I believe I may have found evidence of Janice Coy using someone else's art work, potentialy without their permission.
I've held off on posting this, as I wanted to wait and see if the art work in question, would be pulled after I sent a note to Autumn Williams who in turn, forwarded it to the original artist, Peter Oberdorf. That was a little over a week ago..so I figure it's been enough time for her to remove it if he knew about it.
First...I must state for the record that I do not know for a fact that she has not purchased this image in order to use it..however, she placed her OWN copywrite on it..and it's a barely altered version of another persons art, with little or no attempt to conceal the fact. Even IF she was able to convince the original artist to give her permission to use his work...I cannot conceive of him allowing her to change it, and then place her copywrite on to it. If I am wrong, I'll fess up here...but I'm not terribly worried about being wrong on this one.(given some of what I have found out behind the scenes about this in the last day or so).
Anyway...first, here is a link to the page on Oregon Bigfoot, where the original piece is hosted.
http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/artists/peter_o_staredown.jpg
And here is that original:

Now...HERE is a link to the page on Janice Carter's (formerly Coy's) website..showing an "original" piece by her boyfriend.. And...if that's not enough...if you will notice, they also put Janice's copywrite on it:
http://www.[URL removed]/Galle...+Tom+c.JPG.html
And, here is that image:

You will notice again, on the piece at Janic's site...they have actually put a copywrite on it.(btw..I claim fair use to post these images, as I am not using them nor claiming them as my own, and I am providing links.). It would be one thing if she linked to Autumns site, and said "here is a link to an image that looks very much like Fox"....however..she actually took the image, altered it slightly, placed in on HER site and then...yep, put a copywrite on the altered image.
Unbelievable. Unless the original artist effectively turned over ownership of the piece to Ms. Carter...I don't believe she can legally copywrite an image..(even if he allowed her to use it) and certainly, I can't imagine him allowing her to alter it in such a way.
Now..when it comes to taking and altering things from even "higher" sources...there is more to this(non art related this time), but since there are other people involved in the follow up of the other information I have..I'll hold off on that until I know if they wish to directly address it. If not...this thread will expand to include that additional information as well.
I will again end with this. I am clearly saying that this APPEARS to POSSIBLY be a situation of stolen intellectual property. If this is not the case, and she somehow has retained ownership of this imagery..I will of course recant this, and ask the administration here to appropriately alter or remove the thread. Again though...I somehow doubt that's the case.
(edited to add..sorry, forgot that links to her site were a no-no here...it was auto-removed from the post, so hopefully no harm, no foul!. I have screen shots of all the applicable pages, in case they are altered).

I would be pissed if I were the artist. I cannot imagine that he would allow to alter his work, especially in such a nearly laughable manner.

"Original" art my ass...That has to be one of the worst attempts at claming someone made something that they didn't, that I've seen...

And I've seen alot in some of the art communities online...

Can't say I'm surprised, considering the who though...

I have fixed the URLs, which as Nightwing points out are normally automatically removed to prevent Janice attempting to direct traffic to her website.

To be completely fair, it is worth noting that the caption on the Janice Carter website reads "Fox by Tom. I have edited this drawing by Jan's advice on how Fox looks, as close as I could get working with Arcsoft Photo Studio 2.0 SE. I changed the nose, brow ridge, balding and the eyes"

But Nightwing's point is absolutely correct, and one we covered many years ago. In short, if you edit an image for your own purpose, you cannot claim copyright. If you re-draw an image, then you can, but you need to ensure that you don't breach any Trademarks in the process. You can't for example re-draw the McDonald's arches without falling foul of Trademark law. Copyright, Trademark and Ownership are three completely different things.

If Carter owned the image - ie, had been given it or purchased it outright, then she could do whatever she wants with it, including defacing it as she has done, but the copyright does not transfer to her, and the copyright owner, unless he or she had specified at the time ownership changed hands could not prevent the image from being defaced. In this case though, I'm guessing that the copyright owner hasn't given the image to Carter, or even given her permission to use it, but has given oregonbigfoot limited permission to use it on the oregonbigfoot website.

Nightwing shared this with me a few days ago, but didn't give me the links at the time. Having now seen the images, it is fascinating that someone can be so brazen about stealing artwork.

Does Carter's use fall under 'fair use'? Absolutely not in my opinion. Carter is engaged in a commercial venture, and is therefore excluded fro claiming 'fair use'.

It looks like BF was scalped! What happened to its hair? Just bad editing? If her purpose was to change the nose and top of head to look like Fox then they messed up ol' BF. She has opened herself up to legal action with this one especially if their is monetary gain.

hey everyone good early morning wow oboy interesting sasquatch thread the suspence the mystery etc. thanks bill

Don't it make my brown eyes blue...

Thats one lame attempt at image alteration. I loathe those who steal others work and attempt to make it their own. Hopefully justice will be served in this case.

Sharp eyes there guys. With the touque and the wrap-around shades I wouldn't have noticed it was the same BF if he passed me on the street.

I wouldnt count on it. Even tho she is clearly in the wrong here, the costs associated with bringing a legal solution are very high. Then, since she has incorporated ( depending on how Nevada law reads and the corporate charter etc) she herself may be legally insulated.

If thats the case, I would bet her entire corporate worth is less than $5,000 and it would easily cost 10 times that to get a court decision. She would file for bankruptcy ( for the corp and for herself if needed) and the plaintiff would get nothing but the pleasure of winning and seeing an image removed- AND the bill.

Ok...I am NOT trying to be a trouble maker nor am I trying to create drama (as I DESPISE drama) and I am definately NOT defending Janice Carter, whoever she is BUT.....what of all the images that I see on peoples profiles on here......are THEY copyrighted? And I guess my question is....can one put an image that is not thier own on a profile? Is that legal? I am asking because if I can do it, I have some ideas in mind for a really cool avatar for my profile........just asking is all....I don't mean to cause any flack, I am just curious!

It's my understanding that according to Copyright Law, redraw means you start from scratch. A blank piece of paper, or in this case a blank file in a graphic program. To take an original and modify it is editing, not redrawing. You can draw a drawing someone else created, but you can't take a picture someone else created and add a daisy and claim copyright to it. Nor can you change a dozen words in a book and the title and claim copyright to that, or a handful of notes or lyrics in a song.

Since this picture was based on the art of someone else it's what's called a derivative of the original, there are certain rules that must be followed before someone can claim copyright to that work and the copyright covers ONLY the modifications and no part of the original.

Points of Interest:



http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

well all i can say is mines orginal done by my ole lady but does this really shock any of us that janice is behind this i mean really after all these years

The difference is, she's trying to make money off this, we aren't.


What a strange way to alter someone else's artwork. If that thing came to my back door asking for garlic, I'd hit him over the head with my frying pan.


Considering the source, this doesn't surprise me at all.

He looks like he already has been hit over the head with a frying pan!

Okie dokie.....thanks a bunch for the info..........

I would never take original artwork and alter it and would comply with any request to remove especially if I did something not realizing I had erred. But now what...get lawyers involved? Please. If every law school in the US of A never graduated another law student for the next 20 years this country would still have too many lawyers.

Yup, looks like it screwed his eyes up too! I thought when I first looked at it that he was wearing a baseball cap. Knowing old Fox, I wouldn't put it past him.


Good catch Nightwing!

What you describe is covered under "fair use" doctrines thus legal, however, ALL the rules change ( even for "free" art) when its done in regard to a FOR PROFIT enterprise. ( which is what her organization clearly is)

( funny thing is- this is at the forefront of my mind right now as we are image shopping for artwork for the Aviary website- I'm going to wind up just comissioning and buy them outright. Its cheaper and easier)

This poster is obviously trying to cause trouble, could we get a moderator here please.

Oops, sorry Rounder. I didn't realize you were joking.

It was a joke in reference to her repeated attempts to not be offensive. Sorry if I offended.

Just to add, that the correct way to report a post is to use the 'report' button on the left hand side of every post. It is far more effective and discrete, since it emails the moderators, who may not be on the forum at the time.

The WRONG way is to draw attention to it in the thread.

