Graphic Artist Copies Wayne Reynolds art for Rush Limbaugh newsletter

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Fair enough- I WAS giving only part of the Cliff's a notes version, which Umbran just filled in.

 

[Kaodi]

If they had used a cover version of a song without authorization of the original artist, would that be illegal? Because this looks to be comparable to that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yup...ask Richard Ashcroft what he bought with the royalties from "Bittersweet Symphony"...and then run. His band (The Verve) used a huge sample from an obscure Rolling Stones song in that one- the album's first single and a massive hit- and got caught. All of the royalties were rerouted.

It's a good thing the Stones caught him early, too. There's another song on that album that was never released as a single that is a ripoff of a track from Aphrodite's Child's double album, 666 (The Apocalypse of John, 13/18). Obscure band? Yes...but also the beginning of the career of guy who goes by the name Vangelis- he might have been able and willing to roast the Verve in court himself.

(I'm pretty sure that if two music icons successfully sue you for copyright infringement in the British courts, you get to mine coal in Newcastle. )

 

[S'mon]

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.

Limbaugh had nothing to do with it; it seems likely that the artist thought no one would notice; but in any case there may (or may not) be a fair use parody defence.

 

[S'mon]

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.

You're certainly right on the latter point. On the former point, well the site I quoted was giving the most restrictive interpretation of Pro Sieben, as it's a site giving advice on how to be safe and not be sued. I'd say there was about a 40-50% chance a good lawyer could win on the facts in this Limbaugh rat monster cartoon situation under UK law, and probably higher in the US, so I doubt WoTC/Hasbro will be suing the artist or newsletter, although their lawyers might 'ask him nicely' not to do it again.

Edit: Winning a copyright case can be surprisingly hard if the other side has an IP lawyer; it's not like trade mark law which IME is a lot more claimant friendly these days.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the former point, well the site I quoted was giving the most restrictive interpretation of Pro Sieben, as it's a site giving advice on how to be safe and not be sued.

IDK...my take on American law is that it really would need to be "aimed at a particular work" or "a wider matter of which the work in question forms an example", so if Rush doesn't lose, it will probabaly be because Reynolds/WotC/Hasbro doesn't feel it's worth their time, especially if Rush throws a bunch of $$$ at it himself, or convinces a judge that his organization had no active or knowledgable participation in the infringement, hanging the artist out to dry. In which case, the Rush will likely just get a C&D letter while the artist gets hit with a low-dollar, quickly settled lawsuit & get blackballed by Habro/WotC...and possibly Rush's organization as well.

 

[Squire James]

There is an element of parody in the newsletter cover, just not a direct parody of the art being depicted. I think of it more as a political cartoon, and a rather clever one actually (not saying I agree with the message or anything like that). Whether it's a legal issue or not is mostly a matter of perceived harm, and I don't see much harm in it.

 

[Umbran]

so if Rush doesn't lose, it will probabaly be because Reynolds/WotC/Hasbro doesn't feel it's worth their time, especially if Rush throws a bunch of $$$ at it himself

Yes, there is a point here. I'm sure Rush is a wealthy man. Rich, even. But rich on an "individual person" scale. Hasbro is a multi-billion dollar corporation, with (I expect) more lawyers than Rush can count, many of which specialize in IP. In a legal contest, Rush is the smaller fry.

I expect Hasbro wouldn't want to deal with it, simply because it really isn't costing them much, and they would have no desire to be painted with a political brush.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, that's what I mean- if Rush wants to fight, WotC/Hasbro may just say "Screw it" unless they feel strongly enough about the association with US politics being a negarive.

 

[billd91]

Yes, there is a point here. I'm sure Rush is a wealthy man. Rich, even. But rich on an "individual person" scale. Hasbro is a multi-billion dollar corporation, with (I expect) more lawyers than Rush can count, many of which specialize in IP. In a legal contest, Rush is the smaller fry.

Smaller than Hasbro? Yes. But best estimates put his wealth pretty high. Any corporation expecting they're taking him on a small fry is probably in for a big surprise. I wouldn't be surprised at a cease and desist order from WotC, and I doubt either party would see the issue so important they'd have to put up a fight. I would expect a cease and desist order to be obeyed.