http://www.3dvf.com/modules/galerie/artiste/index.php?idartist=4238&p=&t=&c=

Retro Cuisine image!!!!


Marc

Post a reply to this message

>
http://www.3dvf.com/modules/galerie/artiste/index.php?idartist=4238&p=&t=&c=


I like how the thumbnail pops up a *smaller* version of the image.

I can't tell who the artist who "made" these images is supposed to be. If
it's not whoever it was that we know made that image, they must have stolen
a thumbnail of it from somewhere...

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

in news:41eeb225$1@news.povray.org Marc Jacquier wrote:

> http://www.3dvf.com/modules/galerie/artiste/index.php?idartist=4238&p=
> &t=&c= 
> 
> Retro Cuisine image!!!!
> 

Yes,

http://www.ignorancia.org/img_page.php?image=14&db=irtc

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:41eeb5bc$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> http://www.3dvf.com/modules/galerie/artiste/index.php?idartist=4238&p=&t=&c=
>
>
> I like how the thumbnail pops up a *smaller* version of the image.
>
> I can't tell who the artist who "made" these images is supposed to be. If
> it's not whoever it was that we know made that image, they must have 
> stolen
> a thumbnail of it from somewhere...
>


I doubt that Jaime posted it, since the other images are not his (I don't 
believe).  "Retro-Cuisine" does not seem to fit the actual story behind the 
image, either.  How étrange...

Awhile back, I saw my "Radio Graves" image pop up on another Web-site. The 
person posting it on their page claimed to have "created" it, because they 
"rendered it" (I supplied full source via the IRTC).  I assumed that the 
web-page author was 12-years old and I didn't think the matter was worth 
pursuing.  However, if it popped up on a 3D community page (like this), I 
would probably pursue it further.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns95E3D8F8E198seed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:41eeb225$1@news.povray.org Marc Jacquier wrote:
>
> > http://www.3dvf.com/modules/galerie/artiste/index.php?idartist=4238&p=
> > &t=&c=
> >
> > Retro Cuisine image!!!!
> >
>
> Yes,
>
> http://www.ignorancia.org/img_page.php?image=14&db=irtc
>
> Ingo

Yes! Strange isn't it?

Marc

Post a reply to this message

Marc Jacquier wrote:
> http://www.3dvf.com/modules/galerie/artiste/index.php?idartist=4238&p=&t=&c=
> 
> Retro Cuisine image!!!!

   Well... this guy is awesome: he submitted it to several other
galleries! This kind of people always amaze me, in that they don't seem 
to even think about being caught.

   Indeed, I found his home page too:

   http://www.ifrance.com/artvif/GalMarty.html

   Anyone can find their images there?

   I don't really know if it's worth the effort required to complain to 
each gallery site for the image removal...  I feel my time is better 
expend making more images worth to be stoled. But I will for sure write 
a "nice" email to this guy...

   Thanks for the finding, Marc, I had nothing more urgent to do than to
investigate this guy activities. :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> a écrit dans le message
de news:41eed9f8$1@news.povray.org...
>    Well... this guy is awesome: he submitted it to several other
> galleries! This kind of people always amaze me, in that they don't seem
> to even think about being caught.
>
>    Indeed, I found his home page too:
>
>    http://www.ifrance.com/artvif/GalMarty.html
>
>    Anyone can find their images there?

I'll go and have an eye :)
>
>    I don't really know if it's worth the effort required to complain to
> each gallery site for the image removal...  I feel my time is better
> expend making more images worth to be stoled. But I will for sure write
> a "nice" email to this guy...
>
>    Thanks for the finding, Marc, I had nothing more urgent to do than to
> investigate this guy activities. :)

I didn't find it, Lightbeam did  while we were chatting on IRC and he was
somewhat busy (oh yes it's compatible), so I was designed as volunteer  to
post :-p


Marc

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> almost wrote in the 
message news:41eed9f8$1@news.povray.org...

>   "...But I will for sure kick this guy in the goolies when I see him..."

   ~Steve~  ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> a écrit dans le message 
de news: 41eed9f8$1@news.povray.org...

>   Well... this guy is awesome: he submitted it to several other
> galleries! This kind of people always amaze me, in that they don't seem to 
> even think about being caught.

This is really bizarre. I can't make sense of the "Artvif" gallery/person 
that seems to be at the centre of this. The Artfvif site is a total mess of 
a website that is spread over several free ISPs. In fact it looks like some 
sort of very loose art collective that is used by its "members" to put some 
images on line and generate some advertising revenues. I'm not sure that all 
the "members" are even aware of their presence on the site, as many images 
aren't even signed. The Artvif people have a special interest in Madagascar, 
though this isn't explained anywhere.

It is this "Artvif" that submitted a series of pictures, including yours, 
signed by "Stéphane Marty" and others to various galleries (3DVF, Zieutez, 
Overdoz, Yamafoto) with some bogus information. It's weirder than the case 
we had last year of a student who had appropriated a dozen of images to make 
himself look like a 3D bigshot.

Note that there's a "Stéphane Marty" who is well-known in the 3D world (he's 
the author of Virtualight) who has (I hope) nothing to do with this one.

G.
-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> This is really bizarre. I can't make sense of the "Artvif" gallery/person 
> that seems to be at the centre of this. The Artfvif site is a total mess of 
> a website that is spread over several free ISPs. In fact it looks like some
> sort of very loose art collective that is used by its "members" to put some 
> images on line and generate some advertising revenues. I'm not sure that all
> the "members" are even aware of their presence on the site, as many images 
> aren't even signed. The Artvif people have a special interest in Madagascar, 
> though this isn't explained anywhere.

   Yeah... same conclusion here. But I think it's only 1 person, called 
Harvel Ireney, surely from Madagascar but living in France. This guy is 
really weird... but at the end all seems to respond to a need to 
generate ad revenues by any means (the amount and diversity of the sites 
where he submitted links to Artvif is impressive, only explained by this 
need).

> It is this "Artvif" that submitted a series of pictures, including yours, 
> signed by "St廧hane Marty" and others to various galleries (3DVF, Zieutez, 
> Overdoz, Yamafoto) with some bogus information.

   Well.. that's the most intriguing part... perhaps not the same 
person, perhaps someone who wanted to expose/compromise Artvif...

> Note that there's a "St廧hane Marty" who is well-known in the 3D world (he's 
> the author of Virtualight) who has (I hope) nothing to do with this one.

   I don't think there is "another" Stephane Marty... is this 
Artvif/Harvel Ireney who attributes these images to Stephane, and others 
to Luc Bianco or Piere Carril... he pretends these are french artist who 
work/create for Artvif...

   I'm going to start with a polite/friendly email telling him that the 
attribution to Stephane Marty in Artvif is wrong, to see how he reacts. 
I will keep you all updated... :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

>   I'm going to start with a polite/friendly email telling him that the
>attribution to Stephane Marty in Artvif is wrong, to see how he reacts.
>I will keep you all updated... :)
>
>--
>Jaime

Ooh Jaime, you're too kind.
If it was happened to me... GGGRRRR !


Rene
(the old newbie)

Post a reply to this message

I suppose this is an excellent reason to clearly put a copyright on images,
wouldn't you think so?
Not sure if that would really help, though..... :-(

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Rene Bui wrote:
> Ooh Jaime, you're too kind.

   No, I'm too lazy, do you remember? :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I suppose this is an excellent reason to clearly put a copyright on images,
> wouldn't you think so?
> Not sure if that would really help, though..... :-(

   Only if you cover almost the entire image with your copyright... not 
really convenient nor fair for the visitors of my site.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I suppose this is an excellent reason to clearly put a copyright on images,
> wouldn't you think so?
> Not sure if that would really help, though..... :-(

I think the usage of "Copyright" texts just fools many people to think 
that it is _needed_ for an artwork to be copyrighted. That is not the 
case in most countries - AFAIK. And then they think that the absence of 
the text means the work is public domain or whatever,

And as Jaime pointed out, in order to work the text should be very big 
and as distracting as possible.

S.S.

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen <sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi> wrote:
> I think the usage of "Copyright" texts just fools many people to think
> that it is _needed_ for an artwork to be copyrighted. That is not the
> case in most countries - AFAIK. And then they think that the absence of
> the text means the work is public domain or whatever,
>
> And as Jaime pointed out, in order to work the text should be very big
> and as distracting as possible.

And I find even the smallest copyright notice distracts and
detracts from an image. Infringements seem rare, damage
minimal and, as this thread shows, eventually noticed.

Post a reply to this message

What about something like a watermark, which isn's visible but can be read
out by a graphic software. Does something like that exist ?

Shu

Post a reply to this message

More stolen images:

http://artvifcrea.site.voila.fr/Marty.html

I think the first to the left was from Denis(?) Olivier? This is getting
serious...

 From what I can see in that total mess of a site, Artvif has a section
where "artists" can submit works, so perhaps the thief was not Artvif
itself, but one "member" called Stephane Marty a.k.a MC2.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> a écrit dans le message
de news:41efd1d2$1@news.povray.org...

> http://artvifcrea.site.voila.fr/Marty.html
>
> I think the first to the left was from Denis(?) Olivier? This is getting
> serious...

The plot thickens... First, at least 2 of the "architecture" images on this
page http://www.ifrance.com/artvif/GalMarty.html are from Denis Olivier's
page here : http://www.povlab.org/synthese/archi.php
Second, Denis Olivier (see his resume) worked for the "real" Stéphane Marty
at one time (he helped to develop Luxart).

There's also a filmmaker who does short movies and who is called "Stéphane
Marty" but perhaps it's just a coincidence.

>From what I can see in that total mess of a site, Artvif has a section
>where "artists" can submit works, so perhaps the thief was not Artvif
>itself, but one "member" called Stephane Marty a.k.a MC2.

The oldest Artvif page I could find is this one
http://takelaka.dts.mg/artvif/
and it's talking about Madagascar. It seems that the Artvif person (who
could be Harvel Ireney as you said) later took his activities to France and
"recruited" images and texts to add to his website(s). Some of the artists
whose work can be seen on the site are real, but others like "Stéphane
Marty" or "Pierre Carril" seem to be names borrowed from actual people
(Pierre Carril is an illustrator with ESA) and those don't have a contact
address, something that is really strange, even for scammers.

I'm starting to think that "Artvif" is just making up artist names just to
have content on his pages, so that he can post these work on community sites
to get traffic. Sometimes he takes works from actual artists, and sometimes
he just "invents" imaginary ones, taking pictures from the web to create a
portfolio and using the names of real people. Now guess what? One of the
actual artists (Pierre Angeli) who is featured on Artvif has also a page on
Denis Olivier's webpage with the same images
http://preface.povlab.org/member_gallery.php?mid=22. It really seems a bad
case of someone browsing through a website and thinking "wow this is nice so
I'll put it on my site too".

There are really odd things on the internet. I was puzzled recently by a
ring of art websites (all built on the same template) from Russia and
Ukraine all featuring the same artworks (for sale) and the same services
though I really had some doubts that it was possible to buy anything there.
Still, they were expanding this "business" to other countries. I was
contacted by the webmaster of one of these sites to upload images there and
the guy, who was based in the UK but barely spoke English, was completely
unable to tell me what the point of his (largely broken) site was.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de
news:41efb615$1@news.povray.org...
> I suppose this is an excellent reason to clearly put a copyright on
images,
> wouldn't you think so?
> Not sure if that would really help, though..... :-(

In the incident related here
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3C4048fb4a%40news.povray.org%3E
the "thief" erased the copyrights, or pasted his own name over the original
ones when he couldn't do otherwise. So, no, putting a copyright doesn't
technically protect the image. For this you need giant, defacing copyright
notices like the ones Zazzle puts on the large size pics.

However, the presence of the copyright forced our thief to deface the images
to assert his "ownership", at least by removing the names of the original
authors. This was a clear proof of bad intent since he couldn't claim it to
be a mistake. Because of this, we had no trouble convincing his school's
administrators that he was guilty of something more serious than uploading
copyrighted material and being forgetful about attribution.

So my opinion about copyright notices (or more precisely about visible
signatures) is that they at least can act as a deterrent for small-time
thieves, and, when they don't, they can make the case clearer, not legally
speaking, but for third parties like website admins, school admins etc.

G.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Extant, and common even. Indeed, I've occasionally gotten a physical
> picture taken by a professional photographer (at my request) that
> commerical copiers (like the Kodak copiers at malls) refuse to copy due
> to the photographer having watermarked it.
>
> It's also built into PSP8.  Check out www.digimarc.com for example.
>
Interresting. I was sure to heard about it in former times. Thanks for the
link, i'll inform myself about this feature.

Shu.

Post a reply to this message

I tend to render my signature as a part of the scene, e.g as
a carving in a wooden table, if I can.
see e.g. http://members.ams.chello.nl/a.c.linnenbank/ballon.tif
Of course one can use photoshop to remove it, but that would take
some time. (there is a story with this image, one day I hope to
find the time to tell it in p.b.i or find time to build my website)


Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de
> news:41efb615$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>I suppose this is an excellent reason to clearly put a copyright on
> 
> images,
> 
>>wouldn't you think so?
>>Not sure if that would really help, though..... :-(
> 
> 
> In the incident related here
> http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3C4048fb4a%40news.povray.org%3E
> the "thief" erased the copyrights, or pasted his own name over the original
> ones when he couldn't do otherwise. So, no, putting a copyright doesn't
> technically protect the image. For this you need giant, defacing copyright
> notices like the ones Zazzle puts on the large size pics.
> 
> However, the presence of the copyright forced our thief to deface the images
> to assert his "ownership", at least by removing the names of the original
> authors. This was a clear proof of bad intent since he couldn't claim it to
> be a mistake. Because of this, we had no trouble convincing his school's
> administrators that he was guilty of something more serious than uploading
> copyrighted material and being forgetful about attribution.
> 
> So my opinion about copyright notices (or more precisely about visible
> signatures) is that they at least can act as a deterrent for small-time
> thieves, and, when they don't, they can make the case clearer, not legally
> speaking, but for third parties like website admins, school admins etc.
> 
> G.
>

Post a reply to this message

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message 
news:web.41efc770d4b68ebb3e51f4130@news.povray.org...
> And I find even the smallest copyright notice distracts and
> detracts from an image. Infringements seem rare, damage
> minimal and, as this thread shows, eventually noticed.

just thought I'd add my experience .... Not just POV images but photography 
seems to be fair game as well.

I have an antique shop and was checking our presence on the web (search 
engine ranking) and came upon a scenic shot I'd taken of the river that 
borders on our property. It was used as a background for a flash goodie. I 
followed up and indeed it was my photo, the person that used my photo was 
offended when I asked if it wasn't customary to ask the artists permission 
before commercial use. The whole thing left me feeling like I WAS THE BAD 
GUY!

To get to my point .... I think the web is rampant with content thieves, and 
is a free for all when it comes to this kind of stuff.
Not sure what can be done about it .... sorry for the rant.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

After a few inquiries, this is what has been established so far:
- At least several people whose work is present in the "artvif" galleries
were never asked for permission by the gallery's owner.
- In several cases, the attribution is wrong
- In several cases, the permission would not have been granted since the
images were copyrighted by 3rd parties. There are also a few commercial
works.
- The gallery's owner met briefly with at least one of the authors many
years ago, and apparently thought that this was enough to give him the
permission to present the images on his website(s). He also thought proper
to attribute the works of other people to them, and to present these works
in what looked like personal galleries.

In addition to the bogus attribution of Jaime's image, several persons have
been wronged, including Stéphane Marty, Denis Olivier and a few others, by
having their work taken without permission, by having someone else's work
attributed to them (leading other people to think they were the actual
thieves), and by having their names associated to this dubious enterprise.
They are not happy with the situation, and the matter is being pursued, i.e.
nastygrams are on their way.

Thanks to Lightbeam and Marc Jacquier for uncovering this!

Gilles

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message