Line Out Music & the City at Night
The Stranger Suggests
Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food
Slog
News & Arts
@SEAshowsTwitter feed of Seattle shows on sale now
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Art / Legal Vampire Weekend: Contra: Ugly or Not Ugly?
Posted by Grant Brissey on Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Okay, I'm not the biggest fan of Vampire Weekend (don't hate them either, just not really my thing), but I do find something aesthetically appealing about this cover, even though I liked the last one better. Someone, as you may have read by now, has a problem with the cover though:
The record label for the indie rock group "Vampire Weekend" says it did nothing wrong in using a photo of model Ann Kirsten Kennis on the cover of its recent album, "Contra."Kennis has filed a $2 million dollar lawsuit against the band, the record label, and a photographer, claiming she never authorized the use of the photo of her wearing a yellow Polo-monogrammed shirt and standing against a bare wall.
So, Ugly or Not Ugly?
2
The quality of the image is irrelevant. If she didn't grant permission (in the form of a contractual agreement or waiver of rights) for them to use her likeness on the cover, then they had no legal right to do so.
5
If she didn't sign a model release, the band and the photographer are fucked. And they're stupid. Not to the tune of $2million, of course. But without a proper model release, they had no business using her picture for an album cover, and she'll win her case easy.
On the other hand, if she did sign a model release, then she should shut the fuck up.
On the other hand, if she did sign a model release, then she should shut the fuck up.
6
Look at us we're hipsters who went to college we can do whatever we want. Did I mention we went to college? Oh you haven't HEARD of that model? I'm not surprised. Where we come from (college), EVERYONE's heard of her
10
@2, @5, the article says "Kennis claims that her signature was forged on a "photographic release" that the band obtained from photographer Tod Brody." So they have a model release. The question is whether or not it's her signature, I suppose.
13
WTF?!? UGLY? I....don't...get it.
Stop watching so much fucking tv, you ugly-voting mediocretins.
Stop watching so much fucking tv, you ugly-voting mediocretins.
14
I assumed the ugly v. not ugly applied to the photo/cover in general, not the model. It's not a great cover, but there are definitely worse. I would not pay $2m to use this as the cover of anything.
15
It isn't quite as simple as having a release or not. There is no release requirement for 'Editorial Use' only for 'Comercial Use.' You would think an album cover would be Comercial Use, but i suppose there are some clever arguments that could be made (monograph, uncompensated, promotion of artists work, etc). I don't remember exactly how it all works but I think liability follows the end user, so the lable is on the hook, and may have to take action against the photographer for fraud, re: original release. Tough part is that the onus is on the defendant in civil actions, so unless the photog can produce something concrete to prove the release is genuine, someone is gonna be paying out to a pudgy Westhampton mother of 3 who once made a couple bucks standing in front of a camera.
17
@15
I have no idea whether or not the signature was forged, or how they prove that one way or another. That's what judges and juries are for, I guess.
But an album cover is unquestionably commercial use, and would absolutely require a model release. Doesn't matter if it was the Rolling Stones or a religious charity band that made nothing. It still promotes a product or service, and is therefore commercial use.
Still, even if she wins, she won't actually get anything close to $2 million. That's just silly. She'll be lucky if she's awarded enough to pay her attorney fees.
I have no idea whether or not the signature was forged, or how they prove that one way or another. That's what judges and juries are for, I guess.
But an album cover is unquestionably commercial use, and would absolutely require a model release. Doesn't matter if it was the Rolling Stones or a religious charity band that made nothing. It still promotes a product or service, and is therefore commercial use.
Still, even if she wins, she won't actually get anything close to $2 million. That's just silly. She'll be lucky if she's awarded enough to pay her attorney fees.
18
@17- 'Commercial Use' is a pretty narrowly defined set of circumstances, but I agree that it most likely does fit in that category. I think that one example of Editorial Use of an image as an album cover might be The Rachel's "Music for Egon Schille" (sp?). That cover, the artwork throughout were his drawings, and the music was a 'commentary' on the man's work. It isn't strictly representational artwork, but if it had been, I think it could pass the Editorial Use 'smell test.'
I do not suspect VW will be able pass said test, but it is possible.
I do not suspect VW will be able pass said test, but it is possible.
Most Commented on Line Out
-
What Do You Think Of Tom Cruise's "Rockin' New Look?" by Kelly O
-
UPDATE: Bumbershoot to Skip Flatstock This Year[?] by Grant Brissey
-
chicBuds: EARO OR ZERO? by Dave Segal
-
Have You Seen This Bass? by Dave Segal
-
Ongoing List of Defunct Seattle Clubs by Grant Brissey
-
Word on the Street Is That Tonight Is Mad Rad's Last Show Ever by Grant Brissey
-
Also Tonight in Music: Avengers at Funhouse by Grant Brissey
-
Today in Funny: Hannibal Buress and Aziz Ansari by Grant Brissey
-
I'm Hungover...So, What Does THAT Sound Like? by Mike Nipper
-
D'Angelo's Return by Larry Mizell, Jr.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS