The Intellectual Property Asshole Competition
from the have-fun-with-it,-people dept
Now this ought to be fun to watch. We've written plenty of stuff about the ongoing legal fight between artist Shephard Fairey and the Associated Press. And, every time we write about it, someone always points out that Fairey is often just as bad as the AP. Despite being an "appropriation" artist, who regularly uses the works of others in his own work (something we think is great), he's also been known to legally threaten others for doing the same with his own work. So, it looks like someone has decided to poke both with a stick, to see who gets provoked first. That someone is artist Evan Roth. ChurchHatesTucker alerts us that Roth has launched his "Intellectual Property Asshole Competition" where he is selling, via his website, hand-painted version of both the Mannie Garcia/AP photo and Shepard Fairey's poster... and will see who is the first to send him a cease and desist. While we never think it's a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appropriation, cease and desist, competition, copyright, eric roth, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long Live
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long Live
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Long Live
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP is the lame here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AP is the lame here
Not quite true. They didn't sue earlier because they *didn't know* the picture was based on their photo. Once they knew, then they demanded money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP is the lame here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AP is the lame here
Again, I'm afraid your information is incorrect. Fairey had said that he found the photo via Google News, but didn't know where it had actually come from or what photo it was.
The person who figured it out was a photo journalist. So, no Fairey did not tell the press where the photo came from. We covered it when it happened.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090125/1907073531.shtml
And I have no idea what you mean by "we can't argue here because we both don't have a stake in the case." I'm not arguing with you. I'm pointing out that what you said was factually incorrect. And that has nothing to do with whether or not anyone has a stake in the case (which also has no bearing on whether or not they can argue).
And, I also have no idea what you mean by "If Fairey had a bad intention of infringing, would he announce where the original picture came from?" Fairey appropriates stuff for his artwork. It's what he does. He doesn't have any bad intention. But in this case, he just didn't care where the photo came from so he didn't remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AP is the lame here
Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks. It's just what they did. Does that make it legal? Come on.
Is there anybody on this thread who makes a living creating anything and then gives it away for someone else to make money from?
Where the idea originate that if you see it, it is free for you to use?
Please, make something original yourselves and stand behind it with pride. Your lives will be better for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AP is the lame here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AP is the lame here
Nice. Take my comment totally out of context.
Is there anybody on this thread who makes a living creating anything and then gives it away for someone else to make money from?
Yes, me. All the time. And, you know what? It works great. Helping other people make a lot of money has helped us make money as well.
Where the idea originate that if you see it, it is free for you to use?
No one said that.
Please, make something original yourselves and stand behind it with pride. Your lives will be better for it.
I do. I stand behind it with such pride I hope that others make use of it and make it even more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AP is the lame here
Where the idea that it does not?
That used to be the case, after all. If you saw a work, you were free to recreate it. Much like if tell me a bar joke, I'm free to retell it without paying you anything. The idea that a debt is incurred for retailing an idea is a very recent one in human history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Infringement for infringement's sake"??
It's more artsy than a pickled shark, more political than G8 vandalism and more transgressive than butchered baby dolls on an inverted cross against a background of smashed TV sets.**
Old fashioned, non-ironic kudos to Mr. Roth.
*-In most cases, the only apect of "conceptual art" that has any validity is the "con".
**-An invented example, but then I realized this very "installation" has probably been done multiple times. Depressing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, come on... Its one thing to be an artist who tries to make social commentary and stands behind it. Its a completely different thing to be an artist who doesn't stand behind his social commentary. And if he really did "lift" the symbol and not know it was a piece of Nazi Symbolism.. well... I think thats even more sad than the first two, considering its his business to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not awesome. This is not "a blow for freedom." It's a troll, saying "Hey, let's bait a big media company and an publicity-seeking artist, and see if we can get one of them to overreact!" That's not even that much of a challenge.
Oh don't worry literalists - I "get it." Roth is demonstrating how ridiculous the current state of copyright is by reacting in a ridiculous manner. I'm sure someone will justify it by saying that he's "raising awareness about the ambiguity in current copyright law."
I can think of several dozen ways to do the same thing without resorting to cheap publicity stunts, trolling, and taking shots at willing (in Fairey's case) or slow and lumbering (in the AP's case) targets. I could write a book, or a scholarly article, or organize a forum, or lobby Congress, or get a proposition on the state ballot. Unfortunately, most of these would require substantial effort. These days, publicity stunts and the naivest forms of "civil disobedience" seem to be increasingly celebrated ways of attempting to effect change. My methods probably wouldn't even be half as effective.
I think I'll just go make a flyer instead. I'll take a picture with a hand pointing a gun at a dog's head, and it'll say "If you don't reform copyright law, we'll shoot this dog!"
Actually, I bet if I looked I could find a picture like that on the Internet. I'll just use that. Too much trouble getting a dog and a gun anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two points strike me:
One, while it may not be the most academic or scholarly way to make the point, it does still make the point and it may create news in the same manner [i.e. showy] as the IP maximalists tend to [i.e. comparing IP "theft"/infringement to everything short of necrophilia].
And two, seriously, how many people are going to read an article, or a book, or attend a forum written or organized by some random artist? He is making a point the way he is able and it is not hurting anyone except potentiallly him. What's the problem, the fact that he is being self-promotional in the process? There are worse crimes.
..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
Let's start with "Tape Duplication." If someone were to distribute illegally copied tapes, they would need a blank tape for every person copy that they made. These blank tapes cost money; they are a scarce good. It's true that the recording has always been an infinite good; however, in the "record and tape" era, this recording could only be copied and distributed via the scarce goods of records (or tapes, CDs, etc.) Today, the internet is available, which allows these infinite goods to be distributed without the marginal costs associated with scarce good distribution. Interestingly, the facts that you state about this argument are mostly true, but the conclusions that you draw from them are completely false.
Furthermore, you claim that the "slight flaw" of the "economic theory of unlimited supply" is that "It's illegal." This is not a problem with the economic model itself; rather, it's a case where the law interferes with economics. Your claim that copyright proves infinite-supply economics to be flawed is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
Additionally, you claim that people should people should protest the law without breaking it; however, you later claim that the courts are for "when the law is not clear or confusing or whatever." If people in this "Nation of Laws" do not break laws that they feel are unjust, how will the courts rule on its validity? You are ignoring the long history within this country of deliberately violating laws that are unjust. This American tradition includes examples such as the Boston Tea Party, the Scopes Trial, and the Civil Rights Movement.
In conclusion, both your arguments and your premise have more flaws than merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
Of course, Copyright itself, is overseen by the Department of Commerce which some jackass named Gary Locke heads. Bad pick, President Obama. Bad Pick.
He needs to go if commercial transaction doesn't occur, as this seems detrimental to very definition of the department he leads. Agreed?
In most situations, commercial transactions don't need to involve to DOJ or create new laws.
Here it comes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's already been done
http://lampoon.rwinters.com/Lampoon1973.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two to One Advantage
And "Nation of Laws"? Gimme a break. Most of the garbage that passes for law is what some smart-arse lawyer has got some dumb-ass judge to rule on, based on what some head-up-his-ass legislator passed into law without bothering to read the paper.
An absurd law can only be challenged by demonstrating its absurdity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric or Evan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eric or Evan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eric or Evan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eric or Evan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Roth is a screenwriter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Add
Maybe a year and a half before he's replaced by an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gary Locke
Nice Touch.
Maybe his US Department of Commerce business Cards have the same symbols on the front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
駱家輝 wants a new job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a joke in here somewhere.
This seems to me to be the characteristic of the societies installed in the nineteenth century. Power is no longer substantially identified with an individual who possesses or exercises it by right of birth; it becomes a machinery that no one owns.
Perhaps the solution is to retool the machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP is just angry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AP is just angry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh teh noes!!
The artists, creators and inventors whom we all rightly admire are just a smoke screen here. The posters of opposition on this board represent the parasites, agents, lawyers, ex-wives, copyright OWNERS and corporate entities whose share of the profits generated by the actual creatives is threatened by the enlightened models Mike presents and the technological changes that make them possible (or even inevitable).
And if someone dares show how the flow of money might be diverted from the pocketbooks of those who benefit, WITHOUT CREATING ANYTHING, from the current system, savage opposition is unsurprising. Nor is it surprising that such desperate attempts to hang onto the cash cow's teats are presented as moral, philosophical or legal arguments. Disgusting and hypocritical, yeah. But not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've always wondered if it is people taking genuine offence to a few select words that gives them power. That if we all quit caring about asses, assholes, and assassins (it's in there twice!), then the word ass would basically become the word butt or rump.
As far as SFW, I'm always more concerned about the posts on child predators. It would seem like the word paedophile or porn would set off more flags than asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offended?
Jake
visit me at:
registry cleaners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bum rush
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Available Online For Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to disagree.
No, it's not going to be fun to watch. It's another blatant attempt at someone else taking liberties to "cash in" on the works of others.
In truth, I can't believe Techdirt would run an article like this, especially with the line above. Every day, readers come to learn about the atrocities of the DMCA and copyright in general, and all that's literally tossed out the window by linking to this idiot's website (and message).
I've a feeling we'll learn more about this as Techdirt will sure to announce the "winner", possibly using it as fuel in another DMCA/Copyright abuse article.
Is there not enough corporate abuse that something like this has to be reported? What purpose does it serve anyone to determine who the "winner" is?
As I see it, no one "wins". Everyone loses. Not a damn thing will change over this "competition".
*sigh*
Well, I'm sure another newspaper industry article will appear within the day which will help bury this wasted space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since none of you have done any research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since none of you have done any research
I put "cash in" in quotes for a good reason. I know he's not reaping monies for his "cause", but publicity is still "cashing in".
As for the bold statement above, website after website, blog after blog, has told the issues and horrors of current copyright law, and nothing has changed. This additional website will make no impact, especially if those in charge of changing the law pay no attention to it.
Only by our government can copyright laws change, and this can only be done through public demand of politicians to make changes in the law.
Websites denouncing copyright laws should, at the very least, supply contact information (or a link to such information) of state politicians such that viewers can object the correct way.
But yet very, very few websites do such, making the entire argument for change pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringement, schminfringement. Transformative use, doesn't affect the market, non-commercial use, use for commentary and criticism -- the Asshole Competition is textbook fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]