Sued over a picture?

[Gindil]

Link [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/gawker-sued-posting-illustration-inspired-55178]

Lindsay McCulloch, a noted visual artist, is suing Gawker for posting one of her signature works -- a three foot by four-and-a-half foot pictorial illustration of Hell as described in Dante Alighieri's famed La Divina Commedia, "Inferno."
Last February, in an effort to promote the Electronic Arts video game Dante's Inferno, the game's producer Jonathan Knight conducted a chat on Gawker's video game website Kotaku.

Here's some funny stuff. The article goes on to say that derivative work is everywhere on this. Why she goes after a blog and not EA is beyond me.

Good job on making fair use a thing of the past McCulloch.[/sarcasm]

 

[manythings]

I suppose the argument is they put it up without asking maybe? Or never creditted it as her work? Also EA have about 1,000 lawyers ready to just destroy people like her if they didn't work it out in advance to use her work with concessions of some kind.

 

[omicron1]

Considering they referenced her by name, all I can see this doing is giving her extra recognition.
So in return, she's suing them for an unknown (but probably large) sum of money?

...gah. Litigation is America's new version of the friendly neighbor-to-neighbor complaint.

 

[crudus]

Fair use kind of goes away when you use it to make money.

 

[TyrantGanado]

Sue everyone!

Why is everyone so concerned with putting everything to lawsuit? It's the new get-rich quick scheme that, sadly, actually works a lot of the time.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Just another case where stupidity should be listed as a mental condition.

 

[Gindil]

Just another case where stupidity should be listed as a mental condition.

That's blonde hair.

 

[Tron-tonian]

She goes after the small players first, because they will admit guilt, settle and get it over with.

This sets a precedent.

this precedent will then be used against larger players, as case law now shows that her work was directly infringed upon. This gives bigger players (like EA) far less leverage, and almost certainly ups the amount they will settle for. It also makes EA less likely to go to trial over it. (Although EA *did* go the distance over that whole "Edge" TM battle, and rightfully so)

 

[tsb247]

Fair use kind of goes away when you use it to make money.

This is VERY true. I work in an industry that deals with copyright ownership every day (photography), and believe it or not, EA is in a position to lose if they promoted a product with a work of art without first securing permission to use it.

If EA profitted, it doesn't fall under 'fair use.'

 

[Something Amyss]

Fair use kind of goes away when you use it to make money.

Indeed. A shame people don't stop to think before ranting at her for it.

 

[Gindil]

She goes after the small players first, because they will admit guilt, settle and get it over with.

This sets a precedent.

this precedent will then be used against larger players, as case law now shows that her work was directly infringed upon. This gives bigger players (like EA) far less leverage, and almost certainly ups the amount they will settle for. It also makes EA less likely to go to trial over it. (Although EA *did* go the distance over that whole "Edge" TM battle, and rightfully so)

Uhm...

If they settle, no precedent is set.