{paginate}
1 of 1
{/paginate}
Rotten Bastard Art Thief
Posted: 19 August 2011 02:43 AM   [ Ignore ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

So anyway.. there’s this guy.. one Chad Love-Lieberman. He’s apparently more incredibly awesome than us mere mortals. He’s a rapper, has dated Paris Hilton, and has had his testicles insured for 1.4 million dollars. He is also the creative genius behind website ‘Art4love.com’, where he sells his creative, original artwork to wealthy designers and homeowners…

He is also a colossal rotten filthy bastard.

Apparently, he’s been yoinking random bits of art off sites like DeviantArt and claiming them as his own. He’ll sell them as a glicee print* complete with a ‘certificate of authenticity’ for a thousand bucks. This comes as a great surprise to the artists who have had their work stolen, as many of them would be willing to part with the actual originals of their artwork for a tenth that, or even a nice cheeseburger in some cases.

This came to my attention from the blog of Ursula Vernon, an awesome artist and kid’s book author, as one of her pieces was appropriated by this waste of skin. Needless to say, given the close-knit community of independant artists on DeviantArt, the baying hounds of the Internet have been let loose. I do not expect this to end well for him.

I’m rather fond of the Campus Socialite’s article on the guy, which was edited retroactively once… certain errors... were pointed out. It’s a fairly blah article, made hilarious by the editing. http://www.thecampussocialite.com/new-york-multimedia-pop-artist-insures-his-own-nuts/


*Glicee prints are printed on canvas using an inkjet-like process with actual oil paint, often with molded ‘brush strokes’ for ‘authenticity’. Most Kincade ‘originals’ are done this way. They are pretty much worthless to art collectors, but fare somewhat better than paper prints in that regard. Basically it’s a poster printed on canvas.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2011 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8165
Joined  2005-02-06

well, the incredible mixture of styles should have been one tip-off….

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2011 06:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

I know, right? A lot of folks have pieced together that the guy basically seems to be a collossal douchebag from end to end, and that’s not even counting the art thievery. It appears that the website is one of those that participates in ‘linking circles’, wherein they link to other dubious websites, all giving one another a veneer of credibility and popularity. It appears he might well have been stealing a bit for his ‘music career’, too.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2011 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2878
Joined  2005-06-15

So what’s going to happen to the Rotten Art Thief Bastard?

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 August 2011 09:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26039
Joined  2004-11-08

Yeah, I’ve seen other dA artists complain about this.  It’s sadly not uncommon to steal another’s art and either sell it as your own or even use a picture of a fourteen year old to sell a porn dvd.

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 August 2011 02:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21
Peter - 20 August 2011 07:55 PM

So what’s going to happen to the Rotten Art Thief Bastard?

Not sure, yet. Presumably, there’s a good amount of nasty letters being written, and possibly lawyers contacted. I will keep an eye on it.

Aha.. looks like there is a class-action lawsuit being formed. The guy seems to have built up his entire existance by plagarizing others. He has posts under his name that are basically copied from others, regarding the resale of artistic works. He pasted Paris Hilton’s face into a photograph with him. His recording career was apparently very similar… basically a douchebag on all fronts.

http://quirky-love.blogspot.com/2011/08/chad-love-lieberman-art-thief.html has been compiling the information about the guy… It does not look good for him.

Also, this isn’t like, one or two pictures. HUNDREDS. http://blog.deirdrereynolds.com/2011/08/art-theft-scam-list.html

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2011 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
New Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2011-07-04

Someone on deviantART commented that he heard that Marvel, DC, publishing houses and possibly Disney are going to get involved, although I have no information on how accurate this data is. Seriously, I’m browsing through his list of “works” expecting to find any of my paintings right now. About one-third of them are familiar and it’s truly baffling how someone could be so immoral, so…so…a rotten bastard art thief isn’t enough to describe it. He sold photomanipulations disguised as oil paintings He grabbed pictures RIGHT FROM THE FRONT SITE OF DEVIANTART, from the list of most popular deviations. He stole digital paintings, web banners, commissions, concept art from major computer games, Pathfinder, Anima, possibly WoW and to add insult to injury he did a lousy job remaining them. He took paintings from my favorite digital artists and from Anne Stokes, disgraced them, sold them and almost got away with it too? What’s wrong with him?! How long had he been doing it and what’s wrong with people for not busting him sooner?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 August 2011 10:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

There are some very, very stupid people in this world.

There are some folks who *honestly* believe that ‘anything on the internet is public domain’.

There are some folks that think that purchasing a print means they can make copies and sell them.

There are some folks who are just criminal scumwads.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
   
{paginate}
1 of 1
{/paginate}