Jumping to conclusions

Mikey 95 comments
  • Cyber Crime
Jumping to conclusions

It really is amazing just how easily people will jump to conclusions based on little or no evidence. We have all been guilty of it at some stage though, haven't we?

Single Mother and Art Student _Rebekka recently discovered several of her original photographs were being sold on OnlyDreemin.com, all without her knowledge. The photos were also being sold under different artist's names, all of which are suspected to be (and probably are) fake.

Upon further investigation, she was able to find OnlyDreemin's ebay store:

"I spent a good many days researching, going back thru their customer feedback, and was able to track back the sales of at LEAST 60 prints made from my images"

_Rebekka has a right to be upset, and who wouldn't be. Reading the comments left by her supporters I was amazed just how easily people assume the 'offenders' have deliberately done the wrong thing.

Today I have been in contact with OnlyDreemin and asked for clarification on this issue. I was saddened to learn they have received death threats over this matter, proving once again just how passionate people are, no matter how misguided, when it comes to this type of theft.

It turns out that _Rebekka is not the only one who has been taken advantage of. This is a portion of an email I received from OnlyDreemin today.

"Many thanks for asking for our side of the story rather than simply offering more death threats...

In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London, they offered to show us some imagery, that they stated would be high resolution and we would have sole reselling rights. We were visited by a salesperson from the company and we liked what we saw

Anyway 2 weeks passed, emails were sent back and forth, basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them and then the paperwork was signed and a considerable amount of money was paid (£3000.00) by us , for us to start selling these images in the form of canvas prints.

6 months later we had a letter from a law firm in Iceland, stating we were using someone's images, we Googled the claimants name, lo and behold we found we had been duped!

As requested, we immediately removed the images from the internet and destroyed any copies of the images we had.

We emailed the law firm to state we had dealt with these requests and to apologise to their client.

We took legal advice, they told us say nothing more than we had, not recommending we contact the claimant and tell her what had happened, by the way we were very keen to do that, but we were told to avoid all contact.

In the meantime we started our own investigation into the above company's contacts and sources but have since found nothing more because the telephone doesn't get answered, mobiles are permanently off and emails are getting bounced back, it seems we were conned too.

As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise."

So there you have it, two sides as they say. That said, it is easy to understand why _Rebekka interpreted OnlyDreemin's actions as an attempt to quickly cover their tracks. I can hardly blame her. Heck, this article was originally going to be about the ever-increasing rise in online art theft. But I think the lesson learned here is far more important.

Jumping to conclusions can easily tarnish the reputation of an otherwise well meaning company. Sadly it happens all too often.

Update: Flickr have taken down _rebekka's post for no good reason I can think of. You can view a re-post of it on her blog.

Update 2:Flickr have acknowledged that made a mistake, and have restored _Rebekaa's blog.


To get expertise of network appliance implementation engineer-SAN, you have to pass NS0-501 exam. Many professionals are also enhancing their expertise by clearing PMI-001 exam for the project management along with PW0-104 exam for the wireless LAN administration.

Not a Member!

Alegra

Tuesday 15th May 2007 | 09:26 PM

Humble pie, anyone?

Not a Member!

Jack Blandou

Tuesday 15th May 2007 | 09:51 PM

Its natural for everyone to get hyped up over something like this. When you are this angry it is better to walk away for a while then come back with a clear mind. Unfortunately the easy quick reply nature of a message board encourages people to say what they think at that very moment. If they are telling the truth in that email then we will all eat humble pie as Alegra says.

Not a Member!

Jasmin

Tuesday 15th May 2007 | 10:33 PM

Its good to know some people have the jatz crackers to go against the mob mentality. What is it about us that instinctively sides with the underdog. Its like our default position on everything is to assume the big companies are always the ones to blame. Kinda falls under the same category of the pleasure we get from watching celebrities fall form grace. Can anyone spell 'Paris Hilton'?

Not a Member!

Jon

Tuesday 15th May 2007 | 10:37 PM

Mob mentality is addictive. When you see hundreds of comments in favour of the one making the accusation the immediate instinct is to think they are telling the truth almost always when you can sympathise with them. Kudos for setting the record straight at least now people can make an informed decision and if they still want a pound of flesh with the facts now presented to then god help them.

Not a Member!

The Klone

Tuesday 15th May 2007 | 10:41 PM

Theres no evidence they are telling the truth in that email but theres no evidence to support rebecka either. Can only take it at face value like everything else we read on the internet.

I might suggest onlydreaming.com could have done some better background checks or maybe they did.

Not a Member!

Sean McGee

Tuesday 15th May 2007 | 11:46 PM

Their defense: "In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London [...]
basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them ..."

One problem with that research; it takes 2 seconds to check and find out on Companies House (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk) that no such company exists. Ignorance is NOT an excuse and NOT a valid form of defense.

Not a Member!

paul davidson

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 12:19 AM

MMM..I have read this story a few times now, does it not comes across as a perfectly reasonable account as to what has happened?.
Images are for sale all over the internet and i suspect the majority don't belong to their rightful owners.To make too many assumptions without knowing the full story would be considered naive, it not dangerous.

I for one shan't be making any assumptions on what has or hasn't really happened and i'd expect intelligent people to do the same

Not a Member!

boyhowdy

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 01:20 AM

As sean says (and paul and others clearly didn't actually read or understand), "being duped" does not protect the legal liability of the company in question...NOR does it absolve them from NOT responding to Rebekkah (at least via lawyers, if their lawyer had said to stay silent), if only because responding quickly to say "we were passed these pictures by someone claiming that they had the legal right to do so" would have helped her deal better with her frustration.

Shared pain is lessened, and all that -- hiding behind lawyers isn't noble, and Only Dreemin -- duped or not -- shares some of the pain-causing here for staying silent at first, and then choosing to speak here, rather than to Rebekkah herself, when they spoke at all.

I made no assumptions about EVENTS, myself. But IF the above is true, then OnlyDreemin is not fully absolved -- they could have behaved MUCH better. Yes, someone out there appears to be GUILTY of something illegal. But, given the two sides, only Rebekkah is truly innocent.

Not a Member!

Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 01:45 AM

for starters, id like to begin by asking why the owner of this blog and writer of this little article is using one of my landscapes, cropped in a most unattractive way and framed with some ugly stamp design? without linking back to where it came from?

That aside, let me say a few things. Its difficult to produce evidence here on the web in light of the fact that theyve taken down much of the stuff they had on their site.
However, i have a good 100 pages of printed evidence which i spent 3 days collecting back in january/february. My lawyer who took the case originally has copies of all webpages as they were when my images were still on their site.

Now, the letter you show here is the exact same one several other people got from them yesterday, and was displayed in the comment thread under my original post.
(id like to add that i heartily agree that death threats are of no help and more than a little counter-productive to my dillemma.)

Their claims of a third party selling them the images are not new. This is something they told to my lawyer back in february, claiming "someone" presented them with the high-res files and "official looking documents". When asked by my lawyer to show us evidence of this transaction, they simply stopped replying.

Yesterday they openly admitted to having sold my images, albeit without the knowlege of them belonging to me. Suddenly they have a name for the mysterious seller, "wild aspects and panoramics LTD" which, as someone already mentioned above, does not exist, and does not appear to have ever existed. If they are telling the truth, explain this to me:
why did they refuse to put forth evidence that this party exists when my laywer requested it? If anything, it would help their argument, and if this party conned them, why on earth would they want to protect them? Afer all, they claim to have payed them 3000 pounds, there must exist some sortof bill or something?

