MSCHF Settles Upgraded Shoe Dispute With Nike And Promises (Wink, Wink) To Buy Back Satan Shoes

from the good-luck-getting-those-shoes-back dept

There were actually a whole bunch of interesting legal questions raised by Nike's trademark lawsuit against MSCHF the weird "structured chaos" organization that seems to basically sell publicity stunts as a business model. It had teamed up with the musician Lil Nas X to sell 666 pairs of upgrade Nike Air Max 97, complete with red ink (and, it claimed, a single drop of blood) inserted in the sole of the shoe. The lawsuit raised issues regarding first sale/resale rights, art, freedom of expression, trademark, ownership, property, dilution, confusion and more. And... all of it's going nowhere, because a settlement has been reached.

This isn't that much of a surprise. MSCHF execs have admitted in the past that lawsuits only raise their profile, which may be true, but they're also crazy fucking expensive. MSCHF already got the benefit of the publicity bump from the lawsuit, and now probably sought to get things done and over with as quickly as possible -- and that includes agreeing to issue a "voluntary recall" of the shoes -- 665 pairs of which it had already shipped out. MSCHF also agreed to do the same thing for the much smaller number of Jesus shoes it had sold two years ago in a similar stunt.

Of course, the whole thing seems like a charade. It's a voluntary recall, in which MSCHF is supposed to buy back the shoes at their original retail prices "in order to remove them from circulation." But, uh, anyone who has those shoes in their possession now knows that these shoes are way more valuable because of this dispute. I'd be amazed if anyone actually agreed to sell the shoes back to MSCHF, because these shoes just went from already established rare collector's items, to rare collector's items with an even more insane story including the fact that Nike wants them to disappear.

In some ways, this form of settlement just shows how ridiculous the lawsuit was in the first place. Nike's statement on the settlement is hilarious:

“As part of the settlement, Nike has asked MSCHF, and MSCHF has agreed, to initiate a voluntary recall to buy back any Satan Shoes and Jesus Shoes for their original retail prices, in order to remove them from circulation. If any purchasers were confused, or if they otherwise want to return their shoes, they may do so for a full refund. Purchasers who choose not to return their shoes and later encounter a product issue, defect, or health concern should contact MSCHF, not Nike.”

I mean, c'mon. No one who bought this shoe was "confused." No one's going to want to return it. And, no one's going to contact Nike about any "defect" or "health concern." The whole thing is silly. And yes, that's even though there were some foolish pundits on certain infamous news channels who tried to make a culture war issue falsely claiming Nike was making these shoes. So, sure, Nike can point to the lawsuit as proof they had nothing to do with the shoes, but responding to the brigade of trumped up controversial people is lame. Pretty much everything about this story has been about posturing, rather than anything substantive.

Filed Under: art, confusion, dilution, first sale, free speech, jesus shoes, lil nas x, satan shoes, tarnishment, trademark
Companies: mschf, nike

576 German Artists Want EU Copyright Directive Made Worse, With No Exceptions For Memes Or Mashups

from the promise?-what-promise? dept

When the EU Copyright Directive was being drawn up, one of the main battlegrounds concerned memes. The fear was that the upload filters brought in by the new law would not be able to distinguish between legal use of copyright material for things like memes, quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche, and illegal infringements. Supporters of the Directive insisted that memes and such-like would be allowed, and that it was simply scaremongering to suggest otherwise. When the Directive was passed, BBC News even ran a story with the headline "Memes exempt as EU backs controversial copyright law". The MEP Mary Honeyball is quoted as saying: "There's no problem with memes at all. This directive was never intended to stop memes and mashups."

But just as supporters insisted that upload filters would not be obligatory -- and then afterwards changed their story, admitting they were the only way to implement the new law -- so people who insisted that memes and parodies would still be allowed are now demanding that they should be banned. Copyright companies were the first to make that shift, and now a group of 576 German artists have sent a letter to the German government and politicians complaining about the proposed implementation of the Copyright Directive in their country (original in German). In particular, they are appalled by:

the introduction of all kinds of exceptions, some of which are so outrageously contrary to European law, that we can only shake our heads: up to 20 seconds of music, remixes, mash-ups, samples etc. -- everything should be freely usable, without a license.

In other words, precisely the things that supporters of the EU Copyright Directive promised absolutely would be freely usable, without a license, when experts warned that the new legislation could threaten these legal activities. Now these artists are demanding that the German government ignore all those assurances that user rights would indeed be preserved.

However, as Heise Online reports, not all German artists are so selfish in their desire to take away what few rights ordinary members of the public have in the use of copyright material for memes, remixes and the like. A group of 48 top German artists using social media to great effect, and who together have around 88 million followers on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Twitch and TikTok, take a very different view of the German government's proposed implementation (original in German):

Article 3 paragraph 6 describes the public reproduction of a tiny excerpt of works protected by copyright and parts of works by the user of a service provider, for non-commercial purposes or where insignificant income is involved. In these circumstances, thanks to Article 3 Paragraph 6 it would be legal to use up to 20 seconds of a film, up to 20 seconds of a sound track, up to 1,000 characters of text and a picture of up to 250 kilobytes without having to purchase a license, since the rightsholders are compensated for the usage via the service provider. We content creators expressly support this rule.

This so-called "legalization of memes" shows that the politics of [the German government] is close to how reality operates. What defines our culture is always evolving, also through digitization. Memes have been part of our culture for many years and are finally recognized by this ministerial draft.

The statement from the 48 social media artists also includes a neat encapsulation of why their position is so different from the 576 artists whining about memes and mashups:

we would like to point out that content creators are simultaneously users and owners of copyrights, i.e. [they are both] creatives and companies in the cultural industry.

The 576 artists who wish to deny an Internet user the right to draw on copyright material for memes, parodies, mashups etc. forget that they too draw constantly on the works of others as they create -- sometimes explicitly, sometimes more subtly. To cast themselves as some kind of creative priesthood that should be granted special privileges not available to everyone else is not just unfair, but insulting and short-sighted.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: art, article 17, copyright, copyright directive, culture, eu, exceptions, germany, memes, upload filters, user rights

Court Allows Chooseco's Lawsuit Against Netflix Over 'Bandersnatch' To Move Forward

from the pro-choice dept

You will recall our previous posts about Chooseco, the company behind those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books from the 80s, and its lawsuit against Netflix. At issue is Netflix's Black Mirror iteration entitled Bandersnatch. The episode essentially runs a choose your own adventure scenario in streaming film, with the viewer being able to control the outcome of the narrative through choice. In addition, Netflix marketed the episode with references to it being a "choose your own adventure" style story. In addition, the protagonist in the episode refers to a book that is the basis for a video game he's creating as "a choose your own adventure book." Predictably, Netflix petitioned the court for a dismissal, arguing that the First Amendment allowed it to make the references it did in the production, so long as it wasn't purposefully confusing the public with its use of the "choose your own adventure" mark. In the conclusion of that post, we wrote this:

Netflix would like the court to acknowledge that pretty much everything Chooseco is complaining about that is included in Bandersnatch is not protectable, and that pretty much all the rest is protected as expression and art by the First Amendment. Frankly, it's hard to imagine how the court could argue differently, although there's always the chance the court might decided that these are issues best decided in the trial phase.

