digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

More art stolen from deviantART

digitalphenom.deviantart.com — DigitalPhenom from deviantART has had his art stolen and altered to make myspace layouts by Pyzam.com and they refuse to remove it even though its protected by a creative commons deed and is in violation of copyright laws!! This has already happened with otherwork... we need to stop it

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LonesomeFighter, on 10/12/2007, -79/+12the layout of the site made me lose all credibility. I'm sure it for real and is a serious matter. But if those moving faces were gone and the layout had more thought put into it, then it would be a lot more credible.
    • dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -58/+16the layout of the site is not whats in question here but thank you for your response. :)
    • quomen, on 10/12/2007, -87/+399My question to all of you is, why do you say
      "***** THE RIAA" because they're trying to
      protect their artists and then turn around and
      cry foul when people take art from deviantart?
      Ok, i'll admit, I hate the RIAA too, but when I see uproars like
      this over stolen art it just draws some interesting parallels
      and I want to know what you guys think about it..
    • NerveBand, on 10/12/2007, -59/+14This guy's post is so atrocious. He turned DeviantART into a Myspace. Makes me hate this guy. He deserves to get his work stolen with such stupid design ethics.
    • rick2k, on 10/12/2007, -23/+125quomen has a seriously good point......

      Maybe becuase the RIAA is a stupid set of people sending out lawsuits left right and center.. but this is just one guy and his work.

      i dono?
    • tb229, on 10/12/2007, -21/+286Its very different stealing music, you're most likely just going to be listening to it.
      You aren't using that music to turn a profit or increase traffic to your website.
    • npsken, on 10/12/2007, -28/+132The RIAA hacks computers illegally and accuses people who've never even touched computer in their life.

      That's the difference.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+92The RIAA is trying to make their own money. DeviantArt doesn't go suing people over this.
    • Konstantino, on 10/12/2007, -13/+99@ quomen: Your point is VERY valid, but think about it this way; this guy isn't making money off his art at all. Artists do make money, and a crap load at that. He released his art for the public to enjoy, not to use it and sell it off.
    • ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+68@quomen:

      Because's it's a complete different matter. The reason people don't like the RIAA is for their sick-scary tactics of sueing consumers over downloads. The people who download these songs, aren't making a profit, or claiming credibility over someone else's works.

      Where as with the people stealing others art, and using it as if was their own, for their own purpose, without even acknowledging the original artist.
      It would be like me going to a website of yours, taking all your graphics, and then making my own website from those graphics, and claiming that I am the original creator.

      That's why it is different.
    • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -14/+47@quomen: because the RIAA does not represent the individual artist. They don't give money back to the artist from lawsuits. They act as a cartel to maximize profits from (not TO) artists, often completely eliminating any profit from CD sales the artist might have seen. They also back laws that make other musical outlets less-than viable.

      If you're drawing comparisons between an internet graphical artist and the RIAA, you are so far out of touch with the situation there's no much else I can say.
    • Nitrodist, on 10/12/2007, -10/+59Wrong. The RIAA isn't trying to protect artists. They're just there to protect their own interests, which is money. The problem with the industry is that the Artists themselves don't own the music, it's the corporations. So when it's infringed upon, it's the Corporations that'll be losing the most money and not the artist themselves.

      RIAA is a corporation that protects it's OWN copyrights. The article in question is about an INDIVIDUAL that isn't owned by a major company. The practices held by the RIAA aren't held in good public opinion, as well, so don't cry foul when we're for a person's right to their work than just some huge company looking to make a buck on the incredible money they already are making.

      Courtney Love actually has a very persuasive article that she wrote: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
    • quomen, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13To all of you guys, yeah I was thinking that too, like the RIAA's
      stupid practices of chasing piraters.. Like suing a people who
      dont have computers or whatnot. That's why I hate them. But
      would the hate be less if they only chased after legitimate piraters?

      The RIAA is protecting their artists and also what they believe is their
      property right? idk, like imagine if there was a AIAA, artist industry association
      of america and they did similar things. Would we have as much sympathy?
    • AgentEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@ quomen
      I can't speak for everyone, but my problems with the RIAA have nothing at all to do with the fact that they try to protect their IP. My dislike of them has more to do with the way they treat their legitimate customers, the way they treat their artists, and the manner in which they try to protect their IP.
    • lowerlogic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12There is a big difference between people stealing music from the MAFIAA (who barely pay their artists anything and keep most of the profit for themselves) in order to listen to it in the privacy of their homes, and people stealing from independent artists, reclaiming the stolen works as their own creations, and trying to make a profit from it. One is called copyright infringement, the other, piracy.
    • DarkEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33@quomen
      Unlike the RIAA, this guy actually has proof.
    • cypher35, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15You raise an interesting point here about the parallels RIAA, but it does not quite fully apply to this scenario. There is a significant difference between copyright infringement and plain 'ol piracy.

      When most people download music, illegal or otherwise, they do not usually claim it as their own creation and attempt to profit off of it. THAT is what is so absurd about this.
    • noots, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3dude, i don't want to sound like an *****, but nothing you have done is remotley creative, you've followed a few "universe"/"planet" photoshop tutorials, and that's about it.

      not to mention you stole some vista wallpapers without permission for you "layerd wallpaper", so you're not exactly in a position to complain.

      but over all the bottom line is, stealing from deviant art is hugely lame.

    • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Nitrodist, copyright protections were not written for corporations. They are not meant to be mongered by a middleman. The problem is that the RIAA actually has any properties at all--corporations only want money as a principle. If copyright is meant to encourage artistic expression (and legally, it is--explicitly!) then what justification is there for the RIAA to hold copyrights on so many people's works? Are they encouraging artistic expression? No. They're just profiting from other people's work, long after said people are even ALIVE.

      But that's okay, just because they've made it legal through lobbying?
    • hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10Sorry to hijack, but I'm not impressed with this whiny deviant art guy...

      He's stolen some ideas himself...

      Compare this: http://www.deviantart.com/print/526905/

      To the work of well-known artist Adam Betts: http://www.artofadambetts.com/weblog/?p=146
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"You aren't using that music to turn a profit or increase traffic to your website."

      whats your take on the whole Youtube/viacom thing then?

      Youtube has been using "stolen art" in both the form of video and music for years
    • thegenome, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Its being removed!!!
      http://digitalphenom.deviantart.com/journal/12230981 for more information
      woo... go the power of digg!
    • realyst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@quomen:

      "But would the hate be less if they only chased after legitimate piraters?"

      I believe it would. I certainly would hate them less. Especially if they stopped meddling with laws and lobbying as well.
    • koonchu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@tb229: Your argument FTW
    • mehss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1quomen, apples and oranges.
    • smhill, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@hifiDesign
      "He's stolen some ideas himself...

      Compare this: http://www.deviantart.com/print/526905/

      To the work of well-known artist Adam Betts: http://www.artofadambetts.com/weblog/?p=146 "

      ------------------------------------------------

      First: Depicting seasons like that is very common. Alphonse Mucha did something very similar over a 100 years ago.

      Second: Betts did not create the image you referenced, he just made a desktop of this : http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/5856508/ (which he did credit in the post you linked, but apparently did not read)
    • fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I never thought I would see Digg turn into the DiggAA, or here, the DeviantAA.

      This is exactly the same as the RIAA and the MPAA. The only difference is that here you have a specific human example instead of the mass numbers you get with the other two. Those two organizations protect the copyright interests of their members, just like...this guy is trying to do. The only difference is that at least some of the stuff their members produce is worth it.
    • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@quomen

      There is differences. First off, the RIAA are greedy bastards who overprice stuff, dont give much back to the artists and they sue like crazy. They sue people even if they dont have a computer!

      This however is someone stealing directly from the artist and calling it their own. You dont see people stealing movies then saying that they made that movie... Plus, this art is protected by creative commons licensing, which is so much better than regular copyrights.
    • Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The answer is simple and in two parts:

      1) People want to justify stealing music and movies without paying for them

      2) Their inborn hatred of most corporations allows then to pretend that #1 is somehow justified while still whining every time it suits them.

    • iOsiris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@quomen
      Yeah but do you see the RIAA going after DigitalPhenom? No, why? Because the RIAA doesn't protect the artists, its just there for the money.
    • Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@quomen

      This situation is so completely different then what the RIAA does that about the only thing in common is that intellectual property is involved.

      The main point is that the RIAA sues to make money. This guy wants his art to be free to anyone who wants to enjoy it and not let someone else make money off of it
    • daversion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@quomen

      I think the basic difference is that pyzam is a for-profit site, and they are profiting off of someone else's creation through banners and such. RIAA goes after any unauthorized use of recording artists' material, even when there has been no money transfer before reaching the end-user.

      The reason we view the two differently, I would argue, is that there is an intensional unauthorized effort to profit off of someone else's creative property in pyzam's case. Having said that, I don't condone pirating.

      It's like analogizing first-degree and second degree murder, the intent is different.

    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Its funny how many digg users will support the right to pirate and trade music, software and movies till the cows come home but some guy steals a jpg and its a travesty.
    • hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ smhill: Oh, sooooooooooo sorry... I didn't have my glasses on.

      Needless to say, he still HEAVILY based some of his work off of someone else's ideas. There's no question about that and no need for the smoke and mirror routine — I don't see any credits on this guy's site for Silveryn's work. So he too should give credit where it's due or stop bitching.
    • sljivovic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@quomen,
      It's because the RIAA:
      1) Sues people that are obviously innocent, causing them to incur huge expenses to defend themselves,
      2) Goes on fishing expeditions to find a few violators among innocent people,
      3) Hides behind the whole issue of compensating the artists, but then does everything they can to minimize the amount of money that actually goes to those artists.

      I don't steal music but I don't like them either.
    • Vectorphobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dont support what the RIAA is doing, but i think that if people didnt go around being dicks, and using crap for their layouts (as it were) and taking credit for it, the RIAA wouldn't have to or be able to do it
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yep the riaa sux but this is total hypocrisy by diggers. Sheesh make up your mind people.
      He should not have posted high res copies.
    • Snowcone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@quomen

      If you think the RIAA is out to protect the artists... well then I have some ocean front property out in Arizona that I'd love to sell you.
  • mstrozewski, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I went to their site and saw your passion image on there background for "red" I think that's totally wrong and if I were in the same situation I'd do whatever I could do get them to take it off. Good luck!
  • Adaera, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I added a digg to the other one that you had posted earlier....saw the update on your dA journal ;)
  • BiohazardKitty, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13I digged it, art theft is horrible.
    • berland, on 10/12/2007, -37/+9Are you going to be deleting all your mp3's then? ;)
    • GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Why would I? I own the CDs. . . .
    • Klarth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14berland: I don't think he's trying to make money from his downloaded music (if he has any. Yay for unfounded statements!), as opposed to the wonderful people at Uberl33tMyspaceSkinzTop8Addme.com.
    • Gatesophile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10ahh ***** digg me down :(
  • highlighter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Agreed! Theft is theft and that's why copyright law was established, to protect individuals from such things as what pizam has done! If they want his work, let them buy it or license it! If they won't do that, remove it... and if they won't do that... take them to court.
  • jah2147, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5This should be considered as crime as it can tomorrow turn into illegal business like software, video or music pirarcy.
    One spends his whole lot amount of time in getting out good piece of work and what he get in result somebody copied or we should say palgariated his/her work, that too bad.
    ok if you just copy art for your very personal use then it can be tolerated to some extent but makin out money of it is very wrong.
    people should realize what they are doing, its osmebody hardwork they wasting.
  • blackbelt777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I think after looking through Pyzam and hearing about all the infringement they've committed, they could be shut down, and they should. I really feel for you right now, Steve!
  • spitfire90, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4done:)
  • NoahKai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I swear I hate it when people take credit for someone else's work! It pisses me off so much! So I digg the topic :)
  • bkshaggy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I am with you steven... I am already clever.. this should stop... there are a lot of people that makes this and it should stop...
  • haxxy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5done.. death to the sons of b*tchez
  • Solitude12, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Okay, that seriously sucks! I mean I don't get on diggs usually, but that is just crazy!! I had to digg it!! I can't believe people do that! It's just so stupid for people to steal art!
  • lilyas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Good thing, my friend! I hope you succeed!
  • beeswarm17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5It's getting ridiculous. This isn't the first time this has happened. And despite being warned multiple times for this same thing, they don't change it. This art theft stuff needs to be stopped.
  • hazelnutx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6As an artist myself, this is something that really makes me angry. People who are stealing art and selling it or even just stealing it, it makes me not even want to create art anymore. I mean, it's sad to know that when I create something, someone could just come along and swipe it when all I want to do is share my gift.... for people to see... not take. I felt I was blessed as an artist since I was a child, and now I feel more cursed than anything. I have to say thankyou to all the art theives out there for ruining my creativity.
  • AimeeGirl1971, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 These copyright laws are supposed to help artists not be against them. This is why they call it a copyright law. Right? These people of Pyzam are looking at a serious lawsuit and for them not to respond to this unacceptable. I am a victim of this as well but unlike allot of us unless the copyright law is behind them 110% then we can't afford to take them to court to pursue. So, all in all I definitely DIGG IT!
  • Vectortrance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Dugg. That's wrong dude.
  • reeasd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4well this is soo fukin' not right, shame for those from Pyzam, Steve, I fully support u man...
  • Artsong, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3As Hazelnuts , write,,i'm an artist myself,,, i'm behind you all 100%,, i'm doing webdesign, and art for a living,, and that's a really hard world to be in, lots of competition, so you don't steal,, course everybody knows where you got it from, if they see it,,but borrow a thing here and there,, and that's okay,, course that's like giving the original artist an tribute or to say thanks for the inspiration,,
    So i feel with the artist,, for the painters,web designers,CG'er ,, and musicians,, well, for all who makes art , for all us other to see,,,
    So,, i hope that someone hacks that site,, or something to stop it,,,

    Gretz
    and thumbs up for the real artist,,, who do it by them self..and not steal from others..
    • redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i've never seen that many periods in one comment in my life. i think you win some kind of prize or something dude!
    • Hootyea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ellipsii with commas?

      THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
  • AppleG5x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Art theft is just not right. Taking credit for it is just shameful. Those people from Pyzam should remove the stuff as soon as possible.
  • ButcheN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6its not right to steel work from anybody
    I just started making my on art and wallpapers and would give anybody anything if they ask but just to take is not right.
    • Hootyea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My father was a steel worker, how dare you!
  • cpbrown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6okay someone is clearly trying to bury this story ... look at the un-diggs on the comments. how long until it disappears entirely?
    • hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3well theres alot of comments from ppl who know the artist/each other
      and they keep making the same point(s)

      makes for boring reading

      stealing from a struggling artist speaks for itself....

      IMHO
  • sally00, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5
    People just need to STOP POSTING their crap online... it doesn't take one little copyright note to stop people from stealing.

    All it takes to steal is a RIGHT CLICK and a SAVE.



    The only solution is to JUST STOP POSTING YOUR ART!!




    • alex189a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly. Someone needs to unplug the internets- pronto!
    • sally00, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1The more diggs I get (whether it be up or down) means you agree. THANKS!

      It's nice to know I'm making an impact.
    • mikev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Oh god, I hope you don't reproduce. If no one shared their work then humans would never evolve. :|
      Don't let a couple of pricks discourage you.
  • Osox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Pyzam sucks!!!
  • xxMarka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I hate this stealing from deviantART ***** it's so terrible...
  • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Everyone at Pyzam is spending today digging down comments they don't like, very busy day.
  • mrgono3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This Guy has a pretty cool desktop layout:
    http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/50352035/
  • retrac1324, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Contact Pyzam:

    http://www.pyzam.com/privacy.html
  • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I think artists should add watermarks to all of their work.
    • l33tn00b, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8that ruins it for me, i can't stand watermarks
  • godamit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"art" ? ))))) lolz
  • TheElectricMonk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6ok, this ***** is getting old, im sick of hearing about people getting their ***** stolen from flickr and deviant art, do these theiving bastards think anything on the internet is public domain or something?


    and why all this talk about the RIAA, they dont try to protect artists, they protect labels, and this is visual arts, not aural
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Its very different stealing music, you're most likely just going to be listening to it.
    You aren't using that music to turn a profit or increase traffic to your website."

    Stealing is Stealing no matter what it is, Period!
    • redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Stealing is Stealing no matter what it is, Period!"

      this phrase has been copyrighted by the RIAA. you are being sued by our Automated Lawsuit Filing Bot (ALFB). please refer to our website for payment information.
  • kweee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4First off, I feel very sorry for the artist in question. Content theft is wrong, period.

    That said, Creative Commons is a joke. While I agree that its intentions are admirable, it is legally worthless. If you want to protect your work, copyright is the only way to go. You can add things on later like "feel free to use it for X and Y purposes," but a Creative Commons license with no copyright would be very difficult to defend in court. After all, it's called "copyright law" and not "copyright and other licenses anyone can invent law."
    • IceZZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@kweee:

      Creative Commons requires copyright to function, it is a Copyright License. You seem to be trying to separate CC from Copyright, but you can't. CC requires copyright to preserve the original work. You are also missing the fact that CC licenses vary based on the chosen terms, from public domain to nearly full copyright. To bring action on a work you CC that is stolen, you bring a copyright suit!

      >a Creative Commons license with no copyright would be very difficult to defend in court

      No such thing. The CC license weakens the copyright by providing granted uses and signing away certain rights, under license conditions.

      For all the gun firing and yallering, most people on the internet have no clue how copyright works. Note that these same people who say copyright should protect this guy against theft will then go off and claim GPL offers even broader protection than copyright (which it does not). Stupid stupid stupid.

