Chizip said:even if it was grafitti it probably would have been smart to check for the source of the image or if it had been copywrited before they brought it on a worldwide tour with them
Chizip said:even if it was grafitti it probably would have been smart to check for the source of the image or if it had been copywrited before they brought it on a worldwide tour with them
Klink said:
Artists have an automatic copyright on any work they produce, at least in North America. I am fairly certain it's the same in Europe.
The problem with grafitti, as I see it, is proof of ownership and date...not to mention that it is often illegally produced.
Jon
xmarcx said:WEll it's not like U2 are selling this design, or claiming credit for it--they just show an image of it....
Chizip said:Well if we're to trust this Zol guy, the originally artist was never contacted about it...
IF its true, its very hard to take the word of someone on the internet, specially someone who has just registerdChizip said:
well they are selling very expensive tickets to a show where the image is being used
if it is true that they used this image without securing it's rights, then i would think the original artist could make a very good case to some compensation
Miroslava said:
Oh, I remebered to bring my brain with me today, so forgive me if I am not trusting him right away with this kernel of knowlegde
If U2 and associate people were indeed stupid enough to steal without checking with the artist, the he should be suing them. However, I doubt this is the case and that the proper arrangements were made given prior precedent.
ramblin rose said:So if U2 did get permission from the artist why wouldn't Bono just credit the artist during the show instead of claiming he saw this graffiti somewhere in the midwest?
And are the two guys from Indiana crediting the original artist? Aren't they claiming it's their logo?
Miroslava said:
I have never heard Bono mention anything about seeing the graffiti somewhere... And in the past, I dont think any of the individual artists names were mentioned during the show, so not mentioning his name doesnt necessarily prove anything...
ramblin rose said:
The last 5 shows I went to (NY, Philly, 3 Boston) Bono made the same speech about there being some wall somewhere in the midwest with Coexist on it. I guess he never actually made reference to the logo, but he did point to his headband at some point during this speech. If I recall correctly you even hear him make this same speech on the Chicago bootlegs.
Doppelgang said:
Well, if there is any 'actual' legal recourse by any "owner" then most any lawyer would jump at the opportunity to excavate the goldmine of legal fees to be had by taking the case.
and i find the whole excuse that "he tried to get in touch with lawers" laughable, if someone wanted to take U2 too court over something, then they would be easily contacted through the courtsMiroslava said:
Exactly... so as I have been saying... if the artist was no consulted, then I would say that he has every right to sue and any lawyer willing to take his case could easily find the way to serve the lawsuit... so either Piotr is a lazy bum for not having sued yet or there is no lawsuit to be had because everything was properly handled.
I am going to go with option 2
xmarcx said:WEll it's not like U2 are selling this design, or claiming credit for it--they just show an image of it....
Miroslava said:
So there exists the possibility that Piotr sold the rights to the clothing manufacturer and granted U2 permission to use the image during the show but not to manufacture clothing with it as those rights were sold....
Pure speculation of course.
Miroslava said:It is indeed a known fact and I am 100% sure that the proper rights were acquired...
Miroslava said:
Exactly... so as I have been saying... if the artist was no consulted, then I would say that he has every right to sue and any lawyer willing to take his case could easily find the way to serve the lawsuit... so either Piotr is a lazy bum for not having sued yet or there is no lawsuit to be had because everything was properly handled.
I am going to go with option 2
Achtung Ya'll said:
and from your first post:
So....which is it? 100% known fact or pure speculation?
Achtung Ya'll said:
what about option 3? That he never was contacted but isn't a blatant asshole and isn't going to sue over it. He'll just shrug it off since there's no real profit stealing going on.