Jump to content

LA Artist files lawsuit against Green Day


Sanity Loan

Recommended Posts

Not if it's without any credit or ways to track down the original artist at all.

I see why the guy's pissed off, I just wonder if suing them was the handiest thing to do.

yeah good point, but I don't think that they meant to forget to give him credit. With stencils it's kind of hard to find out who made the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

yeah good point, but I don't think that they meant to forget to give him credit. With stencils it's kind of hard to find out who made the original.

Yeah, I know, I was just commenting on the thing about wanting one's art to be seen :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah good point, but I don't think that the band meant to forget to give him credit. With stencils it's kind of hard to find out who made the original.

Well on one of the sites there is a quote saying "Green Day received Mr. Seltzer's image from a responsible company and was unaware that there could be any copyright or other issues."

So really, I don't think this guy should be sueing Green Day, It should be this "responsible company."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly I think this is a load of bull. I mean you'd think that an artist wants his artwork being seen around the world. Also I highly doubt that they meant anything by using the artwork. Kind of makes you think about the death of common sense thing.

I'm sure a lot of artists would be fine with it just for the exposure their work would be getting, but I can see why this guy might not want his work to be used even if he had been asked. It was used during a really political song and if this guy doesn't agree with the message of the song, then I can't blame him for not wanting to be associated with it in any way. I know I'd be mad if somebody took something I made and used it in a way that could make people think I endorsed something I don't actually believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure a lot of artists would be fine with it just for the exposure their work would be getting, but I can see why this guy might not want his work to be used even if he had been asked. It was used during a really political song and if this guy doesn't agree with the message of the song, then I can't blame him for not wanting to be associated with it in any way. I know I'd be mad if somebody took something I made and used it in a way that could make people think I endorsed something I don't actually believe in.

Yeah, and he could really hate Green Day. Lol.

Imagine if your artwork was stolen by a band you hate. I'll just use Nickelback as an example here. I'd be uber pissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this guy not thought that Green Day's artist [i can't remember his name] created something similar to it? Just because it looks like his, doesn't mean that it is his artwork.

But if someone is likely to be confused by the artwork then it's considered passing off. =/

We just did an entire lecture on this in college. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well heres what im thinking.

1) as some already said, its not green day as in billie joe, mike and tre, that should be suit, but the guys who gave them the picture, saying it was alright

2) im sure, that green day (billie joe, mike and tre) havent been involved in this thing what so ever. the concert tickets where from some one in the company, so actually i little like the first i wrote.

3) i dont get why the artist cant be glad about the whole seeing is art. i understand that he might want the credit for it, but there is other ways of that, then making a lawsuit.

4) why didnt he just took the tickets :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one thing, how are we absolutely sure he drew the picture back in the early 2000's? I may be looking too deep into this, but how do we know he didn't see the picture, draw it without the cross and such, and claim he drew it in 2003 - just to get his name out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's interesting and surprising to hear

I don't blame the artist , even if it is Green Day, I would be livid if someone used my artwork without my permission

I even hate when people use my graphics on this site without letting me know :lol:

this guy looks pretty legit, but the cockhead should have accepted the concert tickets.

he's not going to win in court against warner bros fancy lawyers.

if he has proof of the creation date of that artwork and proof that Green Day or anybody had no contact with him then he very well could win

especially if the work was already copyrighted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they look awfully similar, so I think the artist should get the money he wants. It's only fair. And Green Day should agree to that so this can blow over and not drag on; before the artist demands more.

And lol at them on TMZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is pretty unknown. In a way, I hope he's lying.. but in a way I hope he's not because that would be pretty sad that someone thinks they can get money by claiming Green Day took some artwork of his. It doesn't help that the article doesn't even try to show what artwork he's talking about! It could be a few pictures. Though, the only one I can think of that they used for concerts and promotional ones is the guy with the flaming paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't blame the artist , even if it is Green Day, I would be livid if someone used my artwork without my permission

I agree with this.

Provided this is true, it must have been a punch in the face to the artist. And then to be offered tickets as a settlement? That would have probably escalated the situation further.

I am curious to see how this lawsuit pans out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one thing, how are we absolutely sure he drew the picture back in the early 2000's? I may be looking too deep into this, but how do we know he didn't see the picture, draw it without the cross and such, and claim he drew it in 2003 - just to get his name out there?

Hmm yeah it could be like this too - Who knows? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time, when someone is trying to get famous this way...

But, for sure, it's not Billie Joe's, Mike's or Tré's fault, the problem comes from somewhere else.. I can't believe, that they would have stolen it for purpose. That would be nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that was Jesus the "sream guy" ... ><

yeah it's very similar but it's not them who chose the background picture right? :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that really is the same artwork, that's terrible!

But i'm sure the guys didn't have a clue of this, and Warner is to blame... (Always blame the big evil corporation, right?)

Green Day would know the importance of not exploiting upcoming artists, as they have been there themselves, and is against illegal use of others work.

Let's just hope that they settle for a fair solution, and Green Day won't be hung out for this in the press or anywhere else, cause i'm sure it's an honest mistake..!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that really is the same artwork, that's terrible!

But i'm sure the guys didn't have a clue of this, and Warner is to blame... (Always blame the big evil corporation, right?)

Green Day would know the importance of not exploiting upcoming artists, as they have been there themselves, and is against illegal use of others work.

Let's just hope that they settle for a fair solution, and Green Day won't be hung out for this in the press or anywhere else, cause i'm sure it's an honest mistake..!

Yea hopefully :unsure: I wonder if the artist talked directly to Green Day as in bandmembers or to the people representing them? Idk I'm no expert in law or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea hopefully :unsure: I wonder if the artist talked directly to Green Day as in bandmembers or to the people representing them? Idk I'm no expert in law or anything.

I hope the, freaking, $150.000 he's suing them for, won't be something that Green Day will have to pay out of their own pocket, but it's something Warner Bros will be charged for! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for what its worth, according to gd's lawer, Green Day legally purchased the artwork from an art provider / stage designer. The legal squabble is actually between the design company and the artist. But, in our sue happy country once someone files suit they sue everyone involved. so the whole issue really has nothing to do with the band or warner's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for what its worth, according to gd's lawer, Green Day legally purchased the artwork from an art provider / stage designer. The legal squabble is actually between the design company and the artist. But, in our sue happy country once someone files suit they sue everyone involved. so the whole issue really has nothing to do with the band or warner's.

Thanks for the info :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! That really is the same image =0

WTF was the designer thinking about if he didn't ask permission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever anything is successful, someone claims they came up with it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever anything is successful, someone claims they came up with it first.

The difference is this is a pretty legit case...I even tried my hand at recreating the GD art using this man's icon as a template...its nearly identical (minus a few scaling issues). If this guy is asking for 150,000 I say give it. He could be asking for a lot more....and getting it.

As for WHY warner used this, apparently they contracted a company to find art for them that was not copyrighted, they found this and handed it over. I dunno who the contractor is though, but they were considered to be "reputable". Mind you though, this comment on reputation is coming from a company that has been screwing over the fans for cash and hype (for example the 21CB MV debacle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is this is a pretty legit case...I even tried my hand at recreating the GD art using this man's icon as a template...its nearly identical (minus a few scaling issues). If this guy is asking for 150,000 I say give it. He could be asking for a lot more....and getting it.

As for WHY warner used this, apparently they contracted a company to find art for them that was not copyrighted, they found this and handed it over. I dunno who the contractor is though, but they were considered to be "reputable". Mind you though, this comment on reputation is coming from a company that has been screwing over the fans for cash and hype (for example the 21CB MV debacle).

That's really sad. Now that you get more information, the guy deserves his money. they shouldn't have taken that artwork without asking permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...