Gorrilla

[QUOTE] [b]Bohardy wrote:[/b]

Where are you people getting this stuff from? This seems to be a mess.

There's mass contradiction and confusion over who asked for the removal of the gorilla. Sources variously say Jim Beach, Queen's management, Freddie's estate, and the Mercury Phoenix Trust.

Now, I may be misguided, but I don't see that the MPT would have any involvement or authority in this matter at all. I think Jim, on behalf of QPL, asked for the removal, and the Go Go Gorilla people later got confused and said the request came from the MPT, and some news outlets further this error by repeating that the MPT were behind it.

Then comes the matter of where exactly the copyright infringement has occurred. Thomas Quinn is admant that the crest is the issue, and I would imagine that that's the only thing here that is actually trademarked. However, the artist (I think, maybe it was one of the other people involved) have been quoted as saying the problem was specifically with the outfit, and I can't find any sources that mention that the crest is the issue (as Thomas seems to impy there are). Another bit of confusion.

Then we turn to Brian's involvement. People upthread seems to be suggesting he's completely for this heavy-handedness, or completely against. I can find no evidence of either position. As far as I can tell, Bri has made one comment on Twitter, which is that he "will find out" about it. He'd not heard of it, and didn't comment either way.

What hasn't helped is that at least one news outlet has attributed to Brian the comments from the person on Twitter who brought it to his attention. It seems, based on the some of the comments here, that this misattribution has spread a bit, leading people to believe that Brian has described the issue as petty, when he said no such thing (that I can see). Another fine mess.

-
from [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23226366]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23226366[/url]

'Organisers of Go Go Gorillas, a public art trail in Norwich, were contacted by Queen's manager Jim Beach on behalf of the Freddie Mercury estate'.

'A spokesman for the Freddie Mercury estate said it would "not be making any comment"'.

'"They just said that they own the copyright on the suit and asked us to change it," Mr Langhorne said.'
-
from [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23228635]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23228635[/url]

'Organisers of Go Go Gorillas, a public art trail in Norwich, were contacted by Mercury Phoenix Trust, an Aids charity set up in memory of the Queen singer who died in 1991.The charity claimed the suit the gorilla painted on to the sculpture breaches copyright.

-
from [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-mercury-gorilla-dressed-queen-2041171]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-mercury-gorilla-dressed-queen-2041171[/url]

'But after the £800 installation went on display the creators were told to change it by Aids charity The Mercury Phoenix Trust,The trust was founded in 1992 after Mercury’s death from the illness and has become an authority on all the images and rights associated with the legendary singer'

-

Original Twitter post that brought the issue to Brian's attention and his repsonse (curiously, I can't see this on Brian's feed any more...) - [url=https://twitter.com/DrBrianMay/status/354219285511536640]https://twitter.com/DrBrianMay/status/354219285511536640[/url]

-

Page that up until today was putting the above Twitter user's words into Brian's mouth - [url=http://www.planetrock.com/news/rock-news/brian-may-angered-by-freddie-mercury-gorilla-row/]http://www.planetrock.com/news/rock-news/brian-may-angered-by-freddie-mercury-gorilla-row/[/url]

Today that page has changed, and no longer has the error. Confirmation that the error had been made is here - [url=https://twitter.com/snudge27/status/354698818572394497]https://twitter.com/snudge27/status/354698818572394497[/url][/QUOTE]

I can see the confusion, which is mostly because of the media doing a half-arsed job, but I'll try to explain below. Before I do, however, I'd just like to point out that I also think this was a very petty decision, and that my understanding of the reasoning behind it doesn't in any way imply approval thereof.

Well, let's start with the only *official* statement available: http://i.imgur.com/ZxASmQ5m.jpg

"The Mercury Phoenix Trust have asked us to remove the sculpture". So not Jim Beach, although he might have handled the actual contacting. The Mercury Phoenix Trust. Bear this in mind.

The BBC reports: "The estate claimed the suit "worn" by the gorilla breached copyright" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23226366

Now, since Freddie Mercury didn't actually design the outfit, it'd be very unlikely for him to hold the copyright on it. And apparently, he doesn't, because the internet is swarming with all kinds of replicas, of varying qualities, many of which are sold through fairly large stores, including Amazon.co.uk. None of these stores have had to take these jackets off the site because of copyright violations, and they have been around for years, so we can safely assume that the jacket itself is not the (whole) reason; it certainly would not hold up in court if that were the reasoning behind the complaint.

However, when we look at the jacket on the gorilla, we see this: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/08/article-2358321-1AB6E838000005DC-311_634x637.jpg

And this brings us to the crux of this whole sad affair: what copyrights does the Mercury Phoenix Trust actually hold? As Lesley-Ann Jones phrases it: "The Mercury Phoenix Trust, established in 1992 to handle revenue from the concert and other sources, took as its emblem the phoenix from Queen's crest."

Yup. As far as I'm aware, they were given the Queen-crest, or at the very least the phoenix, by Freddie's estate. What is the one part of the Queen-crest that the gorilla-artist used unaltered from the original? Right. The phoenix. Compare the above picture with this one: http://static.queenonline.com.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/135895020180562/original_resize_720_360.jpg

Bingo, we have a match. The artist used the exact same phoenix in the exact same pose as the one officially used in the Mercury Phoenix Trust logo. This is the one, single aspect of the sculpture that can legitimately be construed as copyright infringement in a court of law. And where did the artist put the logo? On the back of the jacket. So, the media got some of it right - the jacket is indeed the controversial part, but it's not about the jacket itself, but about the logo on the jacket, which is the **only part** that Freddie Mercury's estate could possibly claim copyright over, and it is certainly the only aspect of the gorilla that would have anything at all to do with the Mercury Phoenix Trust.

Therefore, because it's the Mercury Phoenix Trust that lodged the complaint, and not any other part of the Queen/Mercury estate, it cannot be about anything other than the phoenix/crest.

All well and good Thomas except that Brian has confirmed that the MPT had nothing to do with this (as I suspected), and at no point does he mention the crest or phoenix as being the problem. Rather, it was the overall (mis?)representation of Freddie that was the issue.

I sincerely doubt that, as there are no legal grounds to sustain a complaint like that, whereas the crest could be considered a copyright violation. Also, the artist himself mentions the Mercury Phoenix Trust in a written statement, so I'm not willing to dismiss that simply on the word of Brian May, who wasn't even aware of any action taken until very recently.

Catching a bit of the Freddie documentary on tv last night, and the bit where Jim Beach says Freddie said to him that he could do Nything with his music, legacy and IMAGE, as long as it wasn't boring.

Well like bit it not, that gorilla wasn't boring, but thru sto jumped on it like a ton of hot bricks once it came attention that it wasn't an officially sanctioned product.

As I said earlier in this thread, Brian's argument that the FM Estate look after his legacy to prevent any damage to his reputation is fair to a point, although laughable when it comes to some aspects (such as the constant re-releases and appalling dance remixes).

The gorilla was a bloody awful caracature of Freddie and deserved to be removed.

The cause is good, but the means and method was .... Well, did you see that thing?

Anyhow, here's how to seize this thing and improve it:

Add 3 more gorillas to it (for the whole band) then add a video monitor featuring Queen's "I'm Going Slightly Mad." Since the song features a gorilla that ties in nicely and everyone's image is upheld and Queen might even enjoy a surge in downloads of that song. A portion of which could go to the charity (just for extra measure).

Nice - but it will never happen. As an aside, people often want to be Freddie for a day and I suppose that extends to gorillas as well.

Er swear I read Mr May applauding an Angry Birds 'Freddie'
Pot kettle black!

Really...who gives a fuck....its a plastic gorilla lol......although i guess someone will now write a 20 line response trying to explain if it is actually plastic!!