Joined: Aug 21, 2006
Posts: 297
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posted:
Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:54 pm
Heh. Get Debbie and Colette's publishers involved and she'll see how wrong she is! Those are some deep pockets, publishers are vehement about intellectual property, and they have fleets of attorneys on staff. When you write to Debbie and Colette, Emma, recommend that they inform their agents and publishers.
MacsMom Forum Fanatic
Joined: May 05, 2007
Posts: 3011
Location: CA
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:01 am
I had to go see how many photos were left on his website after the e-mails you've sent...
I am still laughing at his "4D" cakes -- what, do they move or something??
emmascakes Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 07, 2006
Posts: 1153
Location: England
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:07 am
It's a woman, she's called Lisa. I had a reply from Colette Peters saying thnanks for letting her know. She didn't seem angry or give any indication she would do anything about it which I'm disappointed about.
Housemouse Frequent Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2006
Posts: 338
Location: UK
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:22 am
deleted as duplicated
Last edited by Housemouse on Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Housemouse Frequent Member
Joined: Dec 15, 2006
Posts: 338
Location: UK
Posted:
Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:22 am
Well, it seems this woman may actually live and work in the 4th dimension as well - cannot see where her business is supposed to be based. La-la land maybe?
And some of the customer comments seem a little bit too much like 'advertorial' referring to Lisa directly and then in the 3rd person.
interesting
Iloveweddings Frequent Member
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 377
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:10 am
KathysCC wrote:
Hey guys there is another discussion going on about another site with stolen photos.
I just have a question. Why is this person not getting all the grief the other woman is when she did the same thing? That poor woman on the other thread is getting slammed.
Edit PS This person that stole Emma's cakes actually says "see our cakes" on their website. The word "our" is saying it is their cakes they made.
Relznik Frequent Member
Joined: Jan 10, 2006
Posts: 307
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:27 am
Hi Emma
I'm not stalking you, honestly!
Glad they took your pics down.
I have to hold my hands up and admit that I have (and still do ) copied cakes that I've seen pictures of on the internet.
However, I would never, ever try and pass someone else's photograph off as my own work.
Suzanne
(Relznik)
Luckylurker Junior Member
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Salem, OR
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:32 am
Hello, I'm posting this again, although it is posted in the other thread just so everyone here can read it too (since the other thread is now 14 pages long).
I don't think copyright means what most people thinks it means. In fact, I'd really suggest you all read up on it a bit as it applies directly to what you're complaining about.
First of all, copyright infringement is not theft. There's a couple of reasons that that analogy is bad. The simplest is that you are in no way deprived of the copyrighted material or your ability to distribute it when your copyright is infringed. The second, and most important reason that that analogy is poor is that copyright is really a monopoly on distribution it is not in the strictest sense, ownership of something tangible.
Guess what, if you post your photos on a public website, you have now distributed them to the entire world. You can not be sure that any context will be carried along either as peoples' software for accessing the web may be radically different than what you use (for example, blind people rarely use a web client that downloads images, some people use software to swiftly collect images from websites and little else, etc.). In the case of you distributing your images of your cakes, YOU have done that.
You have no control over what people do with images that you have distributed save one. Copyright gives you sole authority to redistribute them in most cases (save the fair use cases another poster mentioned - though I'm not sure that poster did justice to the entire issue), so anyone downloading your images, may save them, use Photoshop to alter them, use them as their background, mock them, praise them, whatever. What they may not do is pretty much limited to 1) claiming it is their own copyrighted work (i.e. that they took that picture) and 2) redistribute it (e.g. put it up on their commercial website without your permission).
I doubt I'll change any feelings with this post, but I do hope that I will encourage at least a few people to read up on this area. Our system of copyright is in bad shape right now and it's partially due to people grossly misunderstanding what it is and what rights it grants them.
-----------------------The above was written by my husband. I have been following this thread, and reading parts to him. He is a software engineer and deals with copyrights on the web daily.
----------------------
have always been under the impression that a copyright legally prevents someone from profitting directly from sale or distribution of the copyrighted item. So any photo on the web automatically has a copyright, but this woman is not infringing. Is that your interpretation?? quote="woodthi32"]
----------
Actually, the attempt to profit doesn't do anything but stiffen some penalties for infringement. In simplistic terms, distributing a work that is copyrighted without permission is infringement. In the case of this woman, her infringement was taking images from various sources and putting them up on her server/hosting account (or more simply: webpage) without the consent of the copyright holders. This means she is distributing them. The fact that she downloaded them is no different than when you or I download them, they've been posted in their original locations by, or with permission of, the copyright holders.
Also, it is important to note, that although copyright on any creative work is automatic in the US, unregistered copyrights (ones not registered with the copyright office) are ineligible for damages in court. You may register a copyrighted work after it had been infringed, but you would then be limited to actual damages in awards in court, no punitive damages may be assigned.
There is nothing wrong with copying someone's cake exactly. Seriously, why do people even post their pictures if they don't want people to learn from them? I think it is bad that some people copy photos directly and place them on their website like they did them, but using them as an idea, or making the cakes yourself, is NOTHING wrong. Also, your cake itself is not copyrighted, just the photo. You can trademark something (I believe Polly's cakes are trademarked, for example, she does the Whimsical cakes), and Mickey Mouse himself is copyrighted, so you can't use his image to make cakes (without permission), but otherwise, it's free game. If you don't want your cakes copied, don't post them. Although I think it would be sad if people started going this route and quit sharing. This is how ideas are improved upon and the art is advanced, imo Anyway, hope this post makes sense. My husband wrote the stuff about the copyright, this last bit is me.
modthyrth Frequent Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2006
Posts: 297
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:20 am
Your husband understands a lot of the nuances of copyright law, especially for a lay person. I'm impressed, honestly. Most people have a much clumsier understanding of IP law, and I agree with the stuff that *he* wrote. Of course I didn't do justice to the concept for fair use in a one sentence mention. I spent a semester on just that at law school, and it can't be boiled down to a simple mention of the topic.
But you're just flat out wrong in saying that there's nothing wrong with making an exact copy of someone's design. Any creative work is covered. Cakes are covered by the PGS section (pictoral, graphical, and sculptural works). These designs are covered by copyright, and it is infringement to make an exact copy. Lots of people do it, of course. Some of those copies are probably covered by a fair use exception. And I post my pictures on this website with the expectation and understanding that people may well copy my original designs, and I'm at peace with that. But as a general principle, it's illegal to copy an original design.
Luckylurker Junior Member
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Salem, OR
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:02 pm
modthyrth wrote:
Your husband understands a lot of the nuances of copyright law, especially for a lay person. I'm impressed, honestly. Most people have a much clumsier understanding of IP law, and I agree with the stuff that *he* wrote. Of course I didn't do justice to the concept for fair use in a one sentence mention. I spent a semester on just that at law school, and it can't be boiled down to a simple mention of the topic.
But you're just flat out wrong in saying that there's nothing wrong with making an exact copy of someone's design. Any creative work is covered. Cakes are covered by the PGS section (pictoral, graphical, and sculptural works). These designs are covered by copyright, and it is infringement to make an exact copy. Lots of people do it, of course. Some of those copies are probably covered by a fair use exception. And I post my pictures on this website with the expectation and understanding that people may well copy my original designs, and I'm at peace with that. But as a general principle, it's illegal to copy an original design.
Technically, from a legal perspective you would be right. I was speaking more from a moral standpoint, which I'm sure you'd agree that a moral view and a legal view doesn't always match up. Maybe I'm the only one with this opinion, but I still see nothing wrong with copying someone's design (morally).
cakegirl121 Junior Member
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 22
Location: san jose
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:14 pm
Disclaimer: Some of the photos contained in this website have been used to give prospective clients an idea of what can be offered by De Gustibus Cakes. Lisa would like to thank Debbie Brown, Lindy Smith and Collette Peters for their literary contributions to cake design books that have been published and to Lindy Smith, Anne Skip and Beverley Dunkley for their valued training. Any photos used on this site are copyright free.
I found this at the bottom of their home page. not saying that they are doing the right thing at all...Its one thing to show up with magazines of other peoples work and say yeah i can recreate that. but to post it on your website and if people dont read this small disclaimer they think this baker was the original creator.
woodthi32 Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 15, 2007
Posts: 533
Location: Oneida, NY
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:46 pm
Now it's illegal to copy a cake?????????????
wow. So now I have "stolen" copyrighted pictures of copyrighted cakes and copied said copyrighted cakes!
guess I'm going STRAIGHT to Hell! LOL
woodthi32 Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 15, 2007
Posts: 533
Location: Oneida, NY
Posted:
Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:50 pm
So, now it's illegal to copy Kerry Vincent's cake that she wrote a book about, so that I would BUY it, so that she could give me INSTRUCTIONS on HOW to MAKE the cake. But, if I do it, it is certainly illegal...........
well, that makes about as much sense as GW on crack:)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
