'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery

from the go-the-f**k-to-court dept

Well, well. We’ve written about how the massive success of the book Go the Fk to Sleep could likely be attributed to mass file sharing of the book itself, long before it was actually published (which, according to some, makes it a felony). While the publisher and the author originally tried to fight the sharing, they eventually calmed down when they realized that it was (massively) helping with sales. However, we noted the oddity of the author still then insisting that “piracy” was bad.

So it struck as quite interesting, in a comment on that post by Mark, that an artist is now suggesting that the illustrator of Go the Fk to Sleep appears to have copied at least one of his illustrations for one of the book’s classic images:

At the very least, I think a strong argument could be made that the illustrator used the original image as a template for his drawing. Now, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that (at all). In fact, it’s pretty smart. The image perfectly conveys what they wanted, so build on it, as they did. Of course, I was wondering what the original artist is planning to do about it — and hoping that he wouldn’t take the silly and wasteful path of deciding to “go the f**k to court,” but it looks like he’s considering it. Many people in the comments argue that it’s copyright infringement (there’s also a lot of misinformation in the comments), and eventually the original artist notes that he’s looking into what to do, and it sounds like he’s going to ask for money:

From my perusal of Mr. Cortes’ other works, it does appear that he makes extensive use of photographic references in his work. Whether he paints over them or just uses them as visual references I cannot say.

I don’t doubt that a lot of artists download references from the Internet and then adapt them to suit their needs. 9 times out of 10 no one is going to be the wiser, especially if they think they are looking at a stock nature photo someone took. Why drag your easel to Norway when you can hit up GIS?

What happens when the reference isn’t a photo however, but is an original artwork? The difference isn’t always clear and I do usually strive for photorealism in my nature work.

Either way, I will definitely be looking into this matter in the weeks ahead. It’s not personal of course (he seems like a cool guy), merely business.

That’s really too bad. Why do people get so freaked out when others are inspired by their own artwork? Of course, I’d also imagine that if people looked, they might be able to find similar photographic “templates” for other images in the book. But do those harm the original artwork? Of course not.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
123 Comments
Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Sad

I’ve actually used the “original” as desktop wallpaper in the past.

I put “original” in quotes because I don’t see how the two are copies of each other at all. The trees are in different spots, the shoreline is different, etc. There is literally nothing “copied” beyond a vague “trees around a lake at night” style, and you can’t copyright a style.

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I wouldn’t say they “look nothing alike.” I think they’re quite similar. The plaintiff would have to show that the defendant had access to the original and that the work in question is substantially similar to it in idea and expression–does it copy the “look and feel” of the original? I think it does.

I think the problem for the plaintiff would be that the image isn’t that original. The parts that were copied, if there even are any, are unprotectable scenes-a-faire. Just about anyone who’s ever thrown on a backpack and hiked in the mountains has seen this sort of imagery.

Such common scenery images don’t get that much copyright protection. The less protectable the image, the more exacting the copy must be to be infringing. The fact that there are so many differences between the two, I think, would get the defendant off the hook.

FUDbuster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I painted a tree, I think I will now sue everyone that has a picture with a damned tree in it.

And that’s a good example. Paintings and pictures of trees are quite common, so they get less copyright protection. In order for an image to be infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original, if not exactly like it.

Since the scenery here is quite common, I think that in order for the work in question to be considered infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original. I think there are enough objective, extrinsic ways in which they differ that it wouldn’t be infringing.

The problem for the author is that he may not want to put this in the hands of a judge/jury, and the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to get a settlement out of him. Oh well, them’s the breaks.

P.S. Who says I always side with the plaintiff in a copyright case? I think it was nasch. I don’t. I side with whichever side I think has the better argument. ๐Ÿ˜‰

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“P.S. Who says I always side with the plaintiff in a copyright case? I think it was nasch. I don’t. I side with whichever side I think has the better argument. ;)”

Who cares what they think FUD, your posts are very entertaining, and occasionally informative.. keep it up ๐Ÿ™‚

Prisoner 201 says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is probably a photo or picture quite similar to “song of the sky” that is from before 2000.

