What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
202 Comments
- chrisnixon, on 02/06/2008, -3/+132Absolute disgrace. Some people and companies have no shame.
- jonester, on 02/06/2008, -1/+105That is such a shame. Not only did they steal her photo. They are selling it for a profit. There was already over 80 copies of that photo downloaded! That should be her money since she took the time, the skill, and the creativity to produce such an amazing photo(s).
- Falldog, on 02/06/2008, -6/+104That's why you've got to throw big honking watermarks over everything.
- cmiper, on 02/06/2008, -1/+93Not smart on the thief's part, as you have to submit quite a bit of personal information in order to set up your iStockphoto seller's account, including scan/copies of your driver's license and/or passport. Not sure why they would think this is a good idea, but a lesson will be learned I am sure.
- chriskzoo, on 02/06/2008, -13/+97Typical Digg response:
"Sue those *****!"
*beep (300.divx has finished downloading) - av4rice, on 02/06/2008, -3/+67When I downloaded 300, I didn't claim to have made it nor did I try selling it for my own profit
- curme, on 02/06/2008, -6/+62Stealing pictures online! What's next? Movies and music?
- sjbdallas, on 02/06/2008, -6/+57Iceland chicks are so hot.
- KMye, on 02/06/2008, -3/+40If she gets a good laywer, that will be her money, plus more. When people do get caught, the US enforces copyright law pretty harshly.
- DarkDx, on 02/06/2008, -4/+31What about not enabling the large view to beging with? I don't think anyone (serious) would buy a 640x480 stock photo.
- QuickeningYak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+25It's a patronymic, pretty much universal in Icelandic culture. Guðleifsdóttir = daughter of Guðleif, which I would assume is the name of this person's father.
- inactive, on 02/06/2008, -9/+33when you pirate the world you don't care.
hypocrites. - MrBabyMan, on 02/06/2008, -0/+22Looks like iStockphoto removed it: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=233 ...
- bieber, on 02/06/2008, -4/+25Totally different situation. If the infringer in question had just been sharing copies of the image with friends, then I'd say "Oh, cool, they're sharing a worthwhile piece of art." This, on the other hand, is illegally profiting from the straight-up resale of someone else's work, without even adding anything of your own to it first. Basically, the digital equivalent of the guy selling DVDs out of his trenchcoat in the subway station...
- Dylson, on 02/06/2008, -1/+20How ***** hard is it to spell HER
- kiapet, on 02/06/2008, -0/+18This is really disappointing, especially for people like me. I use iStockphoto to distribute photos I shot myself, but people are always stealing them from flickr. I guess you can't win either way.
- Ajajadude, on 02/06/2008, -0/+18Next step: compensation.
- cmiper, on 02/06/2008, -0/+18I fail to see where this is Yahoo/Flickr's fault. The person took the photos and would have taken them from wherever they had been posted, and then uploaded them to iStockphoto??
- adderx99, on 02/06/2008, -0/+17...they probably got the license/ passport scan off flickr too,,,,
- QuickeningYak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+15Something more like "300-dvdrip-xvid.avi" is accurate.
- cathpah, on 02/06/2008, -1/+16welcome to the world of a photographer in the digital/internet age. it sucks.
I'm a professional photographer as well, and I have to deal with/battle this all the time. It's both lame and ridiculous....and it takes hard earned money out of my pocket/off the dinner table. - benitojuarez, on 02/06/2008, -2/+16This is why the gods handed down watermarks to the realm of men.
- bfrank72, on 02/06/2008, -1/+15How about that last name?
- whyufail, on 02/06/2008, -1/+15I disagree. If she had intended for them to be publicly viewed at that resolution, she had that right. That doesn't mean the people who download it now have the right to sell it as their own. There is a difference here. Your logic would make sense if her problem was people reposting the image or downloading the image, but the problem is that its being taken and resold, which is an entirely different scenario.
- inactive, on 02/06/2008, -3/+16looking at something yourself. is hardly the same as taking work someone else did and profiting by claiming its your own and reselling it.
movie theater doodz, look at this "300" movie i made!!!! wana play it in yor theater?? - MagicIcarus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+14A lot of you are missing the main point of art or anything else created: One of the greatest joys of creating something beautiful is being given credit for it. Most things are done for the appreciation of our peers, and we like to be thanked for it.
It's not that it was stolen. It's that he claimed to have created it. - JARSInc, on 02/06/2008, -1/+13http://xkcd.com/322/
- muniak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12Ruins the photos that were meant to be shared =/
- n8r0n, on 02/06/2008, -0/+10http://flickr.com/photos/rebba/81996799/
- KMye, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9You don't need to be in the US on anything other than the actual court dates.
- jcounterman, on 02/06/2008, -1/+10To Istockphoto's credit, they've removed the picture from the site.
- ChuyMatt, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9I think it IS part of the point: she has used her talent to create great photographs that have been ripped off and the one rewarded from this was not the person with the talent.
- themastersb, on 02/06/2008, -3/+12I think what we should be focusing on is that a girl has had here photos ripped off.
- DeadlyAlpaca, on 02/06/2008, -2/+11Sort of a comment steal here, but:
Have you guys looked at any of her photos? She is a phenomenal photographer. Completely beside the point of this digg article, but wow she just takes great photos. - thedarkrabbit, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10As a photographer... this really pisses me off...
Time to supersize my Watermark.... - whyufail, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10The issue wasn't that it was "stolen" because it was freely available to download. The issue is plagiarism, in that they claimed it as their own work and are now profiting from it. I was waiting for you anti-piracy morons to come up and make illogical arguments.
- cbuddha42, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10She's not from the US and even if the thief is I doubt she would travel here to file.
- illspaz, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7guess they haven't yet gotten to the realm of women
- spitsnaugle, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8If your a web designer, 640x480 is good, and cheap.
- Dfects, on 02/06/2008, -4/+11downloading a pirated piece of software is nowhere near the same as someone stealing your work, and selling it off as their own? are you from another planet?
- illspaz, on 02/06/2008, -4/+11*****. i've stolen music and used flickr photos before... but i listen to the music and set the photos as wallpapers... not resell for profit. even if it is violating the usage policy, it's sharing art and not blatant plagiarism.
- spudnic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6The accent totally does it for me
- MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6You forgot release group...
- QuickeningYak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6With props to all, I redacted the filename. Plausible deniability and all.
- KamikazeeDriver, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6everything about her does it for me!
- bradcrc, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5wow. Never heard of her before, but I'm a fan.
Brilliant photography, and she also likes to take pictures of her own breasts. She's like the best photographer ever. wow.
Seriously though, amazing work. Other than the people shot, most of her pictures are exactly like I would take, only much better. Sucks that somebody is stealing it. - cadmiumpaint, on 02/06/2008, -3/+8a bit hypocritical...Digg users are all like "copyrights are bad, content should be free!!!!!!OMG FTW SCREW TEH RIAA SCREW COPYRIGHTS FTW OMG!!!!11"
and then when a poor artist like this gets ripped off you're all...OMG COPYRIGHTS own all. SUE SUE SUE!!! FTW!!
you can't have it both ways.
many of you don't understand that when you create an environment of intellectual property theft being ok...and by that i mean stealing music or movies and saying "its ok because its from a big corp" you then move that over to everything and say..."its not theft..it was on flickr therefore its free" or... "well i stole it, and made money off of it, but its cool cuz i gave credit so its all good"..but its not. You're a thief and you're stealing from people....who are often struggling artists.
I've wanted to put up my photography on flickr for along time. But i know if i ever put up anything good, it'll get stolen.
Flickr is becoming more and more a place that people view as free stock photography, so i avoid it like the plague. - GawtMilk, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Plus, a member joined and added them in the first place...not the company itself.
- carterbaldwin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5The way you wrote '*****' as 'fck' really added a nice touch of class. Kudos!
- birgirpall, on 02/06/2008, -2/+7That's assuming you would have gone to see the movie if you hadn't downloaded it. A big assumption when movie ticket prices are on the rise in your country.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 202 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is