digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Stealing IS a crime, right?

flickr.com — One of the web's greatest photographers, the Icelandic _rebekka, is having her photos ripped off and sold on ebay and elsewhere by http://www.only-dreemin.com . Companies need to know that posting a photo to the internet DOES NOT make it public domain! Let's shut them down!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -18/+197Criminals. They have sold photos from her for thousands of dollars.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/11/2007, -133/+577Stealing 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.
    • 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, -12/+495I'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.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/11/2007, -43/+346anita:

      >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.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/11/2007, -116/+25Nice that gawtmilk is being dugg down for pure and simple fact.

      Its only stealing if it doesn't benefit YOU... double standards abound.
    • realitybias, 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.
    • evilTak, on 10/11/2007, -37/+316Sharing != Selling
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/11/2007, -52/+20Why doesn't she just use digital watermarks? Isn't that why we have them (the same goes for DRM)?

      I'm not blaming the victim here, but you have to understand, 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). Apparently this is the case, as evidenced in this paragraph from the article:

      "She was confident that by sending them some well-phrased letters i'd be sure to get some damages out of them. After all, i had tons of incriminating evidence. The letters did nothing other than make them take the images down from their site. Further letters got no response from them. My icelandic lawyer could do nothing else, so i was stuck with a bill and the infuriating fact that I, being only a non-wealthy art stutdent/ single mom in iceland, will have to accept that these people stole my work and made lots of money off it, and apparently are going to get away with it."
    • halik, on 10/11/2007, -16/+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.
    • cr4ft, on 10/11/2007, -11/+113Angry email being sent to info@only-dreemin.com in 3...2....1....
    • 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.
    • Agraek, on 10/11/2007, -49/+9@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.
    • bryanedds, on 10/11/2007, -68/+11It's not stealing if the original remains. This is the plain and simple truth from mp3s to photography, whether you sell a copy, or give it away.

      It's not stealing if the original remains.
    • PuyoDead, on 10/11/2007, -29/+17*sigh* Gotta love the "double standards!" crew. Guys, think about it for a few seconds. The RIAA takes the vast majority of the money made from music sales. That in itself is stealing. The RIAA is taking the artist's music, and selling it for massive profit to themselves. The artists have been getting screwed from this for a long time, and that is one of the many problems people have with the RIAA. People like us downloading the music after the fact have a minimal effect on the artists. In fact, just going to a show, buying some shirts or CDs directly from them, all of those things are a great thing to do. They're directly getting your money (at least, most of the time), and you're completely cutting out the RIAA. At least, most shows I go to, the artists bring their own printed CDs, not just stuff of the store shelf for the same price.

      In this photographer's case, someone is literally stealing her work, and not giving her a single cent for it. They're not even letting her know they're doing it.
    • sunchild, on 10/11/2007, -37/+17What a lame story...oh no, a copyright violation between a flickr member and some poster company!!! This is a no-brainer lawsuit, and the damages are...around $5000. If she had a clue, she would fire off a cease and desist, settle for the lost royalties, negotiate a sweetheart deal for future sales (since they obviously have found a market for her generic long exposure seascape images ) and start selling prints herself. The most clueless possible thing to do is to post a rant exposing the "crime" and get the digg and flickr hoi polloi banging down the doors of a potential revenue stream for her. What an IDIOT! Hahahahahaha.
    • realitybias, on 10/11/2007, -5/+74Even if it was NOT stealing...
      Its still plagiarism, fraud, and illegal profiteering.
    • sunchild, on 10/11/2007, -45/+5What a lame story...oh no, a copyright violation between a flickr member and some poster company!!! This is a no-brainer lawsuit, and the damages are...around $5000. If she had a clue, she would fire off a cease and desist, settle for the lost royalties, negotiate a sweetheart deal for future sales (since they obviously have found a market for her generic long exposure seascape images ) and start selling prints herself. The most clueless possible thing to do is to post a rant exposing the "crime" and get the digg and flickr hoi polloi banging down the doors of a potential revenue stream for her. What an IDIOT! Hahahahahaha.
    • darny, on 10/11/2007, -46/+31@realitybias (appropriate name)
      You may not be reselling the work, but the profit you are taking is the work itself. You are acquiring goods, accumulating wealth. The money you save by not purchasing is going towards other goods.

      Don't delude yourself into thinking that these situations are different, just because this time 'the little guy' is the one being hurt.

      This is a moral challenge for us diggers to answer and solve. Don't hide and say the situations are different, come up with a solution.
    • sintaxi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+51Hire a better layer. A chimp could win this case.
    • 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.
    • 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..
    • realitybias, 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.

    • realitybias, on 10/11/2007, -21/+13And if you WANT a better analogy between art and the RIAA...

      Imagine an artist who makes a picture in a 150 x 300 resolution, but if you had a special computer, you could view it at 300 x 600. Using a revolutionary new DRM-related coding, you could only print it out once, but this function doesnt work on some printers. The images all pass through some large corporation, who sues everyone found showing these pictures to a friend. You can't buy the images individually, and instead, have to buy 10 images of goats to get that image of a new york city skyline.

      Now STOP comparing this to DRM, the RIAA, and digital piracy.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/11/2007, -17/+2The difference between stealing music from a multinational corporation and stealing art from a photography with 0-very little income from her craft should be very apparent. Stealing is not always black and white. It's about the principle of the matter.

      When I download a CD via bittorrent or some other illegitimate means, I'm doing so because I want to hurt the company who makes the music. I want them to suffer, because their greed, extortion and malignance are enough to destroy an entire art form. I do it because I want them to listen: Lower CD prices. Pay more to the artists who make the music. Stop forcing your customers to jump through hoops by disallowing the free usage of music they purchase.

      For some reason, DVDs sell for about 20 bucks, and can turn a great profit for their companies, despite the hundreds and hundreds (near 1000s) of people it takes to make the movie, yet, for some reason, the music industry can't seem to turn a decent profit with $15 CDs (which require maybe two dozen or so people to create). There's something wrong there.

      When you steal from someone who has nothing, make no bones about it. Unsigned musicians, hobbyist photographers, hobbyist graphic designers; You are a bad person. You are stealing from those who have nothing. You should be strung up.

      And if you are a heartless company making *money* off of these people? Enjoy Hell.
    • 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)
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1@arnar

      No, but I have used the internet. Lets be serious about this. The internet is full of people (from all over the world) out to get ***** for free or turn a quick buck..sometimes both. It sucks for people who may want an easy way for their music/movies/art to gain popularity, but it's something you have to be aware of. She just found this out the hard way. Again, this is why we have digital watermarks and DRM.
    • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -26/+16But its a picture, it should be FREE. Because TV SHOWS should be free. and MOVIES should be free...

      -typical 14 year old digg rant.
    • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3"sigh* Gotta love the "double standards!" crew. Guys, think about it for a few seconds. The RIAA takes the vast majority of the money made from music sales. That in itself is stealing. The RIAA is taking the artist's music, and selling it for massive profit to themselves. The artists have been getting screwed from this for a long time, and that is one of the many problems people have with the RIAA. People like us downloading the music after the fact have a minimal effect on the artists. In fact, just going to a show, buying some shirts or CDs directly from them, all of those things are a great thing to do. They're directly getting your money (at least, most of the time), and you're completely cutting out the RIAA. At least, most shows I go to, the artists bring their own printed CDs, not just stuff of the store shelf for the same price."

      It's not stealing when the artist signs a contract, and is still getting millions. Its just bad business on the artists end.
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -22/+18so... if someone steals from me it's a crime.... but if i sign a contract that gives another agency the distribution rights for my work, and someone steals from them... it's not a crime?

      i don't know how that works.

      sounds like situational ethics.
    • dave830, on 10/11/2007, -27/+24@realitybias

      darny is NOT flat out wrong. The oldest argument in the world is "well I'm not turning around and reselling it". That is completely irrelevant.

      If there are laws against priating music, it doesn't matter how evil the RIAA is, or how innocently you're listening to the songs. And all the analogies in the world don't change the fact- YOU'RE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO IT.

      Fight for the laws to change, don't fight to justify you breaking them to ease your conscience.

    • VinceNoir, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3@anitab83

      The difference is in where the works come from. I don't think there is a lot of piracy of music with P2P by bands who are unsigned and publish their own CDs. Most people have enough respect to know when the artist (vs. distributor) doesn't make astronomical sums of money, that it's better to support the artist directly. In this case, the photographer isn't published in a worldwide magazine. She posted some images to Flickr.
    • dave830, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4
    • 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
    • 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.
    • kanned, on 10/11/2007, -15/+12Stealing is stealing.. It doesn't matter if you're not reselling it or sharing it. If you took something that had a monitary value without paying your stealing. So unless you're going to delete all those Styx albums that you downloaded, you're no better than these websites..
    • gilbes, on 10/11/2007, -18/+19lol at the pirate appologists continuing crusade to convince themselves that digital media piracy is A.O.K.

      Simple fact: its not right or justifiable. And you sound like an idiot when you try to convince yourself outloud otherwise.

      Most artists are not willing or able to create works and make them commerically viable on their own. They rely on the lables/RIAA and many others to complete their work. Just writing a great song doesn't make it an instant hit that is accessible to everyone. Think of everyone involved from the sound technician to the Asian that assumbles the CD in the package and the guy who delivers it to your local record store. They all need to get paid to feed their families. So ***** your ignorant ass if you have the misconception that piracy is OK because artists don't get enough money. That sentimate is counter productive to itself anyway.

      In this case, the artist is able to take care of almost every aspect of creation and distribution, and a financial windfall is benefit the crooks. Doesn't make the comparions to music/movie piracy any less apt.

      In both cases an unscrupulous party recieves a windfall:
      Selling pictures that are not yours: monetery windfall
      Downloading music that is not yours: entertainment windfall

      In both cases some one recieves a valuable windfall.

      Are you such a greedy bitch that you think money is so important that it trumps any other kind of good or service? The pro-piracy argument always boiled down to: music/movies/games are not worth 1 ***** cent of money and they have no inherent value.

      Forgive me for thinking they do. And forgive everyone who is involved with creating content for asking you to compensate them reasonably for their efforts.

      And its ***** to say piracy is OK because the RIAA and MPAA are not perfect in your holy high opinion.
    • fatdog789, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7If she didn't want other people taking her photos and reusing them without her permission, she shouldn't have made them available to begin with. Hell, she shouldn't have made them. People want good photos, and they have a right to take them, for free, and do whatever they want with them.

      After all, ***** the Amateur Photographer Association of America!

      Oh wait...
    • 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.
    • dave830, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9@daftman

      You walk a fine line, my friend. But if you're really willing to say "it may be legally wrong to steal music, but it's morally right" (are you hearing how pathetic that sounds) than at least be a man and not complain when LEGAL measures are enforced to stop what you admit is LEGALLY wrong.

      And remember, Robin Hood stole from the rich to FEED some folks, no put Pearl Jam on their iPods.
    • synwolf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0@Al3x: Much thanks. To paraphrase cr4ft:

      "Angry email being sent to "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" in 3...2....1...."

      (Hopefully O-D remunerated the artist)
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • bjsiders, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"They are two different sets of laws that handle each... One is criminal and one is civil."

      Minor correction. If this were true, then when somebody stole something from you, you could never be made whole. The criminal penalty is paid into the government and the perp goes to jail.

      It is through the civil trial that you recover your damages, not criminal. Tort law covers theft - conversion and trespass to chattels. In the real world, however, your insurance generally covers larceny of personal property
    • centerblack, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between:

      A) Downloading "The Rolling Stones - Beast of Burden" and listening to it without giving the Stones a dollar via iTunes

      and

      B) Downloading "The Rolling Stones - Beast of Burden", and starting my own shop and selling the music to others for profit!

      One is commercial copyright infringement, the other isn't. This example is more akin to a movie theatre downloading the latest and greatest from those evil ***** pirates up north and charging people $9 a ticket to see it with no intention of giving the studio/producers/everyone else their cut.

      Theft/Stealing is not equal to copyright infringement.
    • wphj, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Tell them off!
      info@only-dreemin.com
    • PAJK, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4only-dreemin UK
      Unit D, 88 Vernon Road
      Aylestone
      Leicester
      LE2 8GB
      United Kingdom

      +44 (0)1162 440 349

      info@only-dreemin.com
    • ernkush, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Oh the hypocrisy...its absolutely beautiful.
    • anagoge, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4"Sharing != Selling"

      If 5 people buy something for $1 each, there's $5 made.
      If 1 person shares something they bought for $1 with four people, there's $1 made.

      Can you see how with music, artwork and many other things, there is a profit loss because you're sharing with those four people?

      Yes, there are other issues, but this is the main one.
    • NGliam, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4My personal opinion is that it is ok to download copyright material (e.g., music) but to make money from it is morally wrong. Even worse when the author of the work is not credited at all..

      *cough* ebaums..
    • roodammy44, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4This is wrong because:

      1) They are not crediting the artist
      2) They are making money from her work without her permission.

      Downloading music illegally may not be fair to music artists who have solid gold swimming pools, but making money off work that an artist displays for free, to share, is a million times worse.
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Alright, so stealing an audio file that contains music, a video file that contains a movie, or an executable file that contains a game is morally right, but stealing a picture file that contains a photo is morally wrong.

      You can't have your cake and eat it, you ***** pirates.
    • cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5To those of you saying how completely different this is to downloading music, I ask you this - What ***** difference to the artist does it make if you sell their music or not? All that matters is if you did or did not buy it from them. So your entire argument on how it's all the evil record company, and how you're tired of the record companies screwing their artists is bunk; You are screwing them too. You're not paying for the product that they put their sweat and blood into. And I'm not saying that I haven't downloaded music, a lot of music even... but I will in no way try to justify it. I know that I stole something when I chose not to pay for it, regardless of the reasons, even if they may be semi-justifiable.

      Speaking as a musician, I'm sending out a big "***** you" to all of you guys who are trying to justify downloading with your half-baked logic. You're so quick to burn these guys, yet you refuse to look at your own actions. Wake up Digg.
    • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"It would also be pretty cool if as many people as possible would send them angry letters, (address them to info@only-dreemin.com ) but that's just if you feel like it;)"

      Lady, this is Digg. I think we can do better than that ;)
    • jekylltech, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3This is illegal because another company is profiting from the work of another person.
      Let me break it down
      Stealing photos to put as your desktop background = Legal
      Stealing photos to sell on eBay for hundreds of dollars = ILLEGAL

      Stealing music to put on your Tablet PC = Legal
      Stealing music to burn to CD and sell for $8/CD = ILLEGAL

      Feel free to debate the legality of stealing
    • paradigmshifter, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0theres a difference between stealing art like this and music
      when you steal her art, you are stealing from her
      when you steal music, you are stealing from the record company that didnt make the music, not the artists that they are barely paying unless they are a pop star
      and, these guys are stealing her art and making money off of if
      how many people download music and then sell the cds, honestly
    • ICS4S, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So if they just start giving the works away for free its all good.

      If you want one Ill print it out on my home printer for you, just bring your own photo paper and ink...
    • pedo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"Stealing an artist is only okay if the artist is connected to the RIAA or the MPAA..."

      downloading something without paying is not the same as downloading something without paying and SELLING IT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
    • SpinMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1only-dreemin UK
      Unit D, 88 Vernon Road
      Aylestone
      Leicester
      LE2 8GB
      United Kingdom

      anyon live near them?... throw a brick thru their wondow one night or something haha... no.. im kidding... but go in there everyday and tell their customers that they are stolen...haha
    • argoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3NO! This is *****! The real wrong here was that somebody fraudulently used their name on the paintings, and then everybody goes off and tries to confuse this with a separate issue, illegal copying. Fraud IS WRONG, Copying IS NOT. The fact that people must go mixing in a bunch of fraud issues to make their pro copyright case is only more proof that copyrights are crap that can't stand on their own merits. In fact, all the BS about copyrights only serves to make the matter worse because it distracts from the real issue: fraud.
    • tamrix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Some of you may be saying, 'if you download music that you should of purchased isnt that taking the money away from the people you should of purchased it from?'

      Well if i had to pay $35.00AU to buy a CD you can bet i wouldn't of bought it even if my head was in a vice.

      So in other words, you wouldn't be getting the money anyways! But also in return you wouldn't be getting the songs heard and enjoyed, and is that not the real reason artists make music?

      BUT thats not to say, if i really enjoy and artist and their songs that i wont by a shirt (have done this many times) or gone and seen them live (also have done this many times).

      Hell if some of these artists music never got released online for downloading, im sure they would of never become this popular.. look at arctic monkeys, they become popular because of the wide spread of myspace. limb bizkit said downloading their music was fine but the record company disagreed, NIN has taken a step, even blink 182 offered blank cds on their site so you can burn their music on!

      distributing music for free to millions of people would make a bigger difference then no one knowing who you are and getting a few record sales. Artists know this = fame, but record companies know this doesn't make any money.
    • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"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."

      The pirate bay makes money from piracy. So does allofmp3.com. People who get music for free save money that can be spent on other things, and therefore profit. This argument is pathetic. If I opened a store identical to iTMS, but charged $0 instead of $0.99, I could put them out of business as fast as word spread about the site.
    • moogle516, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0GawtMil people aren't selling stolen songs from the internet and making a profit off of it.
    • actorboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@ realitybias

      “Ok, 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.”

      And the similarity is that the artist chooses to profit from her work, but people are enjoying it without her seeing a dime. You can talk about the AAs profiting as middlemen until your blue in the face, but taking creative work for free and/or paying someone else to acquire it for you illegally both ignore systems put in place to pay those artists for their work. In that regard, there is no difference.
    • nepawoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@bigdavediode
      "anita: >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."

      So the artist can have the exclusive right to copy something, but can't sell that right to someone else?
    • actorboy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@ roodammy44

      "Downloading music illegally may not be fair to music artists who have solid gold swimming pools..."

      Solid gold swimming pools? ***** you. I'm a professional actor -- a dues paying SAG member -- who's work is marketed through the other AA. Last year I made a grand total of $21.5k for my work. That includes residuals. Not all artists are mutimillionaires, *****. You can keep deluding yourself that everybody you "copyright infringe" from is plenty rich, but in the end, you are full of hot ***** air.

    • SquigglyP, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3the RIAA excuse isn't an excuse. The RIAA is an enforcement agency. You aren't 'stealing' anything from them. they get paid whether you buy the ***** or not.
    • firepowered, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11. Steal Pictures
      2. Sell on eBay
      3. ????????
      4. Profit!
    • joraal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0too bad they've got on digg first page... I think this company will be famous for its photo theft for a long time. I can just imagine the number of mails they have received from angry digg users. And the angry customers...
  • mjar81, on 10/11/2007, -17/+16Here are where they are selling her photos (STILL!):

    http://www.only-dreemin.com/scenes.htm

    These crooks have made over $4840 US (from what we can tell) on SOMEONE ELSE'S work!
    • 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.
    • 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/

    • kefs, on 10/11/2007, -11/+8dognose.. wrong..

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3.com
    • geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2"These crooks have made over $4840 US (from what we can tell) on SOMEONE ELSE'S work!"

      Take them to small claims. In most states, it's $5000 cap. If she waits any longer she's going to have to go through ordinary channels and that can get expensive. But hey, she can claim damages as high as she wants... not like this isn't a clear cut case of infringement.

      Either way, this shouldn't be on the front page. I'm sorry for her $5000 plight, but I'm not sorry for the fact she's probably got a $20,000 paycheck coming her way.
    • broeks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Why doesn't she sell her own stuff if it has been proven to be such a successful venture?
    • skodaman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@ geminitojanus

      I take it that you are familiar with the machinations of persuing a small claims court claim in Iceland, when the defendant is in the UK?

    • sirhomer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2CEOs and investors make MILLIONS from other people's work, and you don't see Digg users go on a rage over it.
    • ThreeDee912, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1LogoMaid anyone?

      http://www.logomaid.com/
  • 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.
    • goldenstate, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6My thoughts exactly. Don't get me wrong, this sucks, but it's the least of what you can expect if you don't protect your own work...
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18She should have used some form of DRM. That always makes things better.
    • bjsiders, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4WHAT!? And cripple the product with low bitrates and copy-protection? That's a bunch of RIAA fascist *****. Give me my art NOT crippled at high resolutions for under a buck and print and maybe THEN I'll buy it. And stop suing me for sampling it before I buy!

      Gol!
  • penguinlust, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1The best way to end this is to spread the word. Let's get this out there.
  • lahdeedah, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I think the resolution wasn't even that high. I think she mentioned that. She doesn't understand how they were able to blow them up to that size. Get the word out there, that's what we can do. There must be more that can done besides watermarking images.
    • arnar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4They are printing on canvas. Low resolution is less evident on canvas than on photographic paper for example.
    • KSUdesigner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There are also applications out there that enlarge images with little to no loss in quality. Genuine Fractals is one such program. http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2 With an app like that they can make the image any size they want. Most likely there'd be some quality loss, but like was said before, they are printing on canvas which will hide some of the defects.
  • yuvipanda, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Spread the word people. Blog about it if you can.
  • barnesdmd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2From where I'm browsing, they still have some of the pictures up on the site. Incredible these crooks are getting away with it.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -36/+52Food 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.
    • mjar81, on 10/11/2007, -7/+51Also, as a computer programmer, that's how I'd feel if someone ripped off my software.
    • 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.
    • hrhs556x, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6And the RIAA is trying to stop that, which they should.

      but somehow RIAA is voted worst company ever
    • 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.
    • realitybias, 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?
    • slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Exactly. I do agree with you.
    • ilovethissite, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0sharing != selling

      and last I check peer-to-peer clients are freely accessible and have become a lot better than they were during the RIAA vs Napster days.

      2nd

      Would you defend media coglomerates that have a DMCA field day with video sharing sites such as Google-Youtube & Myspace.
    • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@ilovethissite (#6675643)
      For short clips of the shows, no. It's retarded to serve DMCA notices for what amounts to invaluable advertising.
      And I just don't believe for a second people actually sit there and watch full length shows in the awful quality you get on youtube et al
    • 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.
    • GottIstTot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Ummm, No. You have this completey wrong fuzzmeister. When you download her work for your desktop you aren't stealing because she offered that. If you Sell her work under the auspices that you have permission to do then you are robbing her.
      When you download a song, you aren't removing it from anyone's inventory. If you download a song, and then say sell it on a mix album, well, that is stealing.
    • 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
    • timf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@spudnic

      there is no proof whatsoever that anybody who bought those prints from only-dreamin would have bought them from the original photographer if o-d didn't exist. after all, o-d probably advertised their services, we don't know

      this doesn't mean I'm not on your side, just pointing out a logic flaw
    • bjsiders, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"Really, the amount that an artist makes on an album is negligible"

      Ergo, my continued copyright infringment is totally justified.
    • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@Krypto01 (#6676004)
      I think it's far, far worse to sell something and claim it as your own than to make a copy for personal use.
      A more accurate analogy might be reading someone else's copy of the magazine compared to printing off your own and selling them in a competing shop.
    • hockey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@spudnic

      But after you are done reading your friends magazine do you photo copy the entire issue or put it down and walk away?

      In other words once you've "shared" something after you listen to it once, or watch it once, or play it once do you delete it and buy your own copy or do you continue to "share" it forever?
    • oneoverzero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The difference is, the photographer wouldn't have minded if someone were to use the image as a desktop, or some other personal use.
    • actorboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ realitybias

      Thank you so much for conveying how I and so many other artists feel when people pirate our work, even though it is an assumption that is wholly wrong.
  • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -32/+13But, it isn't stealing because no one losing anything. She still has the picture, so what does it matter if someone else sells or even gives the picture away for free? After all, it is only copyright.

    Or, does that justification only apply to music?
    • raoulpop, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Because 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.
    • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11@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.
    • 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.
    • skidooer, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2"But it is stealing, they are PROFITING from her work."

      If you want to look at it that way they would have to take away her profits for it to be stealing. They are only reducing her profits. For it to be theft she would have had to already collected the money.

      Is it legal? No. Is it stealing? Definitely not. I don't see why every crime has to have "stealing" attached to it. Why not say they are murdering her work?
    • bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Does Microsoft owe Alan Kay for the the use of his invention -- the window that contains the web browser displaying this page?

    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7And those that trade songs profit by getting other songs. If the songs had no value, then you would not want the songs.

      The only difference is that one is paid in money and the other is paid for in barter ( other songs ).

      Even if the RIAA took 99% of the money, the artist is still losing out on that 1% because of "sharing".
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@ArmandoM:

      Hypothetical: You "share" songs. You put one album up for sharing, and down load 100 songs. How much money would it cost to pay for those songs? Those songs are something of value, but you did not pay for them. Instead you took someone else's work and used it to "pay" for the songs you downloaded. Granted, no one SAID you had to put songs up, but without the majority of people actually "sharing" something, there would be nothing to download.

      P2P "sharing" only works if the majority of people share (cooperate). If the majority don't ( called defection), then it doesn't work. The medium of exchange on P2P networks is "works of art", be they songs, videos, or stories.
    • xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2it is not 'theft. It is 'copyright infringement'. In this case it's commercial copyright infringement. It is bad, mmkay, but it's not theft.

      Please, let's use the right words so people can understand the difference, be it music, movies, pictures, or code.

      Say it all together now -- "Copyright infringement"
    • ArmandoM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Hypothetical: You "share" songs. You put one album up for sharing, and down load 100 songs. How much money would it cost to pay for those songs? Those songs are something of value, but you did not pay for them. Instead you took someone else's work and used it to "pay" for the songs you downloaded. Granted, no one SAID you had to put songs up, but without the majority of people actually "sharing" something, there would be nothing to download.

      P2P "sharing" only works if the majority of people share (cooperate). If the majority don't ( called defection), then it doesn't work. The medium of exchange on P2P networks is "works of art", be they songs, videos, or stories."

      What does all that have to do with anything I said?

      Argue all you want, but this is not stealing. Steal something, you get to go to criminal court. Infringe on someone's copyright, (especially if you make money by infringing someone's copyright), you could find yourself in civil court.

      If I lived in the Star Trek world, and could make replicate myself a BMW, without actually taking someone else's BMW, especially if I started copying and selling the car, the best law you could nail me with is a copyright infringement law.

      Whether or not people leech or not doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
    • regeya, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You'd be right about it being a double-standard if the average Limewire user was profiting from the deal. And I think the analogy works better if you compare these guys to record execs ;-)
    • 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.
  • philodygmn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Instead of trying to shut them down, we should get them to link to her stuff so that rather than them pay her or else no one gets any exposure at all, their clients are given the opportunity to.acquire the legitimate, original, high quality images. Maybe she should take this as a signal she should offer lower-res, cheaper versions? Promoting her material, whatever their motive, is worth money to her, too. The exact same holds true for the music industry. Where's all your bluster and gusto for DIY promotion and fans supporting artists (against the labels or otherwise)? The best way to support the photographer is not by stamping out reference to her work -- at least not as a first measure -- but instead trying to bring it in line with contributing to her making a living, even if that doesn't directly mean money into her pocket from them themselves.

    Also, consider a token scheme where people can know if they're getting the real deal or not -- not a rights managment scheme, don't misunderstand, just a unique ID that's authenticatable. So there'd be one more block against theft where the clients will have to confront the fact that they not only aren't supporting the source of their material but that it might not even be the real material, as she noted of their having blown up low-res versions.

    It's almost to the point where people think no one putting originals online _should_ get paid!
  • lagrange, on 10/11/2007, -18/+5This is not stealing.

    One pixel was changed, so its now an 'open source' picture.
  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -11/+9Guess she should have DRM'd the files so that she could control the copyrights better......
  • ikesauto, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Very true. The Internet is still a willed west in that nature.
  • MrViklund, on 10/11/2007, -34/+4This is lame. Buried.

    This is not what Digg is for. Sue them instead, dont post ***** on Digg.
    • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Thanks for telling us what digg is for oh mighty digg lord.
  • imightbewrong, on 10/11/2007, -17/+8stealing pictures is a crime!!
    Music and movies....not so much
    • 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.
    • imightbewrong, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1people don't pirate stolen music and movies????
      who said anything about torrents?
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12@gummih

      So, it's NOT OK to deprive someone of the money for their work by reselling it.... but, it's OK to deprive someone of the money for their work by taking it without permission....


