The Intellectual Property Asshole Competition
from the have-fun-with-it,-people dept
Now this ought to be fun to watch. We’ve written plenty of stuff about the ongoing legal fight between artist Shephard Fairey and the Associated Press. And, every time we write about it, someone always points out that Fairey is often just as bad as the AP. Despite being an “appropriation” artist, who regularly uses the works of others in his own work (something we think is great), he’s also been known to legally threaten others for doing the same with his own work. So, it looks like someone has decided to poke both with a stick, to see who gets provoked first. That someone is artist Evan Roth. ChurchHatesTucker alerts us that Roth has launched his “Intellectual Property Asshole Competition” where he is selling, via his website, hand-painted version of both the Mannie Garcia/AP photo and Shepard Fairey’s poster… and will see who is the first to send him a cease and desist. While we never think it’s a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.
Filed Under: appropriation, cease and desist, competition, copyright, eric roth, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press
Comments on “The Intellectual Property Asshole Competition”
BEST TITLE EVER!
Competition
Outstanding! Strike a blow for freedom!
Long Live
The IPAC. Wait… if they make the acronym iPAC will Apple win?
Re: Long Live
lol nice one
Re: Long Live
lol…we have an IPAC Mazda dealership….I think it’s still there…but it stands for Ingram Park Auto Center 🙂
ROFLOL! This is hilarious!
side bets on Eric Roth getting sued for defamation or something else before getting sent a C&D.
AP is the lame here
AP sued the artist right after the picture got popular, but before that they didn’t even consider anything.
Re: AP is the lame here
AP sued the artist right after the picture got popular, but before that they didn’t even consider anything.
Not quite true. They didn’t sue earlier because they *didn’t know* the picture was based on their photo. Once they knew, then they demanded money.
AP is the lame here
Mike, we can’t argue here because we both don’t have a stake in the case. But for your information, AP didn’t know about the picture before Shephard Fairey told the press that the picture was from a AP photographer’s. If Fairey had a bad intention of infringing, would he announce where the original picture came from?
Re: AP is the lame here
Mike, we can’t argue here because we both don’t have a stake in the case. But for your information, AP didn’t know about the picture before Shephard Fairey told the press that the picture was from a AP photographer’s. If Fairey had a bad intention of infringing, would he announce where the original picture came from?
Again, I’m afraid your information is incorrect. Fairey had said that he found the photo via Google News, but didn’t know where it had actually come from or what photo it was.
The person who figured it out was a photo journalist. So, no Fairey did not tell the press where the photo came from. We covered it when it happened.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090125/1907073531.shtml
And I have no idea what you mean by “we can’t argue here because we both don’t have a stake in the case.” I’m not arguing with you. I’m pointing out that what you said was factually incorrect. And that has nothing to do with whether or not anyone has a stake in the case (which also has no bearing on whether or not they can argue).
And, I also have no idea what you mean by “If Fairey had a bad intention of infringing, would he announce where the original picture came from?” Fairey appropriates stuff for his artwork. It’s what he does. He doesn’t have any bad intention. But in this case, he just didn’t care where the photo came from so he didn’t remember.
Re: Re: AP is the lame here
“Fairey appropriates stuff for his artwork. It’s what he does. He doesn’t have any bad intention. But in this case, he just didn’t care where the photo came from so he didn’t remember.”
Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks. It’s just what they did. Does that make it legal? Come on.
Is there anybody on this thread who makes a living creating anything and then gives it away for someone else to make money from?
Where the idea originate that if you see it, it is free for you to use?
Please, make something original yourselves and stand behind it with pride. Your lives will be better for it.
Re: Re: Re: AP is the lame here
I dont know where it originated but it is deeply embedded in my mind by some mechanism during my upbringing.
Re: Re: Re: AP is the lame here
Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks. It’s just what they did. Does that make it legal? Come on.
Nice. Take my comment totally out of context.
Is there anybody on this thread who makes a living creating anything and then gives it away for someone else to make money from?
Yes, me. All the time. And, you know what? It works great. Helping other people make a lot of money has helped us make money as well.
Where the idea originate that if you see it, it is free for you to use?
No one said that.
Please, make something original yourselves and stand behind it with pride. Your lives will be better for it.
I do. I stand behind it with such pride I hope that others make use of it and make it even more valuable.
Re: Re: Re: AP is the lame here
“Where the idea originate that if you see it, it is free for you to use?”
Where the idea that it does not?
That used to be the case, after all. If you saw a work, you were free to recreate it. Much like if tell me a bar joke, I’m free to retell it without paying you anything. The idea that a debt is incurred for retailing an idea is a very recent one in human history.
"Infringement for infringement's sake"??
Given the damage that the mass of sophomoric, uninspired, self-indulgent, theory-driven “conceptual art” has done to the very concept of Art*, I’d give the guy 50 Art Points just for the idea.
It’s more artsy than a pickled shark, more political than G8 vandalism and more transgressive than butchered baby dolls on an inverted cross against a background of smashed TV sets.**
Old fashioned, non-ironic kudos to Mr. Roth.
*-In most cases, the only apect of “conceptual art” that has any validity is the “con”.
**-An invented example, but then I realized this very “installation” has probably been done multiple times. Depressing…
Fairey, isn’t that the guy who stole an image of the Nazi SS’ DeathHead super-imposed with an “OBEY” tagline… and then somehow tried to weasel out of how that could possibly be construed as just a tad insulting by saying “I didn’t know it was a Nazi Symbol!!”.
I mean, come on… Its one thing to be an artist who tries to make social commentary and stands behind it. Its a completely different thing to be an artist who doesn’t stand behind his social commentary. And if he really did “lift” the symbol and not know it was a piece of Nazi Symbolism.. well… I think thats even more sad than the first two, considering its his business to know.
Haha, awesome!
So Internet trolling is front-page material now?
This is not awesome. This is not “a blow for freedom.” It’s a troll, saying “Hey, let’s bait a big media company and an publicity-seeking artist, and see if we can get one of them to overreact!” That’s not even that much of a challenge.
Oh don’t worry literalists – I “get it.” Roth is demonstrating how ridiculous the current state of copyright is by reacting in a ridiculous manner. I’m sure someone will justify it by saying that he’s “raising awareness about the ambiguity in current copyright law.”
I can think of several dozen ways to do the same thing without resorting to cheap publicity stunts, trolling, and taking shots at willing (in Fairey’s case) or slow and lumbering (in the AP’s case) targets. I could write a book, or a scholarly article, or organize a forum, or lobby Congress, or get a proposition on the state ballot. Unfortunately, most of these would require substantial effort. These days, publicity stunts and the naivest forms of “civil disobedience” seem to be increasingly celebrated ways of attempting to effect change. My methods probably wouldn’t even be half as effective.
I think I’ll just go make a flyer instead. I’ll take a picture with a hand pointing a gun at a dog’s head, and it’ll say “If you don’t reform copyright law, we’ll shoot this dog!”
Actually, I bet if I looked I could find a picture like that on the Internet. I’ll just use that. Too much trouble getting a dog and a gun anyway.
Re: Re:
I think you’re getting a little carried away here. Mike said up front that, “we never think it’s a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.”
Two points strike me:
One, while it may not be the most academic or scholarly way to make the point, it does still make the point and it may create news in the same manner [i.e. showy] as the IP maximalists tend to [i.e. comparing IP “theft”/infringement to everything short of necrophilia].
And two, seriously, how many people are going to read an article, or a book, or attend a forum written or organized by some random artist? He is making a point the way he is able and it is not hurting anyone except potentiallly him. What’s the problem, the fact that he is being self-promotional in the process? There are worse crimes.
..
Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
In a nation of laws, when one disagrees with the law (copyright)one takes the path that has shown to be the way the people in our country want you to take. Dr. Strange has finally and succinctly told this “comment” blog the truth. If you don’t like the copyright laws then have them changed using the political system. Until then, obey the law, voluntarily. And by voluntarily, I mean be an adult and if you don’t like the price or limitations copyright owners put on the music they own and control, protest with your feet and don’t copy it or obtain it illegally. Oh, and “just because it is technically possible to create ‘unlimited copies’ I have news for you, it was always technically possible to create unlimited copies. Did you ever hear of tape duplication or CD replication? Oh, too expensive to do and oh, not so easy to distribute and, oh too easy to get caught. So those are the reasons there was not ‘unlimited supply’ previously. Not new technology. So this new economic theory of unlimited supply when it comes to copyright has a slight little flaw. It’s illegal. And if you think the law is not clear or confusing or whatever, then that is what our court system is for. Or if you don’t like that either? Say hello to enforcement by lawsuit or criminally. That is the way our country works. Our country also is based on change, legally.
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
You’re an idiot.
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
Your arguments are flawed.
Let’s start with “Tape Duplication.” If someone were to distribute illegally copied tapes, they would need a blank tape for every person copy that they made. These blank tapes cost money; they are a scarce good. It’s true that the recording has always been an infinite good; however, in the “record and tape” era, this recording could only be copied and distributed via the scarce goods of records (or tapes, CDs, etc.) Today, the internet is available, which allows these infinite goods to be distributed without the marginal costs associated with scarce good distribution. Interestingly, the facts that you state about this argument are mostly true, but the conclusions that you draw from them are completely false.
Furthermore, you claim that the “slight flaw” of the “economic theory of unlimited supply” is that “It’s illegal.” This is not a problem with the economic model itself; rather, it’s a case where the law interferes with economics. Your claim that copyright proves infinite-supply economics to be flawed is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
Additionally, you claim that people should people should protest the law without breaking it; however, you later claim that the courts are for “when the law is not clear or confusing or whatever.” If people in this “Nation of Laws” do not break laws that they feel are unjust, how will the courts rule on its validity? You are ignoring the long history within this country of deliberately violating laws that are unjust. This American tradition includes examples such as the Boston Tea Party, the Scopes Trial, and the Civil Rights Movement.
In conclusion, both your arguments and your premise have more flaws than merit.
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
Agreed. Until someone figures out how the copyright process works, and then creates a public website for anyone to request licenses to works, with hopes to engage in a commercial transaction.
Of course, Copyright itself, is overseen by the Department of Commerce which some jackass named Gary Locke heads. Bad pick, President Obama. Bad Pick.
He needs to go if commercial transaction doesn’t occur, as this seems detrimental to very definition of the department he leads. Agreed?
In most situations, commercial transactions don’t need to involve to DOJ or create new laws.
Here it comes.
Re: Re: Dr. Strange: A Voice of Reason, Finally
Yea, but WHY is it illegal?
Re: Re:
“I’ll take a picture with a hand pointing a gun at a dog’s head, and it’ll say “If you don’t reform copyright law, we’ll shoot this dog!””
It’s already been done
http://lampoon.rwinters.com/Lampoon1973.htm
You could be on that Mike, because you act like an ahole when it comes to your ideas being the only way to fix IP.
Re: Re:
yeah yeah, at least pick a name when you troll, otherwise you are just a pussy.
Re: Re: Re:
I take the “yeah, yeah” as an agreement with my statement. Whose the dick now?
Two to One Advantage
It’s not a fair competition anyway. AP can send a C&D on two counts since BOTH pictures infringe their claimed copyrights.
And “Nation of Laws”? Gimme a break. Most of the garbage that passes for law is what some smart-arse lawyer has got some dumb-ass judge to rule on, based on what some head-up-his-ass legislator passed into law without bothering to read the paper.
An absurd law can only be challenged by demonstrating its absurdity.
I would have to say that Techdirt wins the content just by publishing the story.
“contest”, sorry.
Eric or Evan?
The website says Evan Roth. Is this an error on your part, or his pseudonym?
Re: Eric or Evan?
That was my bad. It should be Evan Roth. Too many E. Roths in the world…
Re: Re: Eric or Evan?
Fixed.
Re: Re: Re: Eric or Evan?
You’re getting better.
Eric Roth is a screenwriter
might want to fix that
It’s a good idea too – the RIAA, MPAA and others should have like an ‘Special asshole Olympics’ to see who can be the biggest ass.
This is another good example at how intellectual property only harms society. The press doesn’t need intellectual property on anything in order to take and distribute pictures. Without intellectual property they will do the same thing regardless (because that’s what the press does) but the only difference is that others will be allowed to redistribute it. Allowing others to redistribute it is good economics for it brings about higher utility for society (people are redistributing it because it brings them utility, people are assumed to act in their own best interest). The only thing copyright does is it prevents others from redistributing it which only lowers net utility to society. Again, since these corporations will distribute pictures regardless there is no point in even having copyright since no good comes from copyright (only bad). But most of the copyright in this nation causes more harm than good, just look at the agricultural and medicine industry.
Re: Re:
sp/but most copyright/but most intellectual property in this nation …
Re: Re:
isnt philosophy 101 cool
Re: Re: Re:
So you agree with what I’m saying then? It’s so basic, so obvious, that it should be in philosophy 101. I agree. Good logic is obvious.
To Add
I give Gary Locke a year.
Maybe a year and a half before he’s replaced by an American.
Gary Locke
I like Gary Locke’s Chinese spelling right under his name on his Wikipedia Article.
Nice Touch.
Maybe his US Department of Commerce business Cards have the same symbols on the front.
駱家輝 wants a new job
I’ve decided that 駱家輝 is my new name as it better fits this current economic environment.
There's a joke in here somewhere.
But it seems the Copyright and IP competition has become a machine in which everyone is caught, those who exercise power just as much as those over whom it is exercised.
This seems to me to be the characteristic of the societies installed in the nineteenth century. Power is no longer substantially identified with an individual who possesses or exercises it by right of birth; it becomes a machinery that no one owns.
Perhaps the solution is to retool the machine.
AP is just angry...
… that the President said they are not going to get a bailout.
AP is just angry...
… that the President said they are not going to get a bailout.
So, has anyone won this contest yet?
Oh teh noes!!
See, I suspect the worst offense Mike’s committing here is not so much “demonstrating the foolishness, inconsistencies and failures of the current IP law/copyright/patent regieme”, but demonstrating how people can create and make money WITHOUT ENRICHING LAWYERS.
The artists, creators and inventors whom we all rightly admire are just a smoke screen here. The posters of opposition on this board represent the parasites, agents, lawyers, ex-wives, copyright OWNERS and corporate entities whose share of the profits generated by the actual creatives is threatened by the enlightened models Mike presents and the technological changes that make them possible (or even inevitable).
And if someone dares show how the flow of money might be diverted from the pocketbooks of those who benefit, WITHOUT CREATING ANYTHING, from the current system, savage opposition is unsurprising. Nor is it surprising that such desperate attempts to hang onto the cash cow’s teats are presented as moral, philosophical or legal arguments. Disgusting and hypocritical, yeah. But not surprising.
I don’t even want to read the contents of the post just express my extreme disgust at the title. I used to have techdirt on my igoogle page since as an IT pro it’s useful to read and learn what’s new and happening in the ever dynamic world of tech. But I’m so very disappointed in this post’s title that I’m promptly removing techdirt from my igoogle. It’s one thing being constantly offended by the use of profanity on tv or even as I commute to world but not in my private cyberspace. Is nothing sacred anymore??
Re: Re:
You are genuinely offended by the word Asshole? I didn’t even realize that was still considered cursing, much less genuinely offensive.
I’ve always wondered if it is people taking genuine offence to a few select words that gives them power. That if we all quit caring about asses, assholes, and assassins (it’s in there twice!), then the word ass would basically become the word butt or rump.
As far as SFW, I’m always more concerned about the posts on child predators. It would seem like the word paedophile or porn would set off more flags than asshole.
Offended?
Seriously, you are offended by that? Give me a break. This article about intellectual property was spot on.
Jake
visit me at:
registry cleaners
Bum rush
My opinion, NO COPYRIGHT, If you don’t want your thing copied you make it in a tech that makes it extremely difficult, like oil paintings or a DNA strand. Not that that will stop the determined.. but fuck lets destroy the determined one case at a time, and make sure it is a FUCKING GOOD ONE
Available Online For Free
This is the same Evan Roth doing that Available Online For Free project.
RE:
It looks like someone has decided to poke both with a stick, to see who gets provoked first.
Time to disagree.
While we never think it’s a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.
No, it’s not going to be fun to watch. It’s another blatant attempt at someone else taking liberties to “cash in” on the works of others.
In truth, I can’t believe Techdirt would run an article like this, especially with the line above. Every day, readers come to learn about the atrocities of the DMCA and copyright in general, and all that’s literally tossed out the window by linking to this idiot’s website (and message).
I’ve a feeling we’ll learn more about this as Techdirt will sure to announce the “winner”, possibly using it as fuel in another DMCA/Copyright abuse article.
Is there not enough corporate abuse that something like this has to be reported? What purpose does it serve anyone to determine who the “winner” is?
As I see it, no one “wins”. Everyone loses. Not a damn thing will change over this “competition”.
*sigh*
Well, I’m sure another newspaper industry article will appear within the day which will help bury this wasted space.
Since none of you have done any research
Evan is probably not going to be making money off of this. He does not believe in copyright and has made a living off of giving back to the artistic community. As an artist, web designer, writer I am creative in many different forms and I wholeheartedly support genuine attempts to build upon established art. It has been done for most of human history this way. We are only lately getting so greedy that we want to own something in perpetuity. Those of you detracting from the artist honestly haven’t spent time learning his motives or seen any of his projects. He honestly is hoping some change will come out of shame since courts and laws and common sense don’t seem to be working.
Re: Since none of you have done any research
He honestly is hoping some change will come out of shame
I put “cash in” in quotes for a good reason. I know he’s not reaping monies for his “cause”, but publicity is still “cashing in”.
As for the bold statement above, website after website, blog after blog, has told the issues and horrors of current copyright law, and nothing has changed. This additional website will make no impact, especially if those in charge of changing the law pay no attention to it.
Only by our government can copyright laws change, and this can only be done through public demand of politicians to make changes in the law.
Websites denouncing copyright laws should, at the very least, supply contact information (or a link to such information) of state politicians such that viewers can object the correct way.
But yet very, very few websites do such, making the entire argument for change pointless.
“While we never think it’s a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.”
Infringement, schminfringement. Transformative use, doesn’t affect the market, non-commercial use, use for commentary and criticism — the Asshole Competition is textbook fair use.
Mike Masnick is the biggest asshole cocksucker on the planet with a peanut brain! And that’s flattery!
It’s very interesting, but Who needs it? Bodybuilders needs best whey protein, Squirrel need a nut, but who needs it? I do not understand to whom could be useful