Which, sadly, is exactly what happened. The court's decision (embedded below) takes the reader on quite the journey, where it essentially does a full analysis on the test for using trademarks in artistic works. That test consists of two components: is the use in an artistic work and, if so, is that use purposefully misleading the public. Chooseco argued that because Netflix made money off of Bandersnatch, it can't be considered purely artistic. The court points out that's besides the point, since precedent exists for partially-artistic, partially commercial works to be afforded equal protection. In addition, the threshold for the use of a mark being artistically relevant is, again by precedent, literally anything other than entirely irrelevant. The court goes on to note that Bandersnatch's use definitely does have artistic relevance given the context of the episode as a whole. The decision concludes:

"Here, the protagonist of Bandersnatch attempts to convert the fictional book 'Bandersnatch' into a videogame, placing the book at the center of the film’s plot," states the ruling. "Netflix used Chooseco’s mark to describe the interactive narrative structure shared by the book, the videogame, and the film itself. Moreover, Netflix intended this narrative structure to comment on the mounting influence technology has in modern day life. In addition, the mental imagery associated with Chooseco’s mark adds to Bandersnatch’s 1980s aesthetic. Thus, Netflix’s use of Chooseco’s mark clears the purposely-low threshold of Rogers’ artistic relevance prong."

That sure does sound like the court thinks Netflix's First Amendment claim is a good one. And, yet, as happens so many times with courts at this stage of proceedings, deference is given to plaintiffs, as well as the larger trial process and the need for discovery to be performed. For that reason, the court sets its own analysis aside and allows the trial to move forward.

"Here, Chooseco has sufficiently alleged that consumers associate its mark with interactive books and that the mark covers other forms of interactive media, including films," continues the decision. "The protagonist in Bandersnatch explicitly stated that the fictitious book at the center of the film’s plot was a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' book. In addition, the book, the videogame, and the film itself all employ the same type of interactivity as Chooseco’s products. The similarity between Chooseco’s products, Netflix’s film, and the fictitious book Netflix described as a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' book increases the likelihood of consumer confusion."

The court reached the same conclusion on Netflix's claim that its use was Fair Use. Essentially, the court has decided that Chooseco's suit is worth at least the discovery phase of a trial.

Again, this isn't entirely surprising, even if it is certainly frustrating. Trademark law cannot supersede the First Amendment, and even this court seems to think that Netflix is on solid footing with its First Amendment claim. For anyone to argue that a franchise like Black Mirror using the term "choose your own adventure" is going to confuse the public into thinking Chooseco is somehow involved is pretty silly. And, yet, Chooseco gets to the discovery phase of a trial over it.

Filed Under: art, bandersnatch, choose your own adventure, fair use, trademark
Companies: chooseco, netflix

ESA Steps In With Amicus Brief In Support Of Activision Versus Humvee

from the hum-dinger dept

A short while ago, we discussed a rather concerning lawsuit brought by AM General LLC, the company that makes Humvees, against Activision, the game publisher that occasionally publishes Call of Duty games that include depictions of Humvees. AM General's claims are pretty silly, suggesting that players of the games will think that those games were somehow created by or endorsed by AM General. I can't imagine that's the case; instead, most people are likely to think that Activision is attempting realism in their warfare game, since you basically cannot make an American warfare game accurately without including Humvees. Activision's response was on First Amendment grounds, arguing that its games are partly an historically accurate work of art, for which including Humvees is accurate and fair use.

As we pointed out in our original post, this case has great implications for the wider video game industry. Because of that, perhaps it's not hugely surprising to see that the Entertainment Software Association has jumped into the case with an amicus brief arguing for the granting of Activision's summary judgement motion. The whole thing is worth reading, but you can tell that the ESA's viewpoints on this are framed by the wider gaming industry.

AM General LLC’s (“AM General”) lawsuit raises issues of substantial importance to the video-game industry. Today’s video games are exceptionally diverse in their artistic expression, ranging from the action-adventure of Activision’s Call of Duty franchise, to educational games like Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?, to sports-themed games like Madden NFL, to historical simulation games like the Civilization franchise, to games that are derived from motion pictures like Star Wars or that inspire motion pictures like Assassin’s Creed. Whether factbased, fictional, or somewhere in between, many of these games refer to or incorporate real-life historical and cultural elements – often including real products like the military vehicles at issue in this case, and the trademarks, trade dress, and other distinctive elements used to accurately identify and depict those products – to create realistic interactive environments that facilitate expression, enhance verisimilitude, and enrich the user experience.

If AM General succeeds in punishing Activision for exercising its First Amendment right to depict realistic U.S. military vehicles in Call of Duty – or in forcing Activision to endure the burdens of a trial to vindicate its First Amendment rights – ESA’s members and gamers will suffer. Video-game developers and publishers will be exposed to even more frequent litigation, with some developers and publishers foregoing the use of real products in their works to avoid being dragged into court. Because AM General’s theory is antithetical to the rights of ESA’s members – and is irreconcilable with well-settled authority governing the use of real products in expressive works – ESA respectfully requests that this Court grant Activision’s motion for summary judgment.

There are many reasons why AM General's lawsuit should fail, but the risk to artistic output must certainly be first and foremost. The idea that a storied vehicle used in American warfare could be blocked from being depicted in artistic expression over intellectual property rights is purely antithetical to the First Amendment. What I suspect is happening here is something else that regularly annoys me: the dismissal of video games as artistic expression. After all, it's not as though we've heard about many fights between the Humvee people and the film industry. And, yet, the number of depictions of Humvees in TV and film is countless. So why should Call of Duty be any different?

The ESA brief makes this point in the brief.

VIDEO GAMES ARE CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT EXPRESSIVE WORKS Since the creation of the first electronic game in the 1950s – a highly pixelated version of tic-tac-toe entitled Noughts and Crosses3 – video games have evolved into complex works that are similar to interactive movies. Video games equal books, films, and television shows in terms of cultural significance and share myriad elements with these more traditional forms of expression. Like novels, many video games have multi-dimensional characters, complex storylines, and carefully crafted dialogue. Like films and television shows, many video games contain story arcs, visual images, and musical scores that contribute to their emotional impact.

Video games have become an integral part of American culture. In 2018, nearly 165 million adults in the United States played video games, and 75 percent of all Americans had at least one gamer in their household.

In other words, Call of Duty is every bit as much art and culture as Saving Private Ryan, in which case it is afforded all of the same First Amendment and fair use protections as that movie. Given that, the use of a Humvee is pretty clear fair use in an expressive work. If found to be otherwise, the gaming industry writ large is in a whole lot of trouble, particularly for any game that wants to depict realism.

But I don't think it'll get that far.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, art, call of duty, humvee
Companies: activision, am general, am general llc, esa

Artist Inspired By Andy Warhol, Creates Truly Astounding Work... Ends Up Giving It Away Over 'Copyright Infringement'

from the copyright-suppressing-artists dept

Well, here's yet another crazy story of copyright interfering with art (ht to Jean for sending this over). Buckle in, because there's a lot to explain, starting with some truly astounding art, followed by more truly astounding art, with an extra helping of even more astounding art... and then an apparent claim of copyright infringement. What follows is truly amazing work by artist CJ Hendry. Most of this is taken from a long Instagram story in which she documented this entire process, so forgive the image heavy explanation here, but it helps to explain what happened -- so I'll include some explanatory screenshots.

She started with a bunch of Andy Warhol's famous Polaroids, cutting them out of the book of such photographs, and then sketched amazingly accurate renditions of them.

That, alone was incredibly impressive, but then she took it much further. She took her own drawings and crumpled up the papers:

... and then drew new images of her crumpled up drawings of the original polaroids:

Then, she made t-shirts featuring her drawings of the crumpled up drawings that she made replicating Andy Warhol's Polaroids:

If you're not in awe already, you should be. But Hendry kept going. Since this was all an homage to Andy Warhol, she took the homage even further and made up her own Campbell's style soup labels, put them on cans and put the t-shirts into the cans.

She was intending to sell each of the t-shirts in the cans, which would have been amazing... but then, copyright (maybe?) apparently got in the way.

