Elon Musk accused of stealing farting unicorn image

[JohnnyMalaria]

Well, this certainly got my attention:

Elon Musk accused of stealing farting unicorn image

However, similar images of farting unicorns were used in Tesla in-car interfaces and promotional material.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

That's nothing... look:

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10

[Mr. Scram]

Well, bitches bitch, and bitch bitches.
If this Ms. Prank is correct, then nobody should be allowed to take picture with anything -- it's certain that everything being made nowadays has a copyright or trademark or appearance patent on it.

It's not about this picture, it's about using the art in the interface of the Tesla. If you use someone's work in a way that's not covered by fair use, you need to compensate that person. Despite what most of the world seems to think, creative folks can't live of goodwill and exposure. It does seem Musk offered to compensate, even if a little late. I'm not sure why that hasn't resolved the conflict.

Unfortunately, most people seem to think they can just use whatever artwork they want and simply remove it if they get caught. Even huge brands with massive resources fall foul of this. In most cases it isn't even a lot of money.

[Mr. Scram]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Tesla cloned the farting unicorn design drawn in their own drawing app, is that correct? If so, how similar it is to the original mug picture? Is it similar enough to be considered a derivative work of the mug?

And if Mr. Prank can claim a similar drawing to be his derivative, then can I also assume the little pony's author can also claim Mr. Prank's work is a derivative?

I think the lady just wants to play the weak and get a huge chunk of money and celebrity.

You don't get a huge chunk of money for something like this. The artist seems to be well aware of that. Depending on the how and what it can be a few tens to a few thousand dollar. That's beer money, not retirement money.

[ajb]

It's not about this picture, it's about using the art in the interface of the Tesla. If you use someone's work in a way that's not covered by fair use, you need to compensate that person.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Tesla cloned the farting unicorn design drawn in their own drawing app, is that correct? If so, how similar it is to the original mug picture? Is it similar enough to be considered a derivative work of the mug?

Both are pictured in the article.  The one is clearly a redrawn-from-scratch *direct copy* of the other.  You could say it's a different implementation of the exact same design.  It's the sort of thing that would generally be okay in the software world (Oracle v Google notwithstanding), but definitely not okay in the context of graphical work.  If it had been a clearly different take on a similar idea, then it may have been fine, but as it is, Tesla should have obtained permission and/or compensated the artist for using his design. 

And if Mr. Prank can claim a similar drawing to be his derivative, then can I also assume the little pony's author can also claim Mr. Prank's work is a derivative?

  Not every drawing of a unicorn is going to be an infringement of another drawing of a unicorn, don't be silly.  You can certainly debate where the line ought to be drawn, but if you actually look at the two drawings here it's going to be very hard to argue that this was okay, if you understand what the norms for this sort of thing are.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that Musk was directly responsible for this, so saying "Elon Musk stole. . ." is silly sensationalism.

[Mr. Scram]

From the article I understand it was an internal joke that got published as an Easter egg. Unfortunately, that means the assets need to be cleared.

[Mr. Scram]

It does stand and quite obviously so if you've ever had anything to do with clearing artwork. Besides, we don't know the full story, so it's impossible to judge who's being obtuse. The only thing we know for sure is that Musk admitted using artwork that wasn't properly cleared.

[bd139]

This sort of stuff happens all the time. There’s a great example here: https://panic.com/extras/ripoff/

It’s not a problem really. Just make sure it’s cleared up after the event. Most people want attribution not cash.

[CJay]

He's claiming he has offered to compensate the artist a few times and been knocked back so, if true, there seems to be an element of publicity seeking here by the artist.

[rsjsouza]

I agree with the arguments that the person that created the drawing should be acknowledged/compensated/whatever and I also believe the headline was a nice clickbait.

However, in my head what I question the most is the sense of "artistry": what an ugly drawing! And quite a brouhaha because of that?!? 

[Mr. Scram]

He's claiming he has offered to compensate the artist a few times and been knocked back so, if true, there seems to be an element of publicity seeking here by the artist.

That's hard to say without knowing the details about the offer and the reason for refusal. Remember that we are mainly going on Musk's story. People are very eager to paint others as cash grabbing, but experience tells us that most of these folks want recognition.

[Mr. Scram]

I agree with the arguments that the person that created the drawing should be acknowledged/compensated/whatever and I also believe the headline was a nice clickbait.

However, in my head what I question the most is the sense of "artistry": what an ugly drawing! And quite a brouhaha because of that?!? 

There's no accounting for taste. Besides, it seems to be intentionally made to look like naive art. Too many people are actually talking about craftsmanship when they think they're talking about art. That's why you keep seeing the "my daughter can do this" folks who are mainly displaying their own lack of education on the matter.

Besides, I doubt the graphic would have this charm if it were made in a photorealistic style, rather than the currently chosen art style.

[CJay]

He's claiming he has offered to compensate the artist a few times and been knocked back so, if true, there seems to be an element of publicity seeking here by the artist.

That's hard to say without knowing the details about the offer and the reason for refusal. Remember that we are mainly going on Musk's story. People are very eager to paint others as cash grabbing, but experience tells us that most of these folks want recognition.

Entirely possibly but this article is mostly from the artist's point of view (not that I disagree that he deserves recognition and compensation of course, was just making the point that Musk claims to have offered to pay etc...)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/27/elon-musk-farting-unicorn-mug-cartoon-tom-edwards

[rsjsouza]

I agree with the arguments that the person that created the drawing should be acknowledged/compensated/whatever and I also believe the headline was a nice clickbait.

However, in my head what I question the most is the sense of "artistry": what an ugly drawing! And quite a brouhaha because of that?!? 

There's no accounting for taste. Besides, it seems to be intentionally made to look like naive art.

No question there. I rarely like naive art, and my home country produces plenty of them.

Too many people are actually talking about craftsmanship when they think they're talking about art. That's why you keep seeing the "my daughter can do this" folks who are mainly displaying their own lack of education on the matter.

IMHO art requires a given degree of craftsmanship to construe an artist's vision/idea. I just dislike when this degree is too low.

Besides, I doubt the graphic would have this charm if it were made in a photorealistic style, rather than the currently chosen art style.

A drawing does not need to have photorealistic style. Plenty of drawings have cleaner lines without resorting to artifacts such as shading, color grading, etc.

[CJay]

I agree with the arguments that the person that created the drawing should be acknowledged/compensated/whatever and I also believe the headline was a nice clickbait.

However, in my head what I question the most is the sense of "artistry": what an ugly drawing! And quite a brouhaha because of that?!? 

There's no accounting for taste. Besides, it seems to be intentionally made to look like naive art.

No question there. I rarely like naive art, and my home country produces plenty of them.

Too many people are actually talking about craftsmanship when they think they're talking about art. That's why you keep seeing the "my daughter can do this" folks who are mainly displaying their own lack of education on the matter.

IMHO art requires a given degree of craftsmanship to construe an artist's vision/idea. I just dislike when this degree is too low.

Besides, I doubt the graphic would have this charm if it were made in a photorealistic style, rather than the currently chosen art style.

A drawing does not need to have photorealistic style. Plenty of drawings have cleaner lines without resorting to artifacts such as shading, color grading, etc.

I like to think that's an indicator of true artistic talent, the ability to be able to represent something with a minimum of freehand lines and have it be immediately recognisable takes true talent, Picasso's line drawings being one of the most famous examples...

[bd139]

Have to agree. Art is about conveying the essence of an object or an idea, not necessarily a verbatim copy of the object or idea. The artist’s unique interpretation of it is the good bit.

[vk6zgo]

I agree with the arguments that the person that created the drawing should be acknowledged/compensated/whatever and I also believe the headline was a nice clickbait.

However, in my head what I question the most is the sense of "artistry": what an ugly drawing! And quite a brouhaha because of that?!? 

There's no accounting for taste. Besides, it seems to be intentionally made to look like naive art. Too many people are actually talking about craftsmanship when they think they're talking about art. That's why you keep seeing the "my daughter can do this" folks who are mainly displaying their own lack of education on the matter.

Besides, I doubt the graphic would have this charm if it were made in a photorealistic style, rather than the currently chosen art style.

I come from a family of artists.
Their attitude to those folks who idolise "naive art" is similar to that of the denizens of this forum towards
"Audiophools".

[Mr. Scram]

I come from a family of artists.
Their attitude to those folks who idolise "naive art" is similar to that of the denizens of this forum towards
"Audiophools".

"There's no accounting for taste" applies to both the consuming and producing sides.

[Howardlong]

This is not new, there’s plenty more corporate unicorn intestinal cultural appropriation for you here:

https://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q