OzlemUcucu said:

thepope2the9s said:

vague resemblence? really..... .

Yes, but it's not the idea of the doll that caused issues now, it's the sale of the merchandise. Troy should have not posted his ideas so publicly. It'd be the same if you posted on a Dali art forum your own art replicas of Dali painting, and try to merchandise them.

Except that only some of Troy's work was "remaking" well-known album art and scenes, and those things could never be mistaken for the real thing. It's basically a cover version.

NouveauDance said:

Troy's a guy right?

I'm just imagining what the reaction would've been if the maker of the dolls was a 22yo caramel piece of ass. Probably would've been the subject of his next aborted TV movie or a 3CD set.

Exactly.

GIOShokadelica said:

If you want to Sell something that Is related to somebody who is Extremely Famous, You need to get the permission of that Person First.

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

BartVanHemelen said:

GIOShokadelica said:

If you want to Sell something that Is related to somebody who is Extremely Famous, You need to get the permission of that Person First.

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

[Edited 11/14/12 13:15pm]

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

I still don't understand why Prince just wasn't flattered. Maybe he could've talked with this guy about potentially making those dolls/calenders offical merchandise?

This just makes him cold, and unavailible. I mean, I don't think this guy did any harm. Then again, he's right now riding on the "I'm a legend" cloud and really doesn't feel obliged to thank or even be kind to the people that put him where he is.

He really needs to know how to nurture "fandom".

He may be flattered, we don't know.

Bottom line is, he should not be trying to sell the images without Prince's consent.

I do agree that he does need to know how to nurture a "fandom." He treats fans like 2nd rate citizens compared to some other artists/acts.

Genesia said:

BartVanHemelen said:

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

[Edited 11/14/12 13:15pm]

EXACTLY?!?

I also think that her estate had to approve it, though.

wonder505 said:

If some guy out there started making dolls from my image, putting it out there on the internet and selling them without my permission I would not allow it, personally.

Except Prince is a celebrity. In reality he has very little legal grounds, but he's just being a bully and threatening someone hoping that will put an end to it.

Go to a supermarket and look at the magazines at the check-out. Go look at TMZ. Notice anything? PICTURES of CELEBRITIES. Made by photographers who sell them to magazines. Magazines who publish them so they'll sell more issues.

http://www.avvo.com/legal...75263.html

Another exception allows artists to use the likenesses of well-known persons in a creative way to communicate a message about something of interest to society. As for this exception, a faithful and accurate recreation of the well-known person's likeness does not qualify -- the representation must contain something creatively more.

rdhull said:

What the hell did y'all think was going to happen after he advertised he was selling shit? I swear y'all love to act brand new.

It's like getting mad at someone for continually cheating on you but staying around because you think someone will change... this doesn't surprise me one bit.

Genesia said:

BartVanHemelen said:

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

[Edited 11/14/12 13:15pm]

Yeah, because Monroe was the only celebrity Warhol ever painted. I just pointed out one example, there are plenty more: Presley, Brando, Mao, Jackie Kennedy, Liz Taylor,.. Or how about his art that used well-known brands, like Coca-Cola, Campbell's Soup,...

free2bfreeda said:

http://troygua.com/work/v...nimations/

Everybody check it before its gone!

It's really great work!

Sorry the legality got in the way.

I never buy anything anymore anyway.

I just make it myself!

Prost!

daPrettyman said:

Genesia said:

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

EXACTLY?!?

I also think that her estate had to approve it, though.

It just wasn't the same in 1962. The trend of family estates looking out for their deceased family members' interests and protecting the value of their image is a fairly recent phenomenon.

In Monroe's will, she left her personal effects to Lee Strasberg (founder of the Actors Studio). He later sued the children of four photographers, trying to determine rights of publicity (which permit the licensing of images of deceased people). In 2007, a judge ruled that Monroe's rights of publicity ended with her death.

So what Warhol did was perfectly legal.

rdhull said:

.
..
Yes it does.
Painters and the paparazzi are not the same – and neither is their creative output. While the output of both fall within the protections provided by the First Amendment, a painting is protected under the “free speech” clause while a celebrity photograph is protected under the “free press” clause. In short, paparazzi can sell celebrity photographs [and publishers can publish them] because what the celebrity is doing, or not, in the photograph is either “news” or it forms part of a “news” story about the celebrity.

A painting of a celebrity, on the other hand, is not news and is not protected under the free press clause. It may, but only may, be protected speech. The complication is that selling a painting of a celebrity runs square up against the celebrity’s “right of publicity” –that is, the celebrity’s exclusive right to use his or her image for commercial gain.

The rule in California is that a painter MAY sell a painting of a person [to someone other than that person] if the painting “contains significant transformative elements or that the value of the work does not derive primarily from the celebrity's fame. “ The controlling case states that “Another way of stating the inquiry is whether the celebrity likeness is one of the ‘raw materials’ from which an original work is synthesized, or whether the depiction or imitation of the celebrity is the very sum and substance of the work in question. … We ask, in other words, whether a product containing a celebrity's likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the defendant's own expression rather than the celebrity's likeness. And when we use the word ‘expression,’ we mean expression of something other than the likeness of the celebrity.”

So … if your painting is a merely a faithful likeness of a person then you need that person’s permission to sell the painting. But if your painting conveys other, significant information in a way that does not simply trade on the person’s likeness, then you do not need that person’s permission to sell the painting. You need to have an intellectual property attorney make that call – and explain to you that even if your painting is “transformative,” the celebrity can still sue you and you would have to pay lots of money to defend that lawsuit.

BartVanHemelen said:

Genesia said:

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

[Edited 11/14/12 13:15pm]

Yeah, because Monroe was the only celebrity Warhol ever painted. I just pointed out one example, there are plenty more: Presley, Brando, Mao, Jackie Kennedy, Liz Taylor,.. Or how about his art that used well-known brands, like Coca-Cola, Campbell's Soup,...

The 1960s were a different time. Folks weren't as litigious. Free publicity was free publicity.

Genesia said:

BartVanHemelen said:

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

[Edited 11/14/12 13:15pm]

it's funny people acting like they now the laws on this but don't bother to research. By the way that is not aimed at anyone in particular...just the thread.

[Edited 11/14/12 13:41pm]

[Edited 11/14/12 13:46pm]

Genesia said:

BartVanHemelen said:

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

[Edited 11/14/12 13:15pm]

Exactly. You ask their estate. In fact, Madonna had a kerfuffle with Marlon Brando's estate for using his likeness in a video on her tour.

skywalker said:

udo said:

It seems like you already have a strong opinion/pov on Prince that is coloring your questioning.

Unfortunately, I don't know the ins and outs of copyright law as it relates to dolls/celebrity images.

I will ask you this-

Here is a picture of a Cyndi Lauper doll that Mattel sells:

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/lauper_barbie_box.jpg[/img:$uid]

Mattel pay/paid Cyndi Lauper the rights to use her likeness and sell these dolls.

Here is a Michael Jackson doll that Sideshow Collectibles sells:

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/MJdoll.jpg[/img:$uid]

They paid Jackon's estate money to use his likeness and sell the dolls.

Here is a Han Solo doll:

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/handoll.jpg[/img:$uid]

Indiana Jones calendar:

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/indycalendar.jpg[/img:$uid]

Han Solo T-shirt:

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/hanshirt.jpg[/img:$uid]

Harrison Ford signed over the rights to use his face/likeness to Lucasfilm for the Han Solo/Indiana Jones dolls, picture, posters, calendars, shirts, happy meals. He got paid and authorized the use of his likeness. Harrison Ford/Lucasfilm gets MONEY because his face is on all of these.

Are you telling me that Troy's work weren't of Prince's likeness?

What if Prince wanted to sell his own dolls or the license to Mattel?

Again, I totally wish that Prince would chill on copryright infringement issues, but he won't.He is kind of a dick about it. Going after the fan base sucks.

I also wish he'd release all of his live footage, unreleased songs, and make new and retro posters and t-shirts. It would make bootlegs irrelevant, but he won't.

Still, that doesn't make him without rights to his stuff (whether it is his music, or his face, etc.)

[Edited 11/14/12 11:16am]

[Edited 11/14/12 11:17am]

Those are licensed. With their names on them. Very different. And it's selling the ACTUAL DOLLS>..Troy never did.. And licensed (Star Wars) merch. Had Troy used the symbol...that is trademarked...buut he didn't and he changed it enough that he could file for a copyright and get it. (recall that Princes symbol was ripped from an symbol for soapstone). I would LOVE to see a lawyer who represents artists to get involved and smack Princes ass legally. Partly becasue it is a matter for any artist who deals with celebrity images.

and I guess you all mossed the links to books of charicatures of lots of clebrities that likely did not have to get permission? I think you all forget that the doll was a send up of Prince and the Thunderbirds marrionettes. It was not a spot on likeness.

http://youtu.be/qwNbuMCAsSE

[Edited 11/14/12 13:48pm]

[Edited 11/14/12 13:51pm]

Prince hasn't got a leg to stand on. You have a right to parody in the US. If I made a porno called Lord of the Cock Rings the Tolkien Estate would lose a lawsuit every time.

