Heidi Knutson the Art Thief Photo Gallery by Sandra Jackson at pbase.com

Heidi Knutson the Art Thief

UPDATE 2009: She's doing it again. See first gallery below.

At least six of her paintings have been created and sold with copyrighted material (she freely admitted this, and admitted knowing it was wrong) and there may be more. The Federal Government does not take kindly to copyright infringement and making a profit from it on this scale. Neither does Revenue Canada or Universal Studios.

Total value: $10,450.00 offered/indicated for sale/sold
Total value SOLD: $5,050.00 as per Heidi Knutson's own website

COPYRIGHT LAW
The Copyright Act of Canada states that no one is allowed to "imitate or repeat the main design of the work" in any manner whatsoever.

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Part 9 322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate..."

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER
The Canadian law states that truths may be stated, facts may be stated. Opinions about these truths and facts may be given. That is NOT defamation.

Heidi Knutson (6670 Whelpton Road, Aggasiz, BC V0M 1A2 604-796-9501 heidi.k@telus.net) stole one of my copyrighted images, painted it, portrayed it on her site as her own creation with a price of $900.00. I have attempted to come to a settlement with her but she continues to be deceitful and is now not honouring the Terms of Settlement as agreed. This is a website in her honour, chronicling all her actions, and lies. She has also admitted to stealing six other images, some from other pbase accounts, painting them, portraying them as her own creations and selling them.

She has no respect for fellow artists, namely all the great photographers who put their dedication, hard work, education and expensive equipment into acquiring beautiful images, only to have her steal them and profit from them. Heidi stated she knew it was wrong to copy and sell these images, but she did it anyway. I feel she thought she'd never get caught.

Heidi Knutson is a member of the Chilliwack Visual Artists Association and they have been advised of her stealing images and copying them. That is not allowed under the terms of Membership of the CVAA.
UPDATE: Her membership has been cancelled as they cannot leave themselves open to a lawsuit.

If you have ever purchased a painting from this person, be aware that there is the chance that the painting is of a copyrighted image, and as such, could be subject to seizure by the RCMP to return the painting to the original copyright holder. You would then have to collect the amount of money you paid for the painting from Heidi Knutson.

This is also to inform that the website owner where her paintings were listed for sale co-operated fully with me, and the images were removed. I have no dispute with him.

This is not to be confused with a Heidi Knutson of Minnesota, who has no part in this.

[ 2009 Heidi Knutson update ]	Aggasiz 'artist'	Artist stealing from artists	Page 1
Page 2	Page 3	Price establishing value	Heidi Knutson paintings' pricing
Notice of Infringement of Copyright	Terms of Settlement	another stolen image	Exact copy
[ paintings__photos ]	[ PBase messages ]

post a comment

Sandra Jackson		10-Mar-2009 00:51
Heidi Knutson is up to her old tricks again. Asking for permission to paint for personal use, and then painting to sell them on the internet. This time, she can't claim ignorance like the last time. She's not the innocent she claims to be, she's just a devious person doing assembly line painting for profit. Heidi, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Redmax1		20-Sep-2008 18:42
Update?

Sandra Jackson		10-Apr-2008 15:43
Heidi Knutson opened up a Flickr account and posted all her paintings (except mine) on this account on April 7, 2008, portraying them as her own creations. This was her profile: "Hi...I'm excited to be a part of this club. I'm an Artist who loves painting nature and wildlife, and taking the occasional decent photo. Planning to persue the art of photography. Hope I'm going to get better once I invest in a better camera in the future. I'm 50 years young, very personable, a little gullable, and don't try and take things too seriously. Love to hook up with some fellow Artists or Photogs. Heidi-k" She included the copyrighted works of Ian Dalgliesh and Argishti Khachik, presented on this site as clear acts of copyright theft. This proves she is not sorry about what she is doing, has no morals about stealing the works of others and shall continue to present these paintings as her own works of art. True artists do not steal the works of other artists. When comments were left on the Flickr site that these are the copyrighted works of others, she took the account down. She steadfastly refuses to honour the copyrights of others. This shows her true nature.

Sandra Jackson		06-Apr-2008 11:56
TYLER: If you would read the information on this site, you would learn what this was about. Heidi Knutson was stealing the works of others and selling copyrighted works to the tune of over $10,000. That is not minor. That is theft for financial gain. What do I mean by "returned"? Heidi shipped the painting back to me herself after discussions with the RCMP. All copyrighted materials become the property of the copyright owner, and must be returned, according to Canadian laws. (Please read Notice of Copyright Infringement on this page.) The painting is being donated to my local children's hospital. She took her website down when it was brought to her attention that we knew she was selling/had sold at least seven copyrighted works and possibly more. You can see relevant pages of her website in the folder [Paintings_Photos].

Tcw295		05-Apr-2008 03:08
So I came upon this BAWWWWWWW-fest whilst searching for Rembrandt or something, and I'm confused. So...she didn't actually sell any paintings copied from your pictures, she just listed a generic price and you got angry? And then your painting was...."returned" to you.......what exactly does that mean? You bullied her into giving you her nice painting? What is her website address anyway?

Diana		09-Mar-2008 01:36
Thank you for your response Sandra. I understand that you cannot speak further about the situation and respect your honesty. I'm glad that the painting is now in your possession and that you have taken other steps to ensure that she is unable to resume painting with copyrighted material. Best wishes for a speedy and final resolution to this!

Sandra Jackson		04-Mar-2008 02:40
DIANA: The return of this painting is only the first step. Heidi knows what else she has promised to do to meet Terms of Settlement. It's up to her to make sure she does these things, as promised in her recent email. If not, that means that Terms of Settlement have not been reached regarding this painting. As stated before, she should govern herself accordingly. I really can't comment publicly about the next steps, but information is being gathered and handed over regarding all paintings and photographs. She will not be able to sell paintings in galleries as they have been notified that the artist has been selling copyrighted materials, and no gallery wants to expose themself to any lawsuit. Neither does any artists' association.

Diana		03-Mar-2008 23:19
Very glad to hear that you have received the painting back. Are you (and the other photographers) going to still pursue additional restitution? I hope so, as returning one painting does not seem to be enough of a punishment for someone who intentionally violates copyright. This will only make her "sneakier". Instead of selling online, it will be off-line and at craft shows, since that would reduce her chances of being caught. I'm a photographer and take this type of thing very seriously, as we all should.

Sandra Jackson		03-Mar-2008 21:40
The RCMP were able to convince Heidi Knutson to return the painting to the copyright holder (Sandra Jackson) and the painting has been received, intact and unharmed (4:00PM EST 20080303). This is the copy that was posted on her painting e-commerce website.

Sandra Jackson		01-Mar-2008 23:48
Bruce Johnson - Good for you, that's proper business practice. A lot of the larger stores are now doing that as well (Costco, etc.) They are respecting copyrights. The RCMP are involved at the moment. There should be new information shortly.

Bruce Johnson		01-Mar-2008 23:11
So where is this now? I totaly agree with your stand. I ran mini labs for 16 years and would never allow people to do anything that had a copyright stamp OR one that looked like it was done in a studio. I made a lot of friends on the pro side because of this, and in turn they sent biz my way. So keep up the fight!! Several pro's and I are watching from Saskatoon.

