TVSquad

They may have a better shot at winning the case if two people that worked for Tim Kring hadn't attended their exhibit in NYC and made a carbon copy of it to call their own. It's not a surprise now why Kring wants to finish up this story line and start with new ideas for season 2. He is getting busted for using other peoples work. I'll bet they reach a settlement really quickly so they can sweep it all under the carpet and hope not many people realize they aren't original and are simply capitalizing on someone else's idea, at least in this case they are. That's really a crappy thing to do to a fellow artist.

Reply

Surprised Stan Lee Mediacorp didnt beat them to it

Reply

"Bad poets borrow, good poets steal." - T.S. Eliot

Reply

Well, it has nothing to do with whether or not a show is a hit and people want a piece of the pie...It's how the show concept came to be. My understanding is that "ideas" cannot receive a copyright and in this town (Hollywood), ideas are a dime a dozen. The funny thing is that consciously as humans we all have the same common ideas at one time or another.

However, where the legal ground becomes an issue, is when the ideas are formulated into a specific concept. An artist that paints the future destruction of New York is fairly specific concept. Mallory and Eele will have the burden to prove that the writers had attended the event, prior to the final draft of the script for the episode. As well, the writers should have covered the bases by asking for PERMISSION to use the concept, BEFORE the character or episode was finalized - that would have avoided this litigation.

People in this town are compensated and rewarded for their creative execution of a concept, based on an idea. If it is proven that the writers were in attendance and the concept/story was written after the fact, they could be found negligent. Just as plagarism, you can't borrow someone elses concept and pass it off as your own - without first asking for permission. My guess is that the writers/NBC will settle out of court with the real artists - and rightfully that should be the case.

Reply

Well the article does say the two writers attended the exhibit in April 2005, which is well before Heroes ever had a script or story concept, so the artists may just get their rewards.

Reply

the guys just mad because his paintings suck

Reply

Since all superheroes are all basically archetypes, were going to have copyright disputes about them as long as superheroes exist. The man who paints the future is not a new idea at all, most probably its about a thousand years old. And I distinctly remember seeing the character in an X-men comic in 1997.

Reply

Yet another story about some television folk getting sued over something that'll probably turn out to be a whole lot of nothing. I said the other day you could start a website centering around this one subject. This, too, doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the goings-on of the television shows we love to watch and talk about, nor is it very interesting behind-the-scenes information, either.

Is this a television blog or a lawsuit blog about celebrities?

Reply

I tend to believe the artists' claims. Most enterprises such as NBC have no problem stealing someone else's idea, running with a great idea that they didn't pay for, develop it as their own, and use their lawyers to run the original creators around in circles until they can't afford to defend themselves anymore - and NBC still makes out in the deal because it's a hit show. It's horrible as far as I'm concerned and it's not the first time I've seen this happen. Copyright or not, NBC is dead wrong if they stole the idea for Heros from those artists, and I really hope the artists win. Just like everyone wanted to make Martha Stewart an example for what she did - I hope NBC is made an example of their slimey behavior.

Reply

A character with powers identical to Isaac appeared in X-Men comics long before 2004-2005. This character also painted the destruction of a major metropolitan area.

Reply

I'm sorry but if these 2 artists are going to sue over something as ridiculous as this, why shouldn't Stan Lee sue as well. Oh, because he is not a total idiot. Stan Lee has a much better reason to sue anyways. He wouldn't though because he knows that he does not own the rights to the idea of people developing super powers. But these two artists think they own the idea of some random guy painting the future. Oh and why did they wait so long to sue? I think they realized one day, hey lets try and make some money off this like a bunch of assholes. That's my bit.

Reply

THE ARTIST EELE AND HIS TWIN LEFT TEXAS WITH A PAINTING TITLED THE ATTA PAGE, THEY ARRIVED IN NYC BEFORE 9-11-01 AND EHIBITED THIS PAINTING AT SEVERAL ART GALLERIES, MUSEUMS ETC... BEFORE 9-11-01. SOUNDS JUST LIKE HIRO AND ISAAC MENDEZ RIGHT ?

YOU SEE THE ATTA PAGE IS BASED ON MOHAMED ATTA, THE PILOT THAT CRASHED HIS PLANE INTO THE TWIN TOWERS ON 9-11-01. EELE'S PAINTING DEPICTED THAT THE WORD MANHATTAN HAS 9 LETTERS AND THE NAME MOHAMED ATTA HAS 11 LETTERS. LOOK AT THE WORD manhATTAn AND YOU WILL SEE THE NAME ATTA. EELE TOLD US AT HUNTER COLLEGE THAT'S WHY ATTA WAS SENT, ATTA'S NAME IS IN THE CITY'S NAME manhATTAn. I'M SURE THAT NO ONE ON THIS BLOG KNEW THIS FACT AND NEITHER DID TIM KRING UNTIL HE STOLE EELE'S ART WORK!

