Home » Uncategorized » Open Thread – Jan. 22, 2014

Open Thread – Jan. 22, 2014

Open Discussion


248 thoughts on “Open Thread – Jan. 22, 2014

  1. jordan2222 ` You are always curious as to what is left in GZ’s case, PIain Ole Dave posted the date in Feb. of the Conference Hearing in the NBC Suit which is moving forward & I posted this on the previous thread but IDK if you saw it n the sanctions:

    MOM’s interview:
    Q: Will you move forward with a motion for sanctions against the state?

    A: It’s pending. It’s actually more George’s decision than mine. He’ll let me know if he wants that done. I think he probably spent enough time in a criminal courtroom in Seminole.

    This is the interview/article if you missed it.

    Maybe the Ben K hearing will prompt GZ to decide to move forward, sooner rather than later. The $$$ if awarded in the Sanctions hearing I’m sure MOM/West hope would go towards their bill to GZ for his representation in his criminal trial. PLUS, more legal bills would be incurred in moving forward for sanctions, it ain’t free to do anything in Court!

  2. Check out George on Twitter. He’s gone down hill. He’s asking Traybots for their address and talking about meeting them to “hash it out.” If someone close to him doesn’t take that computer away from him, he may not live long

    • That’s a bit of an exaggeration Sharon…. Ponderosa has been making threats of violence to George and his supporters for weeks and all George did was essentially say “put up or shut up” or the more venacular…..” either shit or get off the pot”

      • Does Ponderosa deserve to be challenged on his threats? Of course. Will that help George survive being killed by Traybots? Not likely. He’s a man living in a house that has been doused with gasoline. It’s no time to create any sparks.

  3. What I find intriguing but not surprising in the least is the very same people who relentlessly dish out threats and harassment to George and his supporters run to law enforcement and cry victim at the speed of light when it starts coming back at them.

  4. We all reap what we sow and George is no exception. Maybe he must learn this the hard way. Some adolescents are like that. There is no meaning to his rhetoric and every word invites more hatred.

        • cassandra ~ imho, as someone that has painted many, many canvases, GZ is using a “medium” or something to give “texture.” Hundreds of products are on the market for artist to use for this purpose, they’re great, they give a dimensional effect to a painting as opposed to a painting that is flat on a canvas which is more common. A dimensional painting, imo, is an artist thinking outside the box & utilizing products available to him as an artist, some products even give the effect of sand which is nice. I love that GZ uses an array of colors as opposed as to what the viewer might expect. imo, GZ’s color choice reflects Corey is out for blood, well, because she is whether she is honest or not & will go to any length to convict. I get it GZ, you’re right..

          The NYPost doesn’t know what their talking about imo, if they did, they wouldn’t sound so inept & ASK someone that actually PAINTS w/various mediums to contribute instead of spewing their ignorance.

          • George does have a clever side. I loved how on the first painting the top row had “god” at top then “one nation” below it – “one nation” was under “god” – ie “one nation under god” – very creative!

            Nettles, I don’t know your country’s “stuff”, so I don’t want to assume you know ours – but you’ve probably heard by now that this phrase is from our pledge of allegiance….

    • She actually harassed you at work and at a charity? That’s been one of my biggest fears…having someone from the Internet show up where I work. I used to teach high school.

      Once I had a dream that I was in fast food restaurant and a Traybot walked up to me and asked if I was the Pondering Observer. I hope she didn’t cause you too much trouble or frighten you. You never know what someone will do if they go to the trouble of looking you up.

      • She didn’t physically go to my work or the charity. It was phone calls to work and tweets to the charity to not eat food from the racist Annette Elaine Kelly.

        I’m a live example of Trayvon Martin supporters coming after someone who did not go after them.

        While it was unsettling at first, I quickly decided it didn’t matter and it wouldn’t stop me posting online about my thoughts on the case.

        Near as I can tell, intimidation online from either side has resulted in getting no one to go away but rather each side dug in deeper.

        With Ella (Anita) her hate is so emotional that I suspect she is related to Sybrina. Anita takes my criticism of the family extremely personally.

        • “Dug in deeper”. This a thousand times. And it is truly getting out of hand. I am becoming embarrassed by what I have been seeing on Twitter. A lot of folks on the Zimmerman side do not realize that this harassment campaign is a coordinated effort and a lot of supporters blindly wade into it giving these people what they want.

          George is even falling into the pit. And I hate to see it. I am not going to mention names but some of our Twitter follows need to really evaluate how they engage.

          • While I respect and admire you El Hoff I strongly disagree. This is time for guns blazing and an overwhelming display of superior firepower to bomb the Traybot cult back to the stone age..

            • This is not a video game.

              Wouldn’t the cyber-community at large benefit by a more civil discourse? Doesn’t the seriousness of the underlying issues deserve discussion conducted in a more sober framework?

              Why add to inflamed opinion and engage in personal attacks, cyber-stalking etc.?

              Why divert precious time and energy in an unproductive avenue of pursuit?

              There is no win in this, just endless rounds of hyperbole and recrimination. To what end?

            • I share your sentiment but realistically what do think that will accomplish? The longer all of this hateful stuff continues to be posted, the worse it will become until someone is actually attacked. Who is even noticing except for the current players and the are fixed in their opinions.

          • I liken traybot to islamic jihadist terrorists…the only thing message they understand and respond to is a crippling display of overwhelming superior firepower. Scorched earth style total devastation.

            • I got alerted to another page on facebook that has a GZ supporter outing harassing tweeters on twitter. I want nothing to do with climbing into others’ personal lives. Regardless, I got harassed at work and at the charity I give time too. It still doesn’t motivate me to act in such a vile way and retaliate against others who have nothing to do with games these cowards play behind fake names (on both sides).

        • You might be right that she’s related to Sabrina. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of very emotional TM supporters. People who go to those rallies really feel sorry for Sabrina and would like to take her GZ’s head on a silver platter to make her feel better. A GZ supporter’s head would probably do as a substitute.

          Some of them have made this race issue and feel they have to win it or be victims of racism in the future. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that GZ is 1/8 black and 3/8 hispanic.

          Sorry that happened to you. I’m sure it was embarrassing.

          • Thankfully, it wasn’t embarassing. My employer is well aware of my feelings on the Zimmerman case and my feelings of those who defend a teen’s right to beat up an adult for looking at them.

            The charity I give time to knows me quite well and I know the clients of the food bank on a personal level. So when Ella started her campaign to smear me, those at the charity thought she was crazy.

            My co-workers have the same thought.

            Anyone who reaches out into someone’s personal life for something posted online, needs to step away from their computers.

  5. The latest Corey news article has made it to the Washington Post in which she whined that the MEDIA/public should NOT have information on cases UNTIL they are brought out in court. I LOVE IT when the stories on Corey make it OUT of Fla. & seen on a National Level.

    From the article:
    It still blows my mind that politicians would even admit to, much lest boast about, their lack of interest in reading. But there’s apparently a constituency for it. But that isn’t the most offensive thing in the passage. If Corey was quoted accurately about her desire to bar the media from covering high-profile cases, that alone should disqualify her from public office.

    The media’s watchdog function is particularly important when it comes to prosecutors like Corey, whose conduct and prosecutorial discretion have often been called into question in the cases mentioned above and others. So has her abuse of power. For example, according to Alan Dershowitz, when he publicly criticized Corey’s indictment in the Zimmerman case, Corey not only threatened to sue him and his employer Harvard University, she bizarrely attempted to have him disciplined by the bar association.


  6. I read some more of what George wrote and it appears someone was harassing one of his supporters and George was being tug boat. That’s an admirable trait but it could put him in danger. It was what got him in this mess. He was standing up for neighbors who had been robbed and took the risk of getting out of his car to see which direction TM went.

  7. Checking in.. have to catch up later. Been a crazy week, my longtime childhood friend passed away last night. She found out last week that she had bone cancer and it was in 95% of her body and they gave her a week! ON SATURDAY! She had a terrible headaches… Pay attention to your bodies… She handled it so graceful. We had a great time on Sunday night, then the meds kicked in… Hugs all my friends…

    • What I meant to say is she was having bad headaches and her back started hurting unbearably. She went to the ER, scans were finally done after her initial blood work came back out of wack. From on Friday to next stuff started going crazy. Had 2 strokes, found an infection in an artery going to heart, bloodwork off the grid, then on this past Saturday, they told her she had bone cancer in 95% of her body. She just thought she had flu or something. I say she handled it Gracefully, and she did, but I think she was in shock. I have never known anyone to be that sick and find out and die that quickly. God is Good. She has did her suffering thru the years and didn’t at the end. Was surrounded by family and friends and went peacefully.

      The Hospice RN told us what to expect. My friends organs had already started shutting down when she went to ER. It made me think of Jahi McMath and her family. I said a prayer for them too.

      Again, thank you all for your kind words and thoughts.

      • This just happened to a friend who died at 4:30PM. Some people are so strong that they do not exhibit any signs of it until the end if near. Such was the case with one of my brothers many years ago. Again, I feel your pain, MIMI, but life is for the living and time marches on.

        • Yep, thanks Jordan, and its stuff like this that make us realize or remind us to LIVE and see the blessings big and small. Some people are so hell bent on hate/anger.. I wouldn’t even want them in my dreams lol. I was so thankful my friend didn’t die on my Bday… smh she was always a silly goof! She is going to be laid to rest on my bday! Whew glad it wasn’t my 50th 😉 Not exactly way want to spend it but will take it as an honor….. Time Marches On… good name for a song 😉

  8. The delusional and mentally challenged are back to the fantasy of ” Just because someone bid 100k doesn’t mean they ever paid” to which I say look dumbasses If he didn’t get paid on the last one would he be doing it again with a new painting? smgdh!

    • I tend to doubt he actually got 100k. He may have gotten paid, but it was likely from a far lower bidder. IMO.

      Anyways, the media has been reporting it sold for 100k so it must be true. Just as true as George being a racist vigilante that stalked and murdered a small innocent skittle loving child. The Traybots will just have to deal with the media reality. They didn’t have a problem with it before.

      • He got paid enough that Robert Jr. made taking painting lessons a resolution for 2014 🙂

        • I tend to think he probably did get paid the full amount of the bid. I think some people probably put in false bids to disrupt the bidding process and they told other Trayvon supporters. Those who knew about it may have assumed all the bids were fake. I noticed quite a few bids were thrown out, so GZ and ebay may have been able to stop the disruption.

