The painting is still up for bid, and no one has mentioned that it’s a tracing. I would, but I don’t have an eBay account.
Maybe he will finally paint himself into a corner?
If it is a tracing then the major news outlets will have the story soon. I was surprised by how good the painting was for a beginner.
If it is a tracing, the Democratic Underground did a really shit job of showing it. If it is a tracing, it should be possible to overlay them exactly, like this. This should be identical to this, and they’re not.
You should also note the second row, which is a completely unrelated photo that was still claimed to be the source, because coincidences do happen when dealing with public images that are frequently captured.
Hell, maybe he paid the whole $12 fee to copy it.
This. Inspired by a work—and the two images cited by Grumman are awfully similar—is different than light-boxing a work and making a paint-by-numbers copy of it. To my eye, with the information I have, this looks like he was inspired by it, but not a copy or tracing. Whether Zimmerman’s painting would infringe any copyright held by the artist of the first work is another question.
I bet once this first painting is sold, the rest won’t even sell. It’s not that great, and once the notoriety is gone, that’ll be it.
Experts are indeed expensive. Maybe $50,000 to $100,000 even. Jury consultants and focus groups, can be done for reasonable amounts. I’m granting an extra $750,000 for the unusual aspects of the case. A normal case like this could be defended for $250,000 easy. A million is more than generous. Lawyers bill a lot, but no sane defendant agrees to what Zimmerman apparently agreed to.
He should stand his ground on the issue.
It would not. You cannot copyright the idea of a waving American flag.
No one said anything about copyrighting the idea of it. Copyrighting that particular artist’s expression of the idea, as fixed in a tangible medium of expression such as a pictorial work like a painting, is possible. It’s right in [17 USC § 102](17 USC § 102). Whether Zimmerman’s painting so closely copies the original painting as to constitute a derivative work, is a question for copyright experts. IANAL, but from the one copyright class I’ve taken, I’d opine that they’re similar enough that it does. Whether it infringes is yet another question.
But one can absolutely copyright a painting. See the Copyright Office’s Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works for more information on how to do so.
Didn’t take long for the scammers to jump on. A Ebay Search for George Zimmerman brings up all kinds of junk. Scribbled pencil drawings, other crude paintings.
This listing looks very odd to me. Maybe its something that’s been sold for a long time? I’m surprised a seller with that rating would risk listing it like this. The listing obviously hopes some newbie will bid thinking its the real deal.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/George-Zimmerman-Painting-/171198342672?pt=Art_Paintings&hash=item27dc376610
You did, once you started talking about inspiration. And frankly, anyone who tried to argue someone was inspired by their perfectly ordinary photo of a waving American flag and not the waving American flag itself deserves to be laughed out of court.
O’Mara’s costs were fully paid out of defense fund donations. In reality, his fees have been fully paid, too; he’s gone from a family law attorney with a good local reputation who dabbled in criminal work to one of the most sought-after criminal defense attorneys in the state.
Also, from the Q&A section on the eBay listing:
“Happy little Jews…”
Would it be the worst thing in the world if I started a Twitter feed with the handle @therealtrayvon and started selling paintings of George Zimmerman shooting at black kids?
No, I didn’t. What I wrote was, “Inspired by a work—and the two images cited by Grumman are awfully similar—is different than light-boxing a work and making a paint-by-numbers copy of it.” The two images you cited look very much like Zimmerman’s painting was inspired by the other work: the use of very similar colors, in very similar locations within the composition, a similar appearance to the stars, similar waves within the flag. But, as you note, one is not an identical copy or a tracing of the other. I made the distinction between light-boxing and inspiration in order to show that Zimmerman required more artistic skill to make a painting that was only inspired by another work, rather than a complete tracing of that other painting.
I also wrote, “Whether Zimmerman’s painting would infringe any copyright held by the artist of the first work is another question.” A finding that the works are identical is not required for a finding that one work is a derivative work of the other. And I doubt that Zimmerman got a license to produce a derivative work of the first painting; hence if it was derivative, his would be an unauthorized derivative work.
What I did not write was anything about copyrighting the idea behind an artistic work. Because that’s not what copyright is designed to protect. It protects expression.
In short: I don’t think his painting was a tracing. I think Zimmerman has some artistic talent. I do think it’s similar to the work you cited, similar enough that I think it would have a decent chance of being found to be derivative of the other—should the original artist try to sue Zimmerman for infringement. Finally, an artist can definitely obtain a copyright for one of her artistic works, including paintings.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
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.
I don’t know about the Twitter handle idea, but on the other, won’t you have to get into line with everyone else?
You’ve got it backwards - those pictures were taken from the Democratic Underground article, and one was a deliberate attempt by them to recreate Zimmerman’s painting using the picture they claimed he copied.
It wouldn’t be as bad as Hitler, but it would still make you a contemptible excuse for a human being.
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.