Hypocrisy, thy name is…

The internet is great for getting the word out there when someone has done something wrong. However, it also makes claims very easy to check up. Sometimes people don’t put two and two together and hypocrisy can become quite evident very quickly. That’s been the case just recently in South Africa. I got a link to this post, where South African designer Euodia Roets calls out Woolworths for the way they stole her design. She gives a lot of details and photo evidence of the similarity between her picture and the one that was then printed on some scatter cushions to sell.

However, it is quite obvious that while the two designs are similar, and neither is particularly original. There are only so many ways one is likely to draw a hummingbird. If you Google “hummingbird” you will see a number of very similar images show up. The first one also happens to look strangely familiar… It turns out that the hummingbird painting Euodia Roets did in 2012 was actually just a copy of a photo taken by R W Scott in 1997. Even more interesting is that although Ms Roets is both selling prints of her painting for $25 and complaining about copyright infringement by Woolworths, the original photo is also copyrighted and not to be used for commercial purposes!


From left to right: The Woolworths scatter cushion, Euodia Roets’ painting, R W Scott’s photograph. All images copyright their creators.

You can see all three images above and it is very clear that Ms Roets’ painting is identical to the photograph, particularly if you look at the tail markings while there is just a basic resemblance to the scatter cushion. Looking at the images, I don’t believe Woolworths stole her painting. The image is too generic. I do, however, think that Euodia Roets violated the copyright on the photo and failed to credit the photographer. In the best case scenario, she just thought it was a free image floating around on the internet. If she was going to use the image for commercial purposes, though, it would’ve been good for her to first find out where it came from.

Woolworths response to the allegations can be read here. I should also say that while Woolworths didn’t steal the picture, they are using the text from the Wikipedia entry on Hummingbirds, allegedly without acknowledgement.

UPDATE: Euodia’s page has since been updated to include an acknowledgement of the photo and the page advertising prints of the hummingbird picture has been removed. The link to the removed page is still in her post. You can see the original post (without acknowledgement) courtesy of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

UPDATE 2: Euodia has also removed the comments on her page that pointed out that her picture was a copy of R W Scott’s photograph. There is a Google cache version of the page showing the original comments and when she first misattributed the photo the Gregory Scott. There’s also a Google cache page showing the hummingbird prints being sold for R237. (Thank you to Smelly in the comments for the links.) The story is now on News24 with Woolworths response and mentioning the use of a copyrighted picture.

Update 3: This is quite interesting. Gregory Scott, son of the late R W Scott, has spoken out in favour of Woolworths. He said that both pictures are obviously based on his father’s photograph but Woolworths’ image used more interpretation and less copying.


52 thoughts on “Hypocrisy, thy name is…

  1. Pingback: Hypocrisy, thy name is… | OddComplex

  2. THANK YOU for not kissing up to this woman. If you google hummingbird they all look pretty much the same. She’s probably just pissed because she didn’t get the contract *_*

  3. You’re disregarding the fact that Woolworths abuses and appropriates art by relying on the sort of similarities that you have pointed out. This is not the first time that Woolworths blatantly does this sort of thing. I agree that the hypocrisy is cheeky but I wouldn’t mind if Woolworths got a slap in the face based on the Wikipedia article at least.

  4. Not quite getting the point are you? It is not about the picture. The picture has very little to do with the complaint.

  5. She even admits on her blog that she copied the photo….take a look, the small print under the photo…..

  6. I’ve read her post as well as yours. In her post under the painting she did she clearly states that it was from the Scott photo. That’s acknowledgement. Not permission but she acknowledges the source. If anything this is her being naive. But irrespective of where the painting came from do you accept that it’s ok for Woolworths to string her along and then take her idea of the hummingbird on the cushion (not Scott or anyone else’s idea but hers) and then not do business with her? I mean where does the line get drawn? How many other artists or individuals or small businesses have they met with and decided not to do business with them but helped themselves to their ideas?

  7. @Sally and thanmimzolo: That small print was not there yesterday. It’s only been added in since everyone pointed out that she copied the picture. What is also suspicious is that the link to the hummingbird prints (which is still in her post) now takes you to a page saying that nothing can be found. I’m thinking she didn’t know that photograph was copyrighted and once it was pointed out, she’s added the acknowledgement that was previously lacking and has removed the page selling the prints, which was violating the copyright.

    As for Woolworths behaviour, it doesn’t interest me nor do I know enough to really comment on it. The part that interested me was Euodia’s complaint about Woolworths taking her design when it wasn’t her design.

  8. No matter whether woolworths was ethical in their behaviour, the fact that she plagarized makes her complaint null and void.

  9. Very interesting opposing comments. Do you understand what the under pinning question is? I think not. The question is not about copy. Only a fool will argue this lot. We know that patents are being stolen across the world. Just change the design slightly and you have the new patent. This question is about something far worse. I will use an example for those of you who are slow.
    When I write the play “Phantom of the Opera” and I show it to a thousand people as a design method, to see what reactions will be, only the thousand people will know what it is about. If I signed a restrictive order, a Non Disclosure Agreement, with them and next week I find that two thousand people knows about my project, there is obviously a person in the audience who shared/leaked without consent. Am I in any condition to take legal action? It is unlikely that I will find the person who divulged because of shear numbers. Wool Worth’s are bargaining on this chip, that is why you are never the only one who find yourself on the forgiven shelf.. It is this same unwritten pledge and anomaly, which Wool Worth’s use to hide behind. They contact ten people with the same demand and then use the best frame of knowledge, gathered from unsuspected show offs, without giving one of those credit. This way they circumvent being legally responsible for any bill’s. The other offensive position is that they know that many shop owners are have great difficulty surviving hard times, so make use of that pressure to alienate you when you insist on a Non disclosure agreement. If anybody from this company wish to expose yourself, show us the Non disclosure agreements you entered into in the last year. If you cannot, you are as guilty as hell.

  10. @Heinrich: I’m not really interested in that aspect of the story. The part that interested me in all this was that Euodia appears to have done the exact same thing that she’s now complaining about. She used someone else’s photo as a template to create a product to sell without acknowledging them. Now, at least according to her, Woolworths has done the same thing with her work. I just find the blatant hypocrisy astounding.

  11. I carry no brief for Woollies but I find the 190 odd user comments on her blog akin to a lynch mob.

    I wanted to put this on Euodia’s blog but I won’t pass on my Facebook details and address book to facilitate this.

    There’s a lot of disinformation about copyright here. If Euodia had the requisite permission from the original artist, then the copyright for her artwork is hers. We now know she hadn’t and has no claim on copyright ownership.

    The problem comes from rendering a hovering hummingbird.

    If 10 artists produced their own version of a hovering hummingbird, the odds are that most would look pretty similar and the devil would be in the details to distinguish each version. Each artist would have the copyright in their own version. In this case, there are insufficient similarities in
    the details to support a legal claim of copyright infringement. For a start look at the eyes, then the beak, chest colours and finally, the wing profile. At the very most, Euodia, can only claim Woollies were inspired by her version but this does not constitute an IP infringement or
    theft. Even this is moot.
    The bottom line is that Woollies legal team would run circles around Euodia’s and any action would be a waste of time and, more importantly for an artist, money. This is not to say that Woollies have not erred in their behaviour. Certainly not from a legal point of view but I think it’s somehow morally wrong for them to time the release of this hummingbird item with their shoddy, insincere and inconclusive negotiations with Euodia. I’m also quite surprised at the approbrium
    chucked at Woollies. Granted, Woollies alleged reputation may have triggered something akin to David vs Goliath syndrome. This has the makings of a PR disaster for Woolies.

  12. “The bottom line is that Woollies legal team would run circles around Euodia’s and any action would be a waste of time and, more importantly for an artist, money”

    That’s the whole point. The big guys ALWAYS win. Sorry, but I’m still on the side of the little independent designer.

  13. “That’s the whole point. The big guys ALWAYS win. Sorry, but I’m still on the side of the little independent designer.”
    I’m on the side of whoever is correct both legally and morally. The big guys don’t always win on both counts. Euodia doesn’t have a legal case and her outrage at her treatment has little to do with the legal issues. As a practicing photographer I refuse to subscribe to her naive and damaging conduct towards Woollies. If you want to run with the big boys then wise up to their industry practices or leave. It’s that simple. You surely can’t be sympathetic towards an artist who broke the rules (and even the law) initially and then falsely claims someone did it to her. Get real.

  14. Hi there

    I think what some people seem to be overlooking is the design of a RANGE. Yeah the hummingbird belongs to all, as do other things in nature (which big companies and govt steal from us), but putting a RANGE together (cushions, napkins and other homeware) and artistic design/presentation plays a role (I mean really – almost same friggin size and representation on that scatter!!) Come on!!

