RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Is he selling it as his own? is he using it to advertise? Is he saying he created it? THEY would have to sue and prove damages... you'll have to point them out for us. This entire forum's primary intent is to educate by open discussions, advise and critique. This particular part of the forum involves nudes and boudoirs shots. I'll bet the art was based on photographs and represent an interesting end use and accepted use of such work... I found it educational, welcome and can grasp the intention and correlation to the subject here.

Then you call him a idiot/crook.

I have some experience with real world copyright infringement that represented many lost thousands of dollars in damages... (like over a 100G's worth of photos/retouching of millions of dollars of products) photographs of products whose use was strictly stipulated could only be used in a certain way in return for a budget price- no packaging, no third person use. They were discovered to being distributed worldwide to third party catalogs, used on packaging, brochures, and other uses specifically prohibited in the signed contract. My close professional photographer friend had to settle for a relative pittance because he didn't have enough money to pursue it, in fact had to keep that fact secret or they would have dragged it out past where he could afford to continue... your legal system at work. It was a clear violation of a signed contract using his copyrighted work and he had ample irrefutable evidence in place. In his case a cut and dry-clear violation. He got crap and had they known he was almost out of cash... almost got nothing at all.

So go ahead and prosecute him for this ... we'll watch ROFL.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Sorry, I see photography more as art while I understand and appreciate it's part technical science too. And I'm interested in peoples' reactions. I intend to post more advertising art in this forum most of it involving female figures which I don't think would be appropriate to post in General. Constructive feedback is always appreciated by me.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Fotoartist, I agree for I too see much photography as art (although I don't see paintings or drawings as photography) so I am going to bow out of this thread or any similar but want you to know I meant no malice. I simply did not understand your post of telling me those were roller skates vs ice skates (duh), the drawn art was from your collection and Vargas appeared in Playboy, probably why many of us non-drawing/painting artist types know of him. As for the copyright issue, I fall in the Jeff Goldblum quote in Jurassic Park (paraphrased) - "Just because we can do something does not mean we should." But, I do want to say if you look back to my previous comments of your postings you will find me a fair person. My previous comment was your Picasso's Lady Plumber where I stated "Excellent, well seen, well done... one of the best posted here." Also in your "Live View Missing" post I solved your problem for you. I am here to learn what I don't know, help where I can, and appreciate other's photography work. Hope you will accept that.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

No problem just a good exchange of thought.