digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at flickr.com

Ripped off Icelandic Flickr member Rebekka

flickr.com — Once again the popular Icelandic photographer and Flickr member Rebekka Gu ðleifsdóttir has been ripped off here photos. She found 25 of here photos for sale at iStockphoto.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chrisnixon, on 02/06/2008, -3/+132Absolute disgrace. Some people and companies have no shame.
    • heiroglyph, on 02/06/2008, -22/+15I agree, the grammar in that summary is terrible.
      • themastersb, on 02/06/2008, -3/+12I think what we should be focusing on is that a girl has had here photos ripped off.
        • Cwo655321, on 02/06/2008, -6/+7her her.
        • rchargel, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2here = –adverb in or at this place; where the speaker or writer is; "I work here"; "turn here"; "radio waves received here on Earth"
          -noun this place: It's only a short distance from here.
          her = –pronoun
          1) the objective case of she: We saw her this morning.
          2) the possessive case of she (used as an attributive adjective): 'm sorry about her leaving.
          3) the dative case of she: I gave her the book.
          4) Informal. (used instead of the pronoun she in the predicate after the verb to be): It's her. It isn't her.

          I think you get the picture
      • EmileVictor, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2I'd like to see flickr and iStockPhoto utilise the same techology Digg uses to allow users to see duplicates of their own images on the istockphoto or flickr/picasa servers.
      • OwdenBowden, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1DIGIMARC - http://www.digimarc.com/
    • n8r0n, on 02/06/2008, -0/+10http://flickr.com/photos/rebba/81996799/
    • jcounterman, on 02/06/2008, -1/+10To Istockphoto's credit, they've removed the picture from the site.
      • GawtMilk, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Plus, a member joined and added them in the first place...not the company itself.
        • shodanx, on 02/06/2008, -12/+0maybe that member was that girl but undercover
          sounds publicity stunt to me
        • shodanx, on 02/06/2008, -7/+2maybe that member was that girl but undercover
          sounds publicity stunt to me
      • mightydavefish, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Is it really to their "credit" that they pulled a pic they sold illegally once they found out people knew about it?
        I say nay.
        They did it to cover their asses and try to avoid having to pay her for it.
        • jcounterman, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1What's your solution? Hire people to look at every picture, then cross reference it with every other picture every taken?

          Some people are so anti-corporation that they think companies can never do the right thing...and if they do, they can't do it for the right reason. The world isn't as evil as you think.
    • Lasereth, on 02/06/2008, -7/+9Yeah it's so terrible blah blah blah. Yet most digg users blatantly copy games and software and feel no shame. What's the difference?
      • 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?
      • FuzzMop, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4Pirating software != Copying a piece of work and then selling it and claiming it as your own.
        • rchargel, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Really, as a software engineer I tend to disagree. I'm not saying that she shouldn't sue, in fact I support her on that one. But to say that stealing a photo isn't the same as stealing software, makes you not only a douche bag, but a hypocritical one at that. Granted I've worked on plenty of Sourceforge projects which are freely distributed, but those are projects that we WANT to give away. I suppose in this case the thief is a supreme ***** for claiming that the photos were his work. After all, I'd guess you never stole a copy of Photoshop and claimed you wrote it.
