What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
365 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -26/+688Ok, the elephant in the room as to what the difference is between this situation and someone pirating music or movies...
They are SELLING her work. PROFITING.
I don't know about you, but I don't sell anything I download. - gummih, on 10/11/2007, -12/+496I'm sure that she doesn't mind people downloading and sharing the photos to use for their desktops and such, in fact, her willingness to allow people to enjoy the higher resolution images shows just that. But when a corporation is selling her work for their own profit, making thousands of dollars from her work, that is a different thing altogether.
- GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -133/+579Stealing an artist is only okay if the artist is connected to the RIAA or the MPAA...
...but double standards are only bad if they are used by Al Sharpton. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -43/+347anita:
>And folks, we can't have it both ways. Most people on Digg seem to think that copyrighting digital music is bad, but why is digital art any different?
Because she's the artist -- the RIAA aren't, they're just parasites on the actual artist. - evilTak, on 10/11/2007, -37/+316Sharing != Selling
- anitab83, on 10/11/2007, -108/+312I agree - but if she really wants to block it, she should turn off the ability to "blog this" and "show all sizes". Nobody's going to take a 500x300 picture and sell it, but the 1200x800+ shots she has online are almost inviting to be used as desktops or prints.
And folks, we can't have it both ways. Most people on Digg seem to think that copyrighting digital music is bad, but why is digital art any different? - gummih, on 10/11/2007, -18/+198Criminals. They have sold photos from her for thousands of dollars.
- halik, on 10/11/2007, -17/+162Before all you start making RIAA/MPAA double standard arguments...
It's a whole different ball game if I make copies of CDs/DVDs and then sell them for profit - the sole fact that I'm *selling* them implies a non-zero sum transaction. Or in other works I am making money off someone elses work. It's analogous to selling bootleg CDs, not downloading CD torrents. - Al3x, on 10/11/2007, -2/+141Here is their default email reply on the issue (Comment abuse, but it should be at the top):
Many thanks for your email.
Can I start by saying there are 2 sides to every story and I will try to tell you our side.
In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London, they offered to show us some imagery, that they stated would be high resolution and we would have sole reselling rights.
Anyway 2 weeks passed, emails were sent back and forth,basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them and then the paperwork was signed and a considerable amount of money was paid(£3000.00)by us , for us to start selling these images in the form of canvas prints.
6 months later we had a letter from a law firm in Iceland, stating we were using someone's images, we googled the claimants name, lo and behold we found we had been duped!.
As requested we immediately removed the images from the internet and destroyed any copies of the images we had.
We emailed the law firm to state we had dealt with these requests and to apologise to their client.
We took legal advice, they told us say nothing more than we had, not reccomending we contact the claimant and tell her what had happened, by the way we were very keen to do that, but we were told to avoid all contact.
In the meantime we started our own investigation into the above company's contacts and sources but have since found nothing more because the telephone doesn't get answered, mobiles are permanantly off and emails are getting bounced back, it seems we were conned too.
As digital artists and designers, we know the importance of integrity, hence the immediate halt and removal of images from the internet, if we had no morals, surely we would still be selling them to recoup our costs?.
As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise.
Many thanks O-D - cr4ft, on 10/11/2007, -11/+113Angry email being sent to info@only-dreemin.com in 3...2....1....
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+74Even if it was NOT stealing...
Its still plagiarism, fraud, and illegal profiteering. - merreborn, on 10/11/2007, -10/+74>And folks, we can't have it both ways. Most people on Digg seem to think that copyrighting digital music is bad, but why is digital art any different?
When digg users pirate music, they don't turn around and sell it for $140 ea.
http://www.only-dreemin.com/scenes.htm
I don't think we're against copyright -- most of us agree that downloading, say, some NIN, and then turning around and burning CDs for sale at $10 ea. would be wrong. We just want cheap, uncrippled digital music downloads, which major labels continue to refuse to give us. Instead, they charge *more* than the price of a CD for a lower bitrate, DRM-crippled product.
Give us high bitrate, DRM-free tracks for less than a dollar a pop; stop suing your customers for sampling your wares before purchasing; stop abusing your musicians -- let them own their own work so they can actually make a decent living. That's all we want. - atrus80, on 10/11/2007, -1/+57I emailed them, this is the reply I got (almost immediately):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Dave.Many thanks for your email.
Can I start by saying there are 2 sides to every story and I will try to tell you our side.
In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London, they offered to show us some imagery, that they stated would be high resolution and we would have sole reselling rights.We were visited by a salesperson from the company and we liked what we saw
Anyway 2 weeks passed, emails were sent back and forth,basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them and then the paperwork was signed and a considerable amount of money was paid(£3000.00)by us , for us to start selling these images in the form of canvas prints.
6 months later we had a letter from a law firm in Iceland, stating we were using someone's images, we googled the claimants name, lo and behold we found we had been duped!.
