Statistical Analysis of U of Chicago Graffiti 157
quaith writes "Quinn Dombrowski, a member of the University of Chicago's central IT staff, has been recording the graffiti left in the Joseph Regenstein Library Since September 2007. To date she has photographed and transcribed over 620 pieces of graffiti; over 410 of them are datable to within a week of their creation. She has now published in Inkling Magazine a statistical analysis of the entire graffiti collection covering such subjects as love, hate, despair, sex, anatomy, and temporal fluctuations of each of these. After November, both love and despair graffiti drop off significantly until spring, while sex graffiti reaches its one and only peak in December before declining for the rest of the school year. The story includes links to all of the original graffiti photos, which the researcher has made freely available to use under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license."
do not pay interest to graffiti (Score:1, Insightful)
It's still illegal and often makes local people unhappy.
I know there's banksy but he's one in a billion.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Who stuck a pinecone up your ass? I'm supposed to ignore graffiti because it's illegal? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not take kindly to this researcher releasing my copyrighted chronicles of a man from Nantucket.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still illegal and often makes local people unhappy.
What isn't illegal in the U.S. now days? /sarcasm
As a local of an area with a lot of creative graffiti artist I can say that a lot of what I see is very interesting and much nicer than looking at the bare concrete...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Helped that I knew what too look for since it was about the only thing I ever wrote on the side of a study carrel in the reg
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you really "deface" graffiti? Isn't graffiti just defacement (vandalism) itself, so how can one really deface it? If this Banksy person had permission from the property owners, then his piece isn't graffiti. If he didn't secure their permission, then he should be hunted down and thrown in jail.
Don't mean to sound overly troll-ish, but I'm getting sick of people glorifying graffiti.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'm already shocked by all the stupid liberals here defending vandalism as if it's some kind of "art". BS.
As for this Banksy person (never heard of him), if he's one of those talented outdoor mural artists, that's different: they have permission. When someone who owns a wall or whatever allows you to paint on it, that's not "graffiti", any more than "The Last Supper" by da Vinci is.
I don't care how "talented" you think some "artist" is. If he's painting on publicly or privately owned property w
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, with a caveat. I am a liberal (I don't think I'm stupid, though). I don't think that supporting/opposing vandalism is a divisive partisan political issue. Yes, there are members of the mostly liberal "art" crowd who think graffiti is the next big thing, but they hardly represent the whole spectrum of liberal views.
Actually I'm sick of the whole liberal vs. conservative thing.
I, for example, am a liberal against Obama's healthcare mess (and pretty much everything else he coughs up these
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You don't sound much like a typical liberal to me either; usually, they seem to hate guns with a passion, think that criminals should get a slap on the wrist (it's not their fault, etc.), that anyone who doesn't feel like working should get a big fat welfare check, that the borders should be open to everyone, as if 6 billion more people could fit here, etc.
The liberal issues I do like are especially the environmental ones. You'd think "conservatives", if they really lived up to that name, would b
Re: (Score:2)
that the borders should be open to everyone, as if 6 billion more people could fit here, etc.
Actually that bit of lunacy is extremely bipartisan. Liberals love it because of the human rights and cultural idealism aspects (borders are evil, illegal deserve the same chances we have, etc...). Conservatives love it because it keeps wages down, breaks unions, and reduces the costs of operation. and for both parties this issue is very important for wooing the all-important body of Hispanic voters ("screw the c
Re: (Score:2)
What a coincidence, I live in Phoenix too!
Your whole post is exactly right. I'm going to be really disgusted if McCain gets re-elected this year. I'm hoping AZ voters will finally throw him out, but the fact that his only current competition is the extremist Hayworth doesn't look good. And the Dems will probably put up some open-borders advocate.
I'm really looking forward to moving out of this state. Phoenix has really turned into a pit in the last 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the general population (because, as you know, the people who get the attention are the ones who are loudest and most visible), but they're in places like Congress, and various special-interest groups like the Brady Campaign, La Raza, ACORN, etc. The biggest place, of course, is Congress. Welfare is still one of the largest expenditures in the Federal budget, the Federal government does almost nothing to enforce the borders or immigration laws, Democrats are constantly trying to pass res
Re: (Score:2)
One can't deface graffiti anymore than one can trash garbage.
What a ridiculously ignorant statement.
A lot of graffiti has the primary purpose of marking gang territory. When those are defaced with other pieces of graffiti it is a sign of gang territorial disputes. Defacement is in fact the intention of the second artist.
Where you really show your ignorance, though, is in the implication that graffiti can't be art. Do you honestly believe that art needs to be officially sanctioned for it to have any validity?
Re: (Score:2)
If the examples in the linked article are art, may God forgive us all.
Well Documented (Score:3, Interesting)
I must say there is a good amount of documentation. Now I know that I am more likely to come across a happy smile face than a sad face.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of makes you feel better about the human race, doesn't it? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends... Do you attribute it to drugs? ^^
Or repression?
After all, most people walk trough life in a walking daze.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you live in the University of Chicago Library. =)
I wonder how much the results would change in other places....
License? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is this researcher to relicense their works of art? Just because they can't complain!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, what did you expect, from a mindset is not attached to physical reality?
That it would make any sense at all?
The wall with the graffiti is a physical object.
A paper photo in your hand would be a physical object.
But neither the graffiti itself, nor a photo of it, are physical works.
They are ideas/information. Other rules apply.
“Licensing”/“copyright“ is a concept, based on the misconception that ideas/information would be physical objects, and the false need of some people, to co
Re:License? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can use the same logic to say that having laws against murder and rape is equally futile, because you can't physically prevent people from doing whatever they want to do without massively encroaching on their basic rights. In fact, the final conclusion of such logic is that every single law that exists is pointless because it contravenes the laws of nature, and therefore is unenforceable. Of course every law is about stopping people from doing things they're physically capable of doing. That's kind of the whole point. Why would you make legislation mandating the laws of nature / laws of physics be obeyed?
This kind of "information is different and therefore laws to control it are stupid" thinking is therefore not in itself a compelling argument for why laws should be changed/scrapped and the idea of "intellectual property" should be completely rethought.
Wish I had mod points (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be the BEST counterargument ever to "all information should be free". Bravo!
However, while I genuinely want to mod you up, I do believe that CURRENT laws to control information are stupid. Similar to how laws can sometimes be unfairly and maliciously used to allow known murderers to remain innocent and walk freely, many patents and copyrights are unfairly and maliciously used to prevent people from contributing to the greater good of humanity. Patents in particular are a minefield -- something's clearly wrong with a system that encourages trolls to cripple the true innovators.
Back to the topic, I believe what the researcher did, copyrighting her photographs, is all right, regardless of whether she released it under Creative Commons. I don't believe she was copyrighting the actual message on the graffiti anyway, just the expression of it on photograph. (Of course properly the copyright should be attributed to both HER and whoever made the graffiti, but then I would suppose THAT's public domain since the original author didn't stake a claim to it...)
Re: (Score:2)
The original author[s] doesn't have to stake a claim to it. He fixed it in a tangible form, and is thus granted copyright over the work according to the various laws of the US and international treaties. The researchers here are violating his copyright by distributing copies of his work (the photos).
But they practically cannot prove it. (Score:2)
Yes, authors don't have to claim copyright in order to have it. But for all practical purposes, no person CAN claim copyright on these works. Even taking into account the anonymous works provisions of copyright, it is the burden of the supposed authors to claim that the work is theirs. (And as it stands, it's an uphill battle to prove it.)
And until then, the researchers are NOT in violation until the (proven) rightful owners claim that they are. Presumed innocence. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Copyright infringement is also a criminal matter. If the state can prove that you did NOT create the work then it doesn't matter who did, you are guilty of infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are forgetting that you must PROVE that it is a criminal matter.
In this case it is not. There is no commercial gain whatsoever (provable -- the licensing she used is pretty clear on that) and the copyright "owners" do not have a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution of their work. Ergo under US law this is clearly a civil case.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I honestly didn't realize this. :))
I guess I'm too used to seeing graffiti to even THINK that really ought to be illegal. =))
Re:License? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can use the same logic to say that having laws against murder and rape is equally futile, because you can't physically prevent people from doing whatever they want to do without massively encroaching on their basic rights.
No-no-no, no-no-no!
Laws are not there to forbid you, but to protect me. I have the basic right of living, you cannot kill me. The fish does not have that right, so you can kill and eat it. Then it gets more complex as laws become the mirror of society: you cannot hug all the fishes and must share them, so killing is limited. On the other hand, you can share information because it cannot take part in a tragedy of the common.
Well, that's the theory. In practice it's something on which you can go ad absurdum.
Re: (Score:2)
omg! hog, thank you!
No , you didn't. (Score:2)
Its not past tense much as you'd like it otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not past tense much as you'd like it otherwise.
Hummm death+50 years sounds like past tense in some cases.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, hard work doesn't entitle you to get money,
Since when did copyright law entitle people to get money? Your entire post is based on a flawed premise.
Maybe you should consider getting a day job, and composing/writing on your free time? Then you wouldn't have to try to control other people to make profit,
But every type of employment is subject to laws, and therefore, by your philosophy "controlling people for profit."
and the rest of us wouldn't have to subsidy you indulging your creative impulses through government monopoly.
Wait, what? You do realize that the government doesn't pay people for simply creating a copyrighted works, don't you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No it doesn't. No matter how hard you work, you might get nothing.
No, Capitalism 101. You might work hard, you might still fail to make any money. If you fail, you should think of some more efficient way of spending your effort,
Re: (Score:2)
For some of the drawings that might be the case, but the vast majority are short snippets of text that probably aren't copyrightable at all. If anything's copyrightable, it might be the photograph, which is what the license is releasing as CC.
Re:License? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:License? (Score:5, Funny)
Nonono, it is modern art.
You appear to not understand that you've walked into my "Live Art" exhibit which can only be appreciated by those within it. "Dicks and your mom", a minor part of the exhibit, encompasses the oedipal desire inherent in males. The "Call me at 555-5555 for a good time" portion speaks of the hidden desire for pleasure which exists in the male psyche.
My exhibit, "Masculinity" encompasses all those themes and more, speaking largely of the sexual frustrations, desire for intimacy, and lack of release that all men feel. The bathroom is used because it's a place where men can feel comfortable and able to release their frustrations, if only for a moment.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to get to work on "Femininity". No, no, I won't enjoy it. After all this is *art* good sir.
Re:License? (Score:5, Informative)
Nonono, it is modern art.
You appear to not understand that you've walked into my "Live Art" exhibit which can only be appreciated by those within it. "Dicks and your mom", a minor part of the exhibit, encompasses the oedipal desire inherent in males. The "Call me at 555-5555 for a good time" portion speaks of the hidden desire for pleasure which exists in the male psyche.
My exhibit, "Masculinity" encompasses all those themes and more, speaking largely of the sexual frustrations, desire for intimacy, and lack of release that all men feel. The bathroom is used because it's a place where men can feel comfortable and able to release their frustrations, if only for a moment.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to get to work on "Femininity". No, no, I won't enjoy it. After all this is *art* good sir.
You could not possibly be more wrong. What you are describing is postmodern art, the antithesis of modern art.
Modern art sought to find universal ideals in form and materials. Eg. Paint is colour on a flat surface, so a modernist painting should emphasize colour and flatness. A painting of landscape, or portrait, etc. is trying to be something other than paint on a surface, modernism saw that as false. Truth to materials was a primary concern.
Abandoning all concern for a skillful execution of final object, and spouting pretentious bullshit descriptions about context and how an object relates to an audience is the domain of postmodernism. another big part of postmodernism was to attempt to just make people think modernism was wrong about everything.
