Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Oh, that's never happened before... (3, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about 7 years ago | (#18861673)

Roy [boston.com] Lichtenstein [homestead.com] , anyone?

Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (3, Insightful)

Divebus (860563) | about 7 years ago | (#18861789)

Can bluster compensate for an indefensible position? Sometimes...

Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 years ago | (#18861879)

Can bluster compensate for an indefensible position? Sometimes...
Bluster and money sure can.

Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (5, Insightful)

Carthag (643047) | about 7 years ago | (#18861821)

Liechtenstein never claimed to be the creator of the sources he appropriated. Goldman did.

Re:Oh, that's never happened before... (1)

neverland0 (749628) | about 7 years ago | (#18862801)

he never intended to pass that art as his own,and Todd did, also todd hasnt added anything valuable to design, and roy lichtenstein did interesting stuff bringing comics and the dots. Personally, I hope Todd Goldman art thief rots in hell.

Art Thieves (4, Insightful)

GearheadX (414240) | about 7 years ago | (#18861679)

Considering the most common example I've seen, Todd's gonna have a very hard time covering his butt in a court.

Re:Art Thieves (4, Insightful)

Sorthum (123064) | about 7 years ago | (#18861761)

Same text, same perspective, same details, slightly crappier?

Yeah, good luck suing your way out of this one, dude...

Goldman has money (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 years ago | (#18862095)

All that money he's made selling shirts and paintings and stuff, where his assistants brought designs to him and he didn't bother to ask where they got them, well, he's gonna have no problem affording lawyers because he's rich.

It's the poor saps he's stolen from who are going to take the beatings. Such is the way of things.

By the way, the 2nd amendment also favours the rich, they can afford to arm themselves better than the poor.

There seems to be a pattern here.

ducks (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18861685)

#include <stdio.h>
int main(int c,char**v) {
                char *s="B+p:ubYBGG0,|M3B=1*0N\n"
                                "it's touring complete\n",*k[]={s+21,--s};
                return c?({while(main(!k,k))putchar(**k^*k[1]-10);0;}):(v [1]++,*++*v);

Re:ducks (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | about 7 years ago | (#18861913)

lol I've read that 3 times now, still dont understand how it works. Ever tried the International Obfuscated C Code Contest :)

Re:ducks (4, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | about 7 years ago | (#18862171)

What's funny is that someone who goes to all that trouble just to print "QUACK, MOTHER FUCKER!" to stdout cannot spell "Turing" correctly.

Re:duck "touring" meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862605)

Not to defend the idiot that posted the C program, but I saw some troll the other day on usenet posting about ducks being "touring complete". I talked about ducks "touring" on infinite rivers, moving up or downstream and deciding to quack, eat or do something else.

My suggestion: just ignore it and it will go away very soon.

Re:duck "touring" meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18863509)

You really are a humorless buffoon

Re:ducks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862697)

PROTIP: Changing the spelling changes the output.

You psuedogeeks at slashdot have no idea do you

I don't have the guts to run that w/o a sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862243)

Assigning k[1] = --s is just plain scary.

Good Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18861709)

If you are going to be a thieving creep, you might as well harass people with your lawyers as well!

It's not libel... (5, Insightful)

j0nb0y (107699) | about 7 years ago | (#18861769)

It's not libel if it's true.


Re:It's not libel... (1)

Erioll (229536) | about 7 years ago | (#18861805)

It's not libel if it's true.

I thought it was? Or rather, I thought that as long as your lawyer was good enough, anything you didn't like that another said was slander(if spoken) or libel(if printed)?

Re:It's not libel... (2, Insightful)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#18862403)

Only in non-US locales. In the US truth is enough to defend yourself. That is why there is so much negative campaigning. The truth can be paraded around even if it's unrelated and humiliating (facts like "I really like naruto, a targetted kids show" or "I enjoyed kinky sex").

