Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTSP)   Just when you thought George Zimmerman couldn't get any weirder. Behold, 'Angie'   (wtsp.com) divider line 111
    More: Florida, George Zimmerman, Angela Corey, special prosecutor  
•       •       •

15443 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 4:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-01-23 04:05:30 PM  
With the deep red and orange, it is clear that it is not a flattering portrayal of her, but it does look a lot like her.  He's actually a pretty good artist.  The use of shadows, the proportions are pretty good.  Much better than I expected.  And if he can get $100K a pop, he should do a lot more of them.
 
2014-01-23 04:12:02 PM  
Well, he's obviously been using his grey scale card.
 
2014-01-23 04:22:10 PM  
no matter what zimmerman does, i wouldn't ever think he could not get weirder. zimmerman getting weirder is something i take for granted

SlothB77

his last piece of "art" involved him painting over an image he printed off of google images. i'll have a look in a mo and see if i can find the source of this one
 
2014-01-23 04:26:25 PM  
yup, it's there - fourth google image search result
pbs.twimg.com
freedomoutpost.com
 
2014-01-23 04:33:11 PM  
That's a tad unflattering.
 
2014-01-23 04:41:36 PM  
I may not know much about art, but I know what I like.

And I don't like that.
 
2014-01-23 04:47:39 PM  
I am still at work. Am I obligated to drink now, or may I drink an hour from now, when I have returned home?
 
2014-01-23 04:53:24 PM  

Dimensio: I am still at work. Am I obligated to drink now, or may I drink an hour from now, when I have returned home?


*checks rules*

I'm sorry, my friend. Try not to get a DUI on the way home.
 
2014-01-23 05:01:10 PM  
did she actually make that comment?
 
2014-01-23 05:01:47 PM  
Hasn't this asshat's fifteen minutes expired yet?
 
2014-01-23 05:02:05 PM  
fark the farking fark out of autoplay video links
 
2014-01-23 05:02:46 PM  
Damn got that annoying song stuck in my head.

Angie....
 
2014-01-23 05:03:59 PM  
Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.
 
2014-01-23 05:07:16 PM  

ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.


Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll blow it all on hookers and blow, thus returning it to the economy in some fashion.
 
2014-01-23 05:09:05 PM  

21-7-b: yup, it's there - fourth google image search result
[pbs.twimg.com image 599x469]
[freedomoutpost.com image 628x353]


Those aren't the same... there's no microphone in his painting.
 
2014-01-23 05:09:33 PM  
I was reading an article here the other day about lLndsay Lohan - and how upscale clubs in London are paying her 5-10-15 thousand bucks a night just to hang out in their clubs. And then I went on to read that that isn't even much - cast members of Jersey Shore regularly pull down 25 for doing the same thing. And I realized - there are a lot of ways that any kind of fame or notoriety can be directly converted into money today.
What I took away was this - if you are a contemporary American, and find yourself in the public eye, it's worth a significant amount of money for every day you can stay that way - famous or notorious - it makes no difference as long as they are all talking about you.
This only used to work for people whose lives revolved around fame, like rock stars or movie stars - but now, any schmoe who gets his name in the papers can convert it into coin by a wide variety of means.
We are in for a future that consists of mostly of this. Get used to it.
 
2014-01-23 05:10:06 PM  

Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.


I'm not a fan of this, but if it's helping him to get the anger out... more power to him.

As for the image itself, it's a better representation than I would have expected.  I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, but regardless of which side of the camp you were on here, it's an accurate statement.

Regardless, this is a higher form of trollery than I have seen in quite some time.
 
2014-01-23 05:11:05 PM  
I'm starting to look like an Uruk Hai from all the facepalming today
 
2014-01-23 05:11:14 PM  

SlothB77: With the deep red and orange, it is clear that it is not a flattering portrayal of her, but it does look a lot like her.  He's actually a pretty good artist.  The use of shadows, the proportions are pretty good.  Much better than I expected.  And if he can get $100K a pop, he should do a lot more of them.


"he" takes a photo- blows it up-then shops it to a line drawing then paints by numbers.
and by "he" I mean someone he hires and pays a percentage cut to,probably signing them to an nda.
 
2014-01-23 05:12:45 PM  

ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.


someone probably troll bid that one using a fake account.
 
2014-01-23 05:15:52 PM  
When I saw the headline, I thought it meant that Zimmerman was caught having sex with Mick Jagger by David Bowie's wife.
 
2014-01-23 05:16:16 PM  
Meanwhile, how's Rachel?
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-23 05:16:27 PM  
Well, I guess I'd rather he be making crappy paintings of people he fears/hates than following them around and shooting them.
 
2014-01-23 05:16:42 PM  

meathome: Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.

I'm not a fan of this, but if it's helping him to get the anger out... more power to him.

As for the image itself, it's a better representation than I would have expected.  I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, but regardless of which side of the camp you were on here, it's an accurate statement.

Regardless, this is a higher form of trollery than I have seen in quite some time.


Well, he's wise to move fast. Right now, his window of opportunity is open, and he can make money off his notoriety - and would be a fool not too. He doesn't really know how long he can keep that window open, at least not without getting himself into more trouble than it's worth - the eye of the media is fickle. He's smart to be gathering roses while he can.
 
2014-01-23 05:17:02 PM  

meathome: Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.

I'm not a fan of this, but if it's helping him to get the anger out... more power to him.

As for the image itself, it's a better representation than I would have expected.  I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, but regardless of which side of the camp you were on here, it's an accurate statement.

irregardless, this is a higher form of trollery than I have seen in quite some time.


/pet peave
 
2014-01-23 05:17:41 PM  

jso2897: I was reading an article here the other day about lLndsay Lohan - and how upscale clubs in London are paying her 5-10-15 thousand bucks a night just to hang out in their clubs. And then I went on to read that that isn't even much - cast members of Jersey Shore regularly pull down 25 for doing the same thing. And I realized - there are a lot of ways that any kind of fame or notoriety can be directly converted into money today.
What I took away was this - if you are a contemporary American, and find yourself in the public eye, it's worth a significant amount of money for every day you can stay that way - famous or notorious - it makes no difference as long as they are all talking about you.
This only used to work for people whose lives revolved around fame, like rock stars or movie stars - but now, any schmoe who gets his name in the papers can convert it into coin by a wide variety of means.
We are in for a future that consists of mostly of this. Get used to it.


You're probably right. Now I has a sad.
 
2014-01-23 05:17:53 PM  
Why painting?  A fan of mass killers like Gacy and Bush?  Is he trying to tell us he's not going to stop at one??
 
2014-01-23 05:18:07 PM  
Gets sued for slander..5..4..3..
 
2014-01-23 05:19:59 PM  

blatz514: meathome: Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.

I'm not a fan of this, but if it's helping him to get the anger out... more power to him.

As for the image itself, it's a better representation than I would have expected.  I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, but regardless of which side of the camp you were on here, it's an accurate statement.

irregardless, this is a higher form of trollery than I have seen in quite some time.

/pet peave

peeve.


Sorry.
 
2014-01-23 05:22:22 PM  
Somewhere an IRS agent is grinning like a chesire cat
 
2014-01-23 05:24:40 PM  

Evil Mackerel: Gets sued for slander..5..4..3..


I'm thinking more along the lines of:  Gets sued for copyright infringement in ...5..4..3...

Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

BTW, just because there was a winning bid of $100,000+ on Ebay for his last masterpiece does not mean he actually collected the money on it.
 
2014-01-23 05:25:12 PM  

ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.


I was so amazed at the bidding that I went and looked at the auction on ebay when it was somewhere above $90,000.  All of the high bidders were virtually brand new and none had a purchase history of more than one or two previous items.  I couldn't help but assume that they were fake profiles, and frankly assumed that at least one of them belonged to Zimmerman himself. I'm pretty skeptical that anyone paid him a dime for that thing.
 
2014-01-23 05:27:07 PM  

jso2897: blatz514: meathome: Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.

I'm not a fan of this, but if it's helping him to get the anger out... more power to him.

As for the image itself, it's a better representation than I would have expected.  I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, but regardless of which side of the camp you were on here, it's an accurate statement.

irregardless, this is a higher form of trollery than I have seen in quite some time.

/pet peave peeve.


Sorry.


Maybe I'm not getting the whole joke correctly, but I thought spelling peeve wrong was part of teh funny.
 
2014-01-23 05:30:11 PM  

lordjupiter: Why painting?  A fan of mass killers like Gacy and Bush?  Is he trying to tell us he's not going to stop at one??


You know who else liked to paint?
 
2014-01-23 05:31:34 PM  

offacue: fark the farking fark out of autoplay video links


I'll keep posting this as a public service:

http://internet.wonderhowto.com/how-to/disable-annoying-autoplay-med ia -chrome-firefox-safari-and-internet-explorer-0139641/

Just disable auto-play videos in your browser.  The only downside is that you have one extra click to play YouTube videos, but it's farking worth it to save the aggravation.  Instead of an auto-play video, you get a plugin box you have to click to play.
 
2014-01-23 05:32:33 PM  

WhyKnot: did she actually make that comment?


I had assumed that was an expression of his own views, and not a quote from her.  However, the way it's presented on the picture it does look as if he's implying she said it.

Gotta give it to him.  He is an awful person, but his troll-fu is strong.
 
2014-01-23 05:34:10 PM  

OneFretAway: ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.

I was so amazed at the bidding that I went and looked at the auction on ebay when it was somewhere above $90,000.  All of the high bidders were virtually brand new and none had a purchase history of more than one or two previous items.  I couldn't help but assume that they were fake profiles, and frankly assumed that at least one of them belonged to Zimmerman himself. I'm pretty skeptical that anyone paid him a dime for that thing.


I can see somebody thinking they could recoup a substantial investment in a curiosity like that. trouble is, it has no value as art - only as a souvenier of a killer. and he just chopped the value of that curiosity in half by making another. If he makes very many, they will become worth little or nothing. If I were him, I would move to something low-ticket, like T-shirts. The markup on those is huge, and if he moved while his name is still hot, he could make some serious coin.
 
2014-01-23 05:34:51 PM  

blatz514: jso2897: blatz514: meathome: Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.

I'm not a fan of this, but if it's helping him to get the anger out... more power to him.

As for the image itself, it's a better representation than I would have expected.  I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, but regardless of which side of the camp you were on here, it's an accurate statement.

irregardless, this is a higher form of trollery than I have seen in quite some time.

/pet peave peeve.


Sorry.

Maybe I'm not getting the whole joke correctly, but I thought spelling peeve wrong was part of teh funny.


Trolling is a art.
 
2014-01-23 05:35:05 PM  

Oldiron_79: lordjupiter: Why painting?  A fan of mass killers like Gacy and Bush?  Is he trying to tell us he's not going to stop at one??

You know who else liked to paint?


blogs.artinfo.com

Modified nazi salute
 
2014-01-23 05:36:19 PM  

lawboy87: Evil Mackerel: Gets sued for slander..5..4..3..

I'm thinking more along the lines of:  Gets sued for copyright infringement in ...5..4..3...

Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

BTW, just because there was a winning bid of $100,000+ on Ebay for his last masterpiece does not mean he actually collected the money on it.


if they have failed to protect the use of that image they may be barred from asserting an IP claim.
 
2014-01-23 05:36:52 PM  
GZ gets sued for libel in 3...2...1.  As Alan Dershowitz can attest, Angela Corey is all about payback.
 
2014-01-23 05:37:00 PM  

lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.


Does that count if you change the medium?
 
2014-01-23 05:37:54 PM  
At least he's starting to become more honest, even if he's doing so by attempting to project his own feelings on to her.
 
2014-01-23 05:39:07 PM  
Am I the only one who read the headline and half-expected a "Bradley/Chelsea Manning" redux?
 
2014-01-23 05:39:48 PM  

Lsherm: lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

Does that count if you change the medium?


"Does that count if you change the medium?"

- Shia LaBeouf

/yes it does
 
2014-01-23 05:46:06 PM  
Zimmerman will get better ... if he lives.  Dude was pretty sh*t upon. I kind of feel sorry for him.
 
2014-01-23 05:46:35 PM  
OneFretAway

I had assumed that was an expression of his own views, and not a quote from her. However, the way it's presented on the picture it does look as if he's implying she said it.

Gotta give it to him. He is an awful person, but his troll-fu is strong.


the american flag adorned with the phrase 'one nation under god with liberty and justice for all,' the prosecutor he beat who apparently had 'this much respect for american judicial system.' he's literally painting (by numbers) himself as a hero, which is what his supporters see him as. the fact that this all came about because he followed and then killed a kid who had popped down the store is something he has chosen not to dwell upon in 'his' creative 'works' in his effort to cash in. where does he go next? a painting of the body with zimmerman raising his hands to the heavens and some comment about martin having had it coming to him from god? hmm, gis turns up no results for that one, so probably not
 
2014-01-23 05:47:32 PM  

jso2897: meathome: Nabb1: <snip>

Well, he's wise to move fast. Right now, his window of opportunity is open, and he can make money off his notoriety - and would be a fool not too. He doesn't really know how long he can keep that window open, at least not without getting himself into more trouble than it's worth - the eye of the media is fickle. He's smart to be gathering roses while he can.


That explains why he draws his gun and waves it around his GF every so often, gotta get him some fresh headlines so he can sell him some paintings!
 
2014-01-23 05:51:45 PM  
Someone put that f*cker down already.
 
2014-01-23 05:52:11 PM  

Nabb1: That's a tad unflattering.



Zimmerman's painting is pretty bad, too.
 
2014-01-23 05:52:27 PM  

OneFretAway: ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.

I was so amazed at the bidding that I went and looked at the auction on ebay when it was somewhere above $90,000.  All of the high bidders were virtually brand new and none had a purchase history of more than one or two previous items.  I couldn't help but assume that they were fake profiles, and frankly assumed that at least one of them belonged to Zimmerman himself. I'm pretty skeptical that anyone paid him a dime for that thing.


I hope he did get paid and this wasn't some attempt at trolling by him or people issuing fake bids. Because claiming that you sold something for 100k this publicly will bring the IRS knocking on your door wondering where there cut is, and trying to prove to them that you never received any money is going to cost you more a pretty penny.
 
