This font contains my copyrighted artwork. I contacted the artist to take it down and am requesting the dafont.com to also take action. I realize it is free to download, but the author did not even provide credits.

My work is the letter "c" 0099 and I have NOT authorized the use of my artwork to the creator! I am LIVID! Any help would be appreciated!

http://www.dafont.com/pole-dance.font?text=BODYBINDS

leenisabel, this is what the c - 0099 glyph looks like in the Pole Dance font:



If your copyrighted artwork substantially resembles THIS image, you might have a case. If the image above looks 'a little' like your artwork, you would not. No law is broken, when someone creates a vector 'inspired' by an existing piece of artwork. You may want to do some research on the "Fair Use" provision in American copyright law. The case of Associated Press vs. Shepard Fairey is a similar situation, in which Fairey created drawings based on an Associated Press photograph of Barrack Obama.

If Woodcutter downloaded a picture that you posted on the Internet, and made a font vector from that, and does not charge for its use, I don't believe that he has broken any law.

~bobistheowl

Hi bobistheowl

It is exactly the artwork in my logo.

http://pole-dancing-adventures.blogspot.com/

and here:
The link below has the black & white outline.
http://pole-dancing-adventures.blogspot.com/2013/02/get-your-custom-pda-drawings-here.html



I understand that he doesn't charge for the use of the font. But he also did not give me credit which he should have. Nonetheless, I prefer it to be taken down and not used.

(Post modified to display the linked images)

You could try sending a private message to the Webmaster: http://www.dafont.com/pm/post.php?user=2

I doubt that any action will be taken. It looks like he has made a poor quality knock off of the black and white .jpeg in the second link. That's not copyright infringement. If you had made a vector image, and he had used your vector in his font, it would be a different story. Given the poor quality of his image, it's unlikely that he is costing you any income, from this facsimilie. Taking into account that DaFont is based in France, and the font creator is in Spain, you have no legal grounds to demand that the font be removed. The fact that his font is free is important, from a legal perspective, because you could have no claim to earnings from his creation, because they're aren't any.

What he appears to have done is very common among Dingbat fonts. All of my fonts are based on artwork or photographs downloaded from the Internet. I manually trace the multicoloured images to two colours, import them in monochrome bitmap form into my font editor, and modify the vector image that the font editor creates. What I end up with is substantially different from what I started with, and that makes all the difference, legally.

Woodcutter may have found your drawing through an images search on a search engine, without ever visiting your blog page. If you don't want people to use your work for other purposes, you should consider adding a watermark, in a colour that would turn black, if converted to monochrome. You might not approve of what he did, but I don't think you have any grounds to prevent him from so doing.

So apparently BOBISTHEOWL you don't just rip off other people's copyright images, you also copy their ideas.

You're pathetic.

Problem is spinnybags, that there is a general misunderstanding about copyright. Or rather a general total lack of knowledge and understanding of copyright. Let alone having any respect for the artistic works of others.

Read the Berne Convention on copyright or at least the extract and you will understand. Alas most if not all of the people commenting on these issues have no clue or think that the USA law is the final word worldwide. Believe me, it is not. The USA law is fairly close to the Russian and Chinese. It is not that shit, but, yes, extremely close.

As you are a one person juridical entity and a one person business there is - I am afraid - little you can do. The cost of the legal procedures would kill you.
That is the problem, you are too small an entity. If you were Disney, or on a smaller scale the Escher foundation, things would be different. Do I need to explain how Disney protects the copyright on their characters? Try selling mugs with Minny, Mickey or Donald on'm. You will be bankrupt before you realize it. The Escher foundation will be more polite with you. First they will sue you for copyright infringement, an economical offense, which results in a quarter of a million Euro fine. Then they sue you in a civil procedure for the same and will ask for - and get - something around a million Euro compensation. Understand how they pay their lawyers?

So what can you do? Little to nothing I am afraid. At least not legally. Yet, if you feel like to bite the balls of the woodcutter, the woodcutter can easily be traced to name, address and telephone number.

Book a cheap flight?

No, he copied my idea, four months later. Mommy's still not going to buy you a chocolate bar.

@koeiekat: spinnytbags has been harassing me by e-mail for a few days. Her jihad concerns the capital S in BeautyMarks. She claims to have ownership and copyright to a photograph from which a vinyl decal was made by a different web entity, from which an .jpg image was included in a Google images search:



from which I created a two colour bitmap, composed for monochrome:



from which I made a vector image in a free font.

The principle of Fair Use has been explained to her, but she doesn't chose to believe the truth. Her threats of extortion were unsuccessful, so she's decided to make a scene in public. She reminds me of a club chick sent packing before sunrise.

mumble Bobby, mumble, it all depends. When Isabel or under whatever names she/he cares to claims the first publication of that image and can prove that, then legally she/he owns the copyright. It is as simple as that. The Kat keeps wondering why it is so difficult to read and understand what has been written.

So Owl it still is. But not Wise anymore.