No (1)

Rix (54095) | about 7 years ago | (#18862645)

Unless by that you mean the defendant hasn't enough money to mount a defence. In most jurisdictions, truth is a defence and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove untruth. Given that, statements of opinion can never be libel, because they can never be disproven and are easily proven.

Re:It's not libel... (5, Insightful)

umStefa (583709) | about 7 years ago | (#18861949)

The purpose of this lawsuit may not be to actually recieve damages, it is probably simply to try and shut-up the source of the negative publicity.

You do not need to win a court case for it to be advantage to you. If your goal is to stop a source of negative publicity, a lawsuit may casue the other party to simply shut-up instead of incurring large legal bills on a matter of principal. Of course, if the other party calls you on it and is willing to fight in court you end up getting MORE negative publicity.

Re:It's not libel... (4, Insightful)

j0nb0y (107699) | about 7 years ago | (#18862203)

I would agree with you, except that this instance of plagiarism is fairly well known at this point.

A quick google search for his name brings up many pages repeating these allegations, and many of them back it up with image comparisons that are very damning.

This man's reputation as an artist is already ruined.

This legal threat is a desperate and foolish measure. The goal is to get rid of the allegations, but instead, the allegations will only be further spread.

And worse, if the threat is followed through to a lawsuit, the website's author will have a chance to prove the allegations in court. A quick look at the evidence reveals that this would likely be a slam dunk for the defense.


Re:It's not libel...been there, done that (5, Interesting)

Christoph (17845) | about 7 years ago | (#18862279)

Yes, I called their bluff and they sued me. A photo from my website was published in the Twin Cities phone book inside cover. The corporation that used it refused to pay a licensing fee, and I wrote about it on my website. They threatened to sue me for defamation, arguing the photo was not mine, but taken by Michael Zubitskiy (a fictional person). I have a certificate of copyright registration for the photo, and did not remove the webpage. They sued me for defamation, and it's safe to say it's blown up in their face.

I later brought my own action for copyright infringement in federal court, trial is set for November. They first sued me in August of 2005, and I was in court just yesterday (I'm litigating "pro se", representing myself). Yesterday's hearing was because they wanted email between myself and an attorney I hired to get legal advice from, which is obviously protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.

The full story is here:
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html [cgstock.com]

you are one badass motherfucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862633)

If you're not a lawyer you really should be! Good luck with your case, it looks like you are doing a great job.

Re:you are one badass motherfucker (2, Interesting)

sam_handelman (519767) | about 7 years ago | (#18863343)

Yeah, because he'd be contributing so much more to society as a bloodsucker than as a photographer.

  I remember my aunt - who used to be a fashion photographer - got similarly ripped off *repeatedly* by different companies. Many of them were companies with whom she'd do business, they'd keep using the photographs after the license they'd buy had expired, that sort of thing. She eventually made a fair amount of money off the lawsuits, but it was touch and go for a while, and what with one thing and another I think she's more or less given up professional photography.

  It's a real problem with American law, especially copyright - in order for creators to actually benefit from the protection, they basically need to practice law on the side. OTOH, powerful groups with many lawyers and deep pockets can use the threat of litigation as a club even when they have no case.

  4445 is cute and all, but 3472? Definite MILF.

Re:It's not libel...been there, done that (1)

Mathness (145187) | about 7 years ago | (#18863013)

This might sound sappy, but I mean it, upon seeing photo #4445 one can only think that you are the kind of person who makes the world a better place to be.

I hope that you will be victorious in court.

Re:It's not libel... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18861963)



Re:It's not libel... (1)

riff420 (810435) | about 7 years ago | (#18862493)

whoever marked this TROLL needs to go buy a fucking sense of humor.

Re:It's not libel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862775)

Thanks for your support ;-) UANAL 2?

Money defines what is true (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 years ago | (#18862141)

With enough money he can drive the poor artists who came up with his ideas for him out of business.

