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.
92 Comments
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60What makes people think they can get away with this? It's disgusting, best of luck to her in this case.
- RoshanK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39Original picture:
http://ic3.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/024/2/2/Headphones_are_Stylish__by_zemotion.jpg
Picture of ad: http://bp1.blogger.com/_lbWhz1haGFA/Rc053fY5znI/AAAAAAAAAaU/Yk6j7F0dYRk/s1600-h/headphonesad.jpg - dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39Not if that person used it for their own commercial purposes, such as a commercial jingle.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Wow, "Hey digg community". What is all this *****.
No one on Digg thinks it's okay to pirate music and then turn around and sell it. We feel that for personal use information should be free. It is PERFECTLY OKAY to print that image off DA and hang it on your wall. IT IS NOT okay to take that DA picture and use it commercially!
@kaidovak
And if you look at the bottom of ANY deviation, it clearly says "©2006-2007 username", not "DeviantArt". Deviations remain the property of the Deviant. How about you read the terms of service, because they clearly state "However, deviantART does not claim ownership rights in your works or other materials posted by you to deviantART (Your Content). "
How could you even write the phrase "read the DA terms of service some time" when obviously you've never done so yourself?! Jesus man!
Sheesh. Don't make DeviantArt out to be the devil that it's not. It's a great site for artists -- you lose no right to your own work by posting it there. It's simply a free way to disseminate work that makes it's money off advertising, paid membership and it's amazing print services. - FlindianaJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27anyone else disturbed by the fact that the people running the ad specialize in "massages and websites?"
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27For the most part people probably do get away with it, especially if the ad is relatively obscure like this one it. It's a sad practice.
- SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Forgive me for seeing the perspective of the enemy, but this photo could easily be confused by a novice page layout minion as stock photography.
Yes, it's their mistake that they used it in a commercial advertisement without considering the legality of such a thing, but the amount of effort placed in the creation of small ads like this is minimal at best. This was probably the "8am to 9am project" of some marketing agency peon who just wanted to get it out of the way so he could take on the 10 others he had to do that day.
Go ahead and be pissed, but don't think this is the work of some hideously evil large corporation. This was probably one employee's decision, and was more likely than not an honest mistake. If you think it's necessary to bring a lawyer in from the get-go instead of just asking them, "hey, that's mine...mind paying me?" then...so be it, but I would strongly advise that you get over yourself and understand the true scope of the situation. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Commercial use = for profit
Private use = not for profit
No hypocrisy involved. - Kookami, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Websites and massages eh?
Ok, so a guy walks into a café out in the middle of nowhere and sees the menu board hanging up. It reads 'Sandwiches $5', 'Burgers $10' and, to his amazement, 'handjobs $20'. So he goes up to the counter and whispers softly to the lady,
"Are you the one who gives the handjobs?"
She smiles, winks and nods, and the guy replies, "Well wash your hands, bitch, you're making me a sandwich!" - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Yeah that'sa little different. The equivalent to stealing an MP3 would be printing out the images and framing them on your wall. Mostly harmless, I guess.
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I make no profit by grabbing music off the nets, these guys however, are. (potentially)
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@broomett
Nice straw man 'ya got there.
I didn't see anything on the victimized artist's site advocating you get the latest Brittany album from Limewire.
I don't advocate copyright violations, be they in the form of MP3s, Warez or other hacked software.
I DO advocate digital downloads that let me move from device to device and allow the "Fair rights" uses permitted by the Betamax lawsuit of decades past. That does NOT mean burning 50 copies and giving them to my friends or putting up a torrent.
How many posts do you see in this thread saying that it was a GOOD thing this graphic was used without authorization?
You seem to be confusing a particular political viewpoint with the entirety of Digg.com readers. That's short sighted, foolish and smacks of Trollish behavior. - wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"We specialize in websites and massages."
WTF? - GaffleSnipe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13There are lazy people in every field of work. And how do you know it was laziness, and not a lack of funds to host a photoshoot? Either way, you can get a stock photo for $5 from istockphoto, which happens to be a million times easier to navigate than deviantart. What a ***** interface.
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"massages and websites". Wow, the world is becoming just like Idiocracy.
