

Feminist Frequency steals artwork, refuses to credit owner. - sergiotapia
http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

======
rsingel
I don't know that this is infringement -- at the very least, it's arguable
that the use of the image is transformative (e.g. it's being used in a montage
of criticism).

Just because something is used commercially doesn't make it non-fair use.
That's just part of a 4 part test that courts apply:
[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-
factors/](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/)

Copyright is intended to make sure creators have incentives to create. Fair
use is intended to keep _culture_ vibrant.

~~~
deletes
It feels like the author is personally offended, and is using the blog to stir
controversy over an easy target.

~~~
tzs
That makes no sense to me, unless you overlooked that the author is the artist
whose work was used without permission or attribution, and thought the author
was just some third party jumping in to attack the target.

------
leephillips
Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement go up to $150,000 per
offense. Instead of complaining to a content thief who obviously doesn't care,
the artist should be looking for a lawyer interested in taking this on for a
cut. Then the donors to the kickstarter will at least know where their money
went.

~~~
supersystem
Except that it doesn't seem to be original work. So how are you going to
maintain that your derivative work was fair use, which relies on being non-
commercial, while suing someone for damages? Especially when the one who
"stole" your work seems to have a better case for fair use.

~~~
leephillips
"it doesn't seem to be original work"

You mean it's a depiction of an existing character from a game or something.
That doesn't mean that it's not original artwork. I'm sure that would be a
relevant issue in court, but that's why we have trials.

"which relies on being non-commercial"

As other posters here have pointed out, this is not true.

------
sisk
Before this goes entirely off the rails, lets keep in mind this is a
discussion of copyright infringement.

~~~
Zikes
Yep, and the appropriate response should be via the legal system, not inciting
an internet witch hunt.

~~~
Bud
Appropriate? It's not for us to decide that. And the legal system is an
imperfect remedy that is not available to all. Just guessing here, but perhaps
the artist in question can't actually afford a legal team?

Further, if you actually read what the artist wrote, the wording is actually
quite polite and gentle. It is not threatening and does not incite.

~~~
Zikes
Oh? Well then by all means, let's all play pretend legal experts and decide
the fate of the accused based on this single one-sided blog post. I'm sure
that's never gone wrong before.

------
jxf
There seems to be a major issue with artists having their work appropriated
and stolen.

I wonder if there isn't a startup business model in here somewhere. An artist
could sign up for a service that automatically does TinEye or a Google reverse
image search for images that they upload, and then flags suspicious uses for
the artist to review.

If it's fair use then you can whitelist a particular site. Maybe the software
could even do it for you, by learning about the reputation of various sites
for this particular activity and automatically assigning risk factors and so
on.

Right now, it seems like the only way to catch art thieves is to have the
coincidence of someone who's familiar with both your work and the thief's work
point it out to you.

~~~
normloman
Artists know how to use tin eye already. But automating the process for
batches would be useful. Now here's the question: How many people would pay
for this service? Artists ain't exactly rich.

~~~
TophWells
How does Tineye make money at the moment? I'm sure there's a business model
somewhere that would work.

~~~
normloman
Here's how they make money:

[https://services.tineye.com/MulticolorEngine#plans-and-
prici...](https://services.tineye.com/MulticolorEngine#plans-and-pricing)

------
diydsp
That's _not_ art from a video game. Therefore, it's _not_ an object of the
project's critique and is _not_ likely to be interpreted as Fair Use.

That is a piece of fan art about a game. The project's critique is of video
games, not of fan art. Therefore, the work, imo, deserves no protection.

Furthermore, the researcher is guilty of intellectual dishonesty, or is simply
ignorant, for portraying fan art as video game art.

....and this topic is wiped from HN's catalog.

------
k3oni
Before the discussion derails Feminist Frequency is the name of the website
who's owner infringed on the copyright: feministfrequency.com .