The icing on the wrongness-cake is your final sentence, where you talk about not enjoying it, since it is art. Postmodernism is the first time in art history where humour and a cheeky wit have been acceptable. postmodern artists sometimes do just do it for the lulz.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I bet they don't refuse teh dolRRs, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
while you are absolutely right about all of this, there are always exceptions, typing out the full history of art from 1910-1990 for a Slashdot post would have wandered into -1 offtopic or -1 redundant territory, so I kept it as short as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I think this "modern" and "post-modern" stuff is all BS. The word "modern" is commonly known to be about things that involve the present day. That's now, year 2010, not 1940 or whenever. 100 years from now, "modern" will mean 2110.
There is NO SUCH THING as "post-modern", unless you have a time machine and can look into the future.
This whole "modern/postmodern" thing is basically because art historians are apparently so stupid, they can't come up with new terms for now-past eras. So if today i
Re: (Score:2)
All groups define words as they are needed and they are often different than how they are used by the laymen.
That's all fine and dandy, but this is Slashdot: News for Nerds, not ArtDot: News for Artists and Art Connoisseurs. To me, and 99% of English speakers, "modern" means "relating to the present day", not something in the first half of the 20th century. So getting on someone on Slashdot for calling something "modern" instead of "postpostpostpostmodern" is just inane. It IS pretentious and elitist whe
Re: (Score:2)
this is Slashdot: News for Nerds, not ArtDot: News for Artists and Art Connoisseurs.
To me, and 99% of English speakers, "modern" means "relating to the present day", not something in the first half of the 20th century.
1. most artists ARE nerds. most nerds are picky about terms being used accurately. The topic of this entire thread relates to art.
2. mod*ern
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.
2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.
3. of or pertaining to the historical period following the Middle Ages: modern European history.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of conte
Re: (Score:2)
the url to the dictionary displayed correctly in the preview, but changed in the final version. weird.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modern [reference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's all good and well, but none of those seem to indicate anything that's constrained to the past. For instance, the typography definition. Sure, it may go back more than 50 years, but we still use it, so it's still considered "modern". When that form of typography goes by the wayside, like Gothic fonts, and something else becomes predominant, then a new name will need to be found for it.
I know everyone loves car analogies, so here's one: It's sort of like saying "modern cars use steering wheels for s
Re: (Score:2)
all good points.
One thing I should have clarified earlier, but it slipped my mind until now:
In the art world, they differentiate between 'modern' is the colloquial sense, and "Modern" as a distinct movement from 1910's to 1960's by capitalizing the "M"
'modern' is synonymous with 'contemporary'
'Modern' is the historical art movement
Postmodern is the movement following the Modern era.
Their are similar confusions in books that use "Contemporary" in the title. I've seen books published in the 1960's calling th
Re: (Score:2)
As a math and computer nerd who grew up in a family of artists, I couldn't disagree more.
All groups define words as they are needed and they are often different than how they are used by the laymen.
This is true, every field has it's jargon.
Computer nerds do it far more often than artists. There's nothing pretentious about it, but often outsiders see it is some kind of elitism, when in truth it's a way of keeping communications simple.
In number of words you may be correct (though I'm far from convinced), but there are critical differences in how it is done.
Computer nerds often redefine words to describe something new, which doesn't have a name yet. This is different from the scientific use of Latin only in that Latin is pretty much a "dead" language, and English is very much "alive". The objective is to facil
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I saw graffiti on the toilet doors of the Tate Modern - the only way I knew it wasn't meant to be part of the exhibitions is because there wasn't a placard explaining what the graffiti was about.
Some modern art is skillful, interesting and so on. But my general rule is that if you need a placard explaining that it's art and why it's important, it isn't very good art. For example, the exhibit that was nothing more than a standard rectangular mirror hanging on the wall (!) (if she bought that mirror, can they
Re: (Score:2)
You fell for it too? Consider your assumptions challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, its an ancient form of art. ROMANES EUNT DOMIS!
Re: (Score:2)
"If you write a graffiti on someone else's wall do you really believe you own any copyright to it???"
What I always read around here is that copyright is automatic even if you don't want it copyrighted.
Window into their heads ... (Score:4, Interesting)
They're thinking, they're feeling. And they want you to know. That's why they paint it on walls, cliffs and carve it into the school benches. There's this school of thought that believes that it will go away if nobody reads it. But they've really never done something, stood a few feet away and sighed about getting it off your head. Ignoring it and waiting for it to go away is dumb.
