Here’s an image from the James Cameron movie “Avatar”:
Now here’s a painting by painter Roger Dean, who is perhaps most famous for his album covers for “Yes”:
And now Dean is suing:
Iconic cover artist Roger Dean has filed a lawsuit against movie director James Cameron over 2009 movie Avatar.
Dean claims visualisation of Pandora, the world on which the film is set, was based heavily on his artwork.
He’s demanded $50m in damages – and he also wants Twentieth Century Fox to ensure Avatar is never seen again in its current form.
In papers lodged at New York District Court last week, and revealed by Deadline, Dean’s representatives argue that floating islands and stone arches as seen in the movie bear so much resemblance to his creations that it amounts to breach of copyright.
I don’t doubt that Cameron, or someone in his design department, was mightily influenced by Dean, but influence isn’t something that should be covered under copyright.
Dean’s ideas, stated in broad terms, are not unique – there have been floating islands in science fiction for decades (the original Star Trek did a city on a cloud, not to mention the floating city in Gulliver’s Travels). What really makes the similarities so striking is that Avatar seems to echo Dean’s distinctive visual style so strongly. But style should not be copyrightable.
Think of Bill Sienkiewicz’s early comics, when he was a carbon copy of Neal Adams. You couldn’t find a clearer example of someone completely swiping someone else’s visual style (except later, when Dave McKean’s first comics were a carbon copy of Sienkiewicz’s mature style, or earlier, when a young Neal Adams swiped his distinctive inking style from Stan Drake). Should Adams have been able to sue?
If style becomes a copyright infringement, that would be devastating to young artists, and have an enormous chilling effect on art.
It’s certainly plausible that Cameron and co. didn’t do the right thing here. If they were consciously basing their world on Dean’s work, then they should have hired Dean to be a concept artist on the film, like the Lord of the Rings films did with Alan Lee. A relatively small expenditure for a big-budget film can be an enormous windfall for an artist.
But even so, not everything that is wrong should be illegal, or actionable. The damage to free speech of making style copyrightable vastly outweigh the benefits.
(Related: A list of earlier works that are, in one way or another, similar to Cameron’s Avatar.)
Dean was obviously influenced by Salvador Dali. Dali can’t sue him because he’s dead.
What idiocy. Dean should be flattered.
“Style” as such, is not copyrightable. The general rule is ideas are not protected by copyright, expression is. The problem is any infringement suit is so fact dependent, and there is no bright line between what is the “idea” of a piece and what is the “expression.”
I would say Avatar is not infringing on Dean. The idea of floating rocky islands is not protected by copyright. As to specific similarities, they seem to be just how the two images are similar to nature – blue skies, rocky surfaces, a green jungle-like aspect.
Of course, what will probably happen is that will never be decided in court. Probably Dean will just get a settlement, in which he gets a lump sum and then royalties.
Any of the millions of Prog Rock fans who viewed Avatar would immediately understand they were dwelling in “Roger Dean Land.” The “look and feel” is unmistakeable. Apparently there are artists who participated in the design of the movie’s landscapes who are on record that Roger Dean’s artwork was purposely studied and used as a model for a number of the movie designs. Hopefully they will not be bought off from testifying. It’s preposterous that Roger Dean is not credited in the film. It’s one thing to “generally” use an idea/design of others; quite another to “specifically” use an idea/design of a specific “other.”
Roger should win big with this one! Artists around the world should make themselves heard. This is an artists’ rights landmark case in the making.
Lori –
Some advice: before posting on a subject I recommend you actually know something about the subject before you express an opinion. Otherwise you will simply expose your ignorance. Comparing the work of Salvador Dali to the work of Roger Dean is like comparing the work of Wassily Kandinsky to that of Jackson Pollack, or Rockwell Kent to Richard Estes, or Jules Cheret to Alberto Vargas. Now if you have to google all of these names to understand the references, Lori, you do not know nearly enough to make an observation about art in this context. If you still decide that posting an opinion about something is a thing you simply must, do my recommendations: 1) determine what you actually have some depth of knowledge in (eg, technology or roof repair or dental care); 2) locate a board dedicated to that subject; 3) post your opinions with some authority; 4) gain some respect and kudos for your brilliance in that subject.TrueHunt – please reread the moderation policy and try harder to abide by it. Thanks!
Ben –
First, an assumption: since you sound like a thoughtful bright guy I assume you’re also curious with a desire to know more than you already do.
Now, some suppositions: Suppose you make your living writing. Let’s say you make $1000 a word (for the sake of this narrative). The reason you make this much is because you have a reputation for saying some smart and original things. As an example, just your first paragraph about “style” would then net you $47,000.
Then, if I decide to take your text and change a few words or phrases like this:
“One cannot copyright style. In general, ideas are not protected by copyright laws. Original expression is protected by copyright laws as I understand them. The issue in an infringement suit is dependent upon the facts of the case. There is no clear line to define the idea or concept versus what the expression happens to be.”
Now let’s say I find a way to market your original text, ideas, concepts, and novel understanding as my wholly owned work and I am able to charge $10,000 per word. In fact, I decide to take the balance of your post, claim it as mine with a few words changed (eg, “With that said, Avatar does not infringe upon Dean… etc. etc”. I just made over $300,000 simply by reengineering some words and phrases without any originality at all.
or how about this example?:
A jazz quartet decides to cut an album doing covers of the songs on the Beatles’ Abbey Road album, adding a couple of tracks of their own compositions. They hire a photographer to take a picture of the quartet walking across Abbey Road for the cover and it sells mucho elevating their reputation and start working on their next album of covers of Sgt. Pepper. What might Sir Paul and Apple Corps think? More importantly, what would they do?
or this?: Someone enters your garage and takes your car for a ride. He paints it yellow and charges people to be driven around by him. He makes a tidy sum doing this for two years and also racks up a lot of miles on “his” taxi. He then sells it for cash and decides to go back and see what you have in your garage.
Some things to weigh if you decide to reflect a bit more deeply on the subject.
try this:
Comparing the work of Salvador Dali to the work of Roger Dean is like comparing the work of Wassily Kandinsky to that of Jackson Pollack, or Rockwell Kent to Richard Estes, or Jules Cheret to Alberto Vargas. Saying Dean’s actions are “pure idiocy” and that he should be flattered is neither a fair nor informed observation in my opinion.
Well, True Hunt! How happy you must be, simply being you!
I’m glad you’re so impressed with yourself, and with your knowledge of art. Surely it surpasses that of all other mortals.
I stand corrected. My education has been enriched.
I will just say with my little voice ” shame on Camer……….”.
He is standing so high on the mountain that He can’t see the ants on the ground anymore.
Personally I prefer Spielberg.
PS: I like Yes and Roger Dean work, we have Magnetic Storm and Dragon’s Dream (the books) at home, real beauty.
If an artwork is so close in look and feel, using the same colour palette, devices and nuances, as that of another artist’s whole catalogue that it can erroneously be assumed that the artwork is, indeed the work of that artist, then that is plagiarism.
That Sienkiewicz or others have plagiarised too doesn’t make it acceptable in the same way that stealing the crown jewels isn’t acceptable just because someone else has done it.
It wouldn’t have hurt the budget at all for Roger Dean to have been retained as an artistic consultant given that was the style that Cameron wanted.
Here’s the problem that many are not aware of… Roger Dean was in the process of making a film based on his own artwork and characters from his artwork st the time Avitar was made and released. It was a long process due to him not having the kind of money or major studio backing as James Cameron. It was being paid for by Roger and his supporters. Anyone could have sent him funds to help through his website. Now that Avitar came out, it ruined Roger Dean’s prospects with his film. Think about it this way… If he released the film after Avitar, it wouldn’t be widely accepted because many who are unfamiliar with his work would think the world that the movie would be based on was ripped off from Avitar when in fact it is the other way around. Roger has no choice but to sue at this point.