Slashdot Mirror
Report of Net Art Theft Draws Lawyer Threats
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.
Considering the most common example I've seen, Todd's gonna have a very hard time covering his butt in a court.
It's not libel if it's true.
IANAL.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Can bluster compensate for an indefensible position? Sometimes...
Most of the stuff on
Liechtenstein never claimed to be the creator of the sources he appropriated. Goldman did.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Please explain how the praying bunny example exhibits recontextualizing!
Blar.
So many people in the big leagues steal ideas.
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.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
All that money he's made selling shirts and paintings and stuff, where his assistants brought designs to him and he didn't bother to ask where they got them, well, he's gonna have no problem affording lawyers because he's rich.
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I've seen a number of articles like this pop up on /. recently. Generally, the topic is something like "XX tawdry action occurs... lawyers threaten to sue".
... the value of the words alone.
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.
See, that's exactly what makes this interesting. If Goldman had only created a single work, instead of mass-producing t-shirts, people might say, "Hey, that's copied from this other place!" and let it go. Now suppose it was hanging in a museum, and the gift shop sold t-shirts or post cards of the copied work. Now, it's copyright infringement.
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.
Best Windows Freeware
With music/movies/software, we tend to support the college kids, families, and whomever is in the defense of the *AA lawsuits due to the fact that it appears about 90% of the time the "mafiaa" sue without enough incriminating evidence to actually win a lawsuit. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that the music pirates would have actually bought the copyrighted material in the first place, and, as individuals, generally aren't distributing the music past 2-3 people.
/. readers when I say that if this guy had printed out the other artists' work from the website and hung it on his wall, it'd be the same scale of copyright violation as the *AA sue people for.
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.
--
I think the BSD thing is a bit of a stretch -- yeah it's extremely derivative, but it's also different enough, adds elements, and mixes them in from other works. If pop art is your bag, this is actually decent.
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.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
You can sue anyone for anything in the US, but you cant go around using lawsuits as a threat.
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
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Several current conflicts demonstrate that tanks and jets are much more effective against armies than they are at pacifying hostile populations.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.