Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo? UPDATE BELOW

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Good morning:

Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo?

I have to link to and cannot display the photograph because it’s copyrighted with all rights reserved, but you can see it by clicking on the link.

Here’s a link to George Zimmerman’s “original” artwork

I recommend opening 2 browser pages and display the two images side by side.

The current bid on his “original painting” is $100,000.

I posted a comment on Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s flickr page notifying him.


UPDATE: EarlG @ Democratic Underground is reporting that they purchased the original image from Getty Images for $20 over 10 years ago to put it on tee-shirts. They progressively show how the image was photoshopped.

One priceless comment @ DU by blueinannarbor: “At least Andy Warhol painted his own soup can.”

Don’t know how Hoch Sollst Du Leben figures in all of this.


Come on, now. I got this internet firestorm started, or at least did so simultaneously with a few others. If everyone who has not contributed a donation this month, would donate $5, I could end this fund drive.


200 Responses to Did George Zimmerman steal Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo? UPDATE BELOW

  1. racerrodig says:

    crazy, it is stragne that”s why I noted it. I believe either can make a cancellation but only a bidder can make a retraction and that needs to be cleared as I recall. I know I inadvertantly made a bid, or made a bid with to many $$ and when I wanted to retract I couldn’ t. Thankfully I was outbid

  2. racerrodig says:

    Looking again at the bid history, the bids jump in large numbers….like 5K at a shot. There is no way they are legit. Even a big ticket item goes in smaller numbers on e-bay. I’ve seen very collectible guitars and cars (6 figure) go up $25.00 or less at a time.

    Someone’s playing with him (thank God) by bidding big numbers. There are also about a dozen cancellations and retractions now which is an absurd number. If there is 2, that’s a lot.

    • crazy1946 says:

      racerrodig, Correct me if I am wrong, but if the buyer cancels his bid, it is a retraction, but if the seller (or ebay) cancels the bid it is noted as a cancellation… You might note there are only a few retractions, so one must wonder why either Zimmerman or ebay is canceling a lot of bids for some reason?? Strange…

  3. racerrodig says:

    Here’s the latest from his auction…

    Q: A true winner is someone that figures out how to make lemmon aide from lemmons. I contributed to your legal defense fund. I am truly sorry our government run liberal media and justice department persecuted you they way they… Continue reading
    A: God Bless you. You have nothing to apologize to me for. The system is broken, an innocent man should not spend one second without his God given liberty, solely because a small sect of uneducated loud mouths. We must fix it…. Continue reading

    Like this isn’t Sundance Crackpot or someone…….

    Uhhhhhh, Note to PhuckingFogenPhoole : The uneducated loudmouths are 1st & foremost YOU them O’ Moron, Robbie the Racist, Frank Taaffe…..and the list goes on.

  4. racerrodig says:

    Here’s a future Fogen call

    (phone ringing) 911 Fire – Emergency…how can I direct your call?

    Fogen “……Ummmmm, I want to report a suspicious bidder for my artwork”

    911 “Excuse me…..is this an emergency of some sort”

    Fogen “Well…ummmmm,I made up this, ummmm I painted this picture from scratch using paint and um……canvas and…..”

    911 “I need to know if you need the police or is this a medical or fire emergency?

    Fogen “There’s this real suspicious guy and he keeps, well he drove the price of my picture really high and ummmm…”

    911 “Excuse me, what is your name please?

    Fogen “Ummmm it’s Cheorge…….Cheorge Zimmerman”

    911 (Good God….here we go again) “Okay, I don’t see how this is an emergency in any way”

    Fogen “Ummmm well, it is to me….and these guys on the internet keep saying I didn’t paint this on my own”

    911 (Gee…imagine that) “That is, where are you now George (laughing in background)

    Fogen “Ummmmm I can’t tell you, what with all the death threats and all”

    911 “Who exactly has threatened you?”

    Fogen “Ummmm, well that’s what my old attorney told me to keep saying……maybe my brother knows”

    911 “Well until you have proof, there is nothing we can do about that, now who is this suspicious person you called about?”

    Fogen “He’s on e-bay and…”

    911 “e-bay ? ! ? ! the internet site?”

    Fogen “Ummmm yeah and he’s real suspicious and he…..”

    911 (click)

    I believe Fogen is being played on e-bay. When a bid is retracted, cancelled or the buyer does not pay, a “Second Chance Notice” is sent to the next buyer. If that person declines…..it’s a no sale.

    I’ll bet that is what is going on and he doesn’t see it.

  5. racerrodig says:

    Member Id: m***p ( 8 ) Not a registered user
    Cancelled: US $110,000.00

    Bid: Dec-17-13 14:44:03 PST Cancelled: Dec-18-13 10:38:34 PST

    Oh look !!! This is the 3rd bid that has been cancelled or retracted. Funny……most auctions go UP as time goes on. I’m glad to see the video posted of how he “created” this “original work of art”

  6. MDH says:

    I meant to write “gives it a false inflated value”.

    My point is that truly original works by scum criminals sadly do have collectable value.

    An infringing work is at the mercy of the copyright holder and, as such, the buyer of such a product should be made aware.

    Of course, his racist enabled privileges in life seem to have allowed him to make fraudulent 9-11 calls ad nauseum. So I doubt a thing will be done to poor widdle Georgie Poo.

  7. MDH says:

    A clever person with a good background in law could “take George at his word”, buy the “original” work and, when it is “discovered” that the work the person paid top dollar for is a fake copy, charge George with fraud.


    I think Georgie needs to be reported to DOJ.