I am aware of that. It was an attempt at a joke. I'm sorry.

That would make sense Rounder, if she had ever made a 'I don't want to cause trouble' post before, which she hasn't.


Lets move on shall we?

Thanks for that copyright info link, Moregon. Very helpful.
I think in this digital age people don't even think twice about swiping artwork off the web and using it any way they see fit. But funnily enough after they swipe it they think they can plaster a copyright notice on it.
I had done some desktop wallpaper designs from old pulp magazine covers and offered them up for free on a website. Some twit took them and made mouse pads to sell on eBay. Now, I didn't own the copyright to the original artwork (I think it was in public domain anyway, but still I had not done the original art and felt I didn't "own" anything in my designs), so I couldn't sue or anything. But I did go out of my way to alert companies like New Line Cinema since the guy was making "Lord of the Rings" mouse pads, and tons of other copyrighted property to make money.
At work I have a customer wanting prints made from her photos and artwork, and she was initially very nervous about leaving me a CD to work with, or me keeping her images on my hard drive. I finally convinced her she had to trust me at some point, I couldn't very well stay in business if I cranked out prints of my customer's works to sell on the side. And yet a she goes to a frame shop where some arrogant punk starts telling her that he could take any of her images, change it 50% and then call it his. Of course that got her worked up, and I assured her I doubted that was true, but if I were her I'd get in touch with the owner of the frame shop and let him know what his employee was saying. At first the owner was defensive, doubting that his employee would say such a thing, but evidently the kid must have admitted to saying something along those lines, since he called her and apologized profusely and claiming she misunderstood him. Man, I was so ticked off at him.
Fair use or no, I think it is only good manners to ask for permission to use anything you find on the web. In the case of the BF artwork, it boggles the mind that the example shown can be called "derivative" if that's what they may try and claim. More like "defaced."
While I'm never keen to call in the lawyers with stuff like this, I think the artist needs to put his foot down and be adamant that they remove the defaced artwork and withdraw any claim of copyright.
Disney doesn't threaten daycares to remove Mickey Mouse murals painted on their sides just to be bullies. They do it to keep control of their valuable intellectual copyright.

Janice "borrows" alot of material that is copyrighted, as the past has clearly shown. From book entries, to artwork. I'm not surprised at all by this finding. I'm not an artist by any means, but if someone did that hackery to my stuff I'd be pretty mad.

I was going to post my question in the thread regarding RSS feeds for sighting reports but it may be more fitting here. Personally speaking I think there's no issue with accepting an RSS feed because the presumption would be that the owner of the information wants it shared by enabling the feed in the first place,

Likewise I also feel thats it's likely okay to link to a published report that has been made public anyway, as the link basically gives credit to the originator. But.....

What's the feeling about taking said report, published or otherwise and copying and pasting it to another message board without the link. Is that something you guys consider ethical or not?

God forbid that the artist have any legal recourse...

Thats a very good question. My inclination would be that it is okay to use RSS feeds on a website, since that is what they are intended for, and the links of course go back to the source - ie. BFRO, TBRC etc.

I personally wouldn't simply lift the text of a sighting from one website and plant it on my own - I think that is unethical unless there is a formal agreement between the two websites involved.

On occasion, a report will be brought to a forum like this from say the BFRO website, but only in order to discuss it - I think that is slightly different to ripping reports from websites to make it look as if yours has more reports than it really has.

I got it..it WAS funny..

This BF painting is not a huge issue from my point of view since the forgery is so awful, you would need to pay me to run an 8 x 10 though the shreader. Now if the forger was really talented and took the great original, then modified it slightly and claimed ownership, sold framed copies, t-shirts, post cards etc..........then the original artist should jump in with both feet. This thread does make one aware of the copywrite laws.

The talent (or lack thereof in this case) has no bearing on the issue at all.

She took someone else's artwork, modified it, and slapped her own copyright on it. Wrong thing to do whether it was a good job or not.

lemme be more specific, without naming names, how about building a database of sightings copied/pasted from everyone else's public sightings, and the sightings are credited by source (The originating group), but taken without any inquiry as to consent?

FWIW... on the "head" thing there...

