BUMP
Here we go again...
https://twitter.com/MannyDaxwell/status/1527340867496792083
https://twitter.com/steveodwyer/status/1527444206456913920
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.
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
"Just Do Your Job"
"Discipline or Regret"
Copyright law can often be complicated and nuanced. Often it's a big risk to litigate these, because every court sees it differently. However, some are much more obvious than others.Originally Posted by aayjay
If you drew a picture of an individual from memory -- even from memory of a picture -- it would probably be okay as long as it deviated enough to where it didn't seem to be a copy (or mostly a copy) of the picture itself. Of course, then you might have an issue with using the likeness of the subject for commercial purposes, unless the subject allows his likeness to be sold. At poker tournaments, this can be complicated because you do sign away your rights to have your image used for free (so ESPN/CBS/PokerGo don't have to compensate you for appearing in their footage), but that doesn't give outsiders the right to commercialize your image for free.
You are allowed to commission fan art, but only for personal use. For example, if I wanted to commission an artist to draw me a painting of Phil Hellmuth to display in my house, I could do so, and I wouldn't need to compensate Phil, nor get his permission. However, if I were to turn around and sell that painting of Hellmuth, that could be a problem.
It seems in some (but not all) cases, PokerPaint is either getting permission to sell these photos from the subjects, and in other cases it seems some just don't care if he does it or not. However, it is pretty clear he is committing copyright infringement by taking existing photos, and basically selling the same photos which are colorized/stylized differently.
As I said, the only reason he hasn't been sued is likely because he is viewed as uncollectable.
Why isn't he just giving up on this whole thing? Because it appears he's put a good deal of effort into developing and marketing this whole concept, and it's basically his dream. So now he's being told that his dream is illegal, and he can't accept it. He did attempt to negotiate with these photographers, but they ultimately decided they didn't trust him.
Now it appears to have become a game of chicken, where he is continuing what he's doing, and basically daring the photographers to sue him. He's probably assuming they won't actually do it, and they're probably waiting until he makes enough actual sales of this stuff to go after him.
The whole thing is a mess. Sadly, this could have all been prevented if he just did it all the right way, and developed licensing agreements with interested photographers, while avoiding the work of anyone else who wouldn't play ball.
Still going.
Now Pokernews and Pokerstars have both sent Brent Butz cease and desist notices, along with legal threats.
https://www.poker.org/pokerpaint-cre...rtwork-rights/
I think the guy has to just give up. Embarrassingly, the one he did of Fedor Holz was poorly received by Fedor himself, who "hid" it and blocked Butz.
https://twitter.com/brettblaster/status/1571936000355565570
At this point hes either just an arrogant Fstick or hes such an ignorant moron he cant comprehend simple Intellectual Property law. Either way hes about to get buried and destroyed financially. Some of the photogs might not have wanted to go after him in the courts but picking a fight with Pokernews and especially Pokerstars is financial suicide. Sure it maybe uncollectable but the potential for a future federal criminal charge of stealing IP is there once hes been nailed in civil court as well. I cant believe this guy is this clueless (which at this point Im not sure I believe since he appologized before regarding his actions and then went right back to it. This speaks more of deliberate disregard for the law and that doesnt bode well).
www.jokerstarspoker.com / www.jokerstarspoker.net / www.jokerstarspoker.eu
www.jokerstarspoker.club (not your mommas chinese poker app)
I think he's scared of the big companies actually suing him, hence the reason he took the Fedor NFT down so quickly (also lol @ Fedor not wanting it and blocking him anyway!)
I think the kid invested so much of his hopes and dreams in the business (I don't believe $150k though) that he just can't accept that it won't work. I think at the beginning he really didn't understand IP law. However, now that he does, he should either give up, or partner with someone who is capable of drawing original pics of the players, and then he can probably sell them under the "fan art" exception.
But yeah, you can't just take other people's published photos and resell them in modified form for your own profit.
BUMP
Looks like case law on this matter wasn't as settled as I thought.
But now it is.
Andy Warhol was sued over a use of a 1984 photo of Prince, where Warhol re-colorized and re-styled it in a manner not too different from what PokerPaint did.
36 years after Warhol's death, and several years after Prince's death, this was settled by the US Supreme Court.
Article here: https://archive.ph/yA1Pt
BTW I don't think he's a bad kid. I've talked to him some. He just had an idea which unfortunately ran afoul of copyright law, and then it was hard for him to give up what was at one point a well-received project.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote