Plaigiarism problem with a new book - Star Wars 3.75 Visual Checklist

Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
3
I was recently following a new book/resource on facebook called the Visual Checklist: https://www.facebook.com/star.wars.visual.checklist?fref=ts and it seemed like it would be another fun book out there for collectors to enjoy.

However, just now I was sent a link to this site: STAR WARS 3.75 - Home which shows many finished pages from the book (something I hadn't seen on Facebook) and it appears all the images are "stolen" from other websites, mine included.

The Trilogo section consists of a mixture of pictures from the net but most are from either Trilogo.info or jedicollection.co.uk (Edd's old site). The figure gallery is mostly from Edd's site but some are from mine also, those images were not only of figures from my collection but also from other RS members too.

The Trilogo boxed section in this book looks like it was also stolen from my site, which is a little upsetting because it took a long time to pull that resource together, a lot of collectors were involved in it and given the rarity of some of the toys and the quality of the images/editing it was something I was quite proud of putting out there for others to use as a free resource/guide. Now it looks like all that hard work doesn't even deserve a thanks and will be used without permission for this new book.

I would urge any site owners, archive contributors or people that have just shown their collections on the internet to check these pages thoroughly and make sure your images aren't being used without your permission.

The website does have this "privacy" page: Privacy - STAR WARS 3.75 where there are quite a few sites listed as the sources for some of the images but my website isn't on there and neither Edd nor myself were contacted about this publication. I would imagine that is the case with every site or collector listed.

I am going to try and contact the guy and see what happens..
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
2,980
Reaction score
1
Please update us on what happens. I had to do a second take, but at first I found it hard to believe someone would actually try to use web optimized images for print, but after reading what this project is about, it seems to be a web-based resource.

Those pages are not actual conceptual/renditions of an actual print-based book, but this is the way he chose to layout the site (I've developed a similar website using this "pageflip" technology in the past). Unless I completely misunderstood the way this person marketed the project, it doesn't seem like he is charging anyone to access this site or the "visual checklist" as an online resource.

From the website:

Almost all of the images are from the net and I thank from the bottom of my heart all the anonymous owners around the world who post some pictures of their fantastic toys - if they can recognize their babies - without them this catalogue could'nt exist. But the mega-huge and detailed compilation - with a special and deep thanks for the incredible work done by the staff of Rebelscum - and the awesome layouts are definitely my job and I'm proud to share it with collectors around the world.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
3
It's still not 100% clear if it's going to be a web based resource or it's going to print but this image is rather telling:

533687_493401754060923_1251781789_n.jpg


If I recall, they were taking pre orders a little while back too.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
5
Location
UK
I followed that link STAR WARS 3.75 - Home and hopefully the author will respond if you contact him directly. He seems to be quite upfront about it...

"Almost all of the images are from the net and I thank from the bottom of my heart all the anonymous owners around the world who post some pictures of their fantastic toys - if they can recognize their babies - without them this catalogue could'nt exist. But the mega-huge and detailed compilation - with a special and deep thanks for the incredible work done by the staff of Rebelscum - and the awesome layouts are definitely my job and I'm proud to share it with collectors around the world.

Enjoy and I hope it help you in building your collection.
God bless you.

Jean-Francois P. Demoulin
Belgium, June 17, 2013"
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
2,980
Reaction score
1
It's still not 100% clear if it's going to be a web based resource or it's going to print but this image is rather telling:

533687_493401754060923_1251781789_n.jpg


If I recall, they were taking pre orders a little while back too.

I noticed that image too, which seems inconsistent with what they wrote on the site:

The result is presented on Din A4 international format pages. At this day, there is only one printed example of the SW 3.75 with more than 800 pages.

If it's an online only resource, I think this might be one of those grey areas. While he did make mention on his site, his approach stinks.

If there is so much as a trace of "pre-order" or suggestion that this would become a print-based project, my own person opinion, and having limited experience with such a situation, I think at minimum he would comp you and anyone else he used in his resource a copy if a print-based version exists.

Of course, if there is any intention of doing a print-run, I would imagine a residuals/royalties-based discussion would need to take place in exchange for use of the images.

I would however base such a decision after seeing a draft example as I still find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone would use web images for a print-based book. Most web optimized images use 72 dpi, and from my past design experience, I have never been involved with producing a print project which used anything lower than 600 dpi.

I might be making a molehill of a mountain by saying this in light of the bigger issue concerning not receiving proper permission for using images for his project, but I would not want to be associated with any published project for any amount of money if the quality was substandard, or if I disagreed in whole or in part with the execution or direction.

And it's remotely worth mentioning that this person started off on the wrong foot by not asking to use images cobbled from the web.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
3
I followed that link STAR WARS 3.75 - Home and hopefully the author will respond if you contact him directly. He seems to be quite upfront about it...

"Almost all of the images are from the net and I thank from the bottom of my heart all the anonymous owners around the world who post some pictures of their fantastic toys - if they can recognize their babies - without them this catalogue could'nt exist. But the mega-huge and detailed compilation - with a special and deep thanks for the incredible work done by the staff of Rebelscum - and the awesome layouts are definitely my job and I'm proud to share it with collectors around the world.

Enjoy and I hope it help you in building your collection.
God bless you.

Jean-Francois P. Demoulin
Belgium, June 17, 2013"


Yes but he also states this:


You are free :
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

Under the following conditions :
Attribution — You must attribute the work to © 2011-2013 Jean-Francois P. Demoulin (but not in any way that suggests that he endorse you or your use of the work).

So it's ok if he uses my images without permission but if anyone else wants to they must attribute them to him? Come on..would have taken 5 minutes each site to ask for permission and if he got a negative response he could have just kept on looking.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
2,980
Reaction score
1
You know the more I look at that image, it only looks like the top book on the pile is a real copy - the other two look photoshopped into the image. Meaning it is possible that his claim of only one book being in print is true.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
0
I think as with Joe, if he had contacted me and asked if he could use my images in his book, I probably would have been really flattered and offered the use of them free of charge, providing a small credit was made. But the way he appears to have gone about this just stinks all round. If you look on the Facebook page there is a post openly asking for commercial backing for the project.

My website and all of the images have been online for over 5 years, and each page clearly states that permission is needed to use the images.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
30
Location
Sydney Australia
Well this really opens a massive can of worms for the collectors like Joe O, whose pics have been used without permission, and also for this website and its owner.

1, was the owner of this website contacted buy the author of this book to get permission to use images from this site?

2, where the original poster of the pictures contacted to ask for permission to use their pics? NO.

3, Once again it raises the topic of who owns the pics.
If people like Joe Y cannot take his own images with him when he leaves, i assume that RS does not consider them to be his any more.?

4, If thats the case it means nobody owns copyright of their pictures on this site?

5, This was always going to happen one day, its clear the owner of this site needs to step in here and clarify the situation of ownership and let everybody know did the Author of this book ask his permission to take pictures from this site and use them in a publication?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
2,980
Reaction score
1
The ownership is pretty crystal clear to me. It's the enforcement and vigilance involved with protecting ones property that is often time-consuming and financially cumbersome. Just because Google allows people to recall from a repository of images posted online, this does not translate into technological license to coopt, use, redistribute without permission. One of the suggestions I have made from day one is that if there are images you don't want others to download, copy or do what they like with them, don't share them online under any circumstances.

The potential commercial aspects are a completely different ball of wax, and I would say that this person (knowingly or unknowingly) is not only treading a very fine line between using content pulled from the web without proper acknowledgement or permission, but doing so in a way where it would be difficult to tease-out any financial gain if it remains purely an online project. If we start seeing ads on the site, or a print version in the works potentially being sold (even if it is at cost), I believe it dramatically changes the situation for contributors who have not been properly compensated for the pursuit and individual gain of the projects author.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,443
Reaction score
5
Location
Michigan
Unless he's claiming all images are his own, I really don't see an issue. Personally, I'd be thrilled to find that something of mine was good enough to be used in a printed reference guide. Again, as long as he is upfront about the image no being his own.

