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.
Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod me troll but...Dude!
Art Thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Art Thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, good luck suing your way out of this one, dude...
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.
I'll bite... (Score:2)
the 2nd amendment also favours the rich, they can afford to arm themselves better than the poor.
You spelled "favors" with a "u". I know what side of the Revolutionary War you were on. :P
Anyway, you don't need a nuke or a laser gun or an aircraft carrier to effectively arm yourself. You can get a shiny new pistol for under $200, an arguably more useful hunting rifle for $500, or any other arsenal of weapons you could imagine (in the US, at least.) These prices are well within a month's paycheck for
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! Missed that on the initial read. Of course, his side lost.
The UK pistol compteition teams can't even practice in their own country. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/ sport/2005/12/29/sohoey29.xml&sSheet=/sport/2005/1 2/29/ixothspt.html)
I expect that the US will eventually revolt and throw off the plutocratic and corporatcratic rulers because arms are owned and available to the masses
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and while I'm at it, a note for both the copyright goon squad and the information must be free "unauthorized copiers":
There is a difference between copying a file and claiming someone else's creative work as your own (and profiting handsomely by it).
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: (Score:2)
I'll be interested to see if, in the end, anybody makes any real money but the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
A $99 surplus russian rifle from Big 5, plus a $50 10x tasco scope, will let you kill something at a good distance - and a bullet from a cheap gun will kill you just as dead as a bullet from an expensive one.
Rat's Off to Him! (Score:2)
It's not libel... (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No (Score:2)
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.
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...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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Folks who have been around Sl
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.
recontextualizing == duplication? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:recontextualizing == duplication? (Score:5, Funny)
2) He clearly removed the "bow" on the praying squirel's head, making it a boy squirel.
3) He added his name, TODD, in big letters
4) His is in color
Be sure to check out TODD's next series of books, Where's Wanda? where you will be challenged to pick out the girl in a white and blue striped shirt from a crowd of people. An idea he came up with entirely on his own, because he doesn't have time for books.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Goldman do bumper stickers? Because if not, I might have to do a little "recontextualising" of my own.
If copying someone else's t-shirt [threadless.com] and selling it as your own [davidandgoliathtees.com] is acceptable, what's to stop me copying Goldman's designs and selling them as my own?
Michael
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, the original person could sue you, but Goldman suing you would be illegal, as it is not afforded copyright protection due to it itself being an illegal copy.
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.
Um... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
penny arcade (Score:5, Informative)
The text of Gabe's post:
You might remember Tycho mentioning [penny-arcade.com] Todd Goldman [davidandgoliathtees.com] and a story about him stealing some artwork from a web cartoonist. We covered it in a comic and a post and our point of view was essentially “yeah it sucks but you can’t sue the guy for being a douche bag.” I would have left it at that except, well the latest development in the whole ordeal is actually super funny. It’s important to point out that Todd’s initial response to the article about his thievery was to call Dave Kelly a Pedophile [fleen.com]. I’m not joking here he actually said “Here’s my inspiration! Every month I paint the works of a pedophile.” The letter goes on and it’s obvious that he’s just being a smart ass and blowing the whole thing off. Honestly I chuckled at the letter when I read it because (being a professional asshole myself) I thought it was a funny way to respond to the accusations. However, if you call someone a pedophile in a public forum you can’t turn around a few weeks later and threaten to sue that same forum for slander.
Todd’s lawyers sent Fleen a mail [fleen.com] last week that threatened legal action if they didn’t pull down all the stuff about Todd. The letter actually said “We have acquired articles posted on your website which contain defaming, derogatory and malicious statements about Mr. Goldman.” Yeah no shit, the guy isa thief what the hell do you expect.
This sort of legal bulldogging is especially lame after Todd’s initial reaction to the story. If you want to play the arrogant asshole and call people pedophiles I respect that. I really do. I’ve been overcompensating for my low self esteem by calling people names for twenty years. I know how it works and the only rule is if you can’t take it, don’t fucking dish it out.
Re:penny arcade (Score:5, Informative)
SMTP and the FROM field... (Score:2)
Gabe at penny-arcade mentioned this earlier today. Apparently, Mr Goldman called Dave Kelly a "pedophile" in the same forum that he's trying to sue for slander.