2014-01-23 05:53:14 PM  

djkutch: Dimensio: I am still at work. Am I obligated to drink now, or may I drink an hour from now, when I have returned home?

*checks rules*

I'm sorry, my friend. Try not to get a DUI on the way home.



I shall drink for him.

Bartender, give me a double. I'm drinking for two.
 
2014-01-23 05:54:36 PM  
100k per painting? Why would you stop?
 
2014-01-23 06:02:14 PM  

shlabotnik: 100k per painting traced-over copyrighted image? Why would you stop?


Because eventually one of the photographers that owns the copyright to the image he stole and resold with minor modification will sue his ass and win.

Right now, he's the Timbaland of painters.
 
2014-01-23 06:04:24 PM  
Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Proof that there is no god.
 
2014-01-23 06:05:06 PM  

shlabotnik: 100k per painting? Why would you stop?


This is too much work.  How about autographed photos of the Zimdog holding his piece at $25 a pop.  He could sell 100,000.

"I get a kick out your support, Zimzam"
"Hope you have a blast, have a blast, Zimmy Tow Times"
"You're a high caliber guy, Zimmaster Zay"
 
2014-01-23 06:05:45 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Someone put that f*cker down already.


The person who does will be able to sell their  paintings for TWICE as much!
 
2014-01-23 06:06:57 PM  
Well, no matter how you fee-BIKINI BIKE WASH!!!!!
 
2014-01-23 06:14:13 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Gyrfalcon: Someone put that f*cker down already.

The person who does will be able to sell their  paintings for TWICE as much!


from all the "non-racists"
 
2014-01-23 06:21:22 PM  
He should be painting these using bullets instead of his fingers.
 
2014-01-23 06:26:39 PM  
Shopped!
 
2014-01-23 06:29:57 PM  
Look at the shadows, the structure, and composition. Then look at this:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/neolucida/neolucida-a-portable-c am era-lucida-for-the-21st-ce

Not shopped, copied.
 
2014-01-23 06:45:21 PM  

politech: jso2897: meathome: Nabb1: <snip>

Well, he's wise to move fast. Right now, his window of opportunity is open, and he can make money off his notoriety - and would be a fool not too. He doesn't really know how long he can keep that window open, at least not without getting himself into more trouble than it's worth - the eye of the media is fickle. He's smart to be gathering roses while he can.

That explains why he draws his gun and waves it around his GF every so often, gotta get him some fresh headlines so he can sell him some paintings!


Yeah, but that's not a long term strategy - the law of averages will catch up with him, and he doesn't need to be a genius to know that. His best strategy is to milk everything he can from his notoriety until it dries up, and then disappear with the proceeds and invest them wisely. And if he really is just some poor dumb bastard who got a series of incredibly bad breaks, that's what he'll do.
I would like to think that he is, and that he will - but, we'll see.
 
2014-01-23 06:47:28 PM  

lordjupiter: Oldiron_79: lordjupiter: Why painting?  A fan of mass killers like Gacy and Bush?  Is he trying to tell us he's not going to stop at one??

You know who else liked to paint?



Modified nazi salute


Well, I did Nazi that coming. At least the painting in the background is appropriate.
 
2014-01-23 06:58:03 PM  

WhyKnot: Lsherm: lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

Does that count if you change the medium?

"Does that count if you change the medium?"

- Shia LaBeouf

/yes it does


I get that, I'm just wondering where the cutoff is.  Say someone else (not Zimmerman) made their interpretation of that photo with Play-do and semen, would that count as infringement?  How far does it go?

I'm only asking because I'm curious.  My wife is an IP attorney but she isn't home yet.  I suspect there's some kind of qualitative evaluation you have to take to decide if it's infringement or an original work of art.
 
2014-01-23 07:08:02 PM  

OneFretAway: ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.

I was so amazed at the bidding that I went and looked at the auction on ebay when it was somewhere above $90,000.  All of the high bidders were virtually brand new and none had a purchase history of more than one or two previous items.  I couldn't help but assume that they were fake profiles, and frankly assumed that at least one of them belonged to Zimmerman himself. I'm pretty skeptical that anyone paid him a dime for that thing.


I wonder if the winning bidder was for real and was actually visited by Zimmy. My guess is that since there was no follow-up, that the bidder was just jerking Georgie around.
 
2014-01-23 07:09:43 PM  
i.kinja-img.com
 
2014-01-23 07:13:40 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: OneFretAway: ongbok: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.

I was so amazed at the bidding that I went and looked at the auction on ebay when it was somewhere above $90,000.  All of the high bidders were virtually brand new and none had a purchase history of more than one or two previous items.  I couldn't help but assume that they were fake profiles, and frankly assumed that at least one of them belonged to Zimmerman himself. I'm pretty skeptical that anyone paid him a dime for that thing.