THE PAINTING ALSO DEPICTED TWO AIRPLANES HITTING THE TWIN TOWERS. THE PAINTING ALSO DEPICTED THE MESSAGE " A MAN NAME ATTA ATTACK TWIN TOWERS SEPT 11 AT 9:00 AM." EELE ALSO TOLD US THAT ATTA'S NAME IS ALSO IN THE WORD ATTAck, WHICH IS WHAT ATTA DID TO NYC ON 9-11-01. EELE SAID HIS ART WORK IS CALLED DIVINATION ART.

THERE IS MUCH MORE TO THIS PAINTING AND THE TWINS STORY AS EELE AND HIS TWIN ARE KNOWN.

I HAD THE GOOD LUCK TO ATTEND EELE'S EXHIBITION AT HUNTER COLLEGE APRIL 22, 2005 WHERE THE ATTA PAGE WAS EXHIBITED. I ALSO HAD THE GOOD LUCK TO FIRST READ ABOUT EELE IN THE NYDAILYNEWS AUGUST5,2004 WRITTEN BY VANITY FAIR MAGAZINE WRITER LLOYD GROVE.
( GOOGLE ENJAI EELE OR AMNAU EELE TO READ THE ENTIRE STORY ). YOU DECIDE WHERE TIM KRING GOT "HIS ARTIST THAT CAN PAINT THE FUTURE" FROM AND REMEMBER TIM KRING CLAIMS IN SEVERAL INTERVIEWS THAT HE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA IN OCT- NOV 2005. EELE'S STORY WAS IN A MAJOR NYC NEWSPAPER IN 2004.

THERE ARE MANY IN THE NYC ART WORLD, FILM & TV INDUSTRY THAT KNOW EELE AND HIS ART WORK. HE IS A NYC UNDERGROUND ARTIST THAT HAS BEEN PAINTING THE FUTURE FOR YEARS IN NYC.

EELE'S ATTA PAGE AND 9-11-01 STORY IS ALSO PART OF THE NY HISTORICAL SOCIETY"S ARCHIVES UNDER CITY LORE CURATED BY SALLY HERSHIP IN 2002.

I AM THANKFUL THAT EELE AND HIS TWIN HAVE COME FORWARD TO LET THE WORLD KNOW THAT TIM KRING IS LITERARY THIEF AND NOT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE BULL SHIT THAT HE WRITES ABOUT ON CROSSING JORDAN.

THERE'S MUCH MORE TO THIS STORY AND THIS LAWSUIT IS GOING TO BLOW EVERYONE'S MIND WORLDWIDE!!!!

Reply

I am sure most people would give the producers of these large, sucessful studios the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the development of ideas that turn into pilots and television programs.

The sad truth is many artists and writers get their material ripped off and used and receive no compensation at all. I have a family member who only succeeded in settling a dispute with a major motion picture because her publisher was willing to persue the litigation as well. If she had been on her own, the lawyers would have bankrupted her before the case got to court.

Unfortunately, many of these large mover and shaker kind of producers see the artists as disposable.

Reply

They should all be thrown in jail. Every last one of them.

Reply

This whole show is just one giant, dreadful scandal. The nice little Japanese character is just a total rip-off of Frodo (right down to the big hairy feet), and the guy who plays his dad looks like he's straight out of Star Trek! Don't say you haven't noticed. As for the invisible man... well!

The Dresden Files is a much more original show, except for its regrettable Casper the Ghost rip-off.

Reply

Well, Isabelle, this is even worse than I thought!

What's next, an appearance by Mr. Spock? The writers really have no shame at all. What scoundrels.

Reply

Perhaps someone might have at some point noticed that the whole show is based on X-Men. I mean, it's a spot on match. People developing strange new powers as a result of an aberration in their genetic codes? People living in fear of others around them using these powers for destruction and gain? Covert government organizations designed to track down and monitor these "mutations?" Sounds awfully familiar. Don't be surprised when the cheerleader gets a metal skeleton and the Cop starts a school for 'Gifted Youngsters.'

The main thing here is: OF COURSE THE SHOW IS A RIP-OFF. It's obviously X-Men. The thing is, you can't copyright an idea and if you could, I think Homer has the copyright on people with super-powers and if you don't know who that is, he came a few years before Stan Lee. It doesn't matter that it's a rip-off. Everything is a rip-off of something that came before. The trick is to make it new in some small way--to take the same idea and work with it a little more, and that is what they are doing with this show and so far, I think they are doing a decent enough job. It's a sight better than that paltry thing known as X-Men 3 and my sincerest hope is that the show continues to air and develops into something really well-done and doesn't fall all apart on itself as most comics tend to do at some point (an inevitability given that comics ten to run on forever and ever).

Reply