Three urban artists, Jaz, Ever and Other filed a copyright
infringement suit on August 12 in the Northern District Court of Illinois against
movie director Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame. The artists claim that Gilliam
reproduced without permission their copyrighted work Castillo (Castle), a mural they collectively painted in 2010, in his
movie The Zero Theorem, which will be
released in the U.S. next month. They are also suing the producers and
distributors of the movie.
Castillo is a
large-scale painted mural which is on permanent public display on a street in
Buenos Aires “in a well-known zona de
graffiti.” The complaint explains
that Buenos Aires is “particularly
welcoming to graffiti and street artists” as the “local government has even subsidized some of the urban murals.” Indeed,
Buenos Aires features many beautiful urban art works which attract tourists
from all over the world.
Castillo was
created using latex and spray-paint “through
an improvisational exercise” and is quite striking. It features several
characters on a vivid blue background, each character painted by one of the
three artists. The complaint notes that “Castillo
is so important that it is one of the few public artworks that have survived
for years in that particular zona de graffiti.” In other words, the quality
of that particular piece is so great that fellow urban artists have chosen not
to paint over it. The artists registered the copyright in Argentina last
November, and gave it its Castillo
title then.
The main character of The
Zero Theorem movie, played by Christopher Waltz, lives in a dilapidated
chapel in a dystopian London. The façade of the chapel is decorated with a
fresco which is indeed quite similar to Castillo.
The complaint states that “it copies each
of the three main elements of [Castillo]
created by the Plaintiffs, albeit in a
slightly different arrangement and on a washed-out red background, rather than
the brilliant blue chosen by the Plaintiffs.” However, many of the elements
of Castillo are almost literarily
referenced, such as the pattern of the sweater or the Greek-inspired hat of the
character on Castillo’s left side,
who has algae (or snakes? eels?) coming out of his eyeballs.
Castillo is on the left |
The chapel’s exterior is often used as a backdrop through
the Gilliam movie and the complaint also notes that it is used by Defendants to promote the movie (you can
see it at 0:19 in the trailer here). It is also shown on the movie’s
promotional website and on the movie’s social media pages. The complaint provides
an example where a picture of the chapel was posted on the movie’s Pinterest page.
This is not the first time that Terry Gilliam has been sued
for copyright infringement. The Southern District of New York (SDNY) granted in
1996 artist Lebbeus Woods a preliminary injunction enjoining the distributor of
Terry Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys movie from
distributing, exhibiting, performing or copying portions of the movie which
reproduced Woods’ copyrighted drawing of a chair which had been reproduced in
three dimensions in the movie (Woods v.Universal City Studios). The case eventually settled out of court.
The Woods case is
interesting as the defendants there had unsuccessfully claimed that the
infringement was only de minimis because
the infringing footage amounted to less than five minutes in a movie which was 130
minutes long. But the SDNY reasoned instead that “[w]hether an infringement is
de minimis is determined by the amount taken without authorization from the
infringed work, and not by the characteristics of the infringing work.” In the
Castillo case, the amount taken is
significant.
A Castle, a Chapel, and a Theorem Make for a Copyright Infringement Case
Reviewed by Marie-Andree Weiss
on
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html