"Starbucks? We really don't have time for a HANDJOB." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10broomett: You are correct. Information wants to be free, not sold. This was used in a commercial advertisement.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Dont mess with the interweb artists
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Not that I advocate this, but this is interesting:
"Harrison"
561-502-9110
SOBE2005@ADELPHIA.NET
Also check http://www.findmassageonline.com/profile.php?profileid=288
This site lines up with the claim on the advert about "websites and massage!" (Perhaps Harrison does the websites, and this Sandy Tyco does the massages? Strange duo)
A crappy myspace that links with the people as well "http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=89055067&ifid=89055067&indicate=2" The area is actually "Boca Raton, FL" which lines up with several of the craigslist adverts for the area: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:4MBuK_iAFDsJ:fortlauderdale.listpic.com/roo/252587341.html+561-502-9110&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Anyone else find any other info? I really want to find a way to e-mail my displeasure to them, and I'm unsure of the e-mail above is the correct one. - edilclyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The ad is poorly designed, i don't understand what the hell they are offering, They specialize in websites by means of what?
hey! Guess what? I specialize in surfing websites! - icepik1234, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8theres a whole website of artists getting their work stolen(most of it is graffiti artists)
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/ - Marijuana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow, past the stealing and all, she's hot.
- ki85squared, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Copy pasta from the DA Terms of Service to back up betterth's reply:
4. Copyright
deviantART is, unless otherwise stated, the owner of all copyright and data rights in the Service and its contents. You may not reproduce, distribute, publicly display or perform, or prepare derivative works based on any of the Content without the express, written consent of deviantART. However, deviantART does not claim ownership rights in your works or other materials posted by you to deviantART (Your Content). - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Kind-of. It's an attitude that is getting more and more prevalent - and I think that the message may be getting lost in the allure of free content.
I have no problem paying for content. I have a problem with the middle men who distribute the content. I'd rather give my money to the creator of the content.
If there is no reward for producing content, then content will cease to exist altogether. - LucasVB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, the programmers must have nice, strong fingers and smooth hands after all. I guess it works!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5OK! To ALL of you claiming that this was not theft, or information should be free, or that the photography was not deprived of work, or that retroactively getting permission and paying the artist is acceptable, or that it could have been confused with a stock photograph, or that you forfeit all rights when posting on Deviant Art or any other website, or the most ridiculous being that it is not stealing as the author still has their copy (SlvrEagle23, broomett, Matt2k, kaidovak):
How it was theft: the image was used without permission in an altered form for commercial purposes. They are attempting to make money that will not be shared with the artist. Furthermore, the artist lost creative control of the image. Again, since this was for commercial purposes it is not protected by free speech, like it would have been if it was satire, parody, or journalism (and you must use intellectual property in context even in those cases).
Information should be free: This is not information, it is an advertisement. The picture is not information, it is artwork. It is copyrighted. It's not like they were doing a report on the artist. They altered the image for a use which it was not intended by the owner and copyright holder.
The photographer was indeed deprived of work: The artist made an image and it was used without permission or compensation. In today's civil system no one can use your property as their own. They need to get your permission and sometimes that involves compensation. What the advertiser did is tantamount to me taking the Al Pichino "Scarface" and releasing it to theaters for a speculated profit and telling the studio and all the actors that would have gotten royalties to ***** off. It's completely separate from private use.
You cannot retroactively get permission if the artist still does not agree with the use: Do I really need to explain this one? I don't think I'd agree with a sleazy online massage therapist search engine using such a tasteful picture without my permission.
It cannot be confused with a stock photograph: Because it wasn't found in a stock material warehouse, and if it were that warehouse is the one responsible. If they can prove that it was sold to them then they have no responsibility, but I don't think this will be the case.
You do NOT forfeit your ownership or copyright by submitting to DeviantArt: Read the DA TOS.
The artist still has their copy and it is STILL stealing: Creative control was wrested from them for a commercial purpose and they were not compensated in the least. Oh, and did I mention that they were not given permission to display it in a manner out of context?
And for all of you claiming that it is the same as file sharing I have some questions for you.
Is borrowing a DVD from a friend stealing?
Are you stealing when you listen to CDs at your friend's house?
Tell me how TV is stealing if you aren't paying for reception?
How many people can be at your house before watching a movie is stealing?
Just how is creative control relinquished from the creators and copyright owners when make an exact copy of a movie?
How are there any lost profits when you never intended to buy the movie anyway?
How are you turning a profit by downloading a file and not selling it?
I could go on but you are all too stupid for me to really educate. Learn something about copyright law and fair use or STFU! - PillowFight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah...how exactly does massage and website creation go together? Wtf?
- abstraxion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6No, but you are depriving the studios and artists of money they might have otherwise received. If you wouldn't have paid for it, then you don't have a right to see/hear it, because since it's THEIR work, THEY get to make the rules.
- Karmalary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I post some of my artwork and photography in places like my Flickr account, for fun, and as proof of concept. I also post some of my ray-tracing in places like the POV-Ray newsgroups, sometimes as wallpaper or teaching tools but more often with example scene code I need help with. But I would never allow work I had put really long hours into to see the light of the net until it saw sale. It IS insulting to have your work pirated in this way, but it happens all the time, so learn from it. Really very simple. Keep two folders. One you show to the world on the net (and if it's good, CLEARLY watermark it!), and one you show to your clients. I will gladly send off some email on the artist's behalf, but a court battle can really damage a professional reputation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Who will win in the end..lawyers as usual.
once the lawyers have all our money they will have to start eating each others young. - Kyle660, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly. Put your money where your mouth is, literally in this case. Go ahead, walk into Target and load up a basket with ***** that you want, and then attempt to walk out without paying. If anyone questions you then use the same logic you are using here.
"I'm not going to SELL this basket of stolen *****, it's for personal use."
I'm sure they'll understand. - jimmiss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This isn't the first time that something off of DeviantArt has been stolen.
http://www.digg.com/design/Photographer_s_Work_Stolen_Used_as_a_Book_Cover
These peices of original art are not "some generic image". They didn't steal stock footage.
"If you dugg this story while your bittorrent client is open, you need to take a close look at your life." - Well... I'm not downloading movies and then releasing them under my own name and generating income by selling them. - jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Matt2k said:
"This photo was not "stolen", because as I've been instructed, the author still has their copy so clearly that is impossible. They have not deprived the author of any money because really they would never have bought something like this in the first place?"
Congratulations, that's the dumbest comment of the month February until now. - dani8559, on 10/12/2007, -5/+97of7- i think most pirates agree that they would never rip an indie artist's song and then publicly use it as their own. it's one thing to save the image and even morph it for personal use, another thing entirely to jack it for commercial purposes.
- sandbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I work as a production designer at a newspaper, and we often struggle with getting images, since even with subscriptions to several stock services, you can't always find just what the client requested.
But the rule is simple and inviolable: DO NOT take any images from the internet.
If that means a crappier ad, so be it. We aren't going to take the risk of being sued for anybody's ad. And yes, the publication that printed the ad can be held liable, not just the client or ad agency. I'd be surprised if the designer hasn't already been fired. - preved, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I have worked with actors, message therapists ..." - nice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cry Moar, etc.
- DuckFOO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I feel the RIAA is justified in suing people for copyright infringment, what I have a problem with is their tactics and horrible lack of evidence.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@7of7
@abstraxion
Being against DRM is NOT mean you favor Copyright infringement.
DRM prevents the "Fair Use" allowed by law. Legally, I should be allowed to, for example:
Make a backup copy.
Transcribe the content to a more convenient format.
Consume the media in the manner and time of my choosing, so long as it doesn't violate any other laws. (For example,watching pron while driving is illegal.)
Utilize the content on the device of my choosing.
For example, it's legal for me to read the latest Harry Potter Book aloud and record it, so long as that recording is for my own personal use. If I toss that recording on Limewire I'm violating fair use, and violating Rowling's Copyright, which is wrong.
