- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Again, you are going in a long circuit just to muddle the simple issue here. Even if zimmerman had used the image from the Creative Commons, then you should know that by him claiming that this particular image of waving American flag came to him from some "visions" that he felt he had to immediately put it on the canvass is a bold face lie, right?:naughty
No.
That is you trying trying to use a Copyright argument when it doesn't apply.
His painting is original. It did not exist before. You can not change that.
You have already been told.
You are confusing a Copyright violation (of originality) with (actual) originality.
(actual) Originality does not mean that things are not similar, or not a derivative.
Learn the difference.
Still unable to tell tell us which one he specifically used huh? Figures.
The shutter stock image may be, as it is a derivative of the original. Or did you not know a derivative could be Copyrighted?
The original, you know, the one he used on his donation site, was in the Creative Commons. And you do not know what permission, if any, he got then, when he used it.
And it is. And the example was used to show you how something can be a copy while still being an original.
But you obviously don't get that.
Just as the soup can was used to show the same.
And you still don't get it, but instead want to argue.
And you are arguing a Copyright argument when it doesn't apply.
The painting is an original painting. You can not get around that. It simply is.
:doh
Stop assuming you know what the guy did to get the image.
And a waving US flag is pretty much a waving US flag.
A simple image search proves that.
All red white and blue with stars and ripples in the cloth.
I am surprised you are not claiming that one photographer isn't stealing another's vision of the flag, or claiming that the others that came after the first, aren't original's, not significantly different or a copyright violation.
That fact that you are not, should go to show you that are unfairly and absurdly focused on Zimmerman over nothing.
No it is not.
That case was a "dealing with the fair use defense for parody". Is that what is happening here? It isn't. Figures.
The photo used in that case had a Copyright sticker on it and he purposely removed it.
The photo used in that case was not in the Creative Commons.
And as pointed out to you by the very article you used, "Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue". A different Judge may have found that case differently.
Just like the Judge who reversed their own decision on the Prince case. Those were slight modifications. But obviously sufficient enough to render them different.
You obviously do not understand the word "vision".
It was his vision.
No you can not, as there is no case here.
Do you not understand that?
There has been no claim by the author of a copyright violation.
Wrong. You have to have a judgement by the Court or and agreement that a violation occurred for there to have been an actual violation.
You clearly know not of what you speak.
The work was original.
And no, there was no settlement. Apparently you are listening to myths and rumors.
Here is a copy of the letter that Campbell's sent Warhol.
Just more biased bs from you.
He has no bold face lies, or more accurately, no bald face lies, or a pattern of dishonesty.
Those are all just manifestations of your convoluted thoughts.
It is an original painting. And was his vision.
Title: George Zimmerman original painting
Is it an original painting, yes.
Is it a reproduction of another painting? No.
True statements by him; "First hand painted artwork by me, George Zimmerman."; "and I needed to put these visions onto the blank canvas as soon as possible".
There is nothing untrue about what he said.
Don't you agree that if zimmerman were to say, "I got this "visual" image from Creative Commons in the internet and had to immediately transferred it onto the canvass, that would be more honest, right?
As to the Campbell letter, I had seen that long ago. Just because there is this amicable letter of support doesn't mean that case wasn't settled.
