I've recently been seeking out web sites and blogs that tend to post a lot of "homage" movie posters that infringe upon intellectual property by using film names/actors/etc. on their prints. I've been commenting on various posts that feature the work of these artists and attempting to educate both the readers and the sites/blogs' administrators themselves that these "homages" are not cool and actually hurt other artists like those who work with Mondo, etc.
If you have the time, I'd like to get the participation of others by posting links in this thread to offending sites/artists/posters and commenting on posts by various sites that feature these artists. My hope is that when people see artists themselves commenting on these posts, they'll begin to understand the rules and why it hurts us to break them.
The more people know the rules, hopefully the less we'll see of these offending artists and sites.
Anyway, for now here are a couple links you can feel free to comment on and spread the word:
Film and television like theater before it are part of our culture's vernacular. I don't really have a problem with designers trying their hand at redesigning old work. Some are pretty bad and others are clever and contain quite a lot of meta content that the original posters could not have had. If mondo wants to protect their legalized ripping off of other people's original ideas, so be it, but they are just the other side of the same coin.
I disagree slightly...I think it's fine to do as many "homage" posters you like, but when you place the title of the intellectual property (movie), you're infringing on that property's copyright. Not that I care so much about the movie studios losing money, but when people do this they're taking a shortcut around the licensing $ they should be paying (as Mondo does) to use these properties for profit. Which literally takes money out of people like Kevin Tong or Aaron Horkey's pockets. Do as many "homages" to public domain properties as you like if you want to try your hand at "redesigning old work".
Let's say you are a musician in a cafe playing requests, you also technically have to pay a fee every time you play someone else's song that are not in the public domain. I seriously doubt unlicensed Ms. Subway performer is taking any cash out of licensed Mr. Cafe performer when she sings her version of Let it Be.
But if Tong or Horkey have a problem with it they can get their muscle to send a CD letter. Easy enough, but it's a fine line to walk.
Exactly. Mr. Subway performer isn't taking any cash out of the Beatle's pockets. But these artists are. People don't know when they're buying an unlicensed movie poster because they aren't aware of the dynamics of the business behind this art. So when John Doe buys a poster from Matt Needle instead of Kevin Tong (I don't know why they would, but clearly he's doing well), he's lost that business. To simply say Mondo makes enough money and can have their lawyers go after them is irresponsible. They shouldn't NEED to go after anyone. And it's so easy to do it the right way, so why not? Just to stick it to other artists? Yes, the offended properties can get their lawyers to send a letter, but why make them do it when it's so easy to simply not use the name of the movies?
I could've easily added text that said "The Walking Dead" but I didn't because that would be infringing on AMC's property. Fans of the show recognize that it's an homage to the show, but I'm not stealing anyone's intellectual property. It's that easy.
You miss-quoted me. I never mentioned the Beatles and it was "Ms." subway performer
I also didn't mention Mondo's lawyers as I assume the artists have the copyright. If not then well...
Apparently, it's not "so easy". If it was, then artist on featured on this site wouldn't have to talk about sending CD letters every few months.
Really, I don't care... I'm eating my lunch, and I've already read the news. I would never sweat you on your use of the winnebago "W" either, seems fair use to me.