I wonder if the winning bidder was for real and was actually visited by Zimmy. My guess is that since there was no follow-up, that the bidder was just jerking Georgie around.


Now that you mention it, I don't know if whether an Ebay transaction is consummated is public info or not. Probably not.
 
2014-01-23 07:14:38 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: [i.kinja-img.com image 640x427]


Original Artwork by Rand Paul
 
2014-01-23 07:17:34 PM  
ongbok


Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.

www.upl.co
 
2014-01-23 07:21:26 PM  

STOP MAKING STUPID PEOPLE FAMOUS

 
2014-01-23 07:21:44 PM  
He named the painting "Too long out of the newz"
 
2014-01-23 07:22:27 PM  

SlothB77: With the deep red and orange, it is clear that it is not a flattering portrayal of her, but it does look a lot like her.  He's actually a pretty good artist.


So was Hitler.
 
2014-01-23 07:29:38 PM  
Please, George, since you've been talking about getting out of FL, move to Southside Chicago!! They'd even give you a 10 gun salute when you arrive.
 
2014-01-23 07:33:20 PM  
*Auto-playing, embedded, whiteboarded video*

fark YOU, TOO.
 
2014-01-23 07:40:47 PM  

lordjupiter: Oldiron_79: lordjupiter: Why painting?  A fan of mass killers like Gacy and Bush?  Is he trying to tell us he's not going to stop at one??

You know who else liked to paint?

[blogs.artinfo.com image 300x254]

Modified nazi salute


Funny thing is Bob Ross was a killing machine in 'Nam.
 
2014-01-23 07:58:43 PM  

OnlyM3: ongbok


Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.
[www.upl.co image 850x708]


Also obligatory:
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-23 08:00:41 PM  

Nabb1: lordjupiter: Oldiron_79: lordjupiter: Why painting?  A fan of mass killers like Gacy and Bush?  Is he trying to tell us he's not going to stop at one??

You know who else liked to paint?

[blogs.artinfo.com image 300x254]

Modified nazi salute

Funny thing is Bob Ross was a killing machine in 'Nam.


Together, him and Mr. Rogers took out an entire platoon of Viet Cong.
 
2014-01-23 08:02:34 PM  

jso2897: OnlyM3: ongbok


Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.

Christ, the racist sure will break themselves to support this asshole.
[www.upl.co image 850x708]

Also obligatory:
[i18.photobucket.com image 512x464]


Oh, come on. Cat Fancy is a den of radical subversives. Haven't you heard of Pussy Riot?
 
2014-01-23 08:08:27 PM  
His biggest crime is not getting to the Biebs before the cops.
 
2014-01-23 08:12:41 PM  

s2s2s2: His biggest crime is not getting to the Biebs before the cops.


Actually, if he went and shot Bieber, I MIGHT forgive him his trespasses.
 
2014-01-23 08:16:38 PM  
Meh, most sane people that watched the trial thought the same thing as well.

lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.


Anyone has the right to sue for anything.  Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water.  May not be any "damages" at all.
 
2014-01-23 08:27:08 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Meh, most sane people that watched the trial thought the same thing as well.

lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

Anyone has the right to sue for anything.  Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water.  May not be any "damages" at all.


If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image. and the photographer has no reason to sue unless there is real money in it.
And Zimmerman altered the image considerably, with a demonstrable aesthetic and artistic intent ( however crappy it may be).
I don't see it.
 
2014-01-23 08:43:20 PM  
awesome, FuryOfFirestorm
 
2014-01-23 08:44:35 PM  

HortusMatris: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.
Proof that there is no god.


All the money in the world is not going to save him or make him happy.

jso2897: Yeah, but that's not a long term strategy - the law of averages will catch up with him, and he doesn't need to be a genius to know that. His best strategy is to milk everything he can from his notoriety until it dries up, and then disappear with the proceeds and invest them wisely. And if he really is just some poor dumb bastard who got a series of incredibly bad breaks, that's what he'll do.
I would like to think that he is, and that he will - but, we'll see.


George Zimmerman is a pretty stupid man, did you notice that?
 
2014-01-23 08:46:32 PM  
someone please kill that farktard,
just hunt him down, stand your ground.

He's murderin scum and needs puttin down.
 
2014-01-23 08:59:30 PM  

cryinoutloud: HortusMatris: Zimmerman sold another painting on eBay last month, with a winning bid of $100,099.99.
Proof that there is no god.

All the money in the world is not going to save him or make him happy.

jso2897: Yeah, but that's not a long term strategy - the law of averages will catch up with him, and he doesn't need to be a genius to know that. His best strategy is to milk everything he can from his notoriety until it dries up, and then disappear with the proceeds and invest them wisely. And if he really is just some poor dumb bastard who got a series of incredibly bad breaks, that's what he'll do.
I would like to think that he is, and that he will - but, we'll see.

