First thing's first: I'm all for copyright infringement laws and careful and dutiful upholding of these laws and rights to the original artist, but today I read a new spot(via DPR) that now got me worried.
Worried about how ridiculous the law is becoming in some instances, or alternatively that THIS particular case can be taken to court.
For starters, we can only hope that common sense will prevail, and that the case will be thrown out.
My deeper suspicions are along the lines of some type of contrived reportage and promotional deal, along lines of what the once very famous Madonna.
Madonna's modus operandi was to regularly push the socially acceptable envelope of behaviour beyond what the majority of the media deemed to be acceptable.
All she really did, was what most regular people (possibly) did, but where Madonna did it in a public space, most regular folks wouldn't. Her antics(of those that I vaguely remember, can't really remember specific instances) were of the Shock! variety, and quite obviously managed to the point of not offending regular folks, but quite sure to raise an eyebrow or two(million) in the generally stuffy and conservative thinking media.
Needless to say, she got far more attention from the media for free than (I felt) she deserved, especially when other more pressing and urgent social issues were loitering.
So with that (possibility of) 'deliberate high profile marketing and publicity stunt-iness' aspect in the background what idiot lawyer would expect to win a case on 'reasonable use' grounds, when even I(as a legal ignoramus) can easily and clearly see how my 9yo daughter would even laugh at such an argument!
HERE'S the DPR article which more clearly shows(to me) a few significant flaws in society:
1. how on Earth does anyone manage to see that the singer's set is 'the same' this LaChapelle's photo set.
Similar?... yes! For sure! Parody, mimic, taste(as in similar), style.. etc. The only aspect of the sets that are the same, is the style, or the taste, or whatever.
Is this LaChapelle seriously thinking he's going to get a copyright victory over this?
This singer girl simply likes this LaChapelle's style, or taste, or interior decorator!
Does this LaChapelle freak show really think he has the copyright to this type of scene setup?
I see no copying of any material elements at all? I see a stark and freaky similarity in the set setup only.. the idea is the same.
Yeah the elements are similar, but copyright?? No freaking way is this any infringement of copyright.
Do you have copyright to an idea, and execution of the idea, if the elements are not the same?
Basically speaking, if PWP_A(Professional Wedding Photographer_A) wants to take a wedding series in a set similar to this one, obviously with different elements such as the people and furniture and carpet... etc, does PWP_A require a licence or enter into a fair use contract of some kind from LaChapelle before the shoot?
The way this looks is that you will no longer be allowed to create an idea of your own making, which is based on another idea you've already seen.
One thing's for sure!! If this 'copyright' (non event) just happens to fall in favour of LaChapelle, then it's basically doomsday for just about any form of photography, unless you have a truly original idea, which may just about be quite the impossible task nowadays, as nearly all original ideas can trace their roots back to some old idea done, possibly, a hundred years ago!
And this barely touches the topic of the immense damage that a victory for LaChapelle will do for the comic(satire) industry.
Personally I can't see this guy winning the battle, and because of this, I started to wonder if the lame argument offered by singer's lawyer was made so lame simply to get the judge to pass the matter through the court system, and onto a higher level.
I'd love to see this LaChapelle's last few years of financial history, simply for the purpose of comparing what he used to earn(which, I suspect, was a lot more than he earns now?? ).
There's one really easy way to not have to pay for advertising. And that's to get into the news, which Madonna used to do with monotonous regularity, as I remember it 20 odd years ago.
First of all I can't understand why the media felt a need to report it(Madonna), considering the queue of worthy news items that surely must have been out there for the reporting.(there's always a queue of news stories that don't make it to air in the media)
Secondly, I thought we had media such as Woman's Weekly and Day's of Our Lives for matters of such social and international importance anyhow!?
Note tho, that the we (in we had) does categorically and implicitly exclude myself, among a few others that I know, but was simply used as an easy to understand term of reference.
So .. the underlying feeling here is So what! Who cares? ... is this kind of crap going to also filter down and into our legal system?
.... It's all just a pile of Contrived Reportage And Promotion!