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.
Warhol he aint (Score:5, Interesting)
Tod Goldman is, without a doubt, a total jackass, but what he does is extremely common. Fine art has generally gotten a pass when it comes to copying from various sources. It's not as widely known, but it's also very common for comics to copy panels from other comics. It's considered kind of a jerky, lazy thing to do, but it happens all the time.
Godman is recontextualizing the images, and that, in and of itself, can make new and unique works, but instead of honoring the source (or at least owning up to the fact that he copies), he avoids the issue and sends threatening letters.
He's painted himself into a corner. Instead of taking the high road, he has instead presented himself as a no-talent imitator.
ok, that explains it... (Score:5, Interesting)
So he didn't know he recieved and looked at the drawing and then duplicated it nearly line for line...he's obviously got better drugs than we do
-or-
He didn't know who it belonged to....so he assumed he did it and put his name on it
oh wait...that doesn't explain a darn thing
and i love the 'inspired from'
Re:ok, that explains it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Plagiarists Are Stupid. Throw Lawsuits At Them! (Score:2, Interesting)
http://chris-san.livejournal.com/49035.html [livejournal.com]
Re:It's not libel...been there, done that (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I called their bluff and they sued me. A photo from my website was published in the Twin Cities phone book inside cover. The corporation that used it refused to pay a licensing fee, and I wrote about it on my website. They threatened to sue me for defamation, arguing the photo was not mine, but taken by Michael Zubitskiy (a fictional person). I have a certificate of copyright registration for the photo, and did not remove the webpage. They sued me for defamation, and it's safe to say it's blown up in their face.
I later brought my own action for copyright infringement in federal court, trial is set for November. They first sued me in August of 2005, and I was in court just yesterday (I'm litigating "pro se", representing myself). Yesterday's hearing was because they wanted email between myself and an attorney I hired to get legal advice from, which is obviously protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.
The full story is here:
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html [cgstock.com]
He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5980/goldmanth
Check the odd pattern on the sneakers - matches up exactly with the pattern the pixels make when you blow up the image. The daemon head is from another Wassco piece:
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6038/devilhp1.
What's in the article? Wired won't tell, either (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:you are one badass motherfucker (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember my aunt - who used to be a fashion photographer - got similarly ripped off *repeatedly* by different companies. Many of them were companies with whom she'd do business, they'd keep using the photographs after the license they'd buy had expired, that sort of thing. She eventually made a fair amount of money off the lawsuits, but it was touch and go for a while, and what with one thing and another I think she's more or less given up professional photography.
It's a real problem with American law, especially copyright - in order for creators to actually benefit from the protection, they basically need to practice law on the side. OTOH, powerful groups with many lawyers and deep pockets can use the threat of litigation as a club even when they have no case.
4445 is cute and all, but 3472? Definite MILF.
The plot is even thicker (Score:2, Interesting)
Clearwater is the home of the Church of Scientology, which has ties to a great many businesses located there. The Church of Scientology is also thoroughly documented to use lawsuit threats, lawsuits (especially on intellectual property grounds), and strange false pedophilia accusations, against its enemies.
Todd Goldman's business is located in Clearwater. He's using lawsuit threats on intellectual property grounds, and strange false pedophilia accusations, against his enemies.
I don't know that there's any connection between Goldman and Scientology - Hanlon's Razor about malice and stupidity applies and it's entirely possible that he and the Scientologists are simply both jerks with nothing else in common - but it's enough to make me wonder.
Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:1, Interesting)
I will concede though, that "fine art", as in hanging on museum and gallery walls, gets much more of a "pass" as far as blatant theft of intellectual property goes. Possibly because it's supposed to be cultural commentary, or the pieces aren't supposed to be a commodity (though of course a painting is), partly just because it's "Art" with a capital A. Publication and mass reproduction changes everything (and changes the "artist" to a "graphic designer" as well.) If Goldman would have kept the images in galleries rather than selling t-shirts and such this would most likely not be an issue.
Note that I'm not defending the above statement as "correct", just speaking as someone who's been in the midst of the "art world" for quite some time. Also Lichtenstein may well have been sued in 2007, I wouldn't be surprised, but he would likely win such a case where Goldman will most likely and deservedly lose.