    From their link:

    Auction and Retail Schemes. According to data from law enforcement and consumer protection organizations,fraudulent schemes appearing on online auction websites are among the most frequently reported form of mass-marketing fraud. These schemes, and similar schemes involving online retail sites, typically purport to offer high-value items – ranging from high-priced watches to computers to collectibles- that are likely to attract many consumers. These schemes induce their victims to send money for the promised items, but then deliver nothing or only an item far less valuable than what was promised (e.g., counterfeit or altered goods). In some cases, fraudsters email prospective victims to say that they have additional quantities of the items that had been up for auction, but persuade them to go to other websites that do not offer the consumer protections found on legitimate auction sites.

    George’s fraudulent claim of an original work gives it value in that anyone buying a fake or infringing derivative would be left with something worthless.

  8. Girlp says:

    The most the picture sells for is 361.00 and someone is dumb enough to pay 100,000.00…that tells you somthing about Georgie Porgie’s friends. I see some are suggesting he might be bidding against himself or that Taffee or/and Rob Jr may be in on it. I tell you these sociopaths they just can’t quit. Hope he gets sued for copyright infringement and the theif goes to jail

  9. dolphinocean says:

    Video on superimposing zimmerman’s thievery art vs the copy righted one – zimmerman’s very own “up-to-no-good” and inherent thievery nature exposed:


  10. Rachael says:

    Someone was asking about this – Two Sides maybe?


  11. MDH says:

    Unless, of course, his supporters are also liars.

  12. MDH says:

    A copyright must be registered in order for the holder to take any legal action.

    So it all depends on who holds the copyright and what they want to do about this.

    My gut tells me nothing will come of it with respect to infringement.

    However, the court of public opinion has more to contribute to the Mount Everest of evidence that George Zimmerman is a habitual liar who falsely claims the property of others as his own.

    That has always been the primary reason I found him guilty.

    The evidence compared to all his stories proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a liar.

    To find George Zimmerman not guilty required it being reasonable that he was telling the truth.

    In hindsight, I feel that George Zimmerman is making quite the ass out of anyone who thought he was not guilty.

    • A copyright must be registered in order for the holder to take any legal action.

      Not so, my friend.

      • MDH says:

        I got that from the Copyright Office website. However, they may be referring to the enforcement of a copyright registered to them in a more narrow legal sense.

        For example, if I write a song called “I am an asshole” in 1965 that is on paper, but never register it, and Zimmerman {he’s the kind of guy who would do this}, after photocopying it {his one great talent}, registers “I am an ashole” {that is a tune one would expect Zimmerman to write}, in 2008, then I would still have proof that the copyright belongs to me. So a legal action is possible and I was incorrect.

        The same concept holds for patents.

        One can file and get one.

        But an opposing party can use legal means to invalidate the property rights claimed by finding a document or other evidence that the subject matter was disclosed before the filing date.

        Corporations pay a huge sums for litigation searches pertaining to patents that have rights to subject matter that is lucrative.

      • racerrodig says:

        Correct !! I have several songs copyrighted, with the advice of a patent / copyright attorney and all I need is the video proof dated from 1990 to have a legal claim to them.

        The video is dated Jan. 1990 along with the posters and handbills from a benefit concert my band did.

        • Xena says:

          @racerrodig. Back in the days when there was only snail mail, and writers wanted to send articles or manuscripts to magazines or publishers, they would mail a copy of their creation to themselves in a sealed envelope. The postmark served as proof that as of that day, they owned the rights to the work.

          If they saw their work published without attribution and/or payment, the sealed, postdated envelope was their evidence. Generally when editors found that out, they took corrective steps by putting a check in the mail. 🙂

          • racerrodig says:

            That is exactly what I did. I made copies of my lyrics and mailed them to myself, then we played a benefit concert and I made a copy of the video tape we had made and mailed that as well….that one is still unopened.

            As a side note, I wrote a song called “Death by gun” which my sons band has been trying to do and dedicate to Trayvon and all victims of gun violence. It’s a bit hard technique wise but my son asked me to play in his band…..we are doing it now. The professor said I could post it last year but it’s not ready yet. Maybe in a week now that I’m playing in his band…..as funny as that sounds !!

            It goes like this…..with a hard driving guitar line

            Little children, get down low
            Where they’re comin’ from, I don’t know
            Would be felons are out tonight

  13. aussie says:

    Discovering who owns copyright is very difficult. You will often find the exact same content on dozens of websites, each with a copyright notice at the bottom. Unravelling who had it first is very hard.

    But in a case like Getty selling the image to be put on T-shirts, that does not mean the work is no longer copyright. And they were sold the right to put it on shirts, not to re-sell it. Someone can’t just copy it off the t-shirt, either.

    You can also get an image (buy it, steal it, whatever) and put it on your own Flickr or other photo account with a full copyright designation. Only the original owner/creator would know it is NOT yours. The site certainly would not know.

    I imagine you could also post your genuine own work to several sites, which would put their watermark over it to stop people just copying it, and the site would send you your share of the money if anyone paid to use your image.

    The Hoch Sollst Du Leben site’s been around since 2009 and has a lot of sets that appear to be personal and individual, so I don’t think it’s a con. I can see him making it private, given the current fuss.

    Wherever he got it from. GZ’s shopped it, added the text then got it printed. THEN he may have painted over it a bit to add some depth and brush strokes. This is exactly how they make those “genuine oil paintings” you can buy in markets and bargain novelty shops — mass-produced over-painted prints in nice frames.

  14. Rachael says:

    I find this exchange a bit odd (from the bidding site), considering that MO’M claimed to not know about or take advice from them:

    Q: George, My friends and I at the Conservative Treehouse, Justice for George Zimmerman FB page, and “Beyond the courtroom” FB page stand behind you 100%. We are so proud of you ! Hang in there, Brother ! Dec-17-13

    A: Good ol’ treepers! It was a blast watching Bernardo DeLaRionda use his D- dramatics when citing your thorough research! Thanks for all the help!

  15. Donna says:

    “Don’t know how Hoch Sollst Du Leben figures in all of this.”

    Unfortuntely, I believe that Hoch Sollst Du Leben is also a con artist. I googled his name and did not come up with any legitimate source. What I did find is that, when translated, it means “High Thou Shall Live”.

    And….the link to this site that Professor posted yesterday for Hoch Sollst Du Legen has been taken down. Interesting.

    Perhaps the owner of the site also stole the picture?

    • Trained Observer says:

      Con artists abound …

    • I suspect you may be right. I don’t believe there is any question that the photo is the same as the one copyrighted by Getty. So too is the Shutterbug. Therefore, it’s a question of which one came first.

      EarlG in the DU article said they purchased the right to use the Getty image on tee-shirts more than 10 years ago.

      Hoch Sollst Du Leben posted his “copyrighted” image in 2006.

      Don’t know about Shutterbug, but they have their name on the image preventing people from using it or representing it as their own.

      I’m inclined to believe that Getty owns the rights to the photo, but do not know for sure.

      I suspect GZ copied the de Leben image from flickr.

      Removing the site, instead of calling a press conference and expressing indignant outrage, suggests that de Leben may not be on the up and up.

      Quite funny, really.

      • aussie says:

        It may be exactly to avoid that kind of speculation that he closed the site. Not everyone is in a position to call press conferences or even afford a lawyer to work out his rights.
        It may also be that Flickr closed the site pending investigations.

        Image sales sites routinely put their watermark on images, to they can’t be copied for free. That does not mean they own the copyright; in some cases they do, in others they are acting as agents of the holder.

        So, Hoch Sollst Du Leben did NOT copy his from a watermarked site.

        Nor did GZ.

  16. Boyd says:

    can Change.org ask for a fraud investigation on Zimmerman and E-bay?

    • Don’t see why not. Anyone or any organization can ask. Whether anyone will listen is another matter.

      This whole thing may be just a right-wing scam to give him some money.

      Ebay may be reluctant to shut down the auction, since it has a financial interest to see the “original” painting sell for the highest possible price.

      This transaction, or for that matter many others like it, could be a vehicle for money-laundering schemes.

  17. Malisha says:

    Excuse me — what exactly (or who exactly) IS “Hoch sollst du leben”? It could very well be that Fogen will not be in any trouble because HSDL collaborated w/him in this scam.

  18. Malisha says:

    Money laundering could explain a lot in this case. Perhaps a Florida-based money-laundering operation with Peruvian branches… jussayin…

  19. Rachael says:

    I still think it’s a money laundering scam

  20. bettykath says:



    Mark O’Mara posted on his law blog that there were several firsts in the Zimmerman case, including the online fundraising for a defense fund.

    He said he’s certain that matter will be closed shortly, and “that the conclusion will suggest that we handled these new and novel approaches in an appropriate and ethical way.”

    An unidentified person filed the complaint with The Florida Bar about O’Mara’s representation of Zimmerman in the shooting death of Martin, said Francine Walker, The Florida Bar spokeswoman.

    The juror who was excused by MOM b/c of an old on-line comment and then had his name released by the defense wasn’t a very happy camper.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Yeah, sure, OM. Presenting a video of homeless men squabbling over a bicycle from TM’s phone and broadcasting it as if Trayvon participated or caused it is ethical, all right. What a dirtbag.

  21. Rachael says:

    This is nice (NOT)

    • Malisha says:

      whose is it, Taaffe’s?

      • Rachael says:

        IDK, but there is a really horrible one by that person with lots of slurrs and hate and well, it just seems that someone who is trying to convince everyone that he is not racist wouldn’t be following someone like that. I would post the other link here, but it is just too vile.

    • LadyStClaire says:

      This country is full of evil people and, this IMO is why 9/11 happened and, until those who are evil change their ways, this country and its citizens will always be hated by those of foreign countries. also, there is no way that this country can still be proclaimed as being the best country in the world because it’s “NOT!”

  22. towerflower says:

    A local news station, Channel 2 WESH, in Orlando has the first story questioning his “artwork”.


    This is what I would like to see but I don’t have the know how to do it. Is there any way the two items (photo and his drawing) could be overlapped to show the exactness of the two? If they match perfectly then I would love to see a talented video maker show it in you tube video.

  23. racerrodig says:

    This entire thing is a scam. I have asked many questions of sellers and the name shows up. Not one name shows up on this. I posted at least 15 questions and none have shown up. He’s playing games …look at this…

    Q: We all think a lot of you Zimm and hope the best for you!I may bid on your painting at the last min.How will you ship the picture,can it be picked up local?I would be driving from Arkansas Dec-17-13
    A: The price it is at now has well exceeded my $.99 minimum; therefore, whoever wins within the Continental United States, will receive this painting delivered by me personally. Your friend,

    Problem is that the shipping is well described, why would anyone say they’d drive from Arkansas ?? Fogen says he’ll deliver it personally…..as in pay me cash……so I can beat e-bay out of their %…..What a scammer.

  24. JJ says:

    Now that Fogen photo shopped the flag picture for his “original” painting, we know that he was also able to photoshop a big red nose on his face used in the trial to create the illusion of getting beat up.

  25. zhickel says:

    Per Fred’s update that DU bought the image, Zim would want to be careful treading on Skinner’s (David Allen) toes.

    This is what happened when Righthaven, a company existing solely to engage in litigation with web sites over copyright issues.


  26. I daresay Georgie has a bit of a credibility problem

  27. kllypyn says:

    So he has another talent besides murder beating up women attacking police and lying, Stealing other people’s work and claiming them as his own.

  28. Brandy says:

    TMZ has the story about Georgie’s painting with a pic of him holding it. TMZ is reporting he has been offered up to 110,000 dollars. I am so disgusted! Showing him with a big ole smile holding the painting. UGH!! Wish this evil scum of the earth would just go away!

  29. The painting does not fit within the fair use exception to copyright law. The painting’s value is based on GZ’s claim that it’s his original painting expressing his vision of who and what we are.

    If John Smith, offered the same painting for sale saying the same things, there’s a decent chance that no one would bid for it.

    GZ, however, is different because he’s a public hero to racists and the right wing hate machine. Many of them would buy it because they believe he did it from scratch, so to speak.

    But they wouldn’t buy it from John Smith.

    That’s why this is a fraud and not fair use.

    • MDH says:

      Georges work infringes the Getty photo because it is a clear derivative. I posted Getty’s royalty free language and it is quite clear that one can use the photo for projects or presentations. There is no permission to sell at auction a derivative that is claimed to be an original work.

      GZ is infringing and perpetrating a fraud.

      Is making fraudulent claims to sell a product subject to criminal prosecution.

      Anyhow, George, in his invincible stupidity, is moving into the realm of Federal prosecution. They aren’t as nice as Sanford.

  30. racerrodig says:

    I see he says this in his description of his “work of art”

    ” My art work allows me to reflect,….” On what there killer….stealing a real artist’s work….

    I thought you said you didn’t have time to reflect except when you were in solitary, obviously you did have time.

    When I buy guitars and amps for less than a grand, half the sellers state “If you have less than (20, 30, 40 or so) Positive Feedback, don’t bother to bid.

    So Fogen expects someone with a feedback of 2 to fork over 110K + just like that and he doesn’t think people are screwing with him ?

    • Rachael says:

      He steals artwork from someone else and passes it off as his with the same ease as he stole a child’s dying screams for his mama and passes them off as his.

      He is beyond a thief.

  31. racerrodig says:

    From the e-bay website…….

    Member Id: m***2 (3) US $110,100.00 Dec-17-13 14:45:29 PST

    The (3) is the number of feedback this buyer has. I’d say this will be a non – payment issue. Virtually all of the bidders have 2 or 3 as far as feedback.

    And some nut will pay 110 K + for a latex painting !!

    A hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!

    • CherokeeNative says:

      I thought the number in parenthesis represented the number of ebay purchases – hmm – will have to go look. I know if you click on the name of the bidder, you can see their “ebay reputation” in the past thirty days.

      Anywhooooo…this is a joke that I hope blows up in GZ’s pathetic face.

  32. racerrodig says:

    Here’s a real turn. jpen is the guy who was selling the fake fake. Here is a copy and paste of the last few words with him.

    “You have no clue ! Period. And no real persons with a conscience want anything to do with this killer. Conscience being the operative word. I’d say you pulled it for another reason also. You’re not worth bantering with either.”

    His response

    “Dear racerrodig,

    You are correct. Fuck that guy.

    – jpen4185”

    Yep…..as you guys say, anything Fogen is toxic.

  33. racerrodig says:

    She’ll have to keep hoping, nobody has ever said Fogen is generous to anyone…..after all, it’s all about him.

  34. racerrodig says:

    I also just asked him this one

    “Have any art critics such as Frank Taaffe chimed in on it’s authenticity ?”

    Oh, this will be a Merry Christmas !!

  35. MDH says:

    GZ has clearly infringed the art work by using it to make a derivative.

    Derivatives are a right entitled to the copyright holder:

    Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights. Section 106 of the copyright law provides the owner of copyright in a work the exclusive right:
    • To reproduce the work in copies;
    • To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
    • To distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
    • To perform the work publicly;
    • To display the copyrighted work publicly
    • In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

    Anybody who buys this work will be subject to this:

    § 503. Remedies for infringement: Impounding and disposition of infringing articles4

    (a)(1) At any time while an action under this title is pending, the court may order the impounding, on such terms as it may deem reasonable—

    (A) of all copies or phonorecords claimed to have been made or used in
    violation of the exclusive right of the copyright owner;

    (B) of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other
    articles by means of which such copies of phonorecords may be reproduced;

    (C) of records documenting the manufacture, sale, or receipt of things
    involved in any such violation, provided that any records seized under this
    subparagraph shall be taken into the custody of the court.

    (2) For impoundments of records ordered under paragraph (1)(C), the court
    shall enter an appropriate protective order with respect to discovery and use
    of any records or information that has been impounded. The protective order
    shall provide for appropriate procedures to ensure that confidential, private,
    proprietary, or privileged information contained in such records is not improperly
    disclosed or used.

    (3) The relevant provisions of paragraphs (2) through (11) of section 34(d)
    of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)(2) through (11)) shall extend to any
    impoundment of records ordered under paragraph (1)(C) that is based upon
    an ex parte application, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 65 of the Federal
    Rules of Civil Procedure. Any references in paragraphs (2) through (11)
    of section 34(d) of the Trademark Act to section 32 of such Act shall be read
    as references to section 501 of this title, and references to use of a counterfeit
    mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or
    services shall be read as references to infringement of a copyright.

    (b) As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction
    or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been
    made or used in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, and of all
    plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means
    of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced


    • racerrodig says:

      So…..I guess he’ll be owing what…..a couple hundred K to a new lawyer. God it sucks to be FogenPhoole !!

