Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Credit Where Credit is Due: Image Rights and the new Spider-Man
145 Plays2 years ago
With great power comes great responsibility, which is why we are back and sober with an episode on image rights. We’re looking at the most interesting cases of image controversy, and ending with an artpop talk on the new spider-man movie– its image rights on the character as it relates to the new Marvel film.
For all of Artpop Talk's resources, click HERE.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction & Episode Focus
00:00:01
Speaker
Hello, hello, and welcome to this very sober episode of Art Pop Talk. I'm Bianca. And I'm Gianna. We've recovered from drunk art history, and we are here to talk with you this week about the history of image rates.
00:00:18
Speaker
That is right, we are going to look at the complexity of image rights, some of the most interesting cases of image controversy, and we'll end with a little pop talk in on the new Spider-Man movie. With great power comes great responsibility, and you know, here at Art Pop Talk, we don't have a lot of power, but we're gonna bring you a nice hour-long talk, so Bianca, let's swing into this episode.
Casual Chat & Podcasting in Media
00:00:44
Speaker
Hey, hey, Gianna, how's it going?
00:00:46
Speaker
Hi, it's so good to see you on my screen right back where you belong. Yeah, right now I'm actually in a different setup, so I'm sitting in front of a mirror. So I have my, you know, little reflection in our FaceTime setup, but then I'm also trying to ignore just like me talking to myself in a big mirror right in front of me.
00:01:11
Speaker
so yeah we'll just wait till we get the recording studio it'll be so much better ah yes oh my gosh so i know that you are all watching and just like that um the Sex and the City reboot but the podcasting of it all i i just um man shit you should know about really has that account is just like chef's kiss um but all the
00:01:41
Speaker
It's about just the podcasting situation and the wokeness of it all has just, yeah. Were you and I talking about how it's Crazy Ira and The Douche from Parks and Rec, like the radio show on Parks and Rec is the vibe I get from Carrie and Che's podcast on and just like that.
00:02:07
Speaker
It's so horrific. I really hope that we're doing just a tad bit better than Carrie Bradshaw. I'd rather be on the level of Crazy Ira and the Douche than whatever weird sex podcast this is. It's like the sound machine that Che pushes. It's just like totally woke.
00:02:29
Speaker
Yeah, I don't know. I don't enjoy that. And it's the third, like, you know, there's Che, there's Carrie, and then there's this, like, third guy. I don't know his name. Which is all that needs to be said. Like, I don't even know his name. Like, what's the point? Like, he made some weird joke about, like, public masturbation, and I was just... But this podcast is just, like, on the cringiness of... with the whole, like, wokeness not woke. I don't know. It's just... It's truly ruining it for me.
Art References in Media
00:02:57
Speaker
Right. I have two segues that I could use. And I think I'm gonna go into Ted Lasso for the sake of time. But I was just watching an episode of Ted Lasso right before we started recording, where Keely is watching Sex in the City. It's that episode with Aiden and Carrie and they're like fighting about space and then Keely and Roy are kind of in a fight about having too much time together.
00:03:20
Speaker
But also in that episode is when Nathan and Colin are talking about Colin's training. And Nathan is like, Colin, you're like, or, you know, you're not like Picasso and Gauguin or something. Oh, Picasso and Gauguin are. They're both pedophiles.
00:03:40
Speaker
And Nathan's like, no, they're artists. And I was like, I feel like I love the direction that was going. But also I felt bad because I was like, Nathan, don't use them as an example. But I was happy that the writers also, what they were like, the writers for that scene were like,
00:03:57
Speaker
nice curators of a museum who are trying to like bring a little bit more information about their collection, you know what I mean? They're like, yeah, they're still really bad, but we're still going to use the most quintessential pieces of artists anyway.
Judy Chicago & Kanye West
00:04:11
Speaker
So we don't necessarily have an art news story for you at the beginning of the episode. But later on, Gianna is going to bring in a relevant art news story into the topic. So we're going to kind of save it for the middle of the episode.
00:04:24
Speaker
But I just wanted to say that something I drunkenly forgot to talk about last week whenever we did Drunk Art News was the Judy Chicago doing the Kanye West Drake concert. And it reminded me because the announcement came out this past week that Kanye is doing Coachella and I think Billie Eilish is as well. So I was just thinking like, is Judy Chicago going to be a set designer at Kanye's
00:04:49
Speaker
Coachella performance and I just thought it was like such an interesting thing because Everyone is talking about this Kanye concert where he played like a bunch of his old hits and stuff like that And that's why like people are really wanting to see that type of set list come into his Coachella performance And it was a big deal like this concert was a big deal to a lot of fans and the fact that Judy Chicago Worked on the set of that concert. I just thought was really interesting and something I forgot to bring up So I just wanted to mention that for our girl Judy, you know credit where credit is due
00:05:20
Speaker
as we'll get into. I see what you did there. But damn, I mean, add that to the list of things that I forgot to mention for drunk art history. I could see the wheels turning so slowly in my head. It was
00:05:45
Speaker
like agonizing to watch um oh my god i just the gears moving so slowly i don't know if you felt that way bianca yeah i mean i did feel that way but i thought it was fun episodes so you know yeah next next time i think we'll do it a little differently but
00:06:11
Speaker
Yeah.
Podcasting Reflections
00:06:12
Speaker
Work through some of the kinks, you know? Yeah, I guess. We got to jot down a few notes to pick up the pace a little bit. Yeah, that would have been helpful. Any kind of guidelines for myself would have been nice, but live and learn. Yep. So are we ready for today's art pop talk? Oh, I'm very ready.
Main Topic: Image Rights
00:06:35
Speaker
Today we are talking about image rights, credit where credit is due. And to start things off, Bianca is going to give a little history on the concept and laws surrounding the matter. Then I'm going to break into some trace and croissant examples of image controversy. And at the end of the episode, we'll talk about the new Spider-Man
00:06:58
Speaker
and image rights on the character as it relates to the new Marvel film. So if you haven't seen it yet and you don't want to listen to any spoilers, you can listen up to the usual break that we have in our episode and come back when you have seen the movie. So Bianca, why don't you get us started?
00:07:17
Speaker
Fabulous. I was reading this Smart History article, which I'll kind of refer to a little bit throughout my little discussion here, but they opened the article with a big disclaimer that, quote, we are not lawyers and Smart History does not offer legal advice about image use. So I just wanted to say, same, like if Smart History is like putting that, then maybe we should like also put a little disclaimer before we start this episode.
00:07:45
Speaker
I was dying when I saw that in the script because a lot of the articles I found said the same thing. We're like an unedited paper. Do not come here for advice. And I'm like, yes, we are on the same page.
