Am I the only person on this fetid blue marble that could not give a flying fuck about Justin Beiber!? I don't hate him, love him, like him or dislike him. And it's fucking irritating to see comments like "Hehe, 1 dislike? Nice try Beiber."
GOD, do you think you're clever or something for posting a comment a bajilion other people have posted before? It's fucking stupid, STOP doing it! /rant
Not to mention... a similar case happened to Madonna when she got sued by the estate of Guy Bourdin for her "Hollywood" video... and the estate won.... this will most likely happen here... and yes he can sue for damages... because for one.. he does services a director as well as a photog.. they could've hired him to do the video instead of going behind his back... secondly... the artists and record companies make a profit off of the music videos... videos help generate album sales...
Do I think he has a case???... yes I do... and apparently the judge agrees wit' LaChapelle because he granted for the case to go to trial... people familiar wit' LaChapelle and his work knew off the bat that this video was inspired by his work... which is why they contacted him and asked him if he directed the video... now Rihanna's team should've hired him to direct the video if they were gonna do an inspired video... he is not talkin' out of his ass....
maybe he should sue, because the video really, really sucks. If you are inspred by DLC's work, you should at least try to make something bearable - or pay that guy a lot of money.
And DLC? He should take the money and donate it. Best choice would be some organization supporting people who ripped their eyes out after seeing modern 'art'.
Well, it is true it is inspired form Lachapelle's Work ..... but you can't call it Plagiarism (it is not, it's different, ideas are not really the same but do have a lot of similarities)
And by the way, the one who should be sued isn't Rihana, cause she didn't directed this video (and i doubt that she had this kind of ideas)
So this shouldn't even happen ... (Lachapelle was inspired too from others' work and still people didn't sue him ..... so in my opinion he is kind of an opportunist)
i don't care what he does per se but is he losing money from rihanna's alleged incorporation of his ideas. if not don't sue for money. suing for money makes you look like an ass and encourages others to sue for money over stupid non-commercial things.
and that DAMIAN HURST DIAMOND-SKULL IS JUST A MEDIOCRE RIP-OFF OF A MEDIEVAL CATHOLIC RELIQUARY.....DO you know how many heads John the Baptist had in the 12th century?...all encrusted in gems.Sometimes it really does help to know just a teeny-weeny bit of history...oh but of course since the Hurst is a piece of conceptual-Art that makes it "different?"Hey Art has become the RELIGION OF GREED-OBJECTIFIED in those places called galleries,but some of itsOK or ITS"LEAVE IT TO BEIBER-TIME"..YIKES
Since when is someone walking someone on a leash a new idea? S&M has been doing it for centuries.If only all the UN-MONEYED-IMMIGRANTS FROM THE DOMINICAN-REPUBLIC & PUERTO RICO could sue Miss Thing(Chapel in English) they'd be able to send their kids to Yale.Honestly,The very notion that someone can claim to own a color-arrangement & a compositional similarity is just PLUTOCRACY. HE GOT HIS IDEAS FROM PUERTO-RICAN Bodegas & a lot of Peoples apartments.So who's the THIEF-HERE? Greed is GREED
There's a difference between a homage or a tribute and stealing someone's work. Practically every artist takes inspiration from somewhere, and many do take or do their own version of things. It's like cover songs, not illegal.
No. David LaChapelle has no case, come on. I would look at this video as an obvious homage to his work, which doesn't warrant legal action imo. It's stupid.
If Rihanna's video was literally exactly the same as the photos by LaChappelle, I would agree that he should be able to sue. As it is, they aren't the same. They might be influenced by his style but they aren't the same thing. You shouldn't be able to sue someone for using the same style as someone else, only if they pass off exact copies of someone else's work as their own.
So my public burnings of Justin Bieber photos, figurines & paraphernalia. Whilst yelling insults at potential Biber fans through a megaphone somehow makes me an asshole now I take it...
He should let it go and be happy he is being copied - it means he is established in the visual language of pop culture. This doesn't diminish or damage any of the work he's done or will do. People always cop other people's styles, it's how style spreads. Should a theoretically alive Alfred Hitchcock sue Brian DePalma for most of his movies? It's good publicity, though, for both of them.
YOU CAN NOT COPYWRITE THE WEARING OF LATEX OR THE WALKING OF A MAN ON A LEASH WHAT KIND OF A JOKE IS THIS? THE ARTIST JUST WANTS ATTENTION, FASHION AND ART ARE COPYING/INSPIRING/BOROWING AND CHANGING ENTITIES ALL THE TIME!
I'm really taken aback by the idea of a "look and feel" as a copyrightable concept. Essentially all art throughout history has been influenced by the aesthetic norms circulating in that subculture, this is the whole reason we see artistic genres and period aesthetics.
i didn't realize you could copyright a theme. i think in a purely legal sentiment, he's full of crap. i don't think they should even have to give him credit, let alone have to pay him. There are a lot of video games creators that would have been sued by now if you couldn't make a game similar to others. And plenty of authors who have written pretty darn similar books. should they be sued? no, cause you can't copyright a theme, or topic. a name? sure. a product? yup. not a theme or topic, though.
It looks too similar ! Plus in my news paper they said she purchased some of his photos before so she knew of him she liked his work and then she copy him thats it ! And with all the money she will make with this stupid video who cares if she give him the money he deserved it ! If he would have said nothing it would have been an insolt to his art!
nah.. stoopid to sue for a vid copyin pictures. they arent even competing mediums. its like mcdonalds sueing papa lazaru.. wait, its nothing like that is it?
sue for credits sure... sue for money... Oh your fucking dickhead. Take your "Oh so exclusive pictures" and fuck off the stage then! If you can not tolerate someone using your idea because its just that good you got no business showing it in the first place.
@ladders1 Im perfectly fine with suing for credits. Im against demanding he should get money for it. Its like Newton suing everyone for using gravity in my opinion.
People are just way to sue happy. I am really starting to question the concept of IP ownership. How the fuck can someone justify owning an idea let alone using government power to maintain control of said idea and how it is used.
I agree that people should not be able to claim that they represent a certain brand because that can harm the brand but seriously should Nike for instance be able to sue people for selling shirts with a fucking check mark on them?
He's probably bitter because she didn't hire him. Lil Kim did, Lady Gaga did, everyone who want's to make a kinky photo or S&M-themed video should hire LaChapelle, right?
Feel - not copyrighted, tone - not copyrighted, mood - not copyrighted, theme - not copyrighted, colors - not copyrighted, style - not copyrighted, composition - not copyrighted, concept - not copyrighted, setting - not copyrighted, lighting - not copyrighted, props - weren't actually copied decors - weren't actually copied wardrobe - wasn't actually copied. They were obviously inspired by LaChapelle's style, but that's it. Nothing was actually ripped off. To me it looks like he's just greedy.
And Manet's "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe" reminds me of Giorgione's "Le Concert Champetre." Could you say that Manet was guilty of plagiarism? How much can you be inspired by someone before it is considered stealing?
First of all there art directors, stylist, make up artist and so on that really are the back bone on creating the video she may have had some say in making the video but I bet that it was a director that was inspired by this cry baby LaChappelle and he's not the only artist or photographer to do bondage photos
I think its simply an opportunistic move ... "she has some bucks, can we get some of em!?"
Should he be, or rather should he be able to? whilst her video is obviously inspired by his prior work its not a direct copy, so where does one draw the line.
I would have thought the art director or whoever behind the video would have considered what they can and cannot get away with.
( If she was standing in front of a B&W mountain could Ansel Adams sue her? )
Considering I not only have no connection to the world of photography or it's artists, but also ignore 'singers' like Rihanna, I would have to look deeper to give a decent answer.
But if you can watch that video and immediately say "hey, this looks REALLY similar to this guy" straight away, I'm sure a fuckton of others can too, and since she didn't credit him at all, I'd say yes, sue away if he really wants to.
Suing for damages? What damages, people aren't going to be buying the video instead of the art, however the design of the video is clearly based on his work so he should be credited.
Couldn't he have just...I don't know...gone up to Rihanna or her rep and said "yo, credit me or there's going to be some serious shit" before taking any sort of action.
I find it flattering when someone uses my artwork or style of video presentation, incorporating it into their own works one way or another but I always make it clear that if a person does so...have the decency to credit me...in short, comply with Creative Commons 3.0 licensing I set.
love the flat-eric like headbanging in the beginning :D
ontopic: in general i m against intellectual copy-right laws, because they hinder more than they actually achieve. More specifically i always find it morally questionable when people make a somewhat costly production like a movie, music-video or similar and obviously use other peoples ideas and do not have the decency to at least get them on the project in an advisory / consultant role and pay a wee bit.
Our whole existence is a result of copying. We copy to learn, teach, eat, laugh and be successful. The similarities are tenuous at best and the money earned from this suggested plagiarism will be negligible when compared by this obvious advertising publicity stunt to make people aware of "David LaChapelle". Im no fan of singers getting paid more than small countries either but coping or being inspired is an essential part of our development as a human race.
Even if the setup is pretty far copied from LaChappelle, I think they've gone through it with legal people to make sure it's changed enough to avoid any lawsuits. And so fucking what? I hardly think the cross-section is that huge of people who would watch LaChappelle or if they saw some Rihanna video, would stop with LaChap. What is he losing there really? One line in the credits of some Rihanna-DVD?
Well...I would rather listen to how much someone hates Justin Bieber than to someone who is babbling about how ''talented'' he is and how much they love him.
in my work i always use insperation from other artists, which is what the s+m video quite obviously did. if LaChappelle thinks that the video is offensive torwards his work, then just a statment saying that they were inspired by him should be enough?
I think LaChappelle has every right to sue Rihanna for credit, but not for damages. Because the video is obviously derived from his work, he should be acknowledged, but I don't believe that the video has in any way damaged him or his identity.
People don't own ideas, they own copyrights. Copyrights don't cover ideas, and patents don't cover ideas. Being able to take ideas is completely legal in the United States, and I agree with that. Making a picture that rips off aesthetic ideas for a shot is not the same as stealing a script or a tune, and it should not hold up in court.
The fashion industry steals from eachother CONSTANTLY and LEGALLY in the US, which is why incorporating a brand name into the design of the object has been done- you can sue if someone uses your brand, but not if they take your idea. Art should be like fashion, but I'd be in favor of citing one's sources, because otherwise you could take away someone's livelihood. But here's something to consider- is proving this kind of plagiarism really possible?
I think what LaChappelle is trying to do is keep the music industry from being hypocritical. If a movie and/or music company can sue the shit out of you for downloading their "intalectual property" for free then why should LaChappelle not follow in their footsteps?
Well, at least he's getting some publicity out of it. So I guess he gets that recognition? I don't think he deserves damages.
If it were a single image that was pretty much a re-do of one of his works, yeah that's probably the right time to have a court decide it. I don't think you can seriously (or should be able to) claim "style infringement". Sue all you want for individual instances, but you don't "own" a style.
PS: Should've broken out the mustache again at the end. And the collar.
As an artist that depends on the aesthetic "brand" he has created, yeah. How much he should get out of it... I don't know. He wants credit for sure, a nominal compensation should be in order... and yo usually sue for damages when you want your lawyers fee to be covered too. I guess he is in his right, and Rihanna should have at least mentioned him. There is cross pollination from artistic ideas and there always will be, but the Rihanna vid is a total rip off.
5:16 Autistic? You mean like how Autisitic people repeat phrases and stuff.
My brother is autistic, and he repeats whole videos from memory, and recites them over and over and over again. I showed him your video "Things that piss me off about youtube" and he can repat the whole video transript. He thought the video was rfeally funny, and if I say (in my shitty brithish accent) any of the lines from that video he starts laughing, not even kidding.
Rihanna's video "storyline" and clothing are not similar enough to Dave LaChapelle's photography. She probably has copied his concept, but she can claim homage as well as he has. Legal comparison of the images at 2:01 would probably be thrown out of court. I doubt that "feel, tone, mood, and lighting" will hold up in court either. As for S&M, surprisingly there are women leashing their husbands and taking them for walks. S&M is huge. Not surprisingly, the music industry is full of copycats.
@Lisa3679 The leash picture did it for me. As soon as he claimed copyright over that, I knew LaChapelle was speaking out of his ass. Rihanna's people could destroy him in court by showing real S&M clubs that are similar to the video.
I love your style of videos lately, you aren't forcing yourself to be "YAY atheists are smarter than theists and fuck you if you believe in god," and all that, and the real you is cool and makes learning bout art and stuff. Go you!
Also, in regards to the content, I think that Lachappelle's work is the style that he has, but his art is what he holds claim over, so the general style is his.
It's a surprise that no-one's suing her over the shitty song, as it sounds like a million other really shit songs that made for stupid people to dance to.
No, he shouldn't be able to sue. There's a difference between mimicry and plagiarism. If he won it would have a devastatingly chilling effect on the act of producing creative works. Works are copyrighted by default, but what is described here is the idea that the structure and methodologies behind producing a creative work is implicitly patented. Look up the term 'patent troll' and then apply them to art and you can see that no good would come of this.
I highly doubt Rihanna is responsable for the video. I have made a music video for a band once and even when they give you the basis of what the video should be about, the direction and final result lies pretty much in the hands of the director or in this case in the production design... Rihanna is responsable for the music but I don't think LaChapelle has a case against her.
I'd be surprised if they didn't have a book of LaChapelles work sitting in front of them as they put the set of the music video together.
Having said that, the ability to win a lawsuit over copying a composition, concept, feel, tone... kind of scares me. Just like in the fashion industry everyone is richer for the freedom to copy.
Although I think just the act of sueing without winning damages does win him the acknowledgement that his work was copied. More people now know about it.
Recently when a company used Christo inspired imagery (wrapping buildings and such in colored fabric) in it's commercial once contacted by Christo they agreed to place a disclaimer on the commercial: Christo not involved and doesn't endorse, etc. But that was clearly a for profit situation. Question is, is a music video "for profit"?
Maybe he should have started by ASKING her representatives for credit/acknowledgement for the inspiration before he decided to sue. Maybe the video designer sincerely meant it as an homage. Unfortunately he does not have sole rights to anything that is even remotely similar to his work and I am not sure if he should. Think of all the books that have similar plots or characters as Lord of the Rings. Should everybody with long lived, pointy eared, mystical know-it-alls in their books be sued?
Alluding to other artists and making reference to other parts of reality is what artists _do_. David LaChapelle, like Disney, Sony and many others, is shooting his own industry in the foot.
What damages? How does this damage him? Has anything been taken from him? Has his ability to do his work been hindered in any way? Does this hurt his sales in any way? Does this prevent him from selling future works of his? For what damages would he actually be suing?
the pictures showed in contrast are only simular on the most basic level. the one with the woman being wrapped in words and one dancing against a backdrop of words... i mean come on are you going to sue everyone who puts words on or behind a woman?
this is why things like art copyright should only regulate exact duplicates.
@LatumWay Aren't ideas supposed to be free? I thought we were supposed to take ideas from others and make them into our own? I think this David guy is a bit of an asshole, he's full of himself..I write stories, know how many times have been accused of copying another writer I have never even heard of?
It gets kind of old, ya know? I myself have been inspired by another's work, but I have never copied.. I have used similar settings I had seen in games or books, is that ripping?
I'm with you Latum. It is a BLATANT appropriation of LaChapelle's carefully cultivated style. Moreover, you general anaylsis and eye for detail is kick-ass. I am going to sub for sher, and I wonder if you have ever considered film analysis. I would love to hear you take on Kubrick.
The question is, where do we draw the line? What's acceptable as inspiration and what's an outright copy? Until we've established those boundaries(which is never going to happen) it's near impossible to judge objectively.
As a fine arts major, I have to agree with LaChapelle. Some of the stills pass for 'inspired' by, but most are almost identical to his works. Given the amount of work it takes to produce videos, there's no way it was unintentional... He should at the very least get a mention, as you stated. In the end, it seems futile, because to me, they're just doing each other a favor - both will get publicity from this. C'est la vie - "Good artists borrow, great artists steal."
I think that now, there are very few original ideas. If you watch a film, or read a book, or watch something on TV it's something that has been done before or at least been inspired by something which been done before. I can understand why he's suing, but you can't say objectively the difference between copying someone else and having ideas inspired by someone else.
I can understand why he would sue, but where does one objectively draw the line between inspiration and rip-off? I don't think it's possible, and as long as nobody can explain to me how I think it should not be possible to sue in matters like these. It's a matter for public discussion, not for the courts.
#1 If we're going to sue for similar ideas all anime producers should be sued by Disney. It's just an absurd idea to think that, even if it is a blatant rip off you can sue over it.
#2. copyrights can only exist in one medium. Even if they were shot for shot the same the guy couldn't sue due to his work being in a different medium.
#3. The images are in the same vein, but to call them rip offs is silly in the world that we live in. You can see the same concepts and such in other works.
@LatumWay If someone is blind, it is not me. A brief look at a number of videos will show a similar style and aesthetic and I'm sure if i cared to, which I do not, I could find several videos that all have a similar look and similar scenes. To say that it is anything more is to say that all those other artists all ripped off the same person. His career is what? 16 years old. I'm pretty sure I could find older videos with the same or similar crap in it.
overrated? come on the red hot chilli peppers created a brilliant punk /funk fusion and even then they've covered so much ground playing more different kinds of music than i would care to count and flea has crated an an entirely new slap style. it's not unreasonable to say that they're one of the greatest bands over the last twenty years
Is that the self-haircut you were bemoaning? In any case, LaChappelle is being a dick here. At worst, Rihanna's video is an homage and/or a derivative. Moreover, LaChappelle doesn't hold a copyright on S&M imagery, nor does his style (which is in the nature of an idea) admit of copyright by itself (i.e., apart from the images he created). If Rihanna were smart, she'd publicly call the video an homage & be done with it. I'm no copyright lawyer, but IMHO LaChappelle's claim is dead on arrival.
Addendum: After I posted my comment, I was thinking that this issue had arisen before with an American pop star. A bit of time on Google refreshed my recollection: Madonna was sued by the son of photographer Guy Bourdin for alleged copyright violation of Bourdin's work in her "Hollywood" video ( /watch?v=YBFN2Exb1yM )--in which, coincidentally, Madonna spends a lot of time wearing a red wig. Madonna entered in a several-hundred-thousand-dollar settlement.
Some comparisons between the video and Bourdin's photography here: loveybase (.(.) wordpress (.) com (/) 2010 (/) 04 (/) 28 (/) madonna-revelations-guy-bourdin-quotshe-39s-now-not-me-she-39s-the-legal-duplicate (/)
i'm very torn by this situation. on one hand giving credit to LaChapelle at the beginning and at the end of the video in large writing can be enough to say it was inspired. however, in the this world where we live in where people rarely take notice of writing on videos and look at the main content, will people be thinking of LaChapelle when they watch the video. or will people be thinking rihanna and thinking shes a genious?
this is a topic where i'm still undecided. very helpful lol
David LaChapelle shouldn't be suing unless Rihanna used actual photos that belong to him--that's stealing.
If artists weren't allowed to copy eachother's techniques/styles, then we wouldn't have half the art and music we have today. I think art evolves by artists working off eachother.
When Damien Hirst installed "School: The Archaeology of Lost Desires, Comprehending Infinity, and the Search for Knowledge," he told me that it was essentially just references or an "homage" to other works.
Yeah there are similarities, but that's all they are. There's probably a million other photographers and videographers who have done "similar" (probably far more similar). Rhianna just has a big bank balance and LaChapelle wants a piece.
No doubt the "Myspace photos" where girls take a picture of their duckface from a high angle, was originally "inspired" from somewhere. Is someone gonna sue every 14 year old tart on myspace? Didn't think so, cause they're skint.
@LatumWay Doesn't have to be money, celebrity is valuable too and what better way to gain celebrity than to nail one of Popular Culture's tip top celebrities. If it had of been "Adele what's her name's" video, I doubt there'd have been a peep out of LaChapelle.
As much as I hate to "defend" Rihanna...Other than the one latex mask shot, the lighting and aesthetics may be the same, but David LaChapelle was no where near the first photographer to use such imagery and concepts. Implying he was the only possible source for the production is just presumptuous and greedy.
I hadn't seen any of the video until I watched this but I am positive I would have gone "Hey, this reminds me of something...oh yeah! This looks like some of those pictures I have saved on my computer by that one guy....darn...what was his name?"
So, yeah, he totally has grounds to sue. I can not say whether it should be for damages or just for credit, that is his own call.
I dont know where I stand on this copying ideas thing.
I mean the people who made the music video made it all themselves. they didn't actually use LaChappelle pictures. They did design the set and make the costumes themselves. even if they did intentionally do it in the style of LaChappelle.
however it is pissing annoying when someone nicks your idea and there should be some way of stopping that from happening.
Maybe crediting LaChappelle is the way to go. but I dunno really.
Can you sue for acknowledgment? If you can wouldn't it still be better to sue for damages, and then settle for acknowledgment, which I think is probably how this will all play out anyway.
I honestly don't get it. Guys getting walked around as if they are dogs is a pretty coming thing in S&M-land so why should that dude have the sole right to show such a thing and then call it art? Not only that but that is also the only similarity between the two photo's they wear different outfits, it's a different background. And the rest goes for the other photo's too.
