Report of Net Art Theft Draws Lawyer Threats 211
An anonymous reader sends in word of the well-known artist Todd Goldman, who has been accused of stealing images and ideas from an Internet comic artist/author and others, and profiting from them. Goldman has now threatened to sue the Web page that pointed out the apparent theft to the world.
Art Thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Art Thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, good luck suing your way out of this one, dude...
It's not libel... (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL.
Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:3, Insightful)
recontextualizing == duplication? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not libel... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not need to win a court case for it to be advantage to you. If your goal is to stop a source of negative publicity, a lawsuit may casue the other party to simply shut-up instead of incurring large legal bills on a matter of principal. Of course, if the other party calls you on it and is willing to fight in court you end up getting MORE negative publicity.
There's just no justice for the talented (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I support GPL to the death.
As an artist who has been completely ripped off, I'm glad to see someone with the opportunity to expose the fraud. There's absolutely nothing to fear from Mr. Goldman if their citing of the 2001 web comic is correct. In fact, I'd hire a particularly expensive lawyer just to make sure the legal fees being sent to Mr. Goldman's office are as high as they can possibly be. I don't think there's a more dispicable trait in this world than to claim someone else's work as your own. You simultaneously prevent the real creator from benefiting himself through his work while creating a false image of your brilliance.
Goldman has money (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the poor saps he's stolen from who are going to take the beatings. Such is the way of things.
By the way, the 2nd amendment also favours the rich, they can afford to arm themselves better than the poor.
There seems to be a pattern here.
Discerning Threat of Suit vs. Actual Legal Action (Score:2, Insightful)
While legal threats do carry weight of their own in our society, there's a BIG difference between threatening to sue and filing a legal document. The main difference is the consequences to the petitioner.
If I threaten to sue someone and don't have sufficient grounds to do so, there's no consequence to me for making that argument. (other than PR and reputation).
But once a lawyer files a document with the court, the lawyer or the plaintiff has signed a document that bears a signature alleging the facts within it are true. Not that it happens often, but the court could discipline you for a knowing falsehood.
Take legal threats for what they're worth
IANAL, etc, etc. If someone with a law degree wants to clean up or correct this post, have at it =D.
Re:It's not libel... (Score:5, Insightful)
A quick google search for his name brings up many pages repeating these allegations, and many of them back it up with image comparisons that are very damning.
This man's reputation as an artist is already ruined.
This legal threat is a desperate and foolish measure. The goal is to get rid of the allegations, but instead, the allegations will only be further spread.
And worse, if the threat is followed through to a lawsuit, the website's author will have a chance to prove the allegations in court. A quick look at the evidence reveals that this would likely be a slam dunk for the defense.
IANAL
Re:It's not libel... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Warhol he aint (Score:4, Insightful)
Goldman tries to pass his violations off as "fine art", when it's pretty clear he's actually about the merchandising, and that crosses the line.
Re:Consistency, please. (Score:1, Insightful)
This guy is blatantly copying and selling (for a profit) the artwork of others. I think I speak for most of the
Or, more concisely; mass reproduction, claiming ownership and selling for a profit != reproduction (solely) for home use.
Re:He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (Score:3, Insightful)
But since maestro Goldman is all about "recontextualization", I too will put that work in context, as just another bad-faith effort by a ripoff artist.
Threatening to sue is actionable (Score:4, Insightful)
For a lawsuit to be legit it has to be the last resort not the first threat you pull out of the bag. not to mention it can never be and idle threat but a step by step escalation where legal action is warranted.
He just put himself in an actionable position
Re:Goldman has money (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the poor saps he's stolen from who are going to take the beatings. Such is the way of things."
SCO can afford really good lawyers too. It isn't doing them any good. The cases I saw (yes, I RTFA) are without a doubt infringement for the ones that are copyrighted. He's going to take a beating on this especially with there being so many diverse sources of original (probably mostly) copyrighted images. Any moron judge or jury who can view the whole spectrum of his images compared to the "originals" will see a wholesale scheme of copying others' images and ideas. Doom and gloom. If I was his lawyer I'd tell him to settle. Of course I'm not a lawyer, I have ethics and scruples...his lawyers will just fight and bill him for every cent they can get while they fight (many) losing battles.
Re:Goldman has money (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because SCO made the stupid mistake of picking on somebody who can afford even *better* lawyers...
Chris Mattern
Re:I'll bite... (Score:3, Insightful)