Furthermore, if you realize you've inadvertantly sold something that was stolen, you've still committed a crime. In their case, they seem to feel its perfectly OK for them to keep the money they illegally made from my stolen work. Saying their sorry isnt enough. If they were conned, that's their problem, and they are free to go after that mysterious seller and sue THEM. Its not my problem. I still deserve to get paid damages from them for the profit they made from my copyrighted work.

There is nothing complicated about this matter. They did wrong. Theyve admitted it. Its not fair that they just get away with it by putting forth some very dubious excuse and saying their sorry.


Not a Member!

NJ

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 01:53 AM

Are any of you capable of basing your decisions on facts, rather on labeling the opponents? If you give this battle characters like "mob", "big company," "celebrity" or "struggling artist," you're making it into daytime drama and deciding based on who's more likable rather than on the facts. What on earth does this have to do with Paris Hilton? Is your frame of reference limited to the 15 minutes of celeb gossip on CNN? If this were happening in the midst of the Enron case, would only dreemin automatically be evil because they're "big business" regardless of whether the company is also a single mother of two, grandmother, or a moonlighting taxi driver? C'mon ...

Unfortunately there are those who will get behind any cause and fling death threats like marti gras candy. And they should be ignored, not allowed to sway the argument either way.

The facts are that only dreemin may or may not have known Rebekka's photos were illegally obtained. However, even if every word of their statement is true, they still failed to take proper steps to ensure their images were legal, and later ignored Rebekka's requests, (here acting on the advice of their lawyers means ignoring her or, colloquially, calling her bluff rather than proving their innocence, something they have yet to do. Ultimately, only-dreemin has failed to fulfill their legal responsibilities. This "mob mentality" is the way things happen when people who are right otherwise have no other recourse other than putting themselves and their families in financial jeopardy at the chance of legal vindication. If Rebekka didn't have 100,000 fans, only-dreemin would still be ignorning her. Luckily, she does.

Not a Member!

Jason

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 01:57 AM

Mikey writes:
"So there you have it, two sides as they say."

That's true if you don't have anything else to go on. But we do, don't we?

OnlyDreemin responded to Rebekah by shrugging their shoulders, claiming they'd been conned and changing the name of the artist of the print on their website.

Some undisputed facts:

1) OD does not deny the work is Rebekka's.
2) When confronted with proof of her copyright, OD changed the name of the photographer.
3) Even after being confronted with proof of copyright, OD continues to profit from that work.

If OD, in response to proof of copyright, alters the name of the photographer and continues to sell her work, what on earth makes you believe him when he claims he's been sent death threats?

Alegra writes:
" Humble pie, anyone?"

OnlyDreemin says he's full.

Jasmin writes:
"Its good to know some people have the jatz crackers to go against the mob mentality."

Ironic, since that's what you're doing right now...

Jon writes:
" Mob mentality is addictive. When you see hundreds of comments in favour of the one making the accusation the immediate instinct is to think they are telling the truth almost always when you can sympathise with them."

That's only a useful statement when independently-verifiable facts are unavailable.

The Klone writes:
"Theres no evidence they are telling the truth in that email but theres no evidence to support rebecka either."

Incorrect. See above.

Sean McGee writes:
"One problem with that research; it takes 2 seconds to check and find out on Companies House that no such company exists."

Yay!, a voice of reason!

paul davidson writes:
"To make too many assumptions without knowing the full story would be considered naive, it [sic] not dangerous. "

So far we have two sides.

Rebekka's, who has provided proof of copyright and has in no case been accused of lying or misrepresenting anything.

We also have OD's side which consists of an assortment of lies and the dubious honor of continuing to profit from her work up to, and including, yesterday.

"I for one shan't be making any assumptions on what has or hasn't really happened and i'd expect intelligent people to do the same "

Intelligent people realize that truth is found by an examination of the evidence and proceed from there.

boyhowdy writes:
" As sean says (and paul and others clearly didn't actually read or understand), "being duped" does not protect the legal liability of the company in question..."

Good point.

I've never heard of someone getting scammed and making money at the same time. Has anyone else?

But somehow, according to OD, he was scammed by WAaP LTD and ...lessee, the scammer and the scammed both profited while the artist -- not even party to (or aware of) this exchange -- gains nothing.

Funny that.

Jason

Not a Member!

NJ

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 02:05 AM

seriously, why IS this discussion going on under one of Rebekka's photos you've chopped into a postage stamp?

Michael, you're doing a grand job of highlighting the problem, right there.

Not a Member!

Stephen Poff

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 02:13 AM

The problem here is not that we are taking up arms for the underdog. Barring death threats and harm to personal property, our response has been more than warranted. What has happened has affected not only Rebekka, but all of us who use the internet to share our art.

My problem is not with thier story. I can believe that they were "duped". I don't believe that that is the point at all though. The fact that these guys can make a significant profit off of someone elses art and then offer an apology in return without recompensation is just ridiculous. Even if they payed what they say they did for the discs. They appear to have made MUCH more than that off of the sale of the prints. Rebekka says that they sold some for the equivilent of 4,500 us dollars. What did it cost to print and ship? $150 us? How can they justify not paying her at least what they made off of the sale of her work?

So I'd rethink your case for mob mentality. Most everyone here is looking for justice in the matter. So the company didn't do enough research and they got "duped"... fine... great... we understand. But make it right and pay her legal fees and the profit you made from the sale of her work.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a Member!

only-dreemin

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 03:11 AM

Hello to all.There seems to be a widespread selective reading issue here.
As our short statement suggests, we immediately ceased the sale of R G's prints once the issue had been brought to our attention and we responded at once with a letter to her Lawyer in Iceland stating that all achievable demands had been met and please pass on our sincere apologies to R G,we assured them that all their clients alleged material was down and destroyed, as directed by them.
If this apology wasn't conveyed to RG, then for that we had no control over and we considered the matter as concluded.

At this point we contacted our own legal team, who in turn instructed us to remain silent and at no point to contact RG or her lawyers at any point, a point that we strongly contested but were under strict instructions.

We still are under insruction but hell to that, a small redress is needed.

Once contacted, we researched RG, yes it true, we had been inadvertantly been selling her images, we dealt with that in a constructive and timely manner, at no point had we denied anything else, we apologised and acceded to her requests and from that moment on those images were never again shown in any way, shape, form or format.

We pay for professional legal advice because they know better than us in these situations, so we have to take their advice ,as much as we wanted to do otherwise.

Death threats, profanity, acts of cruelty and abuse to my kids, posting of personal information, corrupting code on the website, abandoned shopping carts and countless other things are not helping to resolve matters but then thats to be expected from incitement i suppose.

Regards o-d




Not a Member!

Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 03:15 AM

one thing i need to clarify, tho i thought it was clear in my original post on flickr yesterday.

I wrote there that they took MY photos down when my lawyer contacted them (in february this was). They however ignored the demand to pay me damages.

HowEVER (and this is what leads me to believe that my work wasnt the only stolen work being sold on that site) :

there were photos on there being sold under the same false name as was put on my images (Rebekka Sigrún). They were still up there yesterday morning, under the artist name "Marco Van Eych".
The fact that these images were also being sold (months ago) under that same false name should lead any clear-headed individual to believe that those images had been stolen as well.

why does anyone want to side with this dishonest seller anyway?
i don't get it. I'm an art-student/single mom of two , and as of yet have not sold more than a total of 4 prints of my images, and these guys made nearly 5000 dollars from my hard work. To me, that's a LOT of money.
what is so complicated here?

Not a Member!

only-dreemin

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 03:20 AM

But Stephen, their in it's self lies a huge problem, our figures for production , marketing, overheads are always going to be disputed aren't they?.

If our profit wasn't so far removed from the figures being claimed, we wouldn't have an issue with redress.

But i suspect any such offer would be rebuffed in light of the witch hunt that is going on around us at the moment, hence my earler point with contacting RG after the "tide" has receeded.

regards o-d

Not a Member!

only-dreemin

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 03:34 AM

Once again i have to try and get the balance right.

M V E has been in use on our images for years, it is a pseudonym or alias, it's used simply because it sounds better than a standard british name.

R S was the name credited on the disc we purchased.

We paid £3000 for this disc, for sole selling rights, we got in return £2450 before expenses such as production etc, that means we have at least a defecit of £550, before taking off our costs.
I appreciate your frustration, but your demands far outstripped our means and still do in respect of what was a genuine error that was dealt with at once and with complete respect.

Regards o-d

Not a Member!

carwax productions

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 04:09 AM

if you feel that because you got conned (for which you haven't provided satisfactory proof)
and STILL contend that you shouldn't give every cent to the actual owner of the work then your company name is perfect.

You're only dreamin.

you reap what you sow

Not a Member!

Hmmm

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 04:26 AM

To: Only-Dreemin,
If you're as innocent as you claim and follow copyright laws, then why do you print images of copyrighted movie stills (Scarface for example)?

Not a Member!

Jason

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 04:29 AM

only-dreemin writes:
"If this apology wasn't conveyed to RG, then for that we had no control over and we considered the matter as concluded. "

That's convenient! If I had some ill-gotten money (and no sense of fairness) I'd consider it concluded too.

"Once contacted, we researched RG, yes it true, we had been inadvertantly been selling her images, we dealt with that in a constructive and timely manner, at no point had we denied anything else, we apologised and acceded to her requests and from that moment on those images were never again shown in any way, shape, form or format."

You have a tendency to gloss over the pesky little fact that you made money using Rebekka's work. For whatever reason you believe a "sorry" is adequate.

I could make a lot of money using such a model! Just use works found online and for the 20% (or so) that find out, apologize and wipe my hands clean.

OD, you claim that you were duped. Do you have ANY evidence? Surely you were given a receipt. How about the documentation you believed authenticated the source of the images? Where are those?

OD, how does it happen that you were fooled, not Rebekka, and somehow both parties to the fraud made money and Rebekka lost money? Explain to us how that works, I'm fascinated.

only-dreamin writes:
"Death threats, profanity, acts of cruelty and abuse to my kids, posting of personal information, corrupting code on the website, abandoned shopping carts and countless other things are not helping to resolve matters but then thats to be expected from incitement i suppose."

Not satisfied with the self-imposed "scammed" label, OD goes for "martyr" status.

Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging.

only-dreemin continues to dig anyway:
" But Stephen, their in it's self lies a huge problem, our figures for production , marketing, overheads are always going to be disputed aren't they?."

Well, no, because your accountant would certify these numbers. If you fudged these and presented the false numbers to a court, your experience with Rebekka would seem pleasant in comparison.

Show and prove.

"If our profit wasn't so far removed from the figures being claimed, we wouldn't have an issue with redress."

OK, I'll bite. What was your profit?

"But i suspect any such offer would be rebuffed in light of the witch hunt that is going on around us at the moment, hence my earler point with contacting RG after the "tide" has receeded."

Do you find it awkward (or at least logically contorted) to blame something that happened yesterday on something you failed to do in January?

"I appreciate your frustration, but your demands far outstripped our means and still do in respect of what was a genuine error that was dealt with at once and with complete respect."

This just keeps getting weirder.

OD now wants "respect" in lieu of payment of that which is rightfully Rebekka's?

OD thinks that the law takes into account "means" when tabulating damages?

Rebekka, this guy is out of his skull. I beg you; start a donation page, sell prints (heck, I'll buy one myself) and nail this meatball. It's stunning how disrespectful he has been toward your art, your rightful claim for reasonable compensation, and in all seriousness claims a lack of respect is that which keeps him from doing right.

Jason

Not a Member!

G-Palma

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 04:55 AM

My dear only-dreeming.
The fact is you did something ilegal and should at least pay R G a fair sum for each of HER prints you sold.
Then you should go after the person who conned you and get your money back plus damages for what that did to your company (and belive me when I say the damage is huges and will only get bigger with more time passing)

Not a Member!

Stephen Poff

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 05:05 AM

It seems that following your lawyers advise to ignore Rebekka has not been a benefit to you. I would think that had you tried to work this out with Rebekka and let her know that you could not at this moment meet her demands but that you would settle with her with some sort of payment plan or in return give her free services with which to sell her own prints and make the full profit... anything... that you would not be in the situation that you now find yourself.

Communication is never a bad thing. Your silence seems to be costing you a lot more than just money right now.

Not a Member!

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 05:20 AM

Jason. Twist things to suit.

I suspect in your instance that had RG been a young spotty man, your input would have been considerably less on this subject.

You know nothing of this situation, other than what has been typed on the internet, may i suggest leaving the " CSI" impressions for after school drama class?.







Not a Member!

jon hanson

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 05:24 AM

o-d,

If you're buying sole reselling rights then the onus is on you before you make the purchase to do due diligence and establish that the seller is in fact entitled to sell those rights.

By the way, you instruct your lawyer, and your lawyer advives you, not the other way round. You are free to ignore that advice, however any action you take on the advice of your lawyer is still your own responsibility. You chose to forgo negotation in favour of a course of non-communication, and attempting to blame the lawyer is disingenuous.

j

Not a Member!

Jason

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:36 AM

An anonymous coward writes:
" Jason. Twist things to suit. "

Of course he doesn't say where I'm doing this, but...

"I suspect in your instance that had RG been a young spotty man, your input would have been considerably less on this subject. "

I'm into the dark-haired ladies. Blondes do nothing for me, really. Well, OK, if they've got really short hair and a quirky accent I'm game.

But I understand your position. When you can't win an argument on the merits, try ad hominem attacks and see what sticks. Good job.

"You know nothing of this situation, other than what has been typed on the internet..."

That's not even remotely correct. In fact the only part of this mess still in doubt is whether or not Rebekka is owed compensation and even that isn't debateable. It's an academic point of copyright law.

"...may i suggest leaving the " CSI" impressions for after school drama class?. "

You could certainly suggest it but then I would tell you to blow it out your browneye.

So ...uh ...do you still want to suggest it...?

Regardless, thanks for the chuckle. It's been a hoot watching you try to change the subject. =P

Hugs and Kisses,
Jason

Not a Member!

jon hanson

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:57 AM

flickr/yahoo have helpfully weighed in and removed the the discussion page (and the accompanying photo) from flickr entirely.

http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/

Not particularly pleasant, and an action that has a good chance of backfiring.

jon

Not a Member!

Jack Adams

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:07 AM

Con artists always think of elaborate schemes and that includes thinking of escape plans.

This story could easily have been made up.

Not a Member!

Mikey

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 09:03 AM

Thanks for everyone's input. I didn't expect such a response.

Yes I had cropped one of rebekka's prints for the purposes of this article, but I assure you I have no intention of selling it :-)

@ Rebekka: I have removed the cropped picture now. Very sorry for doing that. Replaced with one of my own, a mediocre sunrise taken from my backyard.

Let me clarify my position that I am not taking sides here, and being a designer I too know the pain of having my work ripped off.

I just think it is important that both parties have the chance to say their part. Who we choose to agree with is entirely up to the individual, or maybe even the law in this case.

One thing I do agree with though, it doesn't matter if OD were duped into selling stolen goods or not. I think rebekka is entitled to a slice of the pie, and it would also go a long way to repairing any business relationship they may wish to pursue with one another.