Re:It's not libel... IF ITS TRUE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862359)

Goldman, look at that name: He must be a jew.

Here is some info. on them from their own words and view of the rest of us (the 2nd list here below definitely applies to "gold man", as far as thieving the art & ideas of others):

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thre [google.com] ad/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b

#1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild

#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be

#3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted
if she is three years of age."

#4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

#5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."

#6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from
a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made
the wine unclean."

#7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of
the world are not human beings but beasts."

That list above's just in case anybody is wondering why there is so much antisemitism worldwide!

Look no further than the Jewish Talmud, and wonder no more.

Especially about these parts quoted from it above and this one next regarding our man gold man here:

a few that apply, for 'GOLD MAN', specifically:

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status, Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews, Baba Mezia 24a. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews, Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

That list ought to explain "gold man", very well. Their race isn't above infamy, though you only hear 1 side of the argument since they control most media and publication nowadays thru shysterism, as well as medical and legal trades. This is exactly what the English practiced, seizing the top man in a gov't. or placing him there, and then getting all the heads of local police departments. NO originality on the jews part, and very transparent.

Their subterfuge in making circumcision standard practice is only so they can hide in the USA amongst the masses in a form of 'security by obscurity', so they cannot be identified as jews as they were in Europe by the Nazi Germans, takes the cake though. So easy to see through it is not even comedy anymore.

Re:It's not libel... (2)

fm6 (162816) | about 7 years ago | (#18862527)

Yeah, yeah. We all know that. The problem is, when somebody's suing you, you can't just say, "Oh, that's obviously wrong!" and ignore the situation. You've got to hire your own lawyer to straighten things out. If it's a weak case, a good lawyer can probably make it go away after spending a few thousand bucks of your money. If it's at all difficult to prove that "It's not libel because it's true" then you could easily spend more on legal fees than you'd spend making a settlement.

Folks who have been around Slashdot for a while already know this [google.com] .

Stupid? Of course. But that's the way the system works. It's not a question of what justice says you deserve. It's a question of how much justice you can afford.

That's nice. (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | about 7 years ago | (#18861779)

Now, can someone tell me what's in the article? My internet connection seems kinda slow.

Re:That's nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862183)

It's not your connection, it's been slashdotted already.

What's in the article? Wired won't tell, either (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 years ago | (#18862299)

Wrong way to go there, Goldman (1)

Der Huhn Teufel (688813) | about 7 years ago | (#18861825)

I'd be much more worried about what the legions of goons are going to do to him outside of court.

Re:Wrong way to go there, Goldman (1)

Tackhead (54550) | about 7 years ago | (#18861945)

> I'd be much more worried about what the legions of goons are going to do to him outside of court.

It'll be like Second Life Safari meets SWAP.AVI.

/one ticket to aitch-ee-double-hockey-stick-place, please.

Re:Wrong way to go there, Goldman (1)

Detaer (562863) | about 7 years ago | (#18862039)

I am going to have to agree with you. An angered swarm of goons is not a bees nest I would want to stir up. I have seen how far goons are willing to go to protect what is theirs. Goldman should talk to ebaum if he wants to get an understanding of what it is like.

Re:Wrong way to go there, Goldman (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862219)

They are going to take so many pictures of his house and post them on the internet!

Re:Wrong way to go there, Goldman (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 years ago | (#18863329)

I'd be much more worried about what the legions of goons are going to do to him outside of court.

Who is a goon? [dragonswest.com]

too lampoon is human, to forgive divine - from Bat Boy, in a 50's MAD

Warhol he aint (4, Interesting)

L. VeGas (580015) | about 7 years ago | (#18861831)

It's an interesting case.

Tod Goldman is, without a doubt, a total jackass, but what he does is extremely common. Fine art has generally gotten a pass when it comes to copying from various sources. It's not as widely known, but it's also very common for comics to copy panels from other comics. It's considered kind of a jerky, lazy thing to do, but it happens all the time.

Godman is recontextualizing the images, and that, in and of itself, can make new and unique works, but instead of honoring the source (or at least owning up to the fact that he copies), he avoids the issue and sends threatening letters.

He's painted himself into a corner. Instead of taking the high road, he has instead presented himself as a no-talent imitator.

recontextualizing == duplication? (3, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | about 7 years ago | (#18861889)

Please explain how the praying bunny example exhibits recontextualizing!

Re:recontextualizing == duplication? (5, Funny)

ePhil_One (634771) | about 7 years ago | (#18861971)

1) It was a squirel
2) He clearly removed the "bow" on the praying squirel's head, making it a boy squirel.
3) He added his name, TODD, in big letters
4) His is in color

Be sure to check out TODD's next series of books, Where's Wanda? where you will be challenged to pick out the girl in a white and blue striped shirt from a crowd of people. An idea he came up with entirely on his own, because he doesn't have time for books.

Re:Warhol he aint (0, Offtopic)

jddj (1085169) | about 7 years ago | (#18862235)

Instead of taking the high road, he has instead presented himself as a no-talent imitator.

Let's see, like um...virtually every rap and hip hop artist out there?

Re:Warhol he aint (1)

Mike1024 (184871) | about 7 years ago | (#18862387)

Godman is recontextualizing the images, and that, in and of itself, can make new and unique works,

Does Goldman do bumper stickers? Because if not, I might have to do a little "recontextualising" of my own.

If copying someone else's t-shirt [threadless.com] and selling it as your own [davidandgoliathtees.com] is acceptable, what's to stop me copying Goldman's designs and selling them as my own?


Re:Warhol he aint (2, Informative)

Goobermunch (771199) | about 7 years ago | (#18862423)

Perhaps the fact that, ironically, copyright law protects derivative as well as original works. Thus, while he may be on the hook for infringing on others' works, you'd still be liable for infringing on his works. --AC

Re:Warhol he aint (3, Insightful)

L. VeGas (580015) | about 7 years ago | (#18862487)

See, that's exactly what makes this interesting. If Goldman had only created a single work, instead of mass-producing t-shirts, people might say, "Hey, that's copied from this other place!" and let it go. Now suppose it was hanging in a museum, and the gift shop sold t-shirts or post cards of the copied work. Now, it's copyright infringement.

Goldman tries to pass his violations off as "fine art", when it's pretty clear he's actually about the merchandising, and that crosses the line.

Digg it, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18861845)

Digg it [digg.com] (and reddit it and all that other junk) to get people aware of this travesty!

Um... (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | about 7 years ago | (#18861851)

What are the grounds of the suite? If it's untrue then I can understand slander, but this is obvious theft.

Re:Um... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 years ago | (#18861919)

I'm sure if it ever made it to court, the case would be thrown out. The point of this is to frighten the sites that point this out into submission. There's no way in hell that he actually wants this to go to court.

penny arcade (5, Informative)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | about 7 years ago | (#18861853)

Gabe at penny-arcade mentioned this earlier today. Apparently, Mr Goldman called Dave Kelly a "pedophile" in the same forum that he's trying to sue for slander.

The text of Gabe's post:

You might remember Tycho mentioning [penny-arcade.com] Todd Goldman [davidandgoliathtees.com] and a story about him stealing some artwork from a web cartoonist. We covered it in a comic and a post and our point of view was essentially “yeah it sucks but you can’t sue the guy for being a douche bag.” I would have left it at that except, well the latest development in the whole ordeal is actually super funny. It’s important to point out that Todd’s initial response to the article about his thievery was to call Dave Kelly a Pedophile [fleen.com] . I’m not joking here he actually said “Here’s my inspiration! Every month I paint the works of a pedophile.” The letter goes on and it’s obvious that he’s just being a smart ass and blowing the whole thing off. Honestly I chuckled at the letter when I read it because (being a professional asshole myself) I thought it was a funny way to respond to the accusations. However, if you call someone a pedophile in a public forum you can’t turn around a few weeks later and threaten to sue that same forum for slander.

Todd’s lawyers sent Fleen a mail [fleen.com] last week that threatened legal action if they didn’t pull down all the stuff about Todd. The letter actually said “We have acquired articles posted on your website which contain defaming, derogatory and malicious statements about Mr. Goldman.” Yeah no shit, the guy isa thief what the hell do you expect.

This sort of legal bulldogging is especially lame after Todd’s initial reaction to the story. If you want to play the arrogant asshole and call people pedophiles I respect that. I really do. I’ve been overcompensating for my low self esteem by calling people names for twenty years. I know how it works and the only rule is if you can’t take it, don’t fucking dish it out.

if i just could... (2, Funny)

cosmocain (1060326) | about 7 years ago | (#18861859)

...develop browser-extensions:

i guess an automated website-sue-tool would be handy at these times and i could even make some bucks of it. just enter the URL and the sue-o-mat[tm] will look up the entries at the appropriate NIC, fill out all required forms and send the completely autogenerated charge to your local court. man, that would save time for a lot of folks.

Re:if i just could... (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 years ago | (#18863377)

I own the rights to the name "sue-o-mat". It will be contacting you, and your little pedophile dog too.

ok, that explains it... (4, Interesting)

hurfy (735314) | about 7 years ago | (#18861887)

"was inspired from a drawing he received unbeknownst to him belonging to..."

So he didn't know he recieved and looked at the drawing and then duplicated it nearly line for line...he's obviously got better drugs than we do :O


He didn't know who it belonged to....so he assumed he did it and put his name on it :O

oh wait...that doesn't explain a darn thing ;p
and i love the 'inspired from'

Re:ok, that explains it... (2)

MoxFulder (159829) | about 7 years ago | (#18862025)

Actually, according to the article, Todd Goldman has a bunch of underlings who come up with ideas and sketches and bring them to him, where he tweaks them a bit to produce a finished product.

Pretty pathetic as far as creative art goes, but it does provide some plausible excuse for the blatant copying of the "Dear God..." drawing. Basically, he blames the underling for stealing the bunny drawing. In any case, it suggests that Todd Goldman gets the credit although his underlings do most of the work, evidently.

It looks like he plagiarized a TON of other stuff, though, and I think he's being a total jackass about the whole thing.

Re:ok, that explains it... (3, Funny)

nizo (81281) | about 7 years ago | (#18862353)

All the artists should just do what I do and post art that is so crappy no one in their right mind would copy it.

Re:ok, that explains it... (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | about 7 years ago | (#18862065)

You forgot the part about him calling the artist he stole from a pedophile in the very same forum he's now suing said artist for slander!

Re:ok, that explains it... (5, Funny)

radtea (464814) | about 7 years ago | (#18862161)

So he didn't know he recieved and looked at the drawing and then duplicated it nearly line for line...he's obviously got better drugs than we do

Well, if the U.S. Attorney General can assure us that nothing he can't recall had anything untoward about it, I see no reason why Todd Goldman can't assure us that he innocently copied drawings he didn't know he'd seen.

Re:ok, that explains it... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 7 years ago | (#18863221)

And in a dazzling display of irony, you just plagiarized Jon Stewart's Tonight Show from last night, word for word.

Re:ok, that explains it... (1)

taustin (171655) | about 7 years ago | (#18862903)

"My intention was not to copy Mr. Kelly."

Then who was it your intention to copy?

One Possible Explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18863003)

In this interview, [chicagoflame.com] Todd Goldman claims he has ADD:

"I'm just wacked out of my mind. Things just come to me really quickly. I have complete ADD so I've never finished a book before. I haven't really watched cartoons or read comic books. It's just my witty sense of humor and my love to draw"

So maybe he saw the original cartoon, then forgot he saw it. Then he sat down to draw, and had an image in his head of the squirrel and the cat and the boy and all the other designs, but he didn't know where they came from!

Not exactly a fair fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18861941)

One the one hand you've got Todd Goldman, a successful businessman and well-known "artist" who got his start by borrowing a quarter of a million dollars from his dad.

On the other, you've got a diaper fetishist furry who probably lives with his parents, and who calls himself "shmorky".

I'm thinking they'll settle this one out of court.

There's just no justice for the talented (2, Insightful)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | about 7 years ago | (#18862007)

So many people in the big leagues steal ideas.

That's why I support GPL to the death.

As an artist who has been completely ripped off, I'm glad to see someone with the opportunity to expose the fraud. There's absolutely nothing to fear from Mr. Goldman if their citing of the 2001 web comic is correct. In fact, I'd hire a particularly expensive lawyer just to make sure the legal fees being sent to Mr. Goldman's office are as high as they can possibly be. I don't think there's a more dispicable trait in this world than to claim someone else's work as your own. You simultaneously prevent the real creator from benefiting himself through his work while creating a false image of your brilliance.

Re:There's just no justice for the talented (0)

wurp (51446) | about 7 years ago | (#18862721)

I don't think there's a more dispicable trait in this world than to claim someone else's work as your own.
Dude, I'm not a fan of plagiarism, but let's get a sense of scale. People have perched others to slowly die clutching a greased pole with spears sticking up their ass, locked them live into iron pots with fires underneath, and raped children so they could sell the video.

There are MANY more despicable traits in the world. The world's a big place, and some people are pretty damned despicable.

it's not theft.. it's plagiarism (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | about 7 years ago | (#18862083)

theft of an idea would be very strange, as both perpetration and proof would require telepathy:

"i had this idea in my head and now its gone, OMG that idea in your head.. i recognize it.. give it back you booger!"

taking one person's literary/artistic idea is called plagiarism.

Consistency, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862087)

No theft occurred, so it should not be referred to as stealing. You can't steal an idea, and you certainly can't steal images (at least not in the manner we are talking about here). If you guys are going to be so anal about this when it comes to music/movies/software, at least try to be consistent.

Re:Consistency, please. (2, Insightful)

Gregb05 (754217) | about 7 years ago | (#18862999)

With music/movies/software, we tend to support the college kids, families, and whomever is in the defense of the *AA lawsuits due to the fact that it appears about 90% of the time the "mafiaa" sue without enough incriminating evidence to actually win a lawsuit. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that the music pirates would have actually bought the copyrighted material in the first place, and, as individuals, generally aren't distributing the music past 2-3 people.

This guy is blatantly copying and selling (for a profit) the artwork of others. I think I speak for most of the /. readers when I say that if this guy had printed out the other artists' work from the website and hung it on his wall, it'd be the same scale of copyright violation as the *AA sue people for.

Or, more concisely; mass reproduction, claiming ownership and selling for a profit != reproduction (solely) for home use.

Hold your horses for a moment! (1, Redundant)

KitsuneSoftware (999119) | about 7 years ago | (#18862115)

Um, how many people here are saying Todd Goldman is bad based soley on the content of the linked article he's suing over? I don't know if anything in that article is true or not. If it's not true, Goldman has every right to sue. Of course, if the article is true, then everyone else has a right to sue him instead :)

Plagiarists Are Stupid. Throw Lawsuits At Them! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862137)

The image for which Goldman attracted a substantial amount of press and fame and upon which he built his profitable David And Goliath Tees company--the "Boys Are Stupid, Throw Rocks At Them" work--appears to have been partially copied from the portfolio of Chip Wass:

http://chris-san.livejournal.com/49035.html [livejournal.com]

Glad to see this getting more attention. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862143)

Todd still hasn't settled anything with Shmorky, the guy he originally was caught "borrowing" from.

Hopefully he'll get to a point where he realizies the bad press is much worse than the cost of just giving the man the money for the two paintings he copied.

Discerning Threat of Suit vs. Actual Legal Action (2, Insightful)

cith (216335) | about 7 years ago | (#18862179)

I've seen a number of articles like this pop up on /. recently. Generally, the topic is something like "XX tawdry action occurs... lawyers threaten to sue".

While legal threats do carry weight of their own in our society, there's a BIG difference between threatening to sue and filing a legal document. The main difference is the consequences to the petitioner.

If I threaten to sue someone and don't have sufficient grounds to do so, there's no consequence to me for making that argument. (other than PR and reputation).

But once a lawyer files a document with the court, the lawyer or the plaintiff has signed a document that bears a signature alleging the facts within it are true. Not that it happens often, but the court could discipline you for a knowing falsehood.

Take legal threats for what they're worth ... the value of the words alone.

IANAL, etc, etc. If someone with a law degree wants to clean up or correct this post, have at it =D.

Re:Discerning Threat of Suit vs. Actual Legal Acti (5, Informative)

Christoph (17845) | about 7 years ago | (#18862969)

I've learned the threshold is soo high, courts will essentially do nothing. I'm in the second year defending myself against a defamation lawsuit over a webpage I wrote saying one of my photos was published without my permission. The party suing me (Vilana Financial) filed (with their complaint) a sales agreement showing they bought the photo from Michael Zubistkiy, who they claim under oath is the true photographer.

I have proof the photo is mine, including the certificate of copyright registration. Also, there is no Michael Zubitskiy. They claim they paid him in cash, but did not get his contact information and lost the photo he gave them (and all copies). My investigator and their investigator cannot find anyone in the USA by that name -- no address, credit record, work history, or even welfare history or an unlisted phone number.

I have a certificate of copyright registration, the original digital file, out-takes from the same photo shoot, proof of prior publication on my website, and proof I sold the photo to a local magazine prior to their use of the image. They have nothing but this sales agreement with a signature. Knowing all this, the other party claimed, under oath, that the photo is not mine, but Michael Zubitskiy is the true photographer.

They supposedly met him at a health club, and upon subpoena, the club said they have no record of Zubitskiy. It's clear this is a fictional person, but what's more, even if he did exist, he did not take the photo -- I did. So I filed a motion for sanctions with all of the above evidence 15 months ago; the judge cancelled the hearing, saying it was premature and should wait until after the trial is over. Full story: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html [cgstock.com]

So I would not count on the courts to spot even an obviously absurd and improper claim. Everyone knows it's my photo, yet I'm 18 months into this litigation.

He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862291)

I thought you guys would find this amusing - FreeBSD daemon on the left, "Todd"'s "art" on the right:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5980/goldmanthi efcm2.jpg [imageshack.us]

Check the odd pattern on the sneakers - matches up exactly with the pattern the pixels make when you blow up the image. The daemon head is from another Wassco piece:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6038/devilhp1.j pg [imageshack.us]

Re:He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862543)

He's obviously changed the head, and other things, so what? It's not like he's painted every single thing, it's just T shirt crap. Get a grip nerd-ragers, he hasn't eaten babies or anything, just get a grip and a job.

Re:He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (1)

nerv2112 (1092839) | about 7 years ago | (#18862631)

He also stole the head and the cat from other art. I guess we can give him credit for the campfire?

Re:He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (2, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | about 7 years ago | (#18863245)

I think the BSD thing is a bit of a stretch -- yeah it's extremely derivative, but it's also different enough, adds elements, and mixes them in from other works. If pop art is your bag, this is actually decent.

But since maestro Goldman is all about "recontextualization", I too will put that work in context, as just another bad-faith effort by a ripoff artist.

Re:He's ripped off the FreeBSD daemon too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18863689)

Don't forget the cat's from one of the cursor options in Windows.

So Many Jokes, So Little Time.... (4, Informative)

esampson (223745) | about 7 years ago | (#18862293)

Maybe he's suing for Definition of Character?

This is obviously a clear cut example of prior art.

In all seriousness, I really just can't understand at all what he thinks he's doing. Either he is completely ignoring the advice of his lawyers or else he has got some incredibly bad ones. Just like most of the posters here I am not a lawyer* but I'm pretty sure that to be guilty of libel or slander the accused has to knowingly make a false statement and the statement has to be done with the intent of causing harm to the subject's reputation.

Making a true statement (It appears that he stole another artists work, I think he stole another artists work, He has created something a great deal like something someone else has created, etc.) or erroneously making a false statement (for example, saying Goldman's work was created second if it were to turn out that Goldman's work was actually created first) don't pass the standard to legally be considered libel. Of course since libel is a civil case rather than a criminal case he would only need a preponderance of evidence to win rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but even then I have a really hard time believing his lawyers think there's any chance of winning, and of course as people avidly point out whenever Mr. Thompson files a suit or even threatens such a thing, filing a suit that you have no reasonable expectations of winning opens you up to a counter-suit and just the act of threatening a suit that you have no reasonable chance of winning opens you up to charges of barratry.

*I wrote the abbreviation first but decided I really didn't like the sentence "Just like most of the posters here IANAL..."

Assbag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862473)

This guy is an assbag. I would like to rape him with an arc welder. Can I say that without getting in trouble? Unlikely that he would coincidentally get assraped with an arc welder.

Double standards? (1)

NewsWatcher (450241) | about 7 years ago | (#18862559)

What he did was clearly plagiarism of the worst kind. No-one in their right mind would try to defend taking another person's work and claiming it so blatantly to be their own. Of course, I have seen the odd designer stealing code from other websites and it seems to pass without comment... Is their a difference in taking someone's art without attribution and taking code that creates art without attribution?

Wikipedia too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18862579)

I understand that Wikipedia was served with a legal notice in this matter as well.

just got off the phone with The Todd (1)

mbius (890083) | about 7 years ago | (#18863299)

He says this whole fiasco is libel to ruin his career.


Stealing ideas (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 7 years ago | (#18863369)

OK, do you think that kdawson refers to it as "stealing ideas" in order to try start yet another flamewar about whether you can steal an idea or not, or is he just oblivious?

And while we're at it, could we get an editor who doesn't treat punctuation like a game of Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey?

He may not win, but it serves the cause (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 years ago | (#18863401)

The first thing this will cause is a demand that he stops saying this (someone might have the legal term at hand, I don't know enough English legalese). And that's pretty much what he wants: To shut up the person who spreads the news that he supposedly steals his content.

By the time that suit is finally settled (or retracted), he will have found some sort of agreement with the original authors (or sued them into oblivion as well), and it can't be spread anymore either 'cause then it would be slander.

That's what suits like this should accomplish. And, behold, they do.

The plot is even thicker (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18863567)

The page about Todd Goldman on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] was "Office Protected" for a while, apparently after Wikipedia received similar lawsuit threats. Wikipedia's hometown of St. Petersburg, Florida, is 1/2 hour drive away from Clearwater, where Goldman's company is based - so they may be especially sensitive to lawsuit threats from him because they'd be a convenient target.

Clearwater is the home of the Church of Scientology, which has ties to a great many businesses located there. The Church of Scientology is also thoroughly documented to use lawsuit threats, lawsuits (especially on intellectual property grounds), and strange false pedophilia accusations, against its enemies.

Todd Goldman's business is located in Clearwater. He's using lawsuit threats on intellectual property grounds, and strange false pedophilia accusations, against his enemies.

I don't know that there's any connection between Goldman and Scientology - Hanlon's Razor about malice and stupidity applies and it's entirely possible that he and the Scientologists are simply both jerks with nothing else in common - but it's enough to make me wonder.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account