical weighting to each element of a hyperlinked set of documents, such as the World Wide Web, with the purpose of "measuring" its relative importance within the set…The rank value indicates an importance of a particular page. A hyperlink to a page counts as a vote of support. The PageRank of a page is defined recursively and depends on the number and PageRank metric of all pages that link to it ("incoming links"). A page that is linked to by many pages with high PageRank receives a high rank itself.

But why would people put links to our pages on their sites?
If the emails from persons previously unknown to us who have contacted us to share their negative experiences with Robert Cripps are anything to go by, then those linking to our pages have done so because they share a similar experience. There have to be many people angry at Cripps who have been linking to our pages on their own sites, or blogs, or Facebook profiles. It appears evident then that the popularity of the pages is a consequence of Cripps’ behaviour. To proffer a possible scenario; someone who is experiencing problems at Guildford Lane Gallery might search for “Guildford Lane Gallery problems”, or “Cripps bully”, and as a consequence find these pages and then place a link to them on their own blog/site/page.

Now to return to the treatment meted to the "unknown" artists (myself and Lee-Anne Raymond). It would be inconceivable that Cripps would treat someone well known, like Stelarc, poorly. One can well imagine that if Stelarc (or the person who took the photographic record of his surgical procedure, Nina Sellars) were questioned about Cripps behaviour during that exhibition, then their account of his behaviour would most likely be of someone who behaves impeccably. The same however cannot be said of the experience with Cripps by those who have "no name". And, it is these nameless unknowns (like us) who have suffered his antics, and then searched for “Cripps problems”, found either the vakras or leeanneart page on Guildford Lane Gallery, and who have as a result contacted us by email. One of these correspondents who Cripps refused to pay contacted Lee-Anne, after finding her page on a google serach. This person took Cripps to VCAT ( VCAT ) AND WON HIS CASE AGAINST HIM. And, yet again, this too is claimed by Cripps to be an “injurious falsehood”. (If you’re reading this Cripps, we have the case number).

There are probably some for whom it might be a plausible consideration that Cripps is justified in expressing anger with regards to his views on Palestine and Jews. Many share his views. And many might even share his anger or hostilities to Israel. However, if Cripps takes a dislike to you, his “disagreement” with you can be for ANYTHING. It’s not a mater of religion, or Israel. There appears to be no subject that will not elicit an argument, disagreement, or adverse reaction from him; he becomes impervious to any appeal to reason. To proffer one such instance. One of my paintings, “the fucking press” (p. 29 Humanist Transhumanist catalogue) was accompanied with the text “
these paintings were inspired by Peter Costello (formerly treasurer of the Federal government of Australia) who in 2004 suggested we each have one child for mum, one for dad, and one for the country.”

Above, pp. 28-29 of Humanist Transhumanist

Now this is a negative criticism of Costello. The text appeared alongside the painting in the exhibition, and appears in the catalogue on the same page as the painting is reproduced. The painting reduces the human to a skeletal biomechanical construct composed of genitals intended to serve the purpose of the idea of a mechanised process of procreating on our behalf. At one stage, prior to the opening, when I was discussing this painting with him, Cripps’ snapped at me, “I don’t like Costello!”. He quickly turned and walked away in disgust. And this was on a subject that it would appear we both agree on. (This painting is part of a group which includes “Kouros of the industrial age (boy)" ).

Make of this what you will.

A god complex is a non-clinical term generally used to describe an individual who consistently believes … that their opinion is automatically above those with whom he or she may disagree.”
Addendum 1 June 2011

An unsolicited email was sent to us (30/5/2011), from an art society that subscribes to Cripps' electronic newsletters.

[ the "GLG Newsletter" has been converted into a PDF for legal access to it ]

Some points of interest concerning the contents of this "GLG Newsletter"

- Cripps claims that trade has been affected because of our web pages. The newsletter however shows that what is written on mine and Lee-Anne Raymond's page is generally ignored. There appear to be as many exhibitors showing at this gallery as there were at around the time that we exhibited there (both before & after our show). Guildford Lane Gallery is still being hired out, it still draws artists and musicians to exhibit and perform, and is as "alive" and "vibrant" (for want of a better description) as it ever was;

- With regards to people heeding anything that we write on our pages, or even heeding what we may have communicated verbally: the art society in question, aware (to some extent) of our grievance with Cripps, felt no compulsion to accept any of whatever advice we may have communicated orally, and did not "avoid Guildford Lane Gallery assiduously";

- Cripps is selling his building. It could have been that Cripps' endeavour to (in effect) censor what we write was undertaken in the context of this sale. Our pages may have been pointed out to him by his Realtor? It may not look good for a prospective buyer to see what we write;

- Speculatively: he may claim that this sale is "proof" of his "hard times"?