Not a Member!

Villi Thorsteinsson

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 11:11 AM

Yes, Michael, you are right: from a legal point of view, it is of no consequence whether OD was duped or not. Rebekka still has a valid claim on them.

To elaborate: If they are sensible businesspeople (which I doubt), they include a clause in their intellectual property purchase contract that says they will have their money back if the IP being bought does not in fact belong to the seller. This is just standard business practice and should be very familiar to somebody making their living from reselling photo prints.

OD's purported costs or profits are also of no consequence. Rebekka has a valid claim for compensation in proportion to the damage done to her, irrespective of OD's costs.

Not a Member!

Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 11:14 AM

thanks Michael for changing the photo (besides, you cropped out the best bit! the splash! j/k)

of course O-D should get their say.

unfortunately for them , what they're saying makes less and less sense.

this last bit im directing to O-D:
there's no witch hunt going on here. Whats going on here, is that you chose the wrong photographer to rip off. Said photographer is simply doing exactly what her lawyer told you she would do, if you refused to meet demands. Judging by the large number of sales your company was making back in january/february, when i was researching all of this, i seriously doubt that you have no money in your bank account aside from the net profits of my images alone. You were selling LOADS of other images. If you are having financial problems, why didnt you just communicate with my lawyer, and try to come to some arrangement?
why? because you expected i'd back down.
i almost did, but ultimately didnt.
i find it very hard to feel sorry for the plight you're in.
shoulda thought of this before you stole my work.

Not a Member!

gener50

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 02:51 PM

I made the prophet from the pheasant.

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 03:49 PM

@Rebekka
Could you provide a link to where the "Marco Van Eych" images are being sold? I can't seem to find it. (I am trying to verify the facts of the case, I don't like judging anyone without knowing everything first. )

Second, where do you sell prints? I love your work, but I don't see anywhere that you sell it.

Third, as to the 'witch hunt', I'm afraid that would be the Digg users. The death threats I don't doubt, and their website has been fairly obviously hacked. I can't verify the rest of their claims, but they seem plausible enough.

Not a Member!

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 04:02 PM

Come on! "basic research was done by us". It's the XXI century. Google, AllTheWeb, forums, Flickr are all just an address bar away. The guys are in the business; they handle considerable sums; they can sense the potential legal comlications - and yet they fail to use plain common sense? Naaah. Sounds more like they planned to push it till it breaks.

What now? Congratulations, guys! You are globally famous. Remove the loot, and fill your store with practically anything: it _will_ be sold.

Not a Member!

only-dreemin

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 06:38 PM

Michael, two points in one of your posts should be redressed as they are false:

"Some undisputed facts:

2) When confronted with proof of her copyright, OD changed the name of the photographer.
3) Even after being confronted with proof of copyright, OD continues to profit from that work."

Both these points are false. Within an hour of receiving R G's letter, all images were removed from the our hosting, any copies were destroyed/deleted and none were sold.

After doing this, we took up correspondence with R G's legal team.

Thanks,

OD

Not a Member!

only-dreemin

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 06:45 PM

In addition, the point about changing photographer name is a misnomer which never happened, probably stemming from confusion in reading the original post.

OD

Not a Member!

Michael

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:04 PM

Hi Only Dreamin.

Jason actually made those comments, and we have a policy against modifying comments, regardless of their validity. We do delete comments though but only if they are offensive or completely irrelevant to the topic.

Thanks for offering that into consideration. Maybe a good time to put your story across in a formal statement on your web site - Lawyers permitting :-)

Just a thought.

M.

Not a Member!

Rodney

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:08 PM

I would have thought anyone involved in a legal case would be best to shut the hell up about it, especially on a discussion forum?

OD: Surely you don't think by getting involved in a webforum you're going to do yourselves any favours, if a court situation arose? If your lawyer told you to ignore the plaintif, then that's exactly what you should be doing - not arguing with them in a public, recorded and easily accessible forum.

I'm pretty sure if either side are involving lawyers then the lawyers should do all the communication, from then on.

Not a Member!

only-dreemin

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:25 PM

Thanks Michael, sorry, should have replied to Jason... We don't expect any removal, just that we would redress the points in our post.

Thanks again

od

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:36 PM

Judging from a basic background check on the business, it looks like it consists of basically just one person named Tracee, so if posters could try to keep in mind that all this anger is probably directed towards a single human being rather than a large organization, I think we can have this discussion a little more calmly.

Given this fact, I would actually like to try and make a case for Only Dreemin by reconstructing the history of the site and its owner, if the rest of the commenters agree not to rip me to shreds as a result.

The Wayback machine archives www.only-dreemin.com back to April 6,2004. At this time, OD was a distributor for a personalized childrens CD company called MYCD. The website is hideous, built using the Trellix site building engine. (source: the view source button shows meta tags left by Trellix) The fact that the Trellix engine is designed to be easy to use, and that, combined with the resultant site design, show that the site owner has very little sense of how to build a webpage from scratch. The word 'Us' notwithstanding, the multiple exclamation points in one of the introductory sentences also seem to confirm the idea that the site is run by a single person, as multiperson review would likely have vetoed them. (Let us introduce to you MYCD Personalised Interactive CD Story Books!!!!.........)

The overall impression is remarkably unprofessional, and I imagine other people thought so too, as sometime between January 22, 2005, and February 11, 2005, the site design and site purpose changed radically. Only Dreemin changed to an art website, and was reconstructed with Dreamweaver. The radical shift here suggests to me that Tracee decided her old business was unprofitable, and hired a website designer and purchaced some artwork to sell on the site. The startup costs must have been enormous, purchasing the rights to the artwork (they purchased something, at any rate...), the printing costs, paying the designer, assorted expenses, etc. I would estimate the costs to be well over 10,000 dollars, but that is a complete guess. It was a large enough expense that she sold her car. (source: listed on the wayback machine, march 12, 2005) When I tried to see if she has a car now using Google Earth, the resolution around her house was not sufficient to even distinctly make out her roof. This means she lives in a rural enough area that Google has not bothered to obtain good images of it, and the out-of-the-way location is circumstantial evidence she does not have a lot of money. She even runs the business out of her house via ebay, presumably to save money.
Her business continued as usual until April 2006, when the Wayback Machine archives end. As far as I can tell, she had been selling essentially the same collection of prints the entire time. She also tried to sell a franchise, and several wholesale packages for sale by another business. These are not the signs of a thriving enterprise.
In August 2006, she tried expanding her catalogue, to bring in more business, I assume. The traditional method of doing this is purchasing the rights to print works wholesale, googling royalty free images will bring up a list of sites that offer this service. But instead of this, someone approached her, offering a CD of high quality pictures and a plausible background story, assumably promising more profits. She purchased this CD for an exceedingly large sum of money and went on her way. Unfortunately, the person who sold it to her did not own the rights to the images on the disk, and as such, was not entitled to sell it. But alas, ownership is dificult to acertain, especially when just given a CD of photos. So Tracee assumed that the sale was valid, and started making prints. Then, in May she found out that she was in violation of Rebekka's copyright. She promptly took down the offending images, and tried to start investigating the company that sold her the disk so she could file claims against them. But the company did not exist on Google, and the telephone and email addresses given to her as contact information were nonexistant/fraudulant, and so she had no legal recourse.
In the meantime, Rebekka, one of the most popular users of Flickr, has gotten angry, because she has not gotten paid any royalties, and regards this incident as a theft of her work. Which she, of course, has every right to do. Unfortunately for Tracee, Rebekka's post about the incident got Dugg, sending hoards of Digg users against her. Tracee recieved death threats, had her website vandalised, and presumably had her property destroyed too. Her situation is made less fortunate by the fact that Rebekka is also pushing for damages as a result of the works sold, which is, the tone of my explanation aside, not an unreasonable request. However, calculating out: Tracee has recieved ebay feedback for 5350 auctions since December 16, 2004, slightly before the website redesign (the ebay feedback from before then was from the CD sales). (Using $ as the pound symbol, again, I don't have that key.) Lets assume she gets feedback on 50% of her sales and makes 3$ profit on each one (probably an huge overestimate, the costs of a blank 60cm x 60cm (24) is almost 25 pounds (source:dealtime.co.uk), and she sells her prints on canvasses larger than that for cheaper. Her ebay feedback also indicates she isn't cutting costs by using low quality canvas, so I'm not actually sure how she is even making money.) That comes out to a total profit of 32,100$ over 2.5 years, or 247$\week. However, that 247$ is net profit, and she still has to pay for more prints. if we assume 120 of that goes towards replenishing the old stock and other business expenses (roughly 3 medium\small prints), she has 127$ for her own living expenses. For comparison, in the UK, the poverty level is 100$\week for a single adult. (source:poverty.org.uk)

