What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
148 Comments
- thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+118This Really grinds My Gears.
- richsipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+73@ilyag
"The guy essentially stole a photo set to help promote his photography business, and is now getting his business destroyed by the guy who was plagiarized."
I don't see anything wrong with that. Let me break it down:
1) I take photos but they suck
2) I have a photography business that sucks because I take the photos
3) Find some really cool photos on Flickr
4) Steal really cool photos and claim they are my own because they don't' suck
5) My business is now partially one huge fraud
6) Original photographer finds out I stole his photos -- drat
7) Original photographer can't touch me now because I removed the photos - ha!
8) Original photographer PWN's me on his blog which happens to be very very popular -- double drat
9) My business is now sucking because he is calling me out plus see #1 for reference
Sound about right? I still don't see a problem with it.
Rock On Mr. "web vigilante", Rock On - av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -4/+76Ouch, verb got the shaft. Even the adverb got capitalization treatment
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49He wasn't actively doing anything, it was a blog entry that just so happened to end up high on the google search. He did not actively make that happen. Although, now that he was sent legal mumbo jumbo, he is now actively doing things. Like anyone would.
- joeysafe, on 10/12/2007, -17/+62Digg users are so malleable. Don't try to crash his ***** site just because he allegedly plagiarized. For all you know, Kris Krug could be the culprit. Spam him? I don't even know what to say about that. Why would you take yourself down to that level? I hope he spams you all back.
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+48That type of person, deserves to be take round the back and shot. He got caught plagiarising photos, removes them then has the temerity to sue.
Scumbag! - InContrast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40@ilyag
Absolutely not. I would make the biggest deal out of this possible. If he didn't want his reputation ruined, he wouldn't have stole the photos. I am a graphic designer, and have had my work stolen before, it's not fun. It's embarrassing, it makes you angry, it's like instantly the good opinion you had on people is destroyed. It doesn't last long, but when I got ripped, I got e-mailed by someone telling me to remove my copy before they contact the artist to report my violating his copyright.
This man is not a victim, he is the criminal. He should be sued, and then left to go for it himself in a different career. If I ever ripped another designer, I would expect to have my career ruined in that field. It's just plain disrespectful to all photographers that this happened, and then he had the balls to sue back. I will send him an e-mail laughing at him when his site gets taken down. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+54Just so people aren't confused (as I was before reading this), the plagiarist isn't suing this guy over the photographs. He's suing him over the fact that the guy's blog post in which he ATTACKS the plagiarist is ranked #3 on Google, thus turning off potential customers for the plagiarist, and refusing to take down the attack (after the plagiarist took down the photos in question).
The guy essentially stole a photo set to help promote his photography business, and is now getting his business destroyed by the guy who was plagiarized.
In my opinion, the plagiarist is a complete moron since he didn't realize that he would never be discovered. The original photographer is also an *****, because he's actively trying to destroy this guy's business instead of simply suing him.
In summary: Plagiarists suck. Web vigilantes may not suck as much, but they're pretty awful people themselves. - h3xley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33That's if they're all not plagiarized too...
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29I think I found some pretty good evidence of another plagiarism look here at a screen-shot of the guys flash page http://trogdoor.googlepages.com/Picture1.png ( I can't give a link because of poor use of flash ) now look at the same photo found on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/stitch/49206156/ notice that this is "Kevin's'" only photo with the Fuji at the top and bottom yet all of Stitche's flicker photos have it ( from scanning in actual film? ). All you people wanting proof, there you have it plain and simple. I doubt any of the photos on Kevin's site are actually and since I found this in ~ 5 min. please others look at the rest of his pics @ http://kevincorazza.com/ and find the real photographers behind "Kevin's'" work.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36@ilyag
Just as is often the case nowadays, the Goddamn criminal is the victim. What a ***** joke. - pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28In a fit of poor grammar the lawyer requests that the "Website" be removed from the "web page." I would have the suit dismissed on the grounds of being nonsensical and impossible.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29so this dude steals mr krugs photos and then sues him for giving him a bad name
i think diggers should give him a bad name if thats the case - ericnmu, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40Heres the plagiarists website,
http://kevincorazza.com/
Its a large flash site, the server should fall fast :| - misterjangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25It basically means that the harder you try to remove something from the Internet, the more widely it will spread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_Effect
- samsite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22You just need to play the same game as him, Make this as public as possible. If he has used your work to promote his self he deserves every thing he gets. The more hits this gets the higher it will get up on Google and the more damage it will do to his reputation. As far as I am aware I have never had any of my work copied. Just some people ask if they can have bigger versions for there desktop, I know how annoying this could be though
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Rumor has it, the plagiarist shops exclusively at PriceRitePhoto.
- aB0z, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22...and bank robberies happen, so don't use banks. Good logic, xotox.
- surf314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Honestly the photos on his site really aren't that great. I've seen much better when I was taking photo journalism in college and I'm not even talking about top of the class here's a contact at AP students. His time lapses are completely uninspired. I mean I'm an amatuer photography hobbyist and I was able to find many ways to make interesting and beautiful time lapse photos (read I suck and I can do better). His are like a one trick pony.
- iamcanman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21@ilyag
"I'm just saying that the original photographer chose a pretty dumb way to get his revenge."
Seriously, come on, the original photographer didn't choose any method of "revenge", all he did is post on his blog that someone was doing uncool and illegal things with his photography. Getting revenge would be akin to him going after Kevin C with a kevincorazzasucks.com website or something similar and actively trying to attack him, or posting things like "This guy is a thief!! Don't work with him." If people reading Krug's blog get that impression, so be it.
I don't see anything particularly dumb with what Krug has done on his site. He asked some friends to get Kevin to remove the offending images, which happened, and blogged about the ordeal, which just about anyone with a blog is likely to do.
Mr. Corazza is doing more to damage to himself by not dropping the whole thing. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Except that's the thing. We don't know if KC was the actual plagerizer or if KK was the one who lifted the photos.
On another note, given the disparity in the locations of KC and the law firm, it's a possibility that the letter is itself a fake.
And finally: Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. And that's why they can charge the prices they do. - Carnixx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Lol, this would be like eBaums suing YTMND.
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Strike three see http://trogdoor.googlepages.com/Picture2.png and http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgarber/39035532/?
Anyone seeing a pattern here... - av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17A "last warning before we sue" is usually the first order of business. Starting an actual lawsuit is expensive.
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14For those of us in the crowd looking puzzled - would you care to explain the Streisand effect? Be warned, if you mention the Prince of Tides I'm digging it down and never coming back.
- TimTim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Looks like everything on his website is plagerized! Just click on "Time Lapse". I've seen all those on the public photo sites like yotophoto.com etc...
Now that I've had more time to look around, it looks like his landscape photos are copys as well! Does he even own a camera? - uptown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15...now that you've commented on it, it affects you.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Assuming the plagiarism charge is true, the plagiarist DESERVES to have his business destroyed. Frankly if I was considering this photographer I'd be glad to find out that he was a plagiarist so that I could avoid giving him my money. Web "vigilantes" are one of the things that makes the web so great: they shine the harsh light of truth on the cockroaches that were able to con folks with inpunity in the past.
- okravetz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I'm probably going to get modded down for this, but I'm bored.
The lawyer used the verb 'google' incorrectly. In the first sentence of the letter, the word "Google," is capitalized, but according to the major dictionaries that recently added the World's Greatest Search Engine to the English lexicon, "google" is a verb, "Google" is a company. So technically, you cannot "Google" anything, just as the layers at Xerox will tell you that you cannot "Xerox" anything either (but you can make photocopies with a Xerox brand photocopier). - zoolander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Downright theft of images totally pissed me off, as I make a living in photography. I just found an image posted online today that was hotlinked from Google's image search engine. I sent a firm, but nice email to the company involved, and hope that they come clean and pay my invoice that I sent to them. Yes, my image is registered and copyrighted, so this is a pretty clear case. I want to think that they company has ignorance in how the legalities work. But if they are doing this intentionally, they should expect to see a legal demand letter from me next.
Grrrrr. Digg stories like this get me all worked up and pissed off. Who does this Corazza guy think he is? - insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Google cache of the message the plagiarist had identifying the plagiarized pictures as his own, but also complaining that other people were stealing his pictures. LOL
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Yeou7FoXNEgJ:www.flickr.com/people/kcorazza/+Kevin+Corazza&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
"This flickr account is set up for uploading shots I have taken of bands, events, and any type of activity that’s not included in my main portfolio.
With this being a community site I have had some troubles with people stealing my work and claiming it as theirs under their own name and then trying to cover their own tracks. I have no problems with people using my work, and I don’t need to be credited (I’m a tad bit modest). Just don't post my work under your name." - tdk2fe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13IANAL, but I read the letter the guy received, and it didn't say anything about sueing him. It just asked that he take down the 'offending' material (which I also looked at, and Kris didn't really say anything bad about this Corazza guy - simply that he was surprised the guy had the audacity to claim his photos as his own).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"This flickr account is set up for uploading shots I have taken of bands, events, and any type of activity that’s not included in my main portfolio."
Well, he *is* being honest, grammatically. He *has* taken these photos. From someone else. - b0wl0fud0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13At least it isn't as bad as in china: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/31/business/chinet.php
After a husband denounecd a student he suspected was having an affair with his wife on a web forum (turned out his wife and the student were only friends on WoW)
[quote]Immediately, hundreds joined in the attack. "Let's use our keyboard and mouse in our hands as weapons," as one person wrote, "to chop out the heads of these adulterers, to pay for the sacrifice of the husband." Within days, the hundreds had grown to thousands, and then tens of thousands, with total strangers forming teams to hunt down the student's identity and address, hounding him out of his university and causing his family to barricade themselves inside their home.[/quote] - panic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Ahh yes, a good ol digg scandal. Haven't had one of these in a while =)
- shotgunefx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Someone ripped off one of my client's product photos (~5000). The funny thing is that they all had giant watermarks with the client's url and logo. People are so stupid.
As far as hotlinking, my favorite one was their was a store that kept stealing photos from a Rolex store. So the engineers moved the urls for the good store, and set it up so when the IP of the abuser hit those urls, he'd see the moved pictures, anywhere else and you be redirected to various images such as Mickey Mouse watches and piles of dog *****. It took the abuser about awhile to notice. LOL - drycounty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Can I see some proof before I start yammering about theft? Just my two cents here but I'd like to see what was done before I can make up my mind.
Christ, some of us diggers are a royal mean lot. One guy says something and it's the next crucifixion. - rhamej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"thus turning off potential customers for the plagiarist, and refusing to take down the attack (after the plagiarist took down the photos in question)."
They are still on his site. He has not taken them down. - rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Heres the link to the blog adressed in the email.
http://www.kriskrug.com/?p=857 - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The letter itself appears to be a fake, if you look at the 1) Grammar and mispellings, 2) Disparity between the law firm's location and KC's location.
1) Lawyers don't put grammatical/spelling mistakes in anything that goes out publicly. They have secretaries make sure of that. Even solo practicioners will painstakingly make sure all public communiques are mistake-free.
2) Why is a Chicago dude hiring a Canadian law firm? Chicago is the *3RD* largest legal market in America and has the 3rd highest concentration of intellectual property lawyers in America after LA and NYC. Even if he couldn't get a major firm to rep him, there are still plenty of minor firms to rep him. More importantly, most Canadian firms *aren't* licensed to do business in America by the ABA.
3) Check out the website for the law firm in question. (http://www.macleodlaw.com/) THEY DON'T DO LIBEL CASES. If you read the letter, you'll see that's what this is about.
4) The lawyer at the bottom of the page specializes in and does FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CASES and PRIVACY RIGHTS. In fact, right now he's in SF advising on privacy litigation.
1+2+3+4 = FAKE FAKE FAKE. - everywhereasign, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Kris has called the firm and spoken with a lawyer, it is real. (Read the comments on his Flickr site)
Kevin used a Vancouver law firm so that he would not have to fly him self or his lawyer to Vancouver where Kris lives.
I'm guessing that this case will fall apart fast. If it even makes it to court.
All Kris wants is a written apology, seems pretty simple to me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Libel by algorithm?
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://trogdoor.googlepages.com/Picture3.png http://flickr.com/photos/latitudes/30625856/
- stitchjjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7just for the record, the ff. photos are indeed mine (which kevin corazza included in his portfolio, i have the negs to prove it:
I'm willing to cooperate with kk+ to bring this plagiarist down - AboveBeyond, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9W0w! Kevin Corazza should work for the RIAA! He'll be an executive in no one with his logic!
- rewindforward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I love the humiliation. This guy deserves every ***** drop of it.
- xinit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Let's have a bit of a scavenger hunt then...
See if you can find this photos: http://flickr.com/photos/latitudes/31696716/
at http://kevincorazza.com/ - atticusfunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9In response to fatdog, from the perspective of a lawyer,
1. Most lawyers are good about typos. Most secretaries are, also. Not all. Many don't pay attention, particularly to material they have dictated.
2. It's a question of jurisdiction. If there is no jurisdiction in Il, but there's jurisdiction in BC, then it's appropriate to hire a BC law firm and sue there.
3. Just because a lawyer doesn't advertise that he - or she - does a particular type of law doesn't mean that he or she _won't_ take a case in that area. It just means they don't advertise in that area.
4. FOIA/Privacy cases are very similar to defamation of character cases, so there's a decent likelihood that this is a valid representation. - rookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7More scavenger hunt material
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stitch/49206156/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/21135466/in/set-629348/ - MoofTheStoof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ouch. This just shows how stupid plagiarizing was in the first place. KK's photos seem to just be the tip of the iceberg and now more are going to be dugg up by an angry community.
I think the plagiarist deserves what he gets, but I just hope somebody out there doesn't fool some online community into attacking somebody who's innocent. -
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
