wilhelm-fink Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 i'd just call it an appropriation. yeah, its the same art, but there are changes that have been added to it. look at L.H.O.O.Q. by marcel duchamp yeah, its the mona lisa, but he has added a moustache. yeah, it was controversial in some ways, but its an appropriation, using others art to create your own, it happens everyday, so i think a lawsuit is a bit much. he should be honoured that green day is using his picture, i would be.
Tiffx Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Well this is interesting. The artwork looks really similar so I don't think this dude is bullshitting.
foxborohottub Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 Well this is interesting. The artwork looks really similar so I don't think this dude is bullshitting. You guys are missing the point, it IS the same image. GD PURCHASED the image legally from a stage designer. The artist who claims he made it and the stage design company are in a legal battle over the rights... GD is caught in their crossfire. Warner Bros has nothing to do with the whole mess. Its not really worth trying to figure out beyond that because it gets super complicated. The art design companies buy tens of thousands of images in bulk to use as "flash" or "clipart" that is royalty free. if anyone here is a graphic designer they can explain it better than me. this shit happens all the time. The Question is whether the design company had the rights to resell it or not?
spark in the night Posted March 28, 2010 Posted March 28, 2010 i'd just call it an appropriation. yeah, its the same art, but there are changes that have been added to it. look at L.H.O.O.Q. by marcel duchamp http://www.marcelduchamp.net/images/L.H.O.O.Q.jpg yeah, its the mona lisa, but he has added a moustache. yeah, it was controversial in some ways, but its an appropriation, using others art to create your own, it happens everyday, so i think a lawsuit is a bit much. he should be honoured that green day is using his picture, i would be. haha nice
Guitar4Girl Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 This is really the design companies fault. Both the images look very similar, I don't see how they've made any money directly from the artwork, but I guess we do have a sueing culture these days. Hopefully Green Day won't get caught up in the crossfire
ParadoxAndPlaid Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 So is it all settled that the design company is the problem now? or is WMG and Green Day still stuck in this? I understand that he wants his credit (and his cash ), but really don't see why he's so upset. If I were a relatively unknown artist I'd be pretty damn happy about the placement regardless. It will probably cost him more in this lawsuit than he would have made anyway. We should all just buy prints of scream icon from him using e-email addresses involving Green Day Just to mess with his head
Eirik Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 I understand that he wants his credit (and his cash ), but really don't see why he's so upset. If I were a relatively unknown artist I'd be pretty damn happy about the placement regardless. Why? He didn't get any credit for it...
farley drexel hatcher Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 You guys are missing the point, it IS the same image. GD PURCHASED the image legally from a stage designer. The artist who claims he made it and the stage design company are in a legal battle over the rights... GD is caught in their crossfire. Warner Bros has nothing to do with the whole mess. Its not really worth trying to figure out beyond that because it gets super complicated. The art design companies buy tens of thousands of images in bulk to use as "flash" or "clipart" that is royalty free. if anyone here is a graphic designer they can explain it better than me. this shit happens all the time. The Question is whether the design company had the rights to resell it or not? I had a feeling it was something like that, thanks for clearing it up.
Bastard of 1967 Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 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". You guys are missing the point, it IS the same image. GD PURCHASED the image legally from a stage designer. The artist who claims he made it and the stage design company are in a legal battle over the rights... GD is caught in their crossfire. Warner Bros has nothing to do with the whole mess. Its not really worth trying to figure out beyond that because it gets super complicated. The art design companies buy tens of thousands of images in bulk to use as "flash" or "clipart" that is royalty free. if anyone here is a graphic designer they can explain it better than me. this shit happens all the time. The Question is whether the design company had the rights to resell it or not? ^^^ Win -- You BOTH nailed it. It's up to Warner's lawyers to settle with the artist now, and then go after the contractor for reimbursement of the damages. It probably didn't help anything that they offered the artist free concert tickets to try to make him go away. It's also unfortunate that Green Day is now caught up in someone else's first-class fuck-up.