On the basis of this calculation and the assorted things I mention earlier in the article, I do not believe she is capable of paying royalty payments on the photographs. The business makes money, definitely, but not nearly as much as other posters have asserted. Howver, due to the amount of assumptions made in calculation, I do not stand by these numbers as anything more than educated guesswork. (I assume Tracee has no other source of income, for instance, which seems reasonable given the time it takes to make good prints and manage the finances involved in a business.)

But Rebekka, I hope you will take these things into consideration when deciding what to do in the future. It is your right to persue royalty payments, but please be aware, you are dealing with people, not with a faceless corporation.

Not a Member!

Jeremy

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:36 PM

Ok, I'll buy the defence that you were scammed into buying the Rebekkah pictures.

What about the many movie stills and couple of Roy Lichtenstein paintings on your site?

Licensed from the relevant movie companies and the Lichtenstein Foundation? Sold to you by a third party? If so, who? If not, how did you obtain them?

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 07:49 PM

I would assume they were on the same CD. I don't see any of those on the Wayback machine.

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:03 PM

Did more research, it is plausible that someone would license film stills from well known movies and prints of various artworks. "When it comes to photos and movie stills, there are independent vendors who license hundreds of thousands of photos for commercial or professional use, many of whom have a large selection of classic movie-related images to chose from. Although the licensing departments of the studios themselves will generally have the largest selection, they can often be more difficult to deal with." (source:http://www.reelclassics.com/Buy/licensing.htm)

I can imagine a licensing deal from the movie studios taking place where they sell the reprinting right to all the stills in a several second long clip to various distributors, who then resell these rights.

I'm not seeing a Lichtenstein on the site, could you direct me to it?

Not a Member!

Jeremy

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:06 PM

I wouldn't assume anything in this situation! The reason I'm prepared to buy the "scam" defence is that Rebekka's images are not widely-known, immediately recognisable images. So it's perfectly feasible that they were bought innocently by OD. And they are the kind of pics you'd expect to find marketed by a company called "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" .

None of that applies to the Lichtensteins, and even less so to the movie stills. They are all immediately recognisable, and their owners are instantly identifiable: the LF and the relevant movie companies. They're also hardly the kind of images I'd expect from someone called "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" .

It's hard to believe that OD weren't aware of the ownership of any of these, so it would be interesting to hear where they obtained them, and what steps, in any, were taken to clear their use.

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:21 PM

Obviously this question will have to be answered definitively by OD, but I stand by my assumptions. The movies stills are a big departure from the earlier works. And it is commonplace for distributors to resell usage rights, the source I quoted lists seven non-studio distributors. I realize they are somewhat large distributors, but given this practice it is -plausible- to think they have the rights to -print- them, bearing in mind printing rights are not ownership rights. Also bear in mind it is -plausible- a distributor of these rights might function as an aggregating middleman, buying printing rights from the independent distributors and reselling them.

And once again, not seeing the Lichtenstein. Are you referring to the coke print?

Not a Member!

Jeremy

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:33 PM

I'm not referring to the Coke print. There were two Lichtensteins at OD's site earlier this week:
"Whaam", & "Girl With Hair Ribbon", although the latter had been renamed "Girl Sans Ribbon" and the ribbon had been photoshopped out.

You can't see them because OD have taken down their online shopping page.

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:41 PM

They shut down their site when they found out it was infringing, yes. Which was the responsible thing to do. What are you suggesting they should have done?

Not a Member!

Jeremy

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:54 PM

I'm not suggesting anything. You asked where the Lichtensteins were: I answered your question.

My original question - where and how OD obtained the movie stills and the Lichtensteins - was directed at OD, since they're the only people who can be expected to know.

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:56 PM

Fair enough.

By the way, -does- Rebekka sell prints? I can't find anywhere that sells them... :(

Not a Member!

Fusion

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 08:56 PM

Interesting, death threats get nobody anywhere, maybe they should negotiate a deal to distribute Rebeccas pics, legally this time, directly with her.

Not a Member!

Lu

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 11:34 PM

How can you even suggest that "humble pie" should be on the menu?

The FACT is that Rebekka has not received any compensation for the use and sale of her artwork. The fact is that the company was contacted by her lawyers and they cut off communication with her. Why didn't they explain the situation earlier? It was negligence on their part to not talk to her. They took the coward's route and thought she would go away.

Yes, there is another side to the story, but the MAIN FACT here is that her art was stolen. If Only-Dreemin were duped, then they must take that up with the company that conned them. That has nothing to do with Rebekka. Only-Dreemin were making money off her art.

I'm surprised that people are against people speaking up when they have been wronged. If Only-Dreemin have been wronged, let them speak up with facts too, but we still can't ignore that they were using Rebekka's stolen images.

Not a Member!

FrankyT

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 11:36 PM

exactly why "intellectual property" needs to be done away with. Art should not be a commodity, but part of the cultural awareness that every one should be able to share. I'm sorry to disagree with the artist, but no one should make money in that field. you either do it cause you love it, or you do something that makes you some cash...

Not a Member!

Graham

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 11:47 PM

@Lu
Only Dreemin did try to contact the people who sold them these images. The people who sold them the images disappeared, and were uncontactable. They have NO WAY of getting their money back. Did you read the previous posts at all? OD even spoke up here...

Not a Member!

steve

Wednesday 16th May 2007 | 11:55 PM

It beggars belief that a company who's mainstay is selling art on the internet is unable to use the internet and Companies House to check out a supplier...

Secondly the company never existed... Yet only-dreemin somehow got VAT receipts and company registration details? Are we to believe that the company sent header paper with fake company number and VAT registration details and paid money into some numberless account?

Are we equally to beleive that they didn't send any of their own "death threats" ... and that they are unable to check the basic header data in these and determine whom sent them?

When they received the letter and claim to have taken down the images did they take down all images from this non-existant company because it seems not.

Do the phrases Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat mean nothing to them?
Menawhile we are expected to beleive that the solictors acting on behalf of OD somehow skipped thier lectures on jurisprudence?

Or perhaps the company never existed, perhaps its simply that its convenient to use someone who has no recourse to the EU courts ?

Not a Member!

antikronos

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 12:02 AM

OnlyDreemin is lying:
If they have transfered 300.000 pounds to the bank account of this company they would have been conned by, it is quite easy to get name name and address of the owner of this account or even to freeze this account.

