It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pepe the Frog's Creator Goes Legally Nuclear - Avatar Issues?

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mericks74

Thank you for letting me explain a bit....Have a good one..............





posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
.
edit on 19-9-2017 by mericks74 because: Be..



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


So, does this also include Kek? A totally distinct entity from Pepe.




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: AboveBoard

LINK


107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

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

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


The whole thing seems pretty gray to me beyond what I bolded above.


Yeah the person he is suing is in the clear under fair use. From what I remember she is a painter and is painting these parody pieces of pepe.

She's not making copies and selling prints of his original images. So she's not making money off his artwork. She's making a money off her artwork(painting and interpretation of the subject). She is allowed by law to have her paintings of pepe scanned and digitally printed in mass if she wants to and the pepe creator couldn't do anything.

Lots of gray areas in the art world. I've heard of and dealt with situations like this numerous times in my line of work(working artist). Gotten a couple C&D letters myself (fox and misfits) . Both panned out to be nothing because of the above mentioned.

In short, She's not copying his art work and selling it. She's interpreting a subject and selling her interpretation. If anything this Matt guy is trying to make money on someone with more artistic talent than he has.

Edit to add :just realized this is might not be the about the painter specifically but the same thing goes for other images of pepe.
edit on 20-9-2017 by PlasticWizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: AboveBoard


So, does this also include Kek? A totally distinct entity from Pepe.



People are using Pepe to represent Kek, but Kek him/herself is obviously thousands of years old, so to seriously answer your question: no.




There are lots of frogs out there that aren't copyrighted like Pepe and Kermit. The frog may just be greener on the other side of the fence...or less green...or at least not potentially cost so much green?

🐸



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: PlasticWizard

Not sure she is in the clear, actually, but the courts will decide.

Here is a art law journal article relevant to the discussion:

Posting an internet meme? You may get a Getty letter...

From the article linked:


Can a Meme Be Considered a Fair Use Image?

We’ve previously discussed the fair use doctrine as it applies to posting copyrighted images, and how the doctrine can be used as a defense against allegations of copyright infringement.

As we know, only a copyright holder has the exclusive rights to a creative work, and only they can grant a person a license to use their image or work. This exchange often involves an exchange of money, like Getty’s licensing rights calculator was designed to show.

However, the fair use doctrine does make some exceptions if it can be shown that a potential infringer’s use of the image serves the public good by meeting certain exceptions.

The fair use doctrine is outlined by U.S. copyright laws, and the Copyright Office has created a Fair Use Index of the overwhelming case law on the subject.

Courts tend to measure fair use by these four prongs outlined in § 107 of the Copyright Act: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It’s been widely held that the first prong of fair use will be satisfied if you’re using the image for purposes of commentary, criticism, reporting, or teaching.

In addition, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a parody and or a satire may qualify as a fair use image under the Copyright Act since it’s a commentary on an original work.

Parody and Satire for Fair Use Images

In a landmark decision involving parody, satire, and fair use, the Supreme Court set out to define parody and its importance when dealing with fair use. According to the Court, a parody is the “use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.”

Like other forms of comment or criticism, parody can provide a social benefit, “by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.”



This journal has several articles that might help:
Article list/ links

He has won one case already, and fair-use laws are narrow. I'm not sure how other cases will go, but the artist now has legal precedent on his side to pursue a similar outcome from others.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I find it amazing how so many on this site act like this artist has no right or grounds to defend his IP from being co-opted by a group he doesn't agree with. I thought the Right were all about protection of property rights.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I find it amazing how so many on this site act like this artist has no right or grounds to defend his IP from being co-opted by a group he doesn't agree with. I thought the Right were all about protection of property rights.


The Internet has giving the illusion that everything is "free use."

I'm with the artist on this one. This is his property and it has been stolen for others to profit from and use against his intention.

Just because Pepe's not as "obviously known" as say, Mickey Mouse, or Kermit the Frog (also used by alt-right to some degree), doesn't mean that he's "fair usage" for whatever...




posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry are sued out of existence - they both shared Pepe images on social media. Then again, they are both retard poster children so they will get a free pass. Only conservatives and Nazis are not allowed to post kek.

Anyway, creative commons (not a legally binding entity) dictates that the image can be shared and modified at will.

I hope Matt Furie gets ZERO money and is tied up in court attempting to sue certain folks whilst ignoring others.

He needs to deal with it, the tool that he is.




posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

At issue, is if you're using the image for commercial purposes.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry are sued out of existence - they both shared Pepe images on social media. Then again, they are both retard poster children so they will get a free pass. Only conservatives and Nazis are not allowed to post kek.

Anyway, creative commons (not a legally binding entity) dictates that the image can be shared and modified at will.

I hope Matt Furie gets ZERO money and is tied up in court attempting to sue certain folks whilst ignoring others.

He needs to deal with it, the tool that he is.





This article helps. It is detailed. Creative Commons doesn't seem to apply? I'm not a legal expert but he's already won one case so that makes it seem as if his rights were violated and his IP stolen.

Pepe was not originally created to be "Kek" and the image creator of the character "Pepe" is pissed that his image has been, in his mind, twisted from its original intent. He did not give his permission for it to be used this way.

Copyright infringement did occur and he has rights
Sorry you disagree with that. Should he not have rights?

Graphic Arts: Copyright rules



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

LOL so true. I find the whole duality quite hilarious, if not confusing when I had first heard of them in 2016




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
We gotta get someone to do a Pepe cartoon to a pirated Metallica tune.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join