00:08:05
Speaker
Jenna, I don't know about you, but particularly as you're an artist yourself, and I within artist communities, giving credit is super important. But I feel slightly scared and sometimes very confused by image rights. The concept itself is
00:08:23
Speaker
easy enough to understand but this kind of common rule of 70 years isn't always best practice it feels like there's always kind of too many exceptions to things not actually being in the public domain even if they're 70 years old if you're if they're past a certain date blah blah blah and then to add to that social media and the digital age is making that much more complicated in terms of sharing images and I feel like kind of
00:08:52
Speaker
a curmudgeon or something like saying like the digital age makes images like much more complex but I was like we have to talk about that even though it's kind of like an unspoken thing like yes we all understand like it's getting complicated so according to our pals at smart history in general there are two levels of copyright that need to be considered
00:09:18
Speaker
one the copyright that applies to the work of art and then two the copyright that applies to the reproduction which is usually kind of a photograph of the work of art. They say quote, first you should find out if the work itself
00:09:33
Speaker
is in the public domain. And this can be tricky, but in general, you can follow these guidelines. If the work was created before 1923, it is likely not protected under United States copyright law. So in other words, it is likely now in the public domain in the United States.
00:09:54
Speaker
but there's a note they provide saying that this does not necessarily apply worldwide. So given that art is much more accessible across the globe and in art history we are generally talking about works not made in whatever country we are residing in, that is not always going to be an applicable rule. If the work was created after 1923 you will need to assess what type of image rights
00:10:20
Speaker
apply to the work itself and this varies so you can usually find this information on the website of the institution that owns the work. Works published between 1923 and 1977 generally receive copyright protection for 95 years from the date of their publication.
00:10:42
Speaker
And this is in reference to the copyright law of the United States, which grants monopoly protection for original works of authorship. With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors to make and sell copies of their works.
00:11:02
Speaker
and they are subject to a time limit and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. So again, there are like two sets of numbers that are kind of like floating around that you are given as a rule of thumb. The United States copyright law was last revised by the Copyright Act of 1976. The United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law
00:11:32
Speaker
under the copyright clause. And under this clause, Congress has the power to, quote, promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Image Rights in Academia
00:11:50
Speaker
The United States Copyright Office handles copyright registration, recording of copyright transfers, and other administrative aspects of this law.
00:12:01
Speaker
The United States copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne. And this Statute of Anne is also known as the Copyright Act of 1710, is an act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed, which was the first statute to provide for copyright regulated by the government and courts.
00:12:24
Speaker
rather than by private parties. And this influenced this first US federal copyright law. And the length of copyright established by the founding fathers was really short. It was only like 14 years.
00:12:40
Speaker
And there was the ability to renew it for one time only for 14 more years. And then 40 years later, the initial term was changed to 28 years. And then 180 years later, then the copyright law of 1976 granted this kind of 75 year, 98 year after death of the author of publication.
00:13:04
Speaker
Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, but copyright does not protect the idea itself. And this distinction is called the idea dichotomy. The idea and expression is fundamental to copyright law, this kind of differentiation between the two. So from the Copyright Act of 1976, quote,
00:13:30
Speaker
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
00:13:56
Speaker
An example of this comes from Richard H. Jones's The Myth of the Idea Expression Dichotomy and Copyright Law. So he quotes, A paper describing a political theory is copyrightable. The paper is the expression of the author's idea about political theory. The theory itself is just an idea and is not copyrightable.
00:14:25
Speaker
Another author is free to describe the same theory in their own words without infringing on the original author's copyright. So I was thinking like this gets really complicated and I was thinking about sometimes on art pop talk when I'm describing like a really great idea that I had and it's like do I want to share this idea? Do I want anyone else to know about this idea? Because is an episode of art pop talk
00:14:52
Speaker
just our thoughts like out in the ether or is our podcast episode something that is copyrightable even though we're just sharing our thoughts but we do have a sort of kind of production something that is tangible describing whatever said thought is.
00:15:08
Speaker
So copyright law includes the following types of works. Literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic works, pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, audio-visual works, there you go, sound recordings, podcasting, derivative works, complications, architectural works. So Gianna, how are we doing so far? Are you staying with me? I am not a law professor. Don't know if you can get that. Oh my God, you're not?
00:15:39
Speaker
No, I'm really not. I'm sorry. I'm not Elwood's yet, but I'm really working on it. I mean, I just really thought that's what you brought to the table with our talk. So totally confused. Yeah, for sure. A lot of this, you know, it's kind of interesting. I, you would think that going through a program where you are training to be taught how to become a living functional artist,
00:16:04
Speaker
One, just like a creator. Yeah. I'm sorry, but like in my experience, you go to school to be taught how to like make art. You are not taught how to be functioning.
00:16:22
Speaker
business person. And I think copyright is definitely a part of that. I think that's something that's highly lacking in curriculum because you'll be next to somebody in your class and you're like, that looks real similar to something I also saw on Pinterest. And I'm also not saying that I haven't been there before either.
00:16:45
Speaker
using reference images are totally unacceptable and you know real form of creating the foundation for your art and they are completely acceptable and you're right there are different points and the line is really kind of unclear as to how far you have to manipulate or appropriate that image because again you're exactly right the idea can be
00:17:10
Speaker
the same. And when you also think about that in terms of business too, you can patent like a product, you can patent a design, but also that idea to an extent is still up for grabs for other businesses to also commercialize off of. So yeah, essentially everything that you're saying is very applicable. Like we always talk about not just for art, but for all these other things too.
00:17:37
Speaker
and even some of the image rights that all kind of talk up
00:17:41
Speaker
a little bit and you might talk about them as well Bianca is just in terms of kind of pop culture image rights in the sense of like your own picture of you. Right yeah right and I think that's really interesting because you were talking about image rights as the creator in art history whenever we start talking about our written research obviously there's a lot of emphasis on
00:18:09
Speaker
on credit and plagiarism in terms of writing but it's not really until you're kind of down to the wire and starting to incorporate images for your publication where I had to ask the question can I include this image in my thesis like if I don't if it's not in the public domain or do I need to if it's just an image that I'm using for a reference how does that work in terms of
00:18:34
Speaker
publishing my own research. And it was weird. It's not something that was necessarily discussed. Like I had to ask the question about what is possible for me to publish in terms of images I'm discussing in my writing. And so although my writing is original, the images that I'm referencing are obviously not. And so it was just a weird thing where like no one talked to me about
00:18:59
Speaker
image rights until I was like, Hey, I have a question before I submit this for publication. You know what I mean? Yeah, that's super interesting.
Museums & Image Rights
00:19:07
Speaker
I mean, in terms of plagiarism, as well, if you're simply writing a paper, like it's a lot easier to get caught plagiarizing a piece of writing because of the way that that information is tracked via the internet versus how artwork is tracked, which we will super get into.