Not a Member!

Graham

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 12:08 AM

Ah. Posted to Slashdot. The torrent begins.

Not a Member!

jb

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 12:28 AM

Yes, here from Slashdot...

Antikronos makes a very good point. A transaction in the thousands of dollars ought to be traceable.

Furthermore, onlydreemin's selective responses in this thread have begun to smell to me.

Not a Member!

James

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 12:57 AM

I am a copyright holder and like Rebbekah I'm regularly ripped off. I sue people for this all the time in my home country of the U.K as they use photographs without permission. It's done by everyone from major companies to small businesses (I don't care about private individuals and their websites as they aren't making money).

My impressions from this are -
1) Rebekka should call the Police. In this case you have very blatant copyright infringement on a commercial level which is a crime. If Only Dreemin had been conned you'd have thought they'd have called the police... don't want to make a fake report guys or perhaps you'd like to make a crime report too and stop others being ripped off?
2) Only Dreemin failed to take even basic precautions. They were negligent in obtaining the work as they did not get the originals, did not check the company they claim to have bought from as a result that it was even a legit company. It's clear they played hard and fast and failed to make sure whoever sold them what they claim they were sold was the owner.
3) Rebekka should sue them under civil law. These guys have made profit from her work and haven't offered her a penny.

Rebekka should get a court order demanding Only Dreemin turn up their reciepts for the purchase of her work from the people they claim to have conned them. She should get a second court order requiring they hand over and destroy all copies of her work. She should issue a statutory demand against the company for what she thinks she is owed and begin winding up proceedings against them. If it's a sole trader she should get a charging order on the owner's house. I find this works a treat every time with getting someone to pay promptly = bankruptcy and homelessness vs paying me.

British Law is based on the harm principle. It's easy to see the harm that has been done to Rebekka, she IS owed money. Only Dreemin', *if* they were conned, were conned because they let themselves be and really don't deserve to be in business. In running a business you don't make mistakes, and you do make sure you follow the law to the letter. If you fail to you're gonna go out of business.

Not a Member!

Arnab Nandi

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 01:07 AM

I've written a few words on how the Digg mob is needlessly casting Flickr in bad light, especially when they have done the right thing in trying to control a public harassment campaign originating from their servers: http://arnab.org/blog/flickr-mobs

Not a Member!

Stuart

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 01:19 AM

So if your lawyer tells you to be quiet and talk not at all because it can be used as proof against you and you will be sued then the proper thing to do is to ignore the persons work you made all that money off of and hope they will go away?

Not a Member!

Graham

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 01:34 AM

@Arnab
Interesting take on the Flickr side of the issue. I wonder if OD would have a case against Rebekka for inciting mob action against them?

Not a Member!

gummih

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 02:10 AM

flickr did NOT restore what they deleted, until they do their "apology" is meaningless

Not a Member!

unbiased either way...

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 02:29 AM

Steve...Where did the accused say anywhere that they had got a VAT receipt, or letter headed paper with company number and VAT number on and paid money into an account?.

Antikronos. Where did the accused state that they had transfered any money into anyones account?.
All i read was that 3000.00gbp was paid.

Has anybody read the story correctly?.

Unbiased.

Not a Member!

codegen

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 03:49 AM

@unbiased: A business payed 3000 gbp for a CD of images with the claim that they would be sole distributor of the images. I don't know ab out you, but I would not turn over that kind of money without some paperwork. An in the UK, there is VAT exemption paperwork that needs to be done if it is a business to business transaction. If there is no such paperwork then the deal is bogus.

Not a Member!

Unbiased either way.

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 04:02 AM

Who said they haven't got paperwork?.

I suggested that there was no reference to letter headed paper with Vat no and Companies house no on any post i had read.

Why does there have to be a VAT exemption certificate?.

Who has stated that VAT was or not charged?.

Who has suggested any of the parties were VAT registered to start with?.

regards Unbiased

Not a Member!

mattthetog

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 04:09 AM

i think this is pretty clearcut. Con artist ebay seller gets caught out. bang to rights

Not a Member!

Ben

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 04:42 AM

The Only Dreemin reply says some interesting things that no one seems to have taken them to task for. They state:

"We paid £3000 for this disc, for sole selling rights, we got in return £2450 before expenses such as production etc, that means we have at least a defecit of £550, before taking off our costs."

"I appreciate your frustration, but your demands far outstripped our means and still do in respect of what was a genuine error that was dealt with at once and with complete respect."

(1) They still claim they bought "sole selling rights" instead of calling it was it is, being conned followed by dealing in stolden goods

(2) The fault of being conned was clearly not R G's but was only-dreemin for having not properily researched their seller and allowing them to make a quick sale instead of keeping payment in escrow or some other method of delaying payment to track the legitimacy of the seller when doing business with them for the first time

(3) Despite this, they don't consider themselves defecit £3000 for making the mistake because they have every intention of keeping the £2450, thus forcing R G to accept that O-D's mistake partly payed out of damages owed R G. Hence, by retaining the damages owed, O-D feels fit to claim only being defecit £550

(4) Since the amount that O-D was conned (or as they put it: "a genuine error") exceeded the amount they gained by dealing in stolen goods they feel fit to claim "that was dealt with at once and with complete respect" while not paying any damages at all

It seems like every public statement that O-D has made has been stated in such a way to try to maximize sympathy for themselves and draw attention away from the real bottom line. The bottom line isn't about emailed "death threats" or the amount that they where supposibly taken for, the bottom line is they where caught dealing in stolen goods and without paying ANYTHING in damages they call they matter "dealt with" and as a extra zinger they throw in that it was done "with complete respect."

They retain the money made from dealing with stolen good "with complete respect"?!?!

Based on O-D's logic, if I'm caught robbing your house but the amount I steal does not exceed the amount someone stold from my house then it's ok for me to retain what I stold to offset that I was robbed.

If O-D made "a genuine error" for £3000 then O-D should be defecit £3000 for O-D's error. The £2450 for dealing in stolden art doesn't become their's to keep just because they feel people should feel sorry for them. The fact they feel comfortable retaining R G's money to help offset the cost of their own error should speak loads to their creditability.

I believe in the US that knowing retaining the money payed for stolen art (regardless of if based on book keeping it is considered "profit") not only will result in civial legal action but can also result in criminal proceedings.

Art dealers will on occation make mistakes and that is understandable. Only criminal organization expect to be able to keep the money from dealing in stolen goods. I leave it up to the reader to decide which O-D is.

Not a Member!

Unbiased either way.

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 05:05 AM

If O-D made "a genuine error" for £3000 then O-D should be defecit £3000 for O-D's error. The £2450 for dealing in stolden art doesn't become their's to keep just because they feel people should feel sorry for them. The fact they feel comfortable retaining R G's money to help offset the cost of their own error should speak loads to their creditability.

Good point but i read it as prints sold for 2450.00gbp but that didn't include production costs.

So lets take out the marketing, manufacturing and all other costs, what does it leave?..Could be anyone's guess, so would the redress to RG be 2450.00gbp less costs?.

It would interesting to learn of her damages request, would it have been that figure less reasonable costs?.

Dunno, not my field.

Regards Unbiased

Not a Member!

Michael Brutsch

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 05:15 AM

The "we bought your stolen images from soneone else, we're innocent" is the same tired excuse that Todd Goldman tried to use when stealing art. It's unacceptable in the real world, and it's unnaceptable here. But I *do* have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you...

Not a Member!

Mei

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 05:22 AM

I urge you to pass any communication you had with the company to Rebeka. They confirm that they infringed her copyright.

Not a Member!

