imagine being a billionaire with a mansion and a pop star gf and staying up at 1:30 am on a weeknight tweeting this shit
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Elon Musk uses artists work in Tesla OS without permission
- Thread starter Muffin
- Start date
imagine being a billionaire with a mansion and a pop star gf and staying up at 1:30 am on a weeknight tweeting this shit
If you side with Musk you side against copyright law. What makes you think what he did is OK?
As ive said before, if this was any other CEO people would not defend them. If this was Apple this board would be losing its shit
It's an MS paint version of a picture on a mug he liked that he included as an Easter egg... And the guy who drew it liked it being part of it before.
The only thing the person wants is to get paid because he thinks he has that opportunity.
I'm pretty sure anyone can sell something with Sanic on it
Oh you know they will.
I'm going to design a car that looks suspiciously like a Tesla, I saw it on a mug once. That's fine, right Elon?
Oh no! Not siding against copyright law! Whoever would do that!
The law is an ass, and it sucks that only people like Musk are truly above it, but nobody should be in favour of the way IP law currently exists apart from the people who exploit it.
This reminds me of the intro to The Social Network, where Mark says he will bring his girlfriend to places that she wouldn't normally get to. The entitlement is through the roof here. Nobody is above the law, even for ms paint mugs.
The scene in question:
On another note, David Fincher should make the Elon Musk movie.
The scene in question:
On another note, David Fincher should make the Elon Musk movie.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1011798330152660992?s=19
There's a lot of context missing in the OP.
For example, on Musk's Twitter feed - because this is the world we live in, folks - you can see that Musk has offered to pay the original artist.
There's a lot of context missing in the OP.
For example, on Musk's Twitter feed - because this is the world we live in, folks - you can see that Musk has offered to pay the original artist.
For me personally, no it does not, I would approach the artist first. For an engagement like this where it's a parody or derivative work not sold for profit I sort of want to know the legal side before really making a judgement one way or another TBH.
They are intrinsic, as even state by the USA copyright office:
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
It's a little bit of a gray area for copyrights and trademarks unless you actually do it up front as the artist or commercial venture such as selling a drawing on mugs and going after a joke hand drawn parody/easter egg etc.
Just look at IMGUR and the EU laws around memes at the moment, I find it interesting many hate the laws around repurposing/edits of memes but are happy to sidestep with a hand drawn version. It's an interesting parallel as neither are for profit, one could argue exposure or non-direct profit, branding etc but I think they're similar enough that it highlights an opposite polarisation and hypocrisy of such an issue.
For the record I'd personally prefer things like this are cleared with an artist first, hell I made an OT or two back in GAF and cleared it with citing Deviant Art artists.
Last edited:
That doesn't add any extra context? Offering to pay after you get got doesn't mean you didn't try to get away with it in the first place.
Offering to pay *after* it's been flagged up (and after a lawyer's letter was sent to Tesla, apparently) is the least I'd expect. Musk's crappy response raising the tired old "exposure" line and the re-use of the image without anyone involved thinking to offer something to the artist remains pathetic.
Also: good to see the fantastic Jamie Smart in the replies to that tweet pointing out the "exposure" issue. He's right - it cheapens everyone involved. The choice to offer work for free lies with the artist, not with the person appropriating their art.
The Musk knights never fail to amuse me.
Super rich guy's company steal artists work, CEO says "you should be happy about the exposure", but apparently it's all the media's fault?
*attacks the media, realises they've completely misrepresented the story, still doubles down*
Musk would be proud.
It is clear copyright violation of an artistic work. Trademark is irrelevant in this instance.
Note, copyright infringement does not actually have to generate a commercial gain, it only needs to be used for the purpose of commercial gain.
In use as a promotional tool for a company or as an element of a part of a product sold, it meets that requirement.
It would not fall under fair use.
People bringing up nonsensical analogies about what they do with fanart for fun, for one thing you are not a $58.5 billion company, and for another there is no commercial intent.
This situation is no different from if a company decides to use an indie band's song on a website, or a photographer's work in a brochure.
Note, copyright infringement does not actually have to generate a commercial gain, it only needs to be used for the purpose of commercial gain.
In use as a promotional tool for a company or as an element of a part of a product sold, it meets that requirement.
It would not fall under fair use.
People bringing up nonsensical analogies about what they do with fanart for fun, for one thing you are not a $58.5 billion company, and for another there is no commercial intent.
This situation is no different from if a company decides to use an indie band's song on a website, or a photographer's work in a brochure.
Entitled rich brat. Is he even rich now? I wouldn't be surprised if he's neck deep in debts.
Probablty doesn't matter guys like him always get gold parachutes when the business goes belly up
Probablty doesn't matter guys like him always get gold parachutes when the business goes belly up
So it's ok for Musk to be opportunistic but not for the artist?
And again, if Tim Cook did this y'all would be losing your minds
Is it? An image was distributed digitally in cars. The image was drawn as a reference to an image drawn by Musk which was a reference to the image on the mug.
You cannot copyright the idea of a farting unicorn.
