George Riddick — the One-Man RIAA of Clip Art 175
An anonymous reader writes "Pages at ireport.com and extortionletterinfo.com have been documenting and researching the activities of George P. Riddick III, previously known for his lawsuits against IMSI and Xoom at the turn of the century. In 2007 he issued a largely-ignored press release claiming the majority of clip art online infringes a copyright and has ranted about how Microsoft and Google are stealing from him. In recent months, he's apparently made a business model of going after web site operators who were using clip art they believed to be legally licensed or public domain, telling them they're infringing clip art collections he hasn't offered commercially in years and making outrageous settlement demands. He seems to have tested the waters on this some years back, but emboldened by the passage of the PRO-IP act, he's gone aggro with it. A few dodgy anonyblogs had popped up to 'out' him as a copyright abuser, but these recent ireport.com and extortionletterinfo.com reports go much deeper in documenting and researching Riddick's recent one-man campaign to be the RIAA of clip art."
Professional Indemnity Insurance (Score:4, Interesting)
In the UK, it is highly advisable for any business to take out Professional Indemnity Insurance. This covers this type of eventuality - and faced with a professional legal opponent these type of people will invariably back down.
Re:Even stupider... (Score:5, Interesting)
Riddick's designs are so simple and generic [imageline2.com] that they could easily have been drawn (or typed) by someone else from scratch without ever having seen Riddick's version.
It's also highly likely that versions of at least some of them were around before Mr Riddick's businesses claim to have 'designed' them. In the early days of graphical computing clip art got copied around even more than it does now. In this case if someone had authentic prior art, and could demonstrate it, they could sue Mr Riddick for copyright infringement, which would be deeply sweet.
If you were producing graphics on a computer before about 1986, it could be well worth scanning your collection for images which match any of the disputed images...
Re:Even stupider... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ahh, fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
We looked into the extra costs in doing embrodary and was appalled at the total lockdown of the artwork for any of the machines.
Is there no one who's hacked them yet? Home CNC paper-cutters which don't have built-in support for custom patterns have had third-party software published that lets you e.g. import SVGs.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
He had illustrators and computer artists on staff generating clip art from scratch. He paid our wages at times when I know he wasn't keeping up with his own personal bills. (banker in the front lobby waiting to collect a mortgage check)
If there are other matching images out there for free - great, the copyright shouldn't apply and the folks that originally sold those images for use should have an easy time defending themselves. And there really are boatloads of public domain clipart out there. On the other hand, if they can't point to a free source for that image - then they outta be ready to repay George for the all that he invested in creating that image.
It's not the end-user embroidery shop that's the problem - they're being legit, buying rights to use artwork from the real scumbags here - the folks that are grabbing art libraries from whatever source they can find and putting them up for sale as if they own them.
Re:Ahh, fair use (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is an often under-noticed area of copyright infringement (It looks like actual illegal infringement to me, but IANAL). My mother has several CDs full of images that she uses to decorate shirts, blankets, etc for her grand-kids. They cost her ~$5 apiece and are filled with lovable Disney characters that have been copied out of movies or TV shows, interpretted into embroidery patters, burned in bulk to CD, and then sold. My mom, of course, uses the logic that, since she paid for the discs, there's no way that she could be doing anything wrong. I'm sure that Disney is aware of the situation and is frustrated that they can't suck the blood from these spinster pirates because of the bad PR involved with suing confused grandmothers. At least that's my take on it.
Re:Even stupider... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, George. This is the Internet age now. If it isn't nailed down nothing in the world will keep people from stealing it. And then making use of it however they see fit. This is part of the new bargain we are striking with people everywhere - creativity is now a "mashup" or a "remix" of older works because it is impossible to create anything new - it has all been done before. Therefore, there are no legal rights to anything.
It also means that if I can take something, I can sell it. If you are stupid enough to buy it from me rather than just taking your own free copy, you are the loser. Trying to involve the courts simply means that you don't understand the Internet. Of course, the courts don't either.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Umm, you just triggered my "astroturf" alert. This is the only comment Slashdot has you on record for, so I can't get a grasp of whether you are real or not.)