Its not really plagiarism. That would be the use of someone else's written words and claiming its your own or not specifying its someone else's.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
0
Unless he's claiming all images are his own, I really don't see an issue. Personally, I'd be thrilled to find that something of mine was good enough to be used in a printed reference guide. Again, as long as he is upfront about the image no being his own.

Its not really plagiarism. That would be the use of someone else's written words and claiming its your own or not specifying its someone else's.

Actually using somebody else's photography without permission is at least as serious as plagiarism, if not more so. Try taking one of Getty's images out of a Google search and use it on your website, see how long it takes before you get hit with a court order and huge fine. I've worked with the stock image industry for many years and believe me even amateur photographers take it very seriously.

As said, if he'd asked it probably would have been fine. But trying to publish a book full of other people's work is not on.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
3
Unless he's claiming all images are his own, I really don't see an issue. Personally, I'd be thrilled to find that something of mine was good enough to be used in a printed reference guide. Again, as long as he is upfront about the image no being his own.

Its not really plagiarism. That would be the use of someone else's written words and claiming its your own or not specifying its someone else's.

Actually it is plagiarism, regardless of it being images or text.

You know, what annoys me the most (apart from people not understanding this issue of course) is that when I put certain sections of my site together I personally contacted and asked for permission from anyone I needed help from. It wasn't hard to do, it took some time sure, but it wasn't hard. I also did my best to reassure people that submitted images of rarer items that I would make sure those images weren't used by others. I have to respect those wishes and do what I can to keep those images on the site they were granted permission for, not any other site run by some guy who just picked them up on a google search.

Actually, a lot of people wanted me to watermark their images for the site and I did on a couple (due to their rarity) but for the most part I tried to keep the watermarking to a minimum so that people could enjoy the images rather than a logo plastered all over it. I did that for the community not to make it easier for people to steal them.

I appreciate the fact that you would be thrilled if someone took a picture of your loose collection and used it somewhere but this is completely different and you can't compare.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
1
Location
UT
Hope you can get a reply from him Joe as this really stinks. I've had my images used before in auctions and found in other places, so that was why I moved to watermarking most of my photos at least then if someone posts it somewhere they know the source. I let off a little bit with the mailer site after someone kind of moaned a bit, but it just shows that someone can take your hard work and try to make a buck off it.

3, Once again it raises the topic of who owns the pics.
If people like Joe Y cannot take his own images with him when he leaves, i assume that RS does not consider them to be his any more.?

I just wanted to reply to this one that you mentioned. In this case, it is a completely different situation, in that these pics were lifted from a site that Joe is the owner of the site, pays the fees to keep it running, and has also used other collectors photos with their permission for the use on his site. The problem though mostly boils down to the fact that the author is trying to make money off of other collectors hard work and from the little that I've followed this books FB page, it isn't cheap either.

In most cases if people would ask the owners they typically won't mind, but I think if you're going to make money off of their work then a little kickback isn't out of line. About a year ago I had an email from someone who was making a collecting app. He offered an amount for each image of mine he used. I probably would have just said you can use them for free with credit in the app, but figured if he's offering I might as well take him up on it. We made our agreement and then I didn't hear anything for about a year. All of a sudden one day I had some money in my paypal account and then an email that the app was going live. It was just nice to see that he cared about the content I provided for him and realized it had value for him.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
30
Location
Sydney Australia
Hope you can get a reply from him Joe as this really stinks. I've had my images used before in auctions and found in other places, so that was why I moved to watermarking most of my photos at least then if someone posts it somewhere they know the source. I let off a little bit with the mailer site after someone kind of moaned a bit, but it just shows that someone can take your hard work and try to make a buck off it.



