Official Mr. Brainwash Conspiracy Thread

[Tadrules]

i work with copyright/contract lawyers from time to time, i asked, they said mbw is a dumbass for even trying on anything done by a famous photographer. imo opinion even dumber for using a photographer that's already been introduced to the print scene. there are tons of other run dmc images he could have used, and nobody would have ever noticed.

IMO this is completely blown out of proportion because it's MBW, and people have a love/hate relationship with him. Obviously, any time someone uses something else as a reference or starting point there is some inherent risk but probably in most cases the source, doesn't know, doesn't care, or litigation costs simply outweigh any benefits. I'm surprised it didn't just settle like Fairey's, but am just assuming if MBW would not settle IMHO he'd be willing to appeal. Maybe not, who knows. But if turning a picture into a broken record piece isn't fair use, is putting graffiti on snoopy's house fair use. I don't know, I'm just saying it's a slippery slop and when it comes to art, generally (not in reference to MBW case which I literaly know nothing about, don't even like the RDMC print) I'd prefer to err on the side of fair use, so artists feel free to express themselves. At the same time, I don't think anyone should take someone else's work and sell an exact reproduction as a print, shirt, or what have you. Just my 2 cents.

i was also wondering if that article had the facts wrong, the original piece was messed with and didn't look much like the original photograph, but the prints are pretty much a stolen image and not changed much. was the case about the og at the show? or the prints? i would have thought it would have been about the prints, and not the og, but i can't find anything that says for sure.

[Lomier66]

that's like saying a kid mowing my lawn is an artist.

he decides what pattern to cut it, what height, bag or don't bag, straight edge or angled, shirt on or off, fast or slow.

That’s obviously a ludicrous extreme but from a certain point of view I suppose you could if you want to go that far. Drawing parallels between a good photographer and someone who mows your lawn is not exactly a good example. But if you’d said landscape gardener then I would have agreed wholeheartedly. That involves artistically driven decisions.

Taking a good photograph requires a lot of artistic skills and certain aspects of it, like good composition, are exactly the same principle as when applied in painting. Don’t get how people don’t seem to respect that .

[fredo]

shep may have had a chance, but he lied about how he got to the end product and screwed himself going forward with any kind of case. he fabricated a bunch of crap to make it look like he did not use the photograph as a reference, which was a lie. if hadn't done all that.... his case was slightly different, and he may have had a chance imo.

agree- that part's pretty cut and dry. lie to a judge/jury and you are done.

re: exposure/focus/color. i get the argument, but... so long as you aren't reprinting the photographic image itself, how (or what) are you stealing?
and, while it does take skill and a good eye, etc...photography is not painting. you are framing/altering and collecting light into an image with a
device as opposed to recreating the image in a completely different medium by hand. that may be splitting hairs...

[jojobadass]

the subject is the art........not the media.

I agree that you can be good or bad, but it's still about the subject.

[fredo]

right- art is instantaneous.
ultimately the subject and the effect it has on the artist is the thing. the final product is the commodity/legal issue.

[jojobadass]

so, can I copyright my home videos?

[fredo]

why not?

you should probably copyright your aquarium, too.

[steamboat]

that's like saying a kid mowing my lawn is an artist.

he decides what pattern to cut it, what height, bag or don't bag, straight edge or angled, shirt on or off, fast or slow.

That’s obviously a ludicrous extreme but from a certain point of view I suppose you could if you want to go that far. Drawing parallels between a good photographer and someone who mows your lawn is not exactly a good example. But if you’d said landscape gardener then I would have agreed wholeheartedly. That involves artistically driven decisions.

Taking a good photograph requires a lot of artistic skills and certain aspects of it, like good composition, are exactly the same principle as when applied in painting. Don’t get how people don’t seem to respect that .

I think it's because every asshat that has a 5D or some DSLR these days thinks that automatically makes them a good photographer/filmmaker. Back in the 80s & 90s photographers had to work hard to make a picture look nice.

[fredo]

And before the calculator people had to do long division on paper.

[Tadrules]

so true. it still doesn't change the legal end of things though.

we had a dark room set up in a buddies garage for black and whites. so fun.

[jojobadass]

my lawn looks really good btw.

[maden]

For a greener lawn, cut often and use one of the longer settings. You will have to mow more often but that fudge will be green and lush.

[gorkie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun ... ta-lawsuit

[Codeblue]

I'm surprised kyle isn't in here sticking up for him.

[SteveKai]

I'm surprised kyle isn't in here sticking up for him.