AP sues Zimmerman over latest artwork

[BobPlumb]

If I sit in my front yard a paint a picture of my neighbor's house, do I need permission from my neighbor to sell the painting? After all, I don't own his house.

If you took a picture of your neighbor's house you took the picture and own that image. You don't own the house, just the image. It't like taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. You took the picture. You own that image. If you used a picture someone else took of the Statue of Liberty and used it for your own purpose, you don't own that image and stole it.

But a painting of that imagine isn't that image.

My painting of the photo is no more stealing the photo than painting my neighbor's house is stealing his house.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If I sit in my front yard a paint a picture of my neighbor's house, do I need permission from my neighbor to sell the painting? After all, I don't own his house.

If you took a picture of your neighbor's house you took the picture and own that image. You don't own the house, just the image. It't like taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. You took the picture. You own that image. If you used a picture someone else took of the Statue of Liberty and used it for your own purpose, you don't own that image and stole it.

Fair use law:

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The painting has no (negative) effect upon the potential market value of the copyrighted work. It doesn't matter if his painting was based upon it. It's the same thing if you write a book and cite other books. You are not infringing upon the copyright of the cited book. This is a frivolous suit by the AP, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[percysunshine]

Zimmerman has the AP by the balls. They can only ask for a royalty, but they can not take possession. The more they complain, the higher the value goes.

Let it run for a few months and then Zimmerman will offer them a 10% royalty and both parties will say...OK.

Of course, I could be completely full of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

He needs to become educated. He just doesn't know about copyrights. Most people don't. They think if an image is open to the public, it's in the public domain. Everything is copywritten. It all belongs to somebody. The general rule is if an artwork is 60% your own you can avoid a copyright infringement lawsuit.

The artwork is 100% his own.

And, the two photos he stole?

What photo did he still?

If I paint a picture of your house, have I stolen your house?

 

[bripat9643]

that will be for the courts to decide

the AP just handed him that much more publicity

this one might be tied up for now

but his next one will sell for that much more

--LOL

AP serves George Zimmerman with a cease-and-desist order after he 'stole' their photographer's image for his latest painting

George Zimmerman's recent foray into the art world hasn't exactly earned him much critical praise. But it's definitely garnered him some attention - so much so that it could potentially get him sued by one of the largest news-wire services on earth.
For his latest painting, the man acquitted of murder in the shooting death of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin has painted a portrait of Florida State Attorney General Angela Corey, who is the woman who decided to charge Zimmerman with murder in Martin's death.
The problem for Zimmerman, however, is that the photo he used as the basis for his painting is owned by the Associated Press, and the wire service doesn't appear too keen on the idea of letting Zimmerman use it free of charge.


George Zimmerman 'stole' image captured by Associated Press photographer for latest painting | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What bothers me about him selling his 'art work,' is that he is exploiting his notoriety, notoriety that comes from killing someone. That just seems evil and depraved to me. And exceedingly disgusting. Like the photo of him at the gun manufacturer's, holding up a gun and laughing and having a good time. He is a disgusting human being.

It's a lot less depraved than a bunch of leftist ideologues trying to railroad a man they know to be innocent purely to push an agenda. those are truly disgusting human beings.

Apparently Zimmerman isn't allowed to laugh ever again or be happy because left-wingers are so disappointed that he's 100% innocent.

 

[bripat9643]

that will be for the courts to decide

the AP just handed him that much more publicity

this one might be tied up for now

but his next one will sell for that much more

--LOL

AP serves George Zimmerman with a cease-and-desist order after he 'stole' their photographer's image for his latest painting

George Zimmerman's recent foray into the art world hasn't exactly earned him much critical praise. But it's definitely garnered him some attention - so much so that it could potentially get him sued by one of the largest news-wire services on earth.
For his latest painting, the man acquitted of murder in the shooting death of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin has painted a portrait of Florida State Attorney General Angela Corey, who is the woman who decided to charge Zimmerman with murder in Martin's death.
The problem for Zimmerman, however, is that the photo he used as the basis for his painting is owned by the Associated Press, and the wire service doesn't appear too keen on the idea of letting Zimmerman use it free of charge.


George Zimmerman 'stole' image captured by Associated Press photographer for latest painting | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

They don't have a case. Copyright law says you only have rights to the actual image, not paintings of it. Andy Warhol made a famous painting of Marilyn Monroe based on a photograph, and no one sued him for it. He also painted coke cans and other copyrighted items.

We all know that AP doesn't give a damn about the money. They just hate George Zimmerman and want to punish him anyway they can.

Andy Warhol might have asked for permission. Like it or not, Zimmerman's painting was a copyright infringement that same way the "Hope" painting was a copyright infringement. Copyright isn't concerned with the use of the actual image, but any reproductions of that image.