00:19:25
Speaker
Yeah. So let's talk about museums a little bit more specifically because I'm sure many of you listening have done that research and needed those images for publication and sometimes you learn that you have to pay for those images and that can really impact your writing or whatever type of research you're doing if you're a student and you don't have the funds to pay for images that you're talking about. It's really kind of
00:19:50
Speaker
an odd phenomenon. So going back to smart history, this is something that they really emphasize and want to bring to our attention. When you are looking to use images of something, quote, if the work pictured is three-dimensional, a sculpture, an installation, building, monument, etc., no matter whether the work itself is in the public domain or not,
00:20:16
Speaker
you will need to search for a reproduction, usually a photograph, of that work that is in the public domain and license for reuse. And then, if the work pictured is two-dimensional and the work itself is in the public domain, there is precedent case in law known as the Bridgman case that states
00:20:42
Speaker
faithful reproductions of the work are not protected under U.S. copyright law." Okay, so this is wildly fascinating in relation to a drunk art history question we tried to answer last week about forgeries and if forgery is art. So while Gianna and I might think that forgeries are art, the Bridgman case, which is Bridgman Art Library versus Coral Corp from 1999,
00:21:12
Speaker
was the decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that the exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience, and effort,
00:21:38
Speaker
The key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality. So Gianna, in reference to what you were just saying, what do you think about this in terms of kind of using reproductions and references in your work?
00:21:55
Speaker
Yeah, well first off, kind of going back to drunk art history, that's funny. You brought that up. That was a great question and I forgot who asked that. In terms of what is real, what is a thing, but also what is real under the law, I get are like very two different.
00:22:15
Speaker
Like realities, essentially. So even taking kind of art at its bare bones, what is it? I think art that is forged falls underneath that category. However, I understand for the sake of credit where credit is due, protecting the originality under a court of law. Absolutely. And those are two different distinctions, but it's just about what environment we're kind of placing them in.
00:22:37
Speaker
Right. I think it's also interesting, even if you have talked about maybe your art work not being original in a classroom or if you've come across that, students are learning about that under umbrella of academia.
Plagiarism vs. Art Forgery
00:22:54
Speaker
So even the terminology is different. So at a university, let's say if you had to go to like college court, which Juliana, cousin of APT, has a good story about having
00:23:07
Speaker
College court. You could be like charged, whatever the word is, with plagiarism. You wouldn't be charged, my understanding at least, even if you were an art student, you wouldn't be charged with forging art, which is kind of interesting. But I definitely understand the two different distinctions that need to be made versus what we just think about art conceptually and versus how do we protect artists under law.
00:23:34
Speaker
Yeah, that's definitely really interesting. I love a good college court
Museum Overreach on Copyright
00:23:39
Speaker
story. And by the way, she didn't do anything wrong. It was just like something stupid, but it's really funny. So the last thing I'm going to talk quickly about is something called museum overreach. And I just feel like this term can be applied to me. I was going to say, oh, this seems broad. Where should I not be? What should I not do? God damn it.
00:24:05
Speaker
So I'm going to talk about museum overreach in terms of copyright and image law in particular. Maybe I shouldn't steal this artwork. Museum overreach. That's fucking hilarious. Isn't that great? Isn't that fucking fantastic? Oh my god, where is it? Wait, maybe we should do some museum overreach merch. Museum overreach warning warning.
00:24:33
Speaker
Amazing. Where's Sid when you need her? Come on, sis. Truly. Sid, we need a sesh. We need a graphic design sesh. So sometimes, wait, for our museum overreach, we should definitely just copyright the shit out of myself. Some works that are stolen and should definitely be in the public domain, but some museum is just getting a whole bunch of fucking money for it. Oh my god. We're going to have way too much fun with this. This is happening. That's hilarious.
00:25:02
Speaker
Okay, so sometimes museums claim copyright on photographs of works of art that are in the public domain, but they can claim copyright on even though we should be allowed to use it. And this is referred to some as overreach, is what an article said.
00:25:22
Speaker
Quote, over the last few years, however, there has been a remarkable shift with museums, notably the Brooklyn Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Walters Art Museum, the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and others.
00:25:39
Speaker
increasingly offering downloadable high resolution images of works in the public domain. Jenna, I think we talked about this as an art news story like a while ago, in reference to the Louvre making their entire collection visible and downloadable on their site during kind of the height of COVID when they were closed.
00:25:59
Speaker
And an article titled Museum Policies and Art Images Conflicting Objectives and Copyright Overreach by Kenneth D. Cruz argues that quote, museums face steady demand for images of artworks from their collections and they typically provide a service of making and delivering high resolution images of art.
00:26:21
Speaker
The images are often intellectually essential for scholarly study and teaching, and they are sometimes economically valuable for production of the coffee mugs and note cards sold in museum shops and elsewhere. Though the law is unclear regarding copyright protection afforded to such images, many museum policies and licenses encumber the use of art images with contractual terms and license restrictions
00:26:50
Speaker
often aimed at raising revenue or protecting the integrity of the art. Cruz's article, quote, explores the extent to which museums have strained the limits of copyright claims and indeed have restructured concepts of ownership and control
00:27:09
Speaker
in ways that curtail the availability and use of art images far beyond anything that may be grounded in the law. This article examines the relevant copyright laws applicable to the making and use of reproductions of art images, and it identifies the challenging pressures that museums face as they strive to make better policies in the context of law,
00:27:33
Speaker
but that also serve the multiple competing interests coming to bear on officials and decision makers inside museums. So I wanted to read that because we do have that full article linked for you on our resources page if you are interested in reading the full version because that is super interesting. And as I stated in the beginning, these ideas are just super complicated.
00:27:58
Speaker
Because of social media, the ease at which we can share images, the way we can access images online through things like Google, and how credit and offership is established in those sectors. So Gianna, with that, would you like to put these laws to use and share some examples of this?
Digital Age & Image Rights
00:28:16
Speaker
Absolutely. So let's get into some case studies. I wanted to try to pull a range of issues that Bianca also touched on, as you mentioned a little bit just about
00:28:29
Speaker
the tracking of it all with the interwebs and we'll get into the social media of it all. But it does make things a little bit complicated in the sense that people don't always know what the rules are and also because everything is always changing and evolving. But this is especially true in terms of how to source uncopyrighted images. So if you are sourcing an image, how much are you manipulating it in order for it to look like something totally
00:28:59
Speaker
new or different or are you creating a conceptual idea in which the intent is to appropriate. When considering social media and image rights, when photos are shared so much, essentially the trail just gets lost. So just in terms of credit of images that are sourced digitally, we do have a plethora of case studies we can use. But I'm going to reference one involving an image of an original work of art
00:29:29
Speaker
used without the artist's consent by a celebrity.
