Dear Spike Lee
- Started
- Last post
- 153 Responses
- yurimon0
I seen spike lee few times in fort green around where he lived, not sure still lives, before the gentrification. everytime got a dirty hate look...
- set0
Agency must be named and shamed.
- It's not really difficult to join the dots, here ...Continuity
- JG_LB can fill them in.set
- Oh i read 'it's difficult'.
Name and shame, then.set
- fadein110
I retract what I said above... bad. should have read/looked properly - early here. thought it was another whiney moaning designer doing free work but i was wrong.
- GeorgesIV0
we need some kind of union, that protect us from this kind of bs,
- Continuity0
I just read the letter, and some of the resulting articles on the web (e.g. Buesiness Insider, Slashfilm, et al). This really, really fucking sucks.
JG_LB, I really do hope you've kept every single last email between you and the agency about this mess. That would really strengthen your case if/when it goes before a judge.
All the best, mate.
- fadein110
Really should proof read something like that before he posts it.
And struggling to see the RIP - if he comes out of the case in the film and the girl has that brollie etc its not even his original idea.
Confused.com.- someone explain please - cannot see his original work in the final posters?fadein11
- babaganush0
This guy must have a claim for serious cash?!...anyway, Spike Lee is a dick. Django unchained was 'direspectful to his ancestors'...probably because it was a great film that he never made. He can only do shite remakes.
- regardless, the guy should name and shame the agency before Spike Lee...he may have come to the party very latebabaganush
- django unchainecd is a remakealbums
- technically yes...albeit totally unlike the original. It's really a totally different film and storyline...babaganush
- inteliboy0
Also Spike Lee, love or hate him, is probably working his fucking ass off right now, blogs being the last thing on his mind (and I imagine he is one of those older types who barely even use the internet).
- doubtful that in this day and age, he has no publicist or assistant to help with that...babaganush
- inteliboy0
So posters, in 99% percent of cases, have nothing to do with the director. He/she may chat with the creatives or give a tick of approval, if that.
- ernexbcn0
Yeah not mine, it's JG_LB
- beautiful0
if he came up with the idea for the key art and they dont have secured usage its his ip and theyre breaking the law. especially since they agreed on licensing in the future. obv not a a misunderstanding. lawyers need to weigh in of course, but looks to me like pressing would be worthwile, punitive judgements in cases like these all the time.
- uuuuuu0
i don't know how this is covered but I don't think they are using them as official poster art they just seem to have taken them from his site and are using them online. He's not ok with it and it wasn't apart of any agreement so its really a matter of appealing to reason and respect.
- and they didn't pay him but sue? not really worth it, they are just being cunts.uuuuuu
- beautiful0
or is this about derivative rip-off, not 1:1 rip.off? i shall go and read the letter again, very thouroughly this time
- beautiful0
well if he made the artwork and didnt sign anything away it's obv his stuff?
- ukit20
So who would actually own the copyright in a case like this? Considering that all the photos and assets are obviously owned by the studio. Not sure a cease and desist would actually apply here under current copyright law.
- the posters are original designs and copyright belongs to the designer.uuuuuu
- a part of the agreement was he could use them in his portfolio for exposure but he declined their offer to be used as key artuuuuuu
- yet they are using them out of context of his portfolio to promote the movie anywayuuuuuu
- its sort of tough because i don't think they are printing them just posting them on facebook and stuffuuuuuu
- I think it's absolutely wrong of them not to pay him. Just not sure you can copyright something like that.ukit2
- Its his work, its copyrighted but there is a grey area the agency are running with.uuuuuu
- Yes but the work consists partly of photography owned by the studio. Pictures of Brolin, etc.ukit2
- If I use someone's photo in a design, can I copyright that design? I think it's questionable.ukit2
- i get it but we're talking about the ORIGINAL art work/design made by this guy.uuuuuu
- if they gave you permission and you did it under agreement the design you create is yours.uuuuuu
- I get what you're saying. I guess the specifics of any agreement signed would be the key thing here.ukit2
- it's a derivative work, meaning that yes, the photo has it's own copyright (photographer's), but you hold the copyright on your derivative design. so two parties have a copyright interestmonNom
- ...on your design, so two parties have a copyright interest in the work. Maybe more if you consider the type. Doesn't matter, it's still your copyright.monNom
- beautiful0
wait, if your stuff is on his fb, cease and desist immediately.
- beautiful0
i symphatize with you being fucked over, but i can't help to question the move to drag the director in this. he maybe should be made aware about the kind of agency he's associating with, but certainly not publicly, and especially not during the opening? cuz it's not his fault in any way?
why dont you sue the buyers, the bastards, you seem to have a case. and shame them publicly if you feel sth like that is necessary. less viral leverage in that approach of course, but perhaps the right to do?
- sounds like the dude had an uncalled for keelhauling and hit a brick wall w/ the right approachprophetone