      Seems like both are wrong to me.
    • gummih, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@thcobbs
      Think about the difference between reciting a poem to someone or to take the poem and publish it for your own profit.
      One is fine the other isn't - can you guess which is which?
    • Travelsonic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"So, it's NOT OK to deprive someone of the money for their work by reselling it.... but, it's OK to deprive someone of the money for their work by taking it without permission...."

      Begging the question, is it ok to feel the right to own profit you don't even have to begin with just because you feel you deserve it, instead of trying to earn it in the first place?
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2My point is... that both are wrong.
    • xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1One possible moral (not legal) argument here is that when you infringe someone's copyright for non-commercial reasons, it's hard to prove that you're taking away a possible sale (i.e. money). Just because someone downloads an album or a dvd rip, doesn't mean they would buy it.

      However, when you're selling it, there's proof right there that someone would have paid for it and the money should have gone to the copyright holder.
  • professorChaos, on 10/11/2007, -7/+42http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/395320678/in/photostream/ man she is hot


    i say we back her up
  • CLKeenan, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8Ummm... can we say double standards? Its funny the same community that is so anti-RIAA is digging this article.

    Besides, if there was a digg article for every time someones works got ripped off, we'd have a lot of digg articles.

    Buried.
  • 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?
    • 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.
  • frodsteamin2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4only if you get caught..duh
  • darny, on 10/11/2007, -12/+10Yeah so someone please tell me how this is any different from downloading music movies, ebooks, warez, etc. I know some of you are thinking that stealing that stuff is less morally wrong because it's stealing from large corporations that are evil in the first place, etc. But it's totally not different.

    This is the digital age. She either has to live with posting small images or watermarked images or live with the piracy.

    We can't have our cake and eat it. Let's not be hypocrites.
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Ummm.... Read the other comments. This has been explained adnausium.
    • WoZZeR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It's actually VERY different. This isn't just some people on the web, downloading that they could have bought and using it as a background. In terms of the music scene which everyone want to equate this to, it would be similar to downloading music, and releasing a CD of music that paid no royalties to the artists that recorded the music. The stealing aspect here is not that the artist lost sales because people didn't buy the original CD that the song was on, but in the fact that someone other than the artist is getting the money.

      The main part here is that the money from the photos went to someone other than the artist, not that the artist lost sales.
    • XistenZ, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5The difference is that people who download "music movies, ebooks, warez, etc" are not renaming the artist/creator and redistributing on their own website or reselling the stuff on ebay for profit. As an artist; someone setting it as a wallpaper would be a form of flattery, turning it for profit under a new name is where they crossed the line.
    • bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Does profit have something to do with it?
  • shieldwolf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10This is not stealing...

    It's called COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (and it's wrong).

    Don't adopt this language it only muddies the water of the discussion and plays into the hands of big producers.
    • mstoneburner, on 10/11/2007, -9/+8Copyright infringement is a form of theft, tool.
    • AesSedai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I wrote to info@only-dreemin.com. Absolutely disgusting that this was done to her. I dind't see any alerts on ebay, under buyers comments, about this company thieving. I wonder why noone has alerted the buyers at ebay?
    • shieldwolf, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3@mstoneburner

      Umm no it's not (you are making my point rather nicely though by buying into the language).

      Theft is the TAKING of property from another individual without consent (look it up). If I COPY a work it is still there - take a look - her photos are still on her FLICKR page.

      If I take her picture and sell it I have INFRINGED on her RIGHTS as the COPYRIGHT holder I haven't STOLEN anything.

      Do I need to draw a diagram or do you understand now?
    • cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@shieldwolf

      You really did look up the definition of "theft" just for this argument didn't you?
      Well you better go take another look buddy, because although what you speak of certainly does qualify as copyright enfringement, it is also still a piece of digital property, and as such, it qualifies as theft if you take said property without paying the owner for it.

      "THEFT - A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."
    • cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ shieldwolf again

      To add to that, what I refer to as "taking", you refer to as "copying".

      The fact of the matter is, you are still ACQUIRING that property that does not belong to you, and in doing so, you have by definition, stolen something that is not yours.
  • Burmask, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3eBay scum
  • dualaudi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Please take off "+ ALL SIZES" option....
  • fatfinger, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2She should get 95 percent of all sales.
    • BrainCoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No, she never gave the consent to sell the photos...she can sue them.
  • arsemaster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Opening what shouldn't have been locked in the first place = Earning revenue from the works of others
    I thought you kids were better at math... If I'm not mistaken this is exactly why we hate the RIAA because that's exactly what they do, profit from the works of others.
    • actorboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They profit from the works of others with the aritst's consent. Big difference.
  • JosepBadu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Ok, I have to say this.

    To the people giving the "If this were RIAA......"

    There is one hugh difference between her images being ripped off, and music being ripped off. She is the artist, she is being ripped off by someone taking her work, and selling it, she is not a third party company out to get you. The RIAA on the other hand are. They will hunt you down, even if you are just listening to "their" music, you don't have to be selling it.

    My 2 cents...





    • samard2002, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Right I suppose every band should spend all their time online preventing piracy, they should not pool resources through labels or organizations that work on their behalf like the RIAA. Speaking out directly on piracy worked for Metallica, right? If I recall correctly, the internet refused to classify them as artists because they were rich.

      Face it, people want stuff for free and the internet allows them to do that with digital content or digitizable content. Once people have the ability to do something, they will work very hard at justifying why they should be allowed to do it.

      Put me in the "downloading is stealing" crowd. I think you should pay for what you consume, if someone else produced it.
  • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Putting it on the internet qualifies it as an Attractive Nuisance.

    Also, intellectual property laws are ludicrous.
    • cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This obviously coming from someone with no intellectual property.
  • darny, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Keep in mind that her images are worth $, the amount of money it actually takes to produce them (take them off the hard drive and put them on the wall) is worth $$$$$.

    I've gone thru the process several times. Printers are evil, framers are the devil.
    • arnar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You're saying the printing and framing is worth five times more than the photograph itself??

      I must disagree with that. Taking pictures like that takes alot of effort and experience only gained by trial-and-error over months or years (unless you're one of the lucky ones that are born with such talent). Training someone in operating an inkjet printer and building simple frames takes a day or two of instruction.

      btw. they're selling the pictures printed on canvas strechted on a wooden frame (it's called a blind-frame in Icelandic, don't know if thats correct English).
  • santacruz, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9"One of the web's greatest photographers"

    Far from it.

  • aapala, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@anitab83... ((way up at the top)).

    No, I don't think you have any concept about how digg users feel about copyrighting digital music. I don't think very many users here are taking songs that they download illegally and selling them to their buddies or on eBay for a profit. Most people would agree that such behavior is wrong. Most people do believe, however, that if you purchase a piece of music, it should work on all of your players, regardless of who manufactured the product. It's not the copyright we have a problem with... it's the DRM.
    • cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Record companys are not the artists. Digg users are FOR the artists right? These are the people who bring you the music that you love to listen to.

      Honestly think what life would be like without music.

      So why then do you justify stealing from the artists based on their employers behavior? You and I and ALL OF US are part of an Evil Empire. So does that mean that we should start killing each other to bring down the empire?

      Your logic is flawed. You see a fire in a building, and instead of putting out the fire, you put down the entire building.
  • Jimmni, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3only-dreemin UK
    Unit D, 88 Vernon Road
    Aylestone
    Leicester
    LE2 8GB
    United Kingdom

    +44 (0)1162 440 349

    info@only-dreemin.com
  • 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.
    • icyone123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Happy to see they're manning up to their mistake. Unfortunately, their lawyers are ***** scumbags. Make no contact? You profitted $5k selling HER photographs! You owe her restitution, whether or not someone conned you into it. Didn't you do any fact-checking?

      Lawyers. Ugh.
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Unfortunately, their lawyers are ***** scumbags. Make no contact? You profitted $5k selling HER photographs! "

      Regardless of right and wrong and one parties knowledge that something might be right or wrong it is common practice to avoid communication except through the official channels... lest someone says or does something that compromises the case and makes it worse.

      So far as they were concerned the third party that sold them the rights to do this was on the up and up. One well meaning person from the sellers comes out and it can go from "we were conned too" to "we are complicit too and now we not only owe for the profits but have to pay you a settlement for the next 200 years" ... once the lawyers on the other side twist their statements.
    • 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.
    • rocket000, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I don't know if I by their story. either way, they're responsible.
  • anj747, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Dirty Rotten Scoundrels!
  • Jimmni, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2only-dreemin UK
    Unit D, 88 Vernon Road
    Aylestone
    Leicester
    LE2 8GB
    United Kingdom

    +44 (0)1162 440 349

    info@only-dreemin.com
  • Theipolicy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1This has nothing to do with music and torrents and downloading songs because you're too lazy to go pick up a CD. Several people have already mentioned what the difference is, but several other people just don't care and want to rant about things they know nothing of.

    She had something that belonged to her stolen from her for profit. REGARDLESS of any kind of digital music/media downloading, it's wrong for them to steal her artistic expression and use it for their profit. It's not about the RIAA and crappy artists who make crappy music that ends up in your torrents. Get that through already.

    And no, she doesn't have to "live with it" just because it's what people do now a days. Not everyone just steals because they can and anyone who thinks by that logic fails to notice the difference. I have furniture on my porch that anyone can sit in, it doesn't mean they can come and take it off my porch and put it on theirs and then charge people to sit down. We're free to live, not free to take whatever we cant just because we could/can.
    • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3If you download a song for free and your payment is uploading the song to others instead of paying cash, you are profiting.
  • cbreaker, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Copyright Infringement != Theft!

    The RIAA/MPAA has brainwashed you into thinking that this is theft. It's not. If I copy your photo or music, you still have it. It's not theft, it's INFRINGEMENT. It's still not legal, but it's NOT THEFT! There's a big difference there, both morally and legally.
  • ThisIsBob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I wonder if they leave their keys in their cars in Iceland?
    • mikelo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0wow. i couldn't explain it in a more simple way.
  • TheDefiance, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Anybody in Leicester, UK fancy a totally random, innocent, flash mob this weekend?

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=LE2+8GB&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1

    I think the totally random flash mob theme should be something to do with banners shouting messages about intellectual property.

    ... with eye patches.
  • jeffguillaume, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Here's who the web site domain is registered to:

    tracee mayes
    2 bretby road
    aylestone
    leicester, leicestershire LE2 8QH
    GB

    Domain name: ONLY-DREEMIN.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    traceemayes100@hotmail.com
    +4401162837125
  • republicker, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0i have a crazy idea/

    dont put you pictures on the internets that large and without watermarks, your just asking for somone to reproduce them.

  • tokyopimp, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7So If I download her pictures and put them on my website and give it away for free without her permission is that ok? Just wondering, because a lot of you are making the argument that because they are selling it it's not ok, unlike movies and music that you just download and share. So that website can give the pictures away for free then? And if she wanted the site to take down the pictures would you agree with her, or do the exact opposite and say "Well were just sharing your pictures!"

