WWTBAM Bored

The artist for the Obama "Hope" poster used a copyrighted AP photo of Obama as its basis. AP claims foul and wants acknowledgment and royalties. The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18 ... etail.html

And here's the art and the photo together. You be the judge.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/image/1 ... etail.html

gsabc wrote:The artist for the Obama "Hope" poster used a copyrighted AP photo of Obama as its basis. AP claims foul and wants acknowledgment and royalties. The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18 ... etail.html

And here's the art and the photo together. You be the judge.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/image/1 ... etail.html

He sounds like another LA "underground" artist, Robbie Conal:

http://www.robbieconal.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Conal


He is similar in that he used images (photographic I assume) and did his drawings with humorous captions and would then post them around downtown LA.

gsabc wrote:The artist for the Obama "Hope" poster used a copyrighted AP photo of Obama as its basis. AP claims foul and wants acknowledgment and royalties. The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18 ... etail.html

And here's the art and the photo together. You be the judge.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/image/1 ... etail.html

Well it is "Fairey" use.

gsabc wrote:The artist for the Obama "Hope" poster used a copyrighted AP photo of Obama as its basis. AP claims foul and wants acknowledgment and royalties. The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18 ... etail.html

And here's the art and the photo together. You be the judge.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/image/1 ... etail.html

This is within my sphere of professional competence, though I haven't carefully analyzed the issues. My gut reaction is that the artist's work is fair use. --Bob

gsabc wrote:The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

I'm not an expert on the fine points of copyright law as it applies to photography and derivative artwork, but what part of that lawyer's statement do you consider demonic?

I thought the breakdown NPR did (All Things Considered) made a good case for the "fair use" doctrine: The original art was a photograph, & does not appear to be a portrait where Obama sat for the photographer, but is instead a candid shot.

The original photograph was neither advertised as nor sold as artwork, but was distributed over the wire services (or whatever passes for wire services these days).

The "fair use" doctrine says that if you gussy up a candid-shot photo, & be sure to gussy it up enough that is clearly "not the original any more" you pretty much are covered.

I don't like it, but there you have it.



On a related note, I predict that a street artist hitting the high life being arrested on the way to their opening will be "ripped from the headlines" for TV use any minute now, but I don't think the charges on the Lawn Order version will be "copyright infringement". Since when do you actually haul someone off the street for copyright infringement, anyway? Apparently, this guy has enough prior arrests from the days of his great crime of drawing on sidewalks that the law was legally justified in hauling him in.

"Help! There's an artist drawing on my sidewalk! Protect me! Arrest them!"

MarleysGh0st wrote:

gsabc wrote:The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

I'm not an expert on the fine points of copyright law as it applies to photography and derivative artwork, but what part of that lawyer's statement do you consider demonic?

More like farm work. Think Biff's recurring nightmare in the Back to the Future movies.

gsabc wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

gsabc wrote:The artist is claiming "fair use". His lawyer's statement needs a pitchfork.

I'm not an expert on the fine points of copyright law as it applies to photography and derivative artwork, but what part of that lawyer's statement do you consider demonic?

More like farm work. Think Biff's recurring nightmare in the Back to the Future movies.

Ah. Once again, I'm interpreting the metaphors incorrectly.

Hey, I've been summoned for jury duty on Feb 23. Do you think this might come to trial by then?

It sounds like a pretty interesting case!

ghostjmf wrote:
On a related note, I predict that a street artist hitting the high life being arrested on the way to their opening will be "ripped from the headlines" for TV use any minute now, but I don't think the charges on the Lawn Order version will be "copyright infringement". Since when do you actually haul someone off the street for copyright infringement, anyway? Apparently, this guy has enough prior arrests from the days of his great crime of drawing on sidewalks that the law was legally justified in hauling him in.

"Help! There's an artist drawing on my sidewalk! Protect me! Arrest them!"

