The Daily Show can probably afford to pay this artist for the image she created that they stole

[swag]

http://www.unusualcards.com/News%21/Entries/2015/2/11_As_Seen_on_TV.html

Dear Jon Stewart,

I’m really sorry to hear that you’re leaving the Daily Show. It’s been our family’s favorite source of news entertainment for many years now, and your humor will be greatly missed.

Before you move onto your next opportunity, I’m hoping you’ll take a moment to pay me and acknowledge use of my artwork that was used on June 17, 2014.

When the show first aired I was really excited about seeing Jesus Saves the Dinosaurs on your show. First of all, my parents could see my art on TV and know that the whole art school thing was finally paying off. Secondly, I assumed that the whole art school thing would finally be paying off.

You see, since I launched unusualcards.com in 2002, I’ve gone through periodic bouts of “discovery” by various websites. Usually what happens is this, somebody will steal my art, and then a little while later somebody will figure out the art came from and publish a link to my website.

. . . read more

http://www.unusualcards.com/News%21/Entries/2015/2/11_As_Seen_on_TV.html

[samsingh]

1. kick

[SomethingFishy]

2. When you google "jesus on dinosaur" that image is 3rd, 5th and 6th to come up

none of the links are to Unusual Cards, and none of them are marked "copyright". This is probably an intern who just googled it and used the 1st useful image which is from a humor website.

Not that the artist shouldn't be paid for their work, but I doubt this was malicious.

[randome]

4. Yeah, I thought something was fishy about this, SomethingFishy.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[swag]

10. Please explain. I know this artist. I have seen her originals. What are you saying?

The Daily Show used her work and did not pay her.

What are you saying?

[randome]

11. Like SomethingFishy said, it most likely was an oversight...

...based on the fact that the images one finds on Google do not lead back to the artist. I agree she should be paid but to act like there is some sort of greedy conspiracy at the heart of this is ridiculous.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[swag]

16. Pay the artist

[swag]

17. Straw man

Nobody is acting like there is any greedy conspiracy going on.

Artists should be paid for their work. Don't steal it and use it on national television.

How simple is that? As all the eager Googlers here have shown, it's not hard to find an originator.

[randome]

13. It doesn't sound like she even asked for anything outside an open blog posting.

Does she think The Daily Show monitors all blog postings?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[swag]

14. She owns the image. They stole it. She contacted them. No reply.

They need to contact her and negotiate terms for payment.

You need to be less thick.

[randome]

18. When did she contact them? How did she contact them?

There's no information to go on so calling people thick in the absence of specific information is rather pointless, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[swag]

8. The image used on the Daily Show was created by this artist.

A lot of entities have stolen her work, "The Daily Show" among them.

Why the hell are you doubting this?

This woman created some art, this big-assed show stole it, she has asked to be paid, she has not been paid.

Everybody thinks they can fucking steal everything nowadays, I guess.

I know this artist personally. She busts ass for a living.

[Iggo]

9. EVERYBODY!!! EVERYTHING!!!

AAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

[swag]

12. Whatever you say, Iggo. Clearly, you fuckin' rule.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. Leggo my Iggo. n/t

[elehhhhna]

24. please tell her (you?) that she should edit the whining from her letter

She's a cool artist but her tone and complaining about So Busy when she Does get some business is weird and unprofessional. Does she want cash? How much? She might consider editing before it goes viral...

[pnwmom]

21. But once she notified them there was no excuse for them not to pay her. n/t

[randome]

23. Who says she notified them? Swag?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Atman]

26. I didn't mean to not pay my mechanic. It wasn't malicious.

Artists are just the same, right? It's not malicious if you steal their work, right?

[SomethingFishy]

35. Bullshit comparison. You know your mechanic fixed your car. The art was posted on Google

with no links back to the artist and no copyright markings.

I absolutely agree that the artist should be paid. I also can see where a Daily Show staff member might have needed a picture quick and grabbed the first thing they found on Google. You call it malicious, it looks like an oversight to me.

But hey, lest assume the worst about that right wing piece of shit Daily Show.

[olddots]

3. this happens alot

somewhere in the chain somebody didn't do their job and another artist gets beat .Its not intentional most of the time but artists of all types get little respect in the cut and paste world .

[swag]

7. Who cares if this is not "intentional" theft. The artist deserves to be paid.

[swag]

6. She owns the image. She has contacted them. They should respond. They can negotiate.

They have not responded.

[uncle ray]

19. how did she contact them?

registered letter from her attorney? i doubt they would ignore that. all we here at DU have to go on is a blog post.

nobody is reflexively defending a corporate entity, they are questioning how she actually contacted them.

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. I was kind of confused about it as well...

Basically, pay the artist, and it goes away.
Defending a show just because you like the show is just plain silly. The fact that they didn't reply to her is amazingly horrid.

(also, it's a great image)

***also, on edit, she's a fantastic writer.

[krawhitham]

25. Fair Use?

no idea, but The Daily Show might be covered under the fair use law


See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.qdERGMFE.dpuf

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. -

See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.qdERGMFE.dpuf

[MADem]

27. Fair point. Comment/parody--it is a "fake news" show, after all.

That said, I would very much like to know how Comedy Central, or the Daily Show, was contacted.

If the mail went to the same place the fan mail goes, that letter would probably slip through the cracks (straight to the recycle bin). A registered letter on an attorney's letterhead, addressed to the legal offices that serve CC/DS, would not be ignored--even if the lawyer wrote back and said "Ermmmm...no. Fair use. Sorry--sue us if you don't agree."

There's just no way they'd "ignore" a request through proper channels for resolution.

And that said, the artist can always figure out how much money she thinks she deserves, and take them court herself--they have to answer if she sues them, they can't avoid it. If it's a small claims amount, she doesn't even need a lawyer--it'll be like Judge Judy without the screaming and insults. The artist should be prepared for a "de minimis" defense, though:

Too Small for Fair Use: The De Minimis Defense

In some cases, the amount of material copied is so small (or “de minimis”) that the court permits it without even conducting a fair use analysis. For example, in the motion picture Seven, several copyrighted photographs appeared in the film, prompting the copyright owner of the photographs to sue the producer of the movie. The court held that the photos “appear fleetingly and are obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable.” The court excused the use of the photographs as “de minimis” and didn’t require a fair use analysis. (Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998).)

As with fair use, there is no bright line test for determining a de minimis use. For example, in another case, a court determined that the use of a copyrighted poster for a total of 27 seconds in the background of the TV show Roc was not de minimis. What distinguished the use of the poster from the use of the photographs in the Seven case? The court stated that the poster was clearly visible and recognizable with sufficient observable detail for the “average lay observer” to view the artist’s imagery and colorful style. (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)

- See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.iQGMZqvc.dpuf

[Atman]

28. We're just artists. Who cares?

Go ahead...steal our stuff. Who cares, we're just lowly artists, probably doing drugs and on food stamps anyway, right? So it's okay to steal our work for a massive profit-making venture. We probably smell, too. And don't shower. Why pay us?

[MADem]

29. I always say the laborer is worthy of his hire. Ripping off photos, images, music, films,

and cable television shows--it's a form of theft. Not quite so obvious as picking someone's pocket, but someone ain't getting paid.

That said, if the corporation is notified of the theft through appropriate channels, responding to the charge isn't optional. They can't ignore a subpoena.

That's what the issue seems to be with those questioning this account--the manner of notification.

[Atman]

30. Can you imagine if someone pick-pocketed a bank of rare artists' drawing?

They're worth MILLIONS...because he's dead.

No one I've ever known showed up the plumber's funeral because he laid awesome pipe.

I'd like to be paid for my work now, so I can eat. Not when I'm dead so you can't profit off a party. is that too much to ask?

[MADem]

32. I am one of these quaint people who pay. I've been told I'm foolish on this board for so doing.

I'm too old to worry about viruses via bit torrent, and that kind of nonsense. I don't have to see the latest thing NOW. For example, films -- I can wait until cable pays the artists and watch, paying for the privilege, in the comfort of my home; I don't have to run out to the theater.

If you put your work on the internet, I'd recommend you use a watermark. That will cut down on unauthorized or uncredited applications.

[TeamPooka]

31. only an expensive lawsuit can extract any payment now. nt

[MADem]

33. No--small claims court is cheap. Fifteen or twenty bucks to file, no lawyer needed.

The artist can get up to five grand via that route. Of course, the artist needs to have a case, and that might not stand up in court:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/publications/publications_small_claims.shtml

[Go Vols]

34. The Daily Show

should know that it is a copyrighted image and paid.

Question: How Do You Copyright a Painting or an Idea?

Answer:

As soon as you've created something in a tangible form, you have copyright on it. If it's still an idea, you can't copyright it, but as soon as you've painted it, you have copyright on it but, importantly, it's the way you've executed the idea that can be copyrighted, not the idea itself. You don't need to register copyright for it to exist.

http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq2.htm