For those who have't been keeping up to date, to understand the story below from NyPo, you need to know that Mick Jagger's girlfriend, L’Wren Scott, committed suicide this past week. This has caused one, Ruby Mazur, to smear Jagger for what appears to be Jagger's legitimate acquisition of rights to a logo created by Mazur.
Here's NyPo:
Artist Ruby Mazur, who created the Rolling Stones’ famous tongue logo, claims frontman Mick Jagger is a “very bad guy,” who left him so depressed that he considered suicide.
Mazur, who has a decades-long feud with Jagger, reacted to the suicide of L’Wren Scott with a scathing post on his Facebook page, which he has since deleted. He described Jagger to Page Six as a “very egotistical, self centered, ‘Mick Mick Mick’ kind of person.”
“I feel for [L’wren],” Mazur says, even though he’d never met her. “Had I not been as strong, with great friends, I might have hung myself too.”
Mazur met Jagger in the 1970s in London, and created the original “mouth and tongue” artwork for the “Tumbling Dice” album. Jagger paid him $10,000 for the art at the time to use for the cover. Since then, the image has been used on Stones merchandise and become one of the most recognizable logos in pop culture.
Mazur says he asked Jagger repeatedly to give him trademark rights in order to reap fair earnings for his work, but says Jagger brushed him off. The artist then grew depressed.
“In the late ’80s, I was living in New York, going to the clubs and being introduced as the creator of the ‘mouth and tongue’ for the Stones, and then go home to my dumpy apartment. I was balls-off-my-ass broke, having created the most famous logo in the world,” said Mazur.
“I tried to fill my apartment with gas. If it wasn’t [for] my brother calling me, I would have been where L’Wren was. When I hear [Mick] say ‘I’m her soul mate, [I say], ‘You’re full of s**t.’ If you were her soul mate, and she was $6 million in debt, what is that to Mick Jagger? Nothing!”
Mazur, who’ll exhibit his work at Mr. Musichead Gallery in LA in August, tried to sue Jagger for trademark infringement in the ’90s, but too much time had elapsed. It was estimated he could have reaped more than $100 million from his art.
Jagger’s rep told us, “This person made a business deal decades ago. How sad and contemptible that they would use this time of personal loss to gain attention.”
If Jagger obtained full rights to the logo, as Jagger's rep implies, he doesn't need to share the logo or revenues generated by the logo with anyone. He OWNS the intellectual property. Beginning and end of story.
Not to mention that $10,000 in 1974 would be the equivalent of more than $60,000 today. Not exactly a ripoff by any standard.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, why didn't he just capitalize on being the creator of this logo into a career of making logos for ever greater sums of money? There's an endless need for simple recognizable logos in the market.
ReplyDeleteAre you paying him anything to display it on your blog?
ReplyDeleteAwesome comment Bob Finley. I would really like to hear Wenzel explain this one.
DeleteOh yeah, I'm sure any minute Jagger is going to file a lawsuit against Wenzel for 10 cents. Are you anti-IP people total idiots? Have you ever heard of cost benefit? Does it really make sense for Wenzel to seek a contract with Jagger for this post? Does Jagger really want to waste the time? If you take a dump in a hotel that you are not staying at, do you ask permission before using the toilet paper?
DeleteAnonymous 10:40 pm...are you implying that stealing is ok as long as the amount is small?
DeleteNo you are, which means the next time you take a dump and use toilet paper in a hotel where you aren't staying, you should then head right to the police headquarters and turn yourself in.
Delete"Anonymous March 22, 2014 at 10:40 PM"
DeleteThat's a nice rationalization for the FACT that regardless of whether Jagger would mind or not, or whether it is about a big sum or not, Wenzel DID IN FACT use a logo to which he has no rights, without asking for permission. This is the case for ALL information that someone uses that he gained from third parties without asking for the right to do so. After all, ideas are property, are they not?
As far as what anti-IP people would do, since they are ANTI-IP, why should they turn themselves in?
You can't hold anti-IP people to pro-IP standards, doofus.
It is interesting that anti-ipers never address any rebuttals. They just go screaming on. Is it theft anti-ipers to use toilet paper at a hotel bathroom where you are not staying? Or would this just another example of your stretching beyond reality and the nature of things if you contend so
DeleteAnonymous 8:51 am - You expose your own ignorance by repeating the question. You are asking about physical property. Which everyone is in agreement about. What we are discussing here is whether or not you can open up a hotel next door with the same name. Try to keep up with the adults.
DeleteWhat he "owns" is an exclusive right to engage men with guns (Government in this case) to stop anyone else from using that image. Which somehow, to you, sounds like a libertarian idea.
ReplyDeleteWithout IP, both Jagger and this loser would be able to use the image, no on being the worse for wear. Everyone would still know it "belongs" to the stones. They would not lose anything except the inflated profits on the image which originate only from the government granted privileged of men with guns. Very libertarian Wenzel, /sarcasm.
"What he "owns" is an exclusive right to engage men with guns (Government in this case) to stop anyone else from using that image. Which somehow, to you, sounds like a libertarian idea."
DeleteSomehow I imagine for the same reason you likely prefer to engage men with guns to protect your possessions, land and person... ;)
you're missing the point, Bob is not saying the current set up is libertarian. Go back to what he was saying about his Drudge formula for example was if he didn't give permission for you to have it, you have stolen it be cause you didn't contract with him. other people may be different. all that will change is the one size fits all decreed by DC helped along by who has the biggest lobby. in the future libertarian Paradise there will be strict enforcement by some and nonexistant by others and both are fine. And you can still have guys with guns even with private courts..
DeleteMick Jagger: Pro Contract Law. That's what the title should be. This is basic basic stuff. This is about a contract not IP. Get a grip wenzel
ReplyDeleteOh give me a break, do you think for even a minute if someone started to paste the logo on T-shirts and other merchandise that Jagger wouldn't have his lawyers stop it?
DeleteHey bozo, this post is about jagger and the creator of the logo. It's a contract matter between those two. Jeez. Common sense people
DeleteAgreed. Wenzel cannot differentiate contract law from "IP."
DeleteThis is nothing more than a contract/license to buy artwork and use it as the owner sees fit. This has nothing to do with any third party. This is about contract law and business deals, not IP. Get a clue Wenzel.
If Jagger owns the logo, what is it doing on your blog?
ReplyDeleteIntellectual property is not property, you can't own it. Ownership implies scarcity.
You are assigning property rights to knowledge, which is not a scarce resource.
Artsy-Fartsy twits are children who refuse to grow up and be adults.
ReplyDeleteOr do you need more examples?
The way I see it, Mazur is a loser that wants a "do over" on a business deal he made decades ago. Most everyone probably recognizes that except him of course and those that hate successful people and look for any way to stick it to them.
DeleteUnfortunately, there's never a shortage of lawyers willing to try to haul anything into court.
People do not own ideas, for they are infinitely discoverable. Trade secrets, yes, but bullshit to any law or contract against people discovering, on their own merits, said secrets!
ReplyDeleteDo the anti-IP people believe it would be okay for anyone to record an album and release it under the name Rolling Stones? Or open a discount department store and call it Walmart? (i.e. Is Trademark a subset of IP?) That is not how I would want society to be organized.
ReplyDeleteYes, we really do believe that. We also believe that anybody who can't figure out who the real Stones are is an idiot.
Delete"Do the anti-IP people believe it would be okay for anyone to record an album and release it under the name Rolling Stones?"
ReplyDeleteLegally? Yes. It would be a dick move but it would be okay.
Rolling Stones are mere words. Nobody should have ownership of words. Because you'd de facto own people's thoughts and mouths. This is a violation of self-ownership. If you don't want other people to use your ideas, thoughts or words, don't make them public where copies of them are shared.
"Or open a discount department store and call it Walmart?"
Legally? Yes.
See previous answer.
"That is not how I would want society to be organized."
What you WANT isn't the relevant issue. I want to be rich. What matters is if what you want is logical, would not lead to an anti-liberty society in its more logical extremes, and if the anti-IP position is a violation of the non-aggression axiom. Only when private (scarce) property is stolen can aggression be committed. Not BEFORE something is private property (such as future earnings), nor when something is publicly shared and copies are made which do not expropriate the actual private property.
This may seem inconvenient to people who wish to make money through IP, or because it may stifle innovation. But these are utilitarian arguments; not principled ones.
Mick Jagger: Pro-making as much money as possible by any means necessary
ReplyDelete