When All Else Fails.

In Australia, truth is not necessarily a defence against defamation. In this context, and aside from his claims of "injurious falsehoods", an ancillary element of his claim contends that his character has been tarnished.

- Cripps' ancillary contention then, amounts to one in which he is claiming to have been "defamed" because even though what we write might be true (though he does not make any concession to our truthfulness), it is something that might be unknown generally, so his "fame", which has been guaranteed by silence, has been affected. However, this amounts to an idea whereby anything negative that is written will always defame because we are all of "good fame" to begin with until someone writes, or comments negatively on our "fame". If we sue everyone who sullies this "good fame", because we all begin with "good fame", then we will always be of "good fame" and be able to sue in perpetuity anyone who sullies our "fame" even if it is the truth that is written or said about us. Thus with the assistance of the courts we can prevent a "FIRST INSTANCE" and maintain a pristine unsullied, even if false, persona.

For any person to become of "bad fame", one would have to permit the mention of the FIRST INSTANCE of a "bad act". But, since we all begin with "good fame", the mention of any "bad act" would automatically be "defamatory" because we are of "good fame" (good character) to begin with, and we can't say anything bad of someone already of good character. By this means we can prevent any FIRST INSTANCE. Cripps is trying to establish (via his lawyers) a principle in which it is claimed that he is of "good character", because (according to the claim) there is no FIRST INSTANCE. But everyone of "bad fame" started with "good fame". The principle here it seems is that he and his legal team seek to establish a concept in which anything written about anyone can only ever be "defamatory", unless it is approved of by the person being written about, regardless of its truthfulness. There would not be anyone of "bad character" in existence if we could all sue those who mention the FIRST INSTANCE. Essentially, the only thing I or anyone could ever write about him would in effect be free ADVERTISING for the Great Cripps, Cripps the Conqueror.

Conclusion: Cripps' claim amounts to something like: even if we absolutely show that what we write is true, since his business has been affected (if indeed it has been), because his "fame" (reputation) has been diminished, then he could still claim to have been "defamed". In the end we are to be penalised because we had the "audacity" to truthfully describe what he did to us, and how it adversely affected us. It would make for an excellent legal precedent, don't you think?

Expanded from the top of this page:

Ilisys (MYOB) had no legal obligation to remove any content from mine or Lee-Anne Raymond’s sites, nor were they exposed to damages because of our content. MYOB, trading as Ilisys, (in the email by Schneider) cited their “acceptable use” policy (which can be seen online), which it was claimed had been breached as reason for disabling our sites. According to MYOB (Ilisys) “defamatory or abusive language” is unacceptable, see below:

Above: screenshot taken on 11 May 2011 of
Defamatory or Abusive Language
Using Ilisys Web Hosting's network as a means to transmit or post defamatory, harassing, abusive, or threatening language.

However, there is no such “defamatory language” on either of our pages that could justify MYOB/Ilisys’ stance. Schneider calimed in one of his emails that it was because the matter was going to the Supreme Court. The disabling of our sites by MYOB / Ilisys though pre-empted an outcome. And, at the time that Schneider made his justification, the legal claim by Cripps had imploded; Cripps’ legal team had been forced to withdraw their claim. What legal claim Cripps had made against us was found to be structurally flawed and has to be restructured and any claim against us re-filed. As I write this, 27/5/2011, and at the time that Schneider justified/rationalised his stance, there was, and continues to be, no case pending against us.
Rather than go into a long explanation on what obligations a domain host might have, I will post the email I sent to Martin Schneider of Ilisys (MYOB) 20 May 2011:

You suspended; 
from your server. 

We also had; 
hosted with your company.


YOU OWE US A REFUND FOR OUR PAYMENT FOR THE HOSTING OF ALL 4 DOMAINS THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY US TO YOU. If we are not reimbursed we will be pursuing the matter as well as DAMAGES from VCAT.