It's not entirely clear who stepped in -- Hendry insists it was not the Warhol Foundation -- but suddenly that the sale has been cancelled:

If you can't read that, it says:

Thanks to everyone for the lovely messages about the tees sorry for letting you all down.

Believe it or not it had nothing to do with the Warhol Foundation, another organization completely.

Just for lolls I will probably bring out a tee as a massive spoof of the whole thing because why the heck not.

Stay tuned...

So, instead of selling them, she packed up each of these amazing cans, placed them in bright red boxes, labeled "Copyright Infringement -- Trash Only":

...and then has been placing them randomly around New York City for people to find, posting pictures (and addresses) on Instagram. I'm actually going to New York City in two days and am pissed off I'm going too late to find one of these amazing boxes and t-shirts.

Again, it's not entirely clear who is behind this. The book publisher Taschen published the book of Andy Warhol's Polaroids, so perhaps they have a copyright interest here? The only other one I can think of would be Campbell's Soup, though that would be crazy. Of course, a decade ago, we wrote about the letter that Campbell's Soup sent to Warhol back in 1964, joking that if Warhol had tried to do the same thing today, he undoubtedly would have received a cease and desist from a humorless corporate trademark lawyer. Instead, Campbell's celebrated Warhol's creativity:

It is too bad that the modern equivalent has been shut down via at least some sort of intellectual property threat.

Filed Under: andy warhol, art, campbell's soup, cj hendry, copyright, infringement, polaroids, t-shirts

No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'

from the nope dept

Last week, we wrote twice about sculptor Arturo Di Modica and his claim that the "Fearless Girl" statue, that was placed last month in front of his "Charging Bull" statue, violates his rights. As we explained, in detail, he has almost no legal case here. His letter to New York City argues three possible claims of action -- all of which would almost certainly be losers in court (as we detailed in that last post).

However, I still have seen a bunch of people arguing in support of Di Modica, claiming that he "has a point." Many have pointed to a blog post by Greg Fallis that is literally titled "Seriously, the guy has a point." Others have raised other issues in discussions I've seen (and taken part in...) on Twitter and Facebook. I still don't think he has any point at all, but I wanted to do a post addressing each of the key issues I've seen raised, and explaining why I think they fail as legitimate arguments.

Fearless Girl is an ad

I had debated mentioning this in the first post (and only obliquely noted that "there have been some criticisms" of Fearless Girl), but decided it was really meaningless. But people keep bringing it up, so let's address it. Yes, the Fearless Girl statue is an advertisement of sorts. The whole thing was created and financed by State Street, a massive investment firm, with help from McCann, one of the giant ad agencies. And a big part of the criticism is that State Street has a "gender diversity index" whose ticker symbol is SHE, focused on tracking the performance of "companies with the highest levels within their sectors of gender diversity on their boards of directors and in their senior leadership." And Fearless Girl has a plaque that says: "Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference." Many have, quite reasonably, argued that (especially given the capitalization of SHE) Fearless Girl is just an advertisement.

And the response to that should be... so what? As we've pointed out for many, many years, all content is advertising in some sense. It may be advertising for the artist. It may be advertising some idea. It may be advertising a theme. Di Modica's bull was "advertising" the resiliency of American capitalism. Just because it's advertising doesn't mean it's not artwork. And even advertising can have a positive social message. So, the claim that it's "advertising" doesn't really impact anything here. Yes. It's advertising. So what? It's also still art, and was created by a real artist whose own work and talents are unfairly diminished when you say that it's not art just because someone paid for it and it advertises something else. Or as our own Leigh Beadon points out:

Some are arguing that because there's money involved, that somehow changes things, but I don't see how. After all, the bull itself celebrates money and markets, so if you're suddenly arguing that money is bad, well, then... I'm not sure how that supports the argument that the artist has a point.

