AP Threatens Legal Action Over George Zimmerman's New Painting (!)

[hlthe2b]

George Zimmerman may be in legal trouble again, this time over his latest painting.
--snip--
AP spokesperson Paul Colford confirmed in a statement to Talking Points Memo and ANIMAL New York that the AP has sent Zimmerman a cease-and-desist letter. "George Zimmerman clearly directly copied an AP photo to create his painting of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey," he said in the statement. "The AP has sent a cease-and-desist letter asserting its copyright in the photo to the lawyer who recently represented Zimmerman. That lawyer has responded, and though she no longer represents Mr. Zimmerman, she will be forwarding the letter to him today."

Rick Wilson, the photographer who took the image for the AP, has also retained legal representation. Wilson's lawyer John Phillips told the Orlando Sentinel that he sent Zimmerman another cease-and-desist letter, and that if Zimmerman tries to sell the painting, his client is prepared, "in conjunction with the AP, to file suit against him."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/ap-george-zimmerman-painting-cease-desist_n_4661052.html

Here is the painting: ?6

Here is the AP photo: ?3


Hmmmm... I still don't know how he got by with his last stolen photoshopped painting

[cthulu2016]

1. AP is wrong, and is Scum

This action is an outrage, and if someone cannot see past the name Zimmerman to get that then god help us all.

This is a corporation with deep pockets harassing an individual with a facialy absurd nuisance action.

If this was legit (it isn't) then half the political art ever done since the invention of photography would be in trouble.

[hlthe2b]

2. AP may be 'scum', but how so are they "wrong" ?

[unblock]

10. ap can copyright a photo, but not a pose or a public person.

i can't use the image of ronald mcdonald to help sell my hamburgers, but i certainly can use the image to make an editorial or political comment about the fast food business.

[hlthe2b]

14. That is why the subject of a picture/pose can not sue...

I am not so sure that applies to work product, as in the case of Fairey and the Obama "CHANGE" poster (who settled with AP).

Somehow, I'm guessing if AP had no case, based on your premise, Fairey would not have settled the suit.

[unblock]

19. what the ap has is money and muscle. that's often enough to win.

that doesn't make them right in any way, shape or form.

[X_Digger]

43. Big corps often bring suits they know they can't win, because of legal fees.

It's easier to force a settlement if the alternative is months of discovery, legal fees, time off work, and a chance that the case will be blown on a technicality.

And even if the corps lose the case, there's no guarantee they'll have to pay the other guy's fees.

It's a win-win from the corps' perspective.

[arely staircase]

5. zimmerman is the one who is scum, but the AP is wrong nt

[brush]

17. You can't copy someone else's intellectual property without risk of a suit.

There's nothing new about that law so just because it's zimmerman doing the copying, he's not exempt.

And by the way, zimmerman is NOT actually painting. He's using Photoshop filters to get those effects on a scanned image.

Photoshop has many filters you can use on images to create thousands of different looks.

What zimmy is doing takes no talent, just an entry-level knowledge of Photoshop.

He wouldn't know where to start if he went into an art store and had to buy supplies to paint with. He wouldn't know gesso from linseed oil to his murdering a-hole.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

37. You re way off base

Rhe world's original works aren't out there just so you can steal or use without attribution or permission.

Have some sense along with compassion for the artists and crafts persons producing such original works.

I know a woman whose son has many AP photos to his name. He is a freelance photographer making a living. No one has a right to I appropriately use his work.

[Boom Sound 416]

55. This is absolutely the way the real world works

He took the photo. He works for ap. Somebody owns it and deserves a piece if someone else profits from it.

[unblock]

3. how dare they make me agree with zimmerman!

clearly fair use.

[CJCRANE]

6. Is it fair use if you're selling it? I thought fair use was for reviewing. nt

[unblock]

18. not just reviewing, but also criticism, commentary, parody, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

if zimmerman is profiting from it, that's not a point in his favor, legally. on the other hand, it's not like the ap is suffering from news reporting competition from zimmerman.

[brush]

23. He's trying to sell it online.

That's the whole point of the OP. And he's NOT painting btw.

He's using Photoshop filters to get those effects on a scanned.

Photoshop has many filters you can use on images to create thousands of different looks.

What zimmy is doing takes no talent, just an entry-level knowledge of Photoshop.

