6 ms·
Here is the summary: * This is a report from a third person who have talked with the lawers representing StockArt. * The two lawyers of StockArt claim they di
by habibur 18y ago
Here is the summary:
* This is a report from a third person who have talked with the lawers representing StockArt.
* The two lawyers of StockArt claim they did not sue anyone, and that they were trying to contact Jon since the thing blew up.
* Lawers claim they did not "harass" Jon's client, but contacted two of them to check if they also "had legitimate licensing rights" from Jon's work.
* The dispute started when Jon uploaded 65 logos on a second site "LogoPond". Laywers claim that Logopond, the site, was launched in 2006 while a few of the logos in question are in StockArts pocesson for a decade. (I don't know if that says anything)
* And that they previously had once claimed right on Jon's work and Jon actually paid the bill.
Update: as davidmathers have pointed out here is the site page with comparison:
http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/stock.html http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/stock.html
For quick summary seekers: Scroll bellow. The browser window at the bottom is Jon's work. The popup is from StockArt's artists. Note that every art from StockArt belongs to a different artist whos name is linked in the center of the popup window. This evidence strongly goes against Jon. Either these 20 artiest with reputation copied from Jon (unlikely) or Jon copied from them.
- mikeyur 18y agoI'm calling bullshit on both ends, and to be honest I don't really care at this point who is in the right.
- jibiki 18y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=551693 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=551693 Looks damned suspicious to me, but the law firm still shouldn't have contacted the guys clients, IMHO.
- vaksel 18y agono guarantee that they did...for all we know he made that tidbit up as well or simply exaggerated
- randallsquared 18y agoAccording to this, the law firm themselves said they did.
- mrkurt 18y agoWell, if the clients are using work StockArt owns the rights to, it's perfectly reasonable to contact them and ask if they'd licensed it.
- davidmathers 18y ago"Nothing too convincing for any side." You seriously believe that a Gang of Plagiarists might possibly have copied Jon's work? Um... I don't know how to respond to that. The side by side comparisons: http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/stock.html http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_blog/stock.html
- trominos 18y agoI agree that Jon appears to be in the wrong here. But that would imply that he intentionally ripped off a bunch of artists, then decided to go to court over it (and almost definitely lose) and to start a witch hunt by pushing a blatantly false account of the whole thing in what I'm sure will amount to libel. That's almost as crazy as the possibility that his work was independently ripped off by multiple artists. I haven't thought that much about this -- is there a scenario I'm missing? The situation really makes no sense at all.
- davidmathers 18y agoAre you sure he decided to go to court? I thought he just made a blog post claiming persecution and asking for help.
- jambalaya 18y agoWhile taking in $1800 in donations...the plot thickens!
- Confusion 18y agoThere may not actually be a Gang of Plagiarists, because Stock Art may as well have made all those people up. Seems like a smart thing to do if your intention is fraud on this scale. I have no reason to assume it is the case, because from leaning towards 'Jon may be right', I'm not suddenly going to switch to an extrem 'Jon is a liar'.
- chairface 18y agoI have not verified this myself, but the people you're talking about apparently have reputations and have posted work outside of StockArt. It's highly unlikely that they were just "made up".