      • catwoman2970, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Do I hear database injection to ***** with this thief's portfolio???
  • 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.
    • adderx99, on 02/06/2008, -0/+17...they probably got the license/ passport scan off flickr too,,,,
  • 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).
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • KMye, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9You don't need to be in the US on anything other than the actual court dates.
        • rchargel, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Actually, you don't even need to be here for that. You only need to assign power of attorney to your lawyer.
        • msfayzer, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1It actually says that she has spent a great deal of her life in Florida so she probably would be willing to make a court date here. It isn't that hard to get from Iceland to the US. If you go during the correct time of year it can be relatively cheap too.
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • sgtpppr, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3A friend of mine found HIS resume with only the name removed on a pay-for-templates site. Mental note: don't steal someone's content if it has TEXT that is readily visible to Google and then choose to leave very unique information in the content. What are the chances they wrote a resume in the same format as you with an example person who shares the same birthdate, birthplace, education, and employment history? The rule of the Web has always been 'do it until you get a cease and desist letter'.
    • ICSU, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Where did they get the larger versions?
  • limezor2, on 02/06/2008, -20/+12Whats next, people making money from other people dying?
    Oh wait, that already happens.
  • 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.
    • dadioflex, on 02/06/2008, -5/+8Perhaps people who ACTUALLY care what happens to their photographs shouldn't upload them for public viewing on Flickr. It's pretty much inevitable that your photos, if they're any good, are going to be stolen and used SOMEWHERE, even if it's only in the qtrly report for some obscure company in Belgium. Places you'll never find out about. The outrage is about your publicly displayed photo being DISCOVERED for sale. You can guarantee that those photos are being used somewhere else as well. If someone's worried about someone else making money from their art why not register their photos at these stock photo sites themself?
      • ccheath, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Totally reasonable and logical comment... not sure why you're getting dugg down :-(
      • mightydavefish, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1BINGO!
  • Falldog, on 02/06/2008, -6/+104That's why you've got to throw big honking watermarks over everything.
    • muniak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12Ruins the photos that were meant to be shared =/
      • ccheath, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2shared or sold?
      • orangetiki, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1So you watermark the pictures you have on flickr, and you put your pictures on a site to sell. Hopefully one better then iStockphoto
    • joshman5k, on 02/06/2008, -4/+5Watermarks are like the DRM of images.

