copyright

Hearing from the Lawyers

Willie Nelson | By Graeme MacKay USA, United States, America, Americana, music, country, western, cartoon, caricature, Willie Nelson, musician, singer, songwriter, author, poet, actor, activist, marijuana, folk, trigger, guitar For sale at the mackaycartoons boutique Redbubble has been authorized a non-exclusive royalty free license to use this illustration for display on a one time basis. Unauthourized duplication of this image is strictly prohibited. Please refer to contact information through http://www.mackaycartoons.net for re-use rights. By Graeme MacKay Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Illustrated between 1994-2015

Through my website I offer for sale some of my cartoons on a variety of products from t-shirts to coffee cups. It’s mainly a means to get my work out beyond the newspapers and put a few coins in my pocket. To do this I use the company Redbubble.com to manufacture and send out the swag. All I have to do is upload images, adjust how they’ll appear, and add relevant descriptions and keywords. Every month, I get a tiny royalty knowing which images sold, on what products, and on which continent.

It’s all quite fun until work is removed due to a charge of violating Redbubble’s IP/Publicity Rights Policy. Which happened to me when the Content Team sent the following email informing me of a complaint received by WN Music Company, LLC, regarding my caricature of Willie Nelson:

legalese

It’s a form letter so I’m not sure if the violation is using the lyric “Always on my mind”, or merely capitalizing on the Willie Nelson brand. Whatever the case I sense a mixture of emotions ranging from feeling like a criminal for looting Willie Nelson’s stash and besmirching his reputation, to being oppressed by big Music for freely expressing my admiration for a legend in a whimsical little doodle.

After a bit of reflection the position I find myself feeling is somewhere in the middle. As a cartoonist, I’ve had my own experience of others taking my work and repurposing it for their own benefit. I’m assuming the lawyers don’t like my use of the lyric, and the image was just the kicker in its eradication from the Redbubble site. The same sort of thing happened to another swag creator when lawyers for Taylor Swift sent a cease and desist letter for using her song lyrics on a coffee cup

The legal department at Redbubble.com must deal with a horrendous amount of copyright infringement complaints and a casual look through will find blatant rip offs of other artists and brands. It’s impossible for Redbubble to properly regulate until complaints are filed, and when they are it’s way easier for them to remove the offending item and not get involved in the legal wrangling that might ensue between the two parties.

While the free speech/expresionist instinct kicked in and I thought about removing the lyric and reposting the caricature as “Nillie Welson”, it’s not a sword I’m willing to fall on. It’s one thing to use the caricature of public personality in an editorial cartoon printed in a newspaper, and quite another to make money on that personality’s image.

Victory for the Willie Nelson brand, I suppose, and I’ll still enjoy his music.

The Latest Social Media Donkey Award unveiled…

It has become very apparent in recent years how social media, particularly during election campaigns, has empowered the wing-nut body politic. It used to be kept at a certain level of decorum and higher standard in the days before the Internet when letters editors separated the readable public commentary from the rantings of idiots. Social media, many argue, has democratized free speech by giving everyone with the ability to type words on a keyboard or into a “smart” phone a voice. Problem is, the idiot voices on social media now overwhelm the sophisticated commentary making it next to impossible to find any worthy substance in it. It is a forum for throwing around opinions and insults, a place to promote bigotry and accusing people of racism (and every ism for that matter). Where the wild frontier of unregulated virtual freedom of expression gives amnesty to pirates of intellectual property. It has become by default, a zone for which polite engagement is automatically greeted by rude and boorish behaviour. Pssst, there’s a soft-spoken mantra in newsrooms when it comes to dealing with this sort of aggressive online agitator: Don’t engage with them. In the vastness of cyberspace, the warning is don’t feed the trolls.

