Fry, Wench!
Posted by angela on 04/22/08 in Domestic Ramblings, Stupid People
Hi Marlene (sigh),
You are beginning to really embarrass yourself here, don’t you think?
First of all the WayBack-Machine doesn’t show my blog having a template at all. I’ve always had some sort of template on my blog.
Secondly, the WayBack-Machine doesn’t even show your site even existing in 2007 but you and I both know that your site was fully functioning in 2007 because of when you purchased your domain.
When I first ran into your site via MyBlogLog and other social networking avenues I thought to myself “how cool” and “what a cute template she has.” That’s when I left you a friendly MyBlogLog note.
I have an iStockPhoto account and I purchased my MCHipster graphic in April of 2007. I’ve got the screen shot to prove it, the receipt to prove it, the PayPal transaction to prove it, but I won’t bore you with all of the details.
I gave you the iStockPhoto number that was used, the link to their legal team, as well as other identifiable ways you can research what you “think” is going on. I even have the original file that I downloaded via iStockPhoto.
If I were you, I would contact Lara, the gal who designed your blog template for you, (She did an awesome job by the way) and see if you can get her to explain to you what it means to have obtained a “royalty free image.”
If I’m not mistaken, I think she probably explains all of that on her site. Maybe if you head on back over there you can look that up. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if she explains in her disclaimer somewhere that a lot of the images that she uses can be found on the web.
It’s unfortunate that you are unwilling to notice that we are not using the same image. Yours has blond hair and a tiara. She’s not even sitting in the same direction as mine. Yours MCHipster girl is Queen of the Click and my MCHipster girl is Domestic Divapalooza.
I really don’t know what else to tell you but I’m sure that you’ll do what you think you need to do and I’m guessing Designed by Lara won’t mind the extra publicity and traffic to her site.
tag this
Nancy | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
I’ve been following your saga on Twitter, and I’d say that you would have a completely solid case (though I am not a lawyer) for appropriate use of your logo. You’ve documented everything and it’s obvious you’re on solid ground. Good luck though!
Nancy | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
p.s., if you look at the May 19 2007 version of your site archived on the Wayback Machine, the graphic clearly appears about 3/4 of the way down the page (after the Spring Flowers post). Obviously you had it in the timeframe that you document above.
Nikki | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Angela! LOL We have that shirt at our house and my son wears it constantly! Excellent Taste! ;-D
Sarah | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Goodness gracious. Some people’s children, right?
Great response, hon!!
angela | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Hi Nancy - The eye doctor in the comment section below this post pointed that out as well.
When I went back to both WayBackMachine links to check it out I noticed that when you hit the refresh button you can clearly see the graphic while the page is trying to resolve itself but you have to catch it quick because once the page finishes all of the images on the page disappear.
I wasn’t worried because her site doesn’t even show up on the WayBackMachine.
I think it’s interesting that she accuses me of being a liar.. my graphic looks NOTHING like her graphic.
I’ve purchased mine fair and square since April of 2007 as shown in the screen shot of my istockphoto account.
Hi Nikki - Are you serious?? You have that same shirt!! How cool is that!! We can hide together from all the Stupid People!! LOL
Hi Sarah - Your a gem for having stumbled on this and followed it so closely. I fear my perfectly good debate in the previous post is now squashed.
Lord knows.. what will I write about now?
You know.. It was interesting because I was hoping that it would be fun meeting another blogger that was using a McHipster Girl graphic.. to top it all off when I went to visit her blog I saw that she donates to Compassion International.
I’ve been sponsoring a sweet little girl via the Compassion International program since Don and I were married in 2001. So here I am thinking I’m about to befriend somebody that MIGHT have some things in common with me.
NOT!
Becki | Apr 22, 2008 | Reply
Marlene, dear dear Marlene,
It is clear to me that you do not understand the nature of art - that includes graphic art. You see, artists all have a certain style. If you look at all art work created by the same artist, be in from way back in time or modern, you will clearly see many similarities in all pieces - the same goes for graphic art. Similarities exist - it is the nature of art. Most educated people understand that, I am assuming you are educated and that you would then agree with what I am saying. If you look at the graphic designer who did both your image and Angela’s image you will again see the similarities - the artist clearly uses the same image repeatedly and just alters it - alters the way it stands or sits, what it holds or doesn’t hold, the direction it faces, lip color, hair color, etc… - that is art.
I’m not trying to bag on you here, but from reading your blog a little I can tell you are not as stupid as you appear to be behaving. You are a smart woman who obviously jumped to conclusions before stopping to think. We have all made that mistake before and now you have to step up and take the responsibility of admitting you are wrong. That also is what educated people do - they admit their mistakes.
Karen Sugarpants | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
She’s out of line. Take it from a graphic designer who buys stock images all the time. I hope she apologizes, since it’s clear the two of you have a few things in common and might end up being friends.
Tracy | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
To be honest, I know NOTHING about copyrights as they relate to graphic art. But I’m a songwriter and am familiar with copyrights in relation to music.
Assuming the two function in a similiar way, (though I could certainly be wrong) wouldn’t it be true then, that just because Marlene bought use of the image, that she doesn’t own the copyright? The one who actually CREATED the design and published it owns the copyright, whereas Marlene only bought USE of the graphic. Is that right?
So Marlene couldn’t “sue” anyway, it would have to be the copyright owner, right?
If I write a song, I own the copyright. (Unless I allow a publisher to take ownership of it under contract.)
If Martina McBride wants to record a song I own the copyright for, (as long as I’m giving an example, might as well make it a good one, right?) then we come to an agreement, draw up a contract, and she gets a mechanical license, which is what allows her to reproduce MY song, for which I receive payment/royalties, etc. Even though she’s “bought” the use of my song, I still own the copyright. If Faith Hill comes along and ALSO wants to record the song, she can. But she has to get persmission from ME, the copyright owner, not from Martina. All Martina did was buy USE of the song, she doesn’t OWN it.
Am I wrong to assume that graphic art works in a similar fashion?
angela | Apr 23, 2008 | Reply
Honestly Tracy it sounds right to me.
The nice thing about the graphic I am using on my blog is that it’s a royalty free graphic that I paid for on iStockphoto.
I am allowed to use the graphic but I’m not allowed to assume that I am the only one that will ever have that graphic OR different version of it.
Unfortunately for me.. I ran into a very mean person that clearly wanted nothing more than to just be mean to me AND to show it on my own blog by hijacking that post below.
I’m over it now..
Anonymous | May 30, 2008 | Reply
McHipster Girl sighting!!
http://communityv1.bangornews.com/user/4
Similar style and look and had me flashing back to this conversation yea so many decades ago…LOL
angela | May 30, 2008 | Reply
Ahh.. I like yours!! She looks just like you!!
BTW, the Fry Wench still hasn’t apologized to me yet!!
Anonymous | May 30, 2008 | Reply
Hmmm…maybe posting on other sites with the same McHipster girl and telling them, they ripped her off?
Was hoping how she could explain the prevalance of the “McHipster” Girl on a laptop, that even a reporter is using it…..
Unless she is still waiting from the original artist to let her know that, they (the artist) didn’t steal it from her?
What’s next….telling people they can’t use a Roman type font” because it’s a ripoff of their name, Roman?
angela | Jun 1, 2008 | Reply
LMAO!! Now THAT’s Funny!!