      They protect the authors rights at the expense of the consumer.
  • Calcularius, on 02/06/2008, -23/+5Yahoo! doesn't care about your property.
    That's what you get for putting your hard work on a site run by yahoos.
    Fck Flickr
    • 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??
    • carterbaldwin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5The way you wrote '*****' as 'fck' really added a nice touch of class. Kudos!
  • 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.
    • spitsnaugle, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8If your a web designer, 640x480 is good, and cheap.
    • bxblox, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2people sometimes do for the occasional web use if its cheap, but you're right
    • itsgotyou, on 02/06/2008, -13/+4why do people buy pictures on-line anyway? stealing them would be so much cheaper. it's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.
      • ilikesboobs, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Watch out! DUCK! It's coming right for your head.
        Phew!
        It missed you, LUCKY!
    • NinjaJedi, on 02/06/2008, -4/+5A lot of the time you can get around that in Firefox....

      1) View Page info
      2) click Media
      3) Find the image (usually ending with ?v=0)
      4) Copy and paste image to a new tab - remove the ?v=0
      5) add either _o or _b to the filename before .jpg (_o = Original _b = Big)
      6) Profit!!

      This doesn't work on ALL photos though - if the original is 500x400 (approx) then you won't get a larger size picture
      • SACubeMonkey, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure why you are being dugg down. If the safeguards are that easy to circumvent then the website should implement a better system.
    • Machuse, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1On alot of here photos, she doesnt have the large size enabled. Maybe they are using NinjaJedi's technique
    • thesonofdarwin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1What everyone else said above, and, there are programs that allow you to enlarge smaller images to printable sizes with very minimal reduction in quality. They aren't cheap, but I'm sure they are on thebay somewhere. It's called image interpolation, or step interpolation. It's not hard to do, and any person at all capable in photoshop could fix up any minor graphics problems that arose upon enlargement.
    • jclardy, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1To submit photos to iStock they have to be a certain size, I think above 4 MP, they are also very picky about noise and focus, so I don't think you could upsample a tiny photo that much to get it accepted, maybe before it was stolen she had the full resolution one online?
  • bfrank72, on 02/06/2008, -1/+15How about that last name?
    • 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.
      • mypreciousss, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Herdiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis!
        • mypreciousss, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1i guess that daily show reference didn't go down too well?
  • sjbdallas, on 02/06/2008, -6/+57Iceland chicks are so hot.
  • bossm4n, on 02/06/2008, -6/+9I have to be honest and say the I simply do not see the purpose in posting high resolution images on Flickr for any and everyone to download, knowing that they could be used for a multitude of things that you have no control of. Granted, the person who did download these and posted them on iPhoto as their own is a douchelord beyond reproach, but the photographer has some culpability here.
    • dnields, on 02/06/2008, -4/+2I have to agree. I cannot see why anyone who actually cares about their photos would use Flickr to host them.
      If you don't want them ripped off, then fork over the cash for your own hosting/site. At least then you'll have a stronger leg to stand on if someone rips them off.
      Besides, has anyone actually read the TOS for Flickr? Who's to say that Yahoo isn't the party that sold them/gave them to iStockphoto in the first place?
    • Ribbed4U, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2I have to agree. I was going to post a similar comment before I saw yours. Folks, if you post something on the internet, don't be surprised if it gets used in ways you hadn't originally intended. Not saying that this is an excuse for someone to rip off your hard work... but let's face the facts. If someone can steal something on the internet, then someone probably will.
    • 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.
      • bossm4n, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Of course she has the right to do whatever she wishes with HER own images. I never said or implied she did not. That still does not mean it is a good idea to post your images as she did with no watermarking, etc. and not expect something like this to eventually happen. This scenario has already been played out several times in the last year, however the other instances involved companies or publications taking images off Flickr and reproducing them without permission. I've been a stock photographer for nearly 20 years and I would never dream of putting commercially viable images on a public site unprotected, with the ability for people to download them for whatever the purpose, but this is how I make a living, unlike an amateur who simply wants to share their images or show what they've done. But this is the difference between professionals and amateurs.
    • mnewhook, on 02/06/2008, -4/+0Try reading the comments... she says she never uploaded such a high resolution photo.
    • bieber, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4What if someone decides they'd like to use my image as a desktop background? As long as you're not printing or commercially distributing, I pretty much don't care what you do with mine, and I don't want to inconvenience everybody else because there might be a couple ***** out there who would infringe my copyrights: I'll just sue when/if there's a problem, rather than make things difficult for everybody
    • msfayzer, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2That is sort of like saying that a woman is responsible for being raped because she wore a low cut shirt. Flickr does make it easier for stuff to be stolen but that does not make it right.
    • Midnightbrewer, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Better yet, it's like saying that it's okay to shoplift from a store because they just leave their merchandise lying around all willy-nilly. She had her work on display, it was stolen, the thief thought they could get away with it and they failed to do so. Crime is not the victim's fault.
  • benitojuarez, on 02/06/2008, -2/+16This is why the gods handed down watermarks to the realm of men.
    • illspaz, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7guess they haven't yet gotten to the realm of women
    • muniak, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2She actually does watermark all her photos, just not in huge obtrusive ways.
  • MrBabyMan, on 02/06/2008, -0/+22Looks like iStockphoto removed it: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=233 ...
  • daxsymbiont, on 02/06/2008, -9/+33when you pirate the world you don't care.

    hypocrites.
    • 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...
      • Spanq, on 02/06/2008, -11/+4So it's okay to steal only if you aren't making money off it? Uh, *****.
        • stabbingkittens, on 02/06/2008, -6/+2If you're not making money (and subsequently the maker is not losing money), there ISN'T anything wrong. Have you heard of open-source or freeware? This is the Internet - if one person takes another's item and gives it to a third, there are three copies. It only enhances awareness of something worthwhile, much the same way as Digg.
          • sicgamer, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2The maker IS losing money because you're choosing to pirate their ***** instead of purchasing it.
            I'm not trying to point fingers though. I pirate like a *****. Who wants to pay for porn?
          • muniak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3sicgamer, I'm too poor to buy a lot of the things on the internet that I find.. >,> so in my case and a lot of other cases, they are not loosing money.
      • onlyclave, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3"Animals will not sleep in beds with sheets."
    • drgmdp, on 02/06/2008, -5/+1i don't care about this neither
    • agimat, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4She's hot. That made me care.
  • superfuxxorr, on 02/06/2008, -16/+5Unless Rebecca stole them from istock
  • chriskzoo, on 02/06/2008, -13/+97Typical Digg response:
    "Sue those assholes!"
    *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
      • chriskzoo, on 02/06/2008, -15/+2By not buying it, yet stealing it, it went down as +$10 (or whatever a movie ticket costs these days) in your pocket book. So actually, yes, you prevented a loss, which goes toward the bottom line (i.e. potential profit).
        • Ajajadude, on 02/06/2008, -2/+6By legal definition, downloading a movie you did not pay for in order to use it for your own personal entertainment is not "theft."
        • CatalystGhost, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4I never would've bought/rented the movies/games that I pirate, anyway.
        • tgc1, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0Well now what if you downloaded a movie, and it was a cam. A copy of a copy of a copy. (cam, film copy, original film)???
      • 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.
        • tgc1, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Ticket prices go up, movie quality goes down. Strange.
      • chriskzoo, on 02/06/2008, -12/+4Ah, but that's the fallacy of your argument. It doesn't matter if you WOULD have paid for it or not - the fact is you DID steal it and enjoy it. It's like if I stole a Ferrari, got caught, and then said "Well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so no harm no foul."
        • stabbingkittens, on 02/06/2008, -4/+1Because we all know downloading movies can kill, right?
        • rdvade, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3No, it isn't like you stole a Ferrari, its like you copied a Ferarri. Big difference, you gotta stop watching those "you wouldn't steal..." things on DVD's.
        • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Copyright infringement and theft of a tangible object are two completely different animals. Apples and Oranges, my friend. Put simply. You don't get it.
      • whyufail, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4You're dancing around the issue chris, the point of if they lost profit is moot. The point remains that, once again, he didn't claim it was his own work and run around selling it, nor did he bootleg it on the street. Theres a big difference there, but I'm sure you're more concerned with trying to be a smartass than the facts.
      • chriskzoo, on 02/06/2008, -8/+1Question, then: Did the photographer intend to sell her photo and in anyway promote it as such? If she was just taking pictures and uploading them without the intention of ever selling them, then she didn't lose anything either.
        • consonance, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Intent has nothing to do with the issue. The photographer owns the copyright to her images, and it's as simple as that. Yes, she hasn't lost anything because she wasn't selling them. But at the same time that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to sell her work because she isn't. That does not logically follow.

          At the same time, however, she can still sue for damages in court because the actions on iStockphoto constitute plagiarism.
        • sl78, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Consonance is right about everything except for "she wasn't selling them;" you can buy her prints at http://rebekka.myshopify.com/
        • stabbingkittens, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Flamebait.
        • znicket, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2wow - the lengths to which people go to try to justify their behavior.
          Chris - lets say I write a fantastic book - a book that I intend only for my children, not for selling to the worldwide public. However, some pirate copies it and starts distributing it for free around the world. Are you seriously saying that I should not have any say in that? In controlling the artwork that I so lovingly created? That because "I didn't lose any money" it is ok to steal my art?
        • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1In a word, YES. The photos which are available for prints have a link to her webstore at the bottom of the photographer's comment area. See here http://flickr.com/photos/rebba/435321706/in/set-72 ...
          You sir, FAIL.
      • mindspaceindia, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Maybe not, but The Pirate Bay does make profits by providing a platform from which to share illegal/legal content and yet we're defending them
      • znicket, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2No, but you enjoy the fruit of somebody else´s labour and you didn't bother to pay them for it. That is stealing - pure and simple.
    • QuickeningYak, on 02/06/2008, -0/+15Something more like "300-dvdrip-xvid.avi" is accurate.
      • 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.
        • drgmdp, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1i always wondered why release groups put their names in the filename. a text file should be enough. as if i ever cared about who did the job.
        • AlexBellisBrown, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1It helps to know your downloading reputable stuff. Not the crap some other people upload.
    • DeFex, 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??
  • curme, on 02/06/2008, -6/+62Stealing pictures online! What's next? Movies and music?
    • 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.
      • stabbingkittens, on 02/06/2008, -2/+0whyufail is because the threads above discuss piracy and I'm sure curme is making a joke, not a pro/anti piracy statement
    • itsgotyou, on 02/06/2008, -1/+0hey. if there's money to be had, then there will be people to had it. . . or have it. (take it?)
    • heystoopid, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2No Apple Itunes stealing the music and keeping the profits !
  • thedarkrabbit, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10As a photographer... this really pisses me off...

    Time to supersize my Watermark....
  • Dylson, on 02/06/2008, -1/+20How ***** hard is it to spell HER
    • PedleZelnip, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Tooe harde
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4About as hard as it is to use question marks. I'd like to see how well you do in a second language.
      • obijohn, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1A question without a question mark is a statement, not a question. It could be considered a rhetorical question, or simply a comment on the situation.
        • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4In that case, you'd expect it to have a full stop...
    • octophobic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Their doing the best they can.
    • Rocketbird, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1H-E-R. Her.
  • RetardoCrisp, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Thanks for the FYI...I am checking to make sure none of mine are on there...I will be pissed if they are!
    • dojonz, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Don't lie, you'll be quietly pleased someone finds your work any good.
  • 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.
    • onigetoc, on 02/06/2008, -4/+0You will more money and be happier if you don't pass all your life pursuit them, the world web is big enough
    • calvmari, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Just something I'm wondering, does the internet broaden the customer base so much that it offsets the value lost by piracy?
      • urwis, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0I would think so. Good question though. Hell I plan on buying some of her photos after seeing this. Her photos are breath taking.
    • jamesdew, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1I always find the "off the dinner table" and "feed my family" comments ammusing. If you aren't earning enough to feed yourself then perhaps you are in the wrong profession.
      I wish artists would be a bit more honest about the situation. "I made it I should earn from it" is a fair enough point without implying you are starving to death without the extra revenue.
      • cathpah, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1my food has to be paid by the money i make. whether i have other money on the side for clothes shouldn't be held against me. :)
  • 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.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3you're wrong. an artist has the right to decide how their work is used. Stealing someone's work and then "giving them credit" is WRONG. You have no right to take something that wasn't created by you and use it, display it, sell it etc without the artists consent.

      I'm sick and tired of hearing people justify theft of intellectual property (and by that i mean photographs, art etc from average artists) and saying...nah dog its cool cuz i gave em credit"

      its not cool. you're still a thief.
      • Midnightbrewer, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1You're missing the point of the parent poster's comment. This is a matter of adding insult to injury: not only was it stolen, she also didn't get credit for it. Magicicarus is not saying that it's okay to steal just because you give credit for it (which would most likely end up backfiring on you, anyway).
  • MikeFallopian, on 02/06/2008, -9/+1Who cares; if you put your stuff online for public consumption there's a chance that someone will 'borrow' it for personal gain. You have to be really naive to not realize that's a possibility.
  • fani, on 02/06/2008, -5/+4Hasn't she heard of watermarking her photos ?
  • 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.
    • illspaz, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5i agree. next time, please link to pictures of breasts
  • illspaz, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1sucks for her, but congrats for being good enough to be ripped off like that. also, "the fun just never stops.." is a much better title for that photo than "3horse"
  • third_eye, on 02/06/2008, -10/+8You are all freaking hypocrites. I bet 90% of you have stolen music and or used a Flickr photo for things that violated the usage policy. Not saying it's right, but a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.
    • 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.
      • znicket, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1So why is that ok in your eyes? You are in both cases enjoying something that the artist wants to be paid for and you didn't pay...
    • gotamd, on 02/06/2008, -4/+5Agreed. The typical Digg-user logic that's applied when this happens with music is that they didn't "steal" anything because it's all just copied bits, right? While most people here probably aren't selling the stuff they've obtained for money, they are redistributing them which yields the exact same result as far as the holder of the copyright is concerned.
      • AxezCore, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1The typical record co. exec. logic that's applied when this happens with music is that they stole the music as well as his house, car, wife and dog too. So say person A downloads a song, he would've never gone out and bought it so no lost profit there. Person A the gives a copy of the song to his friend person B who thinks this song is pretty rocking and goes out and buys the album, thus creating a profit. It's been discussed to the ends of the Internet which logic is the correct one and both sides has come up with all sorts of numbers that support their claim.