CanadianTruthNews

Some of our chat

Some of our chat

Introducing James Stewart, not the famous Hollywood actor, but “Teflon Jim”, as he goes by on Facebook. I had an interesting encounter with him on Facebook today that I’d love to share with my readers. Bottom line is, Jim doesn’t think it’s wrong to download cartoons or any image from the Internet and slice and dice those images and repost them on his many Facebook pages for his adoring audiences. He claims he’s got the captains of Big Social Media backing him up on this copyright free-for-all. While he denies altering my image, he says he downloaded the cartoon in some state, refusing to remove it at my request, and adding that I should be grateful he’s giving me the exposure to his FB audiences. Yeah, shame not on him, but shame on me for asking to remove my vandalized intellectual property. In this case it’s the artist defending his work who’s the troll in Jimmy’s world.

His view of artists, I found, is not very glowing, particularly for a card carrying member of the Green Party. Here’s some of James’ messages to us regarding our work:

If you post something on Facebook, it becomes public domain. People can do with it as they please. Those are the rules, please learn them. And whether or not you get your “Panties in a Knot” over it, the situation will always be the same.

You should be proud if someone shares your stuff my friend. If they go further to download it and send it out as something special, you should be more proud.

Yet nobody is going to put up with your whining and complaining “Mine Mine Mine” on Facebook. Just a fact. Also the rules.

It turns out he’s had other run-ins with others who’ve stumbled on their own work modified on his page:

I got the same crap over the artist who made this photo for a group he was in. Excellent Photo and very relevant to my group. This I did alter, taking his group name out of it, and it has been the front photo on my most popular video.

He demanded I quit using it, and even complained to Facebook after I told him to shove it! They sided with me, and I am glad: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201925658244310&set=o.202199749840008&type=1&theater

After I mentioned to him that I found it quite rich when people who are first to scream out against the unethical behaviour of those in authority prove themselves to be unethical, James answered back:

No in fact this has been discussed at great length and decided upon. The only people who give a rats ass about it are the artists.

*Note for Artists*

Do not share your art on Facebook if you get your “Panties in a Knot” if someone crops it or changes it or uses it in any way.

Those are the rules. You signed them when you signed up to Facebook, and the same is true on all Social Media. NO Social Media is on your side on this issue.

12041852_10153582830780450_671104434_n

Click for context

He even used the opportunity to compare intellectual property with his green energy passion:

…it is kinda like arguing over Oil Jobs and how many people would be put out of work by Alternative Energy. It would actually increase the work, but less profit for the Elite.

Artists make art to be seen. They have a tie to it as they made it, and that I understand. Yet it is either kept in a closet or seen. You cannot help what people do with art. Best it be seen, rather than not, and as I said, if you are so insecure about it… keep it in your closet.

That’s Art in the Social Media World according to James Stewart. Social Media’s got his back, and if you’re an artist who likes posting work on the Internet, James will be there ready to carve it up and do with it what ever he wants to. You may recall the last time I asked someone to remove altered editorial cartoons. He took his time, but I think in the end he learned his lesson. Thing is, we never got to know the actual name behind the Twitter account.

A man with a hat

A man with a hat

But we know who James (not the actor) Stewart is! According to his Linkedin page he’s into Marketing and Advertising, and used to be a newspaper guy working at the two big dailies in Saskatchewan, the page goes into great blah blah blah about how things didn’t go right. He now  sells vehicles online (yeah, I know, not so green) using his vast knowledge of advertising. His summary reads, “Now to retire comfortably, but always open to advice, new ideas, and possibilities.” It seems his new ideas today involve managing a host of Facebook pages. In his own words they included “Free Energy, RBE, Occupy, Liberty, Canadian Truth and more.” Canadian Truth News Eh, is the page I came across my altered cartoon. I’ve been since blocked from viewing the page, but it’s filled with an abundance of left leaning, environmental content, plus a lot of usual anti Harper stuff that there’s no shortage of on social media.

SocialMediaJackAssIf you’ve got nothing better to do with your time, why not visit James Stewart on his many Facebook Pages. Surely you’ll find quite a range of Canadian offerings he’s decided look better reworded his way instead of what editorial cartoonists originally had in place. Editorial Cartoonists can report their defaced artwork, such as the examples shown below, to Facebook admin. And don’t forget to thank James (Teflon Jim) Stewart, not the famous one but the man with a hat, who calls himself, in his own words “someone who does stuff unselfishly for humanity…”

Updates (September 24, 2015, 12 hours after complaint made) on James Stewart’s refusal to remove intellectual property. This email letter to me from Facebook admin:

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention. We removed or disabled access to the content you reported for violating the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. We understand this action to resolve your intellectual property issue.