Taylor Swift Image Controversy
00:29:33
Speaker
You may remember this case back in 2014-2015-ish when Taylor Swift shared a pirated version of an original work of art, a painting by artist Ali Borger on her Instagram feed.
00:29:45
Speaker
The image was essentially fan art a splice of the original artist's image which was this fox paired with handwritten lyrics from Taylor Swift's song I suppose. They are the hunters or we are the foxes and we run. And it was it actually had someone else's signature on it which is interesting and then it was dated to be 2014. So there are two things happening here. There is a pirated image someone created and
00:30:15
Speaker
And Taylor Swift used this alleged fan art to promote her album 1989. You might be asking why Bourger isn't going after the person who actually made the image. And really, it seems like it was a personal choice. She definitely could have. We did have a signature on this work of art, whether that was their real name or not. You know, that could have been a lead somewhere.
00:30:43
Speaker
At the end of the day, all Allie wanted, this artist, was for Swift and her team to give her credit. So we do have a lot of quotes from her. And if you remember this case study at all, because it was found on social media and found by Bourger, it was really easy for her to get her voice across also via social media. So she was commenting on this original post by Swift and then later came out with
00:31:11
Speaker
public statement. So to quote Bourger, it's about the artist supporting other artists. I know it's a sharing culture now and I have no problem with sharing artwork and having a collaborative culture as long as it's credited. I know there's no artist who works in a vacuum. All artists owe something to other artists. I think if someone comes forward and says, this is my design, could you give me credit for it? It shouldn't be that difficult to give credit.
00:31:36
Speaker
I do want to put a pin in this statement before I go on to some more things that she stated. How do you feel about this comment? I'm I definitely am on the same page with her about creating a collaborative culture but also it's interesting to listen to her hear that. Artists also owe artists in terms of hey if I steal your shit yeah don't do that but also
00:32:06
Speaker
To what extent I should just let the world use my artwork and I should be just okay with that because that's the job now? I don't know. How do you feel about that, Bianca?
00:32:19
Speaker
Yeah, I definitely feel conflicted. Because like you said earlier, Gianna, as an artist, you are going to be inspired by the world around you. And whether that's conscious or subconscious, there are things in your life, especially scrolling across the internet, you are going to come upon things and be inspired by that as another creator.
00:32:43
Speaker
So there's that element to it where you are just naturally going to reference things in your work as you produce your own work. However, I think there's another component here about kind of like financial equity amongst artists as well because to me, this is also like this pressure on artists and creatives like we've kind of constantly talked about here on the podcast that like,
00:33:13
Speaker
The art world is a sharing culture and you should just be grateful that I'm sharing your work and that I'm using your work and that I'm being inspired by your work.
00:33:22
Speaker
And the world does not necessarily allow for creatives to say, this is my work. I deserve to be paid for that work if you are not some kind of high profile hotshot. You know what I mean? So I think there's also this pressure on artists as well to be like, I'm so grateful for you Taylor Swift sharing my work. And I love that. And I just want to be credited, but pay the fucking artists what they're due. There is this kind of other element that's bothering me about
00:33:51
Speaker
the financial component of that and how that also comes into play and how our society is completely lacking in giving artists that financial credit and like know they shouldn't be grateful that you just use their work or share their work like that's great and we are all going to do that based on the way that we use media we are all going to share things without necessarily being able to pay for those items given the platforms that they're on but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't also
00:34:21
Speaker
promote the commercial aspect of that. I agree and yeah remember this is all like a public statement so it feels very like nice and maybe perhaps I have to read between the lines but even some of the original posts that we have because this was posted on Taylor Swift's Instagram feed and then once
00:34:44
Speaker
Our artist saw it she commented and she was like hey, this is my image like by the way I love you Taylor Swift and it's like oh like oh I don't want to be confrontational but I'm gonna add like a little heart and I'm also gonna be like ah and this isn't to say that I
00:34:59
Speaker
this is it seems like the first time at this time our artist had to deal with something like this so i don't i'm not trying to be come down on her or be hard on her but it's nice to be nice but also sometimes that can be extremely destructive and take away from what the actual issue is because it seems a little contradictory so to continue she says
00:35:22
Speaker
After months of effort, I have received an offer from you, Boignette Taylor Swift, and your team that mentions no credit to me as the artist of the design, but does include a payment for a four-figure amount with the stipulation that I must donate it all. So essentially she was given all this money, but she had to donate it all to charity so she couldn't use it towards her own artistic practice. Taylor, as a professional,
00:35:47
Speaker
Would you agree to such terms from Apple or Spotify? My work is my living. It is how I pay bills and support my family and employees. Many of our fans are professional artists and support themselves and their families with earnings from their intellectual property.
00:36:02
Speaker
And I definitely want to talk about the intellectual property of it all. Would you really profit from and distribute a copy of their work to millions of people and then tell them they don't deserve professional recognition or compensation? Also, just because we are a pop culture podcast as well,
00:36:21
Speaker
This specific example is quite juicy because we are dealing with a powerhouse celebrity icon. And so again, all Taylor Swift did was get an image that was alleged fan art and she posted it. But
00:36:36
Speaker
Because social media is always driven, especially for someone who has a platform like this, it was used to promote an album. And I don't know what terminology to use if it was through social media, if that's like her personal one, if that's like a 30.
00:36:52
Speaker
third-party platform if it was indirect and it doesn't really matter it was still promotional and by the time this image was taken down off of Taylor Swift's platform it had already been this pirated image had already been copied and duplicated like a number of times so the damage is already kind of done so in the last statement I read that was kind of like her open letter to
00:37:14
Speaker
Taylor and there's a lot you know more other information in there that she shares and I can link that in our resources. So it's interesting that we do get to know what the compensation is and I don't understand and I could not find why the stipulation had to be given to charity.
00:37:31
Speaker
Because in this case, it is quite clear where the original image comes from because not only does she have her own kind of like artist account, she also has like another business in which this is essentially kind of like her logo. And she has other animals that she paints and creates in this very stylistic way. So, you know, if this were taken into court, I feel like that would be a very strong argument. But this settlement seems like it was reached between
00:38:00
Speaker
her and Taylor Swift's team. But it's also just fascinating to see like an artist who has, you know, talked about intellectual property, not in the visual sense for Taylor Swift, but for her music and not having ownership of that. And, you know, I remember this being kind of being a thing and like 2014, 2015, why this was getting all settled.
00:38:25
Speaker
yeah for me it's just really ironic just like you said like everything that's been happening with Taylor Swift music and how she is redoing all of her albums in order to have that intellectual property over them I mean you know and the artist totally called her out yeah it's you you did exactly what I would have done if I weren't if or if I were a high-profile celebrity artist you know I would have been able to get
00:38:53
Speaker
that property back with financial expectations. And because you're Taylor Swift, you have the opportunity to re-record all of your albums and all of your artwork and get paid for that. And here I am not being able to do that. I think that's pretty shitty.