I just wanted to reply to this one that you mentioned. In this case, it is a completely different situation, in that these pics were lifted from a site that Joe is the owner of the site, pays the fees to keep it running, and has also used other collectors photos with their permission for the use on his site. The problem though mostly boils down to the fact that the author is trying to make money off of other collectors hard work and from the little that I've followed this books FB page, it isn't cheap either.

In most cases if people would ask the owners they typically won't mind, but I think if you're going to make money off of their work then a little kickback isn't out of line. About a year ago I had an email from someone who was making a collecting app. He offered an amount for each image of mine he used. I probably would have just said you can use them for free with credit in the app, but figured if he's offering I might as well take him up on it. We made our agreement and then I didn't hear anything for about a year. All of a sudden one day I had some money in my paypal account and then an email that the app was going live. It was just nice to see that he cared about the content I provided for him and realized it had value for him.

Totally understand about Joe O's pics, but i was under the impression that the author here thanked the 'anonymous' bloggers from rebel scum forums.

And i remember when joe Y left there was many discussions about members who leave having the rights to remove their images from here, i was under the impression that no images could be removed from here once a member left.

So it leads to the question of who has the rights over who actually now owns the images, if a poster is not allowed to remove them, do i take it that now RS owns these images?

Im not sure what other conclusion can be drawn from that?
If a blogger cannot have ownership of his pictures when he leaves here, who is responsible when they are copied or used by a 3rd party ?
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
3
Well, I received a reply from the author of the 3.75 checklist just now and he has stated that he will remove any images he is currently using that were part of my site and if I spot any more to contact him so he can remove those too.

Overall I am happy with the reply but wish he had just emailed in the first place as we could have avoided all of this..

I think it would still be worthwhile if people checked the 3.75 site to make sure their own images aren't being used without permission as he has sourced a lot of images!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
2,823
Reaction score
10
Location
S W E D E N
Ha ha, what an idiot. There is no way he can use ANY pics thats not his own. No way at all unless he has gotten a written permission from the real picture owners. Amateur. I hate the mentality that so many ppl think everything on the internet is free to use. If it was possible I could make several low quality books based on other peoples research and knowledge.

Mattias
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
1
Location
UT
Totally understand about Joe O's pics, but i was under the impression that the author here thanked the 'anonymous' bloggers from rebel scum forums.

And i remember when joe Y left there was many discussions about members who leave having the rights to remove their images from here, i was under the impression that no images could be removed from here once a member left.

So it leads to the question of who has the rights over who actually now owns the images, if a poster is not allowed to remove them, do i take it that now RS owns these images?

Im not sure what other conclusion can be drawn from that?
If a blogger cannot have ownership of his pictures when he leaves here, who is responsible when they are copied or used by a 3rd party ?


We're talking about two different issues here. With Joe, he owns his site and has ownership of his images.

As far as the RS thing goes, that would be up to Phillip or a mod to address, but my take on that would be that RS has the right to use your images just on this board for "forum history" and are not taking ownership of the images other than that. You'd have to look up the terms of service of the site to see what you're giving up by posting an image here. The original owner retains ownership and would need to go after someone like this if they aren't happy with how the images are being used. In my case I have all the RAW files for all the images I take, so I could prove ownership in that I have much higher quality versions than anything found online or any other source.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
30
Location
Sydney Australia
We're talking about two different issues here. With Joe, he owns his site and has ownership of his images.

As far as the RS thing goes, that would be up to Phillip or a mod to address, but my take on that would be that RS has the right to use your images just on this board for "forum history" and are not taking ownership of the images other than that. You'd have to look up the terms of service of the site to see what you're giving up by posting an image here. The original owner retains ownership and would need to go after someone like this if they aren't happy with how the images are being used. In my case I have all the RAW files for all the images I take, so I could prove ownership in that I have much higher quality versions than anything found online or any other source.

Sweet, thanks mate, its a bit clearer now, cheers
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
6,443
Reaction score
5
Location
Michigan
Actually it is plagiarism, regardless of it being images or text.

