# George Zimmerman is now a painter. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 18, 2013, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629 "2013-12-18T06:43:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/41 "2013-12-19T06:07:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t know anything about copyright law, but I have this vague idea that you have to be working in the same medium for visual art to be derivative. I can’t back that up, though. That doesn’t sound right. I mean, there was the Obama campaign poster case linked to above, and then there was [this case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons) where Jeff Koons wanted to make a sculpture based on a photograph. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/42 "2013-12-19T14:04:56Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > My bad; I thought you were citing a previous painting or photo that his critics were alleging he’d traced over to make his painting. Do you have a link to the original picture that they’re claiming he copied? > > I think RNATB’s business venture would be masterful trolling. Even Dada-esque art. I posted this example upthread, either it makes the case or it doesn’t, but I think it clearly presents original art as well as a side-by-side of GZ’s painting: > **[Lol, George Zimmerman's artwork looks familiar - Democratic Underground Forums](https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024188920)** ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/43 "2013-12-19T14:18:49Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > It wouldn’t be as bad as Hitler, but it would still make you a contemptible excuse for a human being. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Folly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folly/32/3219_2.png) [@Folly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folly)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/44 "2013-12-19T15:59:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t know anything about copyright law, but I have this vague idea that you have to be working in the same medium for visual art to be derivative. I can’t back that up, though. The standard may change a bit if you are crossing genres, but can definitely be derivative. In CASTLE ROCK ENTERTAINMENT, INC. V. CAROL PUBLISHING GROUP, INC, they used a substantial similarity test to determine that a seinfeld trivia question book was derivative of the TV show. Substantial similarity - requires that the copying [be] quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the legal conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has occurred. The qualitative component concerns the copying of expression, rather than ideas[, facts, works in the public domain, or any other nonprotectible elements]. . . . The quantitative component generally concerns the amount of the copyrighted work that is copied, which must be more than “de minimis.”150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) My personal opinion is that if taken to court, this would be copyright infringement and Zimmerman does not have a fair use defense. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/45 "2013-12-19T16:12:59Z")
Thanks. Not sure where I got that idea. Vaguely misremembered case from Remedies class or something perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/46 "2013-12-20T03:25:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why? Because it’s harassment? How would you like it if someone made a career out of portraying you bayonetting babies, slandering your good name? > [@Folly](#): > > The standard may change a bit if you are crossing genres, but can definitely be derivative. > > In CASTLE ROCK ENTERTAINMENT, INC. V. CAROL PUBLISHING GROUP, INC, they used a substantial similarity test to determine that a seinfeld trivia question book was derivative of the TV show. > > Substantial similarity - requires that the copying [be] quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the legal conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has occurred. The qualitative component concerns the copying of expression, rather than ideas[, facts, works in the public domain, or any other nonprotectible elements]. . . . The quantitative component generally concerns the amount of the copyrighted work that is copied, which must be more than “de minimis.”150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) > > My personal opinion is that if taken to court, this would be copyright infringement and Zimmerman does not have a fair use defense. Below a certain level, you cannot legitimately make a “substantial similarity” argument. If you draw a circle on white paper, you cannot then sue everyone who ever draws a circle on white paper. If you take a photo of a waving American flag, you cannot then sue anyone who uses a waving American flag. ---
**Author:** ![Folly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folly/32/3219_2.png) [@Folly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folly)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629/47 "2013-12-20T03:53:29Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Below a certain level, you cannot legitimately make a “substantial similarity” argument. If you draw a circle on white paper, you cannot then sue everyone who ever draws a circle on white paper. If you take a photo of a waving American flag, you cannot then sue anyone who uses a waving American flag. If you’re saying you think this particular example (Zimmerman’s painting) is below the level where you can make an argument, I disagree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/george-zimmerman-is-now-a-painter/676629.md?page=2)