THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

Search for:

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Home » Blog This

April 11, 2007

corporate copyright complications complete complexity coefficient

Posted by john_d at 02:37 PM ET

(image courtesy Urban Counterfeiters blog)

Okay, let's see if I can follow the thread here:

Boing Boing, famous for championing the copyleft reaction to corporate cultural lockdowns such as the well-documented Disney protectionism over the Mickey Mouse image (draw Mickey without pants; enjoy expensive philosophical discussions with Disney lawyers), has recently taken up the cause of independent artists who have their images used "without permission or payment" by corporations.

Boing Boing links to Urban Counterfeiters, a blog seemingly dedicated to outing the retail company Urban Outfitters for unlicensed commercial use of artists' work. The t-shirt logo shown above has apparently been remade by Urban Outfitters and is being sold without the permission of the original artist, Michael Leon.

Checking out the Michael Leon link provided by Boing Boing, we see the following image of some of his t-shirt designs.

(image courtesy commonwealthstacks.com)

Note the Mountain Dew (TM) logo "homage" in the bottom right corner. The Urban Counterfeiters blog also shows a t-shirt design utilizing the famous John Deere deer logo (with the deer producing a musical note fart) on a t-shirt intended to criticize the tractor company for tractors "polluting nature with their toxic farts." UC criticizes a company called Esprit Sport for using the same concept (moose farts this time).

So, am I getting this right? It's not cool for a retail corporation to use an image or concept created by someone else for commercial gain, especially if the image or concept uses an image or concept created and owned by a corporation AND is being used by an individual artist for commercial gain?

If only Walt Disney were around to create a simple line drawing of this based on someone else's simple line drawing. It would probably look like a goofy Arabian genie escaping from a bottle.

More entries on: Copyright/left

Previous: AFSCME: The f---ing union that works for you
Next: Greeks, Sex and Alanis

---

Reader comments:

Alanis's version is, at least in part, a parody of her own particular vocal style, and a demonstration of how emminently singable an lyrically empty song can be.

Posted by: Eric Grant at April 11, 2007 09:23 PM

•

I have no idea how my comment ended on this thread (although I'll blame the liberal media). It was meant for the one about Alanis Morisette/My Humps.

Posted by: Eric Grant at April 11, 2007 10:24 PM

•

I know what you mean - the Boingers do seem to be for or against copyright as and when it pleases. But I think there's a difference here - I just don't know how you'd make a law of it.

For Disney and Mountain Dew, the value of their "brand" is seeing it become part of the public world - and in that success we gain the right to knock it, and knock it off. Trademarks and so on give them essentially monopoly power in a certain realm.

For people who make their living selling a few T-shirts, ownership is all they've got. Corporations taking it without payment is taking food from mouths.

I'm sure there are gaps in the argument big enough to drive a truck through, but the inequality between Disney and Michael Leon does seem to me part of the story.

It's a bit like nationalism - I don't like it, but there is a difference between the nationalism of oppressed nations and the nationalism of imperialist nations. Or making jokes about the powerful, which is different from making jokes about the powerless.

And the Alanis version of the song is brilliant.

Posted by: tom s. at April 11, 2007 11:31 PM

•

hey tom s.,

My day job is almost entirely dedicated to advocating on behalf of small, independent artists in their dealings with powerful corporations, and copyright ownership is central in that advocacy. I completely agree that the inequality between the small and the large is part of the story. In some quite enlightened places in the world, I understand, this inequality is even factored into copyright law in order to protect and/or privilege the small.

And you are also correct to raise the issue of monopoly, although in the case of large companies like Disney I prefer to use the term a lawyer friend of mine is fond of -- oligopoly -- because the cultural chill many independent artists struggle with in their attempts at legitimate parody or comment is the responsibility of more than just the Mouse.

It may not be apparent, but my discussions of copyright and intellectual property on this blog and elsewhere revolve around my personal belief that copyright can and should be viewed as an essential individual right, along the same lines as freedom of expression. Each individual may choose what they wish to do with this right. If someone wants to waive their copyright to express their love of the cultural commons, then it is their individual right and freedom to do so. I would note, however, that without an underlying copyright law, waiving one's rights under law would be a meaningless gesture.

My impatience with Boing Boing is about intellectual rigour, I think, which makes my impatience a bit ridiculous because why am I expecting a blog to be rigorous? Still, I wish we could get past the level of argument that says corporations and government bad/ cool kids good.

It's like that Jonathan Lethem piece in Harper's a few issues back. In order to make the point that artistic creativity depends on a vital cultural commons, Lethem ends up making next to no distinction between various forms of intellectual and creative borrowing, and plagiarism. None other than Lawrence Lessig himself wrote into Harper's to say well, no, actually plagiarism is a bad thing.

I value Boing Boing as a watch dog on powerful corporations exercising their power responsibly, but Boing Boing's legitimacy as a watch dog is threatened when it fails to make important distinctions.

I work closely with freedom of expression advocates as well, and one of things we all struggle with all the time is defending this crucial right in the face of expression we despise. When someone says something we hate, we shouldn't attempt to weaken the right of expression, we should respond strongly to the hateful expression.

In my opinion, when someone uses copyright in a way we hate, we shouldn't attempt to weaken copyright law, we should respond strongly to the hateful use.

About Alanis -- I will fight to the death for her right to shake that thing, parody or otherwise.

Posted by: john_d at April 12, 2007 10:34 AM

•

It's not that complicated, John. Urban Outfitters stole the guy's work. In contrast, the "Mountain Dude" and John Deere shirts are parodies. Parody is protected under the fair use provisions of US copyright law.

Posted by: andrew at April 12, 2007 12:11 PM

•

Oh hell, absolutely Andrew, the point of law is as clear as can be.

It's the extreme interpretations of that law and the blurring of important distinctions on both sides that I find needlessly complicating... as in the Lethem piece, and as in a lot of the Boing Boing attitude, which portrays most copyright protection as short-sighted, greed-driven and against the public interest, unless it can be shown to be somehow anti-corporate. It is just amusingly ironic to me that the artists attempting to protect their work that Boing Boing chooses to highlight, are anti-corporate. Strangely, when writers protest about Google using their copyright protected work without permission, Boing Boing calls them "rent-seekers."

Ripping off is ripping off, whether a retail clothing chain does it, or an independent artist does it, or a giant search engine company does it. Excusing plagiarism in the name of fair use, as Lethem pretty much does in his article, does a disservice, in my opinion, to legitimate artists like parodists (?), who intend to stay within the happy confines of the law. Excusing Google for not doing a bit more paperwork on their way to the print-archiving-Nirvana might just make a retail clothing company wonder why it should attribute, seek permission and pay for art works.

Posted by: john_d at April 12, 2007 01:36 PM

•

john_d - nicely said. I agree with your take on Boing Boing. Neat site, but consistency, however uncool, does matter.

Posted by: tom s. at April 12, 2007 02:08 PM

•

this the time of appropiating...borrowing... when 'creative licence' refers to what we do with the 'other's' what can be created now that isn't already? therefore the property of an[other]? maybe the copyright structure[s] need re-visiting.
and yes...what goes for the goose must become relevant for the gander.

Posted by: allison at April 12, 2007 08:24 PM

•

---

Post your own comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

---

 Subscribe to the feed

---

Blog This Must-Reads

---

---

---

Blog This Archives

May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
March 2000

---