Keeping tabs on the expression gives you a much more clear indication of what the pulse of the otherwise silent are thinking. This is a fun experiment because nobody wall painting is doing it because they want to be part of a statistic ... unlike a girl with a clipboard asking questions.
I remember being in a train in melbourne, riding past a few walls full of legal graffiti (union lane?) and wondering what the line between art and vandalism really was.
Re:Window into their heads ... (Score:5, Informative)
I remember being in a train in melbourne, riding past a few walls full of legal graffiti (union lane?) and wondering what the line between art and vandalism really was.
You can stop wondering. The line is drawn with the permission of the property owner. Vandalism is a crime unrelated to the artistic merit of the work, it has to do with property ownership rights.
From an artistic point of view, it is drawn when the intent is to deface or damage instead of create.
Re: (Score:1)
From an artistic point of view, it is drawn when the intent is to deface or damage instead of create.
I would object to that line. There is something called creative destruction. There are artworks whose purpose it is to be destructed. And I know several ruins which were actually built to be ruins.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmm...a specific exception, and the intent would STILL be of the artist who did the creation.
If *I* (or anyone) creates a piece of art whose purpose is to be destroyed -- Indian sand painting? -- that is one thing. If some jerk comes along and beats my statue to dust, claiming it was to make people think or the act was his commentary, that isn't art or acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that the violent destruction of a statue is not acceptable, but I think it is wrong to assert it cannot be art. Attempts to define art in anything but a completely open-ended manner are always doomed to failure. What you consider senseless destruction another man may consider art. Who are you to define what other people are allowed to consider artistic?
Re: (Score:1)
What if the intent is both to damage and cause those observing the damage to think? As in, not so much smashing something you don't like because you hate it but smash it in a way that you hope will make people think about how said thing affects something else? Artistically your purpose is still very much to destroy or damage something but with the hope that those viewing the destruction will have thoughts "created" in their heads, basically creativity by proxy where the proxy happens to be the destruction a
Re: (Score:2)
The word you are looking for is "permit".
Also, laws that dictate property rights do not dictate whether or not an action, lawful or not, is artistic.
/Mikael
Re:Window into their heads ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no line between vandalism and art, because they're not disjunct. They're orthogonal concepts. Vandalism can be art. But even when it is art, vandalism is still a crime. It boils down to two separate questions: What is art? What is vandalism? All four combinations (art and vandalism, art and not vandalism, not art and not vandalism, vandalism and not art) exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this coward up, he speaks the truth.
art/vandalism not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree.
From a judicial POV some act may be vandalism / destructive act to property without the owner agreeing.
From an artistic POV the same act may still be art.
Of course "doing art" so someones property without agreement is a problem.
However, the "lines" are not so easily spotted: What about chalking on the pavement or laser-projections on a publicly owned building?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Often the line is drawn by the officials whose job it is to remove graffiti. Someone commissioned a graffiti artist to paint a piece on their shop front. The council then removed the piece from his property without his permission or even his knowledge for no real reason other than being over-zealous.
Or there's the Banksy piece that was done in the centre of town which went to a public vote on whether or not to remove it. The city voted to keep it.
Remember - not all graffiti is tagging and vandalism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, they are orthogonal categories. Some things are art, some are vandalism, some are neither, and some are both.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember being in a train in melbourne
Have you been around long enough to remember MAX+GJE? Any ideas on where it came from?
Blah... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Blah... (Score:5, Funny)
When the library at the local community college had a wooden tables in the study area, there was a rich history of graffiti from 20 years of students studying for exams. When they build a new library with modern non-wood tables, the graffiti no longer existed. The florescent pen graffiti on the condom machines in the restrooms was a poor substitute.
Did any of it say "insert baby for refund"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with that underlaying thought; the sterility of our society makes it not as authentic as it can be. It's like holding a book, with some smudges, signs of usage, people leaving trails and the object being a subject of a living, organic process.
