spencerlee
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 853
๐๐ป 27
May 2006
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by spencerlee on Jan 27, 2011 16:55:24 GMT 1, Never mind copyright, he should still be sentenced to life for crimes against art itself.
Never mind copyright, he should still be sentenced to life for crimes against art itself.
|
|
Cedric Mnich
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,158
๐๐ป 98
June 2009
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Cedric Mnich on Jan 27, 2011 17:03:33 GMT 1, Well I don't really agree with you regarding the Hope poster. The Hope poster was a lambda pic of Obama, which in itself had absolutely nothing extraordinary at all... It is the cropping on a closed-up Obama face, the color treatment and vector style with the addition of the Hope word which made it iconic. In Lennon pic, MBW simply vectorized a B&W pic, by a famous photographer (who sells that verysame pic as an artwork!) and just added some pink paint... Which is far closer to plagiarism / copyright infringement.
Regarding Mondrian, again, MBW just took a Mondrian painting and added some pink on it (I don't see what's the concept and context change but maybe I missed something). For Norman Rockwell, ok, he added some starwars items. That could make the thing different. The line can obviously be thin between reappropriation, fair use, plagiarism and copyright breaking... Regarding estate I don't really know. I recently saw there were issues on Conan the Barbarian for example. Robert E. Howard died in 1936. Therefore Conan is public domain. Well, wait, the short stories are. But the character is now owned by a company (or trust or estate or whatever it's called). Don't even try to publish anything commercial regarding the Conan character... You'll soon get a lawyer's letter (they even send letters to fans blogs about Conan regarding copyright..)
Well I don't really agree with you regarding the Hope poster. The Hope poster was a lambda pic of Obama, which in itself had absolutely nothing extraordinary at all... It is the cropping on a closed-up Obama face, the color treatment and vector style with the addition of the Hope word which made it iconic. In Lennon pic, MBW simply vectorized a B&W pic, by a famous photographer (who sells that verysame pic as an artwork!) and just added some pink paint... Which is far closer to plagiarism / copyright infringement. Regarding Mondrian, again, MBW just took a Mondrian painting and added some pink on it (I don't see what's the concept and context change but maybe I missed something). For Norman Rockwell, ok, he added some starwars items. That could make the thing different. The line can obviously be thin between reappropriation, fair use, plagiarism and copyright breaking... Regarding estate I don't really know. I recently saw there were issues on Conan the Barbarian for example. Robert E. Howard died in 1936. Therefore Conan is public domain. Well, wait, the short stories are. But the character is now owned by a company (or trust or estate or whatever it's called). Don't even try to publish anything commercial regarding the Conan character... You'll soon get a lawyer's letter (they even send letters to fans blogs about Conan regarding copyright..)
|
|
JKW
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 289
๐๐ป 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 17:04:45 GMT 1, That was to be expected... Next will certainly be Robert Freeman (the Lennon Panda photographer) and Mondrian or Norman Rockwell Estates... Vectorization and a pink splat of paint is not enough to make something original. I could see the problem with the lennon panda print, it's nothing but a straight up copy with a little color added, just like the Hope poster. But for his norman rockwell and mondrian he totally changed the concept and context which is a big deal. And in fact he changed the concept and context of the Run DMC photo in some instances, but not all. So with the public domain thing, does this mean in 2048 people will be able to make straight up copies of norman rockwell and sell it and in 2057 andy warhol? Or does keeping an estate functioning prevent that?
Once the artist died, the estate controls the copyright for 70 years (in most countries), once that expired I don't think you can extend or renew it (it might depends on the country). So after this time yes, people can legally copy the work.
That was to be expected... Next will certainly be Robert Freeman (the Lennon Panda photographer) and Mondrian or Norman Rockwell Estates... Vectorization and a pink splat of paint is not enough to make something original. I could see the problem with the lennon panda print, it's nothing but a straight up copy with a little color added, just like the Hope poster. But for his norman rockwell and mondrian he totally changed the concept and context which is a big deal. And in fact he changed the concept and context of the Run DMC photo in some instances, but not all. So with the public domain thing, does this mean in 2048 people will be able to make straight up copies of norman rockwell and sell it and in 2057 andy warhol? Or does keeping an estate functioning prevent that? Once the artist died, the estate controls the copyright for 70 years (in most countries), once that expired I don't think you can extend or renew it (it might depends on the country). So after this time yes, people can legally copy the work.
