Skip to main content

View Diary: Universities Gang Up On An Artist And The First Amendment (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As as artist, and someone (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fritzrth, One Pissed Off Liberal

    .... critical of our currently structured IP and copyright laws, I despise this blatant attempt to stifle creative expression.

    ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

    by bustacap on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:51:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So if bought one of your works (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, duckhunter

      and massively reproduced likenesses of it you would not object?  Besides, this case has nothing to do with stifling creative expression.  Has to do with protecting someone's dollar.  I'm not coming down on the side of the university but lets make clear what this is, it's about who is going to make money from the popularity of the sports team.  

      I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

      by thestructureguy on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 11:06:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a ***big*** difference (2+ / 0-)

        .... between reproducing someone else's work and creating a new work altogether that happens to portray a trademark as part of the scene.  

        Relevant link

        In this case, Daniel Moore is portraying an event, a significant moment in time in his paintings.  The university's trademark is of the design of the uniform, but the uniform design is actually incidental to the public action being portrayed.

        Of course IANAL, so my opinion has weight only as an artist and person who dislikes seeing institutional suppression of artistic endeavors.

        ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

        by bustacap on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 11:46:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree there is a BIG difference between (0+ / 0-)

          creating a single work of art and making prints to sell at Wal-Mart. It's all about the money.

          I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

          by thestructureguy on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 12:18:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well of course it is. It always is in America. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thestructureguy

            Again, IANAL, but I bet if Daniel Moore reached a licensing agreement cutting the Univ in on his revenues, this suit would be dropped like a flaming spider.

            ... and we have seen the black suns | pouring forth the night. -- Clark Ashton Smith

            by bustacap on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 01:11:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes -- it's all about the money. (0+ / 0-)

            The question is whether the one and only value in any discussion is "the money".

            If so, then America is getting exactly what it deserves. Reduce life to a single numeric value, and you are committing suicide. It's not clever and cynical; it's stupid, naive and short-sighted.

          •  In a sane world, a trademark (0+ / 0-)

            distinguishes the producer of a product. So a trademark on a uniform is a protection for the team from being fraudulently misrepresented. Is the artist attempting to claim to be the team? Would anyone believe that a painting of the team is the team in fact?

            No. So the issue is deeper than merely who makes the money -- that's why people care about it, but it's not what the issue at hand is. The question is the continue erosion of terms such as trademark to merely be "IP" -- aka, I ownz all your brains. I ownz ideas.

            That's just plain evil.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site