      • Trained Observer says:

        I wouldn’t be too quick to assume anything regarding Fogen’s Piece of crap on canvas, or his liability for “creating” such junk. Could be he was inspired by a t-shirt image he’d been given by the Dem party.. For all we know, he might have bought a pattern on Etsy. … Or maybe he had a vision on a dark, rainy night, the kind that seem to unglue him so.

        Until (or if) he sells this artistry, his quite doubtful liability (if any) may be further limited.

      • MDH says:

        If he makes any money off of this scam, he probably will need a lawyer.

        However, IP lawyers, unlike criminal, generally want nothing to do with scum that have a history of not paying their bills.

        I mean what possible monetary benefit would there be in defending a clear and incontrovertible infringement?

        The best possible outcome to a broke deadbeat would be minimal damages, any money earned going to the copyright holder, and avoidance of criminal penalties.

        IP lawyers make money working for corporations, so being the man who got off a non-bill paying, copyright infringer is not exactly going to drum up more business.

        This all depends on the views of the holder of the copyright. He has the power to do something or just let it go.

        Letting it go might be the best thing in that I doubt any money will be made once E-bay figures they may be subject to an action.

        Respect for property rights is taken seriously within the business community.

        Sure, minor offenses that are low profile are let go, but GZ is a high profile person who attracts lots of attention and sloppy respect for property rights is not something that would be in the best interest of E-Bay.

        GZ wanted fame and now must live in the glass house that comes along with it.

        And in the age of the internet, that glass is very large and clear.

        • Rachael says:

          Yeah, but it seems that eBay is sure taking their time, considering the whole world knows by now, so they must too, so obviously, they aren’t too worried.

  36. racerrodig says:

    I asked him if the stenciled letters are latex as well and…….haven’t seen a response yet. I’m shocked !!

  37. zhickel says:

    Get yourselves over to eBay and bombard him with technical and artistic questions such as:

    Was it painted with bristle brushes or synthetic?
    Is the stretcher made of pine or other wood?
    Is the canvas plain or duck?
    Is there an intrinsic relationship between the line and movement of the work and a higher ideal?
    Does the painting represent historical iconography?

    ….and so on. You get the picture.

  38. Boyd says:

    I will faint if this guy pulls this off. I swear if he pulls this off I’ll start my own George Zimmerman site and start selling original paintings on e-bay.
    Get the fuck out.

    • Me too. I can totally think up a thousand ways to rip that shit straight from the internet, create a knock-off, and sling it on ebay. Well, for that matter, here’s an idea. Can I just, like, sell a George Zimmerman voodoo doll on the internet, that looks just like him? It’s all ‘fair use’ right?


  39. racerrodig says:

    “George Zimmerman “original painting” (Antique Style)” by jpen4185 had 0 bids and he just ended it after I told him he may need a good lawyer.

    Yep……gone !! Team Trayvon…..

  40. racerrodig says:

    The guy selling the “fake – fake” jpen sent me a response back to a question I asked and he claims he just painted this and since it says “original painting” it must be true…..they never put anything on the internet that isn’t true…..do they ??

    The the guy copying FogenPhooles fake has an attitude issue as well.

  41. Two sides to a story says:

    Hi Crane or Prof – I have a comment in moderation that has more than one link.

  42. racerrodig says:

    I just went and looked and sample handwriting by Fogen from several; other sites, mostly his hand written statements to the police and compared them to the “signature” on this “work of art” and it’s different.

    It’s not a signature for one and the hand writing is completely different.

    Some racist nut job did this and they’re pulling a fast one.

    Holy smokes !! Alert the media.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I don’t know if you’re talking about his original? There’s a picture on e-bay of him holding his work of art. : /

    • Trained Observer says:

      eBay trading down 50 cents in a lackluster market day. Should we blame Fogen or fauxFogen?

      Despite all the flap over alleged copyright infringement, I don’t believe the “artist”( whoever it is) in this case is vulnerable for slopping paint on a canvas, adding some words, and claiming he’s enjoyed creating it.

      Is what he’s done in good taste? No. Moral? No. But actionable? Also no.

      Meanwhile, eBay is getting a ton of free publicity and all sorts of browsers who just might buy something while on the site.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Probably true and good for e-bay. Fogen likely bought the image for his website and used it again for his painting.

        We shall see, I’m sure.

  43. It gets more interesting, with this, from Democratic Underground:

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Even more interesting if you check the comment threads – someone contacted Getty Images –

      “Here’s the substance of my chat with Getty Images about the matter:

      Welcome! A representative will be with you shortly. For your security, do not give out your credit card number or other sensitive personal data during a Live Chat session.

      You are now chatting with Peter.

      Peter: Hello! How can I help you today?

      NYC_SKP: George Zimmerman is selling a painting based on a protected work from your site. Here is the sale: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=111239922810

      And here is the protected work you represent and offer for use: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/american-flag-stars-and-stripes-royalty-free-image/171580891

      NYC_SKP: I think it may be a violation of copyright.

      NYC_SKP: More about that here:

      NYC_SKP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024188920

      Peter: yikes – we’ll take a look

      Peter: thanks for sending

      NYC_SKP: Thanks very much, and have a good day!”

      • Very interesting thread, and thank you.

      • MDH says:

        I looked at the royalty free language that Getty provides.

        Royalty-free images

        Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the size of the product you need, not the specific use. You don’t have to pay any additional royalties on a use-by-use basis. Once you purchase a royalty-free product, you may use it multiple times for multiple projects without paying additional fees. (Pornographic, defamatory, libelous or otherwise unlawful use of any image is, of course, prohibited.) Royalty-free products are designated by an (RF) next to the identification number.