ParadoxAndPlaid Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 Why? He didn't get any credit for it... Because at least now he knows people like the work. Sure, as far as business goes; it's bad that he didn't get the credit he deserves. But as an artist he should feel good, people everywhere are seeing his work now, and they enjoy it. I wouldn't be as angry about it as he seems to be.
Holly Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 You guys are missing the point, it IS the same image. GD PURCHASED the image legally from a stage designer. The artist who claims he made it and the stage design company are in a legal battle over the rights... GD is caught in their crossfire. Warner Bros has nothing to do with the whole mess. Its not really worth trying to figure out beyond that because it gets super complicated. The art design companies buy tens of thousands of images in bulk to use as "flash" or "clipart" that is royalty free. if anyone here is a graphic designer they can explain it better than me. this shit happens all the time. The Question is whether the design company had the rights to resell it or not? Ahhh, this makes it a lot clearer, thanks. So Warner legally purchased the image and its the fault of stage design company who sold it on to Green Day, possibly illegally? I get why the guy would be pissed, if you suddenly saw your art being used and you had no idea, but being a relatively little known artist its also great publicity, at least it is now its been in the news. Just a shame that Green Day are getting caught up in all this, making them look bad when they would've had no idea. Hopefully it will all get sorted out soon
Demented or Disturbed Posted April 1, 2010 Posted April 1, 2010 I was just watching East Jesus Nowhere video from MTV world stage on mtv.com and they blurred out all the pictures during the performance, even the ones that weren't the 'scream' picture!
garnet Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 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. i love how in the first few pages everyone was slagging the artist off saying hes obviously lying then when u saw the artwork everyone was like... oh.. its obviously his work, splitting image really minus the added colour.. i feel he has every right to sue and get his credit and he shouldn't feel 'honoured' just cos GD used it, its his work and should be treated with respect and ask for permission before using it.. obviously its become clear its neither GD or warner bros decision that got it in the first place, i hope he gets his money.
7 P 5 (Kyra) Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 I can see why he's resorted to suing, granted that what people have been saying is true. Apparently, he didn't WANT to sue at first, but he found out about this several months ago, tried notifying them, and nothing changed. So yeah, he's trying to make it as an artist; of course he wants compensation. For those of you saying he needs to suck it up and all of this bullshit and to just settle for tickets...you guys apparently have no idea what it's like to spend weeks stressing and pouring out everything you have to create something only for someone to rip you off. If somebody took any of my artwork that I have cried over and used it for profit and/or gave me NO credit whatsoever, especially when I had it copyrighted, then fuck yeah I'd be pissed! So don't get all pissed at the artist. Get pissed at the company who fucked up in making sure there were no legal issues at hand.
desertrose Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Parker Higgins@xor 9th Ct judge asking multiple questions about copyright and street art in Green Day v Seltzer. Could make for an interesting opinion. Parker Higgins@xor Green Day atty arguing now that the fact that the work in question is street art strengthens their fair use defense. Parker Higgins Street art is "the complete antithesis of an unpublished work," so fair use more viable, says Green Day lawyer. mike brown @mikedelic@xor did green day use some street art or vice versa Parker Higgins@xor@mikedelic they used a modified photo of a piece of Seltzer's street art in the background of their touring set Parker Higgins@xor Green Day's attorney now arguing "The Scream" reflects the anguish of the human condition. This case is so emo.
gerardsangel4977 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Man, how did his thread come back from he dead?
JIGD13 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Man, how did his thread come back from he dead? Man, how did his thread come back from he dead? Threads like this should be archived
WhiteTim Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Man, how did his thread come back from he dead? Cause it's in court now it seems Just read the thread and wow Warner is listed cause they bought the image Green Day is listed cause they used the image (even tho they didn't know but sadly by laws they can still be held accountable) To get around copyrights an image has to be changed by 60% of the copyright image to get around copyright infringement Hopefully GD won't have to pay up or if they do they go after by that 3rd party company
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.