artflaw - Latest Comments

Re: Vincent Peters v. Kanye West: whose is Stronger

Dude — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:45:08 -0000

Kanye has to much talent to be compared to this prick

Re: ROUNDUP: Vampire Weekend sued for $2 million over Contra cover art; Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN leaves trail of carnage; Filmmaker may have to turn over ‘Crude’ footage for environmen...

Carl — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:52:15 -0000

I don't get the Vampire Weekend bit, why is she suing the band and not the photographer? Unless she is claiming that they knew the release was forged shouldn't she be suing the photographer?

Re: Negativland: the Letter U and the Numeral 2 and who gives a sh!t

artflaw — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:03:38 -0000

Carl -- you might want to have a look at the Negativland website. I agree -- The Edge said they have some influence over their label, but ultimately Island was the shot caller on enforcement. Funny -- a footnote to the interview reads: "Years later, in 2003, Negativland learned something new: that it was R.E.M.s manager, Bertis Downs, who first found the U2 single in a record store (Wuxtry Records) in Athens Georgia the day it came out. Downs was on the phone that night with his good friend Paul McGuinness, U2’s manager, wondering what the record really was. McGuinness asked Downs to over-night the single to U2 in Ireland the next day. U2 and their manager always maintained to Negativland and to the media that they nothing to do with instigating the lawsuit, but this was a lie. It was, in fact, U2’s manager who sent it along to the business affairs department of Island Records ( U2’s record label at the time) for them to sue Negativland and stop the record."

Re: Negativland: the Letter U and the Numeral 2 and who gives a sh!t

Carl Edwards — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:17:09 -0000

I just want to figure out where to get it as an mp3. I've only heard it once on an art car on the playa and always wondered who it was.

Sort of points out the silliness of the current situation where U2 doesn't have enough control over their own music to head off a lawsuit if they wanted too.

Re: Elsinore cover art prompts cease and desist notice form Lichtenstein estate

artflaw — Sat, 08 May 2010 16:52:05 -0000

Thanks, David!

Re: Elsinore cover art prompts cease and desist notice form Lichtenstein estate

David Barsalou MFA — Fri, 07 May 2010 19:42:10 -0000

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000
DAVID BARSALOU MFA http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-l... http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPR... http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23040821330...

Re: Emily v. Rosamond: the copyright battle continues

artflaw — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:36:29 -0000

Andrew:

You will notice the Plaintiff's complaint states, "Defendants have had actual and constructive access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and have themselves generated works that are substantially similar, if not identical to, Plaintiffs' copyrighted works...Defendants have copied, and continue to copy, in whole or in substantial part, copyrighted elements of the works..."

In the Ninth Circuit (where cases from the District of Arizona are appealed) a plaintiff must establish ownership and unauthorized copying of protected expression. Proof of copying requires evidence that the alleged infringer had access to the protected work before creating the accused work and that a substantial similarity of expression exists between the protected and accused works. Here access is proven by the wide dissemination of the Plaintiff's work.

The substantial similarity component, however, follows “a two-part test having ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ components...[T]he extrinsic [component]...objectively considers whether there are substantial similarities in both ideas and expression ...” Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994). The extrinsic component requires “analytic
dissection” and compares “the individual features of the works to find specific similarities between the plot, theme, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events.” The intrinsic component measures “expression subjectively.”

If the complaint cited the single copyrighted work (the images as compared in the post), I think there is a clear argument for access and substantial similarity. This reminds me generally of Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) where the illustrator of numerous New Yorker covers won a copyright infringement suit against Columbia Pictures for the substantial similarity between the Moscow on the Hudson movie poster and a magazine cover.
<img src="http://www.artflaw.com/wp-cont..." align="middle">
However, looking at the breadth of Copyright claims in the complaint, you have to wonder about the idea/expression dichotomy and to what extent generalities found between the Emily the Strange and Rosamond characters may be disregarded by the court. Copyright is only extended to actual expression. Thus, the general "idea" of a strange young girl with "a short dress, dark hair with long square-cut bangs, "mary jane" shoes, "posse" of four black cats, persistent strangeness, and fascination with dark themes," may not altogether be protectable.

Re: Emily v. Rosamond: the copyright battle continues

Andrew — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:31:35 -0000

There are so many similarities between the two - even the text is almost identical. Yet, there are big differences, as well. For example, the number of cats, Emily's posture and stance, Emily's hair, one cat's tail is around her leg, the yellow "brick road", to name a few. What constitutes a lawsuit if there are "major" differences, and, if the character "emily" is a different character all together and used for a separate product?