Pop singer Pink breaches copyright

[budafist]

Pink used characters designed by New Zealand artist Marty Emonds in the video clip U + UR Hand. Marty Emonds took his life in 2004. His estate and his previous friends/business partners are now seeking to get some kind of recognition for this breach but when contacted, Pink's rep said that she was only trying to keep his memory alive by using his characters - not trying to rip him off.

IMO, if she was trying to keep his memory alive, there would have been some kind of reference to him in the video clip.

This is apparently old news, but just restirred because Pink played in New Zealand the other day.

See the comparison images here. (http://www.illicit.co.nz/news.htm)

Your thoughts?

[Drazan]

There's probably some 'creative' that needed to put together the "next cool thing' for Pink. And that creative showed the storyboard for the video to Pink - who may not have known where the characters came from.

The PR people are just backpeddling to cover Pinks butt from hot water.

[Ned]

The Marty Emonds stuff looks cool. I hope the estate can retrieve a settlement from this.

[Red Kittie Kat]

seems cut and dry that there will have to be compensation .. but again it goes back to that double standard in the justice system for people with money ...... so time will tell ;)

[TriciaLynn]

I really dont know much about the law in these situations and I totally agree that someone, maybe not Pink at all like Kittie said, has crossed a line. However, if she is physically portraying her body and props after a cartoon caricature is there really any breach there?

I also dont know much about Pink, but saw her on an interview one time and based on that I got the idea that she is all about mimicking other people and characters to make a statement. I actually respected what she had to say in her interview even though I totally disagreed with the way she goes about it. In fact, it seems she is also like those stupid girls she sings about.


So, really curious, what does the law say about this kind of thing?

[Ned]

Don't forget that the original artist is dead. That really throws a wrench into the whole thing. Also, Pink is from the U.S., and the original artist is from New Zealand. I'm sure there's differences in copyright laws.

I don't know enough about the laws to say what's definitely going to happen, but I do see that there are issues.

I, for one, am rooting for the Emonds.

[hewligan]

Well, I dunno about which specific characters of Martin Emond's Pink was impersonating, but the majority of his work - before he co-founded Illicit and went into business selling tattoos and bondage gear - was done for comics publishers in the US and Britain, so not being in New Zealand probably doesn't make a lot of difference.

Either way, if you ever get the chance, you should read Martin Emond and Gordon Rennie's White Trash. Now that was awesome.

[PrintDriver]

In the US it doesn't matter if you are dead. The estate holds the copyright for at least 70 years after the death of the creator, 95 years from date of publication, or 120 years from date of creation, whichever is shorter. If the work was published after 1989 or renewed between '78 and '89. It gets weirder pre-78 due to the 'Disney clause'.