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by fingerz on Jan 27, 2011 17:07:26 GMT 1, Never mind copyright, he should still be sentenced to life for crimes against art itself.
hahaha
Never mind copyright, he should still be sentenced to life for crimes against art itself. hahaha
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by snausages on Jan 27, 2011 17:25:26 GMT 1, Well I don't really agree with you regarding the Hope poster. The Hope poster was a lambda pic of Obama, which in itself had absolutely nothing extraordinary at all... It is the cropping on a closed-up Obama face, the color treatment and vector style with the addition of the Hope word which made it iconic. In Lennon pic, MBW simply vectorized a B&W pic, by a famous photographer (who sells that verysame pic as an artwork!) and just added some pink paint... Which is far closer to plagiarism / copyright infringement. Regarding Mondrian, again, MBW just took a Mondrian painting and added some pink on it (I don't see what's the concept and context change but maybe I missed something). For Norman Rockwell, ok, he added some starwars items. That could make the thing different. The line can obviously be thin between reappropriation, fair use, plagiarism and copyright breaking... Everyone keeps trying to claim the Hope poster was "fair use" but I can't understand how or agree as Fairey was forced to pay up already. It doesn't matter if you think it was extraordinary or not.
As I already said I think the MBW Panda print is just as bad if not worse than the Hope poster.
But MBW took a mondrian image that is all about geometry and confined space and completely changed it conceptually by adding uncontrolled splashes of paint. I'm not saying it's great and I'm not a lawyer so I may be wrong about fair use, but this image is far more transformative than anything mentioned yet.
The Rockwell is just as transformative by adding these anachronistic elements. It totally changes the context and meaning of the image. It's practically parody which has been a well protected part of fair use.
And MBW did this same thing he did with rockwell in at least one of the RUN DMC images, see what I posted above.
Well I don't really agree with you regarding the Hope poster. The Hope poster was a lambda pic of Obama, which in itself had absolutely nothing extraordinary at all... It is the cropping on a closed-up Obama face, the color treatment and vector style with the addition of the Hope word which made it iconic. In Lennon pic, MBW simply vectorized a B&W pic, by a famous photographer (who sells that verysame pic as an artwork!) and just added some pink paint... Which is far closer to plagiarism / copyright infringement. Regarding Mondrian, again, MBW just took a Mondrian painting and added some pink on it (I don't see what's the concept and context change but maybe I missed something). For Norman Rockwell, ok, he added some starwars items. That could make the thing different. The line can obviously be thin between reappropriation, fair use, plagiarism and copyright breaking... Everyone keeps trying to claim the Hope poster was "fair use" but I can't understand how or agree as Fairey was forced to pay up already. It doesn't matter if you think it was extraordinary or not. As I already said I think the MBW Panda print is just as bad if not worse than the Hope poster. But MBW took a mondrian image that is all about geometry and confined space and completely changed it conceptually by adding uncontrolled splashes of paint. I'm not saying it's great and I'm not a lawyer so I may be wrong about fair use, but this image is far more transformative than anything mentioned yet. The Rockwell is just as transformative by adding these anachronistic elements. It totally changes the context and meaning of the image. It's practically parody which has been a well protected part of fair use. And MBW did this same thing he did with rockwell in at least one of the RUN DMC images, see what I posted above.
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Happy Shopper on Jan 27, 2011 17:43:18 GMT 1, I can't understand how or agree as Fairey was forced to pay up already. It doesn't matter if you think it was extraordinary or not.
You're probably right there, it's just annoying that Fairey's defense was destroyed when it turned out he'd lied (intentionally or not) about which photo he used. Up 'til that point he had a strong argument. Shame, as it could have got more interesting.
I can't understand how or agree as Fairey was forced to pay up already. It doesn't matter if you think it was extraordinary or not. You're probably right there, it's just annoying that Fairey's defense was destroyed when it turned out he'd lied (intentionally or not) about which photo he used. Up 'til that point he had a strong argument. Shame, as it could have got more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by snausages on Jan 27, 2011 17:51:58 GMT 1, I don't agree that he could have won if he didn't lie HS but it sure didn't help his case. I personally don't agree Hope was very transformative, I think it was less transformative than some works where he did credit the photographer and beyond that it was used commercially - big no no.
I don't agree that he could have won if he didn't lie HS but it sure didn't help his case. I personally don't agree Hope was very transformative, I think it was less transformative than some works where he did credit the photographer and beyond that it was used commercially - big no no.
|
|
missinglink
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 96
๐๐ป 0
September 2010
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by missinglink on Jan 27, 2011 18:45:36 GMT 1, not sure where i found the link, maybe it was posted in some other thread. it's a quite interesting article.
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey A critique by artist Mark Vallen
www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
not sure where i found the link, maybe it was posted in some other thread. it's a quite interesting article. Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey A critique by artist Mark Vallen www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
|
|
swamped
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 525
๐๐ป 41
January 2009
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by swamped on Jan 27, 2011 19:07:10 GMT 1, Stupid people do stupid sh*t plain and simple.........Ask if they say "no", then move on to the next image..
Stupid people do stupid sh*t plain and simple.........Ask if they say "no", then move on to the next image..
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 3:02:11 GMT 1, MBW is currently putting up a new street piece in LA depicting an Oscar statue wearing a hoodie, surrounded by storm troopers.
MBW is currently putting up a new street piece in LA depicting an Oscar statue wearing a hoodie, surrounded by storm troopers.
|
|
at0mic
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 225
๐๐ป 6
July 2009
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by at0mic on Jan 28, 2011 6:33:59 GMT 1, edit, taken from thegiant :
edit, taken from thegiant :
|
|
G-Man
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 3,529
๐๐ป 33
November 2007
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by G-Man on Jan 28, 2011 10:20:22 GMT 1, Is it me or is everything that MBW does shite?
Is it me or is everything that MBW does shite?
|
|
robinprint
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 150
๐๐ป 9
October 2010
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by robinprint on Jan 28, 2011 10:33:00 GMT 1, Totally agree! it is s***e
Totally agree! it is s***e
|
|
Cedric Mnich
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,158
๐๐ป 98
June 2009
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Cedric Mnich on Jan 28, 2011 11:47:59 GMT 1, Well the Oscar with the hoodie is a good idea. Can't really see the link with startroopers however. meh.
Well the Oscar with the hoodie is a good idea. Can't really see the link with startroopers however. meh.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by I like pictures on Jan 28, 2011 11:50:04 GMT 1, If he'd done it with vader being the statue there'd be a link but he didnt and as you say. Meh.
If he'd done it with vader being the statue there'd be a link but he didnt and as you say. Meh.
|
|
bullet
Blank Rank
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป 16
January 2013
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by bullet on Jan 28, 2011 11:52:13 GMT 1, If he'd done it with vader being the statue there'd be a link but he didnt and as you say. Meh.
The statue is banxy and the storm troopers with the camera are the mr brainwash lot filming it
If he'd done it with vader being the statue there'd be a link but he didnt and as you say. Meh. The statue is banxy and the storm troopers with the camera are the mr brainwash lot filming it
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Daniel Silk on Jan 28, 2011 12:16:35 GMT 1, g-man and robinprint come on lads! This is an art forum, and of course loads of different opinions flying around, but please try to be a bit more constructive
g-man and robinprint come on lads! This is an art forum, and of course loads of different opinions flying around, but please try to be a bit more constructive
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 12:36:46 GMT 1, Following on from what Fragile was told, looks like they might be going after the footage as well.
www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/25/us-giftshop-idUSTRE70O7K820110125
Legal drama shadows Oscar-nominated "Gift Shop"
By Eriq Gardner Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:31pm EST
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter)- Today, "Exit Through the Gift Shop" scored an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature.
Directed by the prolific British artist Banksy, the film tells the story of the incredible rise of Thierry Guetta, aka "Mr. Brainwash," from a part-time videographer to a celebrated street artist who has made millions of dollars selling "Mr. Brainwash" art.
Since the documentary's release, it has enjoyed incredible critical buzz as well as controversy from those who have wondered whether the film is a fabrication.
Meanwhile, without much fanfare, a lawsuit is ongoing that puts some of the creativity seen in the film under the legal microscope.
"Exit Through the Gift" Shop premiered at last year's Sundance Film Festival. Ever since then, some have wondered whether the tale of a French immigrant turned art sensation is too good to be true. Some have called the documentary a "hoax." Others have defended its authenticity.
Here's what we know.
In November, under penalty of perjury, Guetta gave a sworn deposition that the artwork was his own and not, as some have speculated, a fabrication by Banksy.
Guetta's testimony was given in an ongoing lawsuit that deserves much more attention than it's gotten. His declaration of authorship may put to rest some conspiracies out there about the making of "Exit Through the Gift Shop," but also has left him open to violating the copyright of a fellow artist.
That artist would be Glen Friedman, who sued Guetta at the end of 2009, objecting to the way that Mr. Brainwash had appropriated one of his photographs -- specifically, an image of the music group Run DMC, first published in a 1994 book.
Friedman says that Mr. Brainwash took his copyrighted photo without consent and made derivatives. Guetta is claimed to have used the image in art-work, t-shirts, post-cards, etc.
The case pits a copyright owner's ability to control derivative works against an artist's ability to make 'fair use' transformations of copyrighted material. If the copyright vs. free speech battle lines sound familiar, it's almost exactly the same claims covered in the Associated Press' lawsuit against Shepard Fairey, when the famous street artist took a copyrighted photograph to create the Barack Obama "Hope" image. (That case recently made news after the two primary parties in the case settled with each other.)