If I buy a CD, I should be able to rip it to my iPod or other MP3 player without paying an additional license. I should NOT have to be forced to install DRM software that includes a root kit. (Sony, I'm looking at you here)
Wanting to exercise Fair Use does not make one a pirate, and I'm disgusted the RIAA and MPAA are trying to convince people that it does. - Skurt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When I lived in Vegas, I worked for a company that did the "put your face in someone elses" kinda like the Coney Island cutouts where you poke your face through and they take your picture, only much better. Anyway, we would find our images in the back of the phone book all the time under the very same type of ad. Escort services, massages etc. Also in some of those online dating sites, hot or not comes to mind.
Too much trouble to go after. - audiowizard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The anti-DRM movement isn't all about stealing music. I for one am against music piracy, but also against DRM. Sorry you fail to understand that DRM is often a problem beyond simply an obstacle to music thieves.
I'm all for fighting piracy, but these earlyl DRM measures are crap.
Check out the book "the future of music: A manifesto for digital revolution"
http://www.futureofmusic.org/manifesto/
peace - mrRB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21. Except that radio stations pay or are paid to air the songs. The 'internet radio', unless it's some place like http://pandora.com, isn't. It violates the creator/owner's right to control the distribution of their work.
2. The definition of theft doesn't have anything to do with whether someone else is deprived of it's use. It's whether it was taken/used without permission. End of story.
Nice logic-dodging, by the way. - BradleyBo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd like to buy the artist a beer.
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know those ads you get in porn?
The ones where the woman pretends to get herself off over the phone and everything?
Yeah.. a girl I know had some pictures of her ripped from mySpace and used in one of those ads. - abstraxion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Exactly. It's hilarious to see so much pro-piracy ***** on Digg (FairUse4WM and Pirate Bay news) and then see people getting mad because a photo was used without permission.
And if someone tries to explain to me that the whole DRM argument is about being able to "back up your stuff, in case, you know, the discs get scratched" again, I'm going to shank someone in the throat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We could always email our displeasure as well.
http://www.findmassageonline.com/contact.php?type=gen
Upset
Advertisee
*****@thieves.com
Stop stealing from Jingna!
Stop stealing pictures from online. What you did was a blatant violation of copyright law. With so many people that have internet access how did you expect to do this without being discovered? Many people will never do business with you because of this terrible deed. Artists rights to creative control are an important matter. Commercial use of copyrighted material is patently wrong.
http://zemotion.deviantart.com/journal/11753773/#journal
http://www.digg.com/design/Photographers_art_stolen_Used_as_a_newspaper_ad#c5186650 - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The single key here is, whether or not someone is making money off the copyright infringement.
That is where this "double standard" from the Digg community comes into play.
Don't steal music and sell it on eBay, don't steal pictures and use them for your website making business - mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@broomett
I agree with you somewhat, but I also disagree.
I agree in that information does not want to be "free". It is every persons right to profit from the labor they put in. But the term "free" here is referring to profit, I.E. money.
I disagree in that information should be "free", as in readily available to the general public. What do I mean by this? Well, take this picture for instance. Clearly the artist worked on this, but it would not have been possible had it not been for other people prior to have laid down some...framework...if you will. There is no such thing as a totally new creation, just rehashes of the same old stuff into new stuff. The pose the subject is in, the iPod she is holding, everything that comprises that photo was "created" by someone else. What big business is trying to do today is lock everyone's right to "rehash" these ideas into new ones, and the government is not only helping them accomplish it, they are handing it to them on a silver platter. Every time I turn around, they are extending the copyright length further and further. And now, Disney is attempting to lock down any mention of the very characters they plucked out of "public domain".
I truly feel for the artist, and I hope she gets compensated for the work she did, but don't think for one second that anything we consume as new media is anything other than regurgitated media from the past. - Kyle660, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Who. Cares. Contact the guilty party, confront them, it's done. I really wish whiny artists wouldn't hijack this site every time a hack journalist or ad agency uses some generic image that happens to belong to someone else. I'll never understand this 'digg justice' *****. Bitch all day long about how horrible the RIAA is for trying to prevent people from stealing music, but god damn if -ONE- ***** picture is stolen. If you dugg this story while your bittorrent client is open, you need to take a close look at your life.
- Apeezee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I can't believe people do this kind of thing. I hope this makes the front page, so we can make something come of this.
- desu43fnoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what exactly is a "message therapist"?
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 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 