      • 😉 Since I’m a real skeptic, I tend to agree with you Coreshift. We’ll never know all the facts, but George’s paintings make me smile, so I appreciate them. At least he’s found a nice wholesome way to express himself. And I really do hope he got some form of compensation for his first painting. Hope the new one is well received too LOL. I can’t imagine it hanging on MY wall, but maybe someone will want to take it home. George did a great job of capturing the real Corey!

        • winsome ~ we could easily KNOW the facts if the painting didn’t sell for the amount reported, GZ could CHOOSE to be HONEST as to what the painting sold for if the painting sold for a lower price, the good news is that GZ sold his painting.

          GZ’s been fast to take to twitter to challenge those insulting him, he should be equally as fast to POST HONEST facts if they are being reported incorrectly making him look better in the media. UNTIL the owner states OR GZ states the painting sold for much less, I will believe the amount thus far reported.

          A wealthy supporter of GZ could have stepped forward to pay the amount to make GZ’s new endeavor as an artist successful.

      • coreshift ~ Since the story was reported Nationally repeatedly at the 109 thousand amount, it seems if that amount was INCORRECT, GZ would have twittered the CORRECT AMOUNT as it would have been the HONEST thing to do as OPPOSED to let a LIE CONTINUE to be reported. But it is a lie that would make GZ look better than if he had twittered the lower/correct amount you suggest, no?

        You of ALL people WANT PROOF of everything just as you argued for days about Jaynie W. possibly NOT charging GZ because she didn’t say so, you argued why GZ didn’t qualify for legal aid WHEN what difference did it make, he had TOO MANY ASSETS to qualify after the clerk investigated GZ’s fact sheet! WELL coreshift, Jaynie FINALLY said GZ was charged IN SPITE of most people already knowing it & it was proven to you that GZ had an additional Legal bill from Jayne.

        Thus far, I’ve seen NO PROOF the painting didn’t sell for what it is being reported Nationally & NEITHER have you!

        • Art, I for one just don’t care what the amount was GZ received for his painting. Just happy for him that it gained so much interest and as I said I hope he did get lots of $ or other compensation. Just his business as for as I’m concerned.

          • winsome ~ I agree w/your comment that it is an accomplishment for GZ to have sold his painting, so I have to wonder WHY some question that he did not receive the amount it sold for & WHY they would make such negative speculation WITHOUT any proof? You now say it is GZ’s business, but you speculated he got less than the amount reported agreeing w/coreshift who DOES NOT know!

            You’re right, it’s just GZ’s business as well as the owner of the painting UNLESS they choose to make it ours so there’s no need to negatively speculate otherwise imo.

    • Christi is really stretching it a bit to say he could have gotten 24 years for speeding twice, having his car windows tinted because of death threats, and 2 domestic disputes in which no violence occurred except a broken iPad and a broken table…. Oh, and then the missing television which was found on the property.

    • Fairey was fined by the court for destroying evidence and lying, not the same circumstances. Worrying about who will come after GZ is a never ending task.

  9. LMAO….suck it Tnuts John M. Phillips @JohnPhillips 20m
    @specialladyT No suit has been filed. That is a terrible leap to a conclusion by Action News they have been asked to retract.

    I Think what Phillips was saying is he coincidentally happens to represent that photographer in some other unrelated matter.

    • Plain Ole Dave ~ IF GZ proceeds to TRY to sell this painting on Ebay, imo, GZ will be sued.

      “No suit has been filed YET!” As a COURTESY, AP has sent a letter as well as Phillips, if GZ ignores their warning to take the painting down, he can PAY ANOTHER attorney to represent him.

  10. Hearing tomorrow
    Attorneys: Brain-dead woman’s fetus ‘abnormal’

    By NOMAAN MERCHANT, Associated Press | January 22, 2014 | Updated: January 23, 2014 8:59am

    Munoz’s attorneys, Heather King and Jessica Hall Janicek, issued a statement Wednesday describing the condition of the fetus, now believed to be at about 22 weeks’ gestation. King and Janicek based their statement on medical records they received from the hospital.

    “According to the medical records we have been provided, the fetus is distinctly abnormal,” the attorneys said. “Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined.”

    The attorneys said the fetus also has fluid building up inside the skull and possibly has a heart problem.

    “Quite sadly, this information is not surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after being deprived of oxygen for an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body, as a horrified family looks on in absolute anguish, distress and sadness,” the attorneys said.

    http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article … 166403.php

  11. I noticed Mimi’s comment on twitter that the posts coming from George Zimmerman don’t sound like him. I’ve got to agree. Something is making my “hinky” meter go off. Something isn’t right.

    Lane got George’s attention by asking for a retweet

    George or someone posting as George, asked his followers to follow a 16 year old kid on twitter that uses the handle @lanesands. George described this kid as a “Beast” whatever that is suppose to mean.

    Some of the more rabid twitter followers that tweet hate towards GZ or any of his supporters, of course, latched on to Lane and started abusing him on twitter. From what I can tell in reading this kid’s timeline, he fancies himself the smart one with great comebacks and one-liners.

    As has been the case in many Trayvon Martin supporters, one tweeter, using the screen name, Ponderosa got curious about Lane and looked him up on facebook. Ponderosa is a 65 year old white male and says he is a former vet. Ponderosa wanted to “scare” the kid and started posting Lane’s location and other information he could gleen. This of course, riled up the GZ supporters and some went to Lane’s defense. Then a number of threats started appearing online how Trayvon Martin Supporters were going to have their personal information made known. A page on facebook showed up outing a number of the Trayvon Martin Tweeters.

    I don’t agree with this tactic of getting at another commenter. If you can’t argue the facts and have an intelligent discussion, if it devolves into insults and name calling or disrespecting a person’s desire to stay anonymous, it’s time to block the person you are talking with and let their hate go out into the dark.

    I attempted to reach out to Lane and give him this advice. He did block Ponderosa but I noted he continued to engage others after this tweet. So you can’t help the kid.

    Lane seems to get energized in battling with these folks. He still hasn’t block Hood and it only takes 2 seconds to figure out talking with Hood is a waste of time. George has retweeted a number of Lane’s “zingers” if you want to call it that.

    Now George in his latest tweet, seems to also want this back and forth with haters on twitter. Trying to get followers to unite and stop the harassment of a 16 year old kid online. That 16 year old kid holds the power to stop the harassment, he can block! He chooses not to. It appears both Lane and George want to start a war on twitter. I don’t get why they think this will help anyone.

    Yes, Lane you have seen those posts before. Reading the timelines, you will find evidence that their tweets are “automated” and repeat. That’s where the “bots” name came from.

    George is trying to encourage his followers to get into an argument with some accounts that give automated tweets. You can find where their tweets repeat after a few hours. Coreshift pointed these out when a number of the same tweets went out seemingly giving the impression the tweeters were sitting in the courtroom listening to the trial. Problem was these were tweeting in October and November of 2013…3 to 4 months after the trial ended!

    Don’t worry about the identities who are moms and ignoring their kids. They’ve set their tweets to automate, they are taking care of their kids while GZ supporters are arguing with them.

    Blocking and ignoring is the way to handle hate. Not engaging.

    • Oh, I’m sure it’s him. Too many confirmations from outside sources. Here’s the thing: I never thought of George as a Saint or a hero. I’ve never thought of him as anything other than a regular guy that was forced to defend himself. So off color or inappropriate remarks don’t surprise me. I think he understandably wants to lash out at the ‘haters’ for what they helped do to him and continue to do to others. I might actually feel the same and be glad for anyone that ‘had my back’. Whether it’s a wise move or not is the question. But ultimately it’s his life, not mine.

      • I too believe it’s him. People I trust have faced time with him.

        It is his life not mine, I agree. I don’t agree with him reconciling with Sam and I don’t agree with how he is reacting to the haters and bringing this 16 year old into it as well.

        Someone posted on here a while ago, their parents only gave their opinion when asked for it. That’s not the way it works in my family. You get everyone’s opinion whether you like it or not.

        Because we respect and love each other, after having shared our opinion, we respect the decision the person ultimately takes/makes. But feedback is important to seeing things from different perspectives and that’s why I offer it here.

        George has chosen to lay next to and giggle with Samantha. I’ve stated my opinon and will hold my tongue in future when I hear about them. In other words, I’ll respect his decision. When and if, it turns out I was right, I’ll decide at that time to offer support or let him feel the full consequences of his decision.

        Same with this. If he needs to vent like this, so be it. Whatever happens, I’ll decide whether to help him with the fallout or not.

        Ultimately, the decision and the consequences are his not mine.

        • I agree with Coreshift that I never thought George was a hero or saint. I just saw him as someone who defended his life and got railroaded by the media, the government, and the black grievance industry.

          I spent a lot of time praying for his safety after the trial. It was an incredibly dangerous situation. I was hoping that he would do things that would help make him safer, but he’s done the exact opposite. I can understand he has a need to vent, a need to heal, and a need to feel his freedom. After feeling the hatred of so many, he likely feels a need to be liked by many and enjoys talking to supporters. He seems to even enjoy celebrity status.

          I just hope that he doesn’t get killed. I also hope a supporter doesn’t get hurt. They’d all be better off if they’d just block haters, but that’s not likely to happen.

        • Nettles ~ It was my father that stated, “I don’t inter or give my opinion to you UNLESS ask BECAUSE you are a grown woman/ adult & I respect that.” I ask for my parents MANY times & though I didn’t always agree, I listened respectively.

          Your family projects their opinions, MAYBE your family members want that feed back. jmho, GZ doesn’t give a rat’s ass about ANYBODY’S opinion as he has shown MANY times, GZ does exactly as he wants, it’s his prerogative..

          I agree w/the rest of your comment, laughing/giggling w/Sam turns my stomach & makes me question GZ’s logic. Immaturity/Neediness? Regardless, he & he alone has made that decision & will suffer for any future repercussions. Continuing exchanges w/the haters, jmho, is NOT moving on in GZ’s life which I had prayed he would do & leaving the haters behind, the HATERS will ALWAYS HATE & GZ needs to grasp that so why continue to fuel the hate?

          I only followed the beginning of the twitter exchanges which have escalated, which jmho, I understand GZ is angry/insulted, but there will be NO positive out come from the exchanges, for either side, NO ONE is going to change their mind about TM’s case OR GZ imo!

  12. What exactly is George trying to get this kid into?

    Anyone keeping score, mark one in the win column for “Traybots”

    Andrew, a lawyer, thinks this kid needs his book on self-defense and will send one priority!

    If this kid does find himself up against someone who took up George or Lane’s challenge, I’m sure everyone will see no fault in what George or Lane taunted.

    Reminds me of President Bush’s “Bring It On” mentality. Inciting violence will beget violence.

    • IANAL, but I can’t imagine any law suit against George for this would be successful. Again, I’m not even sure the photographer has any rights to the photograph. I think it’s AP’s property now. And who would hire a personal injury and wrongful death attorney for this? Surely the AP or photographer have far more capable representation. I think it’s an intimidation tactic to try and prevent George from selling it on eBay and get a negative spin of George’s work into the news.

        • Hard for me to swallow that the Wiener is covering this, ain’t there real problems far more pressing than piling onto the most evil racist in the world.

      • coreshift ~ you may be right about this photo, IDK if it is copy righted or not.. I remember the brew ha ha about Sybrina/Tracy using TM’s football picture to promote their agenda in the MEDIA & were SUED because the photographer that took the school photo had “copy righted” TM’s picture. I couldn’t believe a photographer, which schools hire independently, OWNED that photo but the photographer did in fact, NOT Sybrina/Tracy.

        The Optimist Club team photographer, Lucricia Woodside of North Miami, owns the copyright to the picture and never authorized its use. Now she is a member of a growing number of entrepreneurs, artists and even some opportunists who have found ways to cash in on a new cottage industry.


        It seems GZ would choose to work on ORIGINAL art instead of borrowing pictures others have taken. Pictures painted from copied photos can’t be entered into even a local “art club” showing works by their group of artist, they are NOT considered an “original work of art” by an artist, ever, no matter how many times somebody might change the color in the photo, that are NOT considered an “ORIGINAL Art Work.”. GZ’s art teacher SHOULD HAVE advised him about the understanding of copying work if he wanted to SELL for profit, it’s common for those taking art lessons to COPY famous paintings/photos, but they usually aren’t SOLD for profit. Even if the photo is NOT copy righted, it isn’t an original piece of work by GZ because he changed the colors in the photo, the COMPOSITION has been already worked out for GZ, he just copied it. GZ is too talented to copy from other’s photos imo if he wants to get maximum monies for his paintings.

        I knew this would happen as soon as I saw GZ’s new picture, which is quite good, I had seen the photo many times.

        • That really didn’t make much sense. One could argue that the ‘composition’ of the photo wasn’t the photographers work, either. That was him copying Angela Corey’s performance at the presser. I’m sure that exact same performance is in many videos of the presser where she announced the charges. But, IANAL.

          And who is this ‘art teacher’? I saw a clip of some moron saying he was, but George has never mentioned having a teacher.

          As far as original works goes, I guess Warhol wasn’t really an artist and many of his works weren’t original.


          • coreshift ~ as an artist that has shown my original art work in Art Society showings as s well as sold my paintings for years when I was in my 20’s BUT they were ALL original works of art. It is frowned upon & NOT respected what a piece of art is COPIED!

            WHY? Because the composition, whether painted or photograph is the COMPOSITION, the composition is the MOST DIFFICULT part of an original piece of art work & takes sometimes hours upon hours to complete. WHY? Because the person COPYING the ORIGINAL composition need ONLY USE a PROJECTOR to PROJECT the original work onto a canvas, then trace it, that’s WHY!

            The problem remains: The second painting is NOT considered an original work of art either, BOTH COMPOSITIONS were copied from original works. IF GZ WANTS to make maximum PROFIT from painting/selling his paintings, he should STOP IMMEDIATELY copying other work in the domain & PRODUCE the hard work, work that is his ORIGINAL IDEA that would bring in the most money. If he doesn’t stop, the value of his work will decrease in value, NO GZ wants that, we all want him to be successful.

            Warhol has MANY MANY works that are copyrighted, Warhol has many many works that are not & Warhol ALLOWED the works in the public domain to be used for Avatars for cell phones, BLOGS, etc. Warhol is one of my favorite artist SINCE College, I didn’t follow your link since I have countless books on Warhol & are very familiar w/him.

            There is a LOT GZ hasn’t MENTIONED about his art work, I believe GZ has an art teacher as it is a common tactic for art teachers to start students off COPYING photos/works of others USING a projector so a new artist isn’t bother w/composition, they are ONLY dealing w/the use of COLOR! I believe RZ Jr. WANTS to take lessons from the same teacher w/GZ! We don’t know how much less GZ sold his first painting for as you speculate BECAUSE GZ has CHOSEN NOT to share any information! I believe GZ is in art classes, I remember reading it from a credible source, if I run across it again, I will post the link for you, it wasn’t by a hater/moron!

    • Plain Ole Dave ~ I wouldn’t take that wager, I agree w/you! I have no doubt due to her incompetent RANT against /Dershowitz/Harvard she has already called the AP & TRIED to contact the photographer personally.

      Corey can’t grasp that her antics ONLY put her in the National News as blow back for her insanity & control issues she tries to inflicts on anyone she can intimidate, thus far, she couldn’t even intimidate Lydker/attorney. I hope we find out how much $$ was paid, after all, it was TAXPAYER’s money that will be used. I read a funny comment by a blogger suggesting “Corey should just USE the taxpayer money she put in her retirement fund to PAY towards Lydker’s settlement.” LMAO!

    • “Based on Corey’s Dershowitz/Harvard law antics I’d be willing to wager Corey called the AP and ranted and raved and threatened over the painting”

      Based on recently published statements that she says she doesn’t read newspapers, her staff tells her what she needs to know, the joke going around is “nobody mention the painting to her and she won’t know about it”.

  13. I never claimed George was smart. He’s jeopardizing his civil suits and provoking the media. This stuff is best handled by lawyers with the client remaining silent.

    • coreshift ~ I agree wholeheartedly w/your observations. GZ’s “attorney” that provided GZ w/the “Cease & Desist” letter ordering the take down of this image IMMEDIATELY is NOT something to take to twitter over & gloat/laugh about when he sends twitter messages about the AP.. I agree, GZ is probably of average intelligence & CONTINUES to DEFY I would speculate what he has already been advised by the Attorney that Rec’d the Cease/Desist Letter, to SHUT UP BEFORE THEY FILE SUIT!

      The AP retains attorneys, they get PAID anyway as OPPOSED to GZ who will have to PAY AGAIN for attorney fees if he continues to POKE this bear, a case he will NOT likely win imo. Is it painting worth NEW legal fees? jmho! NO! GZ remains hard headed & NEEDS to listen to his attorney, AP is only laughing about any twitter messages GZ sends & they will be used AGAINST him if need be. The AP has the ABILITY to drive GZ’s NEW legal fees through the roof if they choose by filing suit against him, the AP can go ANY distance in a law suit, GZ can’t! No, GZ isn’t that smart, he AGAIN reflects he thinks he knows everything!

      I agree this ENDANGERS other cases & the MEDIA will report everything involving GZ just as they do KC BUT KC learned to SHUT UP! GZ needs to SHUT UP & finally listen to an attorney or CONTINUE to INFLAME those such as AP w/mindless twitter messages showing immaturity imo. This could have been handled quietly, BUT NO! That’s NOT what GZ wants! If GZ pays enough LEGAL FEES, he will finally get it, I hope, he hasn’t thus far, I speculate Jaynie’s suggestion that he stay away from SAM fell on deaf ears. It’s likely this will too.

    • I actually encourage more of this type of thing. George needs to take the power back from his harassers and abusers and the AP needed to be reminded they stand to lose something if they are dumb enough to try and move ahead.

  14. coreshift ~ Just as I have TRIED to explain to you, GZ has had art lessons & was MOST likely USED a PROJECTOR so he didn’t even DRAW the image:


    “The big word here with Mr. Zimmerman that keeps coming up seems to be accountability,” Phillips said.

    In an interview with WESH-Channel 2, Zimmerman’s painting teacher, Jeff Sonksen, indicated that he taught Zimmerman to paint using “projected images.”

    In a statement Friday, AP spokesman Paul Colford confirmed the news network has sent a CEASE-and-DESIST letter to Zimmerman, through an attorney who “recently represented” him.

    “George Zimmerman clearly directly COPIED an AP photo to create his painting of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey,” Colford said.


    WESH 2 EXCLUSIVE: : George Zimmerman’s painting teacher discusses ‘Angie!’


    GZ’s teacher CONFIRMS the images are done by PROJECTOR, “nothing is free handed, it’s ALL projected images, that is his method of teaching, GZ is too NOT a new artist, the art teacher “helped GZ through some of the most trying times in the trial.”

    NOW coreshift ~ you don’t have a moron, you have a CREDIT source & art teacher!

    • Nice idea. 🙂

      In the grand scheme this doesn’t mean much. He just paints something else. There’s plenty of video of all the major players in the public domain (AFAIK, any of the pressers or trial videos. Interviews may be copyrighted). All he has to do is screen shot a moment and work from that. All this hype is just to get media attention in order to trash George some more. That’s why Phillips is on board.

      • My idea was that for his next painting , (rumored to be titled “The Flapper”), George get Bernie to sit for a sketching session. 😀
        Sort of like a Depo… Bernie summons to attend.

      • coreshift ~ in the grand scheme of things, this DOES MEAN a lot EVEN if it is lost on you! ANYONE that BUYS a piece of art EXPECTS it to be an original & NOT COPIED, the person that bought the first painting KNEW it was copied & bought it anyway, it was NOT copyrighted. Does the person that paid GZ over 100 thousand KNOW GZ PROJECTED the original work onto a canvas & just colored it? WILL that person want their money back if GZ didn’t DISCLOSE this information? No body knows.

        This means that GZ has used 2 different pictures in the public domain to COPY using a PROJECTOR MEANING he didn’t even draw the original works/draw a COMPOSITION on a canvas, he COPIED/TRACED them onto a canvas, then used paint to color them. It’s like “paint by numbers” TAUGHT by Art Teachers when you PROJECT an image & didn’t even bother DRAWING an original composition, the value of the work diminishes, it’s NOT an original idea thought/it’s just copied & that’s WHY many works protected, that’s why some artist are TOO LAZY to draw an original piece or doesn’t have the ability draw such a work. MANY good artist can COLOR but CAN’T draw.

        If KC, MOM/West, Mark NeJames, Corey/BDLR, Nancy Grace HAD been stupid enough to COPY Art Work that was NOT their ORIGINAL work, work they PROJECTED/ & merely colored on a canvas & wanted to SELL for PROFIT, they too would have MADE National Media attention & been called out by the AP! Are they TOO SMART to do something like this & RISK being exposed as they surely would? Y E S! EVERYBODY HIGH PROFILE GETS EXPOSED!