Ironically, Fairey appeared in "Exit Through the Gift Shop" as a central character who helped Mr. Brainwash in his rise to the top of the art world. Yet more irony -- Friedman has collaborated with Fairey on past art projects.
Since Friedman's lawsuit was first filed, the case has grown more entertaining, especially for those who have seen "Exit Through the Gift Shop."
In Guetta's November deposition, he admitted to using the Run DMC art on specially-made postcards intended to promote the "Life is Beautiful" exhibit, which was held in Los Angeles and featured prominently in the film.
Now, as a result of that admission, lawyers for Friedman are going after "indirect profits" from the "Life is Beautiful" exhibit, which was shown in one of the documentary's crucial scenes to have made substantial money.
A judge recently ordered Guetta to turn over financial documents from the show, dismissing objections made by Guetta's attorneys about the relevancy of those documents.
The case is still in the midst of the discovery phase and could yield some more developments going forward.
Douglas Linde, the attorney for Friedman, says he has no plans to depose Banksy, so the artist is free to show up at the Oscars without any worry of being served with a subpoena. However, Linde may have his eyes on the film itself. Linde says he's going to look into subpoenaing any unseen footage from the film that might tie Guetta to his Run DMC art.
Following on from what Fragile was told, looks like they might be going after the footage as well. www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/25/us-giftshop-idUSTRE70O7K820110125Legal drama shadows Oscar-nominated "Gift Shop"By Eriq Gardner Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:31pm EST LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter)- Today, "Exit Through the Gift Shop" scored an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature. Directed by the prolific British artist Banksy, the film tells the story of the incredible rise of Thierry Guetta, aka "Mr. Brainwash," from a part-time videographer to a celebrated street artist who has made millions of dollars selling "Mr. Brainwash" art. Since the documentary's release, it has enjoyed incredible critical buzz as well as controversy from those who have wondered whether the film is a fabrication. Meanwhile, without much fanfare, a lawsuit is ongoing that puts some of the creativity seen in the film under the legal microscope. "Exit Through the Gift" Shop premiered at last year's Sundance Film Festival. Ever since then, some have wondered whether the tale of a French immigrant turned art sensation is too good to be true. Some have called the documentary a "hoax." Others have defended its authenticity. Here's what we know. In November, under penalty of perjury, Guetta gave a sworn deposition that the artwork was his own and not, as some have speculated, a fabrication by Banksy. Guetta's testimony was given in an ongoing lawsuit that deserves much more attention than it's gotten. His declaration of authorship may put to rest some conspiracies out there about the making of "Exit Through the Gift Shop," but also has left him open to violating the copyright of a fellow artist. That artist would be Glen Friedman, who sued Guetta at the end of 2009, objecting to the way that Mr. Brainwash had appropriated one of his photographs -- specifically, an image of the music group Run DMC, first published in a 1994 book. Friedman says that Mr. Brainwash took his copyrighted photo without consent and made derivatives. Guetta is claimed to have used the image in art-work, t-shirts, post-cards, etc. The case pits a copyright owner's ability to control derivative works against an artist's ability to make 'fair use' transformations of copyrighted material. If the copyright vs. free speech battle lines sound familiar, it's almost exactly the same claims covered in the Associated Press' lawsuit against Shepard Fairey, when the famous street artist took a copyrighted photograph to create the Barack Obama "Hope" image. (That case recently made news after the two primary parties in the case settled with each other.) Ironically, Fairey appeared in "Exit Through the Gift Shop" as a central character who helped Mr. Brainwash in his rise to the top of the art world. Yet more irony -- Friedman has collaborated with Fairey on past art projects. Since Friedman's lawsuit was first filed, the case has grown more entertaining, especially for those who have seen "Exit Through the Gift Shop." In Guetta's November deposition, he admitted to using the Run DMC art on specially-made postcards intended to promote the "Life is Beautiful" exhibit, which was held in Los Angeles and featured prominently in the film. Now, as a result of that admission, lawyers for Friedman are going after "indirect profits" from the "Life is Beautiful" exhibit, which was shown in one of the documentary's crucial scenes to have made substantial money. A judge recently ordered Guetta to turn over financial documents from the show, dismissing objections made by Guetta's attorneys about the relevancy of those documents. The case is still in the midst of the discovery phase and could yield some more developments going forward. Douglas Linde, the attorney for Friedman, says he has no plans to depose Banksy, so the artist is free to show up at the Oscars without any worry of being served with a subpoena. However, Linde may have his eyes on the film itself. Linde says he's going to look into subpoenaing any unseen footage from the film that might tie Guetta to his Run DMC art.
|
|