Your argument is wrong in that it tries to place a burden of proof on every amateur website out there, something that is silly. Cliparts from the Eighties have changed hands many, many times; disks sold at garage sales and copy/paste make it impossible for a hobby webmaster to keep records. If we were to use your metric, then almost all of the web would be easy prey to copyright lawsuits.
No, I have to disagree with you there, Mister Former Riddick Employee. If someone is actually selling cliparts, well, OK. That's worthy of legal action. But merely using a picture and not remembering if you bought it or not? Please. You may as well accuse me of shoplifting because I can't produce the receipt for the jeans on me arse.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument is wrong in that it tries to place a burden of proof on every amateur website out there, something that is silly. Cliparts from the Eighties have changed hands many, many times; disks sold at garage sales and copy/paste make it impossible for a hobby webmaster to keep records.
That's not a real solid defense. I would say not to use discs sold at garage sales if you're running a professional operation. Using an image when you have no idea who the rightholder is would be a bad idea.
No, I have to disagree with you there, Mister Former Riddick Employee. If someone is actually selling cliparts, well, OK. That's worthy of legal action. But merely using a picture and not remembering if you bought it or not? Please. You may as well accuse me of shoplifting because I can't produce the receipt for the jeans on me arse.
That mixes the notion of copyright (where images can be duplicated) with actual objects that can't. But, just for fun let's say I can prove only I make/sell those jeans. Well, if I know I'm the only one who sells the jeans, and I didn't sell you the jeans, and you're wearing the jeans...
...Then yeah, you either stole the jeans or are in receipt of stolen property. Just like in the current scenario.
Now, if it were me I'd send a C&D to people who are using the stuff before actually pursuing litigation, because it is kind of a d*ck move to demand money. But from a legal standpoint, I do believe he has the right to do what he's doing, though I'm most certainly not a lawyer.
And this is different from Getty images how? (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the less polished langauge, it's the same thing that happens if you happen to grab an image off a CD from ten years ago which unluckily happens to be in the Getty imagebank and use it in your website. They'll send you a bill for a couple grand for an image they license at $30/yr. And you'll send a check, because if not they'll haul you to court, and any lawyer worth his salt will tell you you're fucked.
The problem is that there is no way to determine if the clip art (or images) you have infringe on anyone's copyright, because there is no way for an individual or small business to match images against the sea of information out there. Your only recourse is to have a physical paper of license in your hands before you do anything. Somehow, I don't think that was the intent behind Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution - that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." You may as well just lock up the web and throw it away.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
If this guy really owned the clipart, and they are being used commercially without permission, then he has every right to go after any involved party. Obviously they can then choose to settle, if under reasonable terms, or just remove the damn clipart.
I really don't see what's so evil about this guy. *As long as he can prove his assertions.*
It strikes me that there are a few issues going on. First there's the question over whether the guy really does own the copyright to these images. It should be the fundamental question and the ultimate focus of the issue. But a lot of attention is being drawn elsewhere; by the guy (George Riddick) himself.
He's made grandiose claims that search engines are to blame. Either he really believes search engines are to blame or he's using the big names behind those search engines to gain attention.
His letters to individuals employ numerous methods often also employed by con-men. They request / demand confidentiality. They are hostile and threatening in nature. They seek to uncover information that one wouldn't normally be interested in providing to a hostile party. They induce an artificial sense of urgency. They attempt to induce costs and complexity. And they are ultimately light on detail of the matter at hand - the actual copyright infringement.
That's not to say that any of this negates a real legal claim. But the showmanship is distracting. The more someone waves their hand around, the more attention you should pay to what it is they're hiding.
Re:Ahh, fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ahh, fair use (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe Disney would still go after the buyers of those discs anyway. There's probably not much parity in the example I'm about to give, but I remember many years ago that Disney went after several independently owned daycare centers and home daycare businesses which used depictions of Disney characters on walls. Sometimes these depictions were painted, but often the depictions were vinyl or wooden cut-outs presumably purchased from a source licensed to use the images.