        GZ is NO DIFFERENT/special than ALL other people that are High Profile that misrepresent something for PROFIT! This is closely watched by MEDIA Outlets of their property/original artist of their artwork if it is copy righted.. You CONTINUE to make excuses because it’s GZ, but coreshift, you are wrong! IF GZ were smarter, HE WOULD NOT HAVE COPIED THE AP PHOTO & KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT & educate himself by an attorney! This also includes too the original copy rights of beats/lyrics/melodies in songs copy righted by the artist, parts of speeches in which Politicians are called out for PLAGIARISM, (MLK’s famous speech is copy righted by his family, that’s WHY you rarely hear the entire speech UNLESS the family their father’s speech,) thos plagiarising are made to ADMIT they plagiarized as well as movie stars like Shia LaBeof who PLAGIARIZED & has had to make made 2 public apologies for COPING someone else’s ORIGINAL IDEA! This ISN’T anything new, well, except I guess to GZ!

        FACT: GZ should have BEEN HONEST & gotten out in front of his Art Teacher’s interview EXPOSING the 2 pictures were COPIED using a PROJECTOR/that he had taken art lessons for awhile! NO! GZ isn’t the first person to copy/project, BUT MOST artist UNDERSTAND that COPYING a composition w/a projector is NOT an original piece of artwork NOR do they TRY to PROF IT from it! I predict that GZ spent less than 15 hours on the first painting since he ONLY painted it! Nothing else.

        ONLY BECAUSE GZ was HIGH PROFILE was he ABLE to SELL his first copied painting because it wasn’t copy righted! GZ MADE a ton of money for his minimal effort/time! LOOK AT the media EXPOSURE, especially National MEDIA that pushed the publicity on the first painting & drove the cost up! If GZ was nobody, just another artist COPYING someone else’s artwork/photo, it’s unlikely that his first paint would have sold on Ebay even for a hundred dollars imo.

        BECAUSE GZ PROFITED from being HIGH PROFILE on his 1st painting that was NOT copyrighted, he made BIG MONEY & that’s something you remain in denial about! That VERY NOTORIETY you complain about ENABLED GZ to make over 1 hundred thousand for his minimal effort, just coloring a canvas. GZ IS NO VICTIM except in your eyes! Ludicrous in mine! LOOK at the facts!

        WOULD GZ HAD MADE 1 hundred thousand dollars on a painting that he COPIED/traced THE Composition HAD HE NOT BEEN HIGH PROFILE? GZ PROFITED from his HIGH PROFILE STATUS CLEARLY! Most people understand that!

        The simple answer is NO!

        • I understand that art collectors would want to pay for an original painting not drawn with projector. But George’s art isn’t “great art”, worth a million dollars for its technical detail or other artistic skills, and I don’t think art collectors are who are buying his work. It was worth a million dollars because certainly the buyer was a GZ supporter, and I doubt they or even future buyers care about how it was made, just that it was by George’s hand.

          He does need to make sure he doesn’t run afoul of laws, though, and I don’t think he should be antagonizing AP. It might feel good in the moment, but especially for someone with questionable future earning potental, any money saved is money earned. I hope he isn’t thinking that he’ll be able to sell more than a few pictures for such big money. The novelty is going to wear off, and he’s not going to get big sums afterwards. This bravado he appears to be displaying on twitter – I wonder if he is bipolar….

          • lorac ~ I agree w/your thoughts that GZ could possibly be bi-polar as his behavior reflects some the characteristics of the disorder.

            The problem for GZ is that he CAN’T COPY COPY RIGHTED WORK! EVER! He will be sued repeatedly & those SUING GZ will laugh at his twitter RANTS/threats, I laughed & wondered if GZ had lost his mind! GZ seems OBLIVIOUS to the laws of copy right & is misrepresenting what he is selling on Ebay to prospective buyers but he is EXPOSED NOW!

            Above all, GZ should be honest, GZ NEVER TOLD anyone he didn’t even draw the paintings BUT projected the original photo of Corey & the other picture of the flag that was in the public domain. ANYONE buying anything from GZ has a right to know the process the painting was created especially since the first painting which sold for so much money had ONLY a few hours of GZ’s time in it BECAUSE he didn’t create it, he colored it which is NOT time consuming. PROJECTING IMAGES for PROFIT is frowned upon & aren’t worth much except to the person that bought the painting but GZ NEEDS to be honest about it… imho, GZ will NOT see big money in the future for TRACING/PROJECTING other’s work. UNTIL GZ can learn to draw & produce ORIGINAL art work of his own, imo, his copying images won’t bring in a lot of money in the future.

            • I should add, based on twitter comments??

              Twitter is worse than email is in conveying a person’s thoughts much less their health and mental constitution.

    • Sellers on ebay used to sell the item for a low price and charge a ridiculously high shipping and handling fee. They got around ebay fees that way. I think ebay found a way to stop that. I’ve heard of people selling a pencil and throwing in the painting.

  15. “Claims between the news agency and Fairey were settled in 2011, with Fairey agreeing to pay the AP $1.6 million.”

    Interesting coincidence, and I’m sure that’s all it is, but if IIRC that’s the exact amount GZ said Sybrina was paid in the HOA settlement.

    I hope part of the AP/Fairey settlement wasn’t that the amount was supposed to be private. Maybe someone should send Fairey an email.


    • Kind of begs the question, in the context of MOM’s statement on his blog, if he even knew about this investigation. He seemed to think it was something completely different. I’m pretty sure he would have been upfront about it if he knew.

      • coreshift ~ I too agree w/you, I too think MOM is upfront/honest, one of the things I respect about him, I too love his common demeanor when discussing a case, always a gentleman, always a professional.

        I was so glad to see that MOM was voted Nationally by his peers as “Trial Lawyer of the Year.” That is a fantastic accomplishment, imo, one he richly deserves,

  16. LOL GZ put the AP on notice!
    George Zimmerman ‏@TherealGeorgeZ 2h
    No worries AP, I’ll just take whatever U sue me for off your tab when I’m done suing you 🙂 Or… I could put out how much U offered me 2..

    • GZ, as anyone else, is entitled to his opinions and expressing them.

      However, in his present situation, taunting the press, as opposed to factually challenging them in a serious rejoinder, is an activity that has the potential to boomerang on him.

      • Neither AP nor Wilson have any standing whatsoever. This is just baring teeth and beating on their chest like a silverback gorilla. The sale will move forward and neither the AP nor Wilson will get anything or do anything. The cease and desist letters carry zero legal weight.

        • Given the colorful interpretation and the added verbiage, I think it’s possible that it could qualify under the fair use exemption. I am certainly not a lawyer, though.

          • I agree! GZ’s painting is a critique of the moment. He has artistical license to express the moment and what it meant to him. That someone else photographed the moment that changed his life, tough cookies! He was the subject of the moment and I think he should be able to capitalize on the moment…..but…INAL

            • Nettles ~ GZ has EVERY right to paint an image of Angela Corey BUT GZ NEEDS to TAKE his OWN ORIGINAL pictures of Angela Corey & do the hard work that takes time, doing the leg work to photograph the image of Corey he wants to paint! GZ COPIED a photographer’s work that DID the leg work, the photographer did the HARD WORK & he SOLD it to AP & AP copy righted the image.

              It is ILLEGAL to paint a copy righted image! GZ shooting his mouth off via twitter makes him look foolish, GZ NEEDS AN ATTORNEY that is going to tell him to get off twitter & QUIT antagonizing the AP/Wilson which are moving forward in law suits, stupidity would be for GZ to continue the same behavior.

              • “the photographer did the HARD WORK”
                hmmm, art you are usually not given to hyperbole

                it was a still at a press conference which was videotaped by dozens of news media.

                whose photo he copies from is still an open question.

                • What photo he used to project his image for the painting is what AP is going to have a hard time proving in court.

                  AP was not the only ones with access that that moment. It was captured by many news organizations and live streamed as well.

                  AP will have to prove he used their image and as the whole world has access to that moment and recorded it in various ways, it’s a steep climb for them I would think.

                • cassandra ~ Wilson’s occupation is that of a free lance professional photographer/artist. Photography is a well respected art form & that’s how Wilson makes his living, from his original photos. How many pictures did Wilson have to take before getting the best shot of Corey that was worthy of selling to the AP? How much re-shoots were taken, changes locations, etc, for his photo & how much time did he invest in his job? Wilson extended leg work chasing the perfect picture to accomplish his photo. Wilson has a job just like anybody else, his energy & efforts are extended as a professional just like anybody else that works at a job & is compensated.

                  GZ sat in the comfort of his art teachers studio & traced Wilson’s photo onto a canvas,Wilson’s photo was the “original composition” of Corey that GZ copied onto a canvas & colored.. Every work of art starts w/a composition, an image, a drawing, or creative thought/plan by the artist before painting. Wilson provided the composition, GZ copied/colored it.

                  There is a big difference in MEDIA covering an event in which many times is released into the public domain & not copy righted. It can be copied.

                  According to Wilson’s attorney, Wilson copy righted the photo as his original work, Wilson then sold the photo to the AP & it became the copy righted photo of the AP. Wilson’s attorney said “if GZ continues to disregard their request to take down the painting, they will move forward,” that’s unfortunate for GZ.

                  Anything can be copied or reproduced that is not copy righted & owned by someone! When copyrighted, it can’t be copied. The problem for GZ as well as fairey, is they tried to profit from copy righted material owned by the AP/Wilson.. They can’t legally do that & as Fairy showed, those that do pay

                  If anther media outlet used the AP’s picture, they probably got permission from the AP. I read last night that the AP allows some request from Media outlets for the the use of a photo in which they own if it is a story relating to an AP story or a story relating to the photo. Since a couple of outlets used Corey’y photo, they ask & were granted by the AP to use the photo for an article

            • Completely agree with you, netts…

              This was a pivotal moment in George’s life and HE owns it.

              And the media owes it to him to leave him the #@! alone about it. They have some nerve sending him a cease and desist notice after they made untold millions of dollars off of turning his life into a 24/7 reality show from hell without his consent.

          • fabi ~ The AP owns the rights to Corey’s picture taken by a free lance photographer that was PAID for the picture of Corey. The AP OWNS the PHOTO, it is NOT fair use when an agency “copy rights” an image, THAT’s the REASON for copy righting an image, to keep others from using the image!