You had no legal obligation to disable our sites, and have therefore acted maliciously in a manner prejudicial to our case against Cripps:

REFER 1/ Iinet v Roadshow Films (wikipedia page Roadshow Films v iiNet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ); 

2/ Jones v Toben, (ABC news summary Jail for Holocaust denier Toben - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) ).

With reference to the Iinet case, the judgement was that a domain host has no legal obligation to enforce what users do.

With reference to the Toben case. Toben's site is hosted by (Adam). Toben was found guilty of breeching anti vilification laws [of the Australian state of South Australia], but has refused to modify or remove his site, which is still up and running. All the courts could do was jail him for contempt of court. This site was then, and is still now, hosted by Adam. Adam has no legal obligation to remove the domain, nor is Adam exposed to any legally enforceable penalty for hosting the site. 

Our sites are © copyright to us. In Australia this is automatic, and includes MORAL RIGHTS. Your removal/block of our pages breeched our moral right to present our art in the manner we want it displayed. YOU VIOLATED OUR MORAL RIGHTS. You had no legal right to do so.
This is the Australian Government page on Intellectual Property:

IP Australia Media Centre : What is Intellectual Property : Copyright

"The creator of a work is also entitled to certain non-economic rights. Called 'moral rights' these include the right be named as the author of the work and the right to take action if the work is manipulated in a way that damages the integrity of the work."

Anyone seeking to have their domain hosted on any server would expect that the domain host would not act in a manner that could be seen to be censorial. It begs the question of what contents on any site hosted by a company such as MYOB / Ilisys might take exception to and censor. If Cripps had complained to Ilisys (MYOB) and asserted that some of my content is “racist” (because I criticise Islam), a claim Cripps made during our exhibition, then that for Ilisys (MYOB) could have constituted the grounds for disabling the site. Any number of complaints could be made to disable my site; it is anti-Christian and anti-Muslim, and so it might be argued my content breeches the state of Victoria’s bizarre religious vilification laws (“Racial and Religious Tolerance Act ”); it is critical of Australia, and therefore might be said to be seditious; it has a page titled “Islam is Terrorism” specifically titled in this way because of the EU’s moves to ban terminology that might associate Islam with terrorism (, and therefore what I write could be seen to breech EU laws. The move by MYOB, trading as Ilisys, sets into play the idea that any number of criteria can be left up to the domain host’s arbitrary discretion as to whether they leave your site alone, alter it (by disabling a page) or remove it. This amounts to censorship of the worst kind, and censorship that the domain host is under no obligation to enforce. There is no obligation for MYOB trading as Ilisys to act as the some kind of moral/ethical guardian, censor. There is no way anyone would care to have their domain hosted by MYOB trading as Ilisys if their site is to be governed by a company which seems to believe that it has a duty to enforce what it believes is right or wrong. Under such circumstances, if you are considering hosting your domain with MYOB / Ilisys, reconsider this in light of my own circumstances.

Comparison of “Acceptable Use” policies. There is no real difference between the “Acceptable Use” policy of Adam, and that of MYOB trading as Ilisys, see below:

Adam "Responsible Usage" 4 (b) "You must not use or attempt to use your Service to store, send, distribute or otherwise make available any content or material which:
(i) defames, harasses, threatens, abuses, menaces, offends or incites violence or hatred against any person or class of persons whether on grounds of gender, race, religion or otherwise

Quoted from Adam Internet - “Acceptable Use Policy.pdf”, accessed from (23/5/2011). Adam, to reiterate the point, continue to host the page, despite the case against having been proven in a court of law. MYOB trading as Ilisys, disabled our sites on the basis of a vexatious legal claim by Cripps, before the matter even got to the courtroom, AND AFTER CRIPPS HAD FAILED IN HIS ATTEMPT TO HAVE A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE INJUNCTION AGAINST OUR PAGES. That is, Cripps attempted to have the courts decide that my page (and that of Lee-Anne Raymond) be removed until such time as the matter was heard in court. Cripps failed in his attempt. However, MYOB decided that it was up to them to disable our sites....

We were and continue to be as much surprised, as we were angry, that Cripps is still persisting with his vexatious and malicious claim. Both of us are bewildered that Cripps can find legal counsel to facilitate his actions despite the weight of evidence against him. We had been certain that if Cripps' claims had been assessed competently, that any competent lawyer would have advised him against pursuing legal action.

[ - To DIRECTORY - ]

[return to exhibitions page]

[- To read the review of this exhibition by my co-exhibitor, Lee-Anne Raymond ]

To top