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.
Roy Lichtenstein, anyone?
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
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?
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
The text of Gabe's post:
You might remember Tycho mentioning Todd Goldman 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. 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 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.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
...develop browser-extensions:
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.
"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'
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
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
What's funny is that someone who goes to all that trouble just to print "QUACK, MOTHER FUCKER!" to stdout cannot spell "Turing" correctly.
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.
Here's the Coal link to it: http://www.miketyndall.com.nyud.net:8080/todd_gold man/
Willie...
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.
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..."
See how they stood up
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What the lawyers don't want you to see.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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
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.
www.cgstock.com
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.
Wow! This guy's a bigger rip-off artist than Carlos Mencia!
default install, the only thing I've added is flash block.
Overview: The first half of s is the second half of s, XOR'd with the target output string (plus 10, since the result is not in the set of printable characters). Using two pointers, the program iterates over both halves of the string, undoing this operation to produce the target output string. When main() is called and c is zero, it increments the two character pointers in v (changing them in the calling function, which happens to be main()).
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.
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
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
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.