If you are going to use someone else’s artwork for your avatar, stay clear of Takashi Murakami’s stuff or you may be receiving a shakedown letter asking you for $500.
A member of a poker site called twoplustwo named Mephisto uses one of Murakami’s images (And Then, And Then And Then And Then And Then Blue version) as his 80×70 pixel avatar on the site’s forum. That earned him a very nice email, asking him to pay ¥50,000 or kindly stop using the image as his avatar. The email ends with the vaguely threatening message: “Thank you, and I hope you will take this into consideration as I know myself this can get very unnecessary!”
what was the point of that post.
Surely there is better stuff out there than this?
see my comment below.
Slow news day eh?
http://www.tech...tful-but-arent/
Haha
People should be flattered others use their work as an avatar.
Oh I know, I was trying to make my comment as uncreative and non insightful as your post.
yes, your anonymous comment hurts. it cuts to the bone.
I love how people who hate techcrunch hang out on techcrunch all day.
I love the MS Paint replica halfway down page one.
I hope this post doesn’t get a fine too..
Cartoon Network has approved this message.
Thank you.
Sounds like a case of taking the innerwebs 2SRSLY!
My favorite “copyright” avatar issue is when a user of a pre-fab avi service (like Gaia or Meez or IMVU or something to create a userid & then claim to have “copyright” over the name & image, then harass other users who “look” or have a name similar… not taking into account that a.) names aren’t protected by copyright and b.) that they used actual 3rd party copyrighted artwork to create their avatar, making the copyright -if any applicable- fall to the company owning the avi service.
Innerwebs = srs bizzness.
I have been waiting for such a letter, but thought that Disney would be the first company to yell.
Is this even for real? I thought it was something off the Engrish Funny site with the grammatical issues. It seems if they were using an American attorney to come after the guy, that the language would be a bit more ummm obviously English.
I smell a scam.
Where is the news to this? Nearly every site I’ve seen that lets you upload an avatar image asks you to confirm that you have the rights to the image… you choose to use artwork without someone’s permission you pay the price.
right. except that copyright isn’t absolute. and in this case, it’s far from clear that copyright has been infringed.
Sure it is. The guy literally copied the artist’s image, without modifying it for anything except size, and passes it off as his own.
That’s per se infringement.
He’s being asked to pay a licensing fee for the use of someone else’s image.
“per se infringment”
that sounds very legal. where’d you get your degree?
Meh. I get an artist wanting credit for their work…but it would serve the them better to do something like request a link in the profile or something. It’s a sort of old school way to handle a new issue.
Or…he could get paid for the artwork.
Links aren’t nearly as valuable as teenagers think they are, especially not in a down economy.
Or…as is likely in this case, he won’t get paid at all. The user will probably just choose another image as an avatar. The artist no longer gets the exposure, and he gets no money either.
Sounds like a win to me.
isn’t that fair use? shame on Murakami and a pox on his house.
No fair use: not educational, not transformative (basically, critique or parody). It’s just plain copying of the image, unmodified.
Shame on the copier for using the guy’s image, then whining like a little bitch when he gets asked to pay a licensing fee OR stop using the image. It’s not like the artist threatened to sue.
He keeps saying that “private use” is forbidden. Does that mean “public use” is allowed?
:-/
As these types of letters go it seems fairly polite. Then again, I suspect it wasn’t written by an attorney. Seems like a reasonable use to me, but what do I know…
That’s the most polite letter of that sort I have ever seen.
That’s what I was thinking. They handled it excellently and if I was in that position I’d just change the avatar
This is the first time I got this as I think a avatar can not be worth of $500, that is why I use my own photo :-)
All your copyrights are belong to us, I guess…
Do they really need to do that? Ouch!
Show us your butt.
is it really serious? how did they find out?
I’ve got a great idea. I’m going to take one of this guys images, use it in a blog post and heavily market the blog post on Digg, StumbleUpon, Everywhere! and then email him as someone else and report it as copyright infringement, thus baiting him and then my fun will begin. I will get into an argument and pretend that the image is mine and they stole it, oh yes, I can see the fun coming now.
Stay tuned folks ;)
Dwayne.
http://probablysucks.com
BY THE WAY: I saw the MURAKAMI exhibition in MMK in Frankfurt/Main the other days. (http://mmk-fran...exhibition.html)
I really love it!! Has anyone else been there as well?
So that makes Murakami art worth HOW MUCH a pixel? Good grief! How much do the normal pieces go for? Judging by this I’d say a LOT.
Funny thing, I’ve never seen an artist quote their work on a “per pixel” pricing scheme.
All I can say is this, as a designer myself, “Murakami, can go eat a dick.”
He should be thankful that someone appreciates his art.
I second this…so much fuzz over an avatar, totally ridiculous…
This is rubbish…heaven forbid anyone put your brand out there…fn idiots
If the picture in the avatar is a work of this japanese artist, than it is a clear rip-off of a Russian cartoon character, named Cheburashka.
I guess Murakami should pay his yens to the Russian artist who created it in the first place.
Quick Fair Use thoughts based on the four factor test from section 107 of the copyright act:
1. Type of use = This is noncommercial use, although not highly transformative. This factor is likely a wash
2. Type of work – Murakami’s work is highly creative and at the heart of copyright protections. This factor would weigh for the artist, this is the weakest factor.
3. How much of the work was taken (both qualitatively and quantitatively)? Very little was used, but it might be the heart of the work if it is a very important character that represents the artist work generally. This factor is likely in favor of the person copying given how little was used.
4. Effect on Market – The use an an icon will have no negative effect on the market value for the artist works and may even have a positive effect by creating more interest in the work. Additionally I am not aware of a market for forum icons, without a market for the icon to be sold in this factor will weigh in favor of the copying as there is no harm.
Outcome 2v1 in favor of a fair use finding
PS: this is a quick and dirty fair use analysis from a 3rd year law student and free culture activist do not use it as legal advise. It is here to show that there is at least an argument to be made for fair use.
If there was a “thumbs up” option on TC, I would give it to your comment. It’s nice to see someone use their actual knowledge to add to a post.
Ridiculous!
I went ahead and created a replacement avatar for this fine gentleman, should he find himself in sudden need.
http://i36.tiny...com/2vs2j2g.gif
Of course, there’s a chance this avatar violates the ToS of the fine poker site, but that’s a wager mephisto might want to bid on.
This is still entertaining.
Everything ties together in this web2.0 ‘user driven content/internet centric’ world we live in today and the fascinating thing to me is how these types of infringement cases and other various legal precedents and patterns are occurring throughout the world.
Either way I liked the post
You guys should understand this is a gambling forum, often in copyright agreements you aren’t allowed to have a certain something(artwork in this case) on any gambling entity whether it be physical or virtual, that also includes websites that advocate gambling.
he should take the avatar off as they asked nicely
But i dare to ask, isn’t this fair use?
The image is offered in such a way that it doesn’t translate into earnings to the image poster, in such a size that doesn’t mean it can be used commercially (like to print shirts or coffee mugs), it’s not offered in a way that impairs sales of the original image, it’s not offered as an alternative to the original.
In fact, if i was the artist, i would take the time to create avatars from my drawings and add a small “go to my website”… and politely ask people to change their ugly versions for some made for that specific purpose.
Maybe I’m wrong though. I have seen other sites that allow users to post any image as an avatar until they get a DMCA takedown notice. Then they will ask you to please remove the offending image and substitute it with any other one.
Nowadays, though, many artists are more than happy to promote their work using avatars.