Liberland compared to Vatican City

A border dispute between Croatia and Serbia arose in 1947 which left a 7 km² piece of land technically unclaimed by either nation. A Czech politician said that since it was unclaimed, it was free to claim by anyone, so he claimed it himself, called it “Liberland”, and planted a flag last month.

Google shows the Croatian claim, which follows old meanders of the Danube, putting the land in Serbia; the Serbian claim follows the current course of the river, putting it in Croatia.

Keep reading

進撃ログ② | とびい

Art is not mine. All Rights go to the Original creator on Pixiv.No copyright infringement intended. Please rate and bookmark on Pixiv.


RE: Tumblr Copyright Violation: FINAL WARNING

Subject: Tumblr Copyright Violation: FINAL WARNING
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:30:13 -0400

Please read this entire message carefully. Copyright violation is a complex issue, but one we take seriously. Understanding how we address it will greatly reduce the risk of your account being terminated.)    


We’ve received a notification of alleged copyright infringement on one of your blogs.   Here are the details of the content in question:    

Copyright holder: Carol Walker

The content has since been removed, in accordance with US law and Tumblr’s own copyright policies.    

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we are legally required to terminate  the accounts of repeat infringers. The first strike against your account was       uncontested, meaning this is your second strike and final warning. If you receive        three uncontested strikes within an 18 month period, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE TERMINATED.        You can contest this notification by following the instructions for a “DMCA Counter-Notification” found here:        A successful counter-notification will remove the strike against your account.    

  Here are the details of the previous strike against your account:    

Date of Takedown: October 5th , 2014

Copyright holder: Peggy Reynolds

 You can review Tumblr’s Terms of Service        (        and Community Guidelines        (        for more information on our copyright policies.    

  This is a good opportunity to learn more about US copyright law (never a bad idea, really)        and to make sure none of your other posts are infringing on someone’s copyright.        Here are a few free resources you might want to look over:

  Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.    

  Tumblr Trust & Safety   


My reply to Tumblr

Hello Tumblr.

Thank you for bringing my attention to this infringement, I must say that it certainly was not intentional to violate any form of copyright, and will do my best to not do this again.

I have been with Tumblr for over 7 or 8 years, with two blogs, and though I understand the serious nature of copyright, I do not really appreciate the tone of this email. As you state, the copyright laws are a complex area, Also it being laws from another country, so as a layman, I would struggle at best to understand

When I blog a new post, I always source it, credit it with the artists name, and link it to their webpage.  I always ‘Google’ the image and go back as far as i can to find accreditation, obviously there are times that this process is fruitless, and I cant source anything.

You run a site where images are posted in their hundreds of thousands on a daily basis, So I would have thought that when Tumblr was first started that the issue of copyright has been an issue for a very long time, and that you are contacting Tumblr-ees on a daily basis, So i think that a new draft of this email would be rather good idea as not to offend others.

If the next time i accidentally post an image that infringes a copyright, and you remove my blog, that will be the end to my association with you. I have made over 60k posts and have quite a few followers, and it would be a real kick in the guts if one day i came to sign in and found all my hard work had gone.


aka wasbella102 

So in case this happens Ill say goodbye now to those who follow. Thanks for all your support over the years.

Joanne xx

Apache tribe occupies sacred land to be destroyed by mine, refusing to leave

Oak Flat—once part of an Apache reservation—is considered sacred space by the local tribe but it was awarded to a mining company through a defense bill in 2014 and will be completely destroyed. Now the tribe has occupied the land and refuses to leave, claiming their freedom of religion is being infringed upon.

Duration: 10:37


Soap box time my dears.

There are things I hope none of you ever face, and I have faced many of them.

(I’ll write a mini - bio later)

One thing I absolutely do not tolerate is theft, or trying to take advantage of someone.

If you think that the spread or picture you are posting is copyrighted, it is.

See, here’s how copyright law in the US works:

Artist signs name, or can prove origin via files, etc.

Artist signs the date or photographs the creation, or otherwise date stamps it.

Artist now has copyright to that material, any likenesses, or anything that can be deemed as a forgery or intellectual infringement.

So, when you edit a name, replace a color scheme or otherwise take the work of another, not only did you open yourself to a lawsuit, you are liable for damages.

Now, granted posting a picture on a public forum may make the audience larger, but it does not change the law. (For non - US residents, look up intellectual property rights and copyright in your country or territory)

AT&T asks government to create national censorwall and system for disconnecting accused infringers

In its comments to Victoria Espinel, the American IP enforcement czar, AT&T calls on the government to hold tribunal in which accused infringers will lose their internet access. It doesn’t want a full court to evaluate claims of infrigment, just a high-speed, traffic-court-style process by which entire families will lose their lifelines to the electronic society.

AT&T also wants the government to establish a list of banned websites that all ISPs are ordered to block.

Read the rest…

セイバーさん | tef

Art is not mine. All Rights go to the Original creator on Pixiv.No copyright infringement intended. Please rate and bookmark on Pixiv.



Just passed a sign indicating our proximity to “treetop eco-adventure park” and “nebs fun world” both of which sound like the kind of shitty knockoffs you would see in a tv show trying to avoid copyright infringement


ログ3 | ☃

Art is not mine. All Rights go to the Original creator on Pixiv.No copyright infringement intended. Please rate and bookmark on Pixiv.



Both courts still agree, however, that the government has the authority to determine when and how you may take your life. The curiously circumscribed right recognized by the Canadian Supreme Court reflects a willingness to surrender our most basic liberty—to be or not to be—in exchange for an official stamp of approval that free people should not need.

The Canadian Supreme Court concluded that criminal penalties for assisting suicide “unjustifiably infringe” on “the right to life, liberty and security of the person,” but only “to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual.” Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, which have statutes that allow physicians to help patients kill themselves, likewise strictly define the circumstances in which suicide is acceptable.

It is not hard to see why judges, voters, and legislators would be sympathetic to people in the situation described by the Canadian Supreme Court. If I had a grievous and irremediable medical condition that caused intolerable suffering, they think, I would like to have the option of dying painlessly at a time of my own choosing, and I might need other people’s help to do that.

One of the plaintiffs in the Canadian case provided compelling testimony to that effect. “I live in apprehension that my death will be slow, difficult, unpleasant, painful, undignified, and inconsistent with the values and principles I have tried to live by,” said Gloria Taylor, who died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig’s disease) in 2012. “What I fear is a death that negates, as opposed to concludes, my life. I do not want to die slowly, piece by piece. I do not want to waste away unconscious in a hospital bed. I do not want to die wracked with pain.”

It truly is outrageous that the state would try to prevent someone in Taylor’s position from ending her own life on her own terms. But why is strictly regulated “physician-assisted death” the only alternative that any government sees fit to allow?

Read More

bridge-agent replied to your post “Every time I read your tags re: the new Avengers movie I just want to…”

You also haven’t let your disappointment make you vicious as some have. That’s commendable because there’s a lot of that going around, unfortunately.

Thanks, I’ve been trying not to. One of the rules I try to live by with fandom is that ultimately we’re all here because we love things. I would never want to infringe on someone else’s joy—whether it’s a kink I’m not into, or a ship that’s a NOTP for me, or a whole property—because I wouldn’t want anyone to do that to me. It’s a basic Golden Rule thing.


Urban outfitters is ripping me off with the help of a party named ‘Bambam’. This is taken from my original work tryypyzoyd. I’m furious. PLEASE SHARE TO HELP.

I will respond in to any inquiries over time: I emailed them and I’m have heard back. I’m currently finding the best approach to take action.

Please support Spires by following on Society6, a great company that cares about artist’s rights.

 Thanks so much to anyone who reblogs this post!


So….I’ll try to sum up what’s happening here. In 2008, I designed and modeled a robot girl for a college assignment. I posted them on DeviantArt as I always do, and since then I’ve gotten quite a few people asking if they can model it as well. I always tell them sure, as long as I’m credited with the design. I failed to put my name/info on the image though, so it has been spread around the internet and some people have modeled it without my permission (just for the record you don’t have to sign something for it to be protected by copyright). They usually find out who made it later and gladly credit me. So I don’t mind!

Until someone tries to sell it.

Fast forward from 2008 to now. I find out that someone has been selling a model of my design on Turbosquid since March of this year, and it has made thousands of dollars in profit. I’m naturally very upset about this, so I report the infringement to Turbosquid. At first they seemed fairly courteous, but then I wake up today and find them basically asking me to let him keep selling the model as long as he credits me. Are you kidding? After making thousands of dollars? Note that Turbosquid takes a 60% commission of profits by default, so they likely made even more money than the seller did from my design.

They tried to appeal to pity by talking about how hard he worked on creating the model from my design. HI! I DID THAT TOO!

I just can’t believe Turbosquid is taking the side of the infringer and trying to ignore the fact that they both made thousands of dollars off my IP without my permission. The minimum amount of money made is $2,481.00. I base that on how many reviews the model had, which you can only do if you buy it. However, this doesn’t include any purchases made that weren’t given reviews.

I think it goes without saying that the profits belong to me. It is not right for a guy in another country to steal my design and make thousands from it while I struggle to make ends meet. I have never made a penny off of that character design. To think that Turbosquid considers it fair for me to make nothing off my design while they made thousands is just unbelievable.

PLEASE reblog this. I am an amateur artist. I am not famous. I spent $130,000 to go to art college and haven’t found a full-time job since. My only job is the freelance I do from home. I am not Disney. I can’t afford to have my designs stolen for profit. I am hopeful that with enough exposure of this, Turbosquid will suddenly find the ethics they dropped on the floor somewhere. If this can happen to me, it can happen to you.


ログ3 | ☃

Art is not mine. All Rights go to the Original creator on Pixiv.No copyright infringement intended. Please rate and bookmark on Pixiv.



They’re at it again!

I did some digging, and this print is stolen. The original art was created by Sharon Turner and the print is called The Untempered Schism. Corset Story stole the print and made it into a corset. Good going, Corset Story!


The CEO of Turbosquid got back to me today with some impressive decisions made all on their own. His entire email is above. The sum of things are this:

Turbosquid made $800 off my design. They decided, without my knowledge, to donate the money they earned from my IP to disaster relief. This is incredibly sleazy because: 1. If I complain about it I look like a complete jackass, and 2. they get to claim the donation on their taxes and effectively lose no profit.

Matt has decided that because Shank3D made his very own model of my design, I  do not have any right to the profits. This is a very interesting decision that goes against anything I’ve ever read about copyright and IP.

If I Wrote It, It Isn’t an Infringement

Writing something or creating it yourself does not automatically mean that it is not a copyright infringement. For example, if you write a story based upon another book or take a photograph of a painting, even though you created a new work, it could be what is known as a derivative work and infringement.

Derivative works is a particularly messy area of copyright law and one that is still being settled. However, it is based upon whether an “ordinary observer” would find the works “substantially similar”.

This is a very tricky area but it should suffice to say that simply doing your own work does not protect you from copyright infringement so long as that work is based heavily upon the work of someone else.”

Question: Can I make a sculpture based on a photograph without permission?

Answer: No. The sculpture would be a derivative work.  In one famous case, artists Jeff Koons made a sculpture based on a photograph of a group of puppies and argued that the sculpture was a "fair use.” See Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir 1992). The court found that the sculpture was not a fair use, in part because the sculpture damaged the photographer?s potential market for derivative works.  The photographer might want to grant a license to another sculptor to make a new work based on the photograph.  If so, the existence of Koons’ sculpture could reduce the potential market available to that licensee and thereby reduce the value of the photographer?s copyrights.“

I’d say the 10,000 people who responded to my original post are a good sign that there is nothing impressionably different about Shank3D’s derivative work.

The fact that his work is a "derivative work” and not “theft of work” doesn’t give anyone any more right to profit from my designs. If I did file a lawsuit, while I would not get more than the profit made due to the particulars of this matter, every penny profited from the selling of the work would go to me.

If you make a 3D model of Mickey Mouse and sell it, you don’t get to buy everyone pizza and cake to make up for it when you get caught.

On top of this, they have shown no interest in punishing the seller of the work any further than taking the model down. So in short:

- Shank3D gets to keep ~$800 he made by violating Turbosquid’s TOS in just about every way possible. He is also allowed to continue selling his other models on the site despite such flagrant infringement.

-Turbosquid gets to donate ~$800 of their money and decide it was the profit of this model, which is impossible to even prove – it’s abuse of coincidence. Of course there was no indication that it was donated in my name.

-I get to enjoy 0 dollars for my infringement, time taken to remove the infringement, and market confusion.

Pure sleaze. Please reblog this (probably) final part of the story so everyone can see what Turbosquid’s idea of fixing the situation is.

Don’t try to call me again, Matt.

Hmm, that looks familiar....

Dear Skeletos Fans,

we are flattered to find that one of our bestselling rings has been copied by a fantastically succesful artisan on Etsy! We can only assume he was blown away by our incredible accuracy and detail which imitators can only dream of!

If you would like to see our lovely original ring, you can find it here in our Etsy shop:

If you would like to see the copy, you can find it here:

We have carefully rephotographed our original piece in the style of our biggest fan to make the comparison really simple!

If you would like to show your support for genuine craftsmanship and stand up against copyright theft, please visit our raven claw ring link here: and favourite our ring on your facebook page. Please feel free to forward this post and help make others aware of unscrupulous traders.