00:39:10
Speaker
Yeah, so it's an interesting case and you know, I'm not trying to dredge these things up from the past, but I think it is a good example in terms of social media for sure. And the only thing that I can think of as to why she was given a four-figure amount but had stipulations with it is because perhaps the argument would be that in the end she did publicize off of it in I guess a positive way and so she was getting
00:39:39
Speaker
maybe other kind of like commerce from interactions with the public. I don't think that matters. I mean, I agree because you still use the image. So credit where credit is due. But you know, their team, this this swifty team of lawyers or whoever, you know, is kind of sneaky.
00:40:03
Speaker
Now we can shift into another familiar example, which is the image right of your own identity or your body or an image of
Nirvana Album Cover Lawsuit
00:40:11
Speaker
you. Basically, when using a picture of a model, does your model have rights? The concept of image rights argues that every individual has the right and ability to decide how their picture name or voice is used.
00:40:26
Speaker
Then we have personality rights. Personality rights fall into two categories. The right to publicity and the right to privacy. The right to publicity refers to the individual's ability to protect their likeness from being used for profit without their permission or appropriated compensation. The right to privacy refers to an individual's right not to be exploited.
00:40:52
Speaker
So I think both privacy and publicity issues were a couple of arguments taken into consideration when discussing the image rights of the famous Nirvana Nevermind album. So if you guys remember, we talked about this recent case in an art news story from Art News of 2021 passed, but I wanted to bring it up again too because the lawsuit was actually dismissed by Judge earlier last week.
00:41:19
Speaker
So why were the arguments against the use of this image of the baby now grown man Spencer Elden by Elden himself not really cutting it in a court of law? Basically, the argument is that he profited from it and publicly embraced the image as an adult on many occasions.
00:41:41
Speaker
I believe there was agreed compensation for his parents or caregiver guardian at the time of the image's original origin in 1991. And then this is also kind of the big one. From the time of the image's inception to the time of the now lawsuit happening 2021, basically has surpassed the statute of limitations.
00:42:05
Speaker
So basically, you knew that this image existed, you profited off of it for almost three decades. And if it was something that was an issue to you, like Spencer Elden has claimed that it has been emotionally and mentally triggering for him. So basically, it's kind of a situation that's too little too late. So when we are talking about your rights in terms of privacy or publicity,
00:42:35
Speaker
You do have them, but you kind of have to, at least in this case, act within a reasonable time period for that to be able to go into an effect. So I think they can.
00:42:48
Speaker
go, go at it again, file another lawsuit if they want. They, uh, Elden's team and lawyers have like one other time that they can do it, but I'm not really too sure it's gonna, they're gonna try to go for it again. So again, I just wanted to share that. I think it's interesting in terms of when we talk about the celebrity of it all, um, you know, Bianca took us through kind of great definitions, um, within the visual sense. But when we're just talking about public figures as well, that's kind of interesting.
00:43:18
Speaker
But something like an album cover, which we talked about is an interesting subject. Now I want to talk about appropriation, which is probably the least black and white case or cases you'll see looking through an art law lens.
Appropriation Art Legal Cases
00:43:35
Speaker
This is the fun gray area we can get into.
00:43:37
Speaker
Starting with an artist who has been sued a lot for appropriation, we could talk about Jeff Goons. Sometimes he wins and sometimes he doesn't. And he isn't the only one either. A great case study came up for me and it was about Richard Prince. And he's a painter and photographer who's known for his blatant appropriation of artworks in which some have gone to court.
00:44:04
Speaker
All right, so if we look at this landmark case from Richard Prince in about 2008, when he appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer, Patrick Carrillo, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Carrillo argued that it wasn't fair use, but in fact, copyright infringement. The initial ruling in the case in favor of Carrillo
00:44:31
Speaker
has created huge division in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of the art. Asking essentially, who are we to sit here and listen to a judge's kind of subjective thoughts about this artwork? Like, where is the line? These are all ideas and kind of thoughts at the end of the day. The original decision in the case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince.
00:45:00
Speaker
for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince's work transformed the kind of concentration in the way that it was authentically different and thus acceptable under argument of fair use. So this is kind of interesting because we had one ruling where it was in favor of carry you and then it was just kidding. Now with all the public discussion, let's kind of revamp it, look into
00:45:27
Speaker
maybe art more intently and then in favor of prints. If we go back and we look at coons, I mean, it's just all over the place. And if you look at some artists who use appropriation quite a bit, I mean, these are really fascinating case studies. And I wish I would have been able to study them in school or have written a paper about case studies or appropriation under a court of law. I mean, it really has been
00:45:57
Speaker
has been cool to dive into. Coons had lost a case against Art Rogers and
00:46:08
Speaker
I'm not going to go into that case study too much but there is one that I found that he actually won and it was an appropriation of a photograph of a woman's legs and sandals from a Gucci ad and it was for one of his paintings and I've never seen this image before and Bianca I shared it with you in our docs you can take a look at that but
00:46:30
Speaker
the court essentially found that the photograph had been sufficiently transformed to merit fair use under the protection of court of law. So I've noticed this language popping up when it comes to appropriation, it's fair use. I mean, I think
00:46:48
Speaker
in favor of goons on this one. I feel like these images are vastly different besides a pair of Gucci shoes. It's fucking free advertising for Gucci. It would surprise me that something especially such a new empire like Gucci would file a lawsuit for something like this, especially someone who deals in commercialism and pop culture. That just makes you relevant and I don't know.
00:47:17
Speaker
Well, and it's interesting that Jeff Koons also did that collab with Louis Vuitton, where, you know, it just, that is interesting. Also, I guess in terms of what we talked about in our House of Gucci recap, where you're talking about how Gucci really was cracking down hard on like the FUCHI bags, you know? So, that was kind of interesting that maybe they would take issue with this, just given their track record on that. I suppose, but... I just don't think that this is... I don't...
00:47:46
Speaker
If they had put on their critical thinking caps on this one, that's good. That's free advertising for you in a really cool and creative way. Yeah, and if you look at this one up here from the Art Rogers photograph versus
00:48:04
Speaker
The Jeff Koons sculpture. It's really interesting because we're not just taking an image and making it another two dimensional image. We've taken a photograph and we've made it completely sculptural. We've colorized it. We're bringing it into an entirely new dimensional realm. It is wild to me that something like a photograph turned into this sculpture.
