stevec said:
Interesting thread!
If we assume that Bono thought the Coexist graffiti was simply graffiti, or had implied / express permission from the students he thought were the creators, then I don't think it could (or should) be taken further. It's a mistake on his part and nothing more.
The "logo"for want of better description, is not being used in such a way that it promotes a song, or concert, or a tour either. You could argue that it is therefore not being used to make money, while at the same time denying the creator a share. It is being used to promote an ideal - A sound one at that - which the creator was also trying to do.
Its use could conceivably be covered in the "Fair Use" exemption to US Copyright, allowing an image or symbol to be used without express permission in commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education. Actually it works retroactively, as in the band is sued - admit culpability - claim "fair use" - possibly offer some kind of compensation.
For this to work however, U2 will need to make sure that the "logo" is attributed to the artist from now on. Other considerations must also be made, such as not harming the owner's gain from its commercial value (should it have one).
Given the way that the "logo" is used by U2 however, I think that legal action would a last resort and may ultimately harm the creator and his integrity. As I think someone mentioned earlier, for a globally known band like U2 to use an image, it guarantees a lot of exposure and potentially a lot of future earnings or commisions for the artist.
In short, if no arrangement has been made to attribute the work to Piotr, then it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity. That, in my opinion anyway, is the fairest way to resolve any issues that may arise from this.
I honestly think it is a simple misunderstanding, born of nothing but good intentions. I guess many a law suit begins that way tho eh? 
Hi stevec,
I work in the art business and I've seen this type of situation before on many occasions and as a general rule artists have the right of refusal since they own the copyrights to any work they produce. True that U2 is using the image with the best of intentions but it can be argued, I think, that their intentions and the music that expresses them, as well as the tour, generates a lot of revenue. What follows is obvious; it can be construed that U2 is using copyrighted material in order to enhance an already lucrative tour production.
For a good understanding of copyright laws, here is an example from the US gov't;
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
Now for the "Fair Use Limitation"
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
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.
My reponses:
In terms of 1) we have determined it could work against U2 since this is part of a "for profit" and actually highly lucrative tour.
2) If the image used is a work of art and it can be attributed to this artist, then it is protected by copyright laws. This also works against U2.
3) Subject to the truth of 2, if U2 has used a key element or substancial portion of the work by this artist it will also work against U2.
4) This could have clearly work in U2's favour as it gives the work gret exposure. Where U2 will run into difficulty is they have not attributed the work to the artist so whereas the image is getting exposure, the artist who should be benefitting is not. It doesn't do much good for artist X if I promote his/her work without an attribution.
Even if number 4 were to be judged in U2's favour I will tell you that from my experience it is the least important factor. The artists permission is the most important.
I do agree with you that a law suit is unecessary, though. It's likely just a mistake and it sound like the artist is a good spirited one. I think an apology would probably be sufficient, although if U2 is going to continue using the image they will have to get permission. As you said, though, even benign issues can cause a stir. Let's hope not.
regards,
Jon