I was thinking plagiarism was for words and ideas, copyright infringement for photos, that's all. I know its just wrong to take someone else's work for their own need.

Try taking one of Getty's images out of a Google search and use it on your website, see how long it takes before you get hit with a court order and huge fine.

Who is Getty? :confused:


I decided to research the issue a little. This I found an interesting read:

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
331
Reaction score
0
Location
Sacramento, California

michael_mensinger

Moderator
Joined
Dec 24, 2000
Messages
5,950
Reaction score
4
Didn't another Star Wars guide lift photos from the web and publish them years back? I feel like it was one of the early Carlton books. I can't recall if any action ended up being taken, but feel certain my memory of this happening with an earlier published book is correct.

Mike
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
11,206
Reaction score
428
Location
Alamogordo, NM, USA
People who are concerned with having their online images stolen should probably take some actual precautions to prevent that before it happens. Don't just trust that someone is going to do the right thing simply because that person is a Star Wars fan. So, if you are not watermarking your images with the © symbol, then you're kind of asking for them to be stolen. It's like going out of town and leaving the front door of your house wide open.

Using the © symbol is kind of like posting a "No Trespassing" sign in your yard. It's not actually going to prevent anyone from entering your property or taking your stuff, but it lets them know ahead of time that you are fully prepared to take action against them if they do. The most you can do, though, is hire a lawyer to draft a "cease and desist" letter or to possibly sue them for lost revenue. So, if this guy is using your work in a book that he is selling for his own profit, then you could sue him for a percentage of his profits (or all of his profits, if you get a really good lawyer). However, if you haven't taken the steps to protect your work ahead of time (watermarking them with the © symbol for one), then it's going to be much more difficult to prove that your images actually belong to you.
 
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
0
Didn't another Star Wars guide lift photos from the web and publish them years back? I feel like it was one of the early Carlton books. I can't recall if any action ended up being taken, but feel certain my memory of this happening with an earlier published book is correct.

Mike

I don't believe it was photos that Carlton lifted but content. The early Tomart guides had some plants in them that weren't items that actually exist. When Carlton published his book he just "borrowed" the listings from the Tomarts guide and got busted on it by including those items.

As for the topic at hand, Mattias pretty much summed it up. If this guy thinks he can use images he's found on the web as his own content for publication and profit, he's got a world of hurt coming his way. The law is VERY clear about this and he'll get destroyed in court. I've alerted the staff photographers here to the situation but i'm 100% sure we'd never, ever give permission to use images for book publication to someone not already affiliated with the staff.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
937
Reaction score
0
He also used pics of GG's jumbo figures and not the actual Kenner ones :facepalm:

ab40h.png
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
830
Reaction score
6
That just makes the book a joke!, how can you trust the integrity of the information?

I suppose the book contains an "easter egg" spot the poontrooper LOL!!!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
0
Location
Bama
People who are concerned with having their online images stolen should probably take some actual precautions to prevent that before it happens. Don't just trust that someone is going to do the right thing simply because that person is a Star Wars fan. So, if you are not watermarking your images with the © symbol, then you're kind of asking for them to be stolen. It's like going out of town and leaving the front door of your house wide open.

Using the © symbol is kind of like posting a "No Trespassing" sign in your yard. It's not actually going to prevent anyone from entering your property or taking your stuff, but it lets them know ahead of time that you are fully prepared to take action against them if they do. The most you can do, though, is hire a lawyer to draft a "cease and desist" letter or to possibly sue them for lost revenue. So, if this guy is using your work in a book that he is selling for his own profit, then you could sue him for a percentage of his profits (or all of his profits, if you get a really good lawyer). However, if you haven't taken the steps to protect your work ahead of time (watermarking them with the © symbol for one), then it's going to be much more difficult to prove that your images actually belong to you.

you need to buy this site and run it because you always have the best perspective on everything. agree 100 % . also do we really need ONE more SW figure book ...come on guys there is more books from " experts : than there was toys in the vintage line.


_james
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
439
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Canada
you need to buy this site and run it because you always have the best perspective on everything. agree 100 % . also do we really need ONE more SW figure book ...come on guys there is more books from " experts : than there was toys in the vintage line.


_james

Well, for US stuff, we need a second edition of Kellerman, anyway.

Cheers

d.
 
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
1,083
Reaction score
0
Location
France
Hi there, Thanks to Joe to bringing this case to the community.

I am quite irritated of this manners, the guy clearly states that he has taken pictures from many websites; well... most of the SW collecting websites actually; so this is pretty serious.

I've seen many pictures of Meccano 12-backs, Empire cards, and 'my' one-of-a-kind Y-WING TRILOGO fighter which I have published only occasionally on some website and given permission for Kellerman second edition.

I've already deal with this kind of troubles : first ALL owners of pictures (original photographers) and website owners should fill a complaint to the website hosting provider AND youtube, as any websites hosting those material to have them removed.

Second, it's quite easy to fill a case for copyright infringment in any country - it won't give you royalties but at least it will allow to shutdown any of that guy's activities.

I don't have much time for this, but I won't let this guy use my photographies and I strongly invite eveyone concerned by this theft to do so.

stephane
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
27
Actually, a lot of people wanted me to watermark their images for the site and I did on a couple (due to their rarity) but for the most part I tried to keep the watermarking to a minimum so that people could enjoy the images rather than a logo plastered all over it. I did that for the community not to make it easier for people to steal them..

I've tried keeping watermarking to a minimum on some exclusive movie photos I posted online and it didn't work. People stole them and posted not only to their website but also to their facebook pages.
So I now put huge watermarks across them.

Even doing that - I saw one turn up recently on FB. The guy who posted it was asked where it came from - he said he wasn't sure. The website address was across the middle of the photo.:wtf:
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
27
Second, it's quite easy to fill a case for copyright infringment in any country - it won't give you royalties but at least it will allow to shutdown any of that guy's activities.

I don't have much time for this, but I won't let this guy use my photographies and I strongly invite eveyone concerned by this theft to do so.

stephane

It's actually expensive to file a copyright case. And you have to be sure the defendant has $ that you can get access to after you win the case.
That's what a lot of people count on - that you won't take the time and effort and money to go after them.

The last one I had to file cost $30,000. Received a court judgement of nearly $100,000 which you then have to collect. The defendent never showed up in court and then skipped the country.
I need to file another one but was quoted $30,000 for the initial work and if it goes to trial then another $30,000 - I have the evidence of the infringement so there is no doubt.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
3
Well, unfortunately almost every image on the site now has a watermark on it. I never wanted to do this as I feel it detracts from the presentation of each page but this incident has made me realise how easily it is for someone to "steal" images from a free resource in order to create something similar in their own name and attempt to charge money for it.

sw_ewok_village_rotj_tri-logo-001.jpg


The pictures in the collector interviews are not yet watermarked but if anyone who was featured the site wants their images kept a little safer I will of course edit them to look like the image above.

What a great day it's been.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
855
Reaction score
1
The palitoy section in that book is pretty noddy, don't recognise any of the images.

Jason
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
3,023
Reaction score
40
Location
Northern Virginia
What a hack job!!! Thank you Joe for bringing this to our attention. Looked thru a number of pages and it is clear as the morning sun, most of the images were stolen from other places. Another reason for anyone with a website to watermark their images. Thankfully, no prototype pictures were stolen.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,665
Reaction score
14
Thanks for posting this Joe. This guy stole a bunch of images from my website too. What I also find bothersome is that he included two different Sears Canada 3-Pack sets that never existed.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
0
i like the "previous" box on the Death Star Droid pic!

There's also a 'zoom out' icon on Snaggletooth, not great attention to detail!

I got a reply to my email today telling me that he's no longer going to publish the book due to his 'mistakes'. Will be interesting to see what happens.
 
Top