Why? Because the norhern lights and night forests reflecting in a lake looks f*cking awesome. And has for some time.

So, for the same reason as the creator of “song of the sky”, I bet there are dozens if not hundreds of photgraphers and/or artists that have explored this very vista.

I would not be surprised if there is one or more works from before 2000 that could spell legal trouble for the creator of “song in the sky”, if they found out he has been stealing their work.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I didn’t say you always side with the plaintiff, I asked if you do. And you didn’t answer until now, which makes we wonder if this is the first time!

The problem for the author is that he may not want to put this in the hands of a judge/jury, and the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to get a settlement out of him. Oh well, them’s the breaks.

This is the part we don’t agree on, the attitude that it’s not a big deal for someone to abuse the legal process to get money from an innocent person, and especially that it’s set up so that this happens a lot. Them’s the breaks? I would say, wow, that’s really broken.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re:

i dunno about that, there are a lot of similarities between them and after all, a lake is pretty much going to look like a lake, a forrestline is pretty much going to look like a forrestline and the northern lights are pretty much going to look like the northern lights. add the three together and you are pretty much going to have it wind up looking like this

having said that however, there are more than enough differences, and besides that… can you really say that you ‘own’ any depiction of the northern lights over a forrestline that includes a body of water simply because you took a picture of it once? im sure some people will say yes… but we have a name for them…. they’re called “idiots”.

Anonymous Coward says:

I’ve been a big supporter of DigitalBlasphemy for years and really like his work — and while I can understand the knee-jerk reaction of “hey, you should’ve paid me for that,” I really hope he decides otherwise. Attribution is the bigger deal here, and I think it would serve everyone to show how “piracy” can be beneficial for everyone involved.

jenningsthecat (profile) says:

Re: Attribution

There’s no evidence that the so-called ‘original’ was even the inspiration for the image in the book, so as far as I’m concerned, even attribution isn’t at play here. It strikes me that “evergreens around a lake at night” is pretty generic.

Even if DigitalBlasphemy’s work was the inspiration, so what? No one would mistake one image for the other – they are quite different in many significant ways. Besides, if I build a ‘kit car’ that takes its design cues from Porsche, must I stick an attribution sign on it crediting Porsche?

SomeGuy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Attribution

Must? No, but it’d be nice. Nevermind that I don’t put a lot of ethical weight beind being “nice” to a corporation, but that’s not really the point, as we’re really discussing individuals.

Anyways, attribution isn’t put there to make sure there isn’t confusion, it’s there to say “hey, if you like this, you may also like other things by this guy.” I don’t think there needs to be a legal mandate but again doing so is nice.

As far as if it was an inspiration or not? -shrugs- Fair point. I think I see enough similarities that I’d be pretty skeptical of a contrary claim, but “evergreens around a lake at night” is fairly generic. As Ryan Bliss points out below, though, there are some key details that hint otherwise.

PrometheeFeu (profile) says:

Let’s be honest Mike. If you saw an opportunity to make a boat-load of cash simply by calling your lawyer, would you pass it? But I agree with those who point out the two images are not copies of each other. Not even derivative. They look vaguely similar but are clearly different images. Even if copyright made a shred of sense, I don’t see how this could possibly be infringement.

Ryan Bliss (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If I were really the litigious type that folks here have made me out to be, then you would be reading about a lawsuit rather than a postulation I floated on the Internet. I get that you guys come here to read about copyright abuses every day but don’t read more into it than there is.

If I’m going to sue someone (which I’ve never done by the way) I not going to be posting about it beforehand.

PrometheeFeu (profile) says:

OK, completely unrelated, but does anyone else find the ad at the bottom of the page highly amusing?

“Display Advertising
Reach up to 92% of the US Online Population w/ Microsoft Display Ads
Advertising.Microsoft.com

Ads by Google”

Techdirt is displaying a Google ad for Microsoft ads. I want to send that screenshot to the anti-trust authorities.

Kevin (profile) says:

Digital Blasphemy

I, too, have followed Ryan Bliss for years, and while his work is frequently copied (to his dismay), I don’t recall him ever going to court over it. I actually saw the similarity when Techdirt first wrote about it, and wondered if they’d copied that image myself (not that I care).

Usually in these cases Ryan is just looking for attribution, but since he HAS left his job to support his family entirely through selling memberships and this has been a huge marketing success, it wouldn’t really surprise me if he went after more in this case.

Before anyone starts slamming me, I’m very copyleft and I’m also not sure how I feel about Ryan’s position here. I find it understandable, in a way, since it would at least be nice if they gave him credit for inspiring the image (assuming, of course, that he did). But I can hardly be accused of being anti-piracy, even with respect to Digital Blasphemy. While I paid for a lifetime membership ($99) years ago, I’ve since shared my login with a number of people to spread the word about him. And while they otherwise probably wouldn’t have paid the relatively high cost of his free images for simple desktop wallpaper, my one subscription being copied out like that has caused numerous others to use his wallpapers on their desktops every day, including in some offices, inspiring notice and comment from visitors, co-workers, etc. In short, even if he didn’t like what I’m doing, I’m sure I’ve gotten him a lot more attention than I would have if I’d kept my subscription just for myself.

Alessar (profile) says:

Re: Digital Blasphemy

In this particular case I think it’s a huge stretch. It’s a very generic composition and if the book was copying from digital blasphemy, I’d think the picture would be *better*.

On a side note, I once pointed out to Vlad of Vladstudio, who has the same type of business as Digital Blasphemy, that one of his most iconic wallpapers was clearly visible on the computers of the TV show Dollhouse. His response: Cool!

Ryan Bliss (profile) says:

Re: Re: Digital Blasphemy

I would love this too! I fact it has happened with my work countless times. On the other hand, one of my prints may or may not be in the background of new “The Thing” remake. Regardless if you think that movie needs to be remade, the studio contacted me about it beforehand and asked that I sign a release. That’s just how it’s done. No, I didn’t ask for any money. They bought a print they can do what they want with it.

Greevar (profile) says:

It's a little overblown.

The image these illustrations portray are not exactly an uncommon concept. It’s a snowy lake shore near a pine forest at night during an aurora borealis. It’s not much of a stretch to think that these two artists came to the same idea independently and they both use differing media. One appears to be CG, while the other is obviously hand painted. At worst, the image might be inspired by the prior art, but nevertheless, it was plainly created through the effort of an artist whom produced an entirely independent work and not a verbatim copy.

Oh, but I forget myself. They stole this guy’s art and they should pay infinity dollars in damages because the book is so popular!

tebee (profile) says:

But you can't copyright a style

Seems to me a bit like the artistic equivalent of those old “look and style” cases.

As the picture is not the same as the original but has a similar style are they trying to say the style itself is copyrighted ?

If so them many aspiring art students and in the deep do-do’s – most artists start out copying other peoples work that they admire, indeed, one of my friends got an report from his tutor that said “wants to be an illustrator, knows which illustrator he wants to be”

Fletcher Wortmann (user link) says:

We’ve instituted a tax on successful artists for the benefit of the shameless and litigious. Because copyright is all about making sure someone gets compensated!

(I’m a little bitter because I’ve had to deal with some minor copyright issues getting my memoir published. I’ve written about them here: http://fletchathustra.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/copyright-is-often-dumb/)

Ryan Bliss (user link) says:

I never accused any one of stealing...

As the subject of this article I figured I should come on here and elaborate. I didn’t accuse anyone of stealing, I just said the images look strikingly similar (the tree on the right, the colors and flow of the aurora, the curve of the shoreline, etc) and I was wondering aloud if it was a coincidence or not.

Yes, it looks generic now because it rendered it over 10 years ago (when digital cameras were only 1 megapixel). I thought it looked pretty cool at the time, but obviously times change.

I don’t have any plans to take this to court but if Mr. Cortes did use my render as the inspiration for this I would love to know about it. More importantly I would love the millions of people who read “Go the F*ck To Sleep” to know about it.

Like I said in my Facebook post: It looks like Mr. Cortes uses photographic references for his work. I’m just wondering if he thought my render was a photograph (it’s happened before). The “stealing” accusation was filled in by others. I do, however, think there is a big difference between using a photograph as a reference and an original artwork (that was not based on a photograph).

If anyone has any questions I will be happy to answer them. Thanks to the folks here who have enjoyed my work over the years. Especially Kevin ๐Ÿ˜‰

crade (profile) says:

Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

Why do you think there is a big difference between being inspired by a picture of the northern lights or an original artwork (or the real thing for that matter)? Does it really make a difference if he was exposed to the northern landscape in person, on tv, a picture or an artists rendition? If I’ve only seen drawings of elephants and never seen one in person, should I have to credit all the drawings I’ve seen if I want to draw my own elephant? I don’t get it.

SomeGuy (profile) says:

Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

I think there’s some amount of reason in his point: an original piece has more creative input, you could argue, than “just” a photo. A photo has things like framing and lighting and so on, but an original piece of art has all of those things plus the entirety of the subject. I still think I agree more with you than with Ryan regarding how much that matters, but I think there could be a subtle distinction.

Hulser (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

Maybe there isn’t. That’s sort of the question I was asking by bringing this up in the first place.

I always appreciate when the topic of a TD post is able to reply in the comments, but I do have a comment of my own about the above. You stated this…

I do, however, think there is a big difference between using a photograph as a reference and an original artwork (that was not based on a photograph).

I’m sorry, but that’s not a question; it’s a definitive statement. Would you explain what you think the difference is and, more importantly, the relevance of this distinction in the question of whether there was anything wrong or illegal with what Mr. Cortes did?

Ryan Bliss (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I never accused any one of stealing...

No problem Husler. This is a fascinating debate. I guess the question is what can an artist use as reference. Yes, I know there is nothing new under the sun. In the old days artists huffed their easels up into the mountains to paint a mountain scene (and I’m sure some still do). Nowadays I would imagine it is a lot easier to hit up GIS.

As for myself, I don’t use references at all in my work. Maybe it would qualify as “art” if I did. My “Song of the Sky” image was based on a time (around 1995) that I was driving in northern Michagan and saw the aurora for the first time. I rendered it in 2000 and while it may seem generic now, it was pretty well received given that “home rendering” software was still pretty crude.

It’s one thing if someone copies a photo because anyone could conceivably go to that location and paint the same scene. I’m sure some landscape photographers would argue against that point. I don’t know, I’m not a copyright lawyer.

It just feels wrong to me to take an original work that someone else did, paint my own copy of it (leaving the framing, lightning, and structure intact), and then sell it for huge royalty checks (I’m sure Mr. Cortes did not foresee the massive popularity of this self-published book). I’m certainly not saying he did that, but the images are similar enough (to my eye) that I felt it was a valid question.

I’m sure I would have never heard of the similarity if the book hadn’t attained such popularity. I have two little boys but I don’t ready that many kids books. As soon as people started reading the book I started getting emails from people asking that I look into it. Asking my fans is my way of looking into it.

Hulser (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I never accused any one of stealing...

Thanks for your reply.

I guess the question is what can an artist use as reference.

IANAL, but I believe that from a legal standpoint, the question is about the specific expression and the transformative nature of a given piece of art rather than what was used as a reference. In other words, it would be perfectly legal for someone to use another’s art — be it a picture, a painting, or a rendering — as a reference (or for inspiration, if you like) as long as the expression of that work was different or it was transformed in some meaningful way.

It just feels wrong to me to take an original work that someone else did, paint my own copy of it (leaving the framing, lightning, and structure intact), and then sell it for huge royalty checks

I can certainly sympathize with your feelings. Being a common reader of TD, I sometimes come across cases where my initial feelings conflict with the law. However, there is a big difference between feelings, what is moral, and what is legal. If Mr. Cortes did use your work as a reference, I might think a bit less of his originality, but I wouldn’t think of that as an immoral or even illegal act.

It’s a blunt way to say it, but the fact is that copyright law was not designed to protect the feelings of artists. They were designed to incentivize the creation of art. If more and better art can be created in a world where people can reference other art as long as there is some meaningful transformation, then so be it.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I never accused any one of stealing...

“As for myself, I don’t use references at all in my work.”
How the heck can you make anything with no reference? You obviously use references. The trees you have seen and lakes and stars and such. Some you have seen in person, some you have probably seen some in people’s pictures, on tv, or god forbid maybe even in a painting. Even if you have never seen a tree, lake or stars on tv or in a picture you still use the ones you have seen in person as a reference, otherwise you would never be able to make anything resembling a tree since you wouldn’t know what it looks like!

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

Thanks for clarifying! From your original statement, it just kind of sounded like you were considering legal action:

Either way, I will definitely be looking into this matter in the weeks ahead. It’s not personal of course (he seems like a cool guy), merely business.

– but I am very glad to hear that’s not the case!

Chris (profile) says:

Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

Don’t let Tech Dirt get you down. He’s always looking for ways to shape the meme to match his notions of copyright and that artists of any sort deserve absolutely no protection of any sort.

Your clarification is thoughtful and to the point. Hopefully your response will shut everyone up (but doubt it).

Hulser (profile) says:

Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

He’s always looking for ways to shape the meme to match his notions of copyright and that artists of any sort deserve absolutely no protection of any sort.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the purpose of copyright and patents is to protect artists. It’s not. Protecting the artist is merely the means by which, in our current system, the real goal of copyright and patents — incentivizing the creation of new works to benefit the public — is intended to be achieved. The problem is that people of your viewpoint are putting the cart before the horse. You focus on protecting the artist to the exclusion of the benefit to society as a whole.

Would I prefer a system where an artist or inventor can make a good living or even get rich from their work? Sure, but the problem is that this has become the driving force in IP law. Which in turn leads to the countless number of inane and outrageous lawsuits listed out on TD day after day.

Matt says:

OMG

Ok first off digital blasphemy isnt art. any one that mass produces digital, or 3D renderings isnt an artist. second … if he even tries to take any legal action against this generic image with a generic subject hes not even a person more like a bottom feeder.

I hope some one sues him for using a generic image/landscape/whatever in one of his worthless amateur recycled renderings.

enfiniti says:

Re: OMG

What Digital Blasphemy does IS art. How can you say it is not art? Have you looked at his work? Do you realize the time he puts into it? What is the difference between him painting on a screen vs. painting on canvas? I can see saying Digital Art does not have the value of canvas art because of its ease of duplication, but to not call it art is just ridiculous.

athynz (profile) says:

Re: OMG

@Matt: Okay first off the images Digital Blasphemy create IS art. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art for the definition of art and pay close attention to definition #12 which reads: skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature. So given that definition any who mass produces digital or 3D renderings is indeed an artist.

As for the rest of your post you seem somehow bitter and antagonistic towards Digital Blasphemy… but I’m not here to psychoanalyze you.

Billy (user link) says:

Why does it matter?

It matters because of marketing. If you are inspired by a painting / rendering / whatever, giving credit to the original artist will send traffic his way. He’ll make $$ which, in turn, allows him to create more painting to inspire you.

It’s win/win.

The author of the “original” clearly doesn’t care for copyright, but in this day and age, it is pretty standard for the majority of people to think that once again, somebody is out to get them.

Shawn (user link) says:

Combine 'em!

