Locutus of Bored wrote:
Yes, it's completely ridiculous, because you can't copyright a gazelle that just looks like a normal gazelle. But if there was something unique about the way you depicted the gazelle, and if that design style was repeated throughout your works, and if another artist borrowed that specific design style repeatedly, and if that artist publicly acknowledged that he borrowed your designs, then yes, you might very well be qualified to receive a credit and compensation.
You really don't understand it.
No, you really don't understand. If you use someone's wildlife photograph, painting, or CGI model of an animal directly in a film, then you have to credit and compensate them for it.
But if the artist simply painted a gazelle, with no unique characteristics to it whatsoever to distinguish it from any other real life gazelle, and you also used a gazelle in your film with nothing distinctive about it, what basis would the artist have to sue you for infringement? How do you prove that that's based on your gazelle and not just any other gazelle taken from real life?
Ironically, that's why Dean can even try to make his case. He didn't invent the concept of floating mountains or alien birds or alien trees. His case is based on that they copied his WORK, which is his paintings and drawings OF those things.
If the court thinks the images in the film look too similar to his own images, then so be it. Then they didn't get INSPIRED by it, they COPIED it.
So your entire basis for arguing in this thread has been a stupid semantic difference between "inspired" and "copied"? This is why I get so fed up dealing with you.
Look at the comparison picture I made above. It's not just a few similarities that any two artists could have arrived at randomly. There are:
- Floating mountains and islands
- Floating mountains with waterfalls
- Twisted moss covered natural bridges
- Giant city sized and normal sized lopsided trees with wide foliage
- Smaller blue dragons with bifurcated wings
- Larger orange dragons with bifurcated wings
- Groups of multiple massive rock arches looping over each other
- Weird horse-like creatures
- Groups of large stepped waterfalls
- Misty jungles
- Large pointy stalagmite-like mountains (non-floating)
You could find some of those individual features on Earth. But taken in totality with the exotic alien-like landscapes and creatures, it becomes pretty hard to say that all of those similarities are simply coincidental.
So, call it what you will, inspired, copied, whatever. The bottom line is, it looks pretty clear to me from the circumstantial evidence of the numerous similarities that they borrowed heavily from Roger Dean's work without even acknowledging his contribution to the production design of the film. It would be like Alien
using extremely similar designs to HR Giger's biomechanical art without crediting him, when it's such an extensive and influential part of creating the world of those films.
Then, moving beyond the circumstantial evidence, you have more direct evidence in the form of Cameron saying that they got the designs from some of Roger Dean's Yes
album cover art. And you have the production designers saying they borrowed from Dean as well.