George Zimmerman is a pretty stupid man, did you notice that?


I think he's of average intelligence, or maybe a tad better. the problems in his head, whatever they are, don't appear to be intelligence related.
Now, in fact, when he has an opportunity to slip away quietly with a few bucks, is when we find out if his self-destructive behavior has just been the manifestation of  a man under stress and beyond his depth - or whether it is a pattern he can't escape.
In a self-destructive individual, intelligence is not an asset - it simply enables the individual to do a better, smarter job of destroying themselves.
 
2014-01-23 09:08:04 PM  
An American hero, more power to him. He saved a lot of people from violence, a lot of welfare money with that one shot.
 
2014-01-23 09:19:42 PM  

Thunderpipes: An American hero, more power to him. He saved a lot of people from violence, a lot of welfare money with that one shot.


Okey dokey, Thunderpipes
 
2014-01-23 09:21:38 PM  
Chimpanzees make better art than this.
 
2014-01-23 09:23:44 PM  

djkutch: Thunderpipes: An American hero, more power to him. He saved a lot of people from violence, a lot of welfare money with that one shot.

Okey dokey, Thunderpipes


Either way, his fate will be what it will be. ultimately, we can defeat and escape from anything - except ourselves.
i18.photobucket.com
Now, sniff my Gauluois, while I fart in your general direction.
 
2014-01-23 10:04:05 PM  
You can't say he never tried.
 
2014-01-23 11:42:18 PM  

jso2897: omeganuepsilon: Meh, most sane people that watched the trial thought the same thing as well.

lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

Anyone has the right to sue for anything.  Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water.  May not be any "damages" at all.

If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image. and the photographer has no reason to sue unless there is real money in it.
And Zimmerman altered the image considerably, with a demonstrable aesthetic and artistic intent ( however crappy it may be).
I don't see it.


Fairey settled out of court to avoid getting spanked by AP over the Obama Hope poster. This is pretty similar, although there is probably no "real" money in it for the copyright holder...yet. However, that doesn't mean the copyright holder won't sue for the lulz. I certainly would if my work was cribbed like that.
 
2014-01-24 12:35:58 AM  

jso2897: I think he's of average intelligence, or maybe a tad better. the problems in his head, whatever they are, don't appear to be intelligence related.


Nope, I think he's quite the idiot, as well as being self-destructive.
 
2014-01-24 12:46:43 AM  

jso2897: omeganuepsilon: Meh, most sane people that watched the trial thought the same thing as well.

lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

Anyone has the right to sue for anything.  Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water.  May not be any "damages" at all.

If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image. and the photographer has no reason to sue unless there is real money in it.
And Zimmerman altered the image considerably, with a demonstrable aesthetic and artistic intent ( however crappy it may be).
I don't see it.


You don't "see it" probably because you are not familiar with what "rights" are conferred upon the "author" of a copyright.

17 USC Sec 106

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending..

Thus, the photographer (whoever owns the rights) in the underling work holds rights superior to someone who would use that work to produce another work based nearly entirely on their original work.

Here's the Copyright Office's guideline on derivative works: (definition)

"A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Just taking an existing photograph, copying it and coloring it in almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria to allow for Zimmerman to claim his work is "original" and "different" enough from the photograph that it comes close to meeting the standard.

As for damages, the Copyright Act provides for statutory damage which could range up to $150,000 per act of infringement.  Trust me, this one would likely be one that some IP attorney would go after, particularly if it was ever registered with the Copyright Office, because on top of damages, they could seek recovery of their fees and expenses from Zimmerman.  It's also got a nice PR side to it that could help get new/more clients.
 
2014-01-24 01:03:41 AM  
That is no worse a painting than anything Andy Warhol ever did.
 
2014-01-24 01:29:55 AM  
In a properly organized society Angela Corey would not be able to hold a job more important than splooge mop assistant in a quarter pron arcade ..
 
2014-01-24 04:02:51 AM  

lawboy87: jso2897: omeganuepsilon: Meh, most sane people that watched the trial thought the same thing as well.

lawboy87: Whoever is the photographer/copyright owner of the original photograph from which it was copied has every right to sue him for the profits, and if registered with the Copyright Office they can seek additional damages + attorney fees.

Anyone has the right to sue for anything.  Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water.  May not be any "damages" at all.

If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image. and the photographer has no reason to sue unless there is real money in it.
And Zimmerman altered the image considerably, with a demonstrable aesthetic and artistic intent ( however crappy it may be).
I don't see it.

You don't "see it" probably because you are not familiar with what "rights" are conferred upon the "author" of a copyright.

17 USC Sec 106

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending..

