Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Woahwoahwoah, wait a minute. Why is the picture on the bottom left described as "artwork for Opera Exogensis from 2005"? :wtf: Isn't that an image used in the album booklet as well?

 

We've never even seen photos or any solid evidence from that guy.

 

I think that is just a mistake. That is obviously Muse's album artwork. If that really is the artwork the guy is presenting as evidence, you have to question the sanity of the legal team working for this guy as well. Well I suppose that was already under question, unless they are getting something out of it.

 

Hmm, maybe rather than trying to get money, this guy is trying to promote himself, make himself famous in quite a weird way, by mounting a ridiculous legal challenge.

 

On second thoughts, that is probably just The Metro trying to concoct a story out of it, making it look like artwork from two different sources is very similar, which of course it is, as it's from the same source. The truth is no longer of much importance to the media. :rolleyes:

Edited by CarrieB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woahwoahwoah, wait a minute. Why is the picture on the bottom left described as "artwork for Opera Exogensis from 2005"? :wtf: Isn't that an image used in the album booklet as well?

 

We've never even seen photos or any solid evidence from that guy.

 

 

Yeah, that's a bit weird. I didn't notice that. That artwork is Muse's Exogenesis artwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I doubt Warner would take on a case unless they knew there was no chance of them losing. I don't think Warner would do it out of loyalty to Matt or in an attempt to protect his integrity. I could be wrong of course, but I think that if there was any doubt, they would have been more inclined to settle out of court, which to me means that the guy hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

It's not a case of Warner taking any case, they were the party sued:

"Bollfrass sued Warner Music Group for copyright infringement, unfair trade practices and unfair competition. He seeks $3.5 million in damages."

 

And yes, labels WILL fight cases even when it seems like they are in the wrong. Copyright claims are really hard to establish (in the music business), and take a huge amount of expertise (and therefore money) to prove. That is why when a small-time artist gets ripped off by a major-label artist, the wronged party rarely bother to fight because the risk of losing is so big and then they are stuck with legal bills for the rest of their lives.The rich labels have an army of lawyers to fight these cases and they don't own up to anything out on any sort of grounds based on fairness.

 

From a copyright point of view, I can't see this guy having any case, like it was mentioned in this thread, general ideas and titles are not protected, but I don't know anything about unfair business practises and unfair competition law in the US to comment on that.

Edited by sade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...