Ben

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 06:40 AM

Considering that O-D has acknowledged that they where willing to spend £3000 then the royality damages should be towards £3000 worth of photos. One might argue that having exclusive printing rights played into the amount payed. However, if this did play such a huge roll then it should have been more important to O-D to have enough information to be able to enforce the contract. O-D has admitted they failed to retain any contact information which would allow them to take legal action due to a breach of contract. So, again, I submit that the royality damages should be £3000. Once this goes to court (which hopefully it will) then it should be £3000 plus legal expenses. If O-D can't pay for it steals then there is most mature countries have ways of dealing with that too.

It is not uncommon for a good photographer to get $300 (USD) in royality per copy sold. It might be that the damages are worth even more than £3000.

If O-D sold the prints at cost that doesn't make the damages nothing. It is just another faulure on O-D's part to do sound business.

Regardless of how much the damages reakkt are, O-D has not publically offered ANYTHING at all other than demand that having stopped further violation of copyright should be enough. O-D has not provided the cost per print, the number of prints sold or offered any form of payment plan at all.

The only thing O-D has publically put on the table is that they "dealt with at once and with complete respect." The saying goes: "words are cheap."

I can understand and even accept that O-D are run by humans. But they should still treat people as they themselves would want to be treated. As soon as they offer up that their responsiblity in damages is work zero and demand accepting being ripped off, I personally would then go for the full amount in damages that I can. If they are going to force me to fight for what is mine by claiming what was taken was worthless then they have also implied their self-worth is nothing and I would act accordingly.

It is clear why their lawyer adviced them to say nothing more. Since it is so very clearly their intention to not pay anything for their responsiblity in the copyright violation they are better off staying in hidding like the criminals they have become.

That is not to say that death threats are justified (if any where actually submitted). But threat of legal action should be expected of such a company. O-D broke down all reasonable negations when they claimed that there was nothing more for them to deal with in taking responsiblity. R G is not less than human.

Not a Member!

Unbiased either way.

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 07:24 AM

If O-D sold the prints at cost that doesn't make the damages nothing. It is just another faulure on O-D's part to do sound business.

Another point is weren't they sold on Ebay?. If auctions, don't the public set the price?.If they were auctions doesn't seem the value per print was that great considering they allegedly sold 60.Not a great point but surely some idea as to the "worth" of the images.

O-D has not publically offered ANYTHING at all

O-d doesn't have to offer anything on a forum/stream/blog, would you?.

Regards unbiased

Not a Member!

Jonny

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 07:26 AM

Here's the thing. Yes, Dreemin may have also been duped... but they still made PROFIT from photos that they had no right to sell. That PROFIT belongs to _rebekka and her alone. This isn't about "oh poor Dreemin got duped"

Poor "dremmin" made thousands off of these photos, and regardless of anything, that money belongs to the owner of the photos, not the company that sold them without her permission.

At the very least, the Net Profit from the sale of her photos belongs only and exclusively to Rebekka.

Are death threats necessary? No. But by no means did anyone jump to any conclusions. Dreemin doesn't want to have to pay back the money they made Illegally. I don't care if they didn't know at the time, now they do, so its time to pay up what isn't theirs!

Not a Member!

your name

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 09:15 AM

Bullsh*t, dreemin never replied to rebecka. every indication is that they are making up a story to cover your tracks.

Not a Member!

Ben

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 09:21 AM

"O-d doesn't have to offer anything on a forum/stream/blog, would you?"

Reputation is one of the most expensive things to gain in business. If your reputation is to sell stolen art and then excuse yourself from doing the right thing then I think any company would attempt to do everything to correct the reputation. So, while I might not provide specifics, I would make it clear that more is being done to do right by the artist. I definately would never post publically that I consider a situation delt with just because I didn't come out ahead in selling stolen art.

Things I definately would have done:

(1) Offer to the artist all remaining prints where the artist would only pay cost including shipping -- the artist can then turn around and sell them at any price they see fit and possibly some of my cost gets covered despite not making a profit

(2) Offer to destory remaining prints that artist does not want (O-D supposibly followed through in this regard)

(3) Offer to contact customers and notify them of a recall on illegally sold art in return for an exchange, store credit or refund

(4) Any customer returned prints would again be offered to the artist at cost or destroyed

(5) Any remaining profit after an agreed recall period had completed would be handed over to the artist. If the artist is fine without there being any recall then arrangements would be made to hand over the profit immediately.

While I would prefer to keep such a situation between me, the artist and existing customers, if the problem became public I would make it very clear that as much control over proceeding would be handed over to the artist as reasonably possible. And it would be made very clear that I consider any "profit" from selling illegal art to be tainted and distance myself from it as much as possible from it.

Instead, O-D seems to have done only 1 of the 5 steps I would take to correct the situation and then excused itself from doing anything more. How sorry can you really feel for a company like that?!

Not only do I feel bad for the artist, I also feel the customers got cheated in all of this. There is no indication that O-D has attempted to contact them at all. I believe it is now clear that O-D made these sales using sales pitches such as claims of "exclusive use" that O-D is not in a position to uphold. What is O-D doing (if anything) to reasonably address that customers might not even know they aren't really getting what was claimed to be sold.

Not a Member!

spliner

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 09:28 AM

The thing that this tells me is the too many companies take legal advise as Gospell!... It is advise people. If you felt it was the right thing to contact _rebekka and tell her your side of the story and where the blame really laid, then it would have been resolved nicely.

This whole, "don't say anything, don't admit to anything" is a cop out. Not just this company but all of them.

Not a Member!

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 11:27 AM

i think the company should start selling her work again, but legitimately! then everyones happy (and paid properly) . someone please talk to someone important and make this happen... DO IT

Not a Member!

yoyo

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 01:16 PM

The company should be burned down to the ground. Bwahahahaha!

Not a Member!

Pagla

Thursday 17th May 2007 | 08:53 PM

Though my heart goes out to Rebekka for her loss (as a photographer I know that a theft of ANY of my images would feel like one of my children being kidnapped!) - I must appreciate this very calm, rational, candid and well composed post by Mikey, offering a peek inside this otherwise nasty incident.

Hoping everybody buying digital art would henceforth be careful about authenticating the creation's ownership first.

Not a Member!

Lu

Friday 18th May 2007 | 11:51 PM

@ Graham:

So you're saying that because Only Dreemin is dumber than dumb, that no blame lies on them?

I repeat, they made money on stolen art. They are Rebekka's images. She does have the right to let people know. Do you think Rebekka should go running after another company (Wild Aspects and Panoramas) which may have been invented by Only Dreemin... because it doesn't exist in the business registry. Why is Only Dreemin not commenting on any of this? Did they expect everyone to believe that explanation they gave when it seems they are ripping off other images too?

Read this article and click on the links provided there:
http://www.epuk.org/Blogs/569/the-web-giveth-the-web-stealeth-away


If they haven't done anything wrong on purpose, then the only other explanation is that they are dumb... but it still does not take the guilt away. It also seems that you want more compassion shown by all because Only Dreemin seems to be a one-person company. I'm sorry, I can't feel sorry for her. I can't feel sorry for someone who decided to try to make money illegally... by ripping off someone else's artwork. A gun wasn't put to Tracee's head. Nobody forced her. It's not the only option to make money in this world. She lives in the UK, it's a free country, with many opportunities. I can't feel sorry for her. I don't agree or support those who have sent violent threats to her, but I don't think she deserves any compassion for her stupidity in all this. I do think she should stop running a business that profits off stealing.

Your support of her is similar to giving money to a drug junkie showing up at one's door with a baby in their arms, saying that they need money to pay but the baby some food. It's heart wrenching but so misguided and wrong.

Poor Only Dreemin? Yeah, right.

Yes, there is always an other side to the story, thank you for letting us know, but the other side of the story is pathetic. Let Only Dreemin take the consequences of its actions.

Not a Member!

Icelander from slashdot

Saturday 19th May 2007 | 01:35 AM

Note that OD is has 30 open auctions for "Marco Van Eych" photos on eBay alone, not to mention other sites where they peddle their stuff.

Considering that googling "Marco Van Eych" (with "") ONLY leads to OD, or discussions of Rebekka's complaint, one must conlude that no photographer by that name exists, and that some poor photographer is still being ripped off by them.

Not a Member!

oh yes

Saturday 19th May 2007 | 08:19 AM

So icelander, which part of the fact thay MVE is a stage name don't you understand then?.....

Not a Member!

Xavez

Saturday 19th May 2007 | 06:40 PM

Ehm. If O-D received payment for the photo's, they should send the money over to rebekka. Simple as that.

@Lu: I think your explanation is a bit more plausible than the O-D explanation. And if O-D's story would be real, they can easily prove it: if it's a legit company, they can prove the £3000.00 payment to the "fake" company.

Not a Member!

alterego

Saturday 19th May 2007 | 11:47 PM

Just came here out of interest from a Thread on the eBay Powerseller Discussion forum. I checked into the seller and can confirm that as I write there are still works by Rebekka in the eBay shop of Only-Dreemin.

Given the responses by the seller here and the holes in their story I am rather suprised that they would continue to attempt to profit from the works that now appear to have been illegally obtained.

Let me be clear, I am a full time eBay seller and a retailer. I am someone who wants eBay free from counterfeits of all kinds and wish that this was reflected by eBay UK. As a company eBay relies on on the so called "concerned citizen" to report any form of problem with a listing.

I would call on OD to immediately remove the offending artwork from their eBay UK store. This, and offering some form of compensation, are the only ways out. I would also suggest that Rebekka vigourously and fully pusue her rights in this. It was stated earlier that this isnt a faceless company selling the art, this is absolutely right. It is however a completely blatant use of another work by someone identified and who is continuing to sell another work without permission. So they frankly deserve everything they get.

As for OD paying £3000 for the disc. I am sorry, I have been in business for many years and know that when I pay for something I always check the rights of the person selling to me. Two or three phone calls would have sorted this out. I frankly think this is a smokescreen. I have never, ever heard of legal advice stating "Dont get in touch with them", much less making this advice public. This is a case of an either/or, they either are fundamentally stupid or are completely dishonest and hoping it will go away.

Not a Member!

Mike

Sunday 20th May 2007 | 11:00 AM

My deepest sincerity goes to Rebekka for sticking with this and perhaps bring light to the plights of all whom post the pics on sites.

Not a Member!

Raoul W.

Sunday 20th May 2007 | 09:13 PM

I suppose the question on everybodies lips is "who are all these mysterious photographers" that Only Dreemin has access to? Well here's some answers:

It appears that David Laurenson (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/od-CANVAS-ART-HUGE-PRINT-DREAMLINE-24-x-48_W0QQitemZ110073206149QQihZ001QQcategoryZ20147QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem">http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/od-CANVAS-ART-HUGE-PRI...) is actually iStockphoto user AVTG
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/when/nighttime/dusk/1051305_nightride_iii.php?id=1051305">http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup...

And, surprise, surprise, Marco Van Eych (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/od-CANVAS-ART-HUGE-PRINT-NOCTURNE-24-x-48_W0QQitemZ110094475228QQihZ001QQcategoryZ20147QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem">http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/od-CANVAS-ART...) is also iStockphoto user AVTG.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/locations/bodies_of_water/oceans/792268_after_sunset.php?id=792268">http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/loca...

Firstly I wonder how AVTG feels about having his name changed - twice. And secondly, if Only Dreemin is in the habit of buying three grand CD's from mysterious drug dealer types, did they actually buy an iStockPhoto Extended licence?

Not a Member!

Interested party

Monday 21st May 2007 | 03:02 AM

As of todays date only dreemin is currently on closed ebay bulletin boards boasting about how well they are doing from this publicity.

They are also refusing to answer any questions about compensation, and are being very obnoxious and rude about the whole thing.

What is generally not known is that this is not the 1st time only dreemin have been involved in copywrite theft.

2 years ago they were also accused of stealing other peoples copywrite html templates.

Again, the same defence, they were "conned" by someone who again is completely untraceable.


Not a Member!

Interested party

Monday 21st May 2007 | 03:18 AM

Posted by only-dreemin 14 Jan 2005 19:28

have recently had an email from a fellow ebayer suggesting i have stolen his html template.

His email basically said stop using it or he will contact ebay and his lawyers!!!.
Now looking at it,it is very similar, but i got this template from a friend who is a web designer, who in turn says it came from a royalty free stock site he uses for work.
Now as far as i'm aware HTML is programming language and something similar could be in cyberspace all over the world.

Let me state that all my text and photos are my own,i even changed the clours,fonts etc from the template, aswell as adding my own hyperlinks etc.

Not a Member!

lurket

Monday 21st May 2007 | 10:49 AM

seems to me that only-dreemin has been selling on eBay under another ID (Naru'd) : vivoart

Not a Member!

Observer

Wednesday 23rd May 2007 | 06:57 PM

"It really is amazing just how easily people will jump to conclusions based on little or no evidence."

It is indeed really amazing how someone is willing to buy into a shady company's story, without engaging even a single critical or sceptical brain cell. Mikey should be ashamed of himself.

Not a Member!

Mikey

Wednesday 23rd May 2007 | 07:46 PM

Observer says: "It is indeed really amazing how someone is willing to buy into a shady company's story, without engaging even a single critical or sceptical brain cell. Mikey should be ashamed of himself."

Hmmm..I have re-read my article, and was wondering at which point I said OD's story was true. I have said there are 2 sides to every story, I have simply presented their side of events. I can hardly criticise OD if I don't even know if their story is true or not.

Observer should be ashamed of himself.

Not a Member!

Lindsey Duval

Sunday 27th May 2007 | 04:16 AM

If that company is so innocent, and so appalled that they were duped by another company, then how come they are still selling prints of Rebekka's artwork on ebay? They could simply take those down, but they are still up there for sale here:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQfrppZ25QQfrtsZ0QQsassZonlyQ2ddreemin">http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQ....

I smell a huge liar here...

Not a Member!

Anonymous

Thursday 31st May 2007 | 03:35 PM

Lindsey...Which prints are Rebekka's?....

Another non-reader it seems...

Not a Member!

Mike

Thursday 13th December 2007 | 01:45 PM

I'm not sure how Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD got a hold of high resolution images. Were they published online at print-ready sizes?
If so that was careless on the artists behalf.
If not then OnlyDreemin would surely have noticed they were low-res, or low quality from being scaled up.

Not a Member!

John Kantor

Saturday 19th April 2008 | 04:21 PM

Who would be stupid enough to listen to a lawyer when your business depends on public opinion?

Not a Member!

Twisted press

Monday 26th January 2009 | 10:39 PM

I know this story is an old one but i thought it would be best to include a minor update, just in case people search for the company on the internet.
Only Dreemin are still trading as canvasrepublic.co.uk as was previously mentioned, and as well as that they also trade with the website stretcherbarsdirect.co.uk and finally they are back on ebay 'AGAIN' using the ebay username stretcherbarsdirect.

Add a comment

Login to Rusty Lime

Not registered? | Forgot your Password? Cancel Login