Also, anyone remember the story of the symbol guitar? Supposedly a fan who was also a guitar builder made one and sent it to him. Prince became pissed, perhaps sued the guy for infringing on the trademark of his symbol shape and then turned the gift guitar over to Jerry Auerswald who in turn made a copy for Prince which is the symbol guitar we first saw him with. I don't know if that's totally true, but it fits the behavioral pattern of Prince.

In his quest for control and appearing to be a well of ideas, you can present him with the greatest idea in the world for his career and he would aggressively oppose it because you're telling him what to do. Exactly the same reason he would never let anyone "produce" him. It's part of his schtick to be the absolute and supreme controller of his destiny. This is, of course, totally his perogative. He's still a douche.

Zannaloaf said:

Those are licensed. With their names on them. Very different. And it's selling the actual dolls. And licensed (Star WArs) merch. Had he used teh symbol...that is trademarked...buut he didn't and he cahged it enough that he cuold file for a copyright and get it. (recall that Princes symbol was ripped form a symbol for soapstone). I would LOVE to see a lawyer who represents artists to get involved and smack Princes ass legally.

Actually this is exactly the point I am making.

There is NO mistaking that Troy's merchandise/calendars was/is Prince's likeness. If they DIDN'T look like Prince (and all of his cute outfits), who would buy them? He didn't/doesn't have rights to produce Prince dolls and get paid for it.

Mattel had to get PERMISSION (and pay $$$) to sell anything with Cyndi Lauper's face on it...from Cyndi Lauper. They can't sell it without her permisson.

Sideshow collectibles couldn't just advertise/sell the MJ doll without permisson to his likeness (and likely his unique clothing items).

Lucasfilm has THE RIGHT to Harrison Ford's likeness. He gave them permission and got paid. That means: Dolls, calendars, posters, anything that has Harrison Fords face on it. If it looks like Harrison Ford, he gets/got paid from/through Lucasfilm at some point.

It doesn't matter if it's a doll, or a selling a book full of pictures of the doll. Hell Star Wars fans can buy entire posters with only dolls on them. Whomever produces the poster has to obtain permission from Lucasfilm, who received permission/bought the rights from Harrison Ford. Then they are licensed.

The whole point to this whole thing is that Troy does not have license to make $$ from Prince's likeness.

Another example:

Here is a picture from The Ghostbusters cartoon. Know why the characters don't look like Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson?

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/735111-2377383-GBAd.jpg[/img:$uid]

The actors did not give the studio that owns Ghostbusters the right to their likeness' aka their faces for this purpose.

[Edited 11/14/12 14:10pm]

steakfinger said:

Prince hasn't got a leg to stand on. You have a right to parody in the US. If I made a porno called Lord of the Cock Rings the Tolkien Estate would lose a lawsuit every time.

Also, anyone remember the story of the symbol guitar? Supposedly a fan who was also a guitar builder made one and sent it to him. Prince became pissed, perhaps sued the guy for infringing on the trademark of his symbol shape and then turned the gift guitar over to Jerry Auerswald who in turn made a copy for Prince which is the symbol guitar we first saw him with. I don't know if that's totally true, but it fits the behavioral pattern of Prince.

In his quest for control and appearing to be a well of ideas, you can present him with the greatest idea in the world for his career and he would aggressively oppose it because you're telling him what to do. Exactly the same reason he would never let anyone "produce" him. It's part of his schtick to be the absolute and supreme controller of his destiny. This is, of course, totally his perogative. He's still a douche.

And he wonders why some of us hate him

skywalker said:

Genesia said:

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

Exactly. You ask their estate. In fact, Madonna had a kerfuffle with Marlon Brando's estate for using his likeness in a video on her tour.

Of course, you ask their estate - now. But in the 60s (again), it was totally different. Most artists did not have established "estates" that protected their interests posthumously.

steakfinger said:

Prince hasn't got a leg to stand on. You have a right to parody in the US.

True, but I'm not so sure this would be considered satire, or a 1st Amendment issue. The medium is unique but it may not qualify, especially if it's being merchandised for profit, which may not be free speech or fair use.

In his quest for control and appearing to be a well of ideas, you can present him with the greatest idea in the world for his career and he would aggressively oppose it because you're telling him what to do. Exactly the same reason he would never let anyone "produce" him. It's part of his schtick to be the absolute and supreme controller of his destiny. This is, of course, totally his perogative.

There are numerous examples of the duplicity and contempt he's shown towards dedicated fans who've been his firewall over the years.

The funny thing is, he may have profited more from third party use of his music and likeness than he admits.

steakfinger said:

Prince hasn't got a leg to stand on. You have a right to parody in the US. If I made a porno called Lord of the Cock Rings the Tolkien Estate would lose a lawsuit every time.

Also, anyone remember the story of the symbol guitar? Supposedly a fan who was also a guitar builder made one and sent it to him. Prince became pissed, perhaps sued the guy for infringing on the trademark of his symbol shape and then turned the gift guitar over to Jerry Auerswald who in turn made a copy for Prince which is the symbol guitar we first saw him with. I don't know if that's totally true, but it fits the behavioral pattern of Prince.

In his quest for control and appearing to be a well of ideas, you can present him with the greatest idea in the world for his career and he would aggressively oppose it because you're telling him what to do. Exactly the same reason he would never let anyone "produce" him. It's part of his schtick to be the absolute and supreme controller of his destiny. This is, of course, totally his perogative. He's still a douche.

I Love U, John.

(Baddest Mamma-Jamma on the 7-string)

Prince is definately a "taker".

(or should i say a 'receiver'?)

Prost!

"These peeps are crazy"

Genesia said:

BartVanHemelen said:

As if Andy Warhol bothered to ask Monroe's permission. And that's just one of many examples of Warhol's art where he took other people's likeness and used it.

How, praytell, does one ask permission of a dead woman?

I see T-shirts with Michael Jackson's face on them Everyday, And dolls too. He's dead and you can't ask his permission for that, But You can Ask The Jackson's, Sony And the Lawyers who are In charge Of Michael's Copyrights and his legacy.

funky Prince Shuts Down 'Le Petit Prince' Miniatures Artist

Le Petit Prince does 1980's "Dirty Mind" / Art and photo by Troy Gua

Troy Gua, creator of the Tiny Artist, gets a cease and desist

What was that we were saying about great ideas? Well, sometimes they're just quashed by the powers that be. In late 2011, Seattle artist Troy Gua combined his love for the outsize character of Prince and the surreal puppetry of "supermarionation" pioneer Gerry Anderson (Thunderbirds), and launched the Le Petit Prince project. He built a 1/6 scale version of the Purple One, sewed up some "tiny sets of funky clothes," and shot the miniature Artist in some of his most iconic poses. Quite naturally, the photo series took off.

But as of Friday, November 16 at 4 p.m. PST, Le Petit Prince must be erased from the Internet. As Gua has announced via LPP's Facebook page, the real Prince's handlers have hit him with what sounds like a very unpleasant cease and desist letter. "I will, of course, comply with their demands, whether I agree with them as matters of artistic freedom or not," he wrote, before this rather heartbreaking addition: "I simply do not wish to fight with my hero, and it is terribly disheartening to think that he may hold ill will towards me and this project."

It should be noted that despite considerable demand, the dolls have never been for sale and, so far, the images have been distributed freely. He had plans for a photo book and exhibition, but all of that should've been protected by fair use, considering these are an artist's interpretations of a pop icon, delivered as a combination of satire and tribute. However, in order to fund the project's potential IRL outcroppings, Gua had begun to sell a Le Petit Prince calendar, a couple of Prince-inspired art prints, and a T-shirt made from one of those.

As an intro to the LPP section of his website, Gua had initially written: "There is ONLY ONE Le Petit Prince, and he's NOT FOR SALE. As for the possibility of reproduction, I have no intention or desire to break any laws or piss off my hero, so without the express consent and cooperation from Prince himself, I will not be reproducing this artwork in doll form. I would love nothing more than to put Le Petit Prince in the hands of true fans, but without Prince, it can’t happen. Prince, if you’re out there, I’d love to hear from you." Now ... probably not so much.

He wrote that while he had originally intended to make only one outfit for his hairy little buddy, fans online began requesting looks from different eras, eventually resulting in the extensive collection of remade album covers and photo shoots found, for now, on the LPP site. Also found there: a testimonial from the world-anointed arbiter of cool, ?uestlove, who says, "Troy is a gifted artist with amazing vision and detail. The thoroughness in his works shines amazingly through. Truly in awe of his work and expect even more awesome things in the future."

The Le Petit Prince calendar is still available, so get yours before it hits the black market. Here's the full text of Gua's announcement, which includes a couple of paragraphs from the letter he wrote back to Prince's people. Sorry 2 C U go. But first, this:

Hello, Friends.

It is with a heavy heart that I write this - I have been issued a cease & desist order from Prince’s attorneys. This means that the Le Petit Prince project has reached its untimely end and must be removed from the internet by Friday, November 16, 4pm PST. There are many points touched upon in the order, and I will, of course, comply with their demands, whether I agree with them as matters of artistic freedom or not. I simply do not wish to fight with my hero, and it is terribly disheartening to think that he may hold ill will towards me and this project. I wrote back to the attorneys and told them I would indeed comply, but wanted to address some of the issues brought up in their letter. I’d like to share these paragraphs with you, which contains sentiments that I hold dear and true:

“Any products sold are returning no profit to me - they are simply a meager means to fund and continue the LPP project, which is a work of fine art. And this funding, I would argue, is anything but “ill-gotten gains”. That term pains me, as I do not intend, nor have I ever intended to profit from Prince without his consent. I have, in fact, refused countless pleas to recreate the sculpture and make it available for sale because I felt that that would indeed be attempting to profit illegally. The recreation of album art and iconic imagery, on the other hand, I felt was within my creative rights as an artist. This is artwork that I have made as a loving tribute to an artist that has inspired me for decades, and has shaped the person I have become. And this tribute has grown into something that I never foresaw nor intended - a joyful and positive experience for many, many people around the world. It has, to my utter amazement, brought so much happiness to so many, building a following and a momentum that has demanded it endure and expand.

I have, actually, attempted through modest connections to Mr. Nelson, to contact him to no avail. He is not an easy person to reach out to. I, on the other hand, am very easy to engage, and was actually, perhaps foolishly, hoping for contact from him regarding this project in a much more congenial form. If I had any possible way of reaching Mr. Nelson to ask him his thoughts on this matter or to propose a creative business venture, believe me, I would have. I would love nothing more, and would relish the opportunity to do so, still.”

The words “thank you” could never adequately qualify the truly staggering gratitude I feel towards everyone who fueled the passion for this project with their words of support and praise, with their love and positivity, and with their all around good will. This project grew into what it became because of you. Although I am saddened beyond words that it has reached its end, and that it has ended this way, I am also deeply grateful and happy beyond words that I’ve had this rare opportunity to make so many new friends, to make so many people smile, and to make so many tiny sets of funky clothes.

I hope we can continue to be in touch in another corner of this great big universe somewhere. And I hope you had fun. I know I did.

For LPP, Troy Gua signing off...

The press has got a hold of this now....

skywalker said:

Zannaloaf said:

One more thought on this. Troy was clearly not making a profit. No one paid him for all teh time he put in, and if you look at his prices I would be surprised if it covered his costs. Fully printed tees are one offs - as in no wy could you aford to buy dozen and mark them up unless you were loaded. The calendars were reasonable as well.
Like I said earlier, I'm sure this could easily be won in a court case, but you'd need money to do it.

Even people like George Lucas - who is clearly out to make a buck - let's fans do Star Wars films and use likenesses under certain cionditions. If Prince wanted to stop just the merch, he could have said so. Instead he squashed all of it.

It's a shame this is what we have to talk about instead of some awesome music. I was just thinking back to hearing of a new Prince album and being excited ahead of time instead of wait and see. Perhaps more time making (good) stuff instead of hopping all over people wanting to enjoy his muisc and image would be a better use of time.

1. Profit doesn't matter. They were for advertised for sale. That's copyright law.

2. George Lucas is relaxed on a lot of this stuff, but he is essentially letting fans infringe on his trademark. It is within in his rights to not allow it...if he wants.

It's not like it's a rule/copyright law that Prince invented. Nor is he the only one that enforces it.

Umm, didn't Disney just pay George Lucas over a billion dollars for the right to peddle his Lucasfilm stuff? I'm pretty sure Prince wouldn't give two snaps and toot if someone was paying him in excess of a billion dollars for the right to sell dolls of his likeness and artwork, etc either. But he's not. Why fans still act surprised/pissed in light of this is just bizarre.

soulyacolia said:

According to Facebook Troy Gua has been hit with a cease and desist. How sad !!

sad indeed, but he knew that was the risk

Ifsixwuz9 said:

skywalker said:

1. Profit doesn't matter. They were for advertised for sale. That's copyright law.

2. George Lucas is relaxed on a lot of this stuff, but he is essentially letting fans infringe on his trademark. It is within in his rights to not allow it...if he wants.

It's not like it's a rule/copyright law that Prince invented. Nor is he the only one that enforces it.

Umm, didn't Disney just pay George Lucas over a billion dollars for the right to peddle his Lucasfilm stuff? I'm pretty sure Prince wouldn't give two snaps and toot if someone was paying him in excess of a billion dollars for the right to sell dolls of his likeness and artwork, etc either. But he's not. Why fans still act surprised/pissed in light of this is just bizarre.

Six!!!!

musicology54 said:

And he wonders why some of us hate him

1. No he doesn't

2. Folks hating a pop star they dont know have issues lol.