I thought people around here were supposed to be computer-savvy? I thought the guys at Penny Arcade would understand this point, too.
The E-mail came from someone who had Goldman's E-Mail address in the E-Mail's "FROM" field.
Now, the above statement does not rule out the answer everyone's assuming - that Goldman sent the e-mail. It's possible. But nevertheless there is a very real possibility that the e-mail was just sent by someone else. On Fleen they acknowledge this possibility but assume the sender
if i just could... (Score:2, Funny)
i guess an automated website-sue-tool would be handy at these times and i could even make some bucks of it. just enter the URL and the sue-o-mat[tm] will look up the entries at the appropriate NIC, fill out all required forms and send the completely autogenerated charge to your local court. man, that would save time for a lot of folks.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Pretty pathetic as far as creative art goes, but it does provide some plausible excuse for the blatant copying of the "Dear God..." drawing. Basically, he blames the underling for stealing the bunny drawing. In any case, it suggests that Todd Goldman gets the credit although his underlings do most of the work, evident
Re:ok, that explains it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All the artists should just do what I do and post art that is so crappy no one in their right mind would copy it.
[Life Lesson #427: Not everyone on the Internet is in their right mind.]
Re:ok, that explains it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ok, that explains it... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if the U.S. Attorney General can assure us that nothing he can't recall had anything untoward about it, I see no reason why Todd Goldman can't assure us that he innocently copied drawings he didn't know he'd seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then who was it your intention to copy?
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.
My response to that kind of threat.... (Score:2)
Bring it on!
Bullies tend to back down when confronted. Take a look at happens when David Linhardt [calspam.com] realizes that Mark Ferguson was going to fight back. http://www.spamsuite.com/node/82 [spamsuite.com]
Plagiarists Are Stupid. Throw Lawsuits At Them! (Score:2, Interesting)
http://chris-san.livejournal.com/49035.html [livejournal.com]
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 re
Re:Discerning Threat of Suit vs. Actual Legal Acti (Score:5, Informative)
I've learned the threshold is soo high, courts will essentially do nothing. I'm in the second year defending myself against a defamation lawsuit over a webpage I wrote saying one of my photos was published without my permission. The party suing me (Vilana Financial) filed (with their complaint) a sales agreement showing they bought the photo from Michael Zubistkiy, who they claim under oath is the true photographer.
I have proof the photo is mine, including the certificate of copyright registration. Also, there is no Michael Zubitskiy. They claim they paid him in cash, but did not get his contact information and lost the photo he gave them (and all copies). My investigator and their investigator cannot find anyone in the USA by that name -- no address, credit record, work history, or even welfare history or an unlisted phone number.
I have a certificate of copyright registration, the original digital file, out-takes from the same photo shoot, proof of prior publication on my website, and proof I sold the photo to a local magazine prior to their use of the image. They have nothing but this sales agreement with a signature. Knowing all this, the other party claimed, under oath, that the photo is not mine, but Michael Zubitskiy is the true photographer.
They supposedly met him at a health club, and upon subpoena, the club said they have no record of Zubitskiy. It's clear this is a fictional person, but what's more, even if he did exist, he did not take the photo -- I did. So I filed a motion for sanctions with all of the above evidence 15 months ago; the judge cancelled the hearing, saying it was premature and should wait until after the trial is over. Full story: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html [cgstock.com]
So I would not count on the courts to spot even an obviously absurd and improper claim. Everyone knows it's my photo, yet I'm 18 months into this litigation.
Already slashdotted! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That campfire looks like clipart.
So Many Jokes, So Little Time.... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe he's suing for Definition of Character?
This is obviously a clear cut example of prior art.
In all seriousness, I really just can't understand at all what he thinks he's doing. Either he is completely ignoring the advice of his lawyers or else he has got some incredibly bad ones. Just like most of the posters here I am not a lawyer* but I'm pretty sure that to be guilty of libel or slander the accused has to knowingly make a false statement and the statement has to be done with the intent of causing harm to the subject's reputation.