Toby Dickens		27-Feb-2008 10:24
I'm quite amused with "Guest", a person who seems to have no more reason to be here than to hurl insults and add nothing to the discussion. Guest, are you lonely? Need attention? You are a very sad case, my friend. Were you aware they have medications for your condition? Really, you should at least try and get out more or read a book.

Sandra Jackson		16-Feb-2008 01:35
GUEST: GUEST: A very lovely, intelligent man - that's who. He gives me his full support. (Thank you, M) The figures are gleaned from what Heidi had posted on the e-commerce site. She had also posted the 'solds'. We have obtained the prices of the solds. I do not need to make up the figures, Heidi has provided them for us by posting them on her site. These figures here do not include two paintings she had done of her own two pets but had posted with prices. We even know now when each painting was added to the site. So far, no photographer has come forward to state that they did give her permission to paint and sell. If they do, we shall remove the value of that painting from the numbers. Dave and Arto, thank you for your support.

Arto Gueriguian		15-Feb-2008 13:35
Sandra after looking your gallery I came across your equipment. I understand now with all the money, efforts, energy and time you spent on your photographs how frustrating it must be when you see someone steels your picture and paints it for sale. I hope again the best for you and don't give up.

Dave Hudspith		15-Feb-2008 13:24
Sandra - Keep up the good fight and let us know how this is progressing. Personal attacks, like those of the last guest, are simply meant to discourage you from doing the right thing. Anyone with any kind of integrity understands and gives those comments the appropriate weight (ZERO). Dave

KristinB		15-Feb-2008 12:23
Guest, it doesn't take too much thought to figure out the answer to your question -- Heidi was selling her paintings on an e-commerce web site. That web site owner would have records, I assume...

Guest		15-Feb-2008 10:21
What man would put up with you ? Another lonely Valentines Day Sandra ? How do you know the exact amount sold ? Making up figures ?

Sandra Jackson		12-Feb-2008 17:09
ANDY, not only is this very frustrating but now it has become heartbreaking. It's been discovered that she has painted my image more than once, along with other images she has taken, painted and sold/offered for sale. This is growing larger day by day. I feel this is assembly line painting for financial gain using stolen works of art. As her website stated, "I take REQUESTS." Photographers should not stand idly by.

Andy McInroy		11-Feb-2008 17:28
Sandra, Having being at the receiving end of such plagarism myself, I completely understand your anger and frustration. My own situation was encountered under UK copyright law where the questions about dervative art are less clear. Although it appears that your legal case is a done deal, it might still have been worth letting the courts deal entirely with the matter. This page has perhaps created some complexity to the case which it really didn't need. Anyway, I wish you best luck with this and you have my full support. Andy (www.skyandstone.com)

Mark		11-Feb-2008 17:19
I wasn't talking about copying CDs owned.. Who mentioned CDs. And you know, there is a certain amount of "attitude" that just cries out from your postings. That's me done, BTW. I'm moving on., Suggest you do the same before it affects you.

Sandra Jackson		11-Feb-2008 17:12
MARK: I responded using his email address name, if you will note. HE called himself that name, not I. It was to keep the message clear as to whom it was intended. As far as music on an Ipod or MP3 player, it is fully legal in Canada to copy your CDs to your MP3 player. Please acquaint yourself with the laws of my land first.

Mark		11-Feb-2008 17:08
Wow! I stumbled on all this on an occasional visit to Pbase. How worrrying it is to see people talking about the many emails Heidi will be receiving from people here. I found myself reading more of the messages below than I thought i would but i would never consider "hate" mail to Heidi. Anyway, the point of this post is just to say that I too think you are being too hard here Sandra. I can understand your concern (although I would be flattered) about being copied, but you do seem to be enjoying all this a little too much. The first post I really agreed with was by Bob and you respond by labelling him "bobthebaptist", that said a lot. My suggestion, you should calm down, oh, and if you have kids check their MP3 players. You're surrounded by too many Saints here so could do with some balance.

Jordan Michael		11-Feb-2008 16:52
Bills, I read your comment and just don't think you have any clue as to whom you�re talking about. I've known Sandi for years and have on occasion done business with her. She operates with only the highest standards and can assure you she�s honest in all her business dealings. First of all copying someone's picture with a paint brush and paint and selling this copy is infringing on copy right laws. Ruthless and vindictive is what your post was, not the other way around. She has the right to let other people know about this person stealing other artist�s work. Shame on you Bills, or whoever you are hiding behind with that name.

Sandra Jackson		11-Feb-2008 16:39
BillS, I am removing your comments about my business dealings.

Guest		11-Feb-2008 16:35
Right - delete anyone who does not support you. Yes, I am not using my real name. Any one who knows you would be nuts to not be afraid of you. I do not want to be the next victim of your temper tamtrum. There should be an injunction to pbase and nikoncafe to stop this and protect them.

Kevin		11-Feb-2008 16:25
Bill S??? I tried to email you at your hotmail account but my message bounced as undeliverable. Don't know who you are or why you're trying to turn this discussion into an attack against Sandi? Sandi is an artist whose work has been stolen. This has nothing whatsoever to do with her business by which she earns her living. I work with her and can assure you that she operates with high ethical standards. Your comments are unhelpful, unsubstantiated and obviously intended to try and derail the real issue. I actually CAN be contacted...unlike you....keylight55@gmail.com

Sandra Jackson		11-Feb-2008 15:41
As there is no BillS@hotmail.com all his posts regarding my business dealings shall be removed. Email to that address is returned undeliverable.

Sandra Jackson		11-Feb-2008 14:31
BillS: Defamation of Character Laws in Canada state that I am allowed to state and present true facts. I am also allowed to state my opinions about facts. Heidi has admitted to the facts of painting these photographs without permission. She has admitted to selling them without permission. We have proven this already in three cases so far. I am not allowed to present untrue facts. Heidi is entitled to defend these facts to a judge, while the same judge is examining all the evidence and correspondence between Heidi and myself, and her correspondence to others. The forum thread was removed because it linked too much to this case here. Please PM Gordon for confirmation of this. That is the same reason I have deleted ONE comment here, for protection of that Nikon forum. The other thread was locked because of members disagreeing with the comments of someone else, not I. I have no "friends at the RCMP", Bill. I do not personally know the officer I was speaking to. As far as my business dealings, I don't even know you, so I do not understand how you can comment.

Sandra Jackson		11-Feb-2008 04:33
and also http://www.pbase.com/image/92702423

Sandra Jackson		11-Feb-2008 04:19
Heidi Knutson has been in touch, but she, and her friends, are attempting to keep it off the main page. That is not the true spirit under which I work. Read: http://www.pbase.com/sjackson/image/92641584

Sandra Jackson		10-Feb-2008 13:55
JOHN: Thank you for trying to get that point across "What Sandi is doing is not vengeance; it's punishment. " I'd been most kind and compassionate in my dealing with Heidi up to that point, trying to get her to see how very wrong her actions were, as evidenced by this message on her website http://www.pbase.com/sjackson/image/92645921 but then she reneged on the Terms of Settlement and refuses to co-operate. $100 donation to a charity is hardly a huge punishment, especially when taking into account that the $100 will be coming from monies she's earned by selling the works of others, as well as mine. The Courts' punishment would be minimum of $500 per offence, which works out to $3,000 so far, and in light of her admitting she knew it was wrong, Court fines will probably be much, much greater.

Ian Dalgliesh		10-Feb-2008 10:03
"Lone swan" is a copy of my original image,which I display on pbase.com.At no time have I given my permission to Heidi Knutson to copy or otherwise duplicate my copyrighted image.This is flagrant theft of an original image.My image can be seen at http://www.pbase.com/taggart51/image/75315616/medium.jpg.So be warned,if Heidi Knutson leaves you a nice supportive comment,as she's done twice to me,she could be stealing your ideas and images.BE WARNED!!!!!

John		10-Feb-2008 07:39
Boy, this comments section has really been turned askew at some spots. Bob - As a Christian, I appreciate and respect your ability and willingness to turn the other cheek; revenge, while sometimes effective, is best left up to the Lord. I must disagree with you, however, in how you regard Sandi's predicament. This is not revenge. Revenge would be stealing from the thief in return of their having stolen from you, or something of the like. What Sandi is doing is not vengeance; it's punishment. Not sure what else to say except for perhaps we should all just show simple support or dissent and leave our comments and ill-will out of this procedure for its duration.

Sandra Jackson		10-Feb-2008 04:46
DOUGJ: Canadian laws mirror the laws in the US regarding copyright theft. Your penalties are bit higher, and you also have an instant minimum penalty of $2,500 if someone actually physically removes your copyright watermark and then uses the image (as has been done here). Your laws states that all copied materials shall be destroyed. Our law states that all copied materials go back to the original copyright holder as if those copies were their own. Also, the copyright holder would be entitled to ALL profits from any sales.

Doug J		10-Feb-2008 01:29
Hi Sandra, I�m sorry you have to go through this, but your ordeal will help highlight some of the nonsense that goes on with stealing copyrighted works. The US laws are clear concerning derivative work, and the other person�s actions would violate US law. I don�t know to what extent Canadian law is similar. If this was a situation in which the other party did this just for their own personal use, I wouldn�t think it was a big issue. This is just my view. However, she appears to do this as a commercial activity, intending to gain income from the work. As such, you are entitled to control the use of your work, and to require reasonable compensation if you authorize your photo�s use. Good luck!

Sandra Jackson		09-Feb-2008 18:47
DAVE FRERIKS: As far as your comment about giving out home address and phone number, that information was obtained from the internet, information she readily gave and knew was posted elsewhere. I am just repeating the information, not divulging it. Heidi was using the power of the internet to sell paintings of stolen works of art, I used it to expose that, and her.

Sandra Jackson		09-Feb-2008 16:59
SWISSJAM: I left that comment there for a reason, trust me. The poster seems to be very concerned about her four children (only someone who knows Heidi personally knows that she has four children - I've never divulged that information here). I, too, was and am concerned about Heidi's children. During my discussion earlier this week when attempting to settle this matter amicably, I asked her if she had painted these images in front of her children. (Yes). ...and they watched you paint from an image they knew wasn't yours? (Yes). These children know that you are selling these for profit. Heidi, you need to go back and explain to your children that is is not right, that people should not take things that don't belong to them, and they should also not profit from them. (Oh, I will.) The next day, I received her message of arrogance, refusing to honour the Terms of Settlement. Me naming a sum of $100 to be donated to charity instead of $500 (minimum fine under the Copyright Act) was also due to my concern for her four children. Not only is she not doing the right thing, she is also showing her own children wrongly how to deal with the situation when they are caught stealing. If they don't like living paycheque to paycheque, they must try to imagine how photographers feel when they are stealing THEIR paycheques. Photographers' children have to eat too.

swissjam		09-Feb-2008 13:56
Good luck Sandra. The "Guest" who called you a b**** doesn't derserve the time of day. You are a better person than me. I would have deleted her comment. It is obvious that Heidi and/or her friends have been monitoring your site. Can you beleive the gall of them to accuse YOU of stealing. Keep up the good work of bringing to light a problem that has gone unnoticed for too long.

Tim Froyer Studios, CA		09-Feb-2008 04:43
I am watching this because something similar happened to our studio a while ago. We were able to settle the copyright infringement out of court. The culprit paid us $15,000. It was a long way. So Mrs. Jackson, hats off to you for putting up the fight. Our lawyer is specialized in copyright . Contact me and I will send you his details. If I can give you an advice: Don't pay attention to someone who doesn't have a name and posts as "Guest", or to people who act like saints. It's not THEIR rights and property that's at stake. As long as you stay put to the case and handle it in a decent manner you will win. Regards Tim

Sandra Jackson		09-Feb-2008 04:23
GUEST: I was asking Heidi to make a donation for a number of reasons. I would not be enriched by this. Heidi would be helping an organization which assists folks who don't have as much as we do. Heidi has paid for the food on her table by copying and selling the work of others. She has ADMITTED to at least six copied paintings. When this goes to court because Heidi refuses to co-operate in any settlement, the courts of this land are going to apply a penalty of a MINIMUM of five times what I was wanting her to donate to charity. As the courts always review the behaviour of the defendant, and they also review any terms of settlement offered, this is the greatest possibility that the penalty will be far above $500. As she admitted that she willingly and knowingly used copyrighted material to enrich herself financially, as the Act states, she may be subject to criminal charges. As far as you calling me a bitch, thank you. Do you not know that this stands for Babe In Total Control of Herself? I thank you for your compliment.

Andres Sanchez		09-Feb-2008 04:11
I am behind you 100%... keep fighting for what is right Good luck!

Guest		09-Feb-2008 04:06
Grow up Bitch. Trying to force someone to make a donation of your choosing is wrong. Some of us live paycheck to paycheck. Are you trying to take food out of her 4 kids mouths ? You disgust many of us !

Dave Freriks		09-Feb-2008 03:58
I don't fault Sandra for standing up for her work either. I wouldn't want my photos "copied" without permission either. I don't know what is going on here.... we are getting one side of the story. I saw a couple of images posted that looked to be copied. Stick to those. Doesn't mean the 50 other paintings were copied. The "copied" Eagle looked like a stretch to me. I've seen dozens of photos like that one. That's where the witchhunt starts coming in. Did Sandra have permission to post Heidi's paintings? Giving out home addresses and phone numbers and the name calling.... One can go to Myspace and find this kind of teenage stuff. Just settle the darn thing in the courts if you feel it necessary. Respectfully neither party is taking the high road here.

Tambra Davis		09-Feb-2008 02:56
Beautifully said Patrick. It can be challenging to get the respect deserved as a photographic artist. There are those who think because anyone can press the shutter on a camera that photos are not truly art, that they are somehow public domain. I don't fault Sandra for standing up for her work - if she and other photographers do not do so, then copyright law is completely meaningless.

Patrick		09-Feb-2008 02:25
Some people are seeing the tree and missing the forest behind it, some people seem to be missing the point of it all. We should and must stick to the original work or this issue risk losing support of a part of the community. Lets stick to the facts and the image which started this copyright's "controversial" issue. The painter asked for permission, knowing it was a copyrighted image, the permission was never granted yet Heidi copied the image anyway. The Copyright's act is quite clear to that effect in both the U.S. and Canada. Heidi the painter is allowed to paint a picture of a cygnet swimming however she is not allowed to paint a copy of someone else's image without the owner of the image consent. According to the copyright's act a person can not repeat or imitate the main design of the work which Heidi did, in full knowledge of a copyright's violation. The painting was not done by a world renowned painter, both people are hobbyists, one who does not even try to make money from her pictures and the other who puts prices on her paintings for profit. If there is a price, for sale or not for sale, you put a value on it. Who knows what Heidi would have done if a buyer had offered $900 for the cygnet painting which started this whole affair. If anyone copied one of my images for their own personal use, I have no issues with it - I'd find that flattering but if anyone copied my pictures for "possible" personal financial gain or profit, then it becomes a legal issue and I will sue to gain as much as possible. If, as photographers, hobbyist and pros alike, we do not take a stand now... Then it sets a precedent, a precedent clearly stating it is fine for other people to take our images without our consent in full cognizance the images are copyrighted, make copies and then sell these images without us getting anything in return. No matter what the images are, they belong to the person who pressed the shutter and captured that moment in time, they do not belong to the public domain. One of the joys of photography is sharing our work with others, if less photographers share their works online because of fear of copyrights infringement this lessen makes the community as a whole and I do not want to see this happen. If Heidi had stolen a "Mikey Mouse" copyrighted image of Walt Disney would that be any different? It is a cartoon image, who cares? Who cares...!? The Walt Disney Corporation would, and they would sue for everything they could and then some. There are plenty of legal precedents in Canada and the United-States in favor of the plaintiff, in the case the plaintiff is Sandra. The only difference in this case versus previous, this case is between two individual, one who stole the other's image which is protected under the Canadian and U.S. standards of what constitutes a copyright. The importance of the image is irrelevant... Where, when and at what level do we stop these infringements, do we wait until a precedent is set, do we wait until it is "okay" to take any images on the Internet and copy them for financial gain to the detriment of the original owners of the said images or... do we all stand together on this as photo amateurs, hobbyist, photo lovers and professionals and say enough is enough this will not be tolerated, we will not stand for it! I do not have to agree with the way this issue is being handled by Sandra however I do agree with Sandra on the issue being a clear cut case of copyright's infringement. Sandra, has my full support and you should support her as well with your comments and encouragement, it is not only her image which is at stake but any work you as an individual or professional, you put on the Internet to share with others or promote your work. I believe it is time to take a stand on the issue and not back down, if we give in once, what stops anyone from copying our work for their own personal gain?

Chris		09-Feb-2008 02:18
@ Bob: "Your slur against the Jews who lost their lives is a low blow indeed." Well, let's put it this way ... I am a Jew, and two thirds of my folks went up in gas and flames back then because millions of people didn't have the guts to stand up for what's right ... that gives me enough right to slur. Back to the case: Posting someone else's photographs on the web (with proper credits) is one thing .... selling them as "my own art work" and making profit from it, is stealing food out of the copyright holder's mouth. After reading carefully through all the information it seems to me that it is Heidi Knutson who is not willing to agree on a gentlemen's agreement. So there's no other way than going for her the hard way.

Sandra Jackson		09-Feb-2008 01:55
DAVE: I have done everything possible to attempt to settle this matter with Heidi in a civilized manner. Even the RCMP said that my Terms of Settlement were more than fair and she should have honoured it. Heidi has jeopardized the integrity of an artists' association. Heidi has stolen the works of others. Heidi has been arrogant and deceitful throughout. Her painting of my image is not similar, it is an EXACT copy, and other photographers feel that she probably used a projector. Besides, it doesn't matter what opinions about copying are, the Copyright Act of Canada is very specific about this.

Dave Freriks		09-Feb-2008 01:01
I don't agree with what Heidi Knutson is doing, but the way you are handling this is extremely childish and way overboard. A couple of her paintings are fairly obvious that they were copied.... especially if she actually did admit it. But, now it just sounds like you are on a witchhunt. A person can probably find a similar looking photo of 90% of the paintings ever painted. Frankly, you need to chill out a bit and handle this like an adult instead of some revengeful teenager. With your way of handling this, it's now clear who has more issues.... you or her.

Sandra Jackson		09-Feb-2008 00:47
Thanks Tambra, I was going on memory because the site had been pulled. I could only remember a water triptych of a water scene. The idea for the painting is the same but she has changed details in the image.

Sandra Jackson		09-Feb-2008 00:45
BOB, the message "All of these images are copyright.... unless noted" is a blanket statement that comes from the source directory. If you are referring to photos of the Avro Arrow, those were taken as "photographer for hire" which, in Canada, means that the copyright is owned by the corporation who hired the photographer. As Boeing is the great-great grandchild corporation of A.V.Roe, and the President himself asked me to be a photographer for the event, and has seen that site, I don't think they have a problem. As I have also worked with a reporter from the Toronto Star (grandchild corporation regarding the news photos and holder of the copyright), I don't think THAT is an issue either. I am more than willing to apply applicable copyright markings to anything on my site which is unmarked.

Tambra Davis		09-Feb-2008 00:33
Sandra, Now that I see the 3 pages of her paintings, I don't believe she has copied my photograph for her painting "Islands'. The trio layout is similar, but the subject is different. Your photo, however, has been copied almost exactly. Good luck in your effort to protect your work.

Frank		09-Feb-2008 00:01
Bob wrote " Forget revenge... Forgive this person their wrong against you... Be happy that this person liked your work enough to turn them into paintings" Bob, you're treating the injured party as if she was somehow at fault. Sandi is to be complimented for having the fortitude to confront the party who wronged her and demand restitution. Turning the other cheek would just encourage Heidi to continue her thievery. Imho, an eye for an eye is the more appropriate response. Try a church if you're looking for a pulpit, Bob. Pbase is a photographer's site, and this is a secular issue.

Bob		08-Feb-2008 23:50
Hey Chris, I like your quote,"If someone steals our art work for what purpose ever, then it is our duty to take a stand against it. The minimum we have to do to defend our rights as artists is to hunt down and fight art thieves by going public." Does this mean that you are going to turn in Sandi for stealing over 100 photos for which other people hold the copyright and that she has "published and distributed" by putting on her web site? The lame " these aren't my photos" line will not hold up in a court of law. I think the best course of action would be to turn over both sites to the RCMP and see who goes to jail first and how quickly Sandra has to find another job that is not in real estate. There are ways of settling disputes and there are ways of settling disputes. Your slur against the Jews who lost their lives is a low blow indeed.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 23:49
PAT MORGAN: I have just received all the files and will be uploading them shortly. Please advise if any are paintings of your copyrighted material so that we may apply the copyright notice accordingly. Thank you.

Chris		08-Feb-2008 23:39
@ Bob: Your "... the best course for your health and well-being is: ..." is exactly what the Jews lived by while their friends and family members stood in line for the gas chamber some 60 years ago. If someone steals our art work for what purpose ever, then it is our duty to take a stand against it. The minimum we have to do to defend our rights as artists is to hunt down and fight art thieves by going public. In addition there is a DMCA and similar rights. I wonder how Heidi Knutson can imagine she'd get away with this silently.

Pat Morgan		08-Feb-2008 23:21
She visited my page, www.pbase.com/patmorgan/sunflowers any chance you saw sunflowers on her page. PS you have a remarkable job of investigation concerning the unfortunate theft of your images. Donating the works as you plan to do is wonderful. Pat

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 22:55
TAMBRA: photos of her painting of copyrighted images will be up very shortly. I've had the offer of some anonymous Sleuthing Supermen in helping me get these - thanks so much, Guys! I will be trying to match everything up, and will be placing the correct copyright accordingly.

Tambra Davis		08-Feb-2008 22:49
Hello Sandra, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Did you happen to get a screen shot of her copy of my seascape photo? I've had people respectfully request to use my photos as subjects for their art, and I'm always open to the idea, requesting only a good quality scan of their finished product. This woman, Heidi, did not even ask my permission. Tacky, very tacky. By the way, your photo of the cygnet is just stunning. Fabulous work.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 22:45
BOB: Please stop preaching to me. Preach to her. Read Heidi's message on her website that she posted after talking to me. Does that sound like I spoke to her with anger? I am attempting to have a dialogue with her but she is refusing to co-operate. She is refusing to return the painting as well. DPreview would have pulled the thread if that were true. They just locked the thread because of the arguing about copyright. Let's keep the facts straight here.

bob		08-Feb-2008 22:36
Sandra, I realize that you don't see it, but you are so full of anger that your judgment has been skewed. You are headed down a path that you could regret much more than your foe and pursuing your attempting to shame her has already led you to break the copyright act yourself. You really need to pull back and cool off before this pursuit of yours backfires. A week from now you could start a non-threatening dialog with her but in the meantime hide this "I hate this art thief" page and delete all the comments. And while you are cooling off, learn how to hide your images from being downloaded without your permission. Even DPreview stopped your posting because they could see how dangerous and inappropriate it was.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 22:08
CAROL: That is why this theft struck me so hard. Of all the hundreds of images on my site, she had to choose one of little Sydney. Stealing his image and then offering to paint another copy of the painting for a $900 fee dishonoured his memory. I had to fish him out of the water, all the while sobbing my heart out, carry him back to the island, and bury him. It took me months to get over his death. His parents accepted me, and we had a very special bond. They looked forward to my visits and were proud to show him off. She does not get to keep that painting. I want good people seeing it.

Carol		08-Feb-2008 22:00
The message Sandra is referring to is one where I said I had just read the story of Sydney the Cygnet and viewed her wonderful images that were taken of his short life (right down to the swans on the nest). For Heidi to have stolen an image that was so emotive speaks volumes to me about what kind of person she is. In fact, in my opinion, she's just as bad as the power boat driver that took Sydney's life.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 21:55
CAROL, feel free to repost anything that is missing.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 21:33
CAROL: I'm SO glad you've mentioned that. During my conversation on Tuesday with Heidi, I said to her "Did you not read that message that the top of the page about poor little Sydney and his life being cut short like that?" HEIDI: Oh yeahhhhh, that was soooo sad, that was horrible. I felt really bad for you!". Me: And yet you STILL stole from me!!!!?????? Obviously, you weren't feeling bad enough to not steal from me.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 21:29
pbase glitch, happening often but I'm just removing the double posts so people don't think we're trying to bulk this up.

Carol		08-Feb-2008 21:24
I'm not sure why my last message came up twice - 17 minutes apart?

Carol		08-Feb-2008 20:54
Bob I do applaud you for your ability to turn the other cheek. However, you can't tell someone else how to react to an act against them. What a boring world it would be if we all acted (and reacted) the same way. Heidi has set the tone of this exchange here... not Sandra. I thought Sandra was very gracious in her "terms of settlement". I recently entered a photographic competition run by a local newspaper. I entered a photo of my nephew studying a snail up close (taken front on with his eyes almost crossed). Nine days later someone else entered almost an exact copy of this but the snail was replaced by a grasshopper (the child was looking at the camera though). The photo that actually won second prize was a close up of a child studying a snail (taken from a side view). They say that "imitation is the highest form of flattery" but I can tell you I wasn't feeling too flattered. For me it was more about having my photograph published in the paper as a featured entry (what a buzz)... but the two unoriginal copycats were not something that made me smile. I thought it was sad that they actually entered copies into the same competition instead of coming up with something original of their own. I cannot begin to imagine how outraged you must feel Sandra. I would have done exactly as you have done here... but I doubt I'd have done it so well and so fairly. Carol Australia

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 20:49
BOBTHEBAPTIST: This is not revenge, this is exposure. I am exposing a person who steals money out of the pockets of photographers. This is the food on our table. She has done this on a very large scale. I have no hate or anger toward her, I have pity. Her moral compass has hit a glitch. She did not make a mistake, she knew exactly what she was doing and freely admitted that and practiced deceit throughout. She knew it was wrong and still did it. I am NOT wanting any money from this, and feel insulted you would say so. If you would read the whole site, you would know that I wanted her to make a donation to charity. I feel that was very fair and very honourable on my part. I stand to gain absolute nothing from all of this. Maybe you should be going to Heidi's house and telling HER what she should do, as she is the one who seems to have lost her way. I am still working hard to put food on my table, while doing many acts of charity, while donating a certain percent of my income to charity, while doing a food drive for my local foodbank. Heidi is stealing. She's the one in need of direction, not I.

bob		08-Feb-2008 20:30
Actually, the best course for your health and well-being is: 1. Forget revenge - it never works the way you think it will. 2. Forgive this person their wrong against you as the longer you carry this anger/hate in you the worse off you will be. 3. Be happy that this person liked your work enough to turn them into paintings 4. Tell her to put her paintings back up on her web site and put a link from your site to hers. 5. Ask her to put a link on her site to yours. 6. Ask for no money 7. Ask only that she attribute her work to yours. 8. Be thankful that you have the photographic skills you do, the money to pursue your craft and are not living in a slum eating food out of a dumpster. 9. While she was wrong in her actions you don't have to dwell on the past. And yes, this is what I would do in your situation and I would be the richer for it. Bob

Kirsten		08-Feb-2008 20:10
You go, girl!!! I wish you the best.

KristinB		08-Feb-2008 19:04
Gee, what a surprise! I guess she's upset about the multitude of messages she's probably been receiving from everyone who's seen this page, saying "Shame on you!" Sandi, thank you for following through on this and alerting the other photographers whose work may have been stolen. Hopefully this will serve as a cautionary tale for anyone else who is considering copying someone else's work.

AFS		08-Feb-2008 18:59
You get her, Sandi! There's no reason she should be allowed to get away with theft of your intellectual property.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 18:58
HEIDI KNUTSON: I just received your email and highly suggest you get in touch with me ASAP (she has just shut down her email account). You have my phone number. You will meet the Terms of Settlement agreed upon. If you do not get in touch regarding Settlement, this is going forward. Govern yourself accordingly.

Jordan		08-Feb-2008 17:51
What a whore.. She should try leaving her house and getting her own ideas of what to paint. Maybe then they would mean something. I'm sure she can put her talents to good use and work at a local Kinkos as the copy machine girl. Whore.

Arto Gueriguian		08-Feb-2008 16:26
Thank you Sandra for the answer and good luck in your legal pursuit.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 16:15
SUNNY: Sometimes, in life, it takes someone with strong character to stand up and fight for the rights of the underdog. If you do not agree with this, that is fine. However, in life, you may be presented with a grave situation in which you need some strong support, and you just might find yourself standing alone. Heidi was warned EXACTLY what I was going to do (her reply: do whatever you want), and I am allowed, under the laws of my country, to state FACTS about an act, and that is not defamation. I am also allowed to present my opinion of those facts. That is not defamation.

Dan Gilligan		08-Feb-2008 16:09
Sandra Good luck in your legal pursuit of this "shabby" behavior! Dan Gilligan

Sunny		08-Feb-2008 16:07
While a disagree about how you are handling this, I sure can't argue about the artist's stupidity. zeesh

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 16:02
SUNNY: You do NOT know all the details except you seem to state your opinion about them. The reason it was NOT FOR SALE on the site was that she'd given the painting to her sister in law, but she did tell someone (in writing, thankyouverymuchHeidi) that she was willing to make another copy and sell it to them. I do have the support of Gordon who is one of the most distinguished members of the Cafe, not having your support is fine with me. I never stated I had all the members' support. I've also received PM's from a great many who wish to remain neutral publicly.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 15:59
ARTO: Apparently it was painted in acrylics. The copyright laws are VERY specific, you can paint a building if you're standing it front of it, or if you photographed it yourself. That is not the bone of contention here. She's allowed to paint a picture of a cygnet swimming. She is NOT allowed to paint a copy of MY image. Please read the Notice of Infringement which I sent her (see image above Notice of Infringement) detailing the section of the Copyright Act which she breached. "repeat or imitate the main design of the work". Others have suggested that she might have even projected my image onto the canvas and paint it. THAT is not art.

Sunny		08-Feb-2008 15:54
She clearly stated on her web site that the painting was not for sale. The artist (and she is truly an artist) really did a dumb thing but this has been blown completely out of shape and become petty. I agree with your position but resent you're using the Nikon Cafe by claiming all the members support you in this issue. THEY DO NOT! Speak only for yourself. This should be between you and Heidi.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 15:54
GUEST/LYNN: Yes, I was appalled at that, and that is why I've taken this action. My last message to her was "I am leaning toward a yes but would like more information first." I had asked specifically about the size of painting (she painted it four feet wide!!), which art show she was putting it in, what price, and does she give credit to the original photographer. Now I understand why she never answered. She KNEW I've never give permission for that size, that price and having it sold on the internet. She tried to make it sound like it was going into some tiny town art fair. Another lie.

Arto Gueriguian		08-Feb-2008 15:51
I would like to quote what trinko wrote on your post of show and tell and is not answered yet. I agree with the comments 100% i can't tell from the small photo. when you said she painted your photo did she do an original in oils or watercolors or did she just photoshop your photo? in the latter case i fully agree with you. in the former i'm not so sure. in the former case i wonder about all of the photos of buildings or stained glass windows or even people walking on the street. are we photographers stealing from the architect or the one who made the stained glass window? are we stealing if we take a photo of someone wearing a costume? i have to admit i was bothered when the folks in carmel copyrighted their famous tree so that you can't sell a picture of it without their permission. After all it is out in the open, it's not like it's a museum. If we start saying that if someone sees one of our photos and then makes an original painting based on it they're stealing then we open ourselves to attacks whenever we take a photo of something other than wildlife. i do agree that in any case the person should have at least contacted you before doing whatever it is they did. i wouldn't take a photo of something, even if i had a right to in my mind, if someone objected--barring news related photos of course. http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=36147

Guest		08-Feb-2008 15:49
Sandi - It's absolutely stunning that someone would first ASK for permission and then proceed without permission being granted. I'm floored. I hope you are successful in this pursuit and that she WISHES she had honored her original agreement! -Lynn Decker

Glenn		08-Feb-2008 15:47
Thanks for the heads up. Best of luck resolving this issue as you are in the right Sandra.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 15:46
SUNNY: when this person steals your images and sells them for $900, please do not ask for my help. She has stolen the great works of MANY photographers and HAS ADMITTED THIS. If you think standing up for one's rights and the rights of others is embarrassing to you, don't watch. That is the definition of apathy.

Sunny		08-Feb-2008 15:39
Stating that you do not speak for all Nikon Cafe member is not incorrect information. You are am embarrassment to many of us

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 15:29
No, I'm deleting comments which are incorrect information. I suggest you PM Gordon directly for further details before posting again.

Sunny		08-Feb-2008 15:20
Interesting how you are deleting any comments which do not support you.

Lex		08-Feb-2008 13:35
If you retyped a book, changing a few words here or there and called it your own, it's still a violation of copyright law. The basic message remains the same. Heidi, should make restitution for this damage immediately, she is clearly in the wrong. Photos are not ART PROOFS, Photos ARE ART, protected by the same copyright law as that book in the above example. your hand was caught in the cookie jar, you need a new creative means or maybe stick to paint by number Heidi!

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 12:59
Stay tuned, folks, we now have a number of sleuths working in the background and we're pretty sure we can track down the source of almost all her paintings. She's been trolling pbase.com for quite a while and building up a large stash from which to paint and sell without permission. We're matching them all up and will present them here.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 12:56
TOM YOUNG: I love your comment. I purchase an expensive camera and study photography to avoid blown highlights and she paints them in!! LOL Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.

Paul Walsh		08-Feb-2008 11:27
I'm disgusted that someone would even think of calling themselves an artist when they are simply copying your work. The actions of Heidi Knutson are clearly a breach of copyright. Hopefully she will abide by the law and return all works to you. Other than that, I'd love to see this go to court and you get a nice victory. It would serve notice to all others who break copyright.

Tom Young		08-Feb-2008 06:03
Mal-appropriation aside, the blown highlights and severe loss of shadow detail exhibited in that knock-off are simply inexcuseable.

Uncle Frank		08-Feb-2008 03:51
Thanks for sharing this fascinating example of your dogged pursuit of justice, Sandi. Heidi clearly picked the wrong lady to steal from. I hope it makes her and her fellow art thieves think twice before they claim another photographer's work as their own.

Sonya		08-Feb-2008 03:50
Thank you for standing up for the rights of all photographers by exposing this thief. I'll be passing this link along to other photographers to get her name out there, and to possibly help find other artists she's stolen from.

John		08-Feb-2008 03:20
Sandi - You are a very patient and talented individual. You offered her a more than lucrative way of getting off relatively clean, and she decided to put her fate into your hands, obviously believing you will not pursue any retribution for her offense. She must pay for her insolence. I second the other photographer's words---I, too will follow this case. I don't know any Canadian encouragement, so I will offer you an American one: "Nail her b***s to the wall!"

Guest		08-Feb-2008 02:08
I agree, this woman is not a artist. The only thing she really is, is a thief. And she should pay for everything she has taken. Not just from you Sandi but from others Im sure she has done the same to in the past.

Michael		08-Feb-2008 01:51
I have granted artists permission in the past to paint a rendering of my photos with the only request that they photograph the finished work and forward it to me so that I could enjoy it. However, that was WITH permission. I would be inflamed if I found it was being done and sold without permission. Tar and feathers comes to mind.

Sandra Jackson		08-Feb-2008 00:46
Sandi - great name, by the way. Yes, she freely admitted to doing it to six other photographers. She admitted to downloading their copyrighted photos, painting them and then uploading and selling them. She doesn't deny it.

Sandi		08-Feb-2008 00:38
Shameful. If she's done it to you, she's probably done it to others as well.

Donna N		08-Feb-2008 00:36
Permission should have been received before using another artists work. Do the right thing.

Guest		07-Feb-2008 23:11
How can anyone call herself an "artist", when all they're doing is copying someone else's work? "Thief" is the word, not "artist"!

Chuck Walla		07-Feb-2008 22:42
If she simply traced this and painted from it. It is simply a slightly more complicated "paint by numbers", isn't it? Disgusting and reprehensible, shame on you, Heidi Knutson!

Torben Jorgensen		07-Feb-2008 21:54
To steal somebody's photo and claim that it's her own is nothing more than common theft and should be treated as such. Some people just have no shame.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 21:42
Heidi Knutson has admitted to a total of seven paintings from copyrighted works of others, mine included, and then selling trying to sell them on her site. Unfortunately, I only sleuthed the one Lone Swan before she removed them from her website. She has admitted knowing it was wrong, she has admitted that she knew she was not supposed to sell copyrighted material. She also gave me permission to "do whatever you want" when I told her I was going to set up this site, so now that clears me from ANY and ALL possible actions regarding defamation. Thank you Heidi.

The Dude's Nephew		07-Feb-2008 21:39
What a cock-and-bull story! She must be nuts to do think she can stiff you. Hopefully the association she is a member of will act before attention peters out.

Linda Zelnio		07-Feb-2008 21:19
Shame on this "artist", and everyone else stealing and downloading work to portray as their own.

Mark		07-Feb-2008 20:39
I hope everyone reads this thread. There is simply no excuse for this type of behavior. Theft of any kind should not be tolerated, and should be prosecuted. I'm sure her tune would change if someone took one of her original paintings - if she has any - modified them slightly, and sold them as genuine creations.

McQ		07-Feb-2008 20:38
I've been amazed at how flagrantly Heidi Knutson has disregarded copyright and ownership of another artist's work. Sandi Jackson is a photographer of high repute. If I asked for her permission to use one of her works, you can be sure I wouldn't steal it if she said "no". Knutson is a thief. She stole a copyrighted work when from an artist who told her she did not have permission to use it, and then tried to sell it as her own. I wonder if that also makes her a dealer in stolen goods? Low class thief, all the way. I hope this is prosecuted to the fullest extent of Canadian law.

Herman van Ooijen		07-Feb-2008 20:32
Sandy, The sentiments of many of us photographers parallel your own. The fact that is, that this "would be artist" does not possess any creativity as evidenced by her actions and more importantly she does not seem to know right from wrong. I hope that you succeed in taking this person out of circulation in the art world. or at least make her see where she went wrong and mend her ways!

Guest		07-Feb-2008 20:30
Wow! What blatant ripoffs of those two photographs (that you know of).

Guest		07-Feb-2008 19:45
This is such a shame. Talented photographers are going to keep their works to themselves, and we will all suffer. Photographs are ART, and the 'painter' needs to get her own ideas. Good luck. This is an important issue for all photographers to watch.

Gloria P		07-Feb-2008 19:38
This really is such a shame what this Heidi person has done. I just wonder how many others she has stolen from also.

Patrick		07-Feb-2008 19:36
Pete, The Canadian Copyrights act is very explicit in what constitute an offense and penalties when a copyright infringement occurs plus they are less prone to interpretations by a court of law in Canada unlike their counterparts in the U.S., very similar and less likely for a court to impose its own view or interpretation of the Copyright's act. Criminal remedies are quite clear: "42. (1) Every person who knowingly (a) makes for sale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists, ... " The work was clearly marked with a copyright and owner's name, Heidi never had permission to use the work as such the consequences can be as follow according to the Copyright's act, "knowingly" is the key word here, Heidi asked for permission which was never granted yet went ahead and copied the photo none the less. "is guilty of an offense and liable (f) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or (g) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both." Those penalties and fine depend on the severity of the infringement. As far as I know, not one judge in a court of law has ever accepted the excuse of "ignorance of the law" specially when the work has been clearly copyrighted and copied in full cognizance of that the said work was clearly copyrighted, Heidi did ask for permission to use... Some of the key points here are: -There is a clear violation of a copyrighted image -The violation was brought to the attention of the offending party and Sandra offered a more than agreeable settlement to Heidi to which terms Heidi agreed on. -The offending party, Heidi, then decided to reneged on the more than gracious terms offered by Sandra. As a photographer this is a case I will very follow closely. Sandra dealt with it graciously without lawyers up until now, if I was her I would already have "lawyered" up and would be pursuing charges in Federal court. The sad thing is that it could have been settled easily, inexpensively and painlessly a couple of days ago.

Steve D.		07-Feb-2008 19:21
I don't suppose that it should be a surprise that someone who asks for permission to use an image, doesn't get that permission but uses it anyway, is also the sort of person that would reneague on the generous settlement that you offered. I hope that Heidi Knutson lives to regret both her blatant copying of others artistic works and her refusal to act with some dignity and integrity when challenged over such theft.

Philippe Roger		07-Feb-2008 19:11
What this Heidi "artist" did to an other artist is deplorable and just plain wrong (and would be even if there was no copyright laws). Sandi, you were magnanimous in offering a settlement benefiting others, netting nothing to you, but after agreeing to it, Heidi is now backing down, showing her true colors: she's a thief and a liar. I fully support your efforts to make her accountable.

Bill Ryan		07-Feb-2008 19:02
Sounds like this Knutson charactor is a real winner. You will make your point. Does she realize that she has ruined her reputation? I would wish you good luck but this seems so cut and dryed that luck isn't needed. Good for you sticking up for your rights. You have helped us all!

Pete		07-Feb-2008 19:00
From www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative/ To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a �new work� or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. This is US law, which is hopefully similar in Canada. Clearly its not "different enough from the original" In fact its copy of the original copyrighted work. With some twigs added. Her artwork is clearly stolen

John Rougeux		07-Feb-2008 18:44
Stealing art is something that should never be allowed. This woman, Heidi, needs to be taught that copyright is nothing trivial. People think that they can get away with this and they will if people don't pursue their rights. I'm fully behind you on this, Sandra, and I wish you luck.

Douglas Dietiker		07-Feb-2008 18:43
To bad it has come to this. I guess she is a believer in the rule "do unto others before they do unto you." I thief is a thief, doesnt make any difference if no breaking and entering was involved. Peolpe can only get away with this type of behavior as long as they hide in the shadows, once the light is shown on them for all to see as this site is doing, they scurry away quickly.

Lex		07-Feb-2008 18:41
If you retyped a book, changing a few words here or there and called it your own, it's still a violation of copyright law. The basic message remains the same. Heidi, should make restitution for this damage immediately, she is clearly in the wrong. Photos are not ART PROOFS, Photos ARE ART, protected by the same copyright law as that book in the above example. your hand was caught in the cookie jar, you need a new creative means or maybe stick to paint by number Heidi!

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 18:33
Lisa Wallace - thank you Lisa for your support and that great idea. Yes, Heidi Knutson disappeared when I asked for more information, ie where the painting would be shown, the asking price, does she give credit to the original photographer. Now I know why she disappeared and did not continue her quest for permission.

dabolson		07-Feb-2008 18:29
Sandra - thanks for fighting the good fight on this issue. Too often, people let themselves be trampled by those without conscience and consider it not worth the effort to do anything about it. Good Luck! DAB

Lisa Wallace		07-Feb-2008 18:27
And HER request for permission is still in the gallery with the stolen photograph? Priceless. You might want to comment there, and note that permission was NOT granted.

Lisa Wallace		07-Feb-2008 18:25
I'm appalled. First at the theft. Then, at Heidi's refusal to back down from a negotiated settlement (which Sandra did not personally profit from - proceeds going to charity) for spurious and ill-researched reasons. It's "just one" painting. First one, then another...benefiting from the creativity of another by illegal means is wrong, no matter how you slice it.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 18:19
Dave Larkman - that's exactly my thought as well. I did an overlay and it's an exact copy. Unless she's smart enough to paint in grid fashion, and I doubt that, then it looks like she just used a projector. That's about as talented as Paint-By-Number.