        Personally i buy the stuff i like and I've bought several DVDs I wouldn't have known about if it wasn't for downloads. Why do you think more and more bands choose to produce and distribute their own material, it's because the Big labels have been getting fat off of other peoples hard work for ages, most bands make their biggest profit from ticket sales at concerts not the records they sell at the retailer, the money from the retailer goes straight in to the tillers at Big Label who didn't actually do much other than promote the work of others. With the rise of the Internet that sort of promoting can be done by the bands themselves. The role of Big Label has changed to be more like a financial backer to get things started for the band and sure they need to turn a profit of their investment but not the 90/10% model they've been using for decades.
    • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2It's been said at least a handful of times already but I'll explain the two scenarios again. In the article in question some one took her images from Flickr, and posted then on iStockPhoto for sale for profit claiming they were their own. When most of the people who are pirating music, movies, software, etc. are illegally downloading they're not doing it for profit and in most cases it's something they wouldn't spend money on in the first place. So in the case of the latter scenario there is no loss to whomever would've been profiting from legit sales.
  • DuffyDirect, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3Okay, did anyone else notice "here" being used instead of "her"?
    • illspaz, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1yes. see dylson's comment above
    • agimat, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Yes, but most people understood what the submitter actually meant and let it pass. There's no point in being a dick about an obvious typo.
      • ninjan, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I strongly disagree. If we let errors pass, the english language is DOOMED!
  • wdr1, on 02/06/2008, -7/+1Grrrr... I hate when things like this happen! This is why big companies fight DRM -- so they can screw over the little guy! Why do big companies think they can just download content for free, without paying for it!? I mean they wouldn't steal a candy bar...
    • drgmdp, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1this was NOT big companies' responsability
  • faxxy, on 02/06/2008, -6/+2Just had to share this awesome firefox extension for viewing Flickr pics:

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/557 ...

    http://www.piclens.com/site/firefox/win/
    • SleepingOrange, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1yea! I found this the other day, it's actually really good... use it all the time now.
  • revenantprime, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2rippers are ruining online art
    • sgtpppr, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2Unless the online art is put out by the RIAA. /sarcasm
  • KamikazeeDriver, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5she is soooo fine!
  • atrain, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Heres an interesting service trying to stop this from happening:
    http://digg.com/arts_culture/Protect_your_images_o ...
    They let you know if people are stealing your images, but you still have to go after them yourself...
  • Phantizen, on 02/06/2008, -7/+1Taking a picture once upon a time entitles you to payment for each instance in which the picture is reproduced? That is just like the racket the RIAA have going. Musicians do some work once upon a time but when someone uses their own time, bandwidth and hardware to copy it, it is the artist who is robbed in some mystical way. Taking a picture, even a good one, is not that hard now-a-days. UNLIKE developing Portal. Video games, software AND even movies represent more work and expense than music and way more than pictures and so with all the piracy out there, this case gets none of my sympathy. The bottom line is that people paying for an image from the internet (Which is full of images) are the mistakes that fuel such debacles.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2you're an idiot. you've obvioulsy never created anything in your life. You're just a thief.
      • Phantizen, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1You just put your foot in your mouth! Search for Phantizen on YouTube.com. I have done lots of original, creative work! People even like it!!!! Read the comments for my two Nolf 2 videos. EVEN THE INTRO AND OUTRO MUSIC on those two videos is 100% original by me. It is also me performing it! I recorded it. I used to own a recording studio I have made two solo albums and videos you will never see.