Honestly I don't see why this video is ''obviously'' ripping of the guy. Art is bs anyway.
Rihanna's video is an original work, its taking David LaChapelle's art and making a video representation of it and combining it with Rihanna music and performance... its not a ripoff. I think LaChapelle is completely in the wrong in suing.
I love how they say he's suing Rihana, i doubt she has any artistic integrity to come up with that shit. It's Def jam or the director of the vid that is more likely to be sued.
LaChap is just a whiny bitch who should feel pride not wanting to sue. A honorary mention should be made though.
Referentiality is the blood line of art and culture. LeChappelle is an idiot here. He should have capitalized off the PR. Instead he's basically spoiling the referentiality we need to iterate, refine and riff off stuff.
Yes. If I remember right the company who own Barbie tried to sue Aqua over their song "Barbie Girl", but wasn't it thrown out because you can't sue over a parody?
He sued her because she is the one with deep pockets but everyone knows she wasn't the one behind the video, but the people who manufactured her image were, but suing them won't get you anywhere...INSTEAD SUE THE ONE WHO HIRED THEM WHO HAS THE BIG BUCKS!
Am I the only person on this fetid blue marble that could not give a flying fuck about Justin Beiber!? I don't hate him, love him, like him or dislike him. And it's fucking irritating to see comments like "Hehe, 1 dislike? Nice try Beiber."
GOD, do you think you're clever or something for posting a comment a bajilion other people have posted before? It's fucking stupid, STOP doing it! /rant
LichQueenKathie 3 months ago
Legally speaking, my school teaches that we have to change an image at least 70% to be able to claim it as your own.
cdrooks11820 4 months ago
Not to mention... a similar case happened to Madonna when she got sued by the estate of Guy Bourdin for her "Hollywood" video... and the estate won.... this will most likely happen here... and yes he can sue for damages... because for one.. he does services a director as well as a photog.. they could've hired him to do the video instead of going behind his back... secondly... the artists and record companies make a profit off of the music videos... videos help generate album sales...
UrbanEsta 7 months ago
Do I think he has a case???... yes I do... and apparently the judge agrees wit' LaChapelle because he granted for the case to go to trial... people familiar wit' LaChapelle and his work knew off the bat that this video was inspired by his work... which is why they contacted him and asked him if he directed the video... now Rihanna's team should've hired him to direct the video if they were gonna do an inspired video... he is not talkin' out of his ass....
UrbanEsta 7 months ago
rihanna is hot!
rihannaroverrr 8 months ago
Comment removed
rihannaroverrr 8 months ago
@rihannaroverrr Wow... just wow...
LatumWay 8 months ago
maybe he should sue, because the video really, really sucks. If you are inspred by DLC's work, you should at least try to make something bearable - or pay that guy a lot of money.
And DLC? He should take the money and donate it. Best choice would be some organization supporting people who ripped their eyes out after seeing modern 'art'.
methanbreather 11 months ago
Well, it is true it is inspired form Lachapelle's Work ..... but you can't call it Plagiarism (it is not, it's different, ideas are not really the same but do have a lot of similarities)
And by the way, the one who should be sued isn't Rihana, cause she didn't directed this video (and i doubt that she had this kind of ideas)
So this shouldn't even happen ... (Lachapelle was inspired too from others' work and still people didn't sue him ..... so in my opinion he is kind of an opportunist)
kikyo53000 1 year ago
Every artist in this world has been heavily inspired for someone. I think La Chapelle should just sue for credits, but not for damages
TheEd0206 1 year ago
I doubt Rhianna had any idea. She probaby just did what some director told her.
Idofphoenix 1 year ago 2
to be fair, david lachapelle's name is a total ripoff and david chapelle should sue.
JackofOneTrade567 1 year ago
@JackofOneTrade567 LaChapelle is older hahaha...
LatumWay 1 year ago
i don't care what he does per se but is he losing money from rihanna's alleged incorporation of his ideas. if not don't sue for money. suing for money makes you look like an ass and encourages others to sue for money over stupid non-commercial things.
AndroidPhantom 1 year ago
You shouldn't be able to sue people for them taking inspiration from you...
Otherwise every music group in the world would have a mile long list of credits.
Every work is inspired by another work.
TheFirstDeity 1 year ago
and that DAMIAN HURST DIAMOND-SKULL IS JUST A MEDIOCRE RIP-OFF OF A MEDIEVAL CATHOLIC RELIQUARY.....DO you know how many heads John the Baptist had in the 12th century?...all encrusted in gems.Sometimes it really does help to know just a teeny-weeny bit of history...oh but of course since the Hurst is a piece of conceptual-Art that makes it "different?"Hey Art has become the RELIGION OF GREED-OBJECTIFIED in those places called galleries,but some of itsOK or ITS"LEAVE IT TO BEIBER-TIME"..YIKES
tlaniganschmidt 1 year ago
Since when is someone walking someone on a leash a new idea? S&M has been doing it for centuries.If only all the UN-MONEYED-IMMIGRANTS FROM THE DOMINICAN-REPUBLIC & PUERTO RICO could sue Miss Thing(Chapel in English) they'd be able to send their kids to Yale.Honestly,The very notion that someone can claim to own a color-arrangement & a compositional similarity is just PLUTOCRACY. HE GOT HIS IDEAS FROM PUERTO-RICAN Bodegas & a lot of Peoples apartments.So who's the THIEF-HERE? Greed is GREED
tlaniganschmidt 1 year ago
There's a difference between a homage or a tribute and stealing someone's work. Practically every artist takes inspiration from somewhere, and many do take or do their own version of things. It's like cover songs, not illegal.
I'd take it as a compliment if I were him.
SoniClub 1 year ago
If I'm honest I'm surprised this video hasn't been flagged, lol.
fourtehLOLz 1 year ago
What the hell is a Rihanna and why should I care?
TheChunkyAtheist 1 year ago
Dunno. But, Good question! :O)
Skierkowa 1 year ago
No. David LaChapelle has no case, come on. I would look at this video as an obvious homage to his work, which doesn't warrant legal action imo. It's stupid.
Daiblix 1 year ago
If Rihanna's video was literally exactly the same as the photos by LaChappelle, I would agree that he should be able to sue. As it is, they aren't the same. They might be influenced by his style but they aren't the same thing. You shouldn't be able to sue someone for using the same style as someone else, only if they pass off exact copies of someone else's work as their own.
GodwinsLaw1 1 year ago
you say cant stop funny, sounds like cunt stomp. (:
thirdbreath 1 year ago
it seems like her video is so blatant that it is in fact not a rip off, so much as a reference to or homage to LaChapelle.
Ninjaculation 1 year ago
So my public burnings of Justin Bieber photos, figurines & paraphernalia. Whilst yelling insults at potential Biber fans through a megaphone somehow makes me an asshole now I take it...
zydilak 1 year ago
He should let it go and be happy he is being copied - it means he is established in the visual language of pop culture. This doesn't diminish or damage any of the work he's done or will do. People always cop other people's styles, it's how style spreads. Should a theoretically alive Alfred Hitchcock sue Brian DePalma for most of his movies? It's good publicity, though, for both of them.
pureevilfnord 1 year ago
YOU CAN NOT COPYWRITE THE WEARING OF LATEX OR THE WALKING OF A MAN ON A LEASH WHAT KIND OF A JOKE IS THIS? THE ARTIST JUST WANTS ATTENTION, FASHION AND ART ARE COPYING/INSPIRING/BOROWING AND CHANGING ENTITIES ALL THE TIME!
shellmail68 1 year ago
I'm really taken aback by the idea of a "look and feel" as a copyrightable concept. Essentially all art throughout history has been influenced by the aesthetic norms circulating in that subculture, this is the whole reason we see artistic genres and period aesthetics.
Aletheophile 1 year ago
i didn't realize you could copyright a theme. i think in a purely legal sentiment, he's full of crap. i don't think they should even have to give him credit, let alone have to pay him. There are a lot of video games creators that would have been sued by now if you couldn't make a game similar to others. And plenty of authors who have written pretty darn similar books. should they be sued? no, cause you can't copyright a theme, or topic. a name? sure. a product? yup. not a theme or topic, though.
rageoftyrael 1 year ago
....credits for inspiration, sure. Sueing, no. He should be flattered instead of getting hot and bothered. He needs to get over it.
tjb62 1 year ago
I like the mustache, looks like an S&M version of a member of the village people...
That or Freddie Mercury.
TheOJDrinker 1 year ago
i started watching your channel because of your eating american food video..
i am pleased to discover how very intelligent and articulate you are.
keep up the good work
cheers
metalheadmarti 1 year ago
holy fuck am I the only one that was under the impression that this was about Dave Chappelle? You know the comedian.
qarohc 1 year ago 19
@qarohc -__-
LatumWay 1 year ago 3
@qarohc sigh.... i hate to admit it but no you arent..... i too am a doof
baatzu 1 year ago
My vote? Battle Royale.
PrinceArk00 1 year ago
It looks too similar ! Plus in my news paper they said she purchased some of his photos before so she knew of him she liked his work and then she copy him thats it ! And with all the money she will make with this stupid video who cares if she give him the money he deserved it ! If he would have said nothing it would have been an insolt to his art!
TheKawaiiQueen 1 year ago
nah.. stoopid to sue for a vid copyin pictures. they arent even competing mediums. its like mcdonalds sueing papa lazaru.. wait, its nothing like that is it?
kthanxbai
SkidRowRadio 1 year ago
I feel that suing is a little much. However requesting that they mention your work in some way, that is acceptable.
TheGunslingr 1 year ago
You are literally the only person I have ever heard say RHCP are overrated and it is of my opinion you are dead wrong on that one.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
nice grooves ya got there!!
flobadoba33 1 year ago
sue for credits sure... sue for money... Oh your fucking dickhead. Take your "Oh so exclusive pictures" and fuck off the stage then! If you can not tolerate someone using your idea because its just that good you got no business showing it in the first place.
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
@Dasmaster1 You have a point, but it's a long way from being unreasonable to expect people to give you credit or ask your permission when they do.
ladders1 1 year ago
@ladders1 Im perfectly fine with suing for credits. Im against demanding he should get money for it. Its like Newton suing everyone for using gravity in my opinion.
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
People are just way to sue happy. I am really starting to question the concept of IP ownership. How the fuck can someone justify owning an idea let alone using government power to maintain control of said idea and how it is used.
I agree that people should not be able to claim that they represent a certain brand because that can harm the brand but seriously should Nike for instance be able to sue people for selling shirts with a fucking check mark on them?
smpunditz 1 year ago
All Top 40 "musicians" should be sued for making the same fucking songs over and over and over and over ad infinitum.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
He's probably bitter because she didn't hire him. Lil Kim did, Lady Gaga did, everyone who want's to make a kinky photo or S&M-themed video should hire LaChapelle, right?
No.
A style can't and shouldn't be copyrighted.
OurCurlyBen 1 year ago
Feel - not copyrighted, tone - not copyrighted, mood - not copyrighted, theme - not copyrighted, colors - not copyrighted, style - not copyrighted, composition - not copyrighted, concept - not copyrighted, setting - not copyrighted, lighting - not copyrighted, props - weren't actually copied decors - weren't actually copied wardrobe - wasn't actually copied. They were obviously inspired by LaChapelle's style, but that's it. Nothing was actually ripped off. To me it looks like he's just greedy.
Kuba022 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
Kuba022 1 year ago
And Manet's "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe" reminds me of Giorgione's "Le Concert Champetre." Could you say that Manet was guilty of plagiarism? How much can you be inspired by someone before it is considered stealing?
Abena20 1 year ago
Whos Justin Bieber?
Dakayrus 1 year ago
in USA they say "do like everyone else, get rich by sueing someone"
7999jessica 1 year ago
First of all there art directors, stylist, make up artist and so on that really are the back bone on creating the video she may have had some say in making the video but I bet that it was a director that was inspired by this cry baby LaChappelle and he's not the only artist or photographer to do bondage photos
TinaLamb2007 1 year ago
C*nt flap!, lol tisk tisk!
I think its simply an opportunistic move ... "she has some bucks, can we get some of em!?"
Should he be, or rather should he be able to? whilst her video is obviously inspired by his prior work its not a direct copy, so where does one draw the line.
I would have thought the art director or whoever behind the video would have considered what they can and cannot get away with.
( If she was standing in front of a B&W mountain could Ansel Adams sue her? )
M0THERKN0WSBEST 1 year ago
Comment removed
M0THERKN0WSBEST 1 year ago
Considering I not only have no connection to the world of photography or it's artists, but also ignore 'singers' like Rihanna, I would have to look deeper to give a decent answer.
But if you can watch that video and immediately say "hey, this looks REALLY similar to this guy" straight away, I'm sure a fuckton of others can too, and since she didn't credit him at all, I'd say yes, sue away if he really wants to.
benthediceman1 1 year ago
While it seems obvious Rhinnas video is derived from his artwork i would argue that her version is different enough to be safe under copyright law.
imr22 1 year ago
Suing for damages? What damages, people aren't going to be buying the video instead of the art, however the design of the video is clearly based on his work so he should be credited.
EmmaDelamare 1 year ago
Couldn't he have just...I don't know...gone up to Rihanna or her rep and said "yo, credit me or there's going to be some serious shit" before taking any sort of action.
I find it flattering when someone uses my artwork or style of video presentation, incorporating it into their own works one way or another but I always make it clear that if a person does so...have the decency to credit me...in short, comply with Creative Commons 3.0 licensing I set.
LordReserei01 1 year ago
love the flat-eric like headbanging in the beginning :D
ontopic: in general i m against intellectual copy-right laws, because they hinder more than they actually achieve. More specifically i always find it morally questionable when people make a somewhat costly production like a movie, music-video or similar and obviously use other peoples ideas and do not have the decency to at least get them on the project in an advisory / consultant role and pay a wee bit.
also why the hate on cunt-flaps?
Lutzifer31337 1 year ago
@Lutzifer31337 I call people dicks, but I have nothing against penises. Its just a taboo word : )
LatumWay 1 year ago
Our whole existence is a result of copying. We copy to learn, teach, eat, laugh and be successful. The similarities are tenuous at best and the money earned from this suggested plagiarism will be negligible when compared by this obvious advertising publicity stunt to make people aware of "David LaChapelle". Im no fan of singers getting paid more than small countries either but coping or being inspired is an essential part of our development as a human race.
RegretfullyYes 1 year ago
I see boobies.
I wont report it because... well that would be stupid. Buuuuuut... well... there's a lot of stupid people out there.
On the topic, LeChapelle is a chump.
RomeoCo 1 year ago
Even if the setup is pretty far copied from LaChappelle, I think they've gone through it with legal people to make sure it's changed enough to avoid any lawsuits. And so fucking what? I hardly think the cross-section is that huge of people who would watch LaChappelle or if they saw some Rihanna video, would stop with LaChap. What is he losing there really? One line in the credits of some Rihanna-DVD?
Be petty and whine if it makes you happy. :P
Daealis 1 year ago
I've seen nothing worth suing over
GrimmReeferX 1 year ago
Well...I would rather listen to how much someone hates Justin Bieber than to someone who is babbling about how ''talented'' he is and how much they love him.
NeroTheAtheist 1 year ago
in my work i always use insperation from other artists, which is what the s+m video quite obviously did. if LaChappelle thinks that the video is offensive torwards his work, then just a statment saying that they were inspired by him should be enough?
thisisnice57 1 year ago
Postmodernism's a bitch, isn't it?
FantasmaBAnco 1 year ago
@FantasmaBAnco SCATHING
LatumWay 1 year ago
I think LaChappelle has every right to sue Rihanna for credit, but not for damages. Because the video is obviously derived from his work, he should be acknowledged, but I don't believe that the video has in any way damaged him or his identity.
MoonPies27 1 year ago
dave chapelle?
sicninja911 1 year ago
David LaChapelle doesn't hang with neckbeards anymore. The 90s are over!
iremythpurr 1 year ago
Nice neckbeard bro. AIN'T YOU HEARD NO-SHAVE NOVEMBER IS OVER???????!!?!?
iremythpurr 1 year ago
@iremythpurr Hahaha I have to be scruffy for a while. Its for a video : )
LatumWay 1 year ago 2
@LatumWay
LumberjackWay!
iremythpurr 1 year ago
@iremythpurr Indeed.
LatumWay 1 year ago
People don't own ideas, they own copyrights. Copyrights don't cover ideas, and patents don't cover ideas. Being able to take ideas is completely legal in the United States, and I agree with that. Making a picture that rips off aesthetic ideas for a shot is not the same as stealing a script or a tune, and it should not hold up in court.
generaleskimo 1 year ago
yeah! Canadian author!
LordNapalm 1 year ago
The fashion industry steals from eachother CONSTANTLY and LEGALLY in the US, which is why incorporating a brand name into the design of the object has been done- you can sue if someone uses your brand, but not if they take your idea. Art should be like fashion, but I'd be in favor of citing one's sources, because otherwise you could take away someone's livelihood. But here's something to consider- is proving this kind of plagiarism really possible?
TheLonelyImmortal 1 year ago
Anyone who sues anyone should be waterboarded with pig cum. In addition, males who sue should turn in their balls.
That being said, if you recognized the plagiarism/inspiration before hearing anything from the guy, it means:
a- You're good
and
b- The video indeed took ideas and concepts from the guy.
Now, I would have demanded acknowledgement. Not legally, just in an open letter or something.
If acknowledgement satisfies the guy, good for him.
If not, pig cum it is.
BohemianBlasphemy 1 year ago
He should sue for credit.
Koda924 1 year ago
I think what LaChappelle is trying to do is keep the music industry from being hypocritical. If a movie and/or music company can sue the shit out of you for downloading their "intalectual property" for free then why should LaChappelle not follow in their footsteps?
MurdocEd 1 year ago 20
Well, at least he's getting some publicity out of it. So I guess he gets that recognition? I don't think he deserves damages.
If it were a single image that was pretty much a re-do of one of his works, yeah that's probably the right time to have a court decide it. I don't think you can seriously (or should be able to) claim "style infringement". Sue all you want for individual instances, but you don't "own" a style.
PS: Should've broken out the mustache again at the end. And the collar.
LoneGunman90 1 year ago
As an artist that depends on the aesthetic "brand" he has created, yeah. How much he should get out of it... I don't know. He wants credit for sure, a nominal compensation should be in order... and yo usually sue for damages when you want your lawyers fee to be covered too. I guess he is in his right, and Rihanna should have at least mentioned him. There is cross pollination from artistic ideas and there always will be, but the Rihanna vid is a total rip off.
InfectedDaemon 1 year ago
yes I stopped at 1:21, because I am a dirty bird.
chyrd 1 year ago
eugh. Just let it go, David. She's a bitch for not acknowledging you, but is it really a problem for him?
TheCelticNinja 1 year ago
Dude I was just giving you shit about the art. I enjoyed it.
CosmicQuandary 1 year ago
5:16 Autistic? You mean like how Autisitic people repeat phrases and stuff.
My brother is autistic, and he repeats whole videos from memory, and recites them over and over and over again. I showed him your video "Things that piss me off about youtube" and he can repat the whole video transript. He thought the video was rfeally funny, and if I say (in my shitty brithish accent) any of the lines from that video he starts laughing, not even kidding.
FrackMeister 1 year ago
Rihanna's video "storyline" and clothing are not similar enough to Dave LaChapelle's photography. She probably has copied his concept, but she can claim homage as well as he has. Legal comparison of the images at 2:01 would probably be thrown out of court. I doubt that "feel, tone, mood, and lighting" will hold up in court either. As for S&M, surprisingly there are women leashing their husbands and taking them for walks. S&M is huge. Not surprisingly, the music industry is full of copycats.
Lisa3679 1 year ago
@Lisa3679 The leash picture did it for me. As soon as he claimed copyright over that, I knew LaChapelle was speaking out of his ass. Rihanna's people could destroy him in court by showing real S&M clubs that are similar to the video.
BrotherAlpha 1 year ago
One person's "homage" is another's "rip off."
But I am sorry to hear you say "cunt flap."
It is such an unattractive phrase to come out of your pretty mouth.
oldclown 1 year ago
@oldclown I'm filthy.
LatumWay 1 year ago 4
@LatumWay oh baby.
TheCelticNinja 1 year ago
@LatumWay Stop it. I'm getting turned on.... Anyway!
I probably would have required them to acknowledge they've used my photos as inspiration..
pixxiex 1 year ago
@oldclown
only a muggy cunt would care whether someone said cuntflap
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare No, mine is moldy.
oldclown 1 year ago
I love your style of videos lately, you aren't forcing yourself to be "YAY atheists are smarter than theists and fuck you if you believe in god," and all that, and the real you is cool and makes learning bout art and stuff. Go you!
Also, in regards to the content, I think that Lachappelle's work is the style that he has, but his art is what he holds claim over, so the general style is his.
tamc1337 1 year ago
@tamc1337 isnt*
tamc1337 1 year ago
No smudge!!! You look hawt w/o the smudge!!!
tattooskin72 1 year ago
@tattooskin72 I CLEANED THE LENS WOOOOO!
LatumWay 1 year ago
It's a surprise that no-one's suing her over the shitty song, as it sounds like a million other really shit songs that made for stupid people to dance to.
geffel 1 year ago
RHCP kick ass and you know it...
ImmortalMojo 1 year ago
No, he shouldn't be able to sue. There's a difference between mimicry and plagiarism. If he won it would have a devastatingly chilling effect on the act of producing creative works. Works are copyrighted by default, but what is described here is the idea that the structure and methodologies behind producing a creative work is implicitly patented. Look up the term 'patent troll' and then apply them to art and you can see that no good would come of this.
ikesbrain 1 year ago
I highly doubt Rihanna is responsable for the video. I have made a music video for a band once and even when they give you the basis of what the video should be about, the direction and final result lies pretty much in the hands of the director or in this case in the production design... Rihanna is responsable for the music but I don't think LaChapelle has a case against her.
nyarlotep 1 year ago
I'd be surprised if they didn't have a book of LaChapelles work sitting in front of them as they put the set of the music video together.
Having said that, the ability to win a lawsuit over copying a composition, concept, feel, tone... kind of scares me. Just like in the fashion industry everyone is richer for the freedom to copy.
Although I think just the act of sueing without winning damages does win him the acknowledgement that his work was copied. More people now know about it.
'Stache
ImHibby 1 year ago
Think Rihann'a legal team should hire you.
Recently when a company used Christo inspired imagery (wrapping buildings and such in colored fabric) in it's commercial once contacted by Christo they agreed to place a disclaimer on the commercial: Christo not involved and doesn't endorse, etc. But that was clearly a for profit situation. Question is, is a music video "for profit"?
atthetopofmyvoice 1 year ago
Maybe he should have started by ASKING her representatives for credit/acknowledgement for the inspiration before he decided to sue. Maybe the video designer sincerely meant it as an homage. Unfortunately he does not have sole rights to anything that is even remotely similar to his work and I am not sure if he should. Think of all the books that have similar plots or characters as Lord of the Rings. Should everybody with long lived, pointy eared, mystical know-it-alls in their books be sued?
auralealivada 1 year ago
Alluding to other artists and making reference to other parts of reality is what artists _do_. David LaChapelle, like Disney, Sony and many others, is shooting his own industry in the foot.
sachamm 1 year ago
'Should he sue for damages?'
What damages? How does this damage him? Has anything been taken from him? Has his ability to do his work been hindered in any way? Does this hurt his sales in any way? Does this prevent him from selling future works of his? For what damages would he actually be suing?
FishofMuu 1 year ago
the pictures showed in contrast are only simular on the most basic level. the one with the woman being wrapped in words and one dancing against a backdrop of words... i mean come on are you going to sue everyone who puts words on or behind a woman?
this is why things like art copyright should only regulate exact duplicates.
greatwood 1 year ago
ALSO...
I HIGHLY doubt that his motive for suing is money. Trust me - he is not poor.
LatumWay 1 year ago
Obviously influenced by LaChappelle, but he doesn't have the right to sue.
simplysped2 1 year ago
He wants money
....
nuff said
stefanlittle 1 year ago
OKAY after look at all your lovely comments, here's my current assessment.
I think a lot of you are playing down the similarities. To me at least, this is CLEARLY a rip off.
However, you're probably right that suing is going too far.
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay Aren't ideas supposed to be free? I thought we were supposed to take ideas from others and make them into our own? I think this David guy is a bit of an asshole, he's full of himself..I write stories, know how many times have been accused of copying another writer I have never even heard of?
It gets kind of old, ya know? I myself have been inspired by another's work, but I have never copied.. I have used similar settings I had seen in games or books, is that ripping?
Voshk 1 year ago
@LatumWay
I'm with you Latum. It is a BLATANT appropriation of LaChapelle's carefully cultivated style. Moreover, you general anaylsis and eye for detail is kick-ass. I am going to sub for sher, and I wonder if you have ever considered film analysis. I would love to hear you take on Kubrick.
ThotherBrother 1 year ago
@ThotherBrother I did film studies for two years and I do media production now, specialising in film-making : )
LatumWay 1 year ago
The question is, where do we draw the line? What's acceptable as inspiration and what's an outright copy? Until we've established those boundaries(which is never going to happen) it's near impossible to judge objectively.
Saaduk92 1 year ago
Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
moormagic1 1 year ago
As a fine arts major, I have to agree with LaChapelle. Some of the stills pass for 'inspired' by, but most are almost identical to his works. Given the amount of work it takes to produce videos, there's no way it was unintentional... He should at the very least get a mention, as you stated. In the end, it seems futile, because to me, they're just doing each other a favor - both will get publicity from this. C'est la vie - "Good artists borrow, great artists steal."
bunnygotfree 1 year ago
I think that now, there are very few original ideas. If you watch a film, or read a book, or watch something on TV it's something that has been done before or at least been inspired by something which been done before. I can understand why he's suing, but you can't say objectively the difference between copying someone else and having ideas inspired by someone else.
anthonyjasonkendrick 1 year ago
I can understand why he would sue, but where does one objectively draw the line between inspiration and rip-off? I don't think it's possible, and as long as nobody can explain to me how I think it should not be possible to sue in matters like these. It's a matter for public discussion, not for the courts.
NoNiceNameFound 1 year ago
No!
GodlessFreedomNow 1 year ago
#1 If we're going to sue for similar ideas all anime producers should be sued by Disney. It's just an absurd idea to think that, even if it is a blatant rip off you can sue over it.
#2. copyrights can only exist in one medium. Even if they were shot for shot the same the guy couldn't sue due to his work being in a different medium.
#3. The images are in the same vein, but to call them rip offs is silly in the world that we live in. You can see the same concepts and such in other works.
Durakken 1 year ago
@Durakken I'm sympathetic to your position, but to say the video was simply 'in the same vein' is to be willfully blind.
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay If someone is blind, it is not me. A brief look at a number of videos will show a similar style and aesthetic and I'm sure if i cared to, which I do not, I could find several videos that all have a similar look and similar scenes. To say that it is anything more is to say that all those other artists all ripped off the same person. His career is what? 16 years old. I'm pretty sure I could find older videos with the same or similar crap in it.
Durakken 1 year ago
@Durakken Do it.
LatumWay 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LatumWay "if i cared to, which I do not, I could find several videos that all have a similar look and similar scenes."
Durakken 1 year ago
I think he should get credit for inspiration (at least), but suing seems unnecessary.
UpTheIrons1994 1 year ago
overrated? come on the red hot chilli peppers created a brilliant punk /funk fusion and even then they've covered so much ground playing more different kinds of music than i would care to count and flea has crated an an entirely new slap style. it's not unreasonable to say that they're one of the greatest bands over the last twenty years
PIKLEWEAZL95 1 year ago
@PIKLEWEAZL95 Matter of opinion I guess. Hell, lots of people think my taste in music sucks.