    If I remember correctly WW was one of the first to get caught with pants down with some T-shirt ages ago that had the proudly SA logo on and yet in the seam “Made in CHINA” tag. Next thing we had import laws change and had to start putting tags in/on all fabric goods stating whether fabric or unit imported and make up of fabric used.

    One would think WW would have an up and coming SA designer department – in each and every store – so if customer wants to support local they know why the price is higher and they can choose to support or not. But the sad things is WW would probably take as much as possible and tell designer that is the cost of exposure. Greed is taking over and big business is “training” their staff that this is how things should be.

    Seems WW and ANC in bed when it comes to ethics and basic decency to the customer … and we know how low the ones morals are!!!

    In business?? Today??

    No wonder the youth of today don’t have much to look up to, and if no one is prepared to stand up and pull finger … things can only go from bad to worse.


  15. Have a look at the comment by Keith Gough on Eudoria’s blog. He claims the same thing happened to him, and that after Woolworths engaged him on his design they suddenly lost interest. Then he had his samples returned – with the waybills shipping them to China and back still attached! A few months later very similar items appeared in Woolworths, but made in China, he says.
    Anyway, why is Jason Bosch blogging about a commercial matter on a science blog? Any chance Woolworths Cape Town HR manager Gaylin Bosch is a relation?

  16. @jakkalsdraai: There is no relation. I blog about whatever catches my interest, there are posts about science, religion, politics, ethics and even just photos I’ve taken. Here I was interested in someone complaining about having the same thing done to them that they did to another person.

  17. It’s a most unfortunate spin on the skulduggery of Woolworths (if they did what they stand accused of). Woolworths is our flagship retailer – they should know better and treat local talent with more respect.

    That they did wrong because she did wrong is disingenuous and preposterous – just plain silly!

  18. using a photograph to inspire a painting is not plagiarism. its reference… and i have looked at the hummingbird photo’s and FAIL to see which one she used to copy… so please point it out to the rest of us.

  19. Did you even read the original post? It’s not as simple as ‘Woollies stole my design’ is it? Because as many people have correctly pointed out, the profile view of a hummingbird is just too common an image to logically argue ownership over.

    The fact is that Woolworths had a prolonged negotiation about using this image on exactly the same medium as it was eventually used. The designer isn’t saying that they just randomly stole her idea. She’s saying that after months of negotiations, they said they are not going to use it and then use something extremely similar on exactly the same product they intended to in the first place.

    The only way hypocrisy would be involved is if Ms Roets hgad a lengthy negotiation with the photographer, tried to get him to lower his price for the image, then told him she won’t be using it anymore and then still did.

    Important distinction.

  20. @Monika Vermeulen: There is nothing wrong with a reference but a reference is not an exact copy. In the hummingbird picture it is exactly the same as in the photo. You can see both images in my post. On R W Scott’s page it is the fourth photo from the bottom titled “Female Ruby Throated Hummingbird.”

    @nrvs: You’re right, it’s not just about the image. However that is the main focus of her post (hence the comparison hummingbird pictures) and it’s what I chose to focus on. I’m not saying anything about their negotiations because I don’t know what happened in the negotiations. Woolworths says they have many meetings with artists and that they had already decided to use hummingbirds with another artist. If that’s the case it’s just that Euodia’s design wasn’t included in the range but they were always going to release on that theme. I have no way of telling which story is correct.

  21. Sorry, but I for one have stopped shopping at woolworths, this comes far too soon after the Frankies fiasco for my liking. I detest bullies and I am afraid woolworths has not convinced me of their “innocence”. I smell a big fat rat , a bully rat.

  22. “I have no way of telling which story is correct.”
    Then I recommend staying clear of terms like hypocrisy. Because given all we know is true about this, the obvious explanation is that Woolworths were a little naughty here.

  23. Also, the main focus of her post was not just the image. At least the same amount of attention is given to the negotiations between her and Woolworths as the image itself. Read it again.

  24. Thanks for making this post and highlighting this crazy sequence of events. I too saw it unfold and a few things I’ve noticed since, is that Euodia has deleted the posts on her blog that highlight the reference to RW Scott’s copyrighted work (such poor form to say the least). More importantly though, she DID intend to sell his work as her own, and has Woolies run with the product, they’d be infringing on his copyright as well.

    Has RW Scott been contacted regarding this whole debacle? I’d love to see his comment on this. Also, since she has already been selling prints and cushions with his bird image, she should be audited, and this money should belong to RW Scott.