        Rights-managed images

        Rights-managed products are licensed with restrictions on usage, such as limitations on size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. You will be asked to submit information concerning your intended use of the product, which will determine the scope of usage rights granted.

        Royalty-free footage

        Royalty-free is a licensing model granting the customer the right to use a specific clip in an unlimited number of projects for a fixed one-time fee.

        Rights-ready footage

        Rights-ready is a licensing model granting the customer the right to use a specific clip within a specific project (e.g., advertisement, television program, corporate video, film, etc.) for a fixed fee determined by the usage category(s) corresponding to the project.

        This is NOT a license to clearly sell a derivative infringing work to the public at auction.

        GZ, would be in the clear, if he submitted his intended use and got permission from Getty. Somehow, I doubt he did that. Also, claiming his work was original is fraudulent advertising. For example, if I sold you a glue that was based on an all-new secret formula for 25 dollar and it was found that I just put Elmer’s glue in a bottle, that would be criminal fraud.

        It is his pattern.

        Lie and steal a scream.

        Lie and steal a picture.

    • lurker says:

      I can’t wait to see if Rachel Maddow does a piece on it. This seems to be right up here alley.

  44. racerrodig says:

    This is funny…and taken via “copy & paste” from his actution.

    “Date of Creation: 2000-Now”

    Once again a Zidiot that can’t make up his mind.

    I say everyone go on his auction and ask a question. I asked several and I see they don’t get posted.

    What…..is Sundance Crackpot in charge there now ??

  45. fauxmccoy says:

    emesis basin, please

  46. vickie s. votaw says:

    Prof, I think you are on the money & it would be fairly easy to prove

    • MDH says:

      Crane, You got it!!!

      I have read enough copyright litigation to know that GZ may just have stepped into a huge pile of steaming doo doo that he is going to wish he hadn’t.

      • Once again, he could have gone about this in an honest manner, by signing his derivative work, “done in the style of”

        That said, I am not a lawyer or a copyright expert. However, the flag template if not his “original” idea.

        • MDH says:

          One can enjoy a copyrighted work for their own personal pleasure.

          Using it as a basis for public use or sale without the express consent or written approval of the copyright owner is what can get one in hot water.

          In the Obama poster, the “new” work merely added color, thus not doing anything to warrant it being outside the meets and bounds of the copyright.

          An example, would be selling a recording of “Day Tripper” by the Beatles wherein the change is that the primary riff is an oboe rather than a guitar.

          Sure, if the “oboe” version only sees a unknown audience, then the copyright holders will not give a shit.

          However, if it makes a large amount of money or detracts from the image of the artists, then the lawyers will be at the door step ASAP.

          • Thank you, MDH. Interesting subject.

          • MDH says:


            GZ and the Obama poster person violated the derivative clause.

            What Is Infringement?

            Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights. Section 106 of the copyright law provides the owner of copyright in a work the exclusive right:
            • To reproduce the work in copies;
            • To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
            • To distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
            • To perform the work publicly;
            • To display the copyrighted work publicly
            • In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

            The fact that the circle c is prominently shown in the link provided by the Professor proves the infringement was willful.

            Keep in mind the GZ also used this work of art in a website begging for money that had hateful comments and pictures pertaining to African Americans.

            The rule of shit is that you lie in your own and don’t associate other people’s property with yours.

            So fake or real GZ, is going down a path that will lead to a potty, not a pot of gold.

  47. aussie says:

    The plot thickens.

    The identical image is also on shutterstock


    I don’t seem to be able to post at Flickr to ask if this account also belongs to Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s or not.

    The “painting” is quite small, only about A3 size. There are canvas-surface papers available for printing. No need to project and paint over, just print and paint over. This would fix the text part as well, just photoshop the writing onto the image before printing it onto canvas-paper.

  48. Rachael says:

    Hmmm, I wonder. If he would lie about painting and “original” painting, would he lie about killing a kid in “self-defense?”

    • Rachael says:

      He just can’t stay put of the news, can he. smh

    • racerrodig says:

      He couldn’t tell the truth about those kids he and Shellie mentored despite the fact she split on him on Sat. night. Of course there was the Freudian slip of “….my wife and I…” translated….”We had a blowout on Sat night and she hit me on the back of my head with a frying pan” that he wanted us to believe was actually “I always shop at Target by myself every Sat for the groceries and never take any money or a valid credit card………………but I always pack my trusty Kel-Tek”

      This fake picture isn’t actually signed either. It has Phucking FogenPhoole written on it. I spent half an hour looking at his hand written police statements and they don’t match the picture name, so it’s a typical Fogen Phraud all the way down the line.

  49. JJ says:

    I checked and it’s over $99,000. Now we have proof that George’s followers have no common sense – and they have money to throw away.

    Also noted return policy:
    No returns or exchanges, but item is covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee.

    Wonder if eBay will enjoy paying over $99,000 to the purchaser of this 18″ x 24″ painting.

  50. I just reported the copyright violation to ebay.

  51. Two sides to a story says:

    When I saw Fogen’s bidsite yesterday, I figured he used a creative commons photo. Good sleuthing.

    While I don’t like to interfere with anyone making a living, I do think if you’re going to create any type of writing or artwork, at least make it original. Fogen’s little gem is masterminded for the types who support him, as was his begsite. More grasping and manipulation from a sociopathic mind.

    Looks like he pulled another stinker and coming right after his event with Miss Sam, doesn’t look good. What a dweeb.

  52. Animaljunkie says:

    I’ve put together a mock-up of the killer blob’s ‘original painting’ on Ebay ~> http://www.ebay.com/itm/George-Zimmerman-original-painting-/111239922810 & the one found on Shutterstock.com ~> http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-74692756/stock-photo-american-flag.html?src=jV7VXuQumTf60evQWGD77A-1-88

    He’s obviously cropped the original photograph, which is not his property, unless he’s already paid Shutterstock.com for it, but I’m not up on the copyright laws in the USA!

    Have a gander, if you will ~> https://twitter.com/Animaljunkie/status/412950559738445825

  53. ebay should shut down the auction until this matter is resolved. Otherwise, they risk liability for fraud and misappropriation of an original copyrighted work.

    • MDH says:


      Hell, a copyright/trademark lawyer should take up the artists cause pro-bono.

      Then GZ will learn that property law is not the “same” as criminal law.

      I mean, the artist could argue for damages in that his reputation has been soiled by association with a child killer.

      • Xena says:

        We know that George is a thief. He previously deceived people into giving him money for a legal defense that he spent paying past due debts.

        Then there’s the attorney who represented him in the civil case against Ames, and the server of his (non) graduation party. About the only thing that has prevented others from filing civil actions is because George has no money to pay a judgment. Thus, if this ebay auction results in money, there might be people waiting in line seeking payment of what George owes them, including Mark O’Mara and Don West.

  54. colin black says:

    This piece of crap Is no lover of art he used his hatred of anyone Black.

    To explode a CHILDS HEART.

    To foggage will come the ultimate pay back!

    He will always be a void .

    A nonentity to be avoided.

    But nature abhors abwhores a vucum an his void will be filled with interesting things an times.

    None of witch he will be abled to avoid no matter how much they annoy.

    There just a decoy for the convoy of karma witch will for ever silence the zimmermans smarm.

    • colin black says:

      ps got some photos today non digital will receive vt an digital photos on Friday ..will attempt to post something.

      pps…All the comments re the photos are not the actuall content though thankfully as I look afull an am sweating for fun!
      I had my old torn punck saytey pins favourate T Shirt under a shirt bow tie suit an the room was hot as a sauna.

      No all the talk is of ORBS?

      Apparentlly there a phenonima?

      All I know Is It was the most pheononimal day of my life?

  55. racerrodig says:

    I see 100K at least he’ll have to turn over to The Martins / Fultons and who knows…maybe Moron O’ Mara gets a slice from old smilin’ Fogen. I see e-bay took down a few of the comments from the real people.

    • lurker says:

      Let’s be real. There are a lot of fools who support gz. Some even have money to waste. I seriously doubt, however, that the top bidder in this effort is one of them. The only thing that bid has done is ensure that the painting doesn’t go to any of the lower, likely more sincere, bidders.

  56. racerrodig says:

    I sent a message to him one-bay stating he did not paint this and what nerve. I also stated not everyone is behind him and most of us see the truth.

    He’s asking 99K + for a blood flag ??

  57. CherokeeNative says:

    Question: Can the owner of this photo/painting demand payment from not only George, but the media for broadcasting it?

    • Trained Observer says:

      Fools can demand whatever they want. But no, if it’s on Flickr or creative commons, it’s available for use.

      • I respectfully disagree.

        The artist copyrighted and reserved all rights to his photo.

        There’s a notice posted below the photograph on flickr.

        • Trained Observer says:

          Anyone intent on protecting their copyright ought not share their stuff on Flickr or Creative Commons. Still, Fogen isn’t attempting to peddle anyone’s photo … or even a photo of someone’s photo. His “work of art” — a loose term with a big ick factor — would not apply.

          After it reaps sufficent publicity to get shoppers on site for other shopping, I suspect there’s a good chance eBay will shut down the attempted sale due to lack of legitimate bidders.

        • MDH says:

          From what you have shown me, GZ’s copyright infringement is as obvious as him being and asshole. Merely adding letters to what appears to be an exact replication of the artists work does not pass the doctrine of equivalents.

          Put it this way.

          If I took the NFL logo and started selling shirts with it on them that also said God Bless the KKK, how long before NFL lawyers had me in court sued for damages to their reputation?

          One “freely” uses copyrighted material at their own risk.

          I think you will like this:


          Punishment of copyright infringement varies case-by-case across countries. Convictions may include jail time and/or severe fines for each instance of copyright infringement. In the United States, willful copyright infringement carries a maximum penalty of $150,000 per instance

          Of course, dipshit will claim ignorance. However, damages could still be awarded.

        • towerflower says:

          Also there was a case of the photographer who went after everyone who published the football photo of Trayvon. She still owned the copyright photos.

          • MDH says:

            What do they say after every game?

            The program shown is for private use only and any public use thereof is expressly forbidden unless their is written consent by the owner.

            The same principle applies to the work of a photographer.

            Just because we often get away with violating copyrights, does not mean we won’t. It is all up to how the owner feels about the use. Most violations are not addressed because the copyright owner is not aware of them in that the user pool is small and has limited interaction with the general population. GZ, because he is to known and toxic, has the problem of anything he does getting maximal exposure.

            In the case of GZ, the issues are:

            Will the abomination make money?

            Will the abomination be so bad that it taints the reputation of the creator of the original?

            Is the image being associated with a person and views that the creator does not approve of?

  58. Trained Observer says:

    Did Fogen steal from a criminal perspective? No.

    If it’s on Flickr or Creative Commons, it’s up for grabs to rework in another format anyway he wants. Slap on some words, change the color, create an oil rendering of a photo. No need for “permission,” although that’s only speculation that he failed to ask.

    Good news: These eBay bids are likely phony. But if he does sell for this product for a large sum, the IRS will be on him like stink on stool.

    IRS agents also closely monitor PayPal (owned by eBay) transactions, so if someone does buy his “work of art” that person likely will be attracting an audit as well. .