It uses the only copy of Charging Bull

This is the argument I've heard most often after the "it's an ad" argument, and I'd argue it's more persuasive, but still not very persuasive. The argument here is that, unlike a remix or standard appropriation art, where the original work remains untouched, the placement of Fearless Girl effectively incorporates Charging Bull such that Charging Bull can no longer be separate from Fearless Girl. If you are to accept the idea that putting another artwork near an original piece of artwork can never be allowed, even in a public place, and even if the latter piece incorporates the original to comment on it... well, you're going to run into a lot of problems pretty quickly. Because then you're arguing two things that are pretty difficult to justify: (1) that an artist should get absolute control over any other works near his or her own artwork, and (2) that artwork is defined by what is around it and so the context can never change.

Both things seem unjustifiable. On the first point, what if, instead of the Fearless Girl statue, someone created a placard (an artistic placard) protesting what they believed was unfair sexism on Wall Street and stood next to the bull? Would that lead to the same outcry that this somehow "diminished" the Bull? Or imagine a world in which an artist could force a museum curator -- or a private collection owner -- to not display some other artist's artwork next to his or her own, because the juxtaposition of the two pieces was deemed by the artist to be unflattering? Most people would think that is crazy. How one puts up a piece of artwork, and what pieces are put around it, are the decisions of those who control the physical pieces and have the rights to display them. Here, Di Modica dumped his bull on the streets of New York, and New York now has possession of the physical statue. It can decide how to display it.

Plenty of museums use the careful placement of different works to create juxtaposition and even direct criticism or commentary. It would be crazy to think that an original artist could bar any of that.

As for the second point, we don't have to look very far to see how silly it is: Di Modica himself placed the bull in the street in front of the NY Stock Exchange, specifically making a point about that particular financial market. He was commenting on the NY Stock Exchange and the fact that it represents a form of capitalism and free markets (whether or not you agree with that is beside the point). And yet, NYC moved Charging Bull around the corner. It is no longer directly in front of the NYSE, but people still get the context and they understand the intent.

I've seen people arguing that if Fearless Girl were removed to somewhere else it wouldn't make the same point, but that's not necessarily true. People are not dumb. They can understand context. And they can see how context changes. The Bull moved from the NYSE to a nearby park, and yet people still recognize that Charging Bull is commenting on the stock market and the Wall St. ethos. Yes, it helped where it was initially placed, but the mythology around the placement has stuck with the Bull. The same is likely true for Fearless Girl. Were it -- or the Bull -- to now move, many people would still remember and recognize the initial juxtaposition, and understand the intent (again, even if it was an ad).

But Fearless Girl changes Charging Bull's meaning

I've seen this from a few people, arguing that the artist must have some right of "control" over the meaning of the statue. But that's just not the way it works. This is a similar argument that we've seen in lots of copyright disputes over the years -- especially cases involving fair use. People seem to ascribe a somewhat mythical concept of "control" or "control of message" that an artist can have over their artwork. But that's never been true. Once a work of art is released to the public, the public interacts with it and interprets it and that's wholly outside the control of the original artist. Sometimes, over time, people's impression of a work of art can change drastically -- from bad to good or from good to bad.

Indeed, that's a big part of art. Art is barely art if there's no reaction to it. The reaction itself is a large part of the art, and that reaction is not dictated by the artist. Sometimes that reaction is just how people see things. Sometimes that reaction is in how it inspires others to create other works. Art is often defined by the reaction to it. And here, if that reaction changed, that's just a part of the nature of art and culture and society and how those things interact. Over the years, for example, there have been debates about the artistic value of works that supported, celebrated or were associated with bigotry. And there have been protests against them. But that's allowed, because people are allowed to react to art how they want, and sometimes their reactions can impact how others see things as well. Some people who grew up with the Confederate flag as a symbol of the south have grown over time to realize the racist connotations it can hold. Should we not allow people to raise those issues and get people to rethink their support of that flag?

Control in art is an illusory concept: people insist it's there, when it really is not. An artist has control over the artwork while they're working on it and before they've released it to the world, but once it's out there, once it's become available to interact with the reactions of the public, control is lost. And that's a good thing. It's that loss of control that makes art art.

You may not like Fearless Girl. You may not like Charging Bull. You may not like capitalism or advertising -- or maybe you do. You may like control. But the simple fact is that none of the arguments that Di Modica and his supporters are making make much sense in the grand scheme of things. The bull can survive Fearless Girl and so can Di Modica.

Filed Under: art, arturo di modica, charging bull, context, control, copyright, fearless girl, moral rights, wall street
Companies: state street

Congressman Appoints Himself Censor, Removes Painting Critical Of Cops From Congressional Halls

from the I-HEAR-YOU-LOUD-AND-CLEAR,-CERTAIN-CONSTITUENTS dept

I guess it's up to one Congressman to decide what is or isn't (acceptable) art.

A Republican congressman took matters into his own hands Friday and personally removed a painting depicting police officers as pigs that a colleague had allowed to be displayed at the U.S. Capitol complex.

“I was angry,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FoxNews.com. “I’ve seen the press [reporting] on this for about a week or so. … I’m in the Marine Corps. If you want it done, just call us.”

Hunter said he walked over to the artwork Friday morning with a few colleagues and unscrewed it. He then delivered it to the office of Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., the congressman whose office had allowed the piece to be displayed. The painting, hanging since June, was done by a high school student who had won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.

Can't get legislators off their asses to pass a budget in a timely manner or, I don't know, step up to do anything about the DOJ's Rule 41 changes, but you can count on them to apply long-dormant self-motivation to personal agendas.

Rep. Hunter, offended on behalf of an entire nation unions offended on behalf of their members, saw to it that painting, which the police unions bitched at length about, was removed from the public eye. Not that there was any outrage shown by a majority of constituents, who most likely first heard about this painting after it was removed. Here's the most offending part of the painting, as captured by the Independent Journal Review.

Coming to the defense of powerful, armed men and women who possess the power to stop and/or detain people for violating imaginary laws is the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. In the demand letter posted to its website, the ALADS refers to the painting as a "piece of hate," before going on and on and on about how the nation owes law enforcement its undying support.

Everyone should be alarmed when those whose job it is to fight crime on a daily basis are being depicted as pigs. Why do otherwise reasoned individuals-despite evidence before them to the contrary-become reflexively critical of police? How can a member of Congress jump to the twisted conclusion that it is okay to hang a painting that adds to the divide in our country and attacks law enforcement? Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership. At a time of our country facing rising crime and a shortage of those willing to work the streets as police officers and deputy sheriffs, we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation's Capital are not acceptable. The dedicated men and women who put on a uniform daily, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the support the community can possibly provide.

I assume "everyone" is just supposed to remain in their current state of alarm, since police being depicted as pigs went mainstream nearly a half-century ago. The implication of the rest of the paragraph is that anything less than full-fledged support of the law enforcement community divides nations and causes staffing shortages. And presumably ALADS believes any criticism of police is "reflexive," and not at all based on actual law enforcement actions and activities.

The same goes for the other law enforcement unions whose feelings were hurt by a high school student's artwork -- one that was informed by the aftershocks of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.

In an earlier statement calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to remove it, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New York, and the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Police Officers Associations said: “This false narrative portrays law enforcement professionals as posing a danger to the very communities we serve. That is untrue and this ‘art’ reinforces this false narrative and is disrespectful on so many levels.”

That's an interesting take -- one that suggests law enforcement officers pose no danger to the people they serve.

So, based on a new set of false narratives, one periodically-attentive Congressional rep has appointed himself censor... not for the good of the public at large, but for the good a certain subset of the public -- and subset of public servants -- who just couldn't accept the idea that some people don't view them as heroes.

Filed Under: art, censorship, congress, duncan hunter, lacy clay, police