00:48:25
Speaker
Would not be deemed as fair use but something like this fucking Gucci ad I'm like, do you think Gucci just dropped the charges and he just won this one? I'm telling you though if you look into some of these artists that do use appropriation I mean it is all over the board and I There's guys I mean like it's a case-by-case thing. There's not too much of a rhyme or reason to it. I
00:48:49
Speaker
Right. And sometimes I just, yeah, like you said, going back to a judge's interpretation of it. It's ignorant to think that maybe like, it's hard for a bias not to be in there. Right. And just given the fact that I mean, I don't, I have no idea how judges, I don't know, knowledge of art would come into play in hearings like this. You know what I mean? Like if a judge has a background in kind of
00:49:17
Speaker
artists art history or art theory wouldn't that be their job to like read up on that stuff before they have to make a decision like I'm sorry I don't know how judges work but like or maybe they're not supposed to do that and that's where like even our court systems yeah and I just don't think that's the way that works I mean are they supposed to be unbiased like to me that's where I would think
00:49:40
Speaker
I'm like, how big are these cases to where we get into juries and we have to strategically decide, okay, we need just someone who doesn't know anything about art, and then we need someone who does know anything. We need a Coons fan, and then we need someone who's not a Coons fan, because it's all about playing the jury game. I love a jury of our Coons fans and Gucci stands. Trying to block out the biases of each. Oh my God. To be a fly on the wall. Oh, truly. I love that.
00:50:10
Speaker
Well, Jenna, thanks for these case studies. These are super interesting. And I think we're about to get into another specific example. So we are going to take a little break. And whenever we come back, spoiler alert.
00:50:26
Speaker
We will be talking about the new Spider-Man movie in an effort to right the wrong of Kim Kardashian spoiling the movie for millions of people on her Instagram. We are telling you right now, we are going to talk about spoilers because we're talking about image rates as the character relates to the new movie. So if you haven't seen it yet and you do not want to know anything, now is your time to leave the remainder of this episode for until you see the movie. So.
00:50:54
Speaker
We will be right back with spoilers.
00:51:26
Speaker
All right, everybody. Welcome back. Gianna, would you like to start us off by telling us what you think about the new Spider-Man movie? Tell us all your thoughts. Yeah. I really liked it. And she says hesitating. I was very surprised. I also just
00:51:51
Speaker
I don't know how valuable my opinion is in this discussion, to be honest, about Spider-Man scene, how I have not watched the first two Tom Holland Spider-Man films, so take everything I say with that in mind.
00:52:09
Speaker
So I just had to do like a little quick like synopsis of how you know what the first two movies were before I went into it. But yeah so if you don't know by now and again major spoilers but we do have
00:52:22
Speaker
Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield coming back. My super bias is that Andrew Garfield can do absolutely no wrong in this world and I am obsessed. So this is a strictly visual analysis. Andrew Garfield is beautiful. Nothing else matters. So pretty. So on top of that, we also had the returning characters, the returning villains of all of the villains added up from the previous
00:52:52
Speaker
Toby and Andrew movies as well, which was Like really cool and like interesting to see I forgot how like derpy the third Toby McGuire Spider-Man was with the same situation kind of surprising they brought that character back but I
00:53:14
Speaker
I don't know, but I guess that you need to include all the villains. Yeah. So, you know, that was fun. So here's my biggest thing, and this is my biggest opinion about the movie, is that I was very much here for this kind of collaboration between these three Spider-Men.
Spider-Man Movie Discussion
00:53:39
Speaker
There should be a gold man.
00:53:42
Speaker
His name's not Phil Spiderman. And because I remember when Andrew Garfield movie came out, I was already really confused because I was like, what are you talking about? There's already Spiderman. We just had one. And then this Marvel shit kept coming up at that time.
00:54:01
Speaker
slowly but surely I am getting more information about Spider-Man and then especially when Into the Spider-Verse came out and I actually finally just watched that film kind of all the way through for the first time and the Spider-Man universe and all the different stories I definitely get so if I knew then what I knew now I wouldn't have had my little accident so
00:54:30
Speaker
I think this was particularly necessary to have all of them together to make this kind of like comic universe and cinematic universe kind of come together. And I think there was a call for it and a demand for it.
00:54:44
Speaker
I needed there to be like a bigger point or a larger why. Like what is going to be the huge why factor into why it's necessary to pull old, gotta love him, like Toby McGuire, like OG Spider-Man back in the loop and then Andrew Garfield and then have them rewrite their past with these confrontations with these villains, right?
00:55:10
Speaker
To me, it would mean that it would change the rest of their timeline. I didn't watch that whole Loki shit for these other movies to tell me that this whole timeline shit doesn't matter because it does. So if they're fucking with their timeline, wouldn't that mean that Gwen maybe didn't die? And could we have not gotten a glimpse of what would happen when they go back to their real universe, what happens and how does their timeline change?
00:55:40
Speaker
Like I just thought that was rude that we did not get that Yeah, that was just rude. I completely agree a special especially after seeing Zendaya fall and then we have Andrew Garfield reaction has been exactly the same every time we bring up this scene like she just like her lip quivers every
00:56:02
Speaker
Who the fuck am I crying? On a Spider-Man film. Tom Holland's Spider-Man film. I was deeply moved and deeply ashamed. I could not believe I was sitting there next to my five-year-old nephew.
00:56:22
Speaker
while my nephew's sitting there in like a full-on mass morality. Just like, okay, here we go. Completely agree. I just feel like after we saw
00:56:33
Speaker
Mr. Andrew Garfield save the beautiful, gorgeous Zendaya, then we needed to see him be able to save Gwen because I think you're exactly right. If we're going back in time, or if we're theoretically amending these villains in a different timeline to send them back to do better,
00:56:52
Speaker
their old timeline because the whole time the villains are saying I don't want to die I don't want to die like help us Peter you know and so in order to not die Peter helps them so when they go back they shouldn't die which means that Gwen Stacy may not have fallen down that horrible note it makes absolutely no sense like there's no logical way like if What's that professor's name?
00:57:20
Speaker
Dr. Connors. Dr. Connors, lizard boy. He doesn't turn into a goddamn lizard. Well, that's in the first one. So it would be the second one with Black Tro with Jamie Foxx. Oh, okay. And then I think the second one is also with the Green Goblin and Andrew Garfield's one as well. Nevertheless,
00:57:47
Speaker
she should not have died in this in the sequel but but maybe maybe we are going to get that return also giana i don't know because you know andrew garfield and mason they used to date and they aren't they are no more so i know and i just didn't want to come back
00:58:03
Speaker
Emma, I'm gonna need you to suck it up sister. I'm sorry. She probably get a big fat paycheck. So good for her. Yeah, that might ease the blow a little bit. Like poor you. I'm sorry. I'm gonna need this from you. I am also equally as upset that we did not get a glimpse of Kirsten Dunst because I was so happy to see Toby say that him and MJ, you know, like we make it work. I was like, don't, don't even get me started. No, and I'm like, we couldn't just get a glimpse of like,
00:58:27
Speaker
MJ being like Peter Parker. You know how like she, Kristen Dunst was like, hey, tiger. Hey, Peter Parker. Like a good upside down Spider-Man kiss. We couldn't have gotten- I love a good upside down Spider-Man kiss. I'm pissed. Like he couldn't return home and like she'd be there like me with our kids or something. Oh, that's so sweet. In my head, like there's no other alternative. Like that is what happens. And I don't, I don't know what to tell Marvel. Like that's the situation.
