RIP, Robin Williams

[tgb]

Do you think he was in a rational state of mind in this instance, though? Maybe, maybe not, but the evidence is there (depression, possibly on Parkinson's drugs that are known to cause suicidal tendencies) that he was not. If there's evidence that he was not, then I think Rollins criticism is short-sighted.

Exactly. Rollins is refusing to consider what part the Parkinson's drug may have played in his decision to kill himself.

[Rumpy]

Here's a great retrospective by Mara Wilson. She was the youngest daughter in Mrs Doubtfire, among other movies as a child star.

http://marawilsonwritesstuff.com/remembering-robin/

[KKBlue]

Jonathan Winters receiving an award given by Robin Williams.

Robin Williams full Interview on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show - 1991, Awakenings.

Robin Williams on Letterman 2011

[Skinypupy]

Do you think he was in a rational state of mind in this instance, though? Maybe, maybe not, but the evidence is there (depression, possibly on Parkinson's drugs that are known to cause suicidal tendencies) that he was not. If there's evidence that he was not, then I think Rollins criticism is short-sighted.

Exactly. Rollins is refusing to consider what part the Parkinson's drug may have played in his decision to kill himself.

Rollins wrote what seems to be a sincere apology yesterday.

"For the last 9+ hours, I have been answering letters from people from all over the world. The anger is off the scale and in my opinion, well placed.
The article I wrote in the LA Weekly about suicide caused a lot of hurt. This is perhaps one of the bigger understatements of all time. I read all the letters. Some of them were very long and the disappointment, resentment and ringing clarity was jarring.
That I hurt anyone by what I said, and I did hurt many, disgusts me. It was not at all my intent but it most certainly was the result.
I have had a life of depression. Some days are excruciating. Knowing what I know and having been through what I have, I should have known better but I obviously did not. I get so mad when I hear that someone has died this way. Not mad at them, mad at whatever got them there and that no one magically appeared to somehow save them.
I am not asking for a break from the caning, take me to the woodshed as much as you see fit. If what I said has caused you to be done with me, I get it.
I wrote something for the LA Weekly that they will post on Monday. I wanted to get this out at this moment.
I am deeply sorry. Down to my marrow. I can’t think that means anything to you, but I am. Completely sorry. It is not of my interest to hurt anyone but I know I did.
Thank you for reading this. Henry"

[GreenGoo]

Solid.

Renewed respect for the man, who has always been principled and intelligent.

[KKBlue]

Got stuck on Jimmy Fallon clips.
Came across this great one with Billy Crystal as Jimmy's guest. Of course they are talking about Robin Williams.

[KKBlue]

This was fun. Found while surfing around, ended up with Craig Ferguson and Robin Williams, October 18, 2013

[Zarathud]

Robin Williams Inside the Actor's Studio. James Lipton tries to watch Robin's insanity with a straight face. In Heaven, there is now plenty of laughter.

[Moliere]

A towering mural of Robin Williams has appeared in Logan Square

[Daehawk]

Wow thats well done. Looks like a giant photo was glued up. Nanoo nanoo.

[ImLawBoy]

I guess I should look out the window when I take the train instead of reading the whole time. I pass that every day.

[GreenGoo]

What are the odds that Disney demands it be taken down based on the Aladdin character having it's copyright infringed upon?

[Paingod]

I really want to believe that it's protected artistic speech.

I'm still surprised, after all this time, that I have a sore spot inside where he was. No other non-personal event has had a similar lasting effect.

[ImLawBoy]

I made sure to look out the window this morning. Yep. It's there.

[LordMortis]

I really want to believe that it's protected artistic speech.

I'm still surprised, after all this time, that I have a sore spot inside where he was. No other non-personal event has had a similar lasting effect.

Is the muralist making money? I know about nothing about IP but it would seem when it comes to media that fair use is there for people creating without monetizing.

[GreenGoo]

Fair use is more than not monetising, and infringement is also more than monetising.

It also presumes that Disney will leave it alone if it's not actually infringement, which is a pretty big assumption.

In any case I was half joking.

It's a nice little tribute to the man. He clearly meant a lot to the people involved.

By all accounts he was a good man.

[Isgrimnur]

It also presumes that Disney will leave it alone if it's not actually infringement, which is a pretty big assumption.

Requisite daycare threat

In 1989, Disney did the unthinkable: threaten legal action to not one, not two, but three day care centers. What would make a multi-billion-dollar company, which prides itself on being “The Happiest Place on Earth,” to threaten to file lawsuits? Ultimately, it all came down to one thing: Trademarks.

On the walls of these three Florida day care centers (Very Important Babies Daycare, Good Godmother Daycare, and Temple Messianique) were life-size paintings of Disney characters: Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Goofy. When Disney became aware of their existence, they threatened to go to court if the drawings were not removed. Unsurprisingly, there was a public outcry after Disney announced a threat of legal action.
...
Here are three legal reasons why Disney decided to threaten to sue three day care centers:

1. You need to proactively protect your Trademark.
...
2. It’s unfair to those who do pay to be a licensee.
...
3. Using a Trademark without a license may suggest affiliation.

[LawBeefaroni]

Saw that mural. It's kind of eerie because you don't know if Williams is smiling or not. You assume so but really, there is no way to know.

And you don't know if the genie is laughing at him, with him, out of him...

I kind of like it.

[GreenGoo]

I made sure to look out the window this morning. Yep. It's there.

It's nice when the internet and reality line up. It seems so rare these days.

[GreenGoo]

Saw that mural. It's kind of eerie because you don't know if Williams is smiling or not. You assume so but really, there is no way to know.

And you don't know if the genie is laughing at him, with him, out of him...

I kind of like it.

I'm not sure I noticed it before, but I think you're absolutely correct. I think it captures both his light and dark sides and leaves it up to the observer to decide for themselves which is more prevalent.

I think the genies represent his troubled pysche. i.e. out of him.

[Rumpy]

I'd kind of view it like a statue. Statues are done to commemorate important figures, but in this case a mural is more apt in showing his whimsical personality where a statue would likely not. Seeing as this was done to honor the man in his home town, the good thing for Disney to do would be to let it slide.

[Paingod]

the good thing for Disney to do would be to let it slide.

Lawyers aren't interested in the good thing. They're interested in protecting IP. The PR problem belongs to someone else.

That said, even if they wanted to, I don't think they have a case.

[GreenGoo]

street art and graffiti is itself copyrightable. This leads me to believe that it is probably not fair use in this case, although I can't find a straight answer. It might be considered transformative, but I don't see how in this case, although that's a murky one that's basically "I'll know it when I see it" from a legal definition. I must not be using the right search terms. Kurth is an ip lawyer I believe, he might have an opinion.

Since other forms of art that contain copyrighted or trademarked material are illegal (your not-for-profit kids' school's library mural of Dr. Seuss characters for example), there is no reason to believe that street art or graffiti is somehow legal.

In this case it's possible the artist already has Disney's permission.

A reminder that I was not serious with my initial comment, although from what I can tell, Disney could order it taken down if they chose to do so, assuming they haven't given their permission in the first place.

Separately, only 5 more years until mickey is public domain!

[AWS260]

Since other forms of art that contain copyrighted or trademarked material are illegal (your not-for-profit kids' school's library mural of Dr. Seuss characters for example), there is no reason to believe that street art or graffiti is somehow legal.

IANAL, but I don't think that's accurate. I am under the impression that copyrighted and trademarked material can be used in art without permission, it just can't be monetized.

[Isgrimnur]

Separately, only 5 more years until mickey is public domain!

I'll hold my breath.

[GreenGoo]

IANAL, but I don't think that's accurate. I am under the impression that copyrighted and trademarked material can be used in art without permission, it just can't be monetized.

You are mistaken.

[LawBeefaroni]

Since other forms of art that contain copyrighted or trademarked material are illegal (your not-for-profit kids' school's library mural of Dr. Seuss characters for example), there is no reason to believe that street art or graffiti is somehow legal.

IANAL, but I don't think that's accurate. I am under the impression that copyrighted and trademarked material can be used in art without permission, it just can't be monetized.

Also, a NFP doesn't necessarily mean it's not being "monetized".

[Rumpy]

the good thing for Disney to do would be to let it slide.

Lawyers aren't interested in the good thing. They're interested in protecting IP. The PR problem belongs to someone else.

That said, even if they wanted to, I don't think they have a case.

But the thing is, if they were to take action, the negative PR would likely not be worth it, especially in light of it being a tribute. Do you take that away from people? Of someone who was native to the region? It's not like this is some random artwork using that character. It was specifically chosen due to Robin's ties to it.

[GreenGoo]

But the thing is, if they were to take action, the negative PR would likely not be worth it, especially in light of it being a tribute. Do you take that away from people? Of someone who was native to the region? It's not like this is some random artwork using that character. It was specifically chosen due to Robin's ties to it.

You're new to this whole IP thing, I take it?

It's not that you're wrong about negative PR, it's that you're wrong that it would be significant, or that it would be detrimental enough to warrant letting the violation slide. Isgrim just showed that they are willing to make sure babies don't get unlicensed access to Disney characters, no matter the PR.

I fully admit that a for profit child care center and trademark enforcement is not the same as a street mural with a copyrighted character, but it still shows a willingness to eat bad PR in order to protect their trademark, which is required by law if they want to keep the trademark. My point is that they *do* want to keep it. giving it away for free is not an option, bad PR or no. They aren't *forced* to protect a copyrighted character like they are with a trademark, but they do it anyway.

Could this be an exception? Sure, anything is possible. Disney does not have a long record of making exceptions though. They do have a long record of actively, vigorously protecting their IP.

[ImLawBoy]

Regarding whether Disney could have this taken down (assuming they didn't approve of it already or something), I don't think PR enters into it for a company like Disney when it comes to IP. They're pretty ruthless about that kind of stuff, and their brand is more than strong enough to withstand a wave of bad publicity from forcing something down.

In this case, however, the mural, even if not approved, has a good chance of standing under the fair use doctrine. There are four major elements to fair use under US law:

1) Purpose and character of the use - If it's not for profit, it stands a better chance of being permitted. If it has relevant social commentary (including, perhaps, a commentary on mental illness and/or suicide), so much the better.

2) Nature of the copyrighted work - The copyrighted work here is the movie Aladdin. As a fictional work, with original visual artwork (which is the element to be considered here, and not anything about any potentially public domain story elements), it would have more solid protection against infringement.

3) Amount and substantiality of the use - This is a weird one. When looking at the movie as a whole, they clearly haven't taken much. When looking at just the image of the character the Genie, they've taken a lot.

4) Effect on the value of the copyrighted work - This one probably tips the scales into permitted fair use, I'd guess. It's not harming the value of Disney's IP (although they might try to argue something about it negatively associating its movie with depression, which could impact value), and it doesn't appear to be endorsing anything (which is where day cares get into trouble). It's on the side of a music venue overlooking an abandoned drug store (that I used to go for prescriptions - now I have to go further away ), with no other apparently association with the venue or any other products.

It's not a slam dunk, but it's quite possible that this would be permitted under fair use.

By the way, I took a picture from the train this morning! I couldn't have done this if I tried, but I managed to block his head entirely being the light post as we sped by.

[Rumpy]

But the thing is, if they were to take action, the negative PR would likely not be worth it, especially in light of it being a tribute. Do you take that away from people? Of someone who was native to the region? It's not like this is some random artwork using that character. It was specifically chosen due to Robin's ties to it.

You're new to this whole IP thing, I take it?

No, I get it. I just think that the positive of it being there could be a boon for them as well. It could be seen as an advertisement for Aladdin and a tribute all in one and outweigh any negatives of them not taking any action against it. If this were just random art featuring the genie, then I wouldn't even blink. If Disney has approved of it, then they would technically be in on the tribute, in turn honouring the man himself.

[GreenGoo]

I'll certainly concede that I am not a lawyer or especially well versed in IP law, so if ILB says this is what it is, this is what it is.

My understanding (which appears to be misundestanding) which I don't pretend is comprehensive, is that the majority of fair use falls into two categories.

1) Commentary. But only commentary on the copyrighted material. I didn't think you could use copyrighted material to comment on some other aspect of life/the world. Like, I don't think you can use the 7 dwarves in an article about the 7 deadly sins, for example. Likewise, I don't (didn't?) think you could comment on mental illness using copyrighted material, unless you were commenting on the copyrighted material itself in some way. In a movie review, it can contain copyrighted images from that movie under fair use. If I'm wrong I'm happy to be wrong, because that changes my view of fair use for the better.

2) Educational purposes. You could, perhaps, use a copyrighted image to analyze the art style of Aladdin and teach others to match that style. Or in an Art History class. Things of that nature.

I don't see the mural matching either of those 2 most common fair usages.

edit: Thanks ilb for taking the time to discuss this. I am sorry to derail the original subject. I do think it's a lovely bit of street art memorializing a person who I believe was a good man. It's so common these days to find out that people are only good in their public facing personas, and darkly not good behind the facade. Williams seems to have been a truly good person both publicly and privately. I value that. It's inspirational to me.

[GreenGoo]

No, I get it.

It was a rhetorical question added to introduce the rest of my comments, not an actual question or criticism of you personally. Just so we're clear.

[Blackhawk]

I wonder if Disney, seeing the public sentiment here, could simply address the issue by contacting the artist and offering a single limited-use license.

[Rumpy]

No, I get it.

It was a rhetorical question added to introduce the rest of my comments, not an actual question or criticism of you personally. Just so we're clear.

No worries

[GreenGoo]

No worries

Cool. I realize I can be abrupt or offensive when I don't mean to me.


Don't get me wrong though, sometimes I mean to be. This was not one of those times, however.

[Rumpy]

Yeah, you big meanie

Nah, it's all good.

[Isgrimnur]

Robin's Wish

[Daehawk]

Robin Williams's widow: 'There were so many misunderstandings about what had happened to him'

Williams knew this about himself. In Marina Zenovich’s 2018 HBO documentary about Williams, Come Inside My Mind, we hear an old interview in which he is asked if he has any fears. Williams replies: “I guess I fear my consciousness becoming, not just dull, but a rock. I couldn’t spark.” It wasn’t until after he died that doctors were able to see that Williams’s worst fears had come true: the autopsy suggested that he had suffered from severe Lewy body dementia (LBD), more commonly referred to in the UK as dementia with Lewy bodies.After he died, doctors were shocked by the extent to which the Lewy bodies had gathered in Williams’s brain, with one describing it as one of the worst cases he had ever seen. Schneider Williams is certain the LBD led to her husband’s suicide; professionals in dementia that I spoke with, while sympathetic to Schneider Williams, say it’s impossible to make a direct link between the two. “LBD can be a devastating diagnosis, but if people get the right support and treatment, then they may be able to have a good quality of life for a number of years,”