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...
"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.
What's funny is that someone who goes to all that trouble just to print "QUACK, MOTHER FUCKER!" to stdout cannot spell "Turing" correctly.
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..."
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
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
That's because SCO made the stupid mistake of picking on somebody who can afford even *better* lawyers...
Chris Mattern