There are certain attitudes and behaviours which I consider totally unacceptable for an administrator on this or any other such site. I believe the time has come to bring one story to light, although I will remove the administrator's name.

A little over a week ago, I noticed that an administrator (an administrator whom I liked, in fact) was using Calvin & Hobbes clip art in her journal. Being a fan of the strip, I was (and am) well aware of the cartoonist's consistent refusal to allow his characters to appear out of context - as he has stated many times, he feels it cheapens his work. In a book I have, he specifically points out a particular strip as being a favourite with pirates. It is from this strip that the administrator in question stole her journal decoration (a single panel without the context provided by the rest of the strip - trust me, the strip is meaningless without that context).

I thought it over and checked my facts, and then wrote a note. After considerable rewriting to make that note nicer, I sent the following:

Hate to say it [name], but I'm pretty sure the Calvin & Hobbes images in your journal are copyright violations. Bill Watterson has consistently refused to allow his characters to appear out of context - this is why he has always refused to allow merchandising and animation, for instance. He feels it cheapens his characters. He explains his views in this speech, and I think you might also be interested in the rest of the speech. If you don't want to read the whole thing, there are internal links up the top (which I didn't notice until I had read the whole speech).

Peace,
Patty

Later the same day (my time), I received the following reply:

Ah yes, I was wonderin when someone would poke me with that infamous speech. I knew it would eventually show up in my messages. He makes me laugh. With all due respect to dear Mr Watterson he almost comes off angry that he, as an underground artist, has made such a HUGE impact on the mainstream world.

Truth be told, i'm actually working on a new CSS for my journal so I probably won't have the images up for much longer. Thanks for the heads up, Patty! I truly honestly mean that.

She's being nice (in keeping with the view I had of her as a geniunely sweet person), but that note was basically just a brush-off. Being somewhat floored by her apparent disregard for copyright laws (international law and dA policy), I waited roughly a day before replying. The next note I sent was even more heavily edited than the first - two close friends (Dawn and Bec) proof-read it for me, and I removed entire paragraphs which they felt were 'harsh'. I sent the following:

Until today I'd never heard of the speech - learn something new every day, huh?

Doesn't it bother you though, publicly breaking international law and dA policy while wearing the admin hat?

I notice that your CSS has changed, but the copyright violations are still there on previous journals - might want to remove them


Believe me, that is a shadow of its former self. The next day, I received the following reply:

CSS is handled the same exact way image use in our avatars is. Were Universal Press Syndicate (the company who owns the copyright to Calvin and Hobbes) to make a complaint about the images in my journal to the dA administration I would have to remove it, yes. There is not, however, a blanket policy in regards to images being used in CSS. I am not in violation of dA policy.

According to the information provided from Universal Press Syndicate images may be used for non-commercial purposes. I am not making a profit nor claiming copyright.

Like I said before, I'm going to remove the images regardless. But, in the future please don't question my integrity by saying things like "Doesn't it bother you though, publicly breaking international law and dA policy while wearing the admin hat?". I am in violation of neither.

You're more than welcome to contact $realitysquared about my journal through the helpdesk. If there is indeed a problem I will remove the CSS faster than I am already. I have nothing more to say about this. Thanks.

This really floored me. I did some fairly thorough fact checking (many thanks to Dawn for helping with that), and wrote a note. Again, the same two close friends proofread it. I sent the following (still-restrained) note:

I'm surprised and disappointed that a former CEA staffer apparently misunderstands copyright so thoroughly, not to mention your complete disregard for Watterson's stated wishes and your ignorance of who owns what rights.

I am not in violation of dA policy
You are in violation of international copyright law. According to FAQ #250: The laws of my country differ from those of the United States- which ones apply?, dA policy incorporates the whole of US law (which in turn incorporates the international copyright law I'm talking about). If you break the Berne convention, you're breaking dA policy.

Were Universal Press Syndicate (the company who owns the copyright to Calvin and Hobbes) to make a complaint about the images in my journal to the dA administration I would have to remove it
1. UPS does not own the copyright to Calvin and Hobbes. Bill Watterson does.
The exploitation rights to the strip were returned to me, and I will not license 'Calvin and Hobbes'. - Bill Watterson, [link]
2. You are (were) using Watterson's work in a way he (the copyright holder) has consistently and specifically forbidden. Why exactly is it then up to him or his syndicate to notice and complain about your breaking of the law?

According to the information provided from Universal Press Syndicate images may be used for non-commercial purposes
I call bullshit. Calvin and Hobbes cartoons cannot be used on web pages, on-line, email, internet or intranet - NO EXCEPTIONS. - UPS, [link]

I am not making a profit nor claiming copyright
[link] - I suggest you read #2, and possibly #9 while you're at it.
I've seen both of your arguments more times than I care to count - they are both standard arguments used by art thieves. This is the first time I've seen them from anyone in a position of authority, though, let alone a former CEA staffer.

Like I said before, I'm going to remove the images regardless.
In the time between when I sent my first note and when I received your first reply, you removed the images from your current journal but not from previous entries. I assumed this was what you were talking about, so I reminded you about the old entries. I see that since I sent my previous note you have removed the images from old entries as well. I choose not to regard this as purely coincidental.

please don't question my integrity by saying things like "Doesn't it bother you though, publicly breaking international law and dA policy while wearing the admin hat?". I am in violation of neither.
As I have shown, you were in violation of both. Quite frankly, this does raise some serious questions about your integrity.

You're more than welcome to contact $realitysquared about my journal through the helpdesk. If there is indeed a problem I will remove the CSS faster than I am already.
As I write this, you have already removed the images. Therefore there is nothing to report, and no problem except that you appear to lack understanding of, and respect for, copyright and the laws governing it.

This note was sent on February 5. I have received no reply. Instead, this administrator chose to post a journal entry calling me some fairly nasty things and then to block me. I am not allowed to provide a link to that journal entry, but I will quote and respond to a few points in the journal. I might wonder whether the journal was aimed at me, but the fact that she blocked me makes it pretty clear. This is also the reason why I am posting a journal entry instead of trying to talk to her privately (as I did in the first place).

I make mistakes, we all do
Mistakes are understandable. What I despise is the way in which you responded when I made you aware of your mistake.

the invitation to the drama-fest
That is downright insulting. If I were looking for drama, I would *not* have begun by sending you a private note politely informing you of the problem. If I were looking for drama, I would have done one or more of the following things:
1. Reported you to dA through the Helpdesk.
2. Reported you directly to United Press Syndicate, which handles everyday copyright matters for the somewhat-reclusive Watterson
3. Gone public. Had I posted this when you still had the images in her journal, it would have been rather easy for people to figure out who I'm talking about. As it is I'm posting this journal entry as a public service announcement, having exhausted all other avenues.

I will not respond to jabs to my character with hate OR with my tail between my legs.
I raised legitimate and meticulously-supported concerns. I would have liked you to respond with some sort of honesty and integrity.

something I hope makes some sense to someone I consider a friend
I liked you. I didn't consider you a friend, but only because we hadn't had enough to do with each other. At this point, however, I no longer want to be your friend. I am amazed that you thought the journal you posted would improve my opinion of you.

Madam, you have completely lost my respect. I am repelled by the way you conducted yourself in this matter, including the way in which you continue to view the matter. I consider your behaviour completely unacceptable for an administrator, and I (along with a friend or two of mine who used to like you) have seriously reconsidered who and what you are.

Note to anyone who reads this:
If you don't know who this is about, please don't ask me here. I will not tell anyone on dA or any other site, although I will discuss it via IM with anyone I currently have on my IM contact lists.
EDIT: I will make an exception for any dA admin.