As requested we immediately removed the images from the internet and destroyed any copies of the images we had.
We emailed the law firm to state we had dealt with these requests and to apologise to their client.
We took legal advice, they told us say nothing more than we had, not reccomending we contact the claimant and tell her what had happened, by the way we were very keen to do that, but we were told to avoid all contact.
In the meantime we started our own investigation into the above company's contacts and sources but have since found nothing more because the telephone doesn't get answered, mobiles are permanantly off and emails are getting bounced back, it seems we were conned too.
As digital artists and designers, we know the importance of integrity, hence the immediate halt and removal of images from the internet, if we had no morals, surely we would still be selling them to recoup our costs?.
As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise.
Many thanks O-D
Our response will be sent to rebekka first, if shes happy with it, it will get posted up. - dognose, on 10/11/2007, -15/+64Here's another site selling artists' works with out their permission. However, they are much bigger and have made millions:
http://www.allofmp3.com/ - Agraek, on 10/11/2007, -21/+66@Gawtmilk,
No, it's not double standards. This is a different type of stealing. When a common end user pirates a song, they don't turn around and sell it on the internet and make thousands of dollars of profit. These people are using her work and using it for financial gain. There's a difference. - mjar81, on 10/11/2007, -7/+51Also, as a computer programmer, that's how I'd feel if someone ripped off my software.
- vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -9/+51Gah! Copyright infringement is not stealing! Stealing is not copyright infringement!
They are two different sets of laws that handle each... One is criminal and one is civil.
Yes she should send the people stealing her pictures DMCA take down notice and if they do not comply then to haul them into court and sue them for every penny they are worth... But she could not go to the local authorities and say "These people stole my images!" because they did not go into her home or office and take paintings off the wall and then sell them on ebay.
Two sets of laws... Two sets of punishment and two entirely different of resource. (Think murder versus wrongful death court cases) - sintaxi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+51Hire a better layer. A chimp could win this case.
- arnar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+42@omgwtfroflmaox2: "... if you leave the door open to your house, expect someone to walk in one day and start taking your stuff (this is not 1950's Happyville where everyone is your friend and everyone lives by a strict code of ethics anymore)."
Guess you've never visited Iceland.. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+42http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/395320678/in/photostream/ man she is hot
i say we back her up - mjar81, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32Please ignore my last comment... i was incorrect about them still selling the images.
They HAVE removed the images from their site, but are not offering any sort of restitution. - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -16/+41@fuzzmeister (#6674879)
No, it isn't.
This is a perfect example of difference between someone actually taking from what should be your revenue, and imagined loss of sales.
Not everyone who downloads a song for free would have bought it. Every single one of the people buying the photos from this fake person is a lost sale to the photographer. - DoodleM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23Only way to avoid this in the future would to plaster big watermarks all over your work or upload in a resolution which wouldn't transfer well to print.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27@dave830
There is a difference between legally wrong and morally wrong.
I think I don't mind doing something legally wrong if it is morally right. - R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -10/+28Really, the amount that an artist makes on an album is negligible and even after royalties are accrued to large amounts record companies then deduct all recording expenses, marketing pushes, loans on equipment and living expenses given to the bands for signing. In the end, most bands end up owing record labels money, so buying albums usually does not benefit a musician.
If you really want to support an artist you go to their concerts, that is where they get money. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+35@darny
You're flat out wrong, and here's why:
- I would not have bought the songs or movies either way.
- I am NOT plagiarising their work and passing it as my own.
- I am NOT selling their work and making a profit off of it.
- I am not committing fraud through tricking customers into buying a product that is not fully disclosed.
This whole furor is not over the theft of intellectual property, it is over the plagiarism, profiteering, and fraud that the company committed.
NOBODY would be angry if the company just put up a torrent and distributed her images, or if the company set her images as a background. - fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -36/+53Food for thought: this is how musicians feel when you pirate their music. I know it's not exactly the same, because the labels take their slice, but think about it.
- nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18She should have used some form of DRM. That always makes things better.
- seanharrop, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20> Companies need to know that posting a photo to the internet DOES NOT make it public domain!
But posting the HD-DVD encryption key on Digg does? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+25No. This is not how they "Feel when you pirate their work."
This is a case of outright plagiarism, taking somebody's work, and making a profit off of it for non-personal use.
Very few people who download and pirate movies and music pretend that the work is their own, and that they have a right to sell the work for a profit. Most people, including everyone I know, pirate for personal use.
If the company would have taken the image, and say, made a desktop background, THEN you could compare it to piracy... but there wouldn't really be much outrage to that, would there? - T0PS3O, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15@ Al3x:
Nice form of "defense" they have there:
Quote:
In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London [...]
basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them ...
Unquote
One problem with that research; it takes 2 seconds to check and find out on Companies House (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk) that no such company exists. Ignorance is NOT an excuse and NOT a valid form of defense. - theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17In reply to all the people saying that ripping stuff for yourself isn't the same as making profit..
