Ghostbusters 2 Life size Vigo painting

[tk1055]

However should we follow that line of though then NO runs would ever be done since we would all require permission from either the film artist OR the studio.

Unless you were counting those who recreate something from scratch as the artist as well.

 

[tk1055]

disregard

 

[Alan Castillo]

Therefor, then Hotshot needs to "Put up or shut up" on his claim. ... correct?

Hotshot's claims, as I understand them, are intrinsically linked to the original artist and any alledged rights over the image.

My dad always told me never to pull out a pistol unless I intended to use it.

Same goes with a mouth.

In simple words - yes.

Gun is out - now fire it.

 

[tk1055]

Good man, your dad.

on the same token the artists both need to step up as well (original creator and the person Khunter.)

According to US copyright Khunter as the photographer of those shots DOES hold a copyright in regards to THOSE PARTICULAR pictures. Therefore any derived work is in violation of said copyright.

HOWEVER considering what this hobby does let us put Copyright to the side shall we?

 

[Alan Castillo]

HOWEVER considering what this hobby does let us put Copyright to the side shall we?

Couldn't agree with you more :thumbsup

That's how I started giving my opinions on this case, with this 'disclaimer'

As has been said a gazillion times, its all a 'grey area'. So lets leave the general issue copying props per se out of the picture on this one. We are all treading in 'muddy waters' with this hobby in one form or another.

This particular matter only got complicated with alledged claims of rights from the original artist arising.

That would be akin to getting a C&D from a Studio.

But since it seems this is not the case, back to square 1, & lets leave official copyrights etc out of this one.

 

[tk1055]

Ghostbusters 2 paintings, showoff thread - The Ghostbusters Message Board

here is his claim to being in contact with the original painter for any interested.

 

[Alan Castillo]

Ghostbusters 2 paintings, showoff thread - The Ghostbusters Message Board

here is his claim to being in contact with the original painter for any interested.

Interesting reading that.

This is pretty salient, and somewhat non-sequitur too though.

"It’s come to my attention that there are individuals on the web selling prints of Vigo. These individuals are also saying that they have the blessing of the artist that created the work. This is not true. I have never given anyone permission to sell copies of Vigo, for any reason. Further, as I’ve noted above, there were at least a hundred people involved in the creation of Vigo, from the production, from ILM, and from my team. No one person can claim to be “the artist” who created it."

So it looks like its boiled down to the use of the photo of the painting, which, it seems, there was permission to use, as claimed by hotshot

" I've recevied emails back from the origanl owner of the image, as well as from AZSpidey who's digital art image was used and Howlrunner who posted the image. Rollerboi's unreachable, as he's just had a baby, nd will porbably take some time to get back to me.

AZSpidey and Howlrunner believe as I do, that the arguement of getting permission to use a public domain image is pretty ridiculous.

I received an email from the owner of the image today, via her email on her blog. She has no probelm wiht the image being used, but advises me to watch my back if I'm making money.

She's also asked that any mention of her name or screenname be removed.
I'll be forwarding the email to Chad, and at this point, I expect an apology from Kingpin."


From what I am seeing here, all hotshot should do is to forward that email to the RPF staff too, as he did on the other site.

 

[tk1055]

Agreed, however I need to address this part

AZSpidey and Howlrunner believe as I do, that the arguement of getting permission to use a public domain image is pretty ridiculous.

If indeed it is a public domain image then why did he get so "fussy" about Supermans run?

 

[Alan Castillo]

why did he get so "fussy" about Supermans run?

He seemed to be ticked off in Superman's thread because he thought that the image he worked on / cleaned up etc for his run, was going to be used in Superman's run.

 

[Alan Castillo]

... which takes me full circle back to my original statement :

The person who, through his/her efforts, spends hours on end photoshopping it to 'restored condition', has every (big inverted commas) "right" to get (again big inverted commas) "annoyed" if someone takes his (big inverted commas) "work", and peddles it for cash.

Ah yes, grey areas indeed.

And this applies to alot of matters, not specifically to the Vigo issue alone.

 

[exoray]

AZSpidey and Howlrunner believe as I do, that the arguement of getting permission to use a public domain image is pretty ridiculous.

Just want to clarify something, the image is NOT public domain...

Just because an image is posted on the Internet, published or handed to someone DOES NOT make it public domain nor does it transfer ownership, that is simply urban legend and uneducated pretend... And the Internet has spread this silliness like a forest fire out of control...

The image in question will ONLY BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN after one of these clocks expires...

70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first

So in short the public domain card can't be called for another 73 years or until at least 2083... This is black and white law, no gray area the image(s) in question are still fully protected by Copyright in all enforceable forms by it's owner... There is no provision in law for release of ownership early. only the granting of permission to use or transfer of ownership to another party...

Beyond that this whole hobby is built out of a gray tinted glass held together by a code of honor among thieves...

 

[tk1055]

Well that's just it, He says in one sentence that the image is public domain but in another it is not. He says the image for his run was this one http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2252/vigocarpathiannoscratch.jpg

but that pic originated here http://www.zteamproductions.com/images/vigo_carpathian.jpg

and according to Vigo Painting - The Ghostbusters Message Board credit for clean up actually goes to Ghostbusters213.

So which is it public domain OR permission from the artist?

 

[Alan Castillo]

this whole hobby is built out of a gray tinted glass held together by a code of honor among thieves...

:thumbsup

 

[tk1055]

Just want to clarify something, the image is NOT public domain...

Just because an image is posted on the Internet, published or handed to someone DOES NOT make it public domain nor does it transfer ownership, that is simply urban legend and uneducated pretend... And the Internet has spread this silliness like a forest fire out of control...

The image in question will ONLY BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN after one of these clocks expires...

70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first

So in short the public domain card can't be called for another 73 years or until at least 2083... This is black and white law, no gray area the image(s) in question are still fully protected by Copyright in all enforceable forms by it's owner... There is no provision in law for release of ownership early. only the granting of permission to use or transfer of ownership to another party...

Beyond that this whole hobby is built out of a gray tinted glass held together by a code of honor among thieves...

This I do know, I mention it because he is using two different excuses
1. oh it is public domain
2. oh I had the ok from the artist.

My thought to this is
if they considered it public domain then they can't get "fussy" with Superman.

 

[tk1055]

I also need to point out this thread
Vigo Painting - Page 4 - The Ghostbusters Message Board

specifically this post
I think you need to back down and stay on topic, and not engage in blatant trolling and flaming.

"If you actually did any research into this, you'd know that the community effort that it took to get this done was extraordinary, and I was extremely lucky to be in on the project. The fact that it was done so fast and so cheaply (at cost) is what got the studio's attention, and got me the 4 Muses painting.

I'm offended that you would simply state a beligerant flasehood and try to take away from the huge amount of success this project was.

If you can find a printer to make these 1:1 5x8 feet tall, on canvas, hi-res, shipped worldwide, for under 200 bucks, go for it. Just be sure you get permission from the guys who did all the work like I did.

And next time you post a blantant accusation like that, have some kind of proof, and don't use a lazy modifier to cover your ass. "

All he did was find a printer and have it done.... so in reality he did the same thing that he accused Superman of (not doing the work and just printing)**

** I will add that he did have their permission to print.**

However, again I must ask in cases like this who has the ability to give the ok to do a run.

IE Joe, Bob, and Bobo all work hard to make a widget. Joe sculpts it, Bob molds it, Bobo polishes it.

Kevin comes along and says " hey guys I know a foundery that can make those for 5 dollars, if you let me I will take it and make them at cost for the rest of our friends."

Joe. Bob, and Bobo allow Kevin to do just that.

Now lets say Brad sees Kevin is no longer doing a run of said widget and would like to do the same thing, who does he get the ok from?

Joe, Bob, Bobo, Kevin? Does he have to go to all of them, one of them, do they all have to agree? Does majority rule? (Ie Jo and Bob say yes Bobo says no.) Does Kevin even get a say?

 

[tripoli]

"I am sorry that I do not recall the thread being shut down. I think only the OMNI cover was removed at that time. But to be clear, you would have liked to see legal action taken? Yet legal action is a bannable offense?"

We did shut down the thread after you contacted us saying you had contacted the original artist and the the was taking action to have the sale ended. You requested that the thread be shut down immediately.

Going to a studio or having legal action brought against a member of the board by a studio is against the COC and is a bannable offense. It would depend if you are targeting an individual or bringing attention to the board here.
Having made the threat and us taking down the thread on the short term, I would have liked to hear back from you on it officially being taken action of as you had noted it was in the process of, or other actions by you. You went silent after that pm and we ended up allowing the sale to go on because of such.

I don not wish the threat of studio legal action on anyone, its a scary proposition to face. Its a heart stopper for anyone to have to go through.

 

[tk1055]

So then the same could be said about the threat from Hotshot to ectoman correct?

 

[tripoli]

I just went in to pull a quote out of it but do not see it any longer. I may be missing it or the moderators may have changed the policy and use other rules to cover such. ( mods please correct if needed).
It was policy of the past that anyone that brought a studio down on another member would be banned. Threats could bring an infraction, bringing a real world legal issue/impact on someone was considered to be way to harsh of an act to overlook and would result in the banning of a member.

 

[Art Andrews]

AJ, you keep saying something about the original Vigo painter being allowed or not allowed to be upset. No one controls another's emotions. We can't start or stop the original artists irritation nor are we trying to do so. Everyone knows how this hobby works. If the original artists does have rights and if he is so egregiously offended at what has transpired, there are avenues available to him for resolution. If he chooses not to seek those avenues, and only chooses to express his displeasure... I don't see where that should dictate action on anyone's part. What we are not going to get into or debate is whether or not he has a legal leg to stand on. I am sure you will say that he does, but we find in most cases, those who have a legal leg to stand on exercise their rights and make their wishes happen. Those who don't just complain loudly... or those who tend to agree with them, but really don't have a dog in the fight tend to pick up the banner for that person and want to play savior on their behalf. If the original artist were to step forward and show that they held the legal right to the painting, and asked that we not allow the painting to be copied and distributed through this site, we would likely comply, but that always happens on a case by case basis. And if that were to happen, we wouldn't retroactively take action against those who have distributed the piece in the past.

What you are suggesting is that we bend and comply to the whim of every Joe Blow who comes by with a claim of "that is illegal" or "I own the rights to that" or "you must take that down because I said so." As a service provider, and not the author to the majority of the content on the site, the fact is, we don't. Beyond that, most of the time, those making threats don't know anything about how the legal system operates and what is actionable and what is not. I won't claim that I know it all, but as I have said before, I don't have to because we have a legal firm on retainer to advise us. I don't have to guess or posture. I just ask the professionals. If we did as you suggested and buckled to every whim that is backed with the CLAIM of legal standing, this site wouldn't still exist.

 

[Art Andrews]

( mods please correct if needed).
It was policy of the past that anyone that brought a studio down on another member would be banned. Threats could bring an infraction, bringing a real world legal issue/impact on someone was considered to be way to harsh of an act to overlook and would result in the banning of a member.

Montagar is our true historian, but yes, I believe that is more or less how the rules used to read.

The legal threat clause is now a part of the RESPECT section which reads.

Avoid harassing or making any type of threat, implied or expressed, including physical threats, or legal threats.

I will tell you, we have an absolute zero tolerance policy for anyone who brings any form of legal threat against the site itself and a near zero tolerance policy for any member who brings down the heat on another member.