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  
•       •       •

15432 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 4:58 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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