This is a no-reply email. If you’d like to report something else, or if you don’t believe this action resolved your issue, please fill out this form:

https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/208282075858952

If you have any additional questions, please visit the Intellectual Property section of our Help Center:

https://www.facebook.com/help/intellectual_property

Thanks,

The Facebook Team

(October 1, 2015) James Stewart might want to think again about returning to his habit of reposting altered intellectual property.  Artists are going beyond the sort of shame tactics one sees above that is the precursor to having their work forcefully removed by social media admin.  Stubborn, bullheaded behaviour like that exercised by James Stewart is being dealt with in the legal courts. While having images quietly removed from Facebook users pages might not school copyright pirates, I’m pretty sure if people are having to reach into their bank accounts to cover damages a lesson will learned the costly way.

 

No Jimmy Stewart, you can’t modify #cartoons & repost them on Facebook. That’s called #plagiarism and it violates…

Posted by Graeme MacKay – editorial cartoonist on Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Why @HarpersGotaGos GotaGo

HarpersGotaGoUnknownIt’s election time in Canada and with it comes a golden period of time when satirists are busy skewering the very folks begging for our votes. Social media websites and apps have enabled anyone with a political sense the ability to satirize and join a realm once dominated mostly by newspaper columnists and editorial cartoonists. One doesn’t have to search far on the world wide web to find altered zinger photos of well known celebrities or politicians meant to mock them. Some are hilarious and great, some not so much. In almost every case these funnies often have no source and there is never any credit given to the author or photographer whose work was used in the humor.

Increasingly, the satirical value of editorial cartoons are being re-posted on social media by individuals or action groups determined to score points against political opponents. Because we cartoonists sign these cartoons with our monikers the source citations are automatic. Based on the number of shares, retweets and re-postings that editorial cartoons generally receive online it isn’t hard to argue that the Internet has boosted this form of satire immensely and kept their shelf life going way longer compared to when audiences only read them on newsprint. Which leads us naturally to the 21th century lament that if only each artist/musician were paid for each time their work was viewed/heard online, we’d live in a perfect world, but let’s leave that discussion for another time. By in large, sharing editorial cartoons is encouraged by cartoonists. It keeps the art form relevant and very much alive, and even though compensation is low or non-existent, artists hope that eventually a fair pricing system will  be worked out sometime in the not so distant future.

I make it very easy to share my work since I post cartoons to this site, on Facebook, on Twitter. My newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, post them to spec.com, and my syndicate Artizans.com post them for sale on its site, and then numerous newspapers and aggregators will pick up my cartoons and re-post to theirs. So after one cartoon has been uploaded to the internet it gets duplicated many multiple times as it’s sent out in various directions without any of the artist’s control thereafter.

Twitter-HarpersGotaGoEventually, some of those orphaned copies end up in the dark recesses of the cyber sewer when they appear on the screens of dubious characters nicely stereotyped as social misfit adults living in the basements of their mothers, and clad only in their underwear with their photo apps busy chopping away. That’s the picture I began to see of the person I had brief encounter with on Twitter with an account that goes by @HarpersGotaGo (@HGG).

Editorial cartoonists, like me, have been performing some voluntary service for our craft by policing the rising popularity of sharing editorial cartoons on the Internet. Those who rip off other cartoonists ideas are monitored, and those who alter cartoons to fit their own agenda are immediately called out. It’s quite easy to pin down authentic work from anonymous satirists based on their propensity to use the font Comic Sans, as this Washington Post story points out. Here’s a recent example of a Bob Englehart cartoon on the June 2015 Confederate flag controversy that was altered by a group celebrating the US Supreme Court’s decision to uphold marriage equality – perhaps for noble intent to get a message out, but a definite no-no since permission was never granted by the artist.

