Well it’s Vullegast, nothing else could be expected.
Lächerlech
Concerning, Van Gogh, Gaugin and other older painters, there were different if any copy right laws during their life time.
Im the rtl article it was written that ours laws today (which Jeff is potentially facing) are from 2001
Concerning that all the other ppl copied her as well,
Did they check if they credited her in any way?
Since she recognised some of them as credited fanart
The photographer already made it clear she is fine to use her art in a private non commercial setting (so no money is gaineg which is he did gain money)
The big issue with the internet is that it is easy to steal and very difficult to pursue everyone that is out there
It makes me uneasy to see if this wins, which could potentially show ppl that are not in the art sphere, that just taking photos and paintings without credit and paying licenses is ok
So his argument is other people are infringing copyright, so I might do it as well *facepalm*
This dude’s parents will cry when they see the lawyer’s fees
No lawyer would take a sub 2k case , no money at all to cover fees. So when he says it’s pro bono I think he means it
How fucking hard is it for Jeff Dieschburg to say “I am sorry” ???
Gaston Vogel confirmed weeabo?
I have no clue what they’re saying in this video but I gather from the comments that he still has not apologized and instead lawyered up. Dear people of Reddit, why do you think people plagiarize like this? Is it plain ignorance (not knowing that using someone else’s work without giving them credit is not okay)?
Lawyering and everything , though cowardly , is fine and everything , but I still hope his University learns of this and kicks him out
Have these two heard of the Streisand Effect?
What in god’s name is this channel? I’ve never heard of it
Goodness gracious, this attorney is incompetent…
He’s obviously not a copyright lawyer, so why is he there at all? At one point, he’s explicitly pointing out that some of the original photographs are copyrighted as if that was something notable. Dude, you get the copyright automatically, you don’t need to register it! You learn that stuff in any *IP right 101* course!
He basically defends Dieschbourg in two laughable ways:
– *he’s a real artist who paints really well:* No question about that! His paintings do look nice. But what does that have to do with copyright? People tell me I can write really well. That doesn’t give me the right to blatantly copy/paste large chunks of text from other research papers for my own work. Especially if I don’t cite the original papers.
– *other artists at the Biennale have also infringed on copyright*: Well, good job. You exposed the Biennale’s plagiarism problem. And it’s something that needs to be investigated. Really, that is some good sleuthing from your part, Mr. Vogel. The problem is that it doesn’t exonerate your client, and it’s pretty much useless as a defense. Dieschbourg still plagiarised the original work without giving credit to the original artist.
Btw, I don’t wish Dieschbourg any harm. The threats and vicious attacks are uncalled for. He should apologise and stop doubling down. But it’s just as shitty to dogpile him.
Lol Gaston Vogel
Of course he got Gaston Vogel as an attorney
I think that having a mother-politician (DP, Strassen city council) plays a role on the son’s attitude.
This lawyer is good to perform in front of a jury. Raises his voice, hits the table, but at the end of the day his client did it. The copyright infringement is clear, he should just apologise, say he’s still a student learning, quietly settle with the author and voilà.
But no, maybe he really thinks it’s ok to ignore copyright.
At 10:15, there IS a difference between the 2 pictures! Same subject (Interior with view at an window and plants all around) but with a slightly different perspective… Sorry Mr Vogel, if you are such an (japanese) art amateur, this should have come to your eyes… Wait…you’re a lawyer? LMFAO
18 comments
Well it’s Vullegast, nothing else could be expected.
Lächerlech
Concerning, Van Gogh, Gaugin and other older painters, there were different if any copy right laws during their life time.
Im the rtl article it was written that ours laws today (which Jeff is potentially facing) are from 2001
Concerning that all the other ppl copied her as well,
Did they check if they credited her in any way?
Since she recognised some of them as credited fanart
The photographer already made it clear she is fine to use her art in a private non commercial setting (so no money is gaineg which is he did gain money)
The big issue with the internet is that it is easy to steal and very difficult to pursue everyone that is out there
It makes me uneasy to see if this wins, which could potentially show ppl that are not in the art sphere, that just taking photos and paintings without credit and paying licenses is ok
So his argument is other people are infringing copyright, so I might do it as well *facepalm*
This dude’s parents will cry when they see the lawyer’s fees
No lawyer would take a sub 2k case , no money at all to cover fees. So when he says it’s pro bono I think he means it
How fucking hard is it for Jeff Dieschburg to say “I am sorry” ???
Gaston Vogel confirmed weeabo?
I have no clue what they’re saying in this video but I gather from the comments that he still has not apologized and instead lawyered up. Dear people of Reddit, why do you think people plagiarize like this? Is it plain ignorance (not knowing that using someone else’s work without giving them credit is not okay)?
Lawyering and everything , though cowardly , is fine and everything , but I still hope his University learns of this and kicks him out
Have these two heard of the Streisand Effect?
What in god’s name is this channel? I’ve never heard of it
Goodness gracious, this attorney is incompetent…
He’s obviously not a copyright lawyer, so why is he there at all? At one point, he’s explicitly pointing out that some of the original photographs are copyrighted as if that was something notable. Dude, you get the copyright automatically, you don’t need to register it! You learn that stuff in any *IP right 101* course!
He basically defends Dieschbourg in two laughable ways:
– *he’s a real artist who paints really well:* No question about that! His paintings do look nice. But what does that have to do with copyright? People tell me I can write really well. That doesn’t give me the right to blatantly copy/paste large chunks of text from other research papers for my own work. Especially if I don’t cite the original papers.
– *other artists at the Biennale have also infringed on copyright*: Well, good job. You exposed the Biennale’s plagiarism problem. And it’s something that needs to be investigated. Really, that is some good sleuthing from your part, Mr. Vogel. The problem is that it doesn’t exonerate your client, and it’s pretty much useless as a defense. Dieschbourg still plagiarised the original work without giving credit to the original artist.
Btw, I don’t wish Dieschbourg any harm. The threats and vicious attacks are uncalled for. He should apologise and stop doubling down. But it’s just as shitty to dogpile him.
Lol Gaston Vogel
Of course he got Gaston Vogel as an attorney
I think that having a mother-politician (DP, Strassen city council) plays a role on the son’s attitude.
This lawyer is good to perform in front of a jury. Raises his voice, hits the table, but at the end of the day his client did it. The copyright infringement is clear, he should just apologise, say he’s still a student learning, quietly settle with the author and voilà.
But no, maybe he really thinks it’s ok to ignore copyright.
At 10:15, there IS a difference between the 2 pictures! Same subject (Interior with view at an window and plants all around) but with a slightly different perspective… Sorry Mr Vogel, if you are such an (japanese) art amateur, this should have come to your eyes… Wait…you’re a lawyer? LMFAO