            • As I said, I am not an attorney. I have seen other works of art – even clips of music – used under fair use, but that’s the extent of my experience. I understand the reasons for trademarks and copyrights – but I think there’s some grey in there, as well. To that end, I think GZ could have paid a license fee or something similar with prior permission. He should probably consider that in the future, huh?

        • Plain Ole Dave ~ The AP has a copy right on the picture of Corey. The picture was taken by a FREE LANCE photographer, THEN SOLD to the AP for their story, the AP copyrighted the image.

          GZ will find himself AGAIN w/a ton of LEGAL DEBT to defend himself, GZ NEEDS ANOTHER ATTORNEY today! The AP as well as Wilson have attorney’s & are pursuing it. WHAT’S NEXT? GZ representing himself in Court when he doesn’t understand the problem today?

          From the OS article:
          A photographer and news agency whose picture of State Attorney Angela Corey appears to be the basis for George Zimmerman’s latest painting are calling the artwork a clear copyright violation.

          Jacksonville attorney John Phillips, who represents photographer Rick Wilson, told the Orlando Sentinel on Friday that Zimmerman should expect legal action if he continues to use the photo.

          “You just can’t do that,” Phillips said. “You just can’t take somebody else’s work and make it your own.


          GZ imo, NEEDS to take the picture down & LEARN COPY RIGHT LAWS before shooting his mouth off on twitter that makes him look immature & will likely come back to BITE him in the BUTT! GZ NEEDS to PRODUCE his OWN original work & STOP COPYING from other’s & there would be no PROBLEM! GZ has BEEN EXPOSED for the minimal work he has done on 2 canvases, imo, GZ will NOT see big money again if he continues this method, it isn’t original art work, it is merely “coloring” something he projected onto a canvas, an “intellectual property” that belonged to someone else.

            • Plain Ole David ~ CLEARLY you are NOT AN ATTORNEY as your comment reflects but Fairey had one & he paid a ton!

              FACT: Claims between the AP & Fairey were settled in 2011, with Fairey agreeing to pay the AP $1.6 million!


              Fairey suffered ADDITIONAL consequences for lying, 2 yrs. probation, 300 hrs. community service, & a $ 25,000.00 FINE!

              GZ like Fairey is ATTEMPTING to PROFIT from an image that belongs to the AP, there lies the problem! Whether a parody r not, GZ is TYING TO PROFIT! IF GZ WASN’T trying to PROFIT, it probably wouldn’t have been a problem.

              • Art,

                Do you feel that the ‘original artist’ should have the right to profit off of George’s misery?

                To copyright a moment in George’s life?

                To demand that George ‘cease and desist’ from exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of expression about that moment, that woman, that photo?

                • That’s a very interesting take, nivico! If not for GZ, the photographer would not have captured that iconic image! Of course, reductio ad absurdum, if TM’s parents hadn’t done such a lousy job of rearing their son, none of this would have happened, either…

                • nivico shared: Do you feel that the ‘original artist’ should have the right to profit off of George’s misery?

                  I feel any professional free lance photographer absolutely has every right to sell any photo they took to whomever they choose as is their job in which they are compensated just like you are compensated if you perform a job for an employer! This is done hundreds of thousands of times a day across America for news stories , this is the way the free lance photographers support themselves.

                  Wilson didn’t profit from GZ’s misery, Wilson was doing his job as a professional hoping to sell his work to the highest media outlet, the AP bought the copy righted photo to accompany the AP’s story on A Corey’s news conference. This is what the AP does, they report news, they included pictures for their stories, they aren’t in Orlando to take a picture of Corey so they pay a “free lance professional” in which they did. Wilson had every right to be paid & every right to copy right his photo.

                  nivico ~ the Media has a job to do whether we like it or not,some do it better than others. The Media reports as is their job & employs hundreds of thousands of Americans daily & they receive a paycheck for doing that work, the media reports endless news stories, magazines, any form of producing a story to get to the public domain to sell for purchase.

                  Countless Media outlets covered GZ”s story across America, Nationally as was their job. That wasn’t profiting from GZ, that was reporting news stories on GZ whether we liked it or not & it will forever continue, everybody involved in any form of reporting a GZ story just like any other story is paid for that job. Blogs are some of the few not paid. DId they profit off GZ? imo, they were doing the job they were assigned to do & reported it.

                  GZ has every right to copy/trace any picture of Corey that was not copy righted. There has to be countless pictures of Corey that are not copy righted that GZ could have traced & had no problems.

                  The photo of Corey taken by Wilson/Copy righted/owned by Wilson & the AP is not a photo GZ had a right to copy imo. I will watch closely as to what the courts decide.

    • And the “minute of money” MOM referred to as GZ paying which we know now was 35 thousand, MOM PAID GZ’s SECURITY BILL for $ 30 thousand dollars! So MOM basically got $ 5,000.00 & more headaches from GZ for his troubles!

        • For what reason? To go all ‘scorched Earth’ with people on Twitter? Here’s the thing: They’re provoking him. They want him to tweet something controversial so they can go running to the media or the law with it. And the media will run with it. That’s when it begins to matter and they know it. He’s interacting/fighting with people that have absolutely no power over him or influence over his life. But by doing so he’s opening himself up to attack by powerful/influential people that do. There’s no gain for him other than the emotional satisfaction of fighting back, IMO. He should just leave challenging the haters to us. We do pretty good. 😉

            • The particulars of this case suggest that this is not likely to happen.

              GZ is on the wrong side of “the narrative” in the eyes of the media at large. A settlement on mistakes by NBC will not change that.

              His recent online conduct does not help matters and does not engender respect.

            • Dave, are you thinking that people will start to respect him or see his point of view after a settlement?

              I just don’t know. When I read what people are STILL writing, there appears to be a big segment of people (obviously didn’t watch the trial or read any documents) who are STILL leaving out that “little matter” of TM bashing GZ’s head into the concrete – I still see many comments about TM just walking down the street, and because he was black, GZ “profiled” him and killed him. There’s no accounting of any other reason GZ shot TM.

              • Forget who I talked to about this but basically the media is past the point of no return on the TM was shot for being black with tea and skittles narrative. To backtrack on that narrative could be captalized upon as an admission of wrongdoing in a libel/defamation case. For purposes of trying to protect themselves from potential libel litigation its safer to stick with the original narrative.

          • Doesn’t matter if George tweets something controversial ….. George could tweet out eff all you fried chicken eating watermelon slicing malt liquor drinkin foodstamp dependant “N” bombs and it wouldn’t matter one iota: As long as the beating by Trayvon Martin exists….. a reasonable motive exists for pulling the trigger exists that has absolutely nothing at all to do with race or skin color. For purposes of a “hate crime” the ONLY thing the feds can consider is what was going on at the time the trigger was pulled….thats it… thats the legal test…. end of story.

    • cassandra ~ though interesting, the artist WORKED for Normal Rockwell, the “intellectual property” belonged to Normal Rockwell, Rockwell assembled the group he wanted photographed before the photographers took the pictures WHICH belonged to Norman Rockwell.

      Norman Rockwell is a beloved artist & always will be but there has ALWAYS been criticism that he projected the images from photographs INSTEAD of creatively DRAWING the images & then painting them for the cover of the magazine.

      Vargas who drew/painted the ORIGINAL PLAYBOY Covers of their magazines painted his covers FROM the female he was painting! Vargas’ work was typically a combination of watercolor and airbrush. His mastery of the airbrush is acknowledged by the fact that the highest achievement in the community of airbrush artistry is the Vargas Award, awarded annually by Airbrush Action Magazine. Despite always using figure models, his images would often portray elegantly dressed, semi-nude to nude women of idealized proportions. Vargas’ artistic trait would be slender fingers and toes, with nails often painted red.


      Artist have “artist freedom” in their work, just as Vargas would slenderize his models & use their faces but Vargas produced ORIGINAL art work from a sittng model which is extremely difficult to do.

    • Holy cow! Thanks, Dave – I had no idea he was one in the same. Bama guy through and through and this guy is a tool. He has lots of issues – not just recruiting…

    • I should also admit to having met this guy – we are (or have been) both registered boosters for the University of Alabama football.

  17. Now, for the first time, Dunn has reached out exclusively to First Coast News. In a letter addressed to Anchor Heather Crawford Dunn writes, “This case has never been about loud music. This case is about a local thug threatening to kill me because I dared to ask him to turn the music down.”

    He also attacks State Attorney Angela Corey.

    “I have quite a bit to say with regards to the way the DA’s office has been mis-representing the facts. It’s terrible to see such an abuse of power by a public official,” wrote Dunn. http://archive.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/332205/483/Michael-Dunn-reaches-out-to-First-Coast-News

  18. Dunn wrote, “I have been around firearms most of my life and have never had cause to draw a weapon on someone, let alone fire one at anyone. Deadly force is only to be used in circumstances of self-defense! After multiple threats of death by Jordan Davis and his brandishing of a weapon, I was convinced that my life was in danger. When Mr. Davis opened his door and said ‘You’re DEAD expletive! This expletive is going down NOW,’ I was convinced that the loss of my life was imminent, I had no choice but to defend myself, I am NOT a murderer. I am a survivor.” http://archive.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/332205/483/Michael-Dunn-reaches-out-to-First-Coast-News

  19. John M. Phillips ‏@JohnPhillips 4h
    Proud to announce we will join @VinniePolitan on inaugural show Monday, with client Rick Wilson, talking about Zimmerman’s copyright abuse.
    from Jacksonville, FL


    Artist Shepard Fairey got in a legal dispute with the AP after he used an AP photo in his famous Barack Obama “HOPE” poster. Fairey sued the AP in an effort to get a court declaration that he did not violate AP’s copyrights when he made the Obama image. The AP COUNTER SUED saying the uncredited, uncompensated use of its picture both violated copyright laws and was a threat to journalism.

    Claims between the news agency and Fairey were settled in 2011, with Fairey AGREEING TO PAY the AP $1.6 million.


    For those that make excuses for GZ or claim public image are sorely mistaken, the AP doesn’t PLAY games w/those trying to PROFIT from their properties, they have their attorney’s send Cease & desist letters! If that isn’t successful, just ask Fairey what happens next when you use an AP image! Fairey was EXPOSED for copying an AP image for PROFIT BUT the AP bitch slapped Fairey & he PAID!

    Fairey’s CONSEQUENCE from TRYING to PROFIT from an AP intellectual property:

    1. Fairey PAID the AP 1.6 MILLION DOLLARS for COPYING their intellectual property.
    2. Fairey PAID a FINE of $ 25,000.00
    3. Fairey SENTENCED to 2 yrs. probation!
    4. Fairey SENTENCED for 300 Hours of community service!

    from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

      • Plain Ole Dave ~ I am not wrong, NOR was AP wrong, NOR were their attorney’s wrong, the AP WON THEIR CASE for 1.6 million dollars AGAINST Fairey for using their image! THE CASES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME! GZ just like Fairey has used an image that BELONGED to AP, BOTH TRIED TO PROFIT from images they didn’t own.

        Obama was a MUCH BIGGER image than Angela Corey, the Courts AGREED w/the Associated Press & RULED Obama’s image WASN’T FAIR USE for someone to COPY & profit from, why you think Corey’s image w/the AP is “fair use” is baffling & doesn’t make any sense. WHY would Corey’s image be “fair use” in your mind but Obama’s image WASN’T LEGALLY FAIR USE when the AP won their case? You NEED ONLY COMPARE BOTH CASES ARE THE SAME, the use of AP’s image FOR PROFIT by GZ & Fairey! Fairey LOST/paid! The Associated Press PROTECTS their images, the case against Fairey alone proves you wrong! “Fair Use” is NOT a legal term NOR will it be used to allow GZ to sell his painting on Ebay WITHOUT being sued by the AP.

        imo, if GZ discusses the issue w/an attorney, he will likely take the picture down. If not, GZ will be sued. Sit back/watch! GZ doesn’t need to get into a legal dispute he can’t win w/the AP especially since it doesn’t make hiim look GOOD but exposes he copied their image, that’s INSANITY, he can’t win that fight & the picture just isn’t worth it imo!

          • Plain Ole Dave ~ don”t start insulting me as I won’t tolerate it! I am not a nut nor a misinformed clown. You have been ask as well by others to omit your insults, ttime to remind you to grow up again!

            Perghaps you might consider getting a grasp on your inability to comment w/out insulting. You’ve done well for awhile, but you always slip back into your same ole insulting behavior as your comment reflects!

              • Nettles ~ I would like to report Plain Ole Dave for continued insults towards me.

                When others don’t agree w/POD, he has the inability not to be respectful & conduct himself as an adult , but call names which has been a pattern for POD for over a year which reflects his immaturity. No one has to be insulted by another blogger.

                How sad POD doesn’t respect others that disagree w/him, POD appears to be of average intelligence & absolutely no smarter than any other blogger that contributes on this blog, he just doesn’t grasp that fact.

                  • POD ~ I will wait for the dust to settle & will ignore your insulting immaturity & rants! You are not a lawyer, you know no more than anyone else on this blog!

                    “Told ya so?” I didn’t know anyone even used such immature statements such as that after middle school but just more of the same immaturity.

                • You don’t have to report it to me….I can read.

                  You’re an adult. Do what you have to. You’ve got choices.

                  I noticed the insults toward GZ supporters come from David whenever he is embroiled with the nastier people on the Trayvon Martin side. This time is no different.

                  I’m thinking it’s time for us all to say good-bye and move on. George also seems to want to engage in a manner similar to David’s.

                  What are we doing here? Can we accomplish anything meaningful?

                  • We’re sharing information about things that are or may be injustices. Primarily focusing on the scum that destroyed someone’s life and are continuing to destroy others. Crump, Corey, NatJack, MSM, etc. Perhaps it’s time to move on from George, and we kinda are, but those people still need to be held accountable and what they do needs to be monitored. Someday the accumulated information might help in bringing them down. IMO that would be meaningful.

    • According to the wiki article you’re citing, The AP and Fairey agreed to share the rights to the ‘HOPE’ poster and to create more artwork based on additional AP photos. So I’m assuming then that the 1.6 million was not a settlement but rather the AP’s cut of the profits from plastering the HOPE image on everything from t-shirts to coffee mugs.

      Other artists could conceivably point to Fairey as evidence that the AP tacitly approves of artists using AP photos in their work.

      • nivico ~ This AP article is dated yesterday Jan. 24, 2014 which is & is the most current information on the Fiery settlement & updated from the 2011/2012 article in wiki on what Faiery had to pay AP, 1.6 million dollars. The AP did not sign a confidentiality clause & is able to report the amount owed to AP by Faiery. If wiki stated differently, it would be the AP acknowledgement of the amount they received in the settlement, 1.6 million, as they stated. LOL, if AP lied, they could be sued by Fairey but that’s not the case.

        AP article:
        Artist Shepard Fairey got in a legal dispute with the AP after he used an AP photo in his famous Barack Obama “HOPE” poster. Fairey sued the AP in an effort to get a court declaration that he did not violate AP’s copyrights when he made the Obama image. The AP counter sued, saying the uncredited, uncompensated use of its picture both violated copyright laws and was a threat to journalism.

        Claims between the news agency and Fairey were settled in 2011, with Fairey agreeing to pay the AP $1.6 million.

        Information on wiki can be changed & updated, obviously the monies wound up owing AP were not updated, I should have only listed the 3 repercussions Fairey suffered form the wiki link as the admission as the AP settlement for 1.6 million was issued in their article yesterday which would be the most current amount in any settlement.

  21. NOTE: The AP did NOT sign a “confidentiality agreement w/Fairey!” WHY? Because the AP can publish the amount Fairey had to pay, 1.6 million dollars ANYTIME they feel like it especially in articles on those trying to use their “intellectual property” just as they did in this article. It serves as a warning.

    • Art… an important point you nuts, Phillips, Wilson, and the AP are all ignoring…. well 2 points actually….

      1. Zimmy never distributed the painting…. Robert Jr did… so the cease and desist threats are BS and meaningless

      2. Zimmy never indicated he intended to sell it or profit from it…. Robert Jr did.. so again… it’s all ZImmy haters trying to blow smoke up the public’s ass!

      • …sorry, POD, but all that would accomplish is raising the situation to the level of criminal conspiracy.

        George creates the illegal artwork, Robert distributes it… you might want to rethink that one.

        • Wrong… just like Art

          Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

          A hip hop group called 2 Live Crew downright copied Roy Orbison’s Pretty Woman. They made some minimal changes and sold the song. When sued, they alleged fair use because the song “was a parody” of the original.

          The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that:

          … a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. That money is made does not make it impossible for a use to be fair; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.

        • nivico ~ The AP is filing an an injunction to stop the sell of the work & if it does sell, they are asking to be paid for the sell of GZ’s painting in addition to the “copying of he image” they will file suit for.

          I wish GZ would just take the picture off the market & then he would be out of the news but he doesn’t seem to mind the negative press that could easily be avoided imo. I was reading last night at CBS “Crimesider” in which they stated “GZ doesn’t seem to care that AP/Wilson are threatening lawsuits.” They then posted GZ’s twitter to AP that didn’t make any sense & AP’s statement “they have no idea what GZ was talking about.”

          It’s never smart imo to be flippant w/anyone threatening a law suit that has deep pockets, there is nothing for GZ to gain by poking the bear, I would hate to see GZ in more legal trouble, I pray that doesn’t happen.

    • nivico ~ I was reading an article last night about the AP & their spokesperson responded GZ’s twitter saying, “we don’t know what he’s talking about!”

      Since AP doesn’t know either, I guess only GZ knows LOL.

  22. 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

    No. 92-1292.
    Supreme Court of United States.

    Argued November 9, 1993.
    Decided March 7, 1994.
    570*570 571*571 SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 596.

    Bruce S. Rogow argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Alan Mark Turk.

    Sidney S. Rosdeitcher argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Peter L. Felcher and Stuart M. Cobert.[*]

    JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

    We are called upon to decide whether 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” 572*572 may be a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 107 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Although the District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the defense of fair use barred by the song’s commercial character and excessive borrowing. Because we hold that a parody’s commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry, and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying, we reverse and remand.


    In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called “Oh, Pretty Woman” and assigned their rights in it to respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. See Appendix A, infra, at 594. Acuff-Rose registered the song for copyright protection.

    Petitioners Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs are collectively known as 2 Live Crew, a popular rap music group.[1] In 1989, Campbell wrote a song entitled “Pretty Woman,” which he later described in an affidavit as intended, “through comical lyrics, to satirize the original work. . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert. 80a. On July 5, 1989, 2 Live Crew’s manager informed Acuff-Rose that 2 Live Crew had written a parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman,” that they would afford all credit for ownership and authorship of the original song to Acuff-Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use they wished to make of it. Enclosed with the letter were a copy of the lyrics and a recording of 2 Live Crew’s song. See Appendix B, infra, at 595. Acuff-Rose’s agent refused permission, stating that “I am aware of the success 573*573 enjoyed by `The 2 Live Crews’, but I must inform you that we cannot permit the use of a parody of `Oh, Pretty Woman.'” App. to Pet. for Cert. 85a. Nonetheless, in June or July 1989,[2] 2 Live Crew released records, cassette tapes, and compact discs of “Pretty Woman” in a collection of songs entitled “As Clean As They Wanna Be.” The albums and compact discs identify the authors of “Pretty Woman” as Orbison and Dees and its publisher as Acuff-Rose.

    Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew,[3] reasoning that the commercial purpose of 2 Live Crew’s song was no bar to fair use; that 2 Live Crew’s version was a parody, which “quickly degenerates into a play on words, substituting predictable lyrics with shocking ones” to show “how bland and banal the Orbison song” is; that 2 Live Crew had taken no more than was necessary to “conjure up” the original in order to parody it; and that it was “extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew’s song could adversely affect the market for the original.” 754 F. Supp. 1150, 1154-1155, 1157-1158 (MD Tenn. 1991). The District Court weighed these factors and held that 2 Live Crew’s song made fair use of Orbison’s original. Id., at 1158-1159.

    The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. 972 F. 2d 1429, 1439 (1992). Although it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live Crew’s song 574*574 was a parody of the Orbison original, the Court of Appeals thought the District Court had put too little emphasis on the fact that “every commercial use . . . is presumptively . . . unfair,” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417, 451 (1984), and it held that “the admittedly commercial nature” of the parody “requires the conclusion” that the first of four factors relevant under the statute weighs against a finding of fair use. 972 F. 2d, at 1435, 1437. Next, the Court of Appeals determined that, by “taking the heart of the original and making it the heart of a new work,” 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively, taken too much. Id., at 1438. Finally, after noting that the effect on the potential market for the original (and the market for derivative works) is “undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use,” Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 566 (1985), the Court of Appeals faulted the District Court for “refus[ing] to indulge the presumption” that “harm for purposes of the fair use analysis has been established by the presumption attaching to commercial uses.” 972 F. 2d, at 1438-1439. In sum, the court concluded that its “blatantly commercial purpose . . . prevents this parody from being a fair use.” Id., at 1439.