Making a true statement (It appears that he stole another artists work, I think he stole another artists work, He has created something a great deal like something someone else has created, etc.) or erroneously making a false statement (for example, saying Goldman's work was created second if it were to turn out that Goldman's work was actually created first) don't pass the standard to legally be considered libel. Of course since libel is a civil case rather than a criminal case he would only need a preponderance of evidence to win rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but even then I have a really hard time believing his lawyers think there's any chance of winning, and of course as people avidly point out whenever Mr. Thompson files a suit or even threatens such a thing, filing a suit that you have no reasonable expectations of winning opens you up to a counter-suit and just the act of threatening a suit that you have no reasonable chance of winning opens you up to charges of barratry.
*I wrote the abbreviation first but decided I really didn't like the sentence "Just like most of the posters here IANAL..."
Double standards? (Score:2)
just got off the phone with The Todd (Score:2)
*rimshot*
Stealing ideas (Score:2)
OK, do you think that kdawson refers to it as "stealing ideas" in order to try start yet another flamewar about whether you can steal an idea or not, or is he just oblivious?
And while we're at it, could we get an editor who doesn't treat punctuation like a game of Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey?
Re: (Score:2)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
Note definition number two.
Re: (Score:2)
Do any of the people offering these other definitions plan to challenge the court, by filing suit before a higher court to get the decisions to follow their o
He may not win, but it serves the cause (Score:2)
By the time that suit is finally settled (or retracted), he will have found some sort of agreement with the original authors (or sued them into oblivion as well), and it can't be spread anymore either 'cause then it would be slander.
That's
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Mencia (Score:3, Funny)
It gets worse (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Of course you can't...because there is no such law. There is no law which states that in order for a lawsuit to be legit that it has to be the last resort. There is no law which states that you can't threaten to sue somebody for a wrong done to you. Or that there has to be a step by step escalation.
Sorry to tell y
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ducks (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What's funny is that someone who goes to all that trouble just to print "QUACK, MOTHER FUCKER!" to stdout cannot spell "Turing" correctly.
TODD
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ducks (Score:4, Informative)
In short, main() is used both as the function to increment both pointers and also as the function to output the result; the operation main() performs in a given call is controlled by c.
Detail: When it runs the first time, c (read: argc) is greater than or equal to 1. So s gets initialized, and k (note, an array of ptr to char, like v (read: argv)) receives two pointers, each one character before the beginning of each "half" of the XOR'd string. c is non-zero, so we enter the first expression (a while loop).
A recursive call to main() is made immediately, providing !k (read: 0) as the first actual (i.e. c in the next call), and k as the second (i.e. v in the next call). In the recursive call, both pointers in v (read: k in the caller) are incremented (since c is zero) and s and k are ignored. The return value (i.e. the value evaluated by the while loop in the caller) is equal to *++*v, or the character in the second half of s. The return value will eventually be NULL when it reaches the end of the string. The caller then outputs whatever is pointed to by k[0] and k[1] (this is why we begin one character *before* the strings we're interested in).
In short, main(c,v) has two behaviors:
For all c: Given a target string y, initialize s = x1x2, such that, for all xi in x1 and all xj in x2, xi = xj xor yi + 10.
For all c: Initialize k such that k[0] is &x1-1, k[1] is &x2-1.
c == 0: increment v[0] and v[1]
c == 1: call self recursively, with c == 0, v == k, outputting the character pointed to by k[0] and k[1] until k[0] is NULL; then return 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be like Second Life Safari meets SWAP.AVI.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be much more worried about what the legions of goons are going to do to him outside of court.
Who is a goon? [dragonswest.com]
too lampoon is human, to forgive divine - from Bat Boy, in a 50's MAD
What's in the article? Wired won't tell, either (Score:2, Interesting)
Fear Google Cache, Baby (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, don't argue with double standards. It makes us all look b
Re: (Score:2)
That's the key issue here: plagiarism. Goldman is claiming that the works are his creations.
Re: (Score:2)
The most obvious and blatant one, I guess nobody infringing copyright who was sued by the mafiaa ever claimed copyright over their material. Here it's different. He claims the allegedly "stolen" content as his own intellectual property. I kinda doubt any of the kids dragged to court by the mafiaa ever claimed to be one of their hypestars and that the latest smash hit album was actually theirs.
Should the accusations be t
Re: (Score:2)