        It is not so much that I am an idiot but that you don't understand my values. Work=Money Earned=Money Deserved. Most people who spend much time thinking about the concept of intellectual property know there is a racket-like condition inherent in intellectual property issues where even someone's descendants can profit from a long-deceased persons efforts! Much of it is more about marketing and law than right and wrong or artistic integrity.

        Now tell me more about what's obvious.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1are you friggin serious? yeah its 100% original except for the dialogue, the voice acting, the 3-d animated characters, the GTA video game engine, the machima utility you use to "remix" everything and whatever else you steal from other people. xeroxing things and putting your name on it isn't creation.
    • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1The problem with the RIAA is that only a fraction of the proceeds go to the original artist or their families, in the case that they're no longer with us. I have no problem with the artist getting 100% of the money for the sale of something they crafted. I would have just dugg you down and let it be, but you compared this scenario to the RIAA.
  • stabbingkittens, on 02/06/2008, -4/+0I'de hit it
  • pixelpimp, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1yeah she is hot, but maybe she need to find a better way to show her stuff so she doesn't get ripped off.
  • Survivor303, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3damn i hate this kind news.
  • glitch47, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1why does Digg get outraged by this but support The Pirate Bay?
    They're both examples of people ripping off and profiting from the hard work of others, aren't they?
    • JorgeGT, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2No. I do not claim to be the author nor I resell for profit what I download from The Pirate Bay. It has been said six or seven times before but you don't appear to be able to read, as the other idiot who post just after you without reading anything.
  • 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.
    • Inkyskin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3It's one thing to copy an image - it's quite another to then sell it for your own gain.
    • thesonofdarwin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Exactly, Ink. It's not cool to steal and use it for profit, and I'd be willing to bet most pirates would agree.

      Downloading CS3 for personal use = Would be Ok.
      Downloading CS3, burning it, and selling it at $40 each to my photography friends = Not ok.

      I don't sell the majority of my photos, so if people take them from flickr and use them on their site or whatever, even though they are copyrighted, I don't give a damn. But if someone is pulling in profit off my hard work I'd do everything in my power to make them pay.
  • urwis, on 02/06/2008, -1/+0Ive never seen such beautiful pictures as hers. Masterful.
  • viclazlo, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1obligatory "i'd hit it" comment.

    nice fotos as well.
  • diggingaround, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3I wouldn't be surprised that iStockphoto did this thing by them selfs... my buddy was sued for $10000 by Superstock.com... allegedly he was using unlicensed images from their book (CD) the he actually bought (4 images for his website). They had claimed that Superstock image book and CD's are for reference purposes only. He settled in the end by paying $7000.

    Superstock is using Archive.org to do their sleazy extortionist operation. So remove your web site from Archive.org asap if you have any image that belongs to Superctock.com or similar site - or you will be really, really screwed big time!

    STAY AWAY FROM SUPERSTOCK.com!
  • depro9, on 02/06/2008, -4/+1I know this chick she posts on DOA or www.dogsonacid.com
  • Autofac, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Unbelievable.
    I hope the culprit gets what's coming.
  • Belarbrina, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1The admins at istock have disabled the account and are looking into the situation.

  • GoatRoper, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1As a photographer in my spare time this kind of ***** really pisses me off. I shot an NBA game once and quickly found someone else trying to pass them off as his.
  • mr.hostility, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4Her stuff is nice, but I see no reason to steal it. All it takes on Flickr to be popular is a pair of ***** and an ass, that you photograph every now and again.
  • turleh, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Happens all the time with producers(Hip-Hop) too, those trying to get their beats heard on websites are a lot of time jacked and sold by others claiming to own them!
  • thejoshbennett, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1What people will do for a dollar, really.
    Just like those assholes who take Banky's graffiti and put it on a t-shirt.
  • neio, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1She's got really, really bad ***** karma.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 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.