And related to that was a "CBS Sunday Morning" piece yesterday on a former NYC graffiti "artist" by the handle of KAWS, who has gone legit and is selling his art. The art includes drawings of famous cartoon characters (Smurfs, Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.) with "x"es for eyes. I kept wondering about some items that never were addressed: Does he pay royalties for the use of the characters, or also claim "fair use"? Was he ever arrested for his earlier work on buildings, billboards, buses, etc.? Has he ever offered restitution to NYC or the private companies who did not share his opinion of the artistic qualities of that earlier work and cleaned it off said buildings, billboards, buses, etc.? He did not seem particularly remorseful for those earlier works.

Today's WWTBAM-potential factoid: The current euphemistic term for defacing property with graffiti is "tagging".

gsabc wrote:Today's WWTBAM-potential factoid: The current euphemistic term for defacing property with graffiti is "tagging".

The term has been around for a long time. It's not exactly the same as graffiti. Tagging means you are specifically leaving your tag, like a signature.

Some bonehead (something like "Chaco") was facing trial in SoCal (I think L.A.) about 10 years ago for tagging. He couldn't resist tagging the courthouse elevator. That was not well-received.

gsabc wrote: Today's WWTBAM-potential factoid: The current euphemistic term for defacing property with graffiti is "tagging".

Tagging is only one kind of graffiti where the "artist" paints his name in a particular style repeatedly in varying locations. Tagging has been around since the 70s as a form of graffiti and the slang name for it.

Estonut wrote:

gsabc wrote:Today's WWTBAM-potential factoid: The current euphemistic term for defacing property with graffiti is "tagging".

The term has been around for a long time. It's not exactly the same as graffiti. Tagging means you are specifically leaving your tag, like a signature.

Some bonehead (something like "Chaco") was facing trial in SoCal (I think L.A.) about 10 years ago for tagging. He couldn't resist tagging the courthouse elevator. That was not well-received.

I found him. It was "Chaka."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A967958260

The "fair use" doctrine says that if you gussy up a candid-shot photo, & be sure to gussy it up enough that is clearly "not the original any more" you pretty much are covered.

If you're not, then PunditKitchen and roflrazzi are in a hella lotta trouble!

And the folks who designed this, too:

Oh crap!

I hope christie's bosses aren't gonna sue the nuts off of me....

gsabc wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:
On a related note, I predict that a street artist hitting the high life being arrested on the way to their opening will be "ripped from the headlines" for TV use any minute now, but I don't think the charges on the Lawn Order version will be "copyright infringement". Since when do you actually haul someone off the street for copyright infringement, anyway? Apparently, this guy has enough prior arrests from the days of his great crime of drawing on sidewalks that the law was legally justified in hauling him in.

"Help! There's an artist drawing on my sidewalk! Protect me! Arrest them!"

And related to that was a "CBS Sunday Morning" piece yesterday on a former NYC graffiti "artist" by the handle of KAWS, who has gone legit and is selling his art. The art includes drawings of famous cartoon characters (Smurfs, Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.) with "x"es for eyes. I kept wondering about some items that never were addressed: Does he pay royalties for the use of the characters, or also claim "fair use"? Was he ever arrested for his earlier work on buildings, billboards, buses, etc.? Has he ever offered restitution to NYC or the private companies who did not share his opinion of the artistic qualities of that earlier work and cleaned it off said buildings, billboards, buses, etc.? He did not seem particularly remorseful for those earlier works.

Today's WWTBAM-potential factoid: The current euphemistic term for defacing property with graffiti is "tagging".

I saw that too, and I wondered, how can you use the Smurfs without permission? And he definitely called them the Smurfs.

I looked at the photo and the artwork, and I have to say:

The artwork is a stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that creates powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message than the photo!!

My breath was nearly taken away!

PS Actually...it looks like those old idealized portraits of tinpot Third World dictators...and I'm not just saying that! I've always thought it!

Estonut wrote:

gsabc wrote:Today's WWTBAM-potential factoid: The current euphemistic term for defacing property with graffiti is "tagging".

The term has been around for a long time. It's not exactly the same as graffiti.

I guess I'm too much of an old fogey or goody two shoes to have heard it. But it's close enough to graffiti to me. And it's still vandalism.

Comments on the diff between "fair use" of a photo vs using, accidentally or otherwise, some musical phrases you didn't compose:

You get pretty much free reign of photo use under the "fair use" clause in the copyright law, providing the original wasn't a posed piece of art, & wasn't distributed for profit beyond what a newspaper with photos in it ordinarily sells for, & providing you put enough original tweaks to it that no-one would mistake your creation for the original photo.

OK. Law's the law.

But with a musical composition, all hell breaks loose if you have enough notes in a row to resemble an identifiable musical phrase under somebody else's copyright. Doesn't matter that you changed the time signature, & the musical style. Doesn't matter if you have a beat pattern behind the piece that no-one else ever heard before you created it; you can't copyright the unique beat pattern. Only the melodic line.

To my ears, for instance, "My Sweet L-rd" by George Harrison shares nada "sound & feel" with "He's So Fine" by the Shirelles beyond the note progressions, & even the judge ruled that the copyright transgression was unintentional, but it was a transgression none-the-less.

If I did the reggae version of "My Sweet L-rd", & superimposed a beat pattern (beyond the regggaed time signature) that I invented, I would still get hit for royalties from the owners of "He's So Fine".


I've heard examples, by the way (courtesy of NPR, natch) of the piece who's copyright holder says was infringed by Cold Play. But that copyright holder themself took the melodic progression from an Argentinian piece, which the radio commentor then played as illustration. The Argentinian piece & the piece copyrighted by the suer are almost identical, whereas there are at least some stylistic diffs with the Cold Play piece. (Of course, stylistics diffs don't matter according to copyright law, just note progressions.) I guess the real question here is whether the Argentinian group has a copyright the US or British courts consider valid.

ghostjmf wrote:Comments on the diff between "fair use" of a photo vs using, accidentally or otherwise, some musical phrases you didn't compose:

You get pretty much free reign of photo use under the "fair use" clause in the copyright law, providing the original wasn't a posed piece of art, & wasn't distributed for profit beyond what a newspaper with photos in it ordinarily sells for, & providing you put enough original tweaks to it that no-one would mistake your creation for the original photo.

OK. Law's the law.

But with a musical composition, all hell breaks loose if you have enough notes in a row to resemble an identifiable musical phrase under somebody else's copyright. Doesn't matter that you changed the time signature, & the musical style. Doesn't matter if you have a beat pattern behind the piece that no-one else ever heard before you created it; you can't copyright the unique beat pattern. Only the melodic line.

To my ears, for instance, "My Sweet L-rd" by George Harrison shares nada "sound & feel" with "He's So Fine" by the Shirelles beyond the note progressions, & even the judge ruled that the copyright transgression was unintentional, but it was a transgression none-the-less.

If I did the reggae version of "My Sweet L-rd", & superimposed a beat pattern (beyond the regggaed time signature) that I invented, I would still get hit for royalties from the owners of "He's So Fine".


I've heard examples, by the way (courtesy of NPR, natch) of the piece who's copyright holder says was infringed by Cold Play. But that copyright holder themself took the melodic progression from an Argentinian piece, which the radio commentor then played as illustration. The Argentinian piece & the piece copyrighted by the suer are almost identical, whereas there are at least some stylistic diffs with the Cold Play piece. (Of course, stylistics diffs don't matter according to copyright law, just note progressions.) I guess the real question here is whether the Argentinian group has a copyright the US or British courts consider valid.

I hate these music lawsuits.

There are millions of songs out there and substantially fewer music combinations (especially in similar genres, which probably use limited numbers of keys, chord progressions, etc so the "sound" can "feel" the same).

The odds are quite high that one song is going to contain similar- or even the same- progressions as another song.

Jeemie wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Comments on the diff between "fair use" of a photo vs using, accidentally or otherwise, some musical phrases you didn't compose:

You get pretty much free reign of photo use under the "fair use" clause in the copyright law, providing the original wasn't a posed piece of art, & wasn't distributed for profit beyond what a newspaper with photos in it ordinarily sells for, & providing you put enough original tweaks to it that no-one would mistake your creation for the original photo.

OK. Law's the law.

But with a musical composition, all hell breaks loose if you have enough notes in a row to resemble an identifiable musical phrase under somebody else's copyright. Doesn't matter that you changed the time signature, & the musical style. Doesn't matter if you have a beat pattern behind the piece that no-one else ever heard before you created it; you can't copyright the unique beat pattern. Only the melodic line.

To my ears, for instance, "My Sweet L-rd" by George Harrison shares nada "sound & feel" with "He's So Fine" by the Shirelles beyond the note progressions, & even the judge ruled that the copyright transgression was unintentional, but it was a transgression none-the-less.

If I did the reggae version of "My Sweet L-rd", & superimposed a beat pattern (beyond the regggaed time signature) that I invented, I would still get hit for royalties from the owners of "He's So Fine".


I've heard examples, by the way (courtesy of NPR, natch) of the piece who's copyright holder says was infringed by Cold Play. But that copyright holder themself took the melodic progression from an Argentinian piece, which the radio commentor then played as illustration. The Argentinian piece & the piece copyrighted by the suer are almost identical, whereas there are at least some stylistic diffs with the Cold Play piece. (Of course, stylistics diffs don't matter according to copyright law, just note progressions.) I guess the real question here is whether the Argentinian group has a copyright the US or British courts consider valid.

I hate these music lawsuits.

There are millions of songs out there and substantially fewer music combinations (especially in similar genres, which probably use limited numbers of keys, chord progressions, etc so the "sound" can "feel" the same).

The odds are quite high that one song is going to contain similar- or even the same- progressions as another song.

According to Rob Paravonian, everybody rips off Pachelbel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

When Boston police arrested him in 2000, they seized several additional posters and told him to appear in court, but he did not show up, Conley's office said.

"I would rather be spending my time doing more positive things," Fairey said.

Separate but related to the guy.

I'm sure many a defendant has felt that way. I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but I'm pretty sure that a "I'd rather do something else" defense for a court non-appearance won't go very far.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:According to Rob Paravonian, everybody rips off Pachelbel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

I love that bit!

Jeemie wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:
I hate these music lawsuits.

There are millions of songs out there and substantially fewer music combinations (especially in similar genres, which probably use limited numbers of keys, chord progressions, etc so the "sound" can "feel" the same).

The odds are quite high that one song is going to contain similar- or even the same- progressions as another song.

I recall a science fiction short story (mid-'80s, IIRC) where that was the premise. Copyrights had been extended literally to forever, and they ran out of useful melodies for new music. Someone got sued for infringement on a Lennon tune by his several times great-grandkids. I forget how it was resolved.

gsabc wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:
I hate these music lawsuits.

There are millions of songs out there and substantially fewer music combinations (especially in similar genres, which probably use limited numbers of keys, chord progressions, etc so the "sound" can "feel" the same).

The odds are quite high that one song is going to contain similar- or even the same- progressions as another song.

I recall a science fiction short story (mid-'80s, IIRC) where that was the premise. Copyrights had been extended literally to forever, and they ran out of useful melodies for new music. Someone got sued for infringement on a Lennon tune by his several times great-grandkids. I forget how it was resolved.

Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson is a story about the (fictional) effort to pass such a law. I enjoyed the story a lot more before I became a lawyer and learned that the entire premise of the story is simply impossible. --Bob