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.
It's an interesting case.
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.
Best Windows Freeware
"was inspired from a drawing he received unbeknownst to him belonging to..."
:O
:O
;p
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'
The image for which Goldman attracted a substantial amount of press and fame and upon which he built his profitable David And Goliath Tees company--the "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them" work--appears to have been partially copied from the portfolio of Chip Wass:
http://chris-san.livejournal.com/49035.html
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
www.cgstock.com
I thought you guys would find this amusing - FreeBSD daemon on the left, "Todd"'s "art" on the right:
i efcm2.jpg
j pg
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.
See how they stood up
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yeah, because he'd be contributing so much more to society as a bloodsucker than as a photographer.
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 good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
The page about Todd Goldman on Wikipedia was "Office Protected" for a while, apparently after Wikipedia received similar lawsuit threats. Wikipedia's hometown of St. Petersburg, Florida, is 1/2 hour drive away from Clearwater, where Goldman's company is based - so they may be especially sensitive to lawsuit threats from him because they'd be a convenient target.
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.
There's a huge difference. Lichtenstein wore his sources on his sleeve and make no secret he was appropriating the images, and his final product actually used these images in a very different way than they were originally presented. For what it's worth comic book artists at the time were basically anonymous and their work was considered among the lowest of the low as far as artistic value goes, his paintings were also about making "high art" from "low". I won't defend the merits of this, as it was a product of its time, but there is a difference-- Lichtenstein took images and make something new, Goldman blatantly stole someone else's work and put his name on it. Not once but again and again.
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.