Dave Larkman		07-Feb-2008 18:19
I would overlay the images. It appears to me that she projected your image onto the canvas then painted it.

Bohdan Tkaczyk		07-Feb-2008 18:16
Taking someone's work and calling it your own is despicable. Good luck Sandi in your fight for your rights. You're not alone in hoping that his ends up in your favour. Bob

Scott Woerner		07-Feb-2008 18:07
Sandra, Thank you for bring Heidi�s actions to the attention of the art community. What she did was wrong and hopefully it will serve as a lesson to others that theses types of actions will not be tolerated. The enemy of freedom is apathy. Thank you for helping to protect our ability to display our work without fear of theft. You have my full support.

Brian		07-Feb-2008 17:58
What she did was applorable. As an artist she should have known better. How would she feel if she spent hours on creating and original painting and had someone take a picture of it and sold the pictures without her consent? I mean this is obvious. Even my 6 and 8 year old children understand what stealing is.

Sid Frisby		07-Feb-2008 17:58
How can someone call herself an artist and talk about "morals" when she deliberatly copies the work of another is beond me. Sandra, you are doing us all a favour by persuing this in a public way. Your original work shows that you are the true artist. Best wishes Sid Frisby Norwich UK

P. John Palmer		07-Feb-2008 17:57
If one looks at the photographic image and the painted image, there are simply too many points of exact congruity to claim innocent imitation or any other such defense for this. While several items have been added to the painted image, these are very obviously not making the painted image uniquely the vision of the painter. In short, the photograph stands as the original image, and the painted image stands as clearly derivative from the initial photograph. This is not an homage, not use for research, or any kind of fair use by the person producing the painted image. It is plainly and simply a wholesale copy of the photographer's artistic product, and based on the photographer's statement, a completely unauthorised copy of the photographer's work. Unauthorised copying of copyrighted art has legal consequences in Canada. I wish you the very best in pursuing those consequences up to and through criminal charges if the other person cannot act appropriately in this matter.

Brian		07-Feb-2008 17:38
What she did was applorable. As an artist she should have known better. How would she feel if she spent hours on creating and original painting and had someone take a picture of it and sold the pictures without her consent? I mean this is obvious. Even my 6 and 8 year old children understand what stealing is.

Patrick		07-Feb-2008 17:26
Sandra, You are much nicer than I would ever be. If it was my picture, I would have hired a lawyer and sued her to the full extent of the law according to the Canadian copyright's law as soon as she reneged on the settlement. The penalties can be quite severe and would serve as a lesson to all. I hope this story gets bigger so people can hear about this issue. A picture posted on the Internet does not belong to the public domain, the copyrights belong to the person who captured the image. You offered her a very easy way out and she did not take it. You have been way more tolerant than most photographers I know would ever have been from the get go and even in posting this story online.

Dan		07-Feb-2008 16:51
This is very wrong. Very immorale to profit from someone else creation. Heidi isnt an artist, just a rip off merchant. I hope she realises this and compensates as such.

Kevin		07-Feb-2008 16:34
The old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" might come into play...but to outright copy someone else's work is a bit lame. Looks like a decent painting...but there is more to a painting then just technique...the subject is what drives the whole process. In this case, someone's composition that forms this wonderful image is being taken by someone else. This is not right. To put the shoe on the other foot, what if someone took a photograph of one of Heidi's paintings and then had them reproduced using a Giclee process, and then went on to sell them. I'm sure this would be met with outrage by Heidi.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 16:30
Dave Larkman - Dave, my friend, thanks so much for your support. Yes, Heidi Knutson is not an artist, she's a copycat painter - huge difference. The Chilliwack Visual Artists Association were shocked by her behaviour and do not condone it. Now she will be judged by her peers.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 16:27
Michael Domenichetti - Michael, I have continually warned her that it would come to this should she refuse to co-operate on this matter. She was warned to govern herself accordingly, and the Courts will also be reviewing her actions. They take a dim view of a very generous Offer to Settle being accepted and then refusing to honour it. This will only increase her damages as the Courts then tend to award at the higher end of the scale ($20,000).

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 16:25
Toby Dickens, thank you Toby for your support. Heidi says that what she did was not theft, only copying. She is just NOT getting it. Copying IS theft of an artist's image. Her original biography page said "I've just begun." I beg to differ, I think she has just ended her art career.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 16:21
Anthony Marinucci, thank you for your comment and support. She and her lawyer have no shame. It's a sad world when we cannot even trust a fellow artist. I did point out to her that while she only has to pay for a canvas, a few brushes and a few tubes of paint, photographers have to pay for up to $25,000 worth of gear to acquire images of that quality and for that, we are entitled to respect.

Dave Larkman		07-Feb-2008 16:18
Heidi is going to have to realize you can't become an artist by copying someone else's art. I'm behind you 100%. Heidi is going to receive a not so nice email this evening, so is the Chilliwack Visual Artists Association.

Michael Domenichetti		07-Feb-2008 16:08
It is just sad that it has come to this. I hope that this lady sees the error of her ways and comes to her senses quickly. If she realy wanted to have a long standing career as an artist, she is off to a very poor start. In the world of art (be it painting, photography or any other medium), your name is EVERYTHING! Her name will now be associated with words like immoral, scam artist, and the like.

Toby Dickens		07-Feb-2008 16:06
It is truly shocking the blase attitude some people have toward theft. If Ms. Knutson is so bereft of good ideas, perhaps she should study the Old Masters for unprotected ideas. This would seem rather better than stealing from her contemporaries (and violating their copyrights) who evidence far more talent and integrity than she.

Anthony Marinucci		07-Feb-2008 15:47
It is unbelievable that, after appearing to take a hard look at herself and her actions, she has now changed her mind and taken the low road. Her and her lawyer should be ashamed of themselves. Beyond the obvious copyright infringements, what apalls me is that any real artist would ever copy another artists work and feel completely comfortable in doing that. Even if it wasn't illegal, I have a hard time understanding how this so-called "artist" does not recognize the error of her ways. She knew, based on your exchanges previously, that she was doing something wrong and is now hiding behind an attorney. Sad. I wish you the best of luck in this matter.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 15:04
Gordon, those words coming from such a distinguished gentleman as yourself are great support and I thank you for that support. It means so very much to me. We, as artists of our craft, work very hard to achieve success. Heidi Knutson steals her way to it. I am not willing to accept that.

Gordon Eyre		07-Feb-2008 14:47
It is bad enough when someone steals a photograph from a hard working photographer but then not to own up to it and make it right is inexcusable. I have no tolerance for this blatent act on the part of Heidi Knutson and you were right to name her as an Art Theif. For shame.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 14:45
Thanks for your sentiments, Baywing. She does not seem to have a moral compass.

baywing		07-Feb-2008 14:03
It's a shame this person can't accept responsibility for her actions and do the right thing. Best of luck in getting things put right.

Sandra Jackson		07-Feb-2008 13:42
Thank you Lee for your support. As photographers of fine art, we must be vigilant in defending our copyright against theft by so-called 'artists' selling for their gain.

Lee Rudd		07-Feb-2008 13:40
you are more tolerant than I would be! I wish you every success in pursuing this theft

click on thumbnails for full image

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment