Wednesday, 7 December 2022

Following plagiarism allegations: Jeff Dieschburg wins case in 1st instance against Jingna Zhang

quote [ US-based photographer Jingna Zhang sued the Luxembourgish artist, alleging that he had plagiarised one of her photographs.

According to the newspaper Luxemburger Wort, judges at the Luxembourgish court found that the original photograph did not meet the criteria to fall under Luxembourgish or European copyright law.

The photographer's lawyer told Wort that Zhang is 99% certain to appeal the decision. She must also pay legal fees after losing in court. ]

This Jeff dude from Luxemburg won an art contest for the painting in the thumbnail (left), but he did not disclose that he copied/mirrored it from Jingna Zhang's photo (right).

It's not the only instance. Other artists have their art also stolen as well by Jeff.

This article sums up when this all blew up about 6 months ago (June 2022):

[SFW] [art] [+4]
[by damnit@7:59pmGMT]


mechanical contrivance said @ 1:55pm GMT on 8th Dec
If the article is correct about the Luxembourgish criteria for copyright protection, that's weird.
damnit said @ 4:57pm GMT on 8th Dec
It's definitely a weird criteria, but I think their ruling has more to do with protecting their citizen from foreign lawsuits rather than upholding copyright law.

The only reason Zhang found out about this is because of an online publication that shared the winner for the art contest online. People in the art community saw the winning painting and informed Zhang that it's a copy of her photo. My friend had several of her digital photos also copied and "painted" by Dieschburg without her consent and there's barely any changes from her photo and the painting (it's debatable if the artist even painted a copy or just printed it on canvas + minor add-ons + washing).

After Zhang posted about the theft and shared with her audience the interactions she had with Dieschburg (and Dieschburg's interations with other people), the online publication locked down their articles behind a paywall.
mechanical contrivance said @ 8:50pm GMT on 8th Dec
Interesting that the online publication doesn't want the general public to see their articles anymore.
Headlessfriar said @ 7:23am GMT on 9th Dec [Score:1 Underrated]
Just reprint the articles with a couple added minor sentences that don't change the main point. Clearly, that is acceptable as derived content that fits fair use, according to them.
stacyswirl said @ 11:57pm GMT on 11th Dec
Love it.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings