Artist's work submitted by fan to Madonna without permission

[jojuun 4,159]

when she is using someone else's work, she needs to know what it's from. If you can't find the source, don't use it. It's wrong. I'm honestly shocked that you don't see the problem in this. If you don't have rights to use it, don't use it. Madonna's team would take us down in a moment if we used a song of hers to promote ourselves like this. Shouldn't be any different for her. 

I love M too, but cmon... Reposting something on Instagram is not the same as using it in official promotional material and especially on a tour where you're taking a profit. I'm sure there's a law about that.

I know it applies to music. You can record cover songs or even use samples and it's totally legal until you charge people to buy your version. I think it's morally wrong, regardless of the legal side. Although it could've been an accident, now that the artist has spoken out I think it's only right for Madonna to rectify the situation and give credit where it's due.

You have no knowledge of the laws of rights of use. Social media doesn't apply to this argument unless you are making money from what you post. As soon as you make profit while simultaneously using art that you don't have the rights to, you are breaking the law. This is what she did, and i'm sorry to inform that your dearly beloved Madonna has broken the law.

Well I DO actually know about copyrights and I'm the first to stand up and say Madonna ripped off Guy Bourdin and Horst P. Horst for music videos in the past. All those copyright issues were privately settled. But that's not how it works these days. Work has to be recognisable in order for it to be seen as a copy. Given that this girl is unknown and is in the middle of a hundred other fan artworks, she doesn't stand a chance. Read this post by the "original artist" about the Gaga Judas copyright trial here: http://www.rebeccaf.com/id/why-you-should-care-that.html

Consider the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Peters v. West. Although Peters’ lawyers proved that Kanye West ripped off a vocal straight out of one of Peters’ song, manipulated it, and used it, “an ordinary observer” couldn’t tell that it had been ripped off. So Kanye West won, and Vincent Peters lost.

That's the way it is. It first of all wasn't intentional as it was a fansubmitted social media post and secondly even IF proven deliberately "stolen" (which it def. isn't) her work wasn't used in it's original manner and therefor not a copy. Madonna will win either way if gets to a legal case.

She (and y'all) can try again.

[PaperIz 7,261]

Well I DO actually know about copyrights and I'm the first to stand up and say Madonna ripped off Guy Bourdin and Horst P. Horst for music videos in the past. All those copyright issues were privately settled. But that's not how it works these days. Work has to be recognisable in order for it to be seen as a copy. Given that this girl is unknown and is in the middle of a hundred other fan artworks, she doesn't stand a chance. Read this post by the "original artist" about the Gaga Judas copyright trial here: http://www.rebeccaf.com/id/why-you-should-care-that.html

Consider the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Peters v. West. Although Peters’ lawyers proved that Kanye West ripped off a vocal straight out of one of Peters’ song, manipulated it, and used it, “an ordinary observer” couldn’t tell that it had been ripped off. So Kanye West won, and Vincent Peters lost.

That's the way it is. It first of all wasn't intentional as it was a fansubmitted social media post and secondly even IF proven deliberately "stolen" (which it def. isn't) her work wasn't used in it's original manner and therefor not a copy. Madonna will win either way if gets to a legal case.

She (and y'all) can try again.

you need to rre-evaluate yourself. As an artist I am disgusted and terrified people like you think like this. It's stealing, and you just don't see it. I won't be replying again. Get some help.

[Tresor 1,649]

Well I DO actually know about copyrights and I'm the first to stand up and say Madonna ripped off Guy Bourdin and Horst P. Horst for music videos in the past. All those copyright issues were privately settled. But that's not how it works these days. Work has to be recognisable in order for it to be seen as a copy. Given that this girl is unknown and is in the middle of a hundred other fan artworks, she doesn't stand a chance. Read this post by the "original artist" about the Gaga Judas copyright trial here: http://www.rebeccaf.com/id/why-you-should-care-that.html

Consider the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Peters v. West. Although Peters’ lawyers proved that Kanye West ripped off a vocal straight out of one of Peters’ song, manipulated it, and used it, “an ordinary observer” couldn’t tell that it had been ripped off. So Kanye West won, and Vincent Peters lost.

That's the way it is. It first of all wasn't intentional as it was a fansubmitted social media post and secondly even IF proven deliberately "stolen" (which it def. isn't) her work wasn't used in it's original manner and therefor not a copy. Madonna will win either way if gets to a legal case.

She (and y'all) can try again.

Ok you're just an awful person then. Your argument now is that because the artist is unknown Madonna will get away with it. You're right, this is true, but It's illegal and morally wrong and a true fan (not you) will take a step back and realize it's wrong and shouldn't be handled lightly. This artist is in a fantastic position to turn the tables on this issue using social media, and who better than to take it out on than one of the most lawfully negligent and predatory artists currently - Madonna.

[DrewStevens 5,249]

Well I DO actually know about copyrights

 her work wasn't used in it's original manner and therefor not a copy.

Madonna will win either way if gets to a legal case.

Well that's actually not true. Her work doesn't have to be used in it's original manner to be considered a copy. Using any piece of work from an artist in any form without their permission is considered a copyright infringement.

Madonna had to make a deal with ABBA before releasing Hung Up because it would have been illegal to sell the song without paying for its rights. She only used a sample from the song and she still had to get their permission.

[Hexxx 2,244]

Inb4 her Medonsters justify her by saying "she's promoting her! That's not stealing! She's been doing that since 1899!"

I love how the girl woke up and realized how that crosses the line of "promoting".

Nah, we don't take up for Madonna without stating facts. The photos were taken without permission #ArtisticRape

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

'You might be Madonna, but BITCH, I’M MAD ON A few different levels. You stole my material, girl.'

 Love the play with words. 

[VOLANTIS 16,017]

Did she seriously pasted her face on somebody's paintings on MS Paint and used them as backdrops?  

BTW Motorcycle cover who?

[Dunk96 2,526]

And her fans want to say that Lady Gaga's a thief. Please. 

[andy232000 9,145]

And exactly how did Madonna do that with using a fan-submitted collage? How is that "passing it off as her own" when she announced "please send in all your submissions for one of my tour backdrop videos!" Someone put it online and Madonna reposted it and used it. What should she do? Personally check if the photograph has been used by someone else, search the web for the original artist?

um yes? 

thats the logical thing to do in my opinion.

[Dexxx 1,363]

Such a shame for Madonna and her team to use a plagiarize artwork which is edited and is very obvious that they just pasted Madonna's head on someone's artwork. 

And if its true that fans just submitted artworks to use for her tour, then I'm not surprised that Madonna fans don't know how to use Photoshop. 

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

Glad that the true artists of GGD are educating in this thread. Someone on Madonna's team needs to be in trouble for this. And wtf at the argument that our avis and gifs are copyright infringement. Are we using them for commercial services? No. Are we using them to promote our work and/or claiming them as our own original work? No. That is one of the craziest arguments I've heard in a while.

[PartySick 134,405]

And exactly how did Madonna do that with using a fan-submitted collage? How is that "passing it off as her own" when she announced "please send in all your submissions for one of my tour backdrop videos!" Someone put it online and Madonna reposted it and used it. What should she do? Personally check if the photograph has been used by someone else, search the web for the original artist?

You mean check the sources and give credit where credit is due?  

Someone else passed this along to her as their own work, she should have her team or whoever make sure because, even though this is tame, she could get severely burned by doing this sort of thing. It's unprofessional.

[Gagaplayer315 12,032]

First the bad blood video and now this. How can she be such a hypocrite after all the Born this way/Express yourself drama??

[Shadow 6,039]

This why it is important to copyright serious artistic material before putting it online, gives you more legal ground than hearsay. How ironically unfortunate, an artist ripping off another artist. Wish all poor artists had full legal teams to sue like they do if it were the other way around. 

[Kabexuela 1,184]

Inb4 her Medonsters justify her by saying "she's promoting her! That's not stealing! She's been doing that since 1899!"

I love how the girl woke up and realized how that crosses the line of "promoting".

I love vintage Madge, but it is true.  She has been sued so many times for plagiarism.