I would get a barrel of laughs out of a website like that. I think it would be funny to see the people called out about it. We need one for cakes.

It would also be funny if Rumba Cake Designs is on CC. I have no clue if they are. Probably not, but I would love to see their face while they read this thread.

Sadly, there are probably quite a few of them.

My snarky side loves nothing more than tattling on a pic thief, lol.

Original message sent by gatorcake

Sorry but I find it more than a bit amusing that folks in this thread condemn the stealing of photographs while marketing their businesses with cakes that steal the intellectual property of others.  Those of you condemning these bakers have gotten permissions for each of those cakes you are using to market your business correct?

There is just something disingenuous about those complaining about and turning in businesses they see marketing themselves with others photographs while shamelessly making cakes that infringe on the intellectual property of others.  And don't kid yourself both practices are using the intellectual property of others.  

I am not saying you should not be turning them in.  Rather that you should look to your own practices before condemning the practices of others for you never know you may find yourself the subject of cease and desist order courtesy of some individual who has decided to turn you in for that character cake you have made without first securing permission from the copyright holder.

Original message sent by as you wish

I think there is something a bit more foul about outright lying about what you have made. Just my opinion.

Indeed. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two completely separate offenses, and it is entirely possible to commit either one by itself, or both with the same act. Copyright infringement is the act of copying and distributing something that is not your own, without being granted any legal right to do so, in such a way that you either profit materially from doing so, or harm the owner's ability to profit materially from his or her work, whether you take credit for it or not; plagiarism is the act of passing off another's work -- under some circumstances, especially academic circumstances, even one you personally commissioned as a work-for-hire, from someone fully aware that you would be taking full credit -- as your own, whether you are violating a copyright or not.

That said, every image I have ever put on a cake was an image I had legal standing for putting on that cake. And indeed, I walked into the cake supply, fully prepared to document that legal standing: in the case of the Leland Awards cake, I could have gone out to my car, and grabbed my IPM docent badge as proof that I legitimately represented the Museum; in the case of various Wikimedia Commons images, I downloaded not only the image, but the page giving its PD, CC, or GPL status.

And while it was a DVD, rather than a cake, some months ago, I put together a short video, documenting the Endeavour's arrival in Los Angeles: its flybys and landing at LAX, the long crawl through the streets of Inglewood and L.A., and its current temporary home in a large, temporary barn, adjacent to the California Science Center. I couldn't follow it for the entire long crawl from LAX to Exposition Park, and neither could I simply waltz onto airport property, so I incorporated pictures others had shot, including shots of its final trip into orbit. But every shot I used that wasn't my own was either an official NASA picture (PD, by definition), or had been posted on either Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr, with a statement by the photographer, granting the entire world a license to it under either CC or GPL. That gets me off the hook on copyright (though I'm not off the hook with the canned music, so this is a DVD that will never see public distribution), but it is the fact that I explicitly credited everything on the DVD that was not my own work that gets me off the hook on plagiarism.

The title of this thread is not false advertising, the title of this thread is "Stolen Pictures."  Through out the thread people talk about decorators stealing (not using) the images of others.  This is why I deliberately used the term stealing when describing using copyrighted and trademarked materials.  Describing using the images of others as stealing is quite different than saying decorators who use the work of others.  See when you describe the act as stealing the images of others, it is a twofold violation one ethical and the other legal 1) using the image to market your own work--potentially false advertising and 2) the taking and posting of the image-the very act of reposting the image when you do not have permission--theft.  

And again it is interesting that folks would use self-serving justifications to try and parse a distinction between the two acts (when the act in question is described as theft not as false advertising) while mocking those very same self-serving practices used by decorators to justify their use of other people's images (i.e. I posted them because it shows what I can do, I did not know etc.)  In this case trying to reduce the practice in question to something as little as standing in a 10 item or less lane when you have 11 items--oh its just a little lie.  (Sarcasm aside when this discussion comes up folks often try equate the use of copyrighted material as some minor infraction of the rules).

You can attempt to minimize the violation all you want, just as those who steal the pictures of others do when attempt to justify their actions, but the simple truth of the matter is both practices are predicated on taking and using something that does not belong to you.  That one also entails the additional act of false advertising does not erase what both practices have in common.  Indeed attempting to position these practices as distinct is nothing more than a self-serving justification to minimize illegal behavior.  See here is the trick, what makes the practice described in this thread as violation of the law is not the advertising of a cake that you did not make, it is the use of the image you do not have permission for.  Indeed as far as I know there is no law against using an image that you have permission to use and claiming you can make the cake in the image.  

If you are going to rail against this practice I suggest you make sure your hands are clean.  Because frankly complaints about stealing ring hollow from those using the intellectual property of others to make a buck.

Sounds about right. Takes absolutely no responsibility, nor shows an ounce of respect for the work of others and good business practice.

Yeah and when I replied back to her message pointing to certain pictures she never responded and deleted the post then she post this on her feed. "We have been getting a lot of messeges about the pictures of our cakes. We just want to let everyone know that all the pictures in our Facebook page are 100% ours. We work OVER DESIGN. Our customers send us pictures of the design they like and we make it for them. We do not have any pictures from any other bakeries. Thank you and we will always be at your service!"

She is totally incredible and I cannot believe her gall to blatantly lie about these pictures. I feel so sorry for the bakeries she has stolen from and am so glad she has none of mine because she would never take them down.  If anyone wants her facebook page to check to see if she has any of your pictures pm me and I will send it your way. BTW what the heck is working "over design" mean? It doesn't even make sense.

Geez, she sounds like a piece of work.  

I read "over design" as a verb.  As in, you give me a picture of a clean and simple cake, and I over-design the heck out of it so that it just looks gaudy.

Original message sent by morganchampagne

I'm confused. If she works "over design@ then why doesn't she just put the pictures up of tht cake that SHE did for her clients?

Original message sent by reginaherrin

Maybe she prints out the pic then puts it on her table and puts her computer OVER it and then gets on her computer and posts the stolen pictures.