Comments on: Blatant ripoff? Or "close to the line"? You decide

Blatant ripoff? Or "close to the line"? You decide

surplus — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:46:39 -0800

Enforcing your visual copyright is easier if you register your work. Li Zheng taught fine art at Appalachian State 20 years ago, then began selling his paintings to galleries. After a hiatus in China, he returned to America to discover one of his paintings is being mass produced and sold at Kohl's, JC Penneys, and at least 2 dozen other retailers, including -- busted! -- artheist.com "it's a steal!" Main link has original, copy, and describes his uphill legal battle.

By: spock

spock — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:56:32 -0800

>Enforcing your visual copyright is easier if you register your work. May I just say "duh".

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:56:45 -0800

Hey, if Bob Dylan can get away with showing his crap at Gagosian, this guy stands no chance.

By: clvrmnky

clvrmnky — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:58:54 -0800

I'm not saying this is a good idea, but one /could/ order 999 copies of this from "art heist" and have it delivered to "You Suck, Alaska". They take personal checks.

By: sfts2

sfts2 — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:06:06 -0800

Blatant ripoff.

By: surplus

surplus — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:06:23 -0800

Blatant ripoff. Yet somehow the law prof at U Va isn't so sure.

By: ChurchHatesTucker

ChurchHatesTucker — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:12:04 -0800

The brushwork and colors were a messy and incompetent imitation of Zheng Li's original Piano No. 9," the lawsuit states, "but the underlying visual image was an exact duplicate. It's incompetent and exact.

By: XMLicious

XMLicious — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:38:19 -0800

The copy might even simply be the original image passed through a filter like Gimpressionist.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:10:15 -0800

"The underlying visual image may be an exact duplicate," says the defense lawyer, "but the messy and incompetent part is what sells."

By: underflow

underflow — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:26:11 -0800

A number of ceramics artists that I know of were refusing to display their better works for this reason. Too many copies (from China?) were showing up soon after works entered galleries that allowed photography.

By: charlie don't surf

charlie don't surf — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:30:47 -0800

It looks like there's a whole industry of "coloratura" works by this fictitious entity "P Roberts." underflow, would you elaborate on that? Are your artist friends actually encountering exact copies? How do they find out about them?

By: valkyryn

valkyryn — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:45:20 -0800

Li can prove that he created his work first, but because it wasn't registered first, it may cut down on the amount of damages he can receive. There are really two things going on here. The first has to do with liability. The key is that copyright extends to specific expressions fixed in a tangible medium. It does not extend to ideas. So the question has to do with whether the "P. Robert" image is actually a copy of "Piano No. 9" or merely a very close imitation. The latter might not actually constitute infringement. But that doesn't have anything to do with registration, it's just a question of whether what's going on here is actually infringement at all. The only thing I can think of related to registration and liability is that registration does serve as evidence of when a work was created. But Li can probably prove that even in the absence of registration, so I'm having trouble seeing how late registration is going to hurt him here. The other has to do with damages, and that's where the registration part comes in. I was recently involved in a copyright case where the copyright owner discovered the alleged infringing activity, sent a cease and desist, and when the alleged infringer didn't adequately satisfy the plaintiff's demands, registered the copyrights and filed suit. I was for the defense. One of the first things we did was move to dismiss any claims for statutory damages, because the works weren't registered before the allegedly infringing activity began. This would have limited any damages to actual damages (and attorney fees, per the statute), far less than the $160,000 per infringement available under statutory damages. The plaintiff would have needed to prove exactly what the alleged infringement netted the defendant. As the works in question were something the plaintiff gave away for free, the absence of statutory damages could have taken a claim that could theoretically have been something like half a million plus fees down to something like fifteen bucks plus fees.* We wound up settling before our motion to dismiss was ruled upon, but I'm pretty confident that the unavailability of statutory damages is what made the plaintiff willing to settle so quickly. He wound up getting two things: an injunction prohibiting further infringement and about two-thirds of his fees in a settlement check. But the facts are a bit different here. In the case I'm describing, the alleged infringement had to do with a catalog. The copyright holder didn't actually give a fig about the work itself, as it distributes copies for free. In this case, the work in question is actively being marketed. Here, Li can probably argue that every copy by "P. Robert" constitutes a lost sale of his work, entitling Li to all the profits from every such sale. That could well make his actual damages bigger than what would be allowed under statutory damages. The lack of registration isn't necessarily going to hurt him here. *Indeed, if fees weren't on the line, it's doubtful the case would have settled. To get anything in actual damages, the plaintiff would have needed to convince the court that every sale the defendant made during the period of infringement constituted profits to which the plaintiff was entitled. Given the facts, that was going to be an uphill battle. But because attorney fees are part of the statute, a $1 award of actual damages could have grounded a six-figure award of fees.

By: underflow

underflow — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:46:11 -0800

Unfortunately, I don't have many details. Mrs. Underflow was part of the Boulder Potter's Guild. A number of members reported low quality copies (I'm assuming slip cast and mostly dip glazed) showing up at small "craft" shows and flea markets, soon after those pieces had been displayed in galleries and showings. This all came up in a discussion on whether to allow cameras during the guild sales. Were they exact, or were the artists being too sensitive? It's hard to say, but the timing was at least suspicious.

By: spitbull

spitbull — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:26:13 -0800

Art wants to be free.

By: spock

spock — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:07:31 -0800

Do not anthropomorphize Art. It hates it when you do that.