“To permit one artist the right to use without consequence the original creative and copyrighted work of another artist simply because that artist wished to create an alternative work would eviscerate any protection by the Copyright Act,” concludes Judge Pregerson. “Without such protection, artists would lack the ability to control the reproduction and public display of their work and, by extension, to justly benefit from their original creative work.”

via Hollywood Reporter.

Recommended Posts


  1. It’s worth emphasizing that the judge here granted a summary judgement, which essentially means there was no disputing that Mr. Brainwash violated Mr. Friedman’s copyright (i.e., a slam dunk). I wish the journalist would have pointed out the significance of this. It’s strong stuff.

  2. The case really was a common sense violation of rights. I don’t think it is necessary to furtherer rub it in more. The guy did wrong, a couple million or eventually trillion people will read that he lost and is enough humiliation.

    Look at it this was, I catch you & your dog pooping in my yard and you don pick it up. I confront you and you admit to the facts. I then take the poop and smear it on you face to enhance the judgment made through admission.

    I don’t think it is some people would tolerate an action as harsh as that, so why do it in a sublime way with additional words. The guy was found guilty and will have to make amends.

    • …all fine and dandy until it’s YOUR toes that someone has been dancing on the entire song.

  3. Grounds for receiving a life sentence or the death penalty in some countries.

  4. Let’s keep in mind that hardly anyone takes “Mr. Brainwash” seriously.

    • Serious enough to pay big money for his ripped-off ideas executed by hired talent, unfortunately. The positive is that his success shines a big spotlight on what’s wrong with the business of art.

Comments are closed for this article!