Graphic Artist Copies Wayne Reynolds art for Rush Limbaugh newsletter

[Tequila Sunrise]

Didn't Weird Al start asking permission from artists after Coolio made a stink about Amish Paradise?

 

[Umbran]

Didn't Weird Al start asking permission from artists after Coolio made a stink about Amish Paradise?

No, he was asking long before then, but had more trust about it.

With Amish Paradise, Al talked to Coolio's label, and they gave him permission, with the impression that Coolio himself was okay with it. Since that dust-up, Al now makes sure he communicates with the artist directly, not accepting the word of flunkies.

(Oh, and I was incorrect - for example, "Perform This Way" was recorded and released on YouTube without Lady Gaga's permission, but wasn't on the album until he had permission)

 

[Jupp]

What is the title of this trace job? Taxrat vs. Rush Limbough?

Don't really like the trace job version, looks like a fast photoshop thing (which it probably is). The "artist" used internet textures on layers and did some fast shading over them. You can't compare that to the work done on Reynolds original.

And who the heck is Rush Limbough?

 

[Shemeska]

And who the heck is Rush Limbough?

A poltical talk radio host.

 

[S'mon]

Actually, I see it falling under "criticism and comment", much in the same way that periodicals like Mad magazine often feature cover illustrations based heavily on pop culture artwork and icons, including art and likenesses ostensibly protected by copyright under normal circumstances.

Yes; in the UK too, a criticism/comment defense is usually the best for stuff like this. You can (possibly) use a piece of art X to satirise unrelated political policy Y, and that can be fair use of X.
However, pretending that it is an original piece of work would likely take it out of fair use/fair dealing.

 

[S'mon]

For that to be the case, the IP in question has to directly be addressed by the criticism and commentary. IOW, they would have to be criticizing and commenting upon the IP- in this case, the original art of Wayne Reynolds.

Not (exactly) in the UK - I'd be surprised if the US had less free speech protection than the UK.

http://copyrighttoolkit.com/permitted.html

The fair dealing defence can be made out even where the criticism or review is not aimed at a particular work, but rather a wider matter of which the work in question forms an example. In Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd (2000) ECDR 110, the defendants’ television broadcast sought to criticise cheque-book journalism of all types, and used a clip from a German television broadcast as one illustration of the matter. The Court of Appeal held that the fair dealing defence was applicable as the effect of the broadcast was to criticise the distortion of truth which cheque-book journalism could produce.

There was also a case with photos of David & Victoria Beckham also used to criticise paparazi journalism; the pictures themselves were not criticised; however unlike the US we don't have a specific parody defense, so it's uncertain how Rush vs Giant Rat would turn out.

 

[S'mon]

I don't understand what is the poll question...

But anyway, IMHO (but I'm definitely not an expert in IP laws) this picture should not be illegal. It's a remake of somebody else's art, but normally what is copyrighted is the original art itself...

Adaptations/derivatives of the original are also covered, which is pretty clearly the case here.

 

[Li Shenron]

Adaptations/derivatives of the original are also covered, which is pretty clearly the case here.

Then it must certainly be that RL asked for and obtained permission, I may not know the law but a publishing company most certainly does.

 

[Umbran]

Not (exactly) in the UK - I'd be surprised if the US had less free speech protection than the UK.

Permitted Acts

The fair dealing defence can be made out even where the criticism or review is not aimed at a particular work, but rather a wider matter of which the work in question forms an example.

Well, then he'd have to be criticizing fantasy art in general,or D&D art in general, or somesuch, rather than the particular work. However, I think it is reasonable to say that the use of the art in this case is *not* directed at the art, in specific or in general.

 

[Jupp]

A poltical talk radio host.

Thanks, I've googled him up now. He looks and acts like Lewis Prothero