Poker Paint appeared to be a creative NFT project featuring art of poker pros -- until allegations of content theft emerged

[Dan Druff]

Interesting story broke this week which combined the NFT world, the poker world, and the controversies surrounding content theft and fair use.

A company called "Poker Paint" appeared on the scene a few years ago, started by a guy named Brent Butz, who is otherwise unknown in poker. They present art of known poker pros in action, in a colorful scheme. Here's one they did of Daniel Negreanu:



You can see a lot of their work at their website https://pokerpaint.com

This company was largely ignored by most until very recently, when they made the attempt to enter the NFT (non-fungible token) space.

PokerPaint posted 104 of its images to OpenSea (an NFT middleman sales site), and the NFT-obsessed poker community was initially excited... until they learned that these iconic images were stolen from hardworking poker photographers, and simply modified into "painting" format.

Poker photographer Eric Harkins was one of the first to point this out, on September 24, after David Lappin initially reported PokerPaint's foray into the NFT world.

Embedded Tweet

PokerPaint apparently even lifted an image from PokerGo footage in order to exploit Norm McDonald's death for profit, charging $1500 for this "painting" of him:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1441079894046355457

Embedded Tweet

PokerPaint attempted to calm the controversy by posting a statement on Twitter, but it just made things worse:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1441562192990535685

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/HoldemMedia/status/1441599053016408068

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1441572140835352576



Many other poker photographers subsequently came forward and pointed out that their work was stolen by PokerPaint, but Hayley Hotchstetler told a story which put PokerPaint in arguably the worst light:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/hayleyocho/status/1441565968468086786

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/hayleyocho/status/1441567015076986884

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/hayleyocho/status/1441569545387339776

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1441571360640221187


So this guy can't even claim ignorance. He asked Hayley for permission to use her photography, she said no, and the guy did it anyway. Yuck.


Even Daniel Negreanu got in the long line to kick PokerPaint in the nuts:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1441612929669894145


Some are also accusing PokerPaint of simply using an app or filter program to create this "artwork", and that he's not actually painting anything. He denies this:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1441581278063702018


Eventually, PokerPaint conceded that he should have contacted the photographers first, but his name is already mud, and I can't imagine this project going anywhere. It's unclear if the photographers victimized will take legal action against him, for any sales he might have already made.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1441581430585368576


I can't find the NFT offerings on OpenSea anymore, so presumably he's removed them.

[Dan Druff]

Update:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1442513816579985408

[Dan Druff]

On one hand, I can understand how a 25-year-old may not have realized he was doing anything wrong (though I don't quite understand his excuse for using Hayley's pic after she denied permission).

I'm willing to cut the guy some slack, chalk it up to ignorance of content law, and wait to see if he does the right thing.

However, I don't think his plan goes far enough. He knows exactly which pieces were originals, which were authorized copies of photos, and which were unauthorized copies of photos.

He should absolutely take down (and stop selling) all unauthorized copies until he contacts the photographers and gets their permission (and presumably gives them a piece of the sale).

Instead, he's going "negative checkoff" style, and stating, "I've pulled all pieces which have received complaints", which means he's still selling pieces where the photographer doesn't know about the situation yet! He should pull ALL pieces where any such complaints are possible.

[Dan Druff]

UPDATE:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/ImpdiWorld/status/1489792775423934475

[Dan Druff]

BUMP

Here we go again...

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/MannyDaxwell/status/1527340867496792083

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/steveodwyer/status/1527444206456913920

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/PokerPaint/status/1527359665205481484



I think the only reason this guy isn't being sued is because he's probably viewed as uncollectable.

[aayjay]

I am curious, how does this copyright issue work on drawings. This guys 'art' is just filtering photos in photoshop. I am more wondering for example what if an artist saw a photo and draws from memory, is that infringement? What if he has taken a similar photo himself? If I draw a picture of someone and sell it do I have to compensate the person I drew? Etc seems complicated