First Amendment & Nude Hockey Paintings

[August1991]

This is what I like about the United States. It take its principles seriously. In Canada, we let basic principles change according to the fad of the month.

Park also wondered how an artist could create a nude of a celebrity without permission. George Tobia Jr., an attorney at Burns & Levinson specializing in entertainment and copyright law, said Kauper could run into trouble were he to try to mass market Orr's image on T-shirts or postcards. But he has every right to paint him.

"There's a First Amendment right to artistic expression," Tobia said.

Link

You can see the painting here.

[Wilber]

Not very respectful to someone he claims to idolize.

[Guest coot]

This is what I like about the United States. It take its principles seriously.

You mean like how its principles regarding secret trials, free speech, wiretapping, and torture were upheld after 9/11?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not very respectful to someone he claims to idolize.

Perhaps not, but imagine the possibilities for expression in the same spirit as political cartoons. Didn't seem to be a big deal for John and Yoko, who self promoted with nudity.

For example, I would draw VP Dick Cheney with very large testicles!

[Drea]

and a teeny weeny head...

[Guest coot]

For example, I would draw VP Dick Cheney with very large testicles!

Do you have these drawings posted all over your bedroom wall?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you have these drawings posted all over your bedroom wall?

No, they are on neighborhood billboards...and CNN.

[Wilber]

Perhaps not, but imagine the possibilities for expression in the same spirit as political cartoons. Didn't seem to be a big deal for John and Yoko, who self promoted with nudity.

For example, I would draw VP Dick Cheney with very large testicles!

I don't have a problem with self promotion using nudity as long as it isn't using someone else's nudity without their permission. That is what this guy is doing and at the same time he is hypocritical enough to claim that he idolizes the subject. Sleezy.

BC you have a problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't have a problem with self promotion using nudity as long as it isn't using someone else's nudity without their permission. That is what this guy is doing and at the same time he is hypocritical enough to claim that he idolizes the subject. Sleezy.

BC you have a problem.

No, I have an idea that rubs your puritan mores the wrong way. In one fell swoop you have condemned a lot of artistic and political expression. Sleazy....

[M.Dancer]

Much ado about nothing.

[August1991]

You mean like how its principles regarding secret trials, free speech, wiretapping, and torture were upheld after 9/11?

If such activities occurred, and they are deemed contrary to the Bill of Rights, then they will be struck down. It took almost a century for the US to abolish slavery but it eventually it did.

Yes, the Americans take these principles seriously.

Edited December 5, 2007 by August1991

[Wilber]

No, I have an idea that rubs your puritan mores the wrong way. In one fell swoop you have condemned a lot of artistic and political expression. Sleazy....

I'm saying you don't do something that embarrasses a person in public and then claim you respect them. In my book that's sleazy. If that constitutes puritan mores then I guess I'm a puritan. What is someone who fantisizes about a picture of Cheney with big balls?

[bush_cheney2004]

... If that constitutes puritan mores then I guess I'm a puritan. What is someone who fantisizes about a picture of Cheney with big balls?

A political satirist. Your ideas on what constitutes "sleezy" is right at home with the Taliban. People can paint whatever the hell they please.

[Guest American Woman]

A political satirist. Your ideas on what constitutes "sleezy" is right at home with the Taliban. People can paint whatever the hell they please.

I agree with Wilber. And no, people can't paint "whatever the hell they please." At least not for a profit and/or public display. While evidently they can paint a real person, they couldn't paint Mickey Mouse. Seems to me a person should have same rights over their own face as a company has over a character.

Edited December 5, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

A political satirist. Your ideas on what constitutes "sleezy" is right at home with the Taliban. People can paint whatever the hell they please.

His paintings go for between 50 and 135K. They are neither political or satire. He capitalizes from others celebrity even if it means embarrassing them, all the while spouting about how much respect he has for them. That's sleazy.

I've never said he didn't have the right to paint it. As a matter of fact I think he does. But I am entitled to think and say that he is a sleaze just as much as he is to paint what he wants. If he is not a sleaze then he is just plain weird.

"I would call my interest in Bobby Orr more of an obsession at that age," said Kauper. "When we would play games in the neighborhood, cops and robbers, I would pretend I was Bobby Orr moonlighting as a cop."

If I was Orr I would ask for a court order to make sure he stayed at least 100 feet away from me.

[Sulaco]

I agree with Wilber. And no, people can't paint "whatever the hell they please." At least not for a profit and/or public display. While evidently they can paint a real person, they couldn't paint Mickey Mouse. Seems to me a person should have same rights over their own face as a company has over a character.

People can paint mickey mouse. It is a permissible use of copyrighted material. They can even display that painting.

http://www.batnet.com/~rjg/parody.html

http://www.net4tv.com/VOICE/Story.cfm?storyID=149

Edited December 5, 2007 by Sulaco

[Guest American Woman]

I questioned the "display" part myself even as I was writing my post, but people can't sell it, and that's what this thread is about-- Selling someone's image for a profit. So I'll leave the "display" part out of my post but still stand by my original statement: "Seems to me a person should have same rights over their own face as a company has over a character."

[Sulaco]

I questioned the "display" part myself even as I was writing my post, but people can't sell it, and that's what this thread is about-- Selling someone's image for a profit. So I'll leave the "display" part out of my post but still stand by my original statement: "Seems to me a person should have same rights over their own face as a company has over a character."

Under the right conditions they can sell that work as well. Imagine a politicla cartoonist commenting on Disney's leviathan like reach. he might draw a mickey mouse in front aof a map showing strategic plans for the conquest of Poland and then france. He woulkd, in fact, be able to sellt hat cartoon to newspapers and see it published and would have a defense that he did not violate copyright under the fair use doctrine.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Sulaco

[Guest American Woman]

Since I've never seen such a cartoon but have read of cases of Disney suing over the use of the Mickey character and winning, I'll just point out that you yourself said "under the right conditions." So that means I am right; people cannot paint and sell "whatever the hell they want" and once again, my original statement stands. The painting in question doesn't fall under your "fair use of doctrine" scenario, so I repeat: "Seems to me a person should have same rights over their own face as a company has over a character." And it seems to me you can't refute that.

[Sulaco]

Since I've never seen such a cartoon but have read of cases of Disney suing over the use of the Mickey character and winning, I'll just point out that you yourself said "under the right conditions." So that means I am right; people cannot paint and sell "whatever the hell they want" and once again, my original statement stands. The painting in question doesn't fall under your "fair use of doctrine" scenario, so I repeat: "Seems to me a person should have same rights over their own face as a company has over a character." And it seems to me you can't refute that.

Actually, I was addressing this sentence:

While evidently they can paint a real person, they couldn't paint Mickey Mouse.

[Guest American Woman]

You left out the preceding sentence: "At least not for a profit and/or public display." I already said I'd take back the "display" part (even though I'm not convinced you're right). So my argument stands.

Edited December 5, 2007 by American Woman

[Sulaco]

You left out the preceding sentence: "At least not for a profit and/or public display." I already said I'd take back the "display" part (even though I'm not convinced you're right). So my argument stands.

I am right on the for profit part as well.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...=all~order=page

http://rogerowengreen.blogspot.com/2006/01...-book-pt-1.html

Edited December 5, 2007 by Sulaco

[bush_cheney2004]

I am right on the for profit part as well.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~c...=all~order=page

http://rogerowengreen.blogspot.com/2006/01...-book-pt-1.html

Indeed.....political cartoonists can draw such content and "sell" it as well to syndicated newspapers. Anyone who has ever seen a copy of Al Goldstein's "Screw" magazine would know this. Gee, I thought these "liberals" knew their stuff.

Edited December 6, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest coot]

Anyone who has ever seen a copy of Al Goldstein's "Screw" magazine would know this. Gee, I thought these "liberals" knew their stuff.

Is that even still published? I haven't seen a copy of that since I was a kid.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that even still published? I haven't seen a copy of that since I was a kid.

Yes...Screw went through bankruptcy in 2003 and was sold to another publisher. Circulation is now less than 25,000.