Thus, the photographer (whoever owns the rights) in the underling work holds rights superior to someone who would use that work to produce another work based nearly entirely on their original work.

Here's the Copyright Office's guideline on derivative works: (definition)

"A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously ...


Why are you responding to somebody else's words under my quote? If you want to respond to Lawboy, do it under his handle.
You are, in essence, arguing with me over something somebody else said - and your being too dim to operate this simple board properly doesn't lend much credence to you argument. If you can't do something this easy right,  your opinions aren't worth shiat, it seems to me.
 
2014-01-24 05:39:50 AM  

jso2897: If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image.


Yes, but ownership of that image may be worthless, was my point.  A jury/judge may find something like that(news/press conference photo) more in the spirit of public domain.

lawboy87: Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Just taking an existing photograph, copying it and coloring it in almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria to allow for Zimmerman to claim his work is "original" and "different" enough from the photograph that it comes close to meeting the standard.


And that's where you fail, you are making an active judgement of the "work".  What you "feel"(bolded) matters fark all, it's all up to the court itself.

We all got the gist of the law before you vomited on your keyboard.  What people can sue for, and what the court will do are often very different things.

If you want to pretend to be Nostradamus and predict the future, fine.  Be prepared to be laughed at though, that's the cost of voicing such prophecy in our society.
 
2014-01-24 07:25:43 AM  
When is there going to be a Fark Photoshop contest doing something up in the George Zimmerman style?
 
2014-01-24 08:11:25 AM  

omeganuepsilon: jso2897: If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image.

Yes, but ownership of that image may be worthless, was my point.  A jury/judge may find something like that(news/press conference photo) more in the spirit of public domain.

lawboy87: Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Just taking an existing photograph, copying it and coloring it in almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria to allow for Zimmerman to claim his work is "original" and "different" enough from the photograph that it comes close to meeting the standard.

And that's where you fail, you are making an active judgement of the "work".  What you "feel"(bolded) matters fark all, it's all up to the court itself.

We all got the gist of the law before you vomited on your keyboard.  What people can sue for, and what the court will do are often very different things.

If you want to pretend to be Nostradamus and predict the future, fine.  Be prepared to be laughed at though, that's the cost of voicing such prophecy in our society.


Well, people can guess whatever they want - there's no harm in it. But it's kind of s Schrodinger's Cat - until or unless somebody who has standing decides to sue, and it goes to preliminary, we can't know.
 
2014-01-24 08:31:17 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Anyone has the right to sue for anything. Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water. May not be any "damages" at all.


Your legal analysis is almost, but not quite, entirely wrong.
 
2014-01-24 08:41:46 AM  

Baz744: omeganuepsilon: Anyone has the right to sue for anything. Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water. May not be any "damages" at all.

Your legal analysis is almost, but not quite, entirely wrong.


Well, of course it is. this is Fark.com - where EVERYBODY'S legal analysis is almost, but not quite entirely, wrong.

I sure as f**k don't know whether there's a successful lawsuit here - and unless somebody actually sues him, I'll never know.
I can't say I'm not curious, but my curiosity may go unassuaged.
Nobody seems to be suing him so far, and unless they do............
 
2014-01-24 09:23:40 AM  
True to life art right there.  The police refused to charge George because they KNEW he did nothing wrong.  Cue the racists to march and cry and scream and yell.  Then more racists decide to bring in some other racists to dump trumped up charges on Zimmerman to satisfy the racists.
 
2014-01-24 11:19:13 AM  
"I have this much respect for the American judicial system."

Did she say that? I don't know. But I do know this is from the fellow who tried to hide his assets for the purpose of reducing his bail.  So there's that bit of hypocrisy from him. That much I do know.
 
2014-01-24 11:52:01 AM  

omeganuepsilon: jso2897: If there is a copyright, it belongs to the photographer or his agency - not the prosecutor, who is a public figure, and does not own her image.

Yes, but ownership of that image may be worthless, was my point.  A jury/judge may find something like that(news/press conference photo) more in the spirit of public domain.

lawboy87: Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Just taking an existing photograph, copying it and coloring it in almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria to allow for Zimmerman to claim his work is "original" and "different" enough from the photograph that it comes close to meeting the standard.

And that's where you fail, you are making an active judgement of the "work".  What you "feel"(bolded) matters fark all, it's all up to the court itself.

We all got the gist of the law before you vomited on your keyboard.  What people can sue for, and what the court will do are often very different things.

If you want to pretend to be Nostradamus and predict the future, fine.  Be prepared to be laughed at though, that's the cost of voicing such prophecy in our society.


Omeganuepsilon  --   How long have you been practicing law?   How many cases have you ever litigated, or settled based on Copyright Infringement?