    Lastly, let’s not hear that because it’s a painting of his photograph she has any sort of ownership of the image. That is absurd. Her painting is EXACTLY the same as the photo.

  25. I’m with nrvs on this one, her post stretches the fact that the image is a common image and that it could be anyone’s image of a sun bird and in fact she states that Woolworth’s pillow is not an exact copy. This is not about Woolworth’s copying the image, this is about Woolworths stealing her original idea and then representing it as their own. Imagine you proposed an idea of your blog to Woolworths, they took you through a negotiating process in which you reveal everything there is to know about your writing, how you pick subjects etc. and then… they drop you only to start a extremely similar blog. Similar photos, similar topics, similar style of writing. wouldn’t you be pissed off and feel cheated?

  26. Yes it’s true, her crediting the photographer, was not there originally. She only updated it once a whole lot of people pointed it out to her on her blog in the ‘comments’ section.

    Unfortunately she deleted all the comments that pointed out the fact that she had used a copyrighted photo. I took a screenshot at the time of the comments (had a hunch she would delete them). Now that to me, is just as underhanded as Woolworth’s. If you are going to complain about honesty and communication etc, at least keep the discussion ‘real’ on your blog.

    And now she gone from 600 Facebook followers to 3000+ followers and whole lot of advertising for herself and I guess a whole lot of people are going to join her ‘tribe’.

  27. “To Kill A Mockingbird” – the most important theme of the book “is the exploration of the moral nature of human beings…..that is, whether people are essentially good or essentially evil………..both parties should read it! URGENTLY!

  28. Interesting. I do have other friends, though, who are designers who have had the same thing happen to them. Although some of their stuff could be called “generic”, when I’ve seen their products compared to the Woolies’ ones, the Woolies’ ones (which came later) do seem to be rip offs. I also don’t think this is unique to Woolies, though. Most big brand shops seem to sell designs that you can find very similar versions of by independent designers for cheaper (I’ve seen that happen here where I now live in Canada as well as in SA, and I think it actually happens over here more than in SA).

  29. I meant to add that I also think it works in reverse – I’ve seen small designer stuff come out that looks very much like existing big brand items…

  30. It’s interesting how quick people are to defend artists and designers, but don’t seem to feel as strongly about photographers. As if using a photo as reference is a licence to copy. Yet another thing that should be taught in art school…

    Having done more than my fair share of ‘nature’ illustrations for textbooks, I know how heavily illustrators depend on reference photos. And that it’s possible to do so without infringement. Find more than one reference photo, possibly about five, use bits from each, change angles and lighting and background – more work, but that’s the point. Use the references to understand how the animal/plant/object is put together and implement that understanding in your own rendering – something that’s quite difficult to do with only one reference photo.

    (Sorry, bit of a sidetrack, but illustration is a craft, as is photography, and should be practised with just a bit of respect.)

  31. The copyrighted photo thing is blind and unfortunate, but there would not have been such a public backlash to the original post if Woolworths were not actually developing a reputation for bullying smaller suppliers. Same as Pick ‘n Pay did for years and they’re only paying for that sillyiness now. Woolworths will feel the negative effective of the Frankies saga on it’s image and PR for a while still & this whole episode won’t help either.

  32. The original article is not about the legitimacy of the image of the hummingbird, so much as it is regarding the fact that a large organization asked a designer for an idea to be submitted which they then used without compensation. Woolworths does this very often. Woolworths did not come up with the idea, the designer submitted the idea after she was asked and then was told that they would not be using her idea, wasting both her time and money.

  33. I believe Roets – below is my experience:
    On 24 July 2001 I made a presentation to the Woolworths team at the Head office in Cape Town on new Product Ranges with a “green” bias. We flew from Johannesburg to Cape Town for the presentation. The presentation was based on global research into evolving GREEN PRODUCTS containing ESSENTIAL OILS.

    The presentation covered Lifestyle Trends, Change Drivers, Influence on Buying Behavior, Emerging Market Opportunities, New Product Concepts, Essential Oils, Product Architecture, Product Organization, Distribution, Product Introduction, Sequencing and Pricing.
    The research revealed consumer demand shifts with growing preference for:
    § Products and services that offer personal care / value / benefit
    § Products that have a green image (healing, enjoyment, relaxation, pleasure)
    § Products that have therapeutic benefit and pleasure
    § Products that have a spiritual / mystical connotation etc

    There was a distinct move away from harmful substances & environments and a move to products that promote physical, psychological and spiritual wellbeing.

