please empty your brain below
I read some of the coverage. What interested me was description of you as a photographer first, then amateur photographer, and then also authoring a popular blog. Yes, you do all of those things, and your photo collection online is excellent, but if I had to choose between your photos and your words, I'd go for the words every time. Though I am even more pleased to have access to both.

Malcolm | 20.01.17 - 7:12 a.m. | #

The Daily Mail continue to prove what a low life bunch they are, your definition of them is about as accurate as you can get " Shameless plagiarising bastards" I could not have put it better myself.

Fishislandskin | 20.01.17 - 8:19 a.m. | #

Now that your readership has soared it would be interesting if the Mail tried to sue you for defamation. I think the court would be on your side.

RogerB | 20.01.17 - 8:33 a.m. | #

Extract from unfinished lyric entitled 'Lily, Rosemary and Esher, Walton & Weybridge'

Big Bob was no-one's fool, he said "Anything of Diamond Geezer's mine"
He made a seaside painting, looking so dandy and so fine.
With his water-colour paints, and his camera obscura
He took a scene a scene in Blackpool, called it Norfolk, Virginia
But his water-colour painting
Was no match for a Dutch lady called Hilda.

W.T. McGonagall | 20.01.17 - 8:34 a.m. | #

I went against all my principles and visited the Hatemail on line website... The useless "journalist" describes your photograph as a painting *twice*!

Richard | 20.01.17 - 8:53 a.m. | #

Anyone speak Spanish?
http://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-cuadros-dylan-tienen-truco-201701191826_noticia.html

diamond geezer | Homepage | 20.01.17 - 9:07 a.m. | #

I'm the guilty party who linked you to Expecting Rain, the Dylan site which, like yours, I visit daily. It has a lead page which links to stories worldwide about Dylan. Thence you moved via someone else to the Discussions section, where a more combative kind of personality locates. I referred to comments there as something along the lines of 'ranging from the "Dylan can do no wrong" to the "Dylan is a foul plagirist"'. Believe me, you get a much better bunch here! In the nicest possible way.

W.T.McG should avoid giving up the day job!!!

Brian | 20.01.17 - 9:22 a.m. | #

The online Telegraph article came up as a notification on my phone as something that might be of interest :)

Greg S | 20.01.17 - 10:17 a.m. | #

"Anyone speak Spanish?"

Yup, the gist of it is he'll sell you a copy for €14,000.

Lorenzo | 20.01.17 - 10:27 a.m. | #

Machine translation: here

"Bob Dylan pictures have trick

They note that he copied a photo of an English pier and located the scene in Virginia, on the other side of the Atlantic

The trick is old: a painter surreptitiously takes an alien photo as the basis for a painting. The problem is that if you call yourself Bob Dylan there are many chances that someone will look at appropriation, and this has happened."

And so on. (small extract included as fair use - go and read the original!)

Andrew | 20.01.17 - 11:05 a.m. | #

I've nothing against Bob Dylan, other than the fact that he ruined the (otherwise great) Traveling Wilburys' albums when they let him try to sing, oh and there was that embarrassing absence of gratitude for his unwarranted Nobel Prize, but there is a question of morality here: Why is a chap worth over £100 million still trying to earn £14000 per print from your plagiarised photo?

dg writes: Only 15 of the exhibition's paintings have prints on sale, and not this one.

Alex Dalton | 20.01.17 - 1:26 p.m. | #

Your on the wrong site, Alex. You should be over at expecting rain, on the discussions section.

Brian | 20.01.17 - 2:10 p.m. | #

It's re-assuring that most of the journalists, especially the local one, bothered to try and interview you rather than just cut and paste from your blog.

whiff | 20.01.17 - 3:11 p.m. | #

DG, I'm glad it was the RNLI that benefited

Caz | 20.01.17 - 7:54 p.m. | #

Lorenzo may be brilliant at reading Spanish, but his summarising skills could do with a brush-up. Although the price of prints is mentioned, it is only in passing - most of the article strikes me as a fair summary of the facts of the situation.

Malcolm | 20.01.17 - 11:39 p.m. | #

Very belatedly on this.

RogerB - The Mail won't be suing anyone here! They have used, without permission, a photo that DG owns the copyright of.

DG has them over a barrel if he so wishes.

Chris | 22.01.17 - 8:28 p.m. | #

There was a follow-up in the Letters column of the i newspaper the following day. On Friday 20th January, Tim Burrows wrote:
"I'm intrigued by your story of Bob Dylan and his painting of a pier (i 19th January). It strikes me that the basis of the article is 'man paints picture of public place with possible reference to photo on public website'.
Artists have used photos as inspiration for years. The only part of this story that seems to have any real substance is that Dylan hasn't acknowledged the original photographer, if indeed the photo was the inspiration for the painting".

All of the above goes to show that either a) Mr Burrows hasn't compared the pictures properly, or b) he doesn't read DG!

RayL | 23.01.17 - 8:28 a.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy