Well folks, I hope this is good news to you. I just had a few very productive emails back and forth with Nic Landsberg of desktopcollector.com and I believe I have resolved this 'situation'. Apparently greed was a factor in the art being stolen, but not on the part of desktopcollector. You see, they had some "contests" offering cash prizes to artists for their work. The problem is they did not check the sources of that art carefully enough to avoid fraud. So, some folks (who like to download other people's art) saw a way to make a quick buck plagerizing art by changing the signatures and sending it in for some quick cash. As a result a great many artists were "ripped off" and their art is now on desktopcollector.com. The good news is that Nic has assured me that anyone contacting him regarding stolen art will be taken seriously and he will remove any image that is contested. If you've seen your art on his site, and did not intend for it to be there, or saw that it had been altered, contact him at once. The email address to use is help@desktopcollector.com. He seems like a reasonable man and we had a long discussion about how to prevent this in the future. He assured me they would take more care when holding contests, and more importantly that they would take every step to insure the art belongs to the person who sent it before they post it. I think he was a bit overwhelmed by the avalanche of accusations flying at him and he welcomed a chance to deal with the problem rationally. I'm glad I could be that clear voice of reason even though none of my art was taken. Nic is now aware of the numerous 3d communities online and promised to familiarize himself with them and the artists who post their work there. When you contact him regarding your work remember that a little politesse goes a long way. Don't scream and yell and you will get a much better reponse. Hopefully this will remedy the situation to everyone's satisfaction. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

hmmmmm well i don't know. I contacted them about a piece of Royo's work and they said i was having sour grapes because I lost the contest. I never entered said contest Nor would I. So guess They will have to deal with Royo's agency instead.

Like I said, they were under the impression that the real artists had sent the work. They know better now so there can't be any more excuses. I was the first one to speak rationally to them, everyone else was yelling at them. We'll see if there are any more complaints after this, and Royo's agency should contact them. At least now they are acknowledging that art was stolen and that's a step in the right direction. I intend to keep an eye on this.

He's a theif and a liar. He tried to tell me they came from my IP. Which just changed recently. Im on a campaign to run his slimey ass off the web.

I agree. It took 4 emails for them to remove the one item i knew was Royo's and in the end I had to resort to easy to understand sentences.. sentences my 5 year old would understand. actually more for a 2 year old to understand. They only caved because I showed them Royo's work myself.

well hopefully, they will be a little more reasonable in the fututre when it comes to reporting stolen artwork. Thats the only thing we can really hope for.

I can understand the frustration you feel. I am not a big fan of these kinds of sites even when they are run legally. So, if you don't get the satisfaction you seek you can contact Linda MacNew at mrscyber@emcs.net , she is the owner of hotspotcity.com and they are the company that hosts the site desktopcollector.com. I was at least able to get a dialogue going with Nic, but I cced all correspondance to Linda. So if you write to nic@desktopcollector.com (that's his personal email address) make sure you CC or better yet BCC (which is blind copy) Linda as well. This way she will have a record of your complaint if it is ignored by Nic. Remember that she owns the servers and she will be the one who removes the site if it comes to that. She can be held liable for any copyright infringements and she has more to lose than Nic does. Once again I have to say that you really should not post images large enough to be used as high res wallpaper. I never post anything here or in my gallery that is over 800x600 pixels, and all my work has copyright notice printed across the bottom of the image. Most people can't even view images that are over 1025 pixels in their browsers without scrolling. On a site like 'osity it is really a horrendous waste of bandwidth to post something that large. Even though I render at a much higher resolution I save those for printing and if someone tries to steal my smaller image I can always prove it is mine by showing the huge original file. Don't make yourself a victim by offering poster size versions of your work for free. Just a little common sense lesson.

Thanks AC, Thats awesome info :))

I always keep the file I have used to render. In other words i keep pz3's bryce files, vue files whatever i am using to render. I also render large and scale down for the web. Plus now some of my work has copyright notices built in

Good point Stormrage. Programs like Photoshop actually allow you to embed your copyright info right into the code of the jpg file. That way when it is opened in a program like JPEGView a little copyright window pops open. It makes it harder for someone to get away with stealing your art, but unfortunatley it won't help if someone copies and pastes the image into a new file and uses a smudge of clone tool to cover your signature. The best thing is to take as many of these steps as you can and hopefully catch the culprit in the act. For example; Some guy was showing a picture of mine around trying to get some paying work online. The woman he showed it to saw my copyright and signature and said "that's not your name". He then tried to act like it was really his but I was "the company he worked for". The woman he was trying to scam saw my web address on my image, went to my site and contacted me via email while she still had the guy on ICQ. I told her he was a liar and a thief and she put me "in touch" with him via ICQ and boy did he get an screenfull from me. Some people just have no scruples or shame and actually feel "entitled" to steal your art because you posted it. It takes all kinds huh?

Heres a tip on copyrights. Its free and easy. Print all your thumbs together, call each page gallery1, gallery2 etc. Place the pages in a large manilla envelope. Seal the envelope, take it to the post office. Have them put a label across the seal and post mark it. Mail it to yourself and never open it. If an issue arises and you need to prove your ownership, have a judge open the envelope. ONLY A JUDGE OR APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE CAN OPEN THE ENVELOPE!!!!! This form of copyright is legal and binding, however, if you plan to sell the work, transfer the copyright, or have it published, you must do the full registration. You can still use the thumbs. The forms are free from the library of congress and each "Artistic Collection" costs $20 US to register. An "artistic collection" simple means whatever you call a collection, it can have as many images as you like.

another hint.. I use this once in a while.. S Make a 3d mesh of your copyright notice.. like copyright 2002 J Greenlees. Scale it really little and place it somewhere in the image (Make notes as to where this is so you remember or place it in the sameplace everytime. Then render. Copyright built into the image is a little harder to remove :)

Sorry to say it but the "poor man's copyright", ie: mailing it to yourself is not a legally binding copyright. That's really just a myth. Before you get all bent out of shape about it, I checked with my lawyer and it's the truth. Copyrights are really automatic, ie: you own the rights to whatever you create (as long as it's not a copy of someone else's work). The problem is proving it in a court of law. Your copyright is only as strong as your willingness to defend it. Registering your art work as a "collection" is your cheapest, safest bet. This way you have confirmation from the government that you have "registered" your copyright. You still have to spend your own money to defend your copyright in court. The feds aren't going to do it for you.

what the mailing it does is establish that as of the mailing date it is within your possession. Which if the other is saying it's his at a date later than that it proves that you have it way before the other person does. It gives reasonable doubt as to the validity of the others claim.

Zactly, thx stormage.

np Prizm :)

Mailing it may establish a date, but an envelope can always be opened after postmarking and resealed effectively without anyone knowing. Hence it is not a document that will hold up in a court of law. You don't prove copyrights by "reasonable doubt", you prove them with solid proof, like a registered copyright. You guys can debate this all you like, but my dad was a lawyer and I also asked a lawyer friend about this recently and she just laughed. It is a myth, plain and simple. Mailing a song, or a piece of art to yourself is NOT A VALID COPYRIGHT. You're doing people a disservice by insisting this is true when it is not.

Shaking head.. Ask a hundred lawyers and each one will give you a different answer Alleycat. yes a solid registered copyright is best. But not everyone has the money to do it. No one said it's a valid copyright. Just a way to establish something was in your possession at a certain time.

ever try and peel off a postal seal? not likey to go unnoticed.

a careful steaming from a kettle can loosen the glue if done carefully.

and then..... do you have a post stamp to reapply to the new seal? and why would the owner of the copyright want to open the envelope anyway? I think it's all coming back to me why I quit coming here, laterz....

The mailing thing is a myth. People keep perpetuating it. It is a complete and total myth, and has been defeated in court.

thats a pretty broad statement.."it has been defeated in court" So what your saying is the court awarded a copyright thief the rights to someone elses material?

That's one way of looking at it. Just because someone sues for copyright violation doesn't mean any has been committed. Tons of "screenplay writers" have come out of the woodwork after a particular show or movie has gotten a lot of press or boxoffice profits, waving some script around, claiming that a copyright has been violated. While I am sure some of them are valid complaints, not all of them are. You are making a pretty broad assumption that ALL cases of supposed copyright infringement are of course, true.

What has been defeated in court this week is next weeks case. The mailing is not a myth, and not a hoax. It's recommended by Writers guilds. Unless you yourself is a lawyer, you can't say absolutely definately this can't be. Neither can lawyers

No writers guild I know of recommends this method of copyright protection anymore. Old books used to, but since it has become less reliable I rarely see it recommended anymore. If you want to absolutely verify that you created something on a specific date, you need to apply for a copyright. What I am saying is, while it can't HURT to use the mailing method, I wouldn't rely on it for anything I actually cared about.

Attached Link: http://www10.americanexpress.com/sif/cda/page/0,1641,5926,00.asp

Thank you kieraw for clearing that up. I couldn't have said it better myself Stormrage wrote: "Shaking head.. Ask a hundred lawyers and each one will give you a different answer Alleycat." Now this is just not true Storm and it is epidemic of a general mistrust of professionals in this country. I have to say as the son of a lawyer that it kind of pisses me off too. All lawyers have something that you do not, THEY WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AND PASSED THE BAR EXAM! Geez at least give them some credit for the hard work it takes to become an officer of the court. Next you're going to tell me that all you need to perform surgery is a dirty pair of work gloves and a dull knife? Let me ask you this; Let's say I copied all your artwork and did like you said and mailed it to myself BEFORE you could mail it to yourself. Would I now hold the copyrights to all your work simply because I mailed a letter to myself before you could? OF COURSE NOT! Because a self addressed postmarked letter IS NOT A LEGALLY BINDING COPYRIGHT! Guys I hope you at least believe kieraw and AMEX now that you can see it in writing. But if you prefer to "roll your eyes" at me and say I'm a liar or stupid, hey feel free to live in ignorance the rest of your life. Mail yourself all the letters you want and when you go to court and the judge just laughs at you and "rolls his eyes", you'll know I was right. Now please stop perpetuating this stupid myth, you are not helping anyone by spreading falsehoods. It's hard enough to protect our work without you gving people false information. To find out more about copyrights visit the US Copyrights Office web site at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ and get the facts, not the mythology.

Again.. NO ONE SAID IT WAS LEGALLY BINDING End of argument. Not going to get into it. I have talked to lawyers and have heard a million things. You and this discussion arent worth my time. Not because you are right but because you can't figure out when someone mostly agreed with you.

Stormrage wrote: "...Again.. NO ONE SAID IT WAS LEGALLY BINDING..." Prizm Break wrote: "...This form of copyright is legal and binding..." Uhm...you were saying? It sucks being wrong. I know, I've been there before but not this time. ;-) No hard feelings from me Stormrage. I know you didn't say it, but it was said and you were backing it up with great zeal earlier in this thread. In case you forgot, I started this thread to help people with an actual copyright infringement. When Prizm mis-stated the facts I tried to help again by stating the real facts and you guys fought me tooth and nail. Now I'm the bad guy? I'm shaking MY head now. In the future, will someone please remind me to stop helping people? Thank you.

Sorry Lost this thread in the matter of other things. Sure.. don't help people.. Well reminded now? Second I went and asked 3 lawyers about this and two said Yes it's legal and one said no it's not. Soooo maybe you need to set them straight as well? One lawyer who said yes did also say it's better to get a registered copyright but the self addressed stamped envelope can be given into evidence and taken to a lab to prove if it has or hasn't been opened. Because of new technology. but also he would suggest that going to a notary would be better. He wouldn't recommend the self addressed stamped envelope idea but he would use it. And he's a copyright lawyer. If you want his name and address and phone. Email me and I will give it to you then you can sit there and set HIM Straight. Either way my work is protected in as many ways as I can. Including using a notary and registering my copyrights. And now I will completely lose this thread because i am tired of the subject.

Apparently two out of three lawyers you spoke to bought into the myth as well. I'll believe American Express' legal department if you don't mind. ;-) They have a whole staff of lawyers and it seems they all agree on this matter at least. The fact that you can't find a consensus of opinions among the lawyers you spoke to should be a hint that it is shakey legal ground at best. I don't know what to say about a lawyer who wouldn't recommend it, yet he would do it himself. I guess it's kind of like a doctor telling you not to smoke, and yet he smokes himself. I'm glad though that you take as many precautions as possible, that was the real point of this thread anyway. Now get some sleep. ;-)