    • Boyd says:

      MOM and Shelly should be on him too. lol!

    • Flickr is not all fair game. Unless a photo is specifically listed under creative commons (which this one is not, it is copyrighted), the photo cannot be taken, altered, used, and, in particular, SOLD, for God’s sake, because it violates the law.

    • Nope. The artist copyrighted and reserved all rights to his photo.

      • MDH says:

        I work in IP and have read a few copyright prosecutions. One of my favorites is how Klondike sued and won against a company that was selling a Polar Bar. And the similarity was not is clear as this.

        Based on that case, GZ could easily be carved a new asshole, if he makes any money on adding text to what is easily the work of the artist you gave notice to.

        Also, if GZ reputation is deemed offensive to this artist, then there may be damages.

        A word to the wise.

        Don’t assume that posted work of others can be freely used without their expressed permission and written consent.

        This is no different that the Republican Party using music my artists who do not share or approve of their views.

        • lurker says:

          Well, it would be an interesting case. My guess is that he would then simply use copy-free art, which is plentiful, as the basis for his work.

          • MDH says:

            He could, but that would not absolve him of his past infringement.

            So another lien will be placed on any pot to piss in that this guy thinks he can earn. The problem with him is that anything he “earns” seems to be sucking like a parasite on the work of others.

          • lurker says:

            Out of my league here, when it comes to the legalities, but my guess would be that any action would start and end with a cease and desist. Nothing to be gained by fighting it. There’s plenty of free stuff he can photoshop. So–no harm, no foul, no monetary claim.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Trent Sawyer revealed on his Twitter that he’s been bidding it up. Wouldn’t be surprised if others have as well.

  59. CherokeeNative says:

    Notice on his ebay site, several people have asked whether or not the “painting” is an oil in conjunction with other questions – he answers all questions except for whether it is an “oil” painting. LOL

    • sydney says:

      The last time I looked, he was stating that he had “created” the image with what he thought was latex-based house paint that a fan had donated.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      He answered latex house paint.

    • lady2soothe says:

      CherokeeNative… Actually he answered it on the top question.

      Q: What is the medium; oil or acrylic? Thanks
      A:Thanks for your question, The paint was donated to me by a great friend (J.S.), as far as I know it is regular household latex paint.

      It’s important to note the canvas (unbleached cloth made from hemp, flax or cotton) needs to be primed with Gesso *sizing* which is not a coating or an independent layer, it’s a penetrating liquid used to seal canvas fibers rendering the surface nonabsorbent keeping it from deteriorating due to the acidic qualities of various paints and creating a surface both absorbent and with a ‘tooth’ (texture) allowing paint to grab onto the canvas.

      Pre-primed canvas meaning “pre-Gesso” has a layer applied in the factory and can be purchased at just about any inexpensive hobby store.

      The catch is Gesso/pre-Gesso are used in different applications as are Acrylic Gesso for latex and acrylic. Oil Gesso for oil paint, these sizing’s are not interchangeable, so applying the wrong paint to the wrong sizing would it to crack and pop off.

      • Oil paint: The name says it all because it’s paint made from oil.
      • Acrylic paint: Is a water based paint, it dries quickly so blending or making a glaze can be more difficult to use. Oil glaze will not mix with acrylic paint.
      • Latex paint: Water based paint, excellent for large solid colored projects (walls). Not a good blending paint as it dries quickly and when it does any imperfections could make it peel.

      Any serious art connoisseur or for that matter anyone with enough money to purchase an expensive piece of art wouldn’t pay 2 bits for this hacked piece of crap which will never have any value due not only to GZ’s lack of skills but for his use of medium.

      • lady2soothe says:

        PS Anyone dumb enough to spend money on this piece of junk from a murderer DESERVES to have the paint pop off and peel.

      • lurker says:

        There is a close up of the work. You can see the brush strokes, it’s almost like a paint by number–no shading or blending, just darker or lighter shapes filled in where shadows and highlights are.

        I don’t want to knock amateur efforts, I know a lot of folks who have picked up an interest on their own, many later in life. But, his selling it on e-bay says a lot about his willingness to try to cash in on his notoriety one way or another.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        Yes, I see that – but he included that after I made note of others inquiring with no response. 🙂

    • LadyStClaire says:

      I read where he stated that it was done with regular latex house paint.

  60. Dee Decker says:

    It’s interesting that killers Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman have a penchant for copying the work of truly talented artists and claiming it as their own “artwork.”

  61. The worst part of the whole situation in the media continuously promoting the fraudulent piece of crap.

    • Yes, it is. This work is not “original” or ‘free-handed’ in any way, shape or form. It is taken from someone else without permission, and reworked, and then sold on the internet, for personal gain.

      My guess is, slight reworking with photoshop.

  62. voiceofreason says:

    curiouser and curiouser

  63. Busted.

    Ow ow owwwwwww!

  64. CherokeeNative says:

    Here is George’s painting superimposed on Heritage Action for America’s flag (which may be Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s ) https://ton.twitter.com/1.1/ton/data/dm/412956794034475008/412956794051235840/kTXEybtZ.png

    Note, this is not my find or work – it is from a poster on my blog whom I do not have permission to use their handle here. But my appreciation to him for his sleuthing capabilities.

    • Xena says:

      @CherokeeNative. The link returned a message that it could not be displayed due to errors. 😦

      • CherokeeNative says:

        Hmmm – opens for me. Does this one work? What it is, is the Hoch Sollst Du Leben’s photo with George’s photo superimposed over it showing that it matches perfectly down to the creases, etc.


  65. It seems Georgie is very fond of this particular flag picture as it is used on his original April 2012 begging site. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120409213544/http:/www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: