Rachel Maddow Pwns "Formerly" Gay Author Who "Cures" Gays
Teacher Hot For Teacher In Brooklyn High School
Bouncers Accused of Beating Gay Man for Dancing with Man
MTV Staffers Receiving Threats Over Jersey Shore
Oh D'Oh They Didn't! TSA Posts Airport Screening Manual On Web
A freelance artist is suing NYU because she says her alma mater stole her mascot design and used it for merchandise without compensating her. 22-year-old Ariel Fleurimond (MySpace) was a psychology major working as an equipment room clerk in the athletic department in 2007 when associate director Noah Lefebre asked her to create a mascot. Fleurimond says she came up with a cartoon cougar she called "Orion" and submitted the illustration, but never heard anything about it. Cut to last summer, when she discovered, painted on the floor of the gym, her cougar—which she says has been appropriated as NYU's bobcat. NYU's legal department reviewed her complaint and decided that Fleurimond had been fairly compensated for her work in the athletic department, but her lawyer tells the Daily News, "She was paid to pick up dirty towels." Fleurimond hopes to get millions because she copyrighted her cougar cartoon, but it's important to remember that the bobcat is a relatively new mascot at NYU. NYU teams are the "Fighting Violets"; bobcat is a macho portmanteau of "Bobst Catalog," the school's filing system. NYU's spokesman says, "We fully expect to prevail." You go, Violets!
NYU Alum Suing School for Stealing Her Bobcat Drawing
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (24) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
homeless guy took a dump between cars on the 7 train between Queens & Manhattan
[more]
I clicked on the link and saw a picture of the young girl. I'm afraid if this girl looked different than she did, NYU would be settling. thoes bastards
Unless she signed the rights over, they don't have much of a case. Unless she had the image legally copyrighted, then there's a cap on what she can sue for.
The issue really will be whether she did it as part of her job. If it's a "work for hire," the employer owns the rights. However, since it doesn't seem (just from reading the above, essentially one side of the story) that it would have fallen under the normal scope of her employment. That will likely be the point being argued.
Registration changes only that she can sue for statutory damages and legal fees. Without it, the only financial recourse would be to prove real damages. But registration doesn't have to happen immediately; it can be done at any time so she could still do it she hasn't already (though it's at least implied above that she has). If registration is done within five years, it's considered prima facie evidence of the validity of the facts stated in the certificate if a dispute ends up in court.
Oh! I had no idea that you could register for a copyright after so long. I guess that makes perfect sense, especially as the school isn't arguing her creation of the drawing.
Thank you very much, you've just increased my half assed knowledge of copyright law by about 120%.
Since your logic seems to be flawed I'll point out another weak point in your first post.
I can't imagine that an "equipment room clerk" would be asked to sign a 'work for hire' contract. That seems highly improbable, unless of course this is some organized exploit.
It worries me that you may be a lawyer.
As I said:
If it's a "work for hire," the employer owns the rights. However, since it doesn't seem (just from reading the above, essentially one side of the story) that it would have fallen under the normal scope of her employment.
What I said, if that's somehow unclear, was that I do not believe that it would be considered a work for hire for copyright purposes, so would be her own work.
"A work for hire," in that context, by the way, isn't the same thing as a "work for hire contract" as you referred to. It's simply a work that was completed by an employee for an employer.
"was a psychology major
that means she was a student"
Yes she was. And if she'd been asked to create it by an instructor, or had simply done so for one of her classes, that would be relevant. But she was also an employee, and created the drawing at the request of her supervisor. While she was creating it, she was an employee, not a student.
@jaycjay
It would be great if you could actually read the posts and exhibit evidence of some sort of comprehension thereafter.
I'll try to make this easy for you.
I am not saying that this was an assignment.
I am noting that many education institutions have policies which every student defaults to upon enrollment, and such policies often control the ownership of ANY product authored by a student, IN ANY CONTEXT. THIS EXTENDS BEYOND CLASS WORK AND USUALLY INCLUDES ANY PRODUCT AUTHORED WHILE ENROLLED.
Again, here is my original post:
"And for further clarification, I have not read the rules governing NYU students, but if it is similar to 99% of all other major universities then it covers all authorship, regardless if it is in a class, extracurricular or entirely external."
"I am noting that many education institutions have policies which every student defaults to upon enrollment, and such policies often control the ownership of ANY product authored by a student, IN ANY CONTEXT. THIS EXTENDS BEYOND CLASS WORK AND USUALLY INCLUDES ANY PRODUCT AUTHORED WHILE ENROLLED."
Heh. I'd like to see an example of such a policy if you have one. But no matter, a university, like any other entity, can make up any rules they like. But when they run counter to the law, they won't hold up in court.
A "relatively new mascot"? I went to grad school there in 1992, and it was the mascot then.
Hope she totally wins.
ozik: the post above says she had it copyrighted.
You can file a copyright pretty long after the fact, same with patents. Not sure if this is true or not, but the story goes that the wheelbarrow wasn't patented until the early 90s when some dude realized it wasn't patented, and made a fortune.
According to her myspace, she's a Freelancer working for Island/Def Jam, so I REALLY hope she gets paid, because I can tell you they are paying her pennies.
Not sure if this is true or not, but the story goes that the wheelbarrow wasn't patented until the early 90s when some dude realized it wasn't patented, and made a fortune.
That story is ridiculous and impossible. You can't patent something unless you can prove you invented it yourself. If prior art exists, and obviously wheelbarrows have existed for centuries, you can't get a patent without creating something that satisfies requirements for novelty and unobviousness.
Oh, you may be able to register long after initial publication, but you can't collect statutory damages unless you register within three months of publication. Hate to say it, but I think she's out of luck on this. She won't receive anything for actual losses because she wouldn't have made any money off it without the school connection, hence no actual losses.
Why not call them The "Bobstcats" and have their mascot "fall" from the library's atrium after each loss?
ouch! lol.
Actually, the copyright is associated with the creator/author/artist the instant an original artwork is created.
This is standard copyright law in my industry.
As long as the artwork contains 25% or less of derivative artwork and she didn't explicitly release her copyright they shouldn't have a case.
But, depending on how she recalls the events and how creative NYU can conceptualize fair usage it may be tight.
It is not widely understood that almost all schools, and most definitely all larger Universities have clauses built into their regulations and policies which stipulate that any product of a student (sometime even off campus, as was in my undergrad, scary!) while they are enrolled becomes property of the educational institution.
I would guess this is the case.
My typographical error. It's not 25% - it's 20% (1/5)
"It is not widely understood that almost all schools, and most definitely all larger Universities have clauses built into their regulations and policies which stipulate that any product of a student"
Irrelevant, since she reportedly did this as an employee, not as a student.
And directly from the article above:
Ariel Fleurimond (MySpace) was a psychology major working as an equipment room clerk in the athletic department in 2007 when associate director Noah Lefebre asked her to create a mascot.
was a psychology major
that means she was a student @jayclay
Check your facts next time.
And for further clarification, I have not read the rules governing NYU students, but if it is similar to 99% of all other major universities then it covers all authorship, regardless if it is in a class, extracurricular or entirely external.
OK, before spouting BS about copyright law I'd recommend at the very least reading this from the actual source:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
This is directly from your link:
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
That's exactly the point. She did not register the copyright within three months of NYU's initial publication, so she isn't eligible for statutory damages.
Dear Editor - your rearrangement of the conversation makes less sense.
That's not the work of any "editor." It's yet another bug of MovableType. When you post a comment, the page displays comments in chronological order. Refresh the page to see comments threaded again.