They look pretty good together too!

http://www.novacodova.com/shawn/combined.jpg

To the argument at hand, there are more than simple similarities at play here which leads me to believe that it is a derivative work. If this artist from Go the F**… is known for doing so, then he should, ethically, give credit to his inspirations. Money, not so much.

I’m no lawyer, this is my opinion and I’m also a lifetime member of DB.

Greg says:

Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron

I mean really, people. Do those of you who claim they’re not alike have a financial stake in the book or something. How can anyone look at the images and say with a straight face that they aren’t alike. Stealing is stealing, but in the digital age, some scumbags think it’s OK to take things that don’t belong to you, because they’re just ‘floating’ out in the void… Ryan Bliss created this image, the book’s creator stole it. Period. End of story.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron

So you can overlay the two images and they make a perfect match right? No? Then it must simply be a snowy lake shore near a pine forest at night. That’s not unique in the slightest. I could go to any place in the world with those elements and get a similar result. By your standards, Bob Ross could claim infringement against the DB artist because I’m sure he has made a painting of similar imagery. The two works use similar ideas, but they are not the same and it is definitely not stealing. You are either misinformed, willfully ignorant, or are looking to promote an agenda. End of story. Now go the fuck to sleep!

Jeremy7600 (profile) says:

Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron

Yet the trees are a clear reflection in one, and a wavy reflection in the other.

And the treelines don’t match up.

Those are just two examples of how it they aren’t alike.

They just LOOK, at first glance, as similar.

Upon further inspection this is not the case. You just have to open your eyes to the possibilities.

Greg says:

How can it be made more clear?

My vocabulary is broad enough as it is, thanks. Whether or not the ORIGINAL image itself can be described as fairly generic, the fact remains that the image used in the book is a blatant copy. Had the author requested permission from Ryan, or given his work credit as the inspiration, it would have at least been a step in the right direction, if not completely negated the current situation entirely.

raetsel says:

It’s pretty silly to go trying to drag DB’s name through the dirt by saying he’s entertained all these notions. Where has it been said that he wanted to sue or any of this nonsense being brought up? I don’t see that quoted anywhere & as far as I have read at this point, only have seen him wondering if the book author did use his image as inspiration or not. If he did, then I would agree with another poster who thinks it would be the “right thing to do” to say as much. I think a lot of these artists get their real “payback” from people’s enjoyment of their art, and I’m sure DB would be honored, as it sounds like he usually is, that someone was inspired by his original.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So according to Marcel Duchamp, it takes no talent to create 'art'...

So according to Marcel Duchamp, it takes no talent to create ‘art’…

You have a weird definition of talent. Photorealistic painting is not the only kind of talent. Talent is not measured by time spent or labour exerted, either. Sometimes talent can mean realizing that something very, very simple – like adding a moustache and a clever title to a centuries-old cultural icon – can actually produce a result that is profoundly meaningful to a lot of people.

Using that logic maybe I’ll just randomly splatter some paint on a canvas and convince people it’s art as well. Oh wait…

Ever been in a room with one of Pollock’s huge pieces? I admit, I also didn’t see the value of his stuff at first. Then I saw it hanging on the wall at the MET. There’s something to it, even if I don’t fully understand it. It is, undoubtedly, art – and it took, undoubtedly, talent.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Saying the book art is original because of the addition of the boy is like...

To say the addition of the child is all that was done just points out how blind and ignorant you are. There is obviously far more to this image than just dropping a kid in there. The framing is different. Angle, field of view, particulars of the subject matter are all different. To say this is a copy is to say a katana is a copy of a broadsword. Similar ideas are involved, but different execution.

Bryce L. Tomlinson (user link) says:

Commercial Licenses are Cheap

Bliss has made it very clear that there are uses for his images commercially. DB images can be used in all kinds of stuff if you have the right license. I must say, as a person who regularly uses DB images in my videos, it wasn’t that expensive to get a commercial license from DB and just have it all on the up and up. He even sent an email to YouTube telling them it was okay for me to use the images! What a guy. He really goes out of his way to make these kinds of uses a good and friendly experience.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Heh, nice.

