Really not much of a pit, but the mods closed This thread in GQ asking about using celebrities images before I was able to weigh in. Being an intellectual property attorney who has written about a half dozen articles on copyright alone, I might have been able to contribute to the discussion.
Oh well. It was actually an extremely complex issue that probably would have taken a few hours of research to really do justice to it. Instead, I just spent 2 minutes writing this post. <shrug>
Hell, son. Chime in here. I’d be interested to hear what you have to say.
Kewl handle. =D
Cheers!
BA
How about that. A user named for what another user spews all over the SDMB.
Hey, have you weighed in on the Copyright infringement is not the same as theft discussion yet?
well, i just put the kids to bed, the laptop is in front of a burning fire. I guess I’ll sit down and slog through that thread. Be back in like… what… four hours? Maybe not that long, but I do wonder if the fire will go out.
Hee! Have fun.
As regards the closed thread, you might want to drop an email to the moderators with an outline of your proposed post. It’s clear they closed it because the OP didn’t want to hear any factual answers which conflicted with his goal, thus increasing the net amount of ignorance in the world, something contrary to the board’s charter. But if the received wisdom in the thread is in error or if you’ve got something helpful to add to received wisdom which was correct I’m sure they’ll either reopen it or find another way to allow the ignorance to be eradicated.
I’m the OP author, I’d be happy to here what you have to say. I really don’t think Samclem closed the thread all that prematurely, it was going the way of a Great Debate, and how could he know you’d be chiming in. Feel free to chime in here, though.
Thanks, manhattan, but I don’t feel any driving desire. I was just momentarially confused when I hit reply and got the message that the thread was closed. This thread was simply an impulsive response to that surprise.
As to the “Copyright infringement is not the same as theft” thread, I got to about page 3 before I simply lost all interest. Most of the posts are remarkably accurate (even the ones disagreeing with each other). Some posts were just fighting over semantics. A black eye is not the same as a cut. This is true. They are not the same.
Most copyright infringement is not criminal. You can walk into an FBI field office, photocopy a magazine and nobody would care. Violations are (typically) enforced by private citizens in civil actions. Just like if the guy who was supposed to paint your house blue painted it pink instead. The authorities don’t care, but you still get to take your case to court if you are willing to foot the bill.
Other posts were going into the philosophy behind copyright. We intellectual property attorneys pride ourselves on the fact that copyrights and patents come right from the constitution. In between the power to establish a post office and the power to create a lower court system.
Specifically,
So, imo, the question should always be put into the framework of “how effectively do the current laws promote the progress of science and useful arts?” Reasonable minds can differ.
Okay, saw this post after I posted, so I guess I will comment on your issue after all. Keep in mind that this is not legal advice by a long shot, and you listen to me at your own peril.
There are a lot of rights that are implicated in your question. copyright, trademark, right of publicity (a subset of the right of privacy).
Generally celebs are allowed to control their images for commercial purposes. However, this is not a federal law, but rather differs from state to state. State law is subjugated to federal law, so the 1st amendment trumps if 1st amendment issues are present. 1st amend. issues will be present if you have issues of “news” (why the paparazzi are allowed to do what they do) or if you are making social commentary.
Federal Trademark issues arise if people might confuse “endorsement” of your product. Samsung had a commercial with a robotic Vanna White turning letters in a futuristic “Wheel of Fortune.” Vanna White successfully sued under the theory that people would be confused as to whether VW endorsed Samsung’s products. White v. Samsung, 971 F. 2d 1395 (9 Cir. 1992)
Lastly, copyright issues arise if you are making a derivative work of something. Did you derive your work from someone else’s copyrighted work? The limits of what is derivative and what is new is, to say the least, fuzzy. Once copyright infringement (via derivative works) is established, then the question becomes one of fair use. Fair use is very fuzzy. Basically, if whoever owns the photograph wants to make your life difficult, they can.
If I were going to make a practice of making art that may or may not be derivative works for profit, I would incorporate myself into a company, shop around for a general commercial liability (GCL) insurance policy that includes a fuzzy definition of “advertising injury.” See a laywer in your state to ensure “advertising injury” includes all intellectual property (sneaky, huh). And then let the insurance company fight any claims against you.
p.s. fire is almost out.
p.p.s. This is a fun board, but I don’t think I’ll be paying for a membership. Just can’t justify it. I’ll try to lurk around the GQ boards and answer any IP issues that come up until the trial membership expires.
Aww! But we like your name. And that post was a good read. Stick around a bit!
Evil Captor , is this the same picture you opened a thread on a year or so ago?
The one where both girls tits were larger than Montana? The one that was done so badly that,IIRC, you put a left hand on a right arm? The one where everyone told you
you were stealing someone elses product? The one where you were so concerned about people stealing your art that the sample you linked to not only had a watermark on it but also had a ripple effect added to it?
Oh, so I’m not the only one that recollected it… I thought it was deja vu.
On the subject of the actual artwork, I think they should be gagged, although for different reasons than the ones Evil Captor stated.
Awww… come on, you see the amount of adoration lavished on Qadgop? Soo, you’ll get your very own “paging Liberal Puke, stat!” threads, and get that warm feeling inside (if you still have a heart, you ambulance chasing bastand 
)
Heh… Who am I kidding? 
Should you ever decide to stay, though, I think that’s money well spent. Hell, it’s more entertaining than 3 movies in a year, at least. 
Go lawyers! (I mean, heartless frigid baby killing property stealing lowlifes)
Actually, that’s part of the joke … all kinda reasons why people might want to see an image of them gagged … ;>
I think I’m a different kind of artist than most. I have the idea for the image, and I want it to look as good as possible, but I don’t really care how that’s accomplished. I’m not an artisan kinds of artist, any more than I’m a lawyer, I’m somebody with ideas, which of course gets you into trouble a lot.
It’s the same image, but not the same picture. I’m reworking it so that there will be no question that I’ve appropriated someone’s photo. Basically, I’m creating a drawing based on the image … very painstaking work if you want it to look right.
IANAL but I am an artist & did look this up once. From what I remember it matters what you do with the image. If you’re making one unique thing, then you’re given a lot more leeway than if you’re creating a multiple-run, say with prints.
I’ve also heard from other artists that you actually have to be more careful when you do a portrait of Joe Citizen w/out consent. A non-celebrity has more right to privacy than someone famous.
Perhaps one of the legal minds could elaborate - sorry, no cites.
Your presence as a member would surely be welcome. As far as I know, there aren’t too many actual lawyers around, and as far as I’m concerned, the more established professionals on this board, the merrier.
I’m not taking anthing here as legal advice – I take everything here as people sounding off on their off time with strictly their personal opinions, which have to be weighed carefully for biases, etc. Like, some people don’t even like art that involves sexy slavegirls. They will tell me not to publish no matter what. Others like sexy slavegirl art and will tell me to publish no matter what. I have to take things into account here.
There are a lot of rights that are implicated in your question. copyright, trademark, right of publicity (a subset of the right of privacy).
I AM making an editorial comment via the gags. I also have copy that says, “Their singing drives men mad” but I don’t say WHY it drives them mad. I leave that up to the viewer, which is part of the joke, which is very largely what this image is.
Can’t see what they’d be said to endorsing in my art. The slavegirl lifestyle? I don’t show any sign that they’re consensually acting as slavegirls, so not even that.
Lastly, copyright issues arise if you are making a derivative work of something. Did you derive your work from someone else’s copyrighted work? The limits of what is derivative and what is new is, to say the least, fuzzy. Once copyright infringement (via derivative works) is established, then the question becomes one of fair use. Fair use is very fuzzy. Basically, if whoever owns the photograph wants to make your life difficult, they can.
[/quote]
Jibes with my understanding of the law, except that my art is not created based on one photo, there are elements within it that come from about 10 different photos, and those photos are altered. Frex, the figures of Britney and Christina are composed mainly of two photos each combined. However, even those photos have been altered. Arms and legs have been moved. The area that was formerly underneath those arms had to be drawn in. Their breasts have been enlarged (sorry, Hentor).
But that’s the old version. The new version is a drawing based on the old version. This has resulted in a cruder artwork, and I’ve also made some changes there. Garments have been drawn over the enlarged body parts alluded to earlier. Garments have been removed. Garments have been altered. Hair has been altered.
Frankly, the only parts of Britney and Spears that are clearly recognizable are their faces, and THOSE have been altered to include ball gags. Their hair has bene altered too. If I were to alter their faces slightly, you wouldn’t even know it was them.
I didn’t create this artwork because I just wanted to do a sexy drawing of Britney and Christina, I created it so I could make the joke about them being gagged. I could have done the same thing via a crude caricature of the sort that is normally seen on T-shirts, but part of the joke was incorporating them into what appears to be a fantasy SF cover – in that it adds to the “siren” aspect of the artwork, referring to that element of the fantasy.
I will look into that, but the profits to be derived from the T-shirt are scant and couldnt’ support much in the way of expense. Based on the performance of my iother T-shirts, I might make a hundred bucks from it, form about five ebay sales. Of course, my other work did not reference celebrities, just striaght up drawing and text, so there might be more sales from keywords that attract a larger audience.
Frankly, it would be very easy to alter the faces so that the artwork is no longer in any way recognizable as being of Christina and Britney, but that sorta blunts the joke – then it becomes nothing more than an image of sexy slavegirls, which is a fine thing, but if I can get the multiple levels of meaning going without greatly increasing my chances of landing in court, I would like to.
p.p.s. This is a fun board, but I don’t think I’ll be paying for a membership. Just can’t justify it. I’ll try to lurk around the GQ boards and answer any IP issues that come up until the trial membership expires.
[/QUOTE]