I've been doing this for a living for over 25 yrs now (specifically Copyright and Trademark as my sole practice.)  I've actually not only read case law, but I've helped make it.  Believe it or not, there's actually some fairly objective criteria as to what constitutes a derivative work for purposes of infringement established through case law.  Actual guidelines, one skilled in the law can use to make a fairly decent informed decision.  I'm hardly going out on a limb here saying that the work in question is almost certainly a derivative work and in violation of the original author's rights.
 
2014-01-24 04:06:49 PM  
http://bit.ly/1jKMF7E

AP says knock it off, zimmo.  That's our pic
 
2014-01-24 04:59:07 PM  

jso2897: Baz744: omeganuepsilon: Anyone has the right to sue for anything. Winning however is a different story, and far from a sure thing.

It may be that because she's a public figure and that was taken from a public spectacle that the copyright wouldn't hold much water. May not be any "damages" at all.

Your legal analysis is almost, but not quite, entirely wrong.

Well, of course it is. this is Fark.com - where EVERYBODY'S legal analysis is almost, but not quite entirely, wrong.

I sure as f**k don't know whether there's a successful lawsuit here - and unless somebody actually sues him, I'll never know.
I can't say I'm not curious, but my curiosity may go unassuaged.
Nobody seems to be suing him so far, and unless they do............


i would guess it hasn't come up likely because thanks to the wonderful world of the internet, you can easily find pages of GIS results for people, and if it's something like a press conference or a red carpet event, there are multiple sources for the exact same picture.  and i'm guessing an AP photographer probably isn't going to give a crap about one photo.  it's not exactly something like this (not that it's infringement, just that it's unique source material that's being repurposed):
cdn.crushable.com
 
2014-01-24 05:22:12 PM  

lawboy87: Believe it or not, there's actually some fairly objective criteria as to what constitutes a derivative work for purposes of infringement established through case law.


True, but ultimately it is the court that decides, not random jerkwads on the internet.  If you were actually a lawyer you'd know that.

As such, some courts find people "not guilty".

From the criteria you posted, if I were on the jury, I'd say he's not breaking any sort of copyright.  Any given court could likewise find "fair use".  It is fairly different(it is obviously not a copy, but a painted interpretation) and meaning is added, both by what he added and because of his experience at the end of that woman's broomstick.

jso2897: Well, people can guess whatever they want - there's no harm in it. But it's kind of s Schrodinger's Cat - until or unless somebody who has standing decides to sue, and it goes to preliminary, we can't know.


And that was my point.  We can make guesses as to how a court would decide, or list our opinion, but that's what it is, an individual's opinion.  What lawboy is doing is expressing his opinion as if it is objective fact.  You'd think a lawyer wouldn't make that mistake.

Not much different than the lynch mob before he was found "not guilty" last time.  Court decided otherwise, much to many prejudicial people's dismay.
 
2014-01-24 08:49:27 PM  
Again,

Are you a lawyer?  What degrees do you hold in the field of law?

How many years have you practiced in the field of Copyright law?

How many cases involving copyright have you ever taken to trial?      How many have you ever negotiated a settlement.

Sorry, with 25 yrs experience in the field doing all of the above and holding both a JD and an LLM in the field, between gauging the veracity of a copyright claim in this situation, - you are the "random jerkwad" on the internet and if you had half a clue, you would know that the creator of the Obama "hope and change" poster was forced into a settlement, where he had to give up most or all of his profits based on his infringement of the photographer who took the original photograph on which it was based.

Lastly, I'm not saying that anything is 100% certainty, but I can assure you that my experience in the trade leads me to a well formed conclusion that this almost certainly would found to be an infringement, because the work itself is not transformative and there is a complete and utter copying of the original work.

Hell, in one of the leading cases in this area;  Mannion v Coors Brewing, Co. A second photographer who copied a previous photograph, but used his own model and altered the setting slightly was found to be infringing on the original work.  This case is far more clear-cut than that, in this case the "art" work has its very foundation, a "verbatim" copy of the photograph.  That in no way is "original" and almost certainly doesn't work to deprive the original author of his/her  EXCLUSIVE right to make derivative works and deprive others of that same right.
 
2014-01-24 09:24:37 PM  

lawboy87: because the work itself is not transformative and there is a complete and utter copying of the original work.


Again, your opinion, but stated as an absolute fact.

lawboy87: Are you a lawyer?  What degrees do you hold in the field of law?

How many years have you practiced in the field of Copyright law?

How many cases involving copyright have you ever taken to trial?      How many have you ever negotiated a settlement.


Wow, overcompensate much?  Someone's sensitive about having their career challenged.... on the internet.   Bonjour...

Besides:
Logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority.

Credentials don't matter to a discussion/debate so much as actual facts and information at hand.

What we have is a possible theoretical case, which could go either way.  Nothing you regurgitate on fark will change that(barring weird coincidence of possible judge/jury reading this thread.)

Have a shiatty life!
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report