Snobby Artist sues love/hate!

kowloon

BadCharlie wrote: »

Next it will be Coke suing

Which Coke though?

tipptom

He was looking for more publicity a few weeks ago by saying he thinks he could be Paul Mcgraths half brother.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I hope he loses his case and costs awarded against him. It would set a ridiculous precedent if a case like that was won as everything shown in the background of any show would be fair game for similar ridiculous actions by arseholes. Its nothing but pure greed and I sincerely hope it ruins him as an artist and that people will shun his work because of his bull**** attitude. He should consider himself privileged that RTE or who ever actually paid for his do called art. What a wanker.

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

He was looking for more publicity a few weeks ago by saying he thinks he could be Paul Mcgraths half brother.

As if poor Paul hadn't enough problems

darkdubh

Can any older Boardsies remember the name of the teen oriented RTE programme that he co presented in the 80's?

anncoates

darkdubh wrote: »

Can any older Boardsies remember the name of the teen oriented RTE programme that he co presented in the 80's?

Nighthawks.

More like Sh×tehawks for those that don't remember it.

FloatingVoter

anncoates wrote: »

Nighthawks.

More like Sh×tehawks for those that don't remember it.

Shay Healy presented Nighthawks. It was quite good when they got drunk enough.

Sharkey presented Megamix (looked up Wikipedia for that).

anncoates

My missus corrected me as well.

She must have fancied him to have that kind of arcana floating around in her head after all this time.

FloatingVoter

anncoates wrote: »

My missus corrected me as well.

She must have fancied him to have that kind of arcana floating around in her head after all this time.

Its safe to say your missus isn't Kevin Sharkey's type. But let her down gently.

statss

kylith wrote: »

If RTE own them then surely they can display them anywhere they like. I'm not aware of anything like IMRO for pictures.

http://www.ivaro.ie/

http://www.dacs.org.uk/

dharma200

"hope he loses his case and costs awarded against him. It would set a ridiculous precedent if a case like that was won as everything shown in the background of any show would be fair game for similar ridiculous actions by arseholes. Its nothing but pure greed and I sincerely hope it ruins him as an artist and that people will shun his work because of his bull**** attitude. He should consider himself privileged that RTE or who ever actually paid for his do called art. What a wanker."

I see you are unaware of the rights artist have on the reproduction and use of their work after sale? Google is a useful tool, and he has every right to take a case like this, and will most probably win. RTE know this. he isnt snobby, it means that artsist can have some semblance of control over their work and image. RTE used his work to try to project a certain image. They know the rules, so they willhave to pay to use his work as a tool to project this image. Simples.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

tipptom

There was a celebrity farm type thinghy on RTE for people like him years back and I think he may have been kicked of for rolling a spliff,if it was him it probably had come in through Johnboys real mates network so he would be connected to them after all.;)

xzanti

For a moment I thought we were talking about that big gaudy looking mural of Johnboy's brother at the Last Supper with Tupac et al :pac:

FloatingVoter

xzanti wrote: »

For a moment I thought we were talking about that big gaudy looking mural of Johnboy's brother at the Last Supper with Tupac et al :pac:

No, however informed sources tell me the Da Vinci estate has legal people looking into it.

BluesBerry

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yeah it's just a publicity stunt


TBH this smacks of the same sort of Mé Fein stuff that wedding photographers do where they hang on to the copyright so the can fleece the guests as well. :mad:

Who'd want to buy a painting if you don't get the rights to show it publicly ??

Even then we have "fair dealing" rights


Also there is no accounting for taste - are the pi

oh wait ... it's that Kevin Sharkey ... always wondered what he was up to these days :pac:

http://www.newirishart.com/irish-artists/kevin-sharkey-artist.htm


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_SharkeyThe clue is in the name

also do you think those people would have the right to sue him ?

his painting are woeful a child could do better than that gick , looks like he was sniffing something before he picked up the brush

Handsome Bob

Ballymun hasn't got much street cred with "the lads" these days, his statement would have been more effective had he mentioned the real Ballyer....Ballyfermot.

Jester252

Is he certain there his painting because I'v spilled over a couple of paint cans that look like his work.
Also the edginess of his Public Enemy Number One exhibition. He's so brave for taking on such hard hitting issues.

Capt'n Midnight

Zillah wrote: »

Lot of people misunderstanding basic copyright here. The artist (be it a photographer, musician or painter) owns the right to make copies of their work or exploit it commercially, no one else has that right.

I refer you to the entertainment industry where it's rare for an artist to hold any rights. Most go to the publishers. Even Paul McCartney has to pay royalties for performing old Beatles stuff

You mean when they exercise their legal right to gain income from copies of their photography, which is how they pay their bills and recoup the immense cost of their equipment? What a load of ingrates! Idiots should know that you have the right to their photographs just because you attended the wedding.

It's cheaper to fly in a photographer in from Italy and pay for their hotel bill, you get a distinctive album and full copyright.

And anyway it's not about the camera. That's a similar argument to saying pubs need to charge so much so they can refurbish every five years, you go to pubs for the company not the generic me-too-ness that a refurbished pub usually has.

FloatingVoter

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I refer you to the entertainment industry where it's rare for an artist to hold any rights. Most go to the publishers. Even Paul McCartney has to pay royalties for performing old Beatles stuff

Thats because of the old 60s rip-off deals - the rights you refer to would up with the Michael Jackson estate (MJ outbid McCartney / Yoko for them). David Bowie recently leased his rights once again for a sizable figure. U2 own their own publishing. Maybe in X Factor land the performers have little or no rights but they're just poster material fronting a publicity machine.

Chorcai

Z list kitsch artist sues for publicity - shock horror.

RikkFlair

tipptom wrote: »

He was looking for more publicity a few weeks ago by saying he thinks he could be Paul Mcgraths half brother.

As far as I know Paul McGrath has distanced himself and wants nothing to do with him.

Sgt Hartman

I remember him speaking in a faux African accent on an RTE programme a couple of years ago. Probably his way of getting in touch with his heritage although I just found it pretentious and phoney. If I had French ancestry should I honour my heritage by speaking in a fake French accent?

Muahahaha

Ah lads there is a lot of misconceptions on this thread. Firstly it wasn't RTE who made Love/Hate, it was Ocotogon Films.

I'd have a fair idea of what happened here as I was at a Q&A session with the writers & producers of Love/Hate during the film festival earlier this year. basically the 1st series was done under extreme time pressure and also financial pressure. RTE backed them but only for four episodes so the writers needed to get characters portrayed, stories started and wrapped up all within 4 episodes rather than the usual 6. They knew they had a killer script and a great bunch of actors so they needed to carry that through and step up to the plate with some decent filming locations. John Boy's apartment in the series is rented out, i.e. it is someone's home who rents it out by the day to film makers or for fashion shoots, launch parties, etc. So more than likely what happened was the owner of the apartment is a Kevin Sharkey collector and has three of his paintings on the wall. It is extremely unlikely that Octogon Films got three Sharkey paintings in because they wanted to portray drug dealers as Sharkey collectors, the chances are that the paintings were there and the producers were under such time pressure to get all the apartment scencs filmed by their deadlines.

My bet also is that Sharkey himself never knew that the paintings were in Series 1 and 2 until RTE started the re-run of those programs a few weeks ago. He was probably sitting at home on a Friday night having a few cans like the rest of us and suddenly saw his work on screen.

In any case he'll win his case as Octogan used his images for commercial purposes, when you buy art you are buying it for personal use, reproducing it (in print or on tv) for profit is a right that you don't get when buying the piece- that right remains with the artist.

Regardless Sharkey is a one man publicity machine. He is only just back in Dublin less than a year, he was in London for a good bit after his art galleries all closed down. Since he has come home he has had his the windows of his new gallery smashed (probably by some drunken idiot coming out of the Mezz Bar) and that got him a full page article in the Herald, then he came out and said he reckoned Paul McGrath was his half brother and now his latest is that he is suiing Love/Hate. He could have done all these incidents in private but instead he chose to ring a journalist and announce it to the world. The guy wants to sell art as he needs to get back on his feet financially so to do that he is generating self publicity.

Finally I don't buy his claim about the art used in Love/Hate effecting the prices of future sales because it depicts drug dealers as owning it. Art is a virtual currency in the drugs world and can be often used as security or payment for goods between criminals, East End gangs of criminals are known for their intricate knowledge of Picasso paintings so art and crime are pretty common bedfellows. Also Sharkey's work is collected by Charles Saatchi and in the art world once Saathchi starts collecting your work the prices you can achieve for it immediately double or even triple in a short space of time. Sharkey has nothing to worry about regarding his prices so long as Saatchi remains his patron.

tipptom

For such a successful artist he sure goes broke a lot and wife abuser Saatchi does not seem to have spiked it that much for him.

Should get out of art and in to PR but then he would not be the centre of attention.

downonthefarm

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Ballymun hasn't got much street cred with "the lads" these days, his statement would have been more effective had he mentioned the real Ballyer....Ballyfermot.

is ballymun quiet theese days?haven't been out there for a few years.
ballyfermot....that was like the wild west;)

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

Sharkey's lawsuit has a thinly veiled sense of 'I done those in case you didnt know' about it.

Spot on, that's exactly what it is.

dj jarvis

but but but

so if RTE are doing a live link for the news out side government buildings and Dublin bus trundle by, can Dublin bus sue for use of their copyrighted images and logos , seeing RTE is using their image for commercial purpose ? seeing they sell the advertising during the break , or is live tv outside the copyright laws?

I am sure Dublin bus would love to sue , seeing no one would want to be associated with the government.

downonthefarm

RikkFlair wrote: »

As far as I know Paul McGrath has distanced himself and wants nothing to do with him.

and poor llyod from corrie has his own problems lately

pickarooney

They should make a show about how this poor artist is struggling to make meet.

Call it Shark Nae Dough