Are you sitting down Beyond, About to defend big business.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Are you sitting down Beyond, About to defend big business.

Now, I often have it out with you about economic issues. But this example is a no brainer to me.

I just saw on the news that a new comedy movie is spoofing Mike Tyson's tatoo. The artist in reality is claiming copywrite violation.

I feel this fuckwad has no case because the Waner Brothers movie is a comedy and "fair use" applies and parody is protected by law.

The scene in the movie shows a white guy, who wakes up from a sleep, I would assume after getting drunk in the clip, wakes up with to be told that he has the Mike Tyson tatoo. ANY FUCKING MORON knows that the movie is a comedy and is not trying to sell the tatoo as "Warner Brother's" owned.

And to a lesser extent, I cant stand, although I am a fan, that Weird Al bothers to ask about his parodies. Time after time our courts have rightfully protected parody and fair use.

There has to be beyond merely using something, evidence that you are fraudulently trying to sell something as your own.

There, another example of the willingness and ability not think black and white. I defend Warner Brothers use of this tatoo, ESPECIALLY in the context of a comedy.

This stupid lawsuit get's my "what the fuck award".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah, but the lawsuit will

 Yeah, but the lawsuit will most likely result in a lucrative settlement for the tattoo artist simply because WB has more to lose by not releasing the film on time, and there is some legal precedent for the artist. Copyright protection IS one of the few things that the federal government is given explicit authority to provide in the Constitution. I would argue that the artist gave up the rights to the tattoo when he sold it to Tyson and parodying the tattoo is equivalent to parodying Tyson, but current copyright law probably disagrees with me. WB will offer a nice chunk of cash to avoid going to court. 

 

It sort of leads to a central problem of our entire legal system- it is easier/cheaper for companies or wealthy people to settle these kinds of cases than it is to fight them in court, even if they believe they have a good chance of winning. The only solution I can think of for this problem is a loser pays system, so that people pushing these kinds of cases face large risks if they lose but even that probably wouldn't fix it completely. And you also want to make sure that you aren't making it too difficult for people with legitimate cases to sue. I have thought quite a bit about this problem and have not arrived at a sensible solution, nor encountered anyone else with one. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Time limits on copyrights

Time limits on copyrights would not only solve the problem but allow for cheaper manufacture and products in the long run. I can only guess how many people/comanies a company like Microsoft or Sony or GE have to pay off in order to release a product, but you can guarantee a chunck of the price in most products to consumers is the payoff to people/companies(who should not be people, btw) who patented something and profited off of it for ages. Yes, you won't get to profit off an invention for a thousand years, but why the fuck should you? You assembled something natural. There isn't much if anything that humanity has done that isn't replicated somewhere in nature.

I can already hear the capitalists screaming...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hangover 2 allowed to be released

The judge in the case has allowed the movie Hangover 2 to be released.

See - http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/24/hangover-2-mike-tayson-face-tattoo-lawsuit-design-ed-helms-warner-bros-brothers-victory/

The problem the tattoo artist has is his Intellectual property is likely in the public domain since it is on the face of Tyson. Tyson was in the 1st movie Hangover and paid to be in it. When the tat was placed on his face I'd argue it had become public domain or alternately Tyson's. Either way the artist no longer has ownership.

I personally have several copyrights which I'm careful about how I use such that they don't end up being put in the fair use category or in the public domain. I also have an instance where I own intellectual property that has been stolen by a company. The company in question bought prototypes from a company which I licensed for use. The company then ripped off and copied the idea and has refused to pay. The problem I have is the cost of attorneys to go forward. Unlike civil lawsuits one must pay in advance and ongoing costs to proceed. Meanwhile said company continues to use the IP in his business selling it as part of his product line. The company is arguing that my intellectual property is in the public domain as a result of the actions of the company I licensed to use the idea once said property was displayed in public. It's bullshit and not defensible but I don't have the cash for the legal battle.

When I was an engineer for a Fortune 100 company I developed both IP and patents which were signed over to the companies that employed me. This was fair in that I was paid for doing the development and they paid for all the R & D costs. The IP and patents I created and helped to create enabled the company to continue to make profits and continue my employment as well as profit sharing and bonuses to me.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The judge in the case has allowed the movie Hangover 2 to be released.

See - http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/24/hangover-2-mike-tayson-face-tattoo-lawsuit-design-ed-helms-warner-bros-brothers-victory/

The problem the tattoo artist has is his Intellectual property is likely in the public domain since it is on the face of Tyson. Tyson was in the 1st movie Hangover and paid to be in it. When the tat was placed on his face I'd argue it had become public domain or alternately Tyson's. Either way the artist no longer has ownership.

I personally have several copyrights which I'm careful about how I use such that they don't end up being put in the fair use category or in the public domain. I also have an instance where I own intellectual property that has been stolen by a company. The company in question bought prototypes from a company which I licensed for use. The company then ripped off and copied the idea and has refused to pay. The problem I have is the cost of attorneys to go forward. Unlike civil lawsuits one must pay in advance and ongoing costs to proceed. Meanwhile said company continues to use the IP in his business selling it as part of his product line. The company is arguing that my intellectual property is in the public domain as a result of the actions of the company I licensed to use the idea once said property was displayed in public. It's bullshit and not defensible but I don't have the cash for the legal battle.

When I was an engineer for a Fortune 100 company I developed both IP and patents which were signed over to the companies that employed me. This was fair in that I was paid for doing the development and they paid for all the R & D costs. The IP and patents I created and helped to create enabled the company to continue to make profits and continue my employment as well as profit sharing and bonuses to me.

Thats not what I would make the issue out to be. IF Warner Bros was not a movie company making a comedy and was a tatoo company trying to sell the same tatoo, then the artist would have a case. But, since it was a movie AND on top of that a comedy, then the artist has no case.

First off it is parody, secondly even if it were a serious documentary, it still did not have the intent of saying "This is our tatoo". This falls under fair use and parody which is rightfully protected by the courts. This artist is a fucking asshole and I am glad to see the court gave the go ahead for the movie.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Thats not what

Brian37 wrote:

Thats not what I would make the issue out to be. IF Warner Bros was not a movie company making a comedy and was a tatoo company trying to sell the same tatoo, then the artist would have a case. But, since it was a movie AND on top of that a comedy, then the artist has no case.

First off it is parody, secondly even if it were a serious documentary, it still did not have the intent of saying "This is our tatoo". This falls under fair use and parody which is rightfully protected by the courts. This artist is a fucking asshole and I am glad to see the court gave the go ahead for the movie.

The artist has a long battle in any event. Since Tyson's face has appeared in magazines, Online, in movies for which he was paid and the artist did not pursue any of them for copyright infringement as it would seem to be clearly fair use it's unlikely he has basis here. If so, anyone that does parody or comedy would be in violation. Since the courts have ruled otherwise and Warner was using the tat here as parody the artist should have no basis for a claim. Warner was not selling the tat, nor depicting Tyson without payment. The tat on the other actor was simply parody of Tyson which has been found to be fair use.

See - http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.