  • Harri448, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2No such thing as stealing art.
    • Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah there is, Dumbass.
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3588282.

      o rly
    • IceZZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, copyright usage is theft. The 1997 NETA (No Electronic Theft Act) codified the legislatures intent that copyright be considered theft. Most people quote a random Blackmun dicta from an old case saying that the court held copyright violations are not theft, but unfortunately, it was merely dicta and the legislature speaks louder than the court.
    • MauricioC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Totally agree. There's no such thing as stealing art, and I can't understand those who don't differentiate between law and moral judgement. I *know* this violates copyright law in many countries, but I don't think there's anything wrong with copying art in general (I have no opinion about this specific case, as I haven't read about it). These are two separate, non-contradictory things, and the discussion should clearly be about the morality of copying art, as the legality issue is a fact.
  • zman14321, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0It's not that the RIAA is right it's that deviant is wrong.
    Freedom of information.
    If its on the internet its freely available.
    NO REGULATION
    • IceZZ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@zman:
      >If its on the internet its freely available.

      That's not the law, that is just how you wish it were.
  • waterboy1628, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sweet now I have a coool new layout for my space!

    Thanks digitalphenom!
  • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Wouldn't the world be a better place if MySpace and everything related to it fell into a black hole, anyway?
    • jesstech, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8DeviantArt can go too. That place can be worse than most high schools.

      Welcome to the Internet. Nobody cares.
  • Chyeld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Stupidity question but isn't this a legitimate case where a DMCA take down notice might actually be useful? I'm just saying.... why bother with the publicity if you aren't willing to go the full 9 yards.
  • Wuffles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's rampant all over the internet. If content is available it will be used. Best thing to do is take it off (which will never happen now as the internet has its clutches on the pictures.)

    I sympathise though, having your art stolen is no fun. :C
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"is in violation of copyright laws!"

    when did copyright law matter at digg?
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's like the child molestation laws. If a hot young lady teacher gives it up to a young lad, it's "niiiicceee". If a fat balding coach slips it to a young girl (or boy), it's lynching time. Now you understand morality.
  • artHOUNDer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Isn't this part of DeviantArt's user upload agreement?

    16. Copyright in Your Content

    deviantART does not claim ownership rights in Your Content. For the sole purpose of enabling us to make your Content available through the Service, you grant to deviantART a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, re-format, store, prepare derivative works based on, and publicly display and perform Your Content. Please note that when you upload Content, you allow third parties to copy, distribute and display your Content.

    And actually the sentence, "Please note that when you upload Content, you allow third parties to copy, distribute and display your Content." is one of only two bolded sentences in their entire agreement.
  • zman14321, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@arthounder
    I agree, copyright on the internet is a joke, and clearly it is outlined in this agreement
  • sockettrousers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> we need to stop it
    Who is "we" and what am I supposed to do? Is digging the story up enough? Can I go to bed now?
  • rnewson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kweee
    Creative Commons licenses are legally enforceable. Without copyright law, CC licenses would be useless. The truth is the exact opposite of your statement.
  • TiggDroll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"We need to stop it."

    Where can I steal this artwork? I need it for a new myspace page.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like they're in trouble with the people they used to register their domain:

    http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx

  • mauriziodigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Why he doesn't write an email to the EFF to ask for help?
    • smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why should he? What is the EFF going to do that he can't do on his own?

      The EFF is not going to bother with this. Why would they? They deal with larger specific issues. This is copyright infringement plain and simple. If wants to pursue it, he needs to contact the site owner, and then if he gets no satisfaction, he needs to contact a lawyer.

      They exist to deal with large issues and freedom issues. Some lame site rips from a kid posting images on public site happens every day. It sucks, it is wrong. But if the EFF spent time on every little piece of crap like this, they would never have time to deal with real issues.
  • rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DeviantArt has its own problems. A person with little knowledge of the laws regarding satire and spoof in America got one of my pieces taken down because it used a reasonable facimile of the Army's logo to make a statement about war. S/he said it was copyright infringement. But what about the other million parodies out there on the site that do the same (perfectly legal) thing? I got cut because it was a political message that was not popular.
  • seithon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm probably going to be buried by some artsy type for this...

    While I think its wrong for a company or anyone for that matter, to steal another work and then profit from it and claim it as their own, a look through the deviant art page doesnt actually show me anything thats that original, creative or artistic.

    Lots of clever use of PSP, filtering layers etc, cutting pasting and doing fun things yes.
    I just don't see any real worth to it and more to the point i'm amazed that someone is profiting from it atall, never mind that it was worth stealing.
  • cwyers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Y'know, this is why it would be great to have some way to protect your copyrighted content before distributing it online -- some sort of software solution to manage rights and permissions, to allow legitimate use of content without allowing blatant theft.

    Oh, wait.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.