    The Woolworth’s team was excited about the presentation and the manager at that stage Neil Goldstein took and priced our handmade glycerin soaps with different combinations of essential oils as we had the meeting; the soaps were sold within minutes at the tills.

    The Woolworth’s team indicated that they would be interested in a contract with us, just before we left. Hours within us leaving to return to Johannesburg they informed us that there will be no contract. We were painfully surprised, as we had given them many of our products as examples and also the formulas for preparing the products.

    Not many months later, products similar to the products that we had shown them became available at Woolworth stores under the Margaret Roberts brand.

    We wrote to Woolworths and they denied any wrongdoing. We handed the matter over to an attorney to follow up, but were informed that Woolworths denied taking any of our products. We decided to walk away from further costly legal process.

    The bottom line is that Woolworths took my ideas and products (intellectual property) – they did benefit from our ideas and they refused to give me any credit.

    Kind regards – Belinda Joubert

  34. 1: when you want to deal with large retailers, get your house in order. If Ms roets felt her design was completely original ( which a simple Google search shows its not) why did she not take out copyright protection on it, before entering negotiations?
    2: copyright, patents and trademarks are distinctly different things
    3: her image is an exact rendition of the photo, with no written permission prior to use. As the author states- blatant hypocrisy
    4: Woolworths state they commisioned this artwork in November of last year, no doubt they will be able to prove this statement, which effectively will nul & void any claim that WW “stole” her design idea.
    5: the peculiar part for me is, why would WW enter negotiations if they already had a similar design and range in the pipeline….
    6: very simple: Naivety or ignorance is not a defense. So we can all run around having a pity party for the poor struggling independent, but this same independent decided to engage with WW. Refert to point 1

  35. To re-interpret a photograph into another medium is considered to be a “derivative work.” Whether that is actually plagiarism or not is dependent on a few factors:

    1 – Closeness of resemblance to the original work (how similar is the final derivative to the original piece?), in this case, very similar.

    2- The copyright limits applied to the original work.
    The original work seems to be based on a photograph taken by R W Scott. He very clearly specifies that the “photos may be used in student papers and in non-commercial teaching materials as long as appropriate credits are given. Schools may have one free screen saver or zip file containing the images…Permission must be obtained for any use not specifically granted above.”

    3- Arrangements with the original creator of the work.
    Naturally, if she has an arrangement with Mr Scott or bought the rights to work with his photo, none of the above is relevant.

    Until anyone can, with proof, establish these factors missing or present, I would not accuse or suggest she is guilty of plagiarism. It would be irresponsible to do so as the consequences of saying such a thing in a public forum where the outcomes of the discussion could directly affect her business and means of making a living. While I understand that you have chosen to focus on the “hypocrisy” of her accusations, I would think that it would be important to at least acknowledge that a large portion of her complaints and accusations were centered around the treatment she received, not just finding “her work”… “stolen.” This whole topic is not relevant to what and how Woolworths maintains its relationships with Artists that supply it with their work…which I think is really the issue at hand. Ms. Roets has made very serious claims as to the treatment she received from them, and as far as I am concerned, they have not adequately explained themselves, especially in the light that others have stepped forward before complaining of the same mistreatment and being taken advantage of.

    I respect that you want to focus on one aspect of the debate surrounding this whole thing, but I would say there is a context at issue here that should be at least mentioned, and not entirely dismissed…that would be taking things…out of context, I think.

    The relationship between Ms Roets work and RW Scotts works is important for a different issue, and sure, she could be guilty of plagiarism, and yes, that would be ironic, but that doesn’t give the right for a corporation the size of Woolworths to act the way it does with its Artisan suppliers.
    Pointing at the dirty history of the artisan is the oldest trick in the book, a logical fallacy, a “red herring,” and I think it misdirects and misleads from the issue at hand.

  36. I am an IP attorney and it is clear from the comments that many people don’t understand copyright and IP. This may help (and I am on neither person’s side):
    Copyright vests in a “work” which can be a print, a photograph, a painting, etc. Copyright vests automatically (i.e. upon creation of the work) provided that certain conditions are met.
    Copyright permits the copyright owner to prevent other from making reproductions or adaptations of their work. An exception for “fair use” exists where someone may copy a portion of a copyrighted work without permission generally for non-commercial purposes, e.g. private study or research.
    Acknowledging the source does not excuse copyright infringement. For example, if a person illegally downloaded Microsoft Office onto their computer, but acknowledged that it came from Microsoft, they would still be infringing Microsoft’s copyright in the computer program.
    When creating an adaptation of an existing work, a new “adapted” work may be brought into existence, which may be eligible for copyright protection in its own right. However, use of the adapted work could still infringe the copyright in the original work.

    Looking at the facts of this matter, to the extent that they can be gathered from the designer’s webpage and other sources:
    She reproduced or adapted a copyrighted work for commercial use which amounts to copyright infringement (attempting to sell the work to Woolworths is commercial use). This is not excused by acknowledging the source.
    As an adapted work, her painting of the bird, and prints of the painting, are also copyrighted and any unauthorised use of the works would also be copyright infringement (in addition, the copyright of the original photograph may also be infringed). Thus, Woolworths may not use her adapted design without her consent.
    Direct copying is a requirement for copyright infringement. Copying the “idea” of a hummingbird print on a cushion, but having the hummingbird designed by a different designer, would not infringe her copyright. If Woolworths’ version that the alternate design actually pre-dated the negotiations is true, then Woolworths could not have copied the work and it is on solid legal ground. (It may or may not be true that Woolworths negotiated in bad faith, but that is a separate issue.)
    This seems to be more of a PR issue than a legal one, with the designer crying foul and droves supporting her whether rightly or (more likely) wrongly. But most people (me included) like to support the underdog…

  37. This is wonderful. Jason Bosch, well done. I love the way you present the case, in its entirety, also, the wonderful polemic that seems to have errupted here. SO following your blog 🙂

  38. As people are more likely to look for new comments than updates on the main post I would like to point your attention to some updates. Before now it was only possible to infer that Euodia had used the photo inappropriately (no acknowledgement, deleting comments and removing pages where it was sold) but now Gregory Scott, son of R W Scott, has stated that he supports Woolworths’ use of the image as it shows more interpretation.

    Edit: Corrected earlier version of this comment. He did not say there was no permission. He has assumed that they had permission.

  39. The plot thickens. Evidence and reason, in the true sense of the word. Makes my heart glad!
    Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom – let your email find you!

  40. Moral of the story should be a warning to any local and independent designers, even though this turned out to be a bad example- COVER YOUR BACKSIDE when it comes to working with big bully companies like Woolworths, because at the end of the day they will over power you in a legal battle and they just don’t give a S#!t…and their excuse is business

  41. Article confirming that Woolworths hummingbird cushion was designed by a different artist appointed by Republican Umbrella, and that the artwork was signed off in November 2012:


    Now I wonder if Ms. Roets will have the moral courage to make a public apology considering that WW has suffered considerable damage to their reputation as a result of her accusation?

  42. I don’t believe ms Roets has to apologize though – the course of events in her was probably correct, also, I don’t belief she had ill intent. Woolworths suffering? Now that’s a big lol. Not possible. Ms Roets made a bit of a mistake (which turned in a humiliating copyright situation) and Woolies…they still have they hummingbird cushion cover and all the support they can get.
    Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom – let your email find you!

  43. I disagree. She seems to have been dishonest from the start. The image on her blog only shows the hummingbird which has a passing similarity to the one she copied from the Scott photograph. There are actually two hummingbirds on the cushion. When I asked her on her facebook page who designed the other hummingbird, she deleted my comment and blocked further comments. She has also obviously deleted all negative comments on her blog and facebook page. She was willing to involve WW in the illegal commercial use of a copyrighted image without permission – as a designer she should have known better. Anyone who is unable to see the wrong in that is guilty of applying selective morality. In my opinion she has damaged her own reputation through her dishonesty, and a public apology admitting that she made a mistake would help. By continuing with this deception she is doing herself no favours. The members of her tribe will find out sooner or later.

  44. @JennyS You may well be right. I’d like to think that she got so blinded by emotions upset at her treatment that she couldn’t step back and look at where this was going. Once she had entrapped herself and gained a ready audience sympathetic to her cause she could only pull up the drawbridge and retreat. There seems to be high degree of righteous indignation that blinded her. It’s a true test of character and integrity that she could apologise and set matters right with Woolworths. Unfortunately her subsequent actions of dishonesty, selective morality, content deletion and so on earn her a massive fail. She may be a struggling artist and if we were to apply the same standards to her as was advocated for Woolies then she would certainly starve.

  45. Pingback: Hypocrisy, ignorance and the #HummingbirdGate controversy | Web•Tech•Law

  46. Pingback: E&R is three years old! | Evidence & Reason

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 )

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