While I feel it shouldn't be "allowed", it should to a certain degree be tolerat
Some more UChicago graffiti (Score:3, Interesting)
We also have some brilliant graffiti in the grout between the tiles in the downstairs bathroom in the Bartlett dining commons. For example,
"I'm a celebrity, get me grout of here!"
"Commutator subgrout of prime order"
"I'm on the groutside looking in"
"What's this all agrout?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I like to think of graffiti as being real-life anonymous troll posts, especially when others cross them out an/or respond to them.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be interesting is graffiti from the toilet cubicles, with a Slashdot-style way to filter the boring racist and homophobic stuff to -1. And rate stuff like:
"Nothing is more overrated than bad sex. And nothing is more underrated than a good shit"
(5: Insightful)
[On a newly painted door]: "Virgin door- not any more"
(2: Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's funny - I thought 'grout puns' were somewhat unique to my local pub men's room. Except our graffiti is all literary references:
And no, it's not like we're near the university or anything. It's a pretty low-brow suburban pub in a strip mall, so I was surprised to see graffiti veer in a literary direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer this little diddy from the early 70s:
Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw,
Vote for Nixon in 72.
Interesting, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A fun exercise for statistics nerds, perhaps, but of little scientific value.
The same can be said about making posts to Slashdot.
I don't think you really have the right to complain about other peoples hobbies not being scientific when you do the exact same thing, just like all of us do.
Perhaps if she was claiming this was scientific in some way, your statement could be read as a criticism instead... But all we have is some IT geek having senseless fun, and others complaining it is not scientific. Whatever happened to the Slashdot for nerds?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this under Science instead of Idle?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Quinn calls it a "pseudo-scientific" analysis on her blog and adds "disclaimers for the pedantic." '
http://www.crescatgraffiti.com/2010/02/02/pseudo-scientific-analysis-of-graffiti-with-disclaimers-for-pedanti/
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes it a step up in honesty from some psychological tests. Experimental psychology is almost always the empirical study of college students taking their first psychology course.
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if the FOIA would include all of the photos snapped along the lines before the scrubbers paint a fresh new "canvas" up... There would be literally decades of data, and I believe they already do analysis such that they can identify any person's style such that, if nabbed for one, you're done for all.
PS: I know this occurs because I was at a freshly tagged station when the poor sod was taking (digital) photos and documenting everything before painting over them in a not-quite-the-same tan. Inter
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about other cities but in Bristol, UK there are at least two people whose job it is to find, photograph, document and then remove graffiti.
No conclusions .... (Score:2)
Maybe she should come
Copyright violation? (Score:4, Funny)
Just wanted to throw out that technically she's violating the copyright of the graffiti owner, and cannot be distributing that work. I think all the graffiti authors should step forward and claim their share of her enormous royalties. If you are a graffiti writer, please click [this is a joke] to claim your giant prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...or claim their guilt in defacing private or state property. I'm sure the college would love to employ free custodial labor with a looming prosectution held over the head of the guilty to scrub bathroom walls and re-paint for them.
Very true point.
But think about it a minute. In the USA, if you can not determine how many people downloaded her infringing images, you are guaranteed a minimum of $80000 per potentially infringed work.
At those rates, I'd probably be willing to admit guilt to defacing public property, pay the thousand dollar fine, and then pay someone an hourly rate to clean everything for me.
I'm pretty sure I'd still have quite a bit of cash left!
Of course we all know it doesn't really work that way. Unless the graffiti
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Somebody can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower or another piece of 'art' (the French would disagree on my definition of art though) and sell that picture for profit and/or have copyright on that picture. However if you paint another wall the same as the graffiti-artist did on the original wall or you make it look like or claim that your picture is the original art then you could run into copyright issues.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not very original (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Quinn Dombrowski... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because she's married you fool.
http://www.quinndombrowski.com/
What's really sad is that you took the time to troll this slashdot article without even googling her name.
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, I mean they haven't even cured that stick up your arse yet!
xkcd? (Score:2)
It's like XKCD just happened in real life.
Wait.
What?
http://xkcd.com/ [xkcd.com]