Artists, especially ones just beginning, all start by painting copies of other artist's work. That is covered by "fair use" exceptions to the copyright laws. However, the reproduced image can't be referred to as an original, cannot be shown to the public as the original work of the artist, and cannot be sold. I had over 100 paintings that I had done of copywritten images. Some of them are still decorating my walls. They have never been sold or shown. Some of the poor ones, I sanded down and painted over with oil ground so I could use the canvases again. Some of them I gave away.

Zimmerman fell afoul of copyright laws the minute he showed it for sale.

A painting of another painting is obviously an attempt to reproduce that painting. Zimmerman isn't reproducing a photograph. He's making a painting based on a photograph.

How do you know Warhol asked anyone for permission? It probably never occurred to anyone to sue in those days because there weren't nearly so many lawyers and people weren't nearly so eager to sue at the drop of a hat.

 

[J.E.D]

Who gives a shit?

Well that's a switch... just two years ago you gave plenty of shits...

What happened?

I gave a shit about Zimmerman's 'artwork'? Link?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

They don't have a case. Copyright law says you only have rights to the actual image, not paintings of it. Andy Warhol made a famous painting of Marilyn Monroe based on a photograph, and no one sued him for it. He also painted coke cans and other copyrighted items.

We all know that AP doesn't give a damn about the money. They just hate George Zimmerman and want to punish him anyway they can.

Andy Warhol might have asked for permission. Like it or not, Zimmerman's painting was a copyright infringement that same way the "Hope" painting was a copyright infringement. Copyright isn't concerned with the use of the actual image, but any reproductions of that image.

Artists, especially ones just beginning, all start by painting copies of other artist's work. That is covered by "fair use" exceptions to the copyright laws. However, the reproduced image can't be referred to as an original, cannot be shown to the public as the original work of the artist, and cannot be sold. I had over 100 paintings that I had done of copywritten images. Some of them are still decorating my walls. They have never been sold or shown. Some of the poor ones, I sanded down and painted over with oil ground so I could use the canvases again. Some of them I gave away.

Zimmerman fell afoul of copyright laws the minute he showed it for sale.

The Hope painting was not a copyright infringement though. The artist settled, but that does not mean he was legally wrong.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Zimmerman has the AP by the balls. They can only ask for a royalty, but they can not take possession. The more they complain, the higher the value goes.

Let it run for a few months and then Zimmerman will offer them a 10% royalty and both parties will say...OK.

Of course, I could be completely full of shit.

You're not right about everything. Your underlying point may have some merit. The AP may want a cut of the sale/royalties. Though, unlike the Obama painting, the financials are not so burgeoning. I think they have other motives; such as perpetuating their self-interest in furthering GZ's infamy. Some people in power may simply be fulfilling personal animosities.

 

[BobPlumb]

Who gives a shit?

Well that's a switch... just two years ago you gave plenty of shits...

What happened?

I gave a shit about Zimmerman's 'artwork'? Link?

Did you take a laxative? ( trying to laugh with you not at you)

 

[bripat9643]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

It shows that we don't appreciate left-wing thugs trying to railroad an innocent man.

You, of course, do approve of that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jon, I remember you from the old Yahoo message board.

I haven't found this message board threaded very well. In these long threads, sometimes hundreds of replies, how does any one know who is replying to who? Likewise, if you make a statement, how do you know when you've gotten a response?

Is there some special trick to this?

Real

Use the quote feature.

Welcome to the board.

==========

I hope AP can make it stick but we'll see what happens.

gz could counter but he needs the advice of a real attorney, not the hacks on an internet message board who think they know everything. Unless, some racist pos wants to work pro bono, no attorney will work for gz because he doesn't pay his bills. And, now, he's in so deep, he'll never own so much as a pair of underwear free and clear.

.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

It shows that we don't appreciate left-wing thugs trying to railroad an innocent man.

You, of course, do approve of that.

You may have missed the verdict in the killing of an unarmed teenager trying to get away from him but he was not found "innocent".

Nor is he.

 

[Katzndogz]

If I sit in my front yard a paint a picture of my neighbor's house, do I need permission from my neighbor to sell the painting? After all, I don't own his house.

If you took a picture of your neighbor's house you took the picture and own that image. You don't own the house, just the image. It't like taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. You took the picture. You own that image. If you used a picture someone else took of the Statue of Liberty and used it for your own purpose, you don't own that image and stole it.

But a pai
nting of that imagine isn't that image.

My painting of the photo is no more stealing the photo than painting my neighbor's house is stealing his house.

Obviously you are wrong. If you were correct, there would never be such a cause of action as copyright infringment. It just doesn't make sense to you. No doubt it didn't make sense to George Zimmerman either. That's how come he got a cease and desist order.

 

[bripat9643]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

It shows that we don't appreciate left-wing thugs trying to railroad an innocent man.

You, of course, do approve of that.

You may have missed the verdict in the killing of an unarmed teenager trying to get away from him but he was not found "innocent".

Nor is he.

The "unarmed teenager" was in fact trying to beat his brains in MMA style.

Apparently you believe "not guilty" means he's guilty.

Everyone with a brain in his head knows he was innocent.

 

[percysunshine]

Zimmerman has the AP by the balls. They can only ask for a royalty, but they can not take possession. The more they complain, the higher the value goes.

Let it run for a few months and then Zimmerman will offer them a 10% royalty and both parties will say...OK.

Of course, I could be completely full of shit.

You're not right about everything. Your underlying point may have some merit. The AP may want a cut of the sale/royalties. Though, unlike the Obama painting, the financials are not so burgeoning. I think they have other motives; such as perpetuating their self-interest in furthering GZ's infamy. Some people in power may simply be fulfilling personal animosities.

Ah...they are still chasing the advertising revenue dragon.

I guess once you are hooked....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If I sit in my front yard a paint a picture of my neighbor's house, do I need permission from my neighbor to sell the painting? After all, I don't own his house.

If you took a picture of your neighbor's house you took the picture and own that image. You don't own the house, just the image. It't like taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. You took the picture. You own that image. If you used a picture someone else took of the Statue of Liberty and used it for your own purpose, you don't own that image and stole it.

Anybody could take a photograph of the Statue of Liberty. If I happened to use one that YOU took (even if you could get your version copyrighted) as the template to do some graphic artwork, it is highly unlikely that you could successfully sue me for the "use" of "your" particular photograph.

That said, there IS still the copyright law itself and the fair use doctrine that makes the question a slightly open one. In short, it appears that AP may have some case, but I don't think they have much of a legitimate claim for damages.

I wouldn't be shocked to learn someday that Zimmerman and AP "settle" this dispute without disclosing the "terms" of the settlement. History does tend to repeat itself.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That the likes of Zimmerman remains a hero to most on the right is both telling and appropriate.

It shows that we don't appreciate left-wing thugs trying to railroad an innocent man.

You, of course, do approve of that.

You may have missed the verdict in the killing of an unarmed teenager trying to get away from him but he was not found "innocent".

Nor is he.

YOU appear to have missed the nature of our legal system. Sleep through grade school, junior high and high school, did you?

A person is PRESUMED innocent. The STATE pressing criminal charges against a defendant carries the burden of proof to OVERCOME that presumption.

Mr. Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY.

Dipshit dishonest lolberal hacks like you may not grasp the import. But I'll clue you in. The PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE having never been overcome remained intact.

Accordingly, and contrary to your dishonest assertion, Mr. Zimmerman IS innocent in the eyes of the law and in objective reality.

Obviously, you couldn't possibly fathom that on either basis.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that will be for the courts to decide

the AP just handed him that much more publicity

this one might be tied up for now

but his next one will sell for that much more

--LOL

AP serves George Zimmerman with a cease-and-desist order after he 'stole' their photographer's image for his latest painting

George Zimmerman's recent foray into the art world hasn't exactly earned him much critical praise. But it's definitely garnered him some attention - so much so that it could potentially get him sued by one of the largest news-wire services on earth.
For his latest painting, the man acquitted of murder in the shooting death of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin has painted a portrait of Florida State Attorney General Angela Corey, who is the woman who decided to charge Zimmerman with murder in Martin's death.
The problem for Zimmerman, however, is that the photo he used as the basis for his painting is owned by the Associated Press, and the wire service doesn't appear too keen on the idea of letting Zimmerman use it free of charge.


George Zimmerman 'stole' image captured by Associated Press photographer for latest painting | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Oh GOODY! Another chance to listen to fools defend the indefensible. (19 year old walking in the rain, in the dark, up next to private homes, hides in the shadows and attacks an innocent man, getting his sorry ass JUSTIFIABLY KILLED.)

That is hysterical. You'd think the AP would own a lawyer. First: The Image is published. Its in the public domain and can be used by anyone.

Second, its a rendering, not a copy. The art is Zimmerman's.

Third, I'm going to buy a print, in support of Zimmerman.

 

[dannyboys]

George is currently working on a calender for 2015.
Each month has the image of a 'well known' person involved with the case. January is of 'DD' waddling into a Mensa meeting. Feb. is of 'Bernie' dressed in a yellow suit flying around the court room like a canary flapping his wings taking a crap on the judge's head.
The other people for the other months haven't been decided but I think Bobo is going to be one of the months. Maybe 'gay pride' month.
There's one of Tracy selling rubber 'T' halloween masks door-to-door. (He's wearing a turtle neck to cover up the 'gang-banger' tats on his neck.) The one when you put a string and a voice says "I'm going to kill you mother fucker White ass cracker". Pretty cute eh?