He wouldn't know where to start if he went into an art store and had to buy supplies to paint with. He wouldn't know gesso from linseed oil to his own murdering a-hole.

[unblock]

28. the text alone makes it fair use.

if i want to mock boner or gingrinch or palin or ryan or paul or zimmerman for that matter, do i really need to snap the picture myself, or at least see them live in person and draw it myself?

frankly, i'm not sure i've ever seen an image of any president that wasn't copyrighted.

is du violating copyright with every pic of the day, where the administrators simply add some text to a copyrighted image? hardly.

[CJCRANE]

30. But isn't it different if you sell a copied image as an original artwork? nt

[brush]

33. He can't sell it like he's trying to . . .

without risking a suit. Whether he added text, also done with Photoshop, makes no difference. That's the point.

[unblock]

40. it doesn't help that he's making money from it. but mostly it just makes him a target.

what ap is doing is a shakedown. they're using the legal system to be a bully.

the fact that zimmerman is making money off it doesn't work in his favor.

but the fact that ap isn't losing money works in zimmerman's favor
the fact that zimmerman added mockery to it works in zimmerman's favor
the fact that he added visual effects (even if novice quality) works in zimmerman's favor
the fact that he is (afaik) selling only limited copies (maybe even only one) rather than mass-producing them works in zimmerman's favor

legally (by the book, that is) it's a slam dunk for zimmerman. the money argument is the only real argument in ap's favor and it's a weak one.

however, our legal system is one which allows deep-pocketed businesses to bully individuals into submission, so zimmerman might very well settle "for an undisclosed amount" to make this suit go away. that doesn't make what the ap is doing right.

zimmerman is a heinous person and belongs in prison and i have no sympathy for him, but that doesn't mean the ap should profit from this.

[brush]

44. A photograph is intellectual property.

He can use it for his enjoyment but without permission from, or paying a fee to the photog, he's got legal problems.

[unblock]

46. that's a vast oversimplification, and ignores what he added to the image.

[brush]

47. Simplification? Using someone else's property is more like it

Talk about simple, if he's the one actually producing these images (which is in questions since there's money to be made using his scuzzy name, legally or otherwise — ala his donation website during the build up to his trial), he or someone, simply learned how to scan a photo, then open it in Photoshop, go to it's filters menu, select a filter and manipulate sliders back and forth to put effects on the images. He also used Photoshop to add the typography.

That is not being an artist but it is using someone else's output to try to make a profit. I paint and I'm also very familiar with Photoshop as I make a living as an art director, so I know exactly what zimmerman, or whoever, is doing and it's not being an artist.

[Xyzse]

4. Does this mean that DU can also sue him for the first painting?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024188920
Right?

[arely staircase]

7. holy shit how did I miss that? nt

[Xyzse]

12. It happens.

Not that I think that DU should sue, just curious how far and successful AP would be on this.

If it goes far, maybe DU has options.

[arely staircase]

16. I don't think DU or Zimmerman would or should have a case.

as despicable as Zimmerman is, in both cases he has substantially changed the images to the point of making them original works, every bit as much as the guy who made the Obama Hope/Change poster - who also got sued by the AP.

But still, that is crazy - Zimmerman using an image owned by DU.

[Xyzse]

21. I actually agree.

Just, was thinking about it dreamily, even knowing that it won't happen.

[CJCRANE]

22. I doubt Zimmerman is the one making these "artworks".

It's probably a RW PR hack.

[arely staircase]

26. maybe, because, while not good they are ok

they are better than:



or



actually the Hitler is probably the best. But yeah Hitler, Zimmerman and Bush are/were all three kinda crappy artists. regardless of what else they may be(een.)

[Oilwellian]

35. I don't think DU owns it per se

They bought the right to use the image commercially.

I doubt Zimmy contacted AP and made a deal allowing him to use the photo commercially. Therein lies the difference.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

38. Image is not owned by DU. They paid licensing fee to Shutterstock

To use the image.

[justiceischeap]

48. The image isn't owned by DU

DU bought a disc of royalty-free images. You really need to take a look at this link to learn more about royalty-free images and rights-managed images (which I'm sure every single AP photo is--rights managed).

http://www.stockphotorights.com/faq/

[arely staircase]

49. would the image of a campbell's soup can be copyrighted? nt

[justiceischeap]

52. Nope, trademarked.

However, I suspect Campbell's didn't sue because it didn't hurt their image. And products are different than photographs. If you take one of my photographs that I make and do something like Zimmerman did, I'd send you a cease-and-desist letter too. You need permission to do what he has done from the copyright owner.

[arely staircase]

53. ok, I will take your word for it.

so you think Warhol's pieces were actionable, but Campbell's just chose not to file suit?

[justiceischeap]

54. Yes, I do. However, the subject can be fuzzy legally

As a matter of fact, Campbell's sent a letter to Warhol telling him how much they liked it. Today, he'd probably have to pay a licensing fee.

Just because people do this sort of thing all the time, doesn't mean it's actually legal and some people (and corporations) are more stringent about enforcing the law than others but the instance a photograph is taken, copyright belongs to the maker of the photograph. I don't even have to file a copyright claim, as long as I have proof that I made the photo. Anytime someone posts a photo on Facebook, of say the Duck Dynasty dude, and then rights text over it, if they aren't crediting the original photographer, they're illegally using that image.

[Bjorn Against]

11. No, but Getty Images could

DU does not actually own that graphic, they just purchased the right to use it. Getty images is the owner of the graphic and they could potentially sue Zimmerman if he did not pay for the rights to the image.

[Xyzse]

13. I see...

Thank you for the clarification.

[frazzled]

8. We like copyright when it stops the people we don't like

I hope they get him, too. And I'm actually believer in copyright protections for intellectual property. But two things make me not so happy about this:

(1) Zimmerman should have been convicted of the real crime he committed. Getting him on this feels not even second best--it's about a millionth best. Small recompense for a dead teenager who was gunned down for nothing.

(2) Appropriation in art is a tricky subject. Zimmerman is of course not an artist. So I'm not making an argument for him on that basis. But Shepard Fairey was an artist, and I didn't agree with the case against his use of photographic material in his art. So I feel kind of hypocritical cheering this. Maybe the deal is, they both should have gotten permission from the photographic copyright holder before appropriating the material. But I don't think anyone ever asked Gerhard Richter for permission to paint the Red Army Faction paintings, all taken from photographs, or Andy Warhol, in his disaster series, taken from newspaper photographs. Where do you draw the line?

Everybody else who rails against copyright would be equally (if not more) hypocritical for cheering this.

[CJCRANE]

15. If you're an artist you do the work anyway

but don't surpised if the original copyright holder tries to sue you.

For example, a lot of the original electro hiphop was made using illegal samples back in the day but now musicians generally pay a royalty when they use a sample.

[arely staircase]

20. actually he is an artist

regardless of what we may think of him or his art. now we can get into a whole big argument over what is art. but what he has done meets pretty much any definition of it. I din't say it was good art. but it is art. hitler was an artist. a pretty crappy one. but he was.

[brush]

24. An artist . . . ?

He's NOT painting you know.

He's using Photoshop filters to get those effects on a scanned image.

Photoshop has many filters you can use on images to create thousands of different looks.

What zimmy is doing takes no talent, just an entry-level knowledge of Photoshop.

He wouldn't know where to start if he went into an art store and had to buy supplies to paint with. He wouldn't know gesso from linseed oil to his own murdering a-hole.

[arely staircase]

27. see post 26 nt

[brush]

29. Like I said . . .

not an artist. He learned how, if he's the one actual producing these images, to scan a photo, then open it in Photoshop, go to it's filters menu, select one and manipulate sliders to put effects on the images.

I repeat, he is not an artist. I paint and also am familiar with Photoshop so I know exactly what zimmerman, or whoever, is doing, and it's not being an artist.

That's an insult to artists to call him that.

[arely staircase]

34. how did the Obama Hope poster guy make his image?

I get what you are saying and it certainly puts Bush ahead of him in my Hitler/bush/Zimmerman comparison, with Hitler having the most talent of the three. Now some would argue that talent is not necessary for one to create art. I tend to disagree so your point is well taken.

[unblock]

32. one does not need to be a luddite to be an artist.

there have always been artists who have used the latest tools and technologies available.

[brush]

42. Manipulating scanned images . . .

with computer software doesn't, imo, come anywhere close to the level of being an artist.

Anyone can move sliders back and forth with a software program.

I'm a painter and also a graphic artist so I'm intimately familiar with both Photoshop, and gesso, canvas, linseed oil, turps and other painting supplies, and zimmerman isn't applying a stroke to canvas or getting close to anything near calling his manipulations art.

If he's even the one doing it, I might add. I mean someone in his camp thinks there's money to be made from using his scuzzy name, like all the money he got from his "racist fans" on his donation web site during the build up to his trial.

[unblock]

45. anyone can do art. you're talking about quality, not about what it is or isn't.

pretty much every high school in the country has students who make music. the overwhelming majority of them are almost completely devoid of talent and are merely pushing buttons on the trumpet while blowing, or whatever. nevertheless, it's undeniably music that they're making. lousy music, certainly, but music nevertheless.

i agree that he's trading far more on his own notoriety than his talent, but that doesn't mean what he's doing isn't art.

not that that really matters legally, it doesn't need to be "art" for it to be fair use.

[arely staircase]

51. that explained what I was trying to say in this thread better than I was saying it nt

[Miles Archer]

36. "He's using Photoshop filters to get those effects on a scanned image..."

He sure is, and in doing so pisses off real "artists" as well as professionals who use Photoshop to make a living (like yours truly). He's a bottom feeder, plain and simple. "Artist?" My ass.

[herding cats]

9. If he purchased a license to use the other image, his use of it was legal.

In this a whole different matter. Photographers tend to be very protective of their property, it's their livelihood.

[Oilwellian]

39. Exactly

If Zimmy wasn't profiting from this latest piece of dung art, I doubt this would even be an issue. I have used AP photos in political videos I've made and claimed Fair Use. But profiting from someone else's work without at least getting their permission will definitely open you up to a lawsuit.

[Baitball Blogger]

25. !

[William769]

31. He's such an ass hat.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

41. Zimmerman omitted the cross on the necklace

That says a lot about his twistedness. Most likely in some kind of twisted way in his thinking ,he doesn't think she is worthy to wear it.

He therefore most likely believes he is passing judgement through at the same time leaving a hint of admittance.

The cease and desist letter is something he can hold that brings him much gratification.
Predators love to take incredible chances and doing so sustains their momentum.
PR plan.

It appears he chose the color yellow in his signature line across the chest.Signifying he inserted himself in place of the cross in what appears to be somewhat of a sign painting .
He's taunting.

Predators and timing.

[justiceischeap]

50. For those saying the AP is wrong in suing Zimmerman (or anyone else)

all you have to do is go to their site and read the licensing terms. What Zimmerman has done goes plainly against their licensing terms and doesn't constitute fair use because in their licensing terms it's clearly outlined that you cannot create a derivative work--and that's if Zimmerman actually purchased a license, which I doubt he did. The only leg Zimmerman has to stand on is his leaving out the cross on the necklace. That is the only area he can claim he was creating a derivative. That said, since he is trying to sell this "art" he is violating not only the photographers copyright but the AP's as well.

http://www.apimages.com/Licenseterms

[redqueen]

56. Thanks for this post. Seems pretty cut and dry. nt

[icymist]

57. I found a pretty good article about copyright and fair use of images...

In it the author explains what fair use means to the digital age, pointing out that the copyright laws were created in a time when nobody ever dreamed about how easy it would be to copy and paste an image with today's technology. It's a pretty good read and, as an artist myself, very informative. Personally, I would love to see a court trial go forward in this matter as that may begin to address the issue of today's technology using the copyright laws of yesterday.

Below are some excerpts of the article where the author is describing five things to consider when snatching up a photograph:

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/copyright-fair-use-and-how-it-works-for-online-images/
<snip>
#1: Do you understand the term fair use? Just because you provide attribution and/or a link back to the original doesn’t mean you’re free and clear. Fair use has nothing to do with attribution. That’s an issue related to plagiarism, which is different from copyright.
<snip>
#2: Why are you using the image? If it is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” you’re on the right track.
<snip>
#3: Have you transformed the image? If the new work which incorporates the copyrighted image is a “transformative work”—what you created no longer resembles the original—there is a greater likelihood of finding an exception to copyright infringement.
<snip>
#4: How much of the image are you using? If you’re using a thumbnail and linking to the original location, there is greater likelihood of finding fair use than if you just post the original image. If you’re doing a post about facial features and are just using a portion of the face from an image, you stand a better chance of arguing fair use than if you used the entire image.

[GeorgeGist]

58. A self-portrait would be more effective.