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay to each his own
PIKLEWEAZL95 1 year ago
Horray for S&M! (the act not the song.)
jimbob3332 1 year ago
Is that the self-haircut you were bemoaning? In any case, LaChappelle is being a dick here. At worst, Rihanna's video is an homage and/or a derivative. Moreover, LaChappelle doesn't hold a copyright on S&M imagery, nor does his style (which is in the nature of an idea) admit of copyright by itself (i.e., apart from the images he created). If Rihanna were smart, she'd publicly call the video an homage & be done with it. I'm no copyright lawyer, but IMHO LaChappelle's claim is dead on arrival.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Addendum: After I posted my comment, I was thinking that this issue had arisen before with an American pop star. A bit of time on Google refreshed my recollection: Madonna was sued by the son of photographer Guy Bourdin for alleged copyright violation of Bourdin's work in her "Hollywood" video ( /watch?v=YBFN2Exb1yM )--in which, coincidentally, Madonna spends a lot of time wearing a red wig. Madonna entered in a several-hundred-thousand-dollar settlement.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Some comparisons between the video and Bourdin's photography here: loveybase (.(.) wordpress (.) com (/) 2010 (/) 04 (/) 28 (/) madonna-revelations-guy-bourdin-quotshe-39s-now-not-me-she-39s-the-legal-duplicate (/)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
i'm very torn by this situation. on one hand giving credit to LaChapelle at the beginning and at the end of the video in large writing can be enough to say it was inspired. however, in the this world where we live in where people rarely take notice of writing on videos and look at the main content, will people be thinking of LaChapelle when they watch the video. or will people be thinking rihanna and thinking shes a genious?
this is a topic where i'm still undecided. very helpful lol
jmmypaddy 1 year ago
To sue or not to sue, that is the question. Anyway, th epublicity he is getting off this, suing an internationally known singer, most be staggering.
Teresa64squared 1 year ago
David LaChapelle shouldn't be suing unless Rihanna used actual photos that belong to him--that's stealing.
If artists weren't allowed to copy eachother's techniques/styles, then we wouldn't have half the art and music we have today. I think art evolves by artists working off eachother.
When Damien Hirst installed "School: The Archaeology of Lost Desires, Comprehending Infinity, and the Search for Knowledge," he told me that it was essentially just references or an "homage" to other works.
mchance27 1 year ago
I like your voice. You have a lovely voice
darkdawg100 1 year ago
It just money for old rope...
Yeah there are similarities, but that's all they are. There's probably a million other photographers and videographers who have done "similar" (probably far more similar). Rhianna just has a big bank balance and LaChapelle wants a piece.
No doubt the "Myspace photos" where girls take a picture of their duckface from a high angle, was originally "inspired" from somewhere. Is someone gonna sue every 14 year old tart on myspace? Didn't think so, cause they're skint.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago
@ShallowBeThyGames I don't think he's suing for money. He's not poor, I guarentee you.
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay Doesn't have to be money, celebrity is valuable too and what better way to gain celebrity than to nail one of Popular Culture's tip top celebrities. If it had of been "Adele what's her name's" video, I doubt there'd have been a peep out of LaChapelle.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago
As much as I hate to "defend" Rihanna...Other than the one latex mask shot, the lighting and aesthetics may be the same, but David LaChapelle was no where near the first photographer to use such imagery and concepts. Implying he was the only possible source for the production is just presumptuous and greedy.
IAmTheWafflemaster 1 year ago
No he's being a cuntflap. If they used an ACTUAL photo he shot maybe it would be different. But to sue saying his art inspired them is ridiculous.
godshiva 1 year ago
It's 6 pages long, not that bad.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
I direct you to the story "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
HAHAHAHA 0:35 u be getting DOWN!
godshiva 1 year ago
I hadn't seen any of the video until I watched this but I am positive I would have gone "Hey, this reminds me of something...oh yeah! This looks like some of those pictures I have saved on my computer by that one guy....darn...what was his name?"
So, yeah, he totally has grounds to sue. I can not say whether it should be for damages or just for credit, that is his own call.
I, for the very least, would want credit.
Money if I wasn't well known.
InuitInua 1 year ago
I don't think he should sue for money, just for credit.
06mustangCE 1 year ago
I dont know where I stand on this copying ideas thing.
I mean the people who made the music video made it all themselves. they didn't actually use LaChappelle pictures. They did design the set and make the costumes themselves. even if they did intentionally do it in the style of LaChappelle.
however it is pissing annoying when someone nicks your idea and there should be some way of stopping that from happening.
Maybe crediting LaChappelle is the way to go. but I dunno really.
CyborgAtheist 1 year ago
Can you sue for acknowledgment? If you can wouldn't it still be better to sue for damages, and then settle for acknowledgment, which I think is probably how this will all play out anyway.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
Eh, it may be ripped-off, but I don't think suing is the right thing to do. Copyright is pretty ridiculous most of the time. Just my opinion though.
mjhacker 1 year ago
I honestly don't get it. Guys getting walked around as if they are dogs is a pretty coming thing in S&M-land so why should that dude have the sole right to show such a thing and then call it art? Not only that but that is also the only similarity between the two photo's they wear different outfits, it's a different background. And the rest goes for the other photo's too.
Honestly I don't see why this video is ''obviously'' ripping of the guy. Art is bs anyway.
lulhoofd1 1 year ago
Rihanna's video is an original work, its taking David LaChapelle's art and making a video representation of it and combining it with Rihanna music and performance... its not a ripoff. I think LaChapelle is completely in the wrong in suing.
pkingo1 1 year ago
@pkingo1 This is how innovation is done - taking previous idéas and combining them in new ways.
pkingo1 1 year ago
Intellectual property is censorship, still the video is obviously a rip off.
evilsceptic 1 year ago
Blowjob settlement ftw
graphattic 1 year ago
Wait, you say this video is of art and you speak of Rihanna?
What a disconnect!
(It's nice to be a smug elitist prick)
Hyardacil 1 year ago
I love how they say he's suing Rihana, i doubt she has any artistic integrity to come up with that shit. It's Def jam or the director of the vid that is more likely to be sued.
LaChap is just a whiny bitch who should feel pride not wanting to sue. A honorary mention should be made though.
gingergreek 1 year ago
Referentiality is the blood line of art and culture. LeChappelle is an idiot here. He should have capitalized off the PR. Instead he's basically spoiling the referentiality we need to iterate, refine and riff off stuff.
socrates856 1 year ago
haha you wanted to used rihanna in you video thumbnaIl but they werent one of the three choice aww lol haha SIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheAtheistJuggernaut 1 year ago
@TheAtheistJuggernaut ?
LatumWay 1 year ago
chill dude your the man
TheAtheistJuggernaut 1 year ago
Also you CAN'T SUE when someone is using your work as a parody or satire...which I am sure Rihanna's people are going to claim she was doing
UnnamedAssaliant 1 year ago
@UnnamedAssaliant
Yes. If I remember right the company who own Barbie tried to sue Aqua over their song "Barbie Girl", but wasn't it thrown out because you can't sue over a parody?
EuroMIX2 1 year ago
He sued her because she is the one with deep pockets but everyone knows she wasn't the one behind the video, but the people who manufactured her image were, but suing them won't get you anywhere...INSTEAD SUE THE ONE WHO HIRED THEM WHO HAS THE BIG BUCKS!
UnnamedAssaliant 1 year ago