petros Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I just thing that this guy is just trying to make a name for himself cause as you said he doesn't even has a webpage and nobody knows him..he is just an asshole who wants someone to talk about him as we do now... :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shangri-La Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 this is so weird. i've had this guys flickr account saved in my favorites since the album came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harinezumi Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 The part about them offering concert tickets to him sounds really suspicious. Either they felt sorry for him (like, maybe they thought he was crazy or something), or he's making it up. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shangri-La Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 he's not making it up. but it's not like he was totally clueless about them using his artwork and he obviously consented to it at the beginning because there are articles and blog posts about the different artists that were creating something to go with certain songs... google is completely failing me right now but i'll keep investigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eirik Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 this is so weird. i've had this guys flickr account saved in my favorites since the album came out. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela. Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Interesting. Maybe he's telling the truth. But he could also just as easily be lying in order to, as someone said said, get money and their 15 minutes of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Samuels Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 This feels flimsy for a few reasons... 1. No official website for the artist, leaving his art VERY difficult to track down 2. Concert tickets? Really? WMG thought the best way to resolve this was a bitch-slap to the face? 3. NO OFFICIAL WEBSITE! Now, in the next few days he'll get all the google views he wants from sites like our own GDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amy_runs Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 All I know is that the "scream icon" picture thing is creepy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadoxAndPlaid Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 This is just sounds like one of those psycho starving-artist guys who freaks out anytime someone creates something similar to his work. Even if it is his work, he should be flattered, it'll be more popular now It's pretty obvious nobody has ever heard or this guy. Heck, maybe he made all of this up for publicity. I hope Warner just hands him a little stack of money so he can go buy some more ramen and paintbrushes. and get over himself. Our courts have real disputes to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billie's__Babe Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 this guy os so damn stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouLou Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I found this here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 im sorry to say this but it looks exactly like his painting so i think they may have copied him, i hope nowt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan86 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ^ Thats interesting, I can almost see where this guy is coming from if that is genuinely his art. They do look very similar From the link above they think this is his website link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:Whatsername:. Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Wow, it looks almost exactly the same. I hope they settle this easily... And I agree with whoever said it looks creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billie's__Babe Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 They do look quite alike, but the guy should be happy Green Day's consitered using his art. very creepy looking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaWhatsername Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Does it really matter? I'm sick of people jumping on all these little things. Boohoo, they used your art. Fuck off, stop whining about it. Nobody knows who you are. No need to jump into court about it. That's like the new universal solvent. Sue the person's ass. Kinda like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, always having people's heads chopped off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanity Loan Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Does it really matter? I'm sick of people jumping on all these little things. Boohoo, they used your art. Fuck off, stop whining about it. Nobody knows who you are. No need to jump into court about it. That's like the new universal solvent. Sue the person's ass. Kinda like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, always having people's heads chopped off. If you were an artist (and by artist I don't mean paintings and pictures... I mean all kinds of art - graphics, music, designs, paintings, etc) you would understand how terrible it feels if somebody stole something personal of yours and used it as their own... trust me, its not a good feeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaWhatsername Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 If you were an artist (and by artist I don't mean paintings and pictures... I mean all kinds of art - graphics, music, designs, paintings, etc) you would understand how terrible it feels if somebody stole something personal of yours and used it as their own... trust me, its not a good feeling Actually, I don't think I'd care all that much. I'm not one to overreact. Sure, I'd be surprised... but then I'd forget about it. Talents. I possess one, of forgetting things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LilyMarie Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Yeah, IF the guys claims are true, and IF it was done willfully, he has every reason to be pissed. Sure, as a fan we'd be delighted if our artwork was used...but used without notification, permission, or acknowledgement? I'm sure some of you would still be thrilled, but if you're trying to live via your art, it's a really big deal. I'm sure that Green Day themselves had no ill intent or anything in this - they were presented with images for album/tour artwork and approved them, it's not like they saw this guys work and decided to steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angie-Marie Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I found this here. Thanks for posting that, it certainly looks the same to me. I only took a quick glance through the complaint linked on that article since that much legalese is hard for me to read. First of all, I like how the complaint says they used the background for their AMA performance when they didn't even perform East Jesus Nowhere at the AMAs. But did they even use that background at the VMAs? I'm drawing a blank right now. I know you see the background in the East Jesus Nowhere video, but where was that artwork used on Green Day's website? Admittedly, I'm not on the official website very often so maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing it on there. Do they mean pictures from the shows? If you were an artist (and by artist I don't mean paintings and pictures... I mean all kinds of art - graphics, music, designs, paintings, etc) you would understand how terrible it feels if somebody stole something personal of yours and used it as their own... trust me, its not a good feeling Yeah, I can see where that guy is coming from. I think I'd be hunting people down if I found out somebody took a video I had worked on or something I wrote and used it without my permission and didn't give me any credit for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan86 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I found this here. There is a comment on this page that says Well, the complaint lists the infringement as occurring before the effective date of copyright registration, so I don't see how the artist would be awarded statutory damages if he's successful in his claim If this is true i don't see how this artist has a case. I dont have the time to check if what this person is saying is true though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Samuels Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Well, I see a few issues here. First off, now that we have the art we can see it is very similar, HOWEVER. There are major changes done to it. For example, the bloody cracks on his face, and of course the giant cross. Now with that said, there could be sufficient changes here for GD to claim it as they're own. Plus, the image is being used to make a political statement, and as such, I believes falls under the fair-use laws. However, I do know that "fair-use" is a very slippery slope. My only question is now that this guy is making a case out of it, and if he really had this art, why didn't WMG settle out of court? This seems to be a bit odd still...Especially now that WMG has to pay more for the legal battle then they would've for royalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdpony Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 this guy just wants some money ... I dont think green day would get into that kind of trouble ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Holiday Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 The concert ticket claim seems either completely falsified or a very very bad mistake on the part of Warner. After reading a majority of the comments and having studied Mass Media Copyright law myself, I feel that-- 1.) more than likely, this instance would not fall under "fair use"...that argument really only works in respect to educational reasons or in general usage NOT aimed at making a profit, which obviously, Green Day used the image as a concert backdrop directly bringing in cash 2.) the artwork doesn't exactly seem sufficiently altered enough to count as a new artwork 3.) I don't understand why whoever at Warner was in charge of the artwork didn't simply ask for the artist's permission...more than often artists are willing to offer usage at a reduced royalty fee at the least and this mess would have never happened. Overall, I think the artist has a fair case. But like someone said earlier, I don't think it was Green Day's fault at all. It's not as if the band makes those sort of calls, usually... There is a comment on this page that says If this is true i don't see how this artist has a case. I dont have the time to check if what this person is saying is true though. Actually, what the main article mentioned was that the image was protected under copyright law AT THE TIME OF ITS CREATION. This is how copyright law in the US operates= a work is copyright protected as soon as it is created. This is specifically so that artists don't have to wait on a copyright license (which could take months-years to approve) from the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Samuels Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Either way this makes me go "WHAT THE HELL IS WARNER THINKING!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.