No because I don't care it is Elon Musk, this is just silly to try and get rich over...
I was merely arguing that if the artist was so concerned about infringements they would copyright/trademark their work or at least apply for a trademark. To me it appears the artist is now going after a joke drawing done in a fun spirit that happened to lead to more sales etc. It's like the simpsons going after an adult making Bart Simpson cupcakes for a charity drive.
I'd never do what Musk did personally but I'd also like to clarify if the artist in fact actually gives a shit or only now gives a shit that it's Musk that took an interest. If I was selling mugs with drawings for what I do for a living I'd sure as shit apply for trademark on my hero image that appears on my merchandise.
To note there is little difference between the two:
Yes, you cannot copyright an idea.
Except this is not the reproduction of the "idea of a farting unicorn", it is a substantially similar, if terribly executed reproduction of a not very good artistic work.
And pretending it's the former, not the latter is disingenuous.
Trademarks are not typically used for single artistic works. This is not a logo. They are used to protect for words, phrases, designs and representations that are associated with a brand.
An artist does not trademark a painting or sculpture because they do not have to trademark a painting or sculpture.
This is not an accurate read.
Last edited:
So much "holier than thou" attitudes ITT
He's human, after offering a solution only to continue being pestered, you're probably going to be a bit annoyed and respond a bit rude too.
You're using his annoyed response and not the alleged copyright issue (which it isn't) to call him an asshole. Ignore the fact the first thing he offered to do was take it down. Get over yourselves.
He's human, after offering a solution only to continue being pestered, you're probably going to be a bit annoyed and respond a bit rude too.
You're using his annoyed response and not the alleged copyright issue (which it isn't) to call him an asshole. Ignore the fact the first thing he offered to do was take it down. Get over yourselves.
I just think it's very hard for any human to become insanely rich without utterly losing touch with reality.
The solution is companies stealing artwork in the first place. Not offering to remove stuff when they get caught.
Musk paying artists with "exposure" is one of the most unsurprising things I've heard all week. The artist is in the right and if this were to go to court, it won't since the lawyers will cost the artist more than he'll it back, but if it does the artist will win easily. The sketch is clearly a derivative work and not licensing it with its original creator is theft
Indeed. I could go out tomorrow and start selling prints of my bad drawing of an anthropomorphic mouse in a pair of shorts, but if I started trying to sell bad drawings of a very specific anthropomorphic mouse in shorts I'd quickly be in legal trouble. The image in question is pretty clearly a poor copy of a specific piece of art (whether the original art is any good is neither here nor there) and not just "a farting unicorn".
Disclaimer: It's an analogy and may not be 100% but it's enough to express an idea to the nth degree.
He wasn't profiting off his drawing of an idea from a mug, pretty similar to a charity selling something but not profiting directly from it. Anyhow take away what you will, just wanting to discuss some aspects. Apparently everything is black and white these days.
It'd be up to a judge to decide if the two works were similar enough for the latter to be more than a reference, rather than a storm of shouting on Twitter.
The issue I think is the dislike of a wealthy person's comment on Twitter rather than the image itself.
Your analogy isn't good enough to be blunt. Putting a design in your product which you then sell is literally profiting of it.
"It's part of their branding now," Edwards said in an interview.
That seems like a stretch, I don't think anyone is going to associate Tesla with that picture and vice versa.
Also, what I get from the article is that the picture is actually an Easter egg rather than something that's prominently and widely used in the OS. It should be easy enough to just remove it from the OS, which, ironically enough, will hurt the artist more as it really is free publicity.
That seems like a stretch, I don't think anyone is going to associate Tesla with that picture and vice versa.
Also, what I get from the article is that the picture is actually an Easter egg rather than something that's prominently and widely used in the OS. It should be easy enough to just remove it from the OS, which, ironically enough, will hurt the artist more as it really is free publicity.
What is this guy complaining about? Musk promoted his work! Does he want MONEY? But everybody knows artists are paid in E X P O S U R E! *sarcasm*
I'm not sure what you mean by using as "more than a reference". Do you think that if I draw bad pictures of Superman, using an image of Superman as a reference, that clearly replicates the image of Superman, and then incorporate it into a commercial endeavour, this is somehow not copyright infringement?
The wealthy person's been quite a favourite on Era recently :)
(It's a weekly thing).
It's no secret that a lot of entrepreneurs are complete sociopaths.
Quote:
The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad.
[...]
Don't want to blow your mind, but rumor has it that those companies are sometimes not super nice.
[...]
Most of the time, when there is theft of goods, leaking of confidential information, dereliction of duty or outright sabotage, the reason really is something simple like wanting to get back at someone within the company or at the company as a whole. Occasionally, it is much more serious.
The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad.
[...]
Don't want to blow your mind, but rumor has it that those companies are sometimes not super nice.
[...]
Most of the time, when there is theft of goods, leaking of confidential information, dereliction of duty or outright sabotage, the reason really is something simple like wanting to get back at someone within the company or at the company as a whole. Occasionally, it is much more serious.