Gorrilla

splicksplack 08.07.2013 07:36	This is a bit piss-poor but expected from money-crazed QPL. link
Wiley 08.07.2013 09:00	Now I'm surprised they didn't give The Killers a hard time for their Wembley Song, claiming the word "Day-oh" is owned by QPL. Also, they used two photos as well! Oh my, how dare they?
rocknrolllover 08.07.2013 09:00	facepalm
GuitarMay 08.07.2013 09:51	Gorrila ? I don't understand
dysan 08.07.2013 09:55	Freddie Monkuree?
splicksplack 08.07.2013 10:01	GuitarMay wrote: Gorrila ? I don't understand check the link
GuitarMay 08.07.2013 10:07	splicksplack wrote: GuitarMay wrote: Gorrila ? I don't understand check the link Checked now, haaha
cmsdrums 08.07.2013 14:13	Strange that the article says that Jim Beach was acting on behalf of Freddie's estate, yet the note they out on the plinth says it was removed at the request of the Mercury Phoenix Trust. Which is it BBC?
dysan 08.07.2013 14:21	And now for my 1000th post: We Are The Chimpions. I thank you.
dysan 08.07.2013 14:23	Oh shit.. I broke my post count :o(
dysan 08.07.2013 14:23	Oh it's back :o)
ninjabaz 08.07.2013 14:38	Pathetic, the gorilla was cool tho :)
ninjabaz 08.07.2013 14:44	dysan wrote: And now for my 1000th post: We Are The Chimpions. I thank you. lol :)
catqueen 08.07.2013 18:05	i was just gonna post this but there's already a thread about it... just... why? Why a gorilla? And why the fuss?
pittrek 09.07.2013 00:25	Holy Shatner !
YourValentine 09.07.2013 02:32	How typical. I am stopping my donations to the MPT until the ugly gorilla returns. You can debate the artistic value of the thing but this is just as true for the "Freddie lion". What really puts me off is the attitude towards another charity. Looking at twitter it is a publicity disaster - even Brian May voiced his disapproval in public.
dudeofqueen 09.07.2013 03:18	Further goes to show how much of a hypocrite Brian May actually is - he knows full well that the charity is doing this to promote the continued protection of a species. I wonder what would have happened had someone painted a badger in FM's image? Laughable and particularly sad given that I'd come to think that Brian had a real passion for wildlife conservation. Clearly its only for things that are on his OWN agenda........
thomasquinn 32989 09.07.2013 06:40	This whole affair is about the use of the Queen-crest on the back of the gorilla. Please inform yourselves, even if that means looking beyond the article.
Russian Headlong 09.07.2013 16:54	pathetic and pedantic. adam lambert, pepsi, 5ive, robbie williams Queen today have sunk to new depths.
dudeofqueen 10.07.2013 07:14	thomasquinn, re: >This whole affair is about the use of the Queen-crest on the back of the gorilla. Please inform yourselves, even if that means looking beyond the article. Bullshit. If it matters that much to Brian that hedgehogs and badgers are reprieved, surely he doesn't object to a logo, created by a world-famous someone that is dead and bears a name that would help to drive publicity for the cause of a flagship species like gorillas? Its a simple jealousy that "Queen" and its logo haven't been lent to any of Brian's personal causes and the attendant publicity that would generate which has made him 'pull the plug'. Brian is a prat. Simple.
splicksplack 10.07.2013 10:52	But 'dudeofqueen', Brian has slagged off the decision as "petty". I think you'll find it's more of a Jim Beach decision, being a lawyer and all that. He's the money man and probably the whole reason why Queen product is now so boring and nothing gets released unless it's 'Magic' or at least 'tached Freddie. He probably wouldn't have given a shit if the gorilla was wearing a leotard or a kimono.
Bohardy 10.07.2013 12:58	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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23226366 '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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23228635 '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 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-mercury-gorilla-dressed-queen-2041171 '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...) - https://twitter.com/DrBrianMay/status/354219285511536640 - Page that up until today was putting the above Twitter user's words into Brian's mouth - http://www.planetrock.com/news/rock-news/brian-may-angered-by-freddie-mercury-gorilla-row/ Today that page has changed, and no longer has the error. Confirmation that the error had been made is here - https://twitter.com/snudge27/status/354698818572394497
splicksplack 11.07.2013 00:57	Wow, maybe you can write a thesis on this when it's all over.
dudeofqueen 11.07.2013 01:33	Fuck copyright - on the band's crets or 'Freddie's suit'. The issue at hand is raising awareness of the plight of gorillas; is that not more important? Brian ought to be putting his foot down straight away and publicly allowing it to happen (regardless of the position of Beachy-Boy and his legal pansies) to show that his stance on the natural world isn't limited just to causes that he has formally lent his name to. Brian May is a prat. Simple.
tcc 11.07.2013 10:38	Brian has explained this issue in his website.
Bohardy 11.07.2013 10:58	splicksplack wrote: Wow, maybe you can write a thesis on this when it's all over. Yeah, I couldn't sleep the night before so did a lot of reading on this to pass the time. I was annoyed that people were getting it so wrong and that there was a distinct lack of clarity on the issue. So I decided to do my bit to try and set the record straight. I probably did go overboard, and normally I wouldn't give a shit about something like this (in fact I don't actually give the slightest shit, to be honest!) but hey ho, I was bored. At least now that Bri's explained the situation I can see that I was essentially right. Now, that thesis isn't gonna write itself...
kosimodo 11.07.2013 11:06	Never make me boring..... Being potrait as gorilla in an artexibition is a great honour. Freddie lives, also as artist. Pretty sure He would aprove.
cmsdrums 11.07.2013 11:06	Brian says that: " the people who run Freddie's estate try to safeguard Freddie's reputation, just as if he were still around. They will pursue anyone who tells a lie about him, or does something which could impugn Freddie's integrity or image" Well that's bollox - I've heard parts of some of the fucking abysmal Freddie remixes they've sanctioned and released over the years, so they're the worst bloody offenders!! ??
kosimodo 11.07.2013 11:29	Wondering how much it wil cost:)
dudeofqueen 12.07.2013 01:25	re: >" the people who run Freddie's estate try to safeguard Freddie's reputation, just as if he were still around. They will pursue anyone who tells a lie about him, or does something which could impugn Freddie's integrity or image" Brian and Roger must be shitting themselves then with the way they've hawked Freddie's material around to the highest bidder and collaborated with complete retards. Brian May is a prat. Simple.
thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2013 06:05	Bohardy wrote: 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23226366 '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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-23228635 '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 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-mercury-gorilla-dressed-queen-2041171 '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...) - https://twitter.com/DrBrianMay/status/354219285511536640 - Page that up until today was putting the above Twitter user's words into Brian's mouth - http://www.planetrock.com/news/rock-news/brian-may-angered-by-freddie-mercury-gorilla-row/ Today that page has changed, and no longer has the error. Confirmation that the error had been made is here - https://twitter.com/snudge27/status/354698818572394497 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: link "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" link 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: link 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: link 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.
Bohardy 13.07.2013 15:13	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.
thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2013 16:12	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.
cmsdrums 20.07.2013 02:37	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).
brians wig 20.07.2013 06:02	The gorilla was a bloody awful caracature of Freddie and deserved to be removed.
queenUSA 20.07.2013 08:09	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.
badboybez 20.07.2013 19:05	Er swear I read Mr May applauding an Angry Birds 'Freddie' Pot kettle black!
Mark_Glasgow 25.07.2013 04:04	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!!

QueenZone discussion #1351109

Gorrilla