00:58:56
Speaker
Excuse me, Marl, I have some opinions. I am not an MCU fan. However, I would like you to know these in my eyes. Like, I am not the fan that you're supposed to be serving. No, I'm not your demographic. Listen to me. I've been sucked into your black hole. Yeah, I've been sucked into your fucking bullshit. Oh, yeah. But Joanna, we may get a glimpse of that because
00:59:21
Speaker
Andrew Garfield said he is down to do another Spider-Man movie. So there is hope that we are going to see Gwen Stacy live again and maybe she'll become Spider-Girl. Maybe we're going to get Emma Stone as Spider-Girl. I wouldn't hate that. I wouldn't hate that at all. Yeah. You know what? This is just me being the puppet master. I'm trying to get those two kids back together. Oh, well, she's a married woman now. Fuck.
00:59:47
Speaker
It's okay. We're happy for you, Anna. I am whatever. Happy for you now that I am. I still might be plodding. It's okay. You can plot. I'm on board, but I thoroughly also enjoyed this film. But, Jana, I completely agree about all your points. I feel like I didn't know that she got married.
01:00:05
Speaker
Yeah, remember because we were trying to get our cousin invited to her wedding because Juliana met Emma Stone at a different wedding. Right. She wasn't allowed to talk to her, but she was there. But like Juliana and I were like for sure plotting trying to like, you know, be someone invited by like plus one plus one situation. Man, that was like. To Emma Stone's wedding. Yeah.
01:00:32
Speaker
Yeah, we're so glad. Oh, man. But so that's how I distinctly remember that Emma Stone is married, not to Andrew Garfield, because I was severely trying to like get myself plus one. Oh, my God. Well, as you all know, Juliana Poro is always like three degrees away from some celebrity, I swear. So we might have another opportunity down the future to get to some celebrity wedding. You know, we'll just have to like play it by ear.
01:01:00
Speaker
we know what Jewel Poirot herself is getting married in the summer. So, you know, I feel like there's also... She's gonna listen to this and be like, no. There's some situations happening behind the scenes. Bridesmaids at work. Bridesmaids at work. We're just trying to get, I'm so invited to... Bridesmaids. So we can talk to her about the return of Gwen Stacy.
01:01:27
Speaker
Oh my god. Hey, anyway, boybeatpt, Matt Klein, aka Juliana's fiance is like a huge nerd marble stan. He would not be mad about that at all. Truly, truly. We have some work to do. So
01:01:44
Speaker
On that note, if you were one of the casual fans of Spider-Man like we had previously been and you didn't understand why Tom Holland all of a sudden became part of the Avengers, we're going to talk about that now.
Spider-Man's Film Rights History
01:01:55
Speaker
We know that the character Spider-Man was originally created from Marvel by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.
01:02:02
Speaker
I believe that he first appeared in the anthology comic book Amazing Fantasy number 15 in 1962. Look, that's what I read online. I've never read any of these. So I feel like I just wanted to say stipulation because some comic book fan is going to like come for you. Andrew James is going to be like, that's not the right book.
01:02:23
Speaker
So anywho, since then the character has appeared in numerous film and television roles Nicholas Hammond first starred as Peter Parker Spider-Man in the 1977 made for television film Spider-Man and would appear as the character two other times and I was watching YouTube clips from this like original movie and it was truly unreal. His eyes really freak me out. His eyes are like
01:02:51
Speaker
middle school girl first trying to figure out how to do like a cat eye. It's just like they're like not right. They're so weird. I was also reading in the comments on these like YouTube clips that some people were saying it was like totally disrespectful that Nicholas Hammond wasn't in the new Spider-Man film because we got Toby and Andrew but because
01:03:17
Speaker
Hammond was Spider-Man in the 70s like he was the first rendition of Peter Brooker so it would have been nice to have like have him or maybe if he had just done like a funny like cameo or something yeah like at the end because we also got Venom at the end like we got Tom Hardy at the end but we didn't get
01:03:34
Speaker
Yeah, they could have both been like sitting at the bar like what's going on and cute. Yeah. Or maybe he was like the bartender. Anyway, this is what I'm talking about. Another thing like Marvel didn't. Yes. Why? Whatever. So in 1999, Sony Pictures Entertainment had acquired the film rights to the character.
01:03:53
Speaker
creating two film series until 2014. So we have the Sam Rami Spider-Man trilogy from 2002 to 2007 starring Mr. Tobey Maguire and then the Mark Webb amazing Spider-Man films from 2012 to 2014 starring Andrew Garfield.
01:04:11
Speaker
And according to a Business Insider article, quote,
01:04:33
Speaker
Sometime in 2014, prior to the release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, there had been informal discussions between producer Amy Pascal and Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige about whether the world
01:04:49
Speaker
And the characters of the amazing Spider-Man films, including Andrew Garfield's version of Spider-Man, could be integrated into the MCU. So I believe that originally Andrew Garfield was supposed to be the Spider-Man that we see in the MCU instead of Tom Holland.
01:05:07
Speaker
I think Andrew Garfield got in a little bit of trouble so they had to let him go, which is funny. That's what Andrew told me. Oh really? Yeah, Andrew's got the tea. Wait, what? He'll come back and tell us about it. Oh, the suspense! There was an attempt to connect the two franchises prior to these discussions with the idea of licensing the design of the Oscorp Tower from The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012.
01:05:31
Speaker
So it could appear in the New York skyline of the MCU film the Avengers of the same year But this didn't really work out just given the kind of post-production process That's kind of why it it fell out otherwise if Oscorp would have made it into the Avengers film things may have played out a little differently so
01:05:52
Speaker
In February of 2015, Disney's Marvel Studios and Sony made a deal to share the Spider-Man film rights leading to a new iteration of Spider-Man being introduced and integrated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
01:06:09
Speaker
The deal allowed Sony Pictures to continue to own, finance, distribute, and have final creative control of the solo Spider-Man films, with Walt Disney Studios distributing the films with his other appearances like the Avengers.
01:06:29
Speaker
That's where you get Tom Holland and he portrays this version of Spider-Man and has now appeared in six films. So I believe that's Captain America Civil War all the way up through Spider-Man, No Way Home, which just came out. So in September 2019, there was a standoff resulting in the termination of the old agreement. So Disney and Sony actually ended up
01:06:55
Speaker
to this fan outcry and then reached a new agreement for Holland's version to make at least two more appearances after this kind of dispute and they ended this previous agreement.
01:07:10
Speaker
In another solo film, The Spider-Man No Way Home, and this means that Tom Holland made Spider-Man No Way Home, the one that just came out, and then supposedly is gonna do another film.
01:07:26
Speaker
In November 2021, an interview with film creators revealed that Sony and Marvel Studios are going to continue collaborating for another trilogy of the film set in the MCU, which also explains a little bit of why I think we saw Doctor Strange in the newest movie because that seems like very deliberate to have like a very large MCU figure with a huge movie about to come out in this picture as well. So
01:07:54
Speaker
Plans for an animated Spider-Man film were announced by Sony in 2015, which led to Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse, which is what Gianna was talking about earlier where we saw all these other renditions of the character. Shemeek Moore voices Miles Morales, the Spider-Man in the film, along with other various versions of Peter Parker and alternate versions of Spider-Man from the multiverse also appearing. And sequels and potential spin-offs are also planned for that.
01:08:23
Speaker
Now I was reading an article from September of 2021, so.
01:08:28
Speaker
kind of in relation to the November press releases from the studios about upcoming films. I'm not sure what kind of legs this still has given the dates of the two articles but this article from September said that in August of 2021 Steve Ditko's estate filed a notice of termination which would revert the ownership over Spider-Man back to Ditko's family. Quote,
01:08:55
Speaker
The estate's actions make use of a specific provision that allows the legal ownership of written works to revert from the publisher to the original author or their heirs after a set period of time.
01:09:11
Speaker
And if the termination notices go through, Marvel and Sony could both effectively lose legal ownership over Spider-Man. The deal would be even more catastrophic for Marvel Studios due to the fact that the rights for other iconic Marvel characters such as Iron Man, Doctor Strange, and Falcon are also in jeopardy.
01:09:31
Speaker
And there was a report that states, quote, Marvel is filing a lawsuit against the Ditko estate alleging that these blockbuster characters are ineligible for copyright termination as works made for hire.
01:09:48
Speaker
A stipulation which would effectively render the Ditko estate's termination notices void. If Marvel's lawsuit fails, both Marvel and Sony could lose the rights to Spider-Man as early as June 2023.
01:10:03
Speaker
we will have to ask boy baby t andrew james about this because he will be joining us in a few weeks for a little trivia game at the end of january um i am honestly just taking a minute to process that whole
01:10:20
Speaker
That whole little history, I might have to save most of the juicy commentary for Boy Vaputee, Andrew, and James, to be honest. It's good information to have, but to be quite honest, Bianca, I don't know what to do with that.
01:10:36
Speaker
I feel like it doesn't impact me whatsoever. I know we just spent this whole episode talking about rights and laws and credit and it's super important. But it's complicated. It's so complicated. It's okay that I don't understand this. And you're dealing with such huge players. I mean we were talking about Taylor Swift earlier being this
01:10:58
Speaker
icon with such ability to do what she wants with her own work and if you think about Marvel and Sony going up against Steve Ditko's estate what no this is not looking good for the estate I know I mean this is just uh this is a whole other thing I mean if we're talking about like
01:11:21
Speaker
through Taylor Swift brand and the Taylor Swift team versus the legit empire.
01:11:29
Speaker
that is Marvel. Do you also know what this makes me think of which I'm really like feeling a little like eek about it um just in terms of when you think of like old Hollywood studios and how if you were hired you worked for this particular studio only right but like basically like the studio owned you that is very much like borderline how I'm starting to feel about what's happening not just with the
01:11:58
Speaker
like idea or the character that is Spider-Man but also like the actors too. I just feel like if you sign on to be a superhero like you that like this studio owns you now like does anyone else feel that way? I'm feeling icky about Harry Styles joining ECU I mean like I don't feel good for you know that I am you're like literally going to be a bazillionaire but like Harry
01:12:25
Speaker
I need you to not infiltrate that part of my life. Please remain in this happy rainbow other side of joy that I thoroughly enjoy. I'm just not excited about him being in the franchise at all. I am so tired of every popular celebrity just being pulled into this multi-universe.
01:12:52
Speaker
I'm sick of it. I need some separation. Stop pulling. He's even an actor. He was in Dunkirk once. Cool. I'm supposed to believe that he's fucking Thanos' brother. Yeah, right. Apple fell far from the tree with those two. I'm not here for it. You know what I am excited about though, Gianna, is the new Rob Pattinson Batman movie. Yes.
01:13:21
Speaker
Oh, I am so excited. I heard that this might totally be a lie. I don't know that that's also part of the reason not that he was extremely important in Harry Potter, but that's why he wasn't at the reunion was because he was doing like method acting and he didn't want to break character for Batman.
01:13:39
Speaker
Oh, I was wondering why we didn't get Cedric's degree because they did talk about him. Yeah, they did. But I mean, there was a lot of people that weren't there. A lot of like Maggie Smith wasn't there. But I, some of our like beloved older actors, I just feel like I would chuck it up to COVID. Yeah. Oh, interesting. I actually am like really excited for Batman. Yeah, I'm not mad about that one.
01:14:06
Speaker
Andrew and I just watched Birdman with Michael Keaton and then I was thinking about how much I want to and then you know Michael Keaton played that like I forgot what the guy's name is but Michael Keaton played the villain with wings in the first Tom Holland spreader in movie but oh he did yes and it's literally like bird and then and then
01:14:31
Speaker
Andrew and I as a result well we were thinking about watching the Michael Keaton Batman movies cuz I definitely like those So maybe when the new cuz Andrew and I had been watching like all the spider-man movies before this one came out So maybe we'll go back and watch some Batman movies. Yeah, see we came full circle with you know some birdman I'm stone all connects No, right good Michael Keaton Michael
01:15:01
Speaker
I'm for sure leaving that in. Michael Keagle. If you haven't listened to our Dopesick episode, by the way, Michael Keagle. All right. Oh my God. I think it's time to wrap things up. I think so too.
01:15:16
Speaker
With that, you know where to follow us at ArtPopTalk. You can always email us at artpoptalk at gmail.com. If you like this content, please go to our Buy Me a Coffee account. You can find that in our link tree on our social media and give us a little donation to keep the content coming. And if you could please rate us on Apple Podcasts, that would be lovely. Leave us a nice little comment. And if you don't like this content, you know, you can email us instead of
01:15:45
Speaker
Putting it on an Apple podcast, that would be fabulous. So with that, we will talk to you next Tuesday. Bye everyone. Bye. Art Pop Talk's executive producers are me, Bianca Martucci-Vinc. And me, Gianna Martucci-Vinc. Music and sounds are by Josh Turner and photography is by Adrienne Turner. And our graphic designer is Sid Hammond.
01:16:27
Speaker
you