Word that was passed on to me was (and I'm not joking, just passing on the info) that Fox is going bald and that really IS meant to represent how he's looking now.

Mmmm .. If the credit is given to the originating group or source , I wouldn't see where there is a conflict. Unless they were profiting from it in some way.

Otherwise every report from every book ,website or person should be taken down unless they ( or in some cases their heirs) have given consent, Basically no one would have anything to discuss at all. IMO at any rate.

I hear ya, but it is, in my opinion being done to drive traffic to their site, a database of everyone else's published reports, that bugs me.....

Hi

Are you kidding Me

Peace
Tim

Well, I guess you could go over to the other site and tell them to knock it off. Wait, how many times have you been banned over there? I guess that wouldn't work then.

Want me to tell them for you?

In all honesty, it must not be working, 'coz I really don't know who you're talking about.

Who is it that's doing it?

This thread is not about a web site creating a clearinghouse sighting database and giving full credit to the sources of those reports. Heck..when we eventually get around to it, such a list and data set will be placed on Michigan Bigfoot. If the desire for a really comprehensive database is desired..that may be one very good way to do it. In THIS case...someone appears to have blatantly stolen a work, and claimed it as their own...there simply is no comparison. Anyway...any chance we can keep on the topic at hand(the borrowed art work)?
(I love spell check..)

I'm as confused as you are.

I agree with everything you said. It's completely wrong. And as an artist myself, it's upsetting.
However...... I am way more upset at the fact that she added those lame eyelashes, bald cap, eyebrows, blue cat eyes and a "Just for Men" mustache....... *sigh* so wrong.

This doesn't shock anyone does it? Really?

Janice first arrived per interest in Bigfoot one night on PalTalk stating curiousity about Bigfoot, nothing more.
No knowledge she claimed or personal encounters.

Within a month she (and MG) had sprouted a story of encouters from childhood (this I am sure is in a thread on this forum)

It reminds me of the song " It's only make believe"
Her entire exsistance on this subject revolved around "other sources" and a vivid imagination.
Desperate people do desperate things (hmm like steal artwork?)

She's a fraud, always was always will be.

Edit: No I didn't steal my Avitar it was a gift from a friend.

Thats the first time I have heard PalTalk mentioned.

If there's evidence, within this thread, that the accusation it makes is absolutely and cosmically true, could somebody direct me to it? It's totally possible I missed it. Are we ABSOLUTELY SURE she obtained the image(s) ILLEGALLY (by simply swiping them?) and has not in fact obtained permission and/or purchased rights to use such from their owner? And yes I know who we're talking about and of her past and present 'state of being'.

Regardless, I'm just not getting all this devisive PETTINESS that's seemingly become the norm here of late. At times I'm in awe certain things even come to light. As in 'WHO CARES!'. And at the risk of stating the obvious, you women need to be on the lookout. Seems if you're a woman and in possession of even a modicum of Bigfoot Fame™ , and whether such fame was obtained righteously or not, you've apparently got a TARGET on your forehead. I'd keep my eyes peeled if I were you.

Now, maybe there is some kind of righteousness to the accusation here, but once again, WHO CARES?! It's not like Janice Coy has any kind of genuine or widepread support here. Heck she's already been chewed up and spit out. Why keep harping on her? She's not dead enough? Is the matter really all that important? If there's some kind of copyright infringement going on, why not just tell the affected/interested parties and move on? Let them worry about it? Heck I don't think I even knew she had a website let alone any of-dubious-origin artwork on it. In the bigger picture, we're not discussing anything of true value.

Be honest people, and don't jerk me this time, has Bigfoot himself been so 'elusive' lately that this is the kind of stuff we're really all about now?! There's a recent excellent post (on this issue) in another thread that speaks a lot of wisdom. Some/most/all of which will probably not be understood by all its readers, but it is valid and timely. Take heed.

I think it's quite important actually...

Why?...

Because BFF is, for a great many new people interested in this phenomenon, the first place online that they oft come in search of information on the subject...Although I didn't see this site listed in the first 3 pages when I googled "Bigfoot", it comes up first when googling "Bigfoot Forums", "Bigfoot Board" and 3rd for "Bigfoot Discussion"...

What does that mean exactly?...It means that there is a very large number of people who come here for information on the subject of this phenomenon (shocking, I know, but let me finish)...These could be, hypothetically, any number of different people making BFF their first "look" into the world of Bigfoot...

"And the first look they see is people complaining about -insertpersonhere-?!", You're probably thinking...

In my opinion (and I think I speak for others when I say this, considering the e-mails and PMs I've gotten in the past), this is a good thing to a degree, as it shows

1.) How seriously we take our own research
2.) How sincere we feel about the community at large who are also interested in this subject
3.) How we're not going to allow kooks (in this specific case, I believe Janice fits quite nicely), liars and know-it-alls with no answers to step right in and pollute the very real/potential information available to a community we all jointly care about so much...

In a nutshell, if we don't police our own, then we'll be judged for their claims and actions...

And in that context, yes, I think such things as this (pointing out what's very likely an outright illegal act) is QUITE healthy for the community at large, whether researcher or "enthusiast" to do so...

I don't understand why, as of late, so many people think that there should be a blind eye cast towards wrong doings within this community...Nor why it's thought that we should all be hugging, holding hands and agreeing with a firm head shake towards certain people as if anything they say is 100% true and valid, yet others are cast down because they give their side of any given debate or argument...

I don't mean any of this disrespectfully, not a single shred of it in fact...I, myself (and once more, I feel quite confident saying that I speak for others as well when I say this), simply wish to see the community at large raise the standard, per se, when it comes to research, for the good of the community...

If calling out an instance where someone has done something wrong, or an instance where someone is presenting something fabricated and untrue, helps 1 person who's interested in the truthful pursuit of this phenomenon, then it does MUCH more good then allowing such to remain unspoken and allow the person doing so to damage god-only-knows how many (and thereby any potential research that will be done by those people) with their lies, outrageous claims and behavior...

People can say that by "attacking" this person or that person's claims or actions, we're instead lowering the bar...But I disagree...

If You can't show that You're willing to call a wrong where a wrong is obvious (as in this instance), nor alert others to the wrongs being done when they are indeed being done, then You're doing nothing more then be a lethargic fraud, and don't have the right, in my opinion, to say You care about the research being done in this field...

Other professional institutes don't allow such actions, claims and/or behavior to go unchallenged, nor unspoken...Yet, seemingly as of late, we're supposed to because we don't want to hurt anyones feelings it would seem...

And that really astounds me...



Once more, allow me to state, I'm not saying any of this to be disrespectful to any one individual, nor this forum, nor any one group, organization or establishment...

Just answering with my worthless opinion...



Also, might I state, that Paul specifically stated that if he was wrong in this instance, he'd eat crow and admit such was the case...

Knowing what I know about Janice Carter's wild claims, and having personally researched many of those claims only to find them to be complete and utter lies (I'm not referring to Fox stuff, I'm referring to things that could be called and verified), I'm fairly confident that he isn't going to have to turn the stove on anytime soon...

I am totally offended by that statement. Besides being pretty sexist, it doesn't say much good for all the women in this community that are true, honest bigfoot researchers. Many of them I call friends.

A thief is a thief and a liar is a liar, no matter what sex you are. And if you are stealing and lying, you will be and should be called on it.

Janice is not being taken to task because she is a woman, and nobody else is either.

Sorry, but I don't (necessarily) agree with that either. Living proof of that theory is Matt Moneymaker, who, last time I check is male, and a frequent target of attacks, both professional and personal.

There are plenty of female researchers on this forum who have never been attacked, and I hope never will be.

Perhaps the problem is with certain men, who don't have the mental capacity to challenge a woman's professionalism, and instead attack only on the basis that they don't have testicles? That doesn't mean that they are being attacked *because* they are women, but are attacked in a certain way because they are women.

That's it in a nutshell for me.




It's because they are class acts, upstanding citizens, and excellent examples of how a person should conduct themselves both professionally and personally. If the good Lord ever blesses me with a daughter I'd be proud to see her grow up to be like some of the ladies I've met on this forum.