Everything you have said here has made it clear that you are pretty level-headed and thoughtful about this stuff, which is by far the most important thing even if there are details of what you’ve said that I don’t entirely agree on. I think you’re handling this extremely well and I’m sorry that some people here continue to be so hard on you… It was really just that one line I mentioned earlier that sounded a lot like a hint that you were planning on breaking out the lawyers – everything else you’ve said is completely reasonable, and I really appreciate that you don’t claim any certainty one way or the other regarding what’s okay and what’s going too far in terms of art, inspiration and appropriation.

Thanks for bringing your thoughts straight to the comments!

Ryan Bliss (profile) says:

Deja Vu

Before I head back to work I wanted to add that this whole situation seems a bit like deja vu to me. Back then the RIAA was the bogeyman though…

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8086

Video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeLF6j1kWU

Thanks for the enlightening debate. Hope you all will stop by my gallery sometime.

darryl says:

No doubt whatsoever that the painting is a direct copy of the photo.

have a good look at those two pictures

A REALLY GOOD LOOK…

First look at the big tree on the right side of the picture, the one with the curve in it, this tree is cut off at the top at exactly the same place, it has the same curve (lens aboration from the camera) it has the same branch structure, the same diameter, it is clearly the SAME TREE.

This means the ‘painter’ of this picture happend to be standing at exactly the same place as the photographer, with the same ‘size’ lens.

Look at the foreshore line, and the hill in the middle and the smaller hill on the left of the picture, they are the same, (same position, same perspective, size, shape ect).

Now the painter has tried to cover up his deception by moving a number of the trees.

But he was not smart enough to modify the reflection on the lake water of the original tree line.

That means the reflection of the tree line does not match his modifications to the actual tree line, but in fact is the same tree line reflection as is shown on the photo.

So he modified the tree line slightly, but forgot to also modify the reflection of the tree line that is clearly visible in both the photo and the painting.

IT’s THE SAME PICTURE !!! without a doubt…

darryl says:

Great Pic Ryan - and that painting is a COPY of your talent.

@ Ryan Bliss

A copy and a bastardisation of your work……

It is without doubt a painting based on your photograph, which is an excellent photo I have to say.

But there are far more similarities in his ‘painting’ than there are differences.

It is very clear that the photo, and painting were taken from exactly the same place and same perspective.

Allthough he modified the tree line very slightly, he did not correct the reflection in the lake from the original tree line.

Nice pic BTW: you have every right to be proud of your work, and to get the credit for it.

If I were you, I would most certainly take action and not let someone else profit from your obvious talent.

Hothmonster says:

Re: Great Pic Ryan - and that painting is a COPY of your talent.

First of all the “original” is a painting not a picture.

“It is very clear that the photo, and painting were taken from exactly the same place and same perspective.

This means the ‘painter’ of this picture happend to be standing at exactly the same place as the photographer, with the same ‘size’ lens.”

You realize that you don’t have to be looking at something to paint it right? That you can paint from memory or imagination? Also painters don’t use lenses.

But your brain function seems to be slowly returning darryl at least I could understand these posts.

hadeseol says:

Why is this debate still going on?

1. Didn’t the “author” came to the comments to explain that he wasn’t interested in a lawsuit?

2. Didn’t the “author” said that he’s not saying that the image was stolen?

3. Didn’t the “author” just asked for a mere mention if the “contested” picture was in fact inspired by his work? He didn’t ask for any money, just a mention if the before condition is true. Which is not more than a few words mentioning him and his work as the inspiration.

From what I’ve seen from the Facebook page and the website of the “author”, he’s just a normal nice guy trying to sell his work to the people out there. He’s not the copyright “monster” everyone is trying to make him out to be. For this once I think people went a little overboard in the comments.

I think this whole thing is just a storm inside a glass of water.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...