    I'm just wondering, because I think their are a lot of hypocrites around... but most people are. I don't like the RIAAs tactics as much as the next person, but they have every right to protect their intellectual property, just like she does.
    • jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1The company is in the wrong because they have profited financially from her work and not compensated her for using her work. In your hypothetical, where someone was sharing her pictures for free from their site, if she was properly credited for the work (i.e. not being plagiarized) then no harm done. If she contacted that site and told them to stop sharing them I would tell her to go get *****.
  • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10The Pirate bay makes money helping people to infringe on copyright, too. But they are the heroes of Digg. This photographer is just another MAFIAA type. Put up with people stealing your work. Your business model is obsolete. That's what Digg has taught me.
  • Pxtl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Dear world:

    Crime pays. Look at Todd Goldman. The trick is to only steal with people who can't afford legal representation.

    Robin Hood had it the wrong way around.
  • Arkons24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1either all of it is alright or none of it is. It should be illegal to copy and sell it, however.
  • snotrokit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2dugg and reported to eBay
  • robisfunky, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8 C'mon guys. PLEASE understand that when you download pirated music/ software, you ARE stealing. This "if the original remains, it's not stealing" rationalization is a lame attempt to ease your conscience. The music on a cd or the movie on a dvd, or software on a disk all have the same EULA (google it if you're unfailiar). The material on the disk does NOT become your property when you purchase the disk. You are entering into an agreement with the owner of the copyrighted material to use it for YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE. Making copies of it to 'share' breaches that agreement and makes you and whomever you 'share' it with criminals, strictly speaking. Not that diggers really care about legality when they can get Snoop Dogg for free.
    • ddxChrist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It isn't stealing; it's copyright infringement. The legal distinction is important, which is why it is often repeated. I'm not saying that it's justified, but it certainly isn't the same.
  • 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.
  • eXk0n, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Aww so sad...its the internet folks, Piracy is rampant, live with it.
  • Nerys, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2YES stealing is a crime and should be punished.

    NO this filthy company is NOT committing theft. Neither are downloaders. It called copyright infringement. Would you like being charged as a THIEF for letting your parking meter expire? Or For accidentally running a stop sign ?

    Its called copyright infringement. Its not theft by any possible definition except the RIAA/MPAA 's brainwashing.

    Copyright Infringement IS a crime. If both she and the company are US Based she can take them to court over it. Before you say why should she have to sue them well she would have to sue them if they STOLE something from her too. So whats the difference. Well in this case its actually EASIER to sue for copyright infringement (and its easier to PROVE it too) and the penalties for copyright infringement are usually much higher than for theft.

    Its NOT STEALING!

    If they were downloading and using personally they would NOT even be conducting copyright infringement since she is FREELY giving them away. BUT since they are SELLING them suddenly things change. (Depends on what her licensing terms are)

    While I do not recognize Licenses for personal use I DO recognize and enforce license for non personal use and last time I checked Selling them is not personal use.

    If she submitted them to the public domain then she is SOL

    I see she is in iceland (and some GORGEOUS photo's indeed!!)

    The First thing she needs to do is investigate her local laws governing licensing and copyright

    She then needs to go through her flickr pages and mark all the pages with the appropriate license she wants them to comply with. (creative commons whatever)

    This eliminates the out of it was freely given so ...

    What country is this infringing company based out of? What are the laws like in this Country ? does her or there country (if not the same) have a small claims court ? It might be worth trying it with a single case of infringement and if it successful try it with "each" infringement case individually. If she can get a judgment against them she may even be able to get ebay to shut them down (she will have to be vigilant to get there "new" accounts shut down) but if she can not sue them she can certainly be a nuisance to them.

    Depending on her countries laws and there's she may be able to get a default judgment against them and possibly even a warrant to seize valuables to appease the judgment she wins. (this all depends on locality and local laws etc..)

    She may even (especially if she can find other artists and work with them) to get there domain seized by court order as damages. Anything to "get there" attention. It might be enough to get them to "pay up" just to make her go away :-) and then keep any eye on them for future offenses. Nothing pisses off a judge more than Intentional repeat infringement after a settlement. They tend to throw the book at such offenders.

    Its hard work. No denying that. And alas it SHOULD be hard work because freedom is more important than law. Making laws and a legal system strong enough to literally prevent this kind of crime would also eliminate freedoms as we know them so as a consequence its not easy for the good guys.

    I think she should go after them. Don't use a lawyer if possible until a victory is more certain. Take as many alternative routes as you can and make yourself as a big a thorn in there side as possible. It will be especially useful if you can find another artists spited by this filth. One of them might be wealthy enough to pursue them and you can join in.
  • Ehko, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Reading that. As a beginning photographer and artist. Pissed me off. How are we supposed to make a living off of this if we just end up funding other people. Get your own bloody art if you want to sell it. Or at least have the balls to ask us first. Eventually no one will feel like drawing anymore. No more pictures. For fear of being taken by people like them.

    My rant for the day.
    • tokyopimp, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Delete every single album or song on your computer from a band/group that hasn't specifically said "You can download our stuff, we don't care" or else you're a hypocrite.

      Seriously, every single person that deals with art/music/movies has to deal with this kind of stuff today. It's just because the big companies that produce music/movies somehow since we are downloading their IP, it's okay because they are mega huge and make tons of money.
    • morningchai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, she's not the only one of my talented Flickr friends that is getting ripped off without her knowledge:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesameellis/376208877/in/set-328245/

      As a fellow amateur photographer (who loves what Flickr can do for you in terms of learning and encouragement), it's very disheartening to see such blatant disregard. I've been lucky enough to be notified by a person that likes a Flickr photo of mine enough to want to use it in a blog or even in print. But then again, who knows if that's everyone that ACTUALLY has. Hmmm...
    • Akajl, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1As if that will ever happen.
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Unfortunately, she's not the only one of my talented Flickr friends that is getting ripped off without her knowledge:"

      Steal them? My god man ... how many narcissistic self portraits does a person need??

      And for my take on the actual story ... if she was some ugly troll noone here would give a damn.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 160 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.