Harpersgotago1   Harpersgotago5When @HGG, whose true identity remains a mystery, tweeted me a cartoon that was so obviously reworded with the moniker of the artist erased out an alarm bell went off in my head. The cartoon had the familiar style of Malcolm Mayes, longtime editorial cartoonist at the Edmonton Journal. I called the account holder out on it and then he/she got lippy.  Further inspection of @HGG’s photo archive found various examples of unauthorized hatchet jobs on cartoons by Tim Dolighan, Patrick LaMontagne, Greg Perry, Steve Nease, and recent National Newspaper Award winning cartoonist Bruce MacKinnon from the Halifax Chronicle Herald. One thing editorial cartoonists have in common is the keen ability to tell one cartoonist’s style from another even when the moniker is rubbed out. For the record, none of my work was posted, intact or altered.

Harpersgotago2 Harpersgotago4 Harpersgotago3
Still, I nicely eluded to @HGG with my limited tweet abilities that the alterations were breaches of copyright, and with the erasing of monikers and hosting of the cartoons on the account @HGG was essentially guilty of plagiarism.

Then I was blocked, as were the other cartoonists I cc’d and whose work was altered without permission.

It’s ironic that the account holder @HGG, who has every right to satirize the Prime Minister for unethical behavior, proves to have his/her own unethical behavior by plagiarizing the true foot soldiers of Canadian satire. Some may ask why bother paying attention to this character, he/she doesn’t have much of a following, but the account holder seems to have no problem allowing these altered copies to remain on their photo feed making them available to whomever wants to retweet them. Shame on @HGG, and if anything @HarpersGotaGosGotaGo.

HarpersGotaGo

What does it say about people that this image got 11 retweets!

Update – Despite being reported to Twitter administration by several affected cartoonists nothing has been done to discipline @HarpersGotaGo (@HGG). Reporting, and indeed this blog entry would not have even been necessary were it not for @HGG’s passive reaction to being called out for altering editorial cartoons and his/her stubborn refusal to remove the above examples. Usually, when I politely point out unauthorized altered cartoons people are generally apologetic, and take the offending images down, and everyone moves on. Not @@HGG! It’s like a virtual staring contest, and admittedly it has become personal. Yes, the above images were finally cleared from the archives after the public shaming began, and there has been an attempt by @HarpersGotoGo to create original content (despite poor spelling and grammar – see right). Yet, even a week later, after being called out, the icon bearing a drawing of Stephen Harper by Malcolm Mayes remains on this account (cropped from one of these cartoons), and I’ve been labelled a troll for persisting in the shaming by this obstinate character. Another twitter user was threatened by @@HGG to have his computer hacked into for daring to call the plagiarism out. Meanwhile, @HGG tweets continue to rail against the evil Prime Minister, while paying no mind to the unethical reuse of intellectual property. We could all do cartoonists a favour by schooling this individual and his/her blind followers on Twitter. Thanks to websites like the Daily Cartoonist, the message is getting out.

HarpersGotaGo-banner

If there is one good that comes from the poor behaviour of one bullheaded user on Twitter it is that they become a useful example of how hijacking intellectual property serves as a warning to others. Way to go @HarpersGotaGo!

Update, Oct 2017: RIP @HarpersGotaGo. It was renamed Justin’sPromise after Harper’s Conservatives lost in the 2015 election and the Twitter handle appears to be abandoned. The last tweet being sent out Feb 8, 2016.

Social Media

 

 

SaveSave

Friday June 5, 2015

Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator - Friday June 5, 2015 Canadians are ÔstealingÕ U.S. Netflix content: Bell Bell Media's new president has a message for Canadians who hide behind virtual private networks to access video streaming services intended for U.S. subscribers, calling the practice "stealing just like stealing anything else." "It takes behavioral change and it is the people Ñ friend to friend, parent to child, coworker to coworker Ñ that set the cultural framework for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour," Mary Ann Turcke said Wednesday in her first major speech since assuming the post in April. "It has to become socially unacceptable to admit that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix Ñ like throwing garbage out your car window Ð you just don't do it." Turcke, formerly Bell's group president of media sales for local TV and radio, cited her 15-year-old daughter's discovery of the additional movie and TV content of U.S. Netflix versus the Canadian version while on a ski vacation stateside. The teenager was able to log onto the U.S. Web streaming service when back home using a U.S.-based VPN to mask her address. While residing in something of a legal grey zone according to experts, VPNing runs contrary to the California-based giant's terms of use and Netflix has threatened a crackdown. "She was told she was stealing." Turcke said. "Suffice to say there is no more VPNing." With an estimated one third of Netflix Canada customers accessing content meant for U.S. subscribers, she said "we need to personalize the fact that content is produced by real people, and that stealing it affects their livelihoods." Broadcasters including Bell Media's CTV English-language network need the support of government and the federal regulator, she said, noting that the latter plans a summit in the fall to contemplate "illegal discoverability." In the end, she said, "I believe it is on us." Not only does society not scold anyone for stealing content,

Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 5, 2015

Canadians are ‘stealing’ U.S. Netflix content: Bell

Bell Media’s new president has a message for Canadians who hide behind virtual private networks to access video streaming services intended for U.S. subscribers, calling the practice “stealing just like stealing anything else.”

Wednesday September 24, 2014“It takes behavioral change and it is the people — friend to friend, parent to child, coworker to coworker — that set the cultural framework for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour,” Mary Ann Turcke said Wednesday in her first major speech since assuming the post in April.

“It has to become socially unacceptable to admit that you are VPNing into U.S. Netflix — like throwing garbage out your car window – you just don’t do it.”

Turcke, formerly Bell’s group president of media sales for local TV and radio, cited her 15-year-old daughter’s discovery of the additional movie and TV content of U.S. Netflix versus the Canadian version while on a ski vacation stateside.

The teenager was able to log onto the U.S. Web streaming service when back home using a U.S.-based VPN to mask her address.

Friday March 20, 2015While residing in something of a legal grey zone according to experts, VPNing runs contrary to the California-based giant’s terms of use and Netflix has threatened a crackdown.

“She was told she was stealing.” Turcke said. “Suffice to say there is no more VPNing.”

With an estimated one third of Netflix Canada customers accessing content meant for U.S. subscribers, she said “we need to personalize the fact that content is produced by real people, and that stealing it affects their livelihoods.”

Broadcasters including Bell Media’s CTV English-language network need the support of government and the federal regulator, she said, noting that the latter plans a summit in the fall to contemplate “illegal discoverability.” In the end, she said, “I believe it is on us.”

Not only does society not scold anyone for stealing content, Turcke added, but we feature “how to” articles in our national newspapers — educating the masses on how to get around copyright law. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Friday January 20, 2012

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hmilton Spectator – Friday January 20, 2012

Wikipedia limits service in anti-piracy act protest

Some of the best-known sites on the internet, including Wikipedia, are limiting access today in a “Dark Wednesday” protest against legislation before the U.S. Congress intended to curb copyright infringement that critics say will limit the scope of the web and adversely affect legitimate websites.

Popular Canadian sitesjoining the protest include Tucows, a Toronto-based site that hosts free software for download, Identi.ca, a social microblogging service and the blog of University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, an oft-cited expert on copyright issues.

There are two similar bills addressing protection of intellectual property online currently being considered by Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which is before the House of Representatives judiciary committee, and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), which is to be voted on by the Senate next week.

Last weekend, the White House signaled its opposition to the bills, which are supposed to make it easier for copyright holders to go after “foreign rogue websites” suspected of facilitating infringement of copyright.

Under the current draft of SOPA, courts could order credit card firms, online payment companies like PayPal and advertising networks to stop doing business with those websites. They could also order search engines to stop linking to them and internet service providers (ISPs) to block their customers from accessing them, although in recent days, the lead sponsor of SOPA, Republican congressman Lamar Smith, has backed off the ISP provision. PIPA was also being revised to address some of the concerns voiced in recent days. (Source: CBC News)