    We granted certiorari, 507 U. S. 1003 (1993), to determine whether 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody could be a fair use.


    It is uncontested here that 2 Live Crew’s song would be an infringement of Acuff-Rose’s rights in “Oh, Pretty Woman,” under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. § 106 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), but for a finding of fair use through parody.[4] 575*575 From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose, “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. . . .” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8.[5] For as Justice Story explained, “[i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before.” Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845). Similarly, Lord Ellenborough expressed the inherent tension in the need simultaneously to protect copyrighted material and to allow others to build upon it when he wrote, “while I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copy-right, one must not put manacles upon science.” 576*576 Carey v. Kearsley, 4 Esp. 168, 170, 170 Eng. Rep. 679, 681 (K. B. 1803). In copyright cases brought under the Statute of Anne of 1710,[6] English courts held that in some instances “fair abridgements” would not infringe an author’s rights, see W. Patry, The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law 6-17 (1985) (hereinafter Patry); Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990) (hereinafter Leval), and although the First Congress enacted our initial copyright statute, Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. 124, without any explicit reference to “fair use,” as it later came to be known,[7] the doctrine was recognized by the American courts nonetheless.

    In Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (No. 4,901) (CCD Mass. 1841), Justice Story distilled the essence of law and methodology from the earlier cases: “look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.” Id., at 348. Thus expressed, fair use remained exclusively judge-made doctrine until the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act, in which Justice Story’s summary is discernible:[8]

    Ҥ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
    “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular 577*577 case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
    “(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    “(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    “(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    “The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.” 17 U. S. C. § 107 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV).
    Congress meant § 107 “to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way” and intended that courts continue the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication. H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 66 (1976) (hereinafter House Report); S. Rep. No. 94-473, p. 62 (1975) (hereinafter Senate Report). The fair use doctrine thus “permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.” Stewart v. Abend, 495 U. S. 207, 236 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

    The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis. Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 560; Sony, 464 U. S., at 448, and n. 31; House Report, pp. 65-66; Senate Report, p. 62. The text employs the terms “including” and “such as” in the preamble paragraph to indicate the “illustrative and not limitative” function of the examples given, § 101; see Harper & Row, supra, at 561, which thus provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and 578*578 Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses.[9] Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. See Leval 1110-1111; Patry & Perlmutter, Fair Use Misconstrued: Profit, Presumptions, and Parody, 11 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 667, 685-687 (1993) (hereinafter Patry & Perlmutter).[10]


    The first factor in a fair use enquiry is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” § 107(1). This factor draws on Justice Story’s formulation, “the nature and objects of the selections made.” Folsom v. Marsh, supra, at 348. The enquiry here may be guided by the examples given in the preamble to § 107, looking to whether the use is for criticism, or comment, or news reporting, 579*579 and the like, see § 107. The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story’s words, whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation, Folsom v. Marsh, supra, at 348; accord, Harper & Row, supra, at 562 (“supplanting” the original), or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Leval 1111. Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, supra, at 455, n. 40,[11] the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e. g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.

    This Court has only once before even considered whether parody may be fair use, and that time issued no opinion because of the Court’s equal division. Benny v. Loew’s Inc., 239 F. 2d 532 (CA9 1956), aff’d sub nom. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew’s Inc., 356 U. S. 43 (1958). Suffice it to say now that parody has an obvious claim to transformative value, as Acuff-Rose itself does not deny. Like less ostensibly humorous forms of criticism, it can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one. We thus line up with the courts that have held that parody, like other comment or criticism, may claim fair use under § 107. See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d 432 (CA9 1986) (“When Sonny Sniffs Glue,” a parody of “When Sunny Gets Blue,” is fair use); Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp. 741 580*580 (SDNY), aff’d, 623 F. 2d 252 (CA2 1980) (“I Love Sodom,” a “Saturday Night Live” television parody of “I Love New York,” is fair use); see also House Report, p. 65; Senate Report, p. 61 (“[U]se in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied” may be fair use).

    The germ of parody lies in the definition of the Greek parodeia, quoted in Judge Nelson’s Court of Appeals dissent, as “a song sung alongside another.” 972 F. 2d, at 1440, quoting 7 Encyclopedia Britannica 768 (15th ed. 1975). Modern dictionaries accordingly describe a parody as a “literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule,”[12] or as a “composition in prose or verse in which the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or class of authors are imitated in such a way as to make them appear ridiculous.”[13] For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist’s claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works. See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.[14] Parody needs to mimic 581*581 an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.[15] See ibid.; Bisceglia, Parody and Copyright Protection: Turning the Balancing Act Into a Juggling Act, in ASCAP, Copyright Law Symposium, No. 34, p. 25 (1987).

    The fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line. Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioners’ suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact than the equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed fair, see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 561. The Act has no hint of an evidentiary preference for parodists over their victims, and no workable presumption for parody could take account of the fact that parody often shades into satire when society is lampooned through its creative artifacts, or that a work may contain both parodic and nonparodic elements. Accordingly, parody, like any other use, has to work its way through the relevant factors, and be judged case by case, in light of the ends of the copyright law.

    Here, the District Court held, and the Court of Appeals assumed, that 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman” contains parody, 582*582 commenting on and criticizing the original work, whatever it may have to say about society at large. As the District Court remarked, the words of 2 Live Crew’s song copy the original’s first line, but then “quickly degenerat[e] into a play on words, substituting predictable lyrics with shocking ones . . . [that] derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the Orbison song seems to them.” 754 F. Supp., at 1155 (footnote omitted). Judge Nelson, dissenting below, came to the same conclusion, that the 2 Live Crew song “was clearly intended to ridicule the white-bread original” and “reminds us that sexual congress with nameless streetwalkers is not necessarily the stuff of romance and is not necessarily without its consequences. The singers (there are several) have the same thing on their minds as did the lonely man with the nasal voice, but here there is no hint of wine and roses.” 972 F. 2d, at 1442. Although the majority below had difficulty discerning any criticism of the original in 2 Live Crew’s song, it assumed for purposes of its opinion that there was some. Id., at 1435-1436, and n. 8.

    We have less difficulty in finding that critical element in 2 Live Crew’s song than the Court of Appeals did, although having found it we will not take the further step of evaluating its quality. The threshold question when fair use is raised in defense of parody is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived.[16] Whether, going beyond that, parody is in good taste or bad does not and should not matter to fair use. As Justice Holmes explained, “[i]t would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [a work], outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At 583*583 the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke.” Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U. S. 239, 251 (1903) (circus posters have copyright protection); cf. Yankee Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 267, 280 (SDNY 1992) (Leval, J.) (“First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed”) (trademark case).

    While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew’s song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree. 2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies. It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author’s choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works.[17]

    The Court of Appeals, however, immediately cut short the enquiry into 2 Live Crew’s fair use claim by confining its treatment of the first factor essentially to one relevant fact, the commercial nature of the use. The court then inflated the significance of this fact by applying a presumption ostensibly 584*584 culled from Sony, that “every commercial use of copy-righted material is presumptively . . . unfair. . . .” Sony, 464 U. S., at 451. In giving virtually dispositive weight to the commercial nature of the parody, the Court of Appeals erred.

    The language of the statute makes clear that the commercial or nonprofit educational purpose of a work is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character. Section 107(1) uses the term “including” to begin the dependent clause referring to commercial use, and the main clause speaks of a broader investigation into “purpose and character.” As we explained in Harper & Row, Congress resisted attempts to narrow the ambit of this traditional enquiry by adopting categories of presumptively fair use, and it urged courts to preserve the breadth of their traditionally ample view of the universe of relevant evidence. 471 U. S., at 561; House Report, p. 66. Accordingly, the mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit does not insulate it from a finding of infringement, any more than the commercial character of a use bars a finding of fairness. If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of § 107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities “are generally conducted for profit in this country.” Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that “[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” 3 Boswell’s Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).

    Sony itself called for no hard evidentiary presumption. There, we emphasized the need for a “sensitive balancing of interests,” 464 U. S., at 455, n. 40, noted that Congress had “eschewed a rigid, bright-line approach to fair use,” id., at 585*585 449, n. 31, and stated that the commercial or nonprofit educational character of a work is “not conclusive,” id., at 448-449, but rather a fact to be “weighed along with other[s] in fair use decisions,” id., at 449, n. 32 (quoting House Report, p. 66). The Court of Appeals’s elevation of one sentence from Sony to a per se rule thus runs as much counter to Sony itself as to the long common-law tradition of fair use adjudication. Rather, as we explained in Harper & Row, Sony stands for the proposition that the “fact that a publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor that tends to weigh against a finding of fair use.” 471 U. S., at 562. But that is all, and the fact that even the force of that tendency will vary with the context is a further reason against elevating commerciality to hard presumptive significance. The use, for example, of a copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a parody, will be entitled to less indulgence under the first factor of the fair use enquiry than the sale of a parody for its own sake, let alone one performed a single time by students in school. See generally Patry & Perlmutter 679-680; Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d, at 437; Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F. 2d 1253, 1262 (CA2 1986); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F. 2d 1510, 1522 (CA9 1992).[18]

    586*586 B

    The second statutory factor, “the nature of the copy-righted work,” § 107(2), draws on Justice Story’s expression, the “value of the materials used.” Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas., at 348. This factor calls for recognition that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others, with the consequence that fair use is more difficult to establish when the former works are copied. See, e. g., Stewart v. Abend, 495 U. S., at 237-238 (contrasting fictional short story with factual works); Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 563-564 (contrasting soon-to-be-published memoir with published speech); Sony, 464 U. S., at 455, n. 40 (contrasting motion pictures with news broadcasts); Feist, 499 U. S., at 348-351 (contrasting creative works with bare factual compilations); 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05[A][2] (1993) (hereinafter Nimmer); Leval 1116. We agree with both the District Court and the Court of Appeals that the Orbison original’s creative expression for public dissemination falls within the core of the copyright’s protective purposes. 754 F. Supp., at 1155-1156; 972 F. 2d, at 1437. This fact, however, is not much help in this case, or ever likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works.


