Can creators sue over common art?

[NoHitHair]

Everyone remembers Zhu. At least if you were here a couple years back to see his Xiao Xiao creations. Personally, I liked them a lot. I thought he was really good.

However, according to the link above, he's currently suing Nike for using his stick figure animation style (it was one of the top stories on Yahoo!, go figure). So, I gotta ask - does he have any grounds? Do you think he should be able to sue for something as commonly used and innocuous as stick figure characters?

The only assumption I can think of on Zhu's behalf is if it was a blatant rip-off; like Nike using Xiao Xiao as a slogan and delivering No.3 via television mediums.

[TheShrike]

I haven't seen any of the Nike ads, but I'd say he should lose due to the fact that stickmen are hardly an original idea. Zhu would have better luck suing everyone who has ever drawn a stickman (who knows? someone might settle.).

A funny quote, though:

"He said the logo for the "Creativity in Sports" campaign was designed by an American advertising company in 2002 at a cost of 25 million yuan ($3 million)."

3 million dollars for a stickman? BWAHAHAhahahahahaaaa

I get that for free on a daily basis. And I hate it.

[witeshark]

Might get a coffee at Mcdonalds, spill it and then...

[Xion-Fox]

This is absolute bullshit. As an artist this has gotta be one of my greatest fears, my art is exactly the same as anothers.

According to copyright law if he put the copy right down first then yes. However the chance of him getting the copyright law on something that is part of the artistic and human mental state is about as likely as the royal family trying to copyright the colour purple.

On moral stand point. I think he should shut the fuck up and just say pfff. Its a god damned stick figure, if you wanna fight over stick figures i'll just gather up a whole bunch of people who thas all they can draw and we can have a big sue off and see who comes out on top.

[Gunter45]

You can copyright a style of drawing, it just has to be different enough to be recognized as a style. I've studied up on copyright law (to cover my own butt if I ever need to) and you can't copyright a stick figure, of course, but that's not what Zhu is suing about. Of course, people who think that, oh, someone having spilled coffee on themselves was what the lawsuit was about for example, would immediately err on the side of believing any lawsuit is litigious. However if the style used by the Nike commercials is similar enough to Xiao Xiao, then Zhu might have grounds to sue. Is it likely that Zhu will have any such standing? Probably not, I don't think anything that Nike would be likely to use in an advertisement would bear a close enough resemblance. And suing isn't about the money a lot of times in artistic copyright disputes, it's about defending a person's artistic expression. The money involved can sometimes be exorbanant, but it is mostly a punishment to the defendant and compensation for the plaintiff. I mean heck, if somebody ran an advertisement with something of mine on it, I would want just compensation for having thought of the idea. That's not "selling out."

[bumcheekcity]

Now, the message I'm getting is that he's copyrighting a stick figure. If that's true, he really needs to get out more. Stick men copyright... what a Dickhead...

[Gunter45]

Yeah, I just said that anyone who thinks he is trying to sue over people using stick figures probably has no understanding of what the whole situation is about, copyright law in general even.

[Gunter45]

Boy, what is this, idiot hour? I'll say it for the third and last time. Zhu isn't trying to sue Nike for a tick figure, he's trying to sue the style they used. NOBODY would be stupid enough to pay court expenses trying to prove that they own the stick figure, and I mean nobody.

[TimScheff]

I think that a stick animation can be very copyright-able. You just have to have something that truely sets it apart. For instance if a video had the "boss" connotation that Zhu's movies feature, that would probably be protected. Similarly if your stick figure/style was stylistically unique then it too could be protected (ie the AOL running man). If this really is the ad campaign that is in question, I don't think Zhu has a leg to stand on. The Nike stickman has shoulders, and a floating head both stylistically different features. If there was a Xaio Xaio cartoon where the charachter removes his own leg to use as a bat, maybe he has something, I'm sure there are other commericials.

Then he'd have to prove the ad designer saw his films.

I think this is just a matter of the Chineese copyright/IP system. They'll use it to screw those with IP from other countries. Then again, if Chineese courts do nail Nike for it I wouldn't weep over it. Nike's been profiting off the backs of chineese sweatshop labor for years.

[Gunter45]

Okay, finally someone who posts something intelligent. I haven't seen the ad until now, but I knew that it couldn't have just been a stick figure. I expected it would have been basketball or football or something, but anyway, I can see how Zhu could see some similarities, but you nailed it right on the head, the similarities are not close enough to justify a lawsuit.

[bumcheekcity]

Honestly, a stick figure can't be copyrighted. To be honest, I believe Zhu stole it off a drawing i did in Year 1... And bollocks is there a style. EVERYONE animates stick characters.