No, but Digg idealizes sites like "ThePirateBay" which very simply DO profit from stolen works. They do it slightly less directly. They provide the work for free, thus creating a giant userbase, and raking in advertisement cash.
Nevertheless, they are offering stolen goods in order to profit. Double standard stands. - raoulpop, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Because those photos are hers. She made them. She has full right to do what she pleases with them. She did not give her permission for those photos to be used in this way, and she has to right to demand that they be taken down, and that she be compensated financially for what constitutes outright theft.
- dnthomps, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Before you guys make more comments, go down to atrus80's post and see what only-dreemin said in response to atrus80's email.
- ArmandoM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13It's copyright infringement.
And no, it doesn't just apply to music. I don't see anybody here defending criminals who are making thousands of dollars selling music they don't have rights for. - gummih, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12@davev
But it is stealing, they are PROFITING from her work. Part of the profit is her's - which they refuse to admit. Instead of sharing the profit with the artist the chose to remove her work from the site (what does this tell us about everything else they are selling?).
If this was a torrent of her photos nobody would give a *****. The difference is huge. - gummih, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16Like I said above. If this was a torrent of her photos nobody would give a *****. They are selling her work for thousands of dollars, the difference is huge.
- roywaits, on 02/02/2008, -0/+9The firm that made the prints owes her, even if they got conned. If they can track down the original theives they can get their money back, but first they need to pay the artist what is owed to her.
- polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Thanks for telling us what digg is for oh mighty digg lord.
- SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The decryption key for normal DVDs was determined in a court of law as a "trade secret", so I'm confident the courts would see the decrypt key for HD-DVD as a trade secret as well. Big difference between a trade secret (which you cannot copyright) and a photo/picture, which you can.
- ernkush, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Oh the hypocrisy...its absolutely beautiful.
- davidlow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Business proposition to Yahoo (which owns Flickr): Come to this woman's aide in the form of legal assistance.
It would be a public relations bonanza for you, bringing lots and lots of professional photographers to your site as very loyal customers. Picture poachers will learn very quickly not to steal from Flickr-based portfolios, so you won't have to commit too much of your legal resources to future cases.
Everybody wins. - 0004, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8yep, she's really hot :D
http://rebekkagudleifs.com/self-portraits.php?photo=self0113.jpg#self0111.jpg
and she can use power tools too :)
http://rebekkagudleifs.com/self-portraits.php?photo=self0155.jpg#self0150.jpg
her other photos in the gallery there are great too - hockey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@Krypto01
Why should the shop owner be mad? After all you didn't "steal" the magazine you are simply "sharing" it. When you are done scanning there is still the original copy on the rack and the copy on your scanner so you haven't stolen anything.
Right. . . right?
/sarcasm - Krypto01, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12@spudnic
Why does it even matter whether someone would have bought it?
You are taking something that a business intended to sell, and getting it for free. Whether you would have paid for it or not has nothing to do with the fact that you are getting something for free, that someone else is trying to charge for.
If I went into a magazine store with a hand-held scanner each day and copied every magazine in the store, I bet the owner of the store would be pretty pissed at me, whether I would've actually paid for the magazines if I couldn't scan them or not. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"""Stealing an artist is only okay if the artist is connected to the RIAA or the MPAA..."""
I don't know why you act like they're the same thing.
I'd die before I'd sue or prosecute a child for doing basically nothing wrong, but if some actual trading company started using my copyrights for profit I'd get the police involved/start proceedings right away, whichever was appropriate.
The one is exactly the same as giving someone a mix tape - and is by and large excluded by the letter and the spirit of copyright law unless you make very tenuous arguments about "market value" and stuff.
The other is a criminal act.
"""And folks, we can't have it both ways. Most people on Digg seem to think that copyrighting digital music is bad, but why is digital art any different?"""
Who ever said copyrights on music were bad?
Are you confusing copyrights with DRM or frivolous threats and law suits? Those are BAD.
Copyrights = normal, copyrights = good.
Acting like a malevolent jackass with malware and legal bullying = bad. - sirhomer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8It's NOT stealing, it's copyright infridgement. It is NO different from downloading RIAA music of the Internet, both are ILLEGAL, and a violation of THE VERY SAME LAW. Digg is full of idiots.
- dnthomps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Sucks to write 21 words and get dugg down. Must suck a lot more to write an essay and get dugg down.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12I'd back that up...
- tokyopimp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8So your saying it's ok for AllOfMP3 to sell albums and not compensate the artist/record company, but it's not ok for this company to sell this womens pictures and not compensate her?
It's only different because you see her as a women getting ripped off, and you see the record companies bands as money making millionaires that don't need the profit.
It makes no difference, if you steel a dollar from a bumb on the street, or a dollar from a billionaire, it's the same damn thing. -
Show 51 - 100 of 366 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 
