Comments on: Roy Lichtenstein's estate claims copyright over the images he appropriated

By: harrisonlong

harrisonlong — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Be careful on the admissions of homage and the like, as they can be used against you. I would suggest keeping a careful record of the correspondence you’ve had with the artist to make clear that her intention was not homage. Multiple people can free appropriate from the same source material. This would be like the Warhol estate making copyright claims on Superman or Mickey Mouse, solely because he used them as source material.
The work you wish to use for the cover has enough significant differences to found different in kind and substance from Lichtenstein’s work. You can also make arguments of scale, not just content. Roy’s pieces are HUGE compared to an album cover.
This case should be a dream for a copyright lawyer. You should fight the the good fight, and a move for declaratory judgment is a good idea. The lawyer for the Lichtenstein estate is going to be motivated by crass commercial gain. She will likely withdraw the treat than go to court. If she lost to you, she would be prevented from making the same threats (and extracting licensing fees) for other “appropriators.” She’ll cave, and if she doesn’t, you’ll still likely win in court.

By: naju

naju — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

17 U.S.C. 103(b): “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.”

From the house report notes on this section: “Copyright in a ‘new version’ covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright status of the preexisting material.”

Lichtenstein has no claim here.

By: slamorte

slamorte — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Your best bet is to create a copyright controversy and try to get exposure on blogs like BoingBoing.

By: devophill

devophill — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Anyway, Lichtenstein is a cock.”

QFT

By: kalahari

kalahari — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Oh the irony…..Send that lawyer all the comments here, but bold and big font on comment #31 from “naju”. That says it all. Plus, there is no such thing as bad publicity. The estate will come off looking like a bully if they pursue it. FWIW…..(ps I really like your artist’s derivative piece. Very nice comment on the original….) And now I’m gonna go listen to your band!

By: David Barsalou MFA

David Barsalou MFA — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN Â© 2000
DAVID BARSALOU MFA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/
http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230408213304&ref=ts

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’m not saying that comic books or pulp novels don’t get protection while paintings and “serious” novels do.

Yes, that’s pretty much what you’re saying, as for the rest of it, TLDR. Lichtenstein’s estate has no legit claim here, too bad for them, and art nerds who don’t realize dude was a plagiarist in the first place can realign their historical compasses accordingly.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The original image most likely belongs to the publisher the artist was employed by, if they even exist.

There are some sites out there that list original artists if you can figure out which it is
http://www.studio-international.co.uk/painting/lichtenstein.asp
http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

By: Daemon

Daemon — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

What are the odds that Lichtenstein actually had permission to adapte/copy the image in the first place?

By: Hools Verne

Hools Verne — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

How much money did Lichtenstein’s estate pay the Kirbys? Fuck em.

By: kpkpkp

kpkpkp — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Keep your cover – it more closely follows the original than Lichtenstein’s, and as a bonus, if Lichtenstein’s estate makes a big fuss, it is free advertising for Elsinore

By: Rick.

Rick. — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Roy sure did butcher that hand in his version. Yeesh. Those fingers are like tentacles.

By: bluefelix5

bluefelix5 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Both artists drew on the same source material. And the friend’s work looks more like the original than Lichenstein’s (brown hair), anyway.

By: mdh

mdh — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’d say do whatever generates the most publicity for your band.

By: Scixual

Scixual — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Eurgh. This sort of thing ticks me off.

Art seems more and more to be straitjacketed by copyright, which is the opposite of what it’s supposed to be for.

By: dculberson

dculberson — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

You might end up with a fight, but I think you’re in the right. There’s no way that Lichtenstein’s estate can claim copyright over an image just because he used it in his art.

By: das memsen

das memsen — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

tell the estate to go fuck themselves, pardon your french, and appreciate the irony of the situation.

and if you have a fight, take it to the people! i’m a filmmaker and will gladly back you up on this!

By: jhhl

jhhl — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“When you steal from me, you steal twice” — supposedly Milton Berle

By: joeposts

joeposts — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

1. Use a plain white cover
2. Re-title the album as “Censored by Roy Lichtenstein’s Lawyers”
3. ?????
4. PROFIT

By: NDanger

NDanger — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I checked out all 3 images on the web page. It looks to me like your artist drew on Lichtenstein’s copy rather than the source.

I say that based on several shading lines, the most visible example being the shading below the index finger. Also, Lichtenstein inserts a line above the man’s eyebrow. Your artist does also. But it isn’t on the original. There are other shading similarities as well.

I wish I could advise you on the legal ramifications, but I don’t know about copyright law. Still, I think it is safe to say that your artist appropriated from Lichtenstein’s appropriation, rather than the original.

By: Tom Benninger

Tom Benninger — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

To make it clearer, I’ve created a graphical comparison of the works at: http://cleverruse.com/2010/05/06/appropriated-art/.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

was the image lichtenstein appropriated in the public domain?

By: Chrs

Chrs — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It really surprises me that you’d say that, since the bottom image is much more similar to the left image than to Lichtenstein.

On the off chance that people will pay attention to it…

IMAGE KEY: The top and right images are Lichtenstein, the left image is the source material, and the bottom image is the artwork they’re using.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Are you sure you haven’t mixed up which is the Lichtenstein and which is the source?

Lichenstein is the blond version, I’d thought. The original has brown hair.

Your comment seems to be comparing the two brown hair versions and actually confirming the non-violation opinion.

By: Kayjayoh

Kayjayoh — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

No, the line over the man’s eyebrow is in the original, not the Lichtenstein. You may be mixing them up. The Lichtenstein is on the right, with the blonde (and no eyebrow line on the man). The original is on the left with the brunette (and the eyebrow line on the man).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“El que le roba a un ladrÃ³n tiene 100 aÃ±os de perdÃ³n”

“Who steals from a thief gets 100 years of grace”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

You might want to have a look at that again…Lichtenstein’s is the one with the Blonde hair!,

By: kpkpkp

kpkpkp — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I think you have the two reversed; the original is on the left and Lichtenstein’s Kiss V is on the right.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/singleout/library/Roy-Lichtenstein-Kiss-V-133905.jpg

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I agree with Chrs, I think you have read the key wrong. The source material (left side) has the line above the eyebrow, Lichtenstein’s piece (right) omitted that line.

By: loonquawl

loonquawl — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Is there a word for reverse astroturfing, i.e. creating a situation that will bring the paragons of a just cause onto the scene, to feed off the resulting bruhaha, publicity-wise?
—
I propose ‘promixing’ – Promix is a form of synthetic soil. Synthetic soil giving rise to real grass, as opposed to astroturf, where the grass is fake.
—
So i would think Elsinore is promixing us, or how did the Lichtenstein estate get notice of the impeding copyright-non-violation?