    The third factor asks whether “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,” § 107(3) (or, in Justice Story’s words, “the quantity and value of the materials used,” Folsom v. Marsh, supra, at 348) are reasonable in relation to the purpose of the copying. Here, attention turns to the persuasiveness of a parodist’s justification for the particular copying done, and the enquiry will harken back to the first of the statutory factors, for, as in prior cases, we recognize that the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character 587*587 of the use. See Sony, supra, at 449-450 (reproduction of entire work “does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use” as to home videotaping of television programs); Harper & Row, supra, at 564 (“[E]ven substantial quotations might qualify as fair use in a review of a published work or a news account of a speech” but not in a scoop of a soon-to-be-published memoir). The facts bearing on this factor will also tend to address the fourth, by revealing the degree to which the parody may serve as a market substitute for the original or potentially licensed derivatives. See Leval 1123.

    The District Court considered the song’s parodic purpose in finding that 2 Live Crew had not helped themselves overmuch. 754 F. Supp., at 1156-1157. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that “[w]hile it may not be inappropriate to find that no more was taken than necessary, the copying was qualitatively substantial. . . . We conclude that taking the heart of the original and making it the heart of a new work was to purloin a substantial portion of the essence of the original.” 972 F. 2d, at 1438.

    The Court of Appeals is of course correct that this factor calls for thought not only about the quantity of the materials used, but about their quality and importance, too. In Harper & Row, for example, the Nation had taken only some 300 words out of President Ford’s memoirs, but we signaled the significance of the quotations in finding them to amount to “the heart of the book,” the part most likely to be newsworthy and important in licensing serialization. 471 U. S., at 564-566, 568 (internal quotation marks omitted). We also agree with the Court of Appeals that whether “a substantial portion of the infringing work was copied verbatim” from the copyrighted work is a relevant question, see id., at 565, for it may reveal a dearth of transformative character or purpose under the first factor, or a greater likelihood of market harm under the fourth; a work composed primarily of an original, particularly its heart, with little added or changed, 588*588 is more likely to be a merely superseding use, fulfilling demand for the original.

    Where we part company with the court below is in applying these guides to parody, and in particular to parody in the song before us. Parody presents a difficult case. Parody’s humor, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin. When parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to “conjure up” at least enough of that original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable. See, e. g., Elsmere Music, 623 F. 2d, at 253, n. 1; Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d, at 438-439. What makes for this recognition is quotation of the original’s most distinctive or memorable features, which the parodist can be sure the audience will know. Once enough has been taken to assure identification, how much more is reasonable will depend, say, on the extent to which the song’s overriding purpose and character is to parody the original or, in contrast, the likelihood that the parody may serve as a market substitute for the original. But using some characteristic features cannot be avoided.

    We think the Court of Appeals was insufficiently appreciative of parody’s need for the recognizable sight or sound when it ruled 2 Live Crew’s use unreasonable as a matter of law. It is true, of course, that 2 Live Crew copied the characteristic opening bass riff (or musical phrase) of the original, and true that the words of the first line copy the Orbison lyrics. But if quotation of the opening riff and the first line may be said to go to the “heart” of the original, the heart is also what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. Copying does not become excessive in relation to parodic purpose merely because the portion taken was the original’s heart. If 2 Live Crew had copied a significantly less memorable part of the original, it is difficult to see how its parodic character 589*589 would have come through. See Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 439.

    This is not, of course, to say that anyone who calls himself a parodist can skim the cream and get away scot free. In parody, as in news reporting, see Harper & Row, supra, context is everything, and the question of fairness asks what else the parodist did besides go to the heart of the original. It is significant that 2 Live Crew not only copied the first line of the original, but thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics for its own ends. 2 Live Crew not only copied the bass riff and repeated it,[19] but also produced otherwise distinctive sounds, interposing “scraper” noise, over-laying the music with solos in different keys, and altering the drum beat. See 754 F. Supp., at 1155. This is not a case, then, where “a substantial portion” of the parody itself is composed of a “verbatim” copying of the original. It is not, that is, a case where the parody is so insubstantial, as compared to the copying, that the third factor must be resolved as a matter of law against the parodists.

    Suffice it to say here that, as to the lyrics, we think the Court of Appeals correctly suggested that “no more was taken than necessary,” 972 F. 2d, at 1438, but just for that reason, we fail to see how the copying can be excessive in relation to its parodic purpose, even if the portion taken is the original’s “heart.” As to the music, we express no opinion whether repetition of the bass riff is excessive copying, and we remand to permit evaluation of the amount taken, in light of the song’s parodic purpose and character, its transformative elements, and considerations of the potential for market substitution sketched more fully below.

    590*590 D

    The fourth fair use factor is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” § 107(4). It requires courts to consider not only the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also “whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market” for the original. Nimmer § 13.05[A][4], p. 13-102.61 (footnote omitted); accord, Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 569; Senate Report, p. 65; Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas., at 349. The enquiry “must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works.” Harper & Row, supra, at 568.

    Since fair use is an affirmative defense,[20] its proponent would have difficulty carrying the burden of demonstrating fair use without favorable evidence about relevant markets.[21] In moving for summary judgment, 2 Live Crew left themselves at just such a disadvantage when they failed to address the effect on the market for rap derivatives, and confined themselves to uncontroverted submissions that there was no likely effect on the market for the original. They did not, however, thereby subject themselves to the evidentiary presumption applied by the Court of Appeals. In assessing the likelihood of significant market harm, the Court of Appeals 591*591 quoted from language in Sony that “`[i]f the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.'” 972 F. 2d, at 1438, quoting Sony, 464 U. S., at 451. The court reasoned that because “the use of the copyrighted work is wholly commercial, . . . we presume that a likelihood of future harm to Acuff-Rose exists.” 972 F. 2d, at 1438. In so doing, the court resolved the fourth factor against 2 Live Crew, just as it had the first, by applying a presumption about the effect of commercial use, a presumption which as applied here we hold to be error.

    No “presumption” or inference of market harm that might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes. Sony’s discussion of a presumption contrasts a context of verbatim copying of the original in its entirety for commercial purposes, with the noncommercial context of Sony itself (home copying of television programming). In the former circumstances, what Sony said simply makes common sense: when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of an original, it clearly “supersede[s] the objects,” Folsom v. Marsh, supra, at 348, of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur. Sony, supra, at 451. But when, on the contrary, the second use is transformative, market substitution is at least less certain, and market harm may not be so readily inferred. Indeed, as to parody pure and simple, it is more likely that the new work will not affect the market for the original in a way cognizable under this factor, that is, by acting as a substitute for it (“supersed[ing] [its] objects”). See Leval 1125; Patry & Perlmutter 692, 697-698. This is so because the parody and the original usually serve different market functions. Bisceglia, ASCAP, Copyright Law Symposium, No. 34, at 23.

    We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not harm the market at all, but when a lethal parody, like a scathing 592*592 theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act. Because “parody may quite legitimately aim at garroting the original, destroying it commercially as well as artistically,” B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 69 (1967), the role of the courts is to distinguish between “[b]iting criticism [that merely] suppresses demand [and] copyright infringement[, which] usurps it.” Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d, at 438.

    This distinction between potentially remediable displacement and unremediable disparagement is reflected in the rule that there is no protectible derivative market for criticism. The market for potential derivative uses includes only those that creators of original works would in general develop or license others to develop. Yet the unlikelihood that creators of imaginative works will license critical reviews or lampoons of their own productions removes such uses from the very notion of a potential licensing market. “People ask . . . for criticism, but they only want praise.” S. Maugham, Of Human Bondage 241 (Penguin ed. 1992). Thus, to the extent that the opinion below may be read to have considered harm to the market for parodies of “Oh, Pretty Woman,” see 972 F. 2d, at 1439, the court erred. Accord, Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; Leval 1125; Patry & Perlmutter 688-691.[22]

    In explaining why the law recognizes no derivative market for critical works, including parody, we have, of course, been speaking of the later work as if it had nothing but a critical aspect (i. e., “parody pure and simple,” supra, at 591). But the later work may have a more complex character, with effects not only in the arena of criticism but also in protectible markets for derivative works, too. In that sort of case, the law looks beyond the criticism to the other elements of the work, as it does here. 2 Live Crew’s song comprises not 593*593 only parody but also rap music, and the derivative market for rap music is a proper focus of enquiry, see Harper & Row, supra, at 568; Nimmer § 13.05[B]. Evidence of substantial harm to it would weigh against a finding of fair use,[23] because the licensing of derivatives is an important economic incentive to the creation of originals. See 17 U. S. C. § 106(2) (copyright owner has rights to derivative works). Of course, the only harm to derivatives that need concern us, as discussed above, is the harm of market substitution. The fact that a parody may impair the market for derivative uses by the very effectiveness of its critical commentary is no more relevant under copyright than the like threat to the original market.[24]

    Although 2 Live Crew submitted uncontroverted affidavits on the question of market harm to the original, neither they, nor Acuff-Rose, introduced evidence or affidavits addressing the likely effect of 2 Live Crew’s parodic rap song on the market for a nonparody, rap version of “Oh, Pretty Woman.” And while Acuff-Rose would have us find evidence of a rap market in the very facts that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” and another rap group sought a license to record a rap derivative, there was no evidence that a potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew’s parody, rap version. The fact that 2 Live Crew’s parody sold as part of a collection of rap songs says very little about the parody’s effect on a market for a rap version of the original, either of the music alone or of the music with its lyrics. The District Court essentially passed 594*594 on this issue, observing that Acuff-Rose is free to record “whatever version of the original it desires,” 754 F. Supp., at 1158; the Court of Appeals went the other way by erroneous presumption. Contrary to each treatment, it is impossible to deal with the fourth factor except by recognizing that a silentrecord on an important factor bearing on fair use disentitled the proponent of the defense, 2 Live Crew, to summary judgment. The evidentiary hole will doubtless be plugged on remand.


    It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew’s parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary presumption is available to address either the first factor, the character and purpose of the use, or the fourth, market harm, in determining whether a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair one. The court also erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the parodic purpose of the use. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    It is so ordered.

  23. Fair use is a doctrine the application of which always depends on consideration of the precise facts at hand, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 549, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2225, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985); Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731, 740 (2d Cir.1991); H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 65-66 (1976) (“no generally applicable definition [of fair use] is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts”),

  24. I don’t know if Zurich Mike from the treehouse reads here, but if he does, I want to say “kudos to you!” Well, also to a couple of female admins who seem to “get it”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s