Tip Us Off
E-mail us with news tips, discoveries, story ideas, and anything else cool.
Advertisements

About Torontoist

Torontoist is a website about Toronto and everything that happens in it. More about us.

Editor-in-Chief: DAVID TOPPING

Publisher: GOTHAMIST

What's On
05/15 TYPE's Danforth Location Opens (503 Danforth Avenue)
04/07–05/17 The December Man (CanStage)
05/07–18 Sexual Practices of the Japanese (Factory Theatre)
05/21 Toro Gets Its Groove Back (Online)
03/21–05/22 So Me's Portraits (Studio Gallery)
05/01–31 CONTACT (Everywhere)
06/04 Pug Awards Announced (Gardiner Gallery)
03/05–06/14 Evil Dead: The Musical (The Diesel Playhouse)
06/20–21 Star Trek: The Music (Roy Thomson Hall)
04/17–07/13 Out From Under (ROM)
08/15 Radiohead Concert (Molson Amphitheatre)
11/19/2007–08/18/2008 Photos from 69 Featured on OneStop (TTC Stations)

WEEKLY LISTINGS
TV

LEGEND
Art
Film & TV
Porn & Sex
Everything
Misc.
Recent Comments
The Tall Poppy Interview
Favourites

April 16, 2008

Untrust Us

crystalcastles_madonna.jpg

When NOW featured Crystal Castles as their cover story two months ago, implicit in the whole article were three little words that get tossed around again and again when people talk about the band: next big thing.

The details of the buzz band's rise are astonishing and fascinating—the mic check discovered by a label in 2005; the 7" records released in the following two years selling out fast; the insane live shows filling up faster; the internet superstardom (for what it's worth, they have 112,000 friends on MySpace); the commissioned remixes for big names like Bloc Party and Klaxons; and, finally, the full-length self-titled album, which arrived after much anticipation a month ago. That self-titled album has been both heavily-promoted and well-received, and for good reason: the music on it is infectious, dark; electronic; and, on tracks like the spectacular "Crimewave," totally danceable, video game music to score the lives of nihilists. Just last week, the duo—Ethan Kath and Alice Glass—recorded a video for "Vanished" at downtown superclub CiRCA on a stopover during their hectic and massive worldwide tour. The Toronto band has risen to prominence as few others in recent memory have; as Kath told NOW, "everyone cares.” Kath might well be right—which is why now's probably not the best time for Crystal Castles to get publicly accused of two years of blatant and knowing intellectual theft.

crystalcastles_cover_1.jpgFans of the band ought to recognize the image of Madonna with a black eye instantly: for two years, the band's sold it in forms like the image at right on t-shirts at shows and through their MySpace page. It was the cover for a 7" single, Alice Practice; and Last Gang Records, one of the band's labels, released a limited edition "banned cover" version of the new album with the image on it. It has become iconic Crystal Castles, their own version of the Rolling Stones' tongue.

Problem is, the image was created by artist Trevor Brown. (The version pictured above appears in A Temple of Blasphemy, a collection of Brown's work that was published in 1999; please note, as well, that Brown's site and work may not be safe for viewing at work.) In 2006, the band found the image on an old flyer, without credit, and began using it; according to Crystal Castles' manager, Mikey Apples, "it was their hope that the artist might reveal themselves and make contact with the band." Brown revealed himself, and neither side agrees much on what has happened since.

Brown told Torontoist that he spoke in 2006 via e-mail with Alice Glass, who was "always polite" but who provided "endless promises that were never kept." According to Brown, he originally asked for $300 as payment for the 7" cover, which he says the band agreed to pay. (Brown also asked for $300 for the t-shirts but, at Glass's request, dropped the demand; more important to Brown, he says, was that the band stop making the shirts.) According to Brown, the band had his Paypal information but kept stringing him along for months and never paid; according to Apples, the band reached a happy agreement with Brown on a set amount, but Brown did not respond to repeated requests for his mailing address.

So the band kept selling the t-shirts, and kept not paying Brown. As Apples told Torontoist, "with no replies, no contact, and no apparent objection from the artist, the band continued to use the image with full artist info and credit on the good faith that the original agreement would be upheld unless notified otherwise and the opportunity to compensate the artist would happen eventually at his convenience."

During the following two years, Brown says he "tried to forget it." But when one of the band's three record labels, Slum Records, asked Brown for permission to use the Madonna image for a release, Brown saw that Toronto-based Last Gang Records were advertising a "banned cover" release with his Madonna on it. According to the band (as quoted by Brown), Last Gang "printed promo copies of the CD and the distributor refused to share them, we were told we could not use your art on our CD cover and had to come up with a new cover." So Last Gang turned around and sold those promo copies as collector's items. (Neither Last Gang Records nor Slum wished to comment on any aspect of this story.)

"Seeing the Last Gang Records cover," says Brown, "was the final straw and I decided to do something about it." On February 17, Brown took his beef public, posting an entry on his blog recapping the story up to that point.

crystalcastles_shirt_HellionYell.jpg
Photo of a Crystal Castles t-shirt with Brown's design on it by HellionYell.

That decision coincided with the impending release of the band's new album, a move that Apples saw as a publicity ploy; Brown, Apples insists, had ignored twelve separate requests from the band for his mailing address (Brown says there was only one message he didn't reply to, "not wanting to waste more time in futile letter writing"), and Brown had "written back demanding $10,000 [and] claimed 'you are with a bigshot record label, they can afford it.'" (Brown said that he began by asking for much less, than asked for more when he saw they "were still dicking [him] around.") The band stopped selling the t-shirts on the web. According to Apples, "knowing that the artist was no longer content with their original agreement, the band felt it was only respectful to seize sales until the band and management attempted to come to a new agreement that would satisfy each party."

But Brown posted again on March 5, when he had heard that the band was continuing to sell the t-shirts, then on March 19 posted a lengthy, heated conversation between himself and Apples, in which Brown demanded payment for the 7", the t-shirts, and the banned CD cover. Apples claims that Brown thought he might get into trouble using Madonna's image, and, Apples says, "began to conduct himself in an overtly unprofessional manner. Randomly breaking down discussions with fits of anger, the artist would litter his messages with expletives directed at the band, threatening to ruin the band's career, turn fans against them, [and] 'destroy' them." On his blog, Brown quotes Apples as saying: "If all you care to do is remain bitter, then so be it. Don’t want us to use the image again, so be it. You are a fool."

In spite of the high tension, things seemed as though they might still get resolved—the two sides agreed on a sum less than the $10,000 Brown had requested. When Brown was offered a contract, however, he says that he was offered one that requested that he "hereby irrevocably assign all right, title and interest in and to the artwork that [he had] created" to the band, and that "Crystal Castles shall have the absolute right to deal with or use, or to refrain from using, the Artwork in any form, in any medium and for any purpose whatsoever which Crystal Castles in its sole discretion may choose, without notification or approval by [Brown], and without additional consideration to [Brown]." Apples, Brown says, refused to adjust the terms of the contract that Brown wanted changed, and when Brown wrote about the offer on March 26, he angrily called Crystal Castles "unscrupulous thieves, liars and assholes." He closed the blog post with an apostrophe to the band: "you won—you stole my art—paid me nothing—I hope you are really happy now."

Apples feels otherwise. The band, he says, has "been struggling to compensate [Brown] for the original agreed use of his artwork" since 2006. "It's clear to us and anyone with half a brain that the artist never intended to settle the issue at any price. He has instead opted to prolong his moment in the spotlight and play for even more publicity." But "despite all of this," Apples told Torontoist, "we remain hopeful that eventually we can come to an agreement with the artist for retroactive compensation or otherwise and put this issue behind us."

Brown isn't optimistic. Since the last time he communicated with Apples, Brown says, "every opportunity to come clean and compensate me was disregarded—I've tired of being dicked about with—I'm finished with it." Two months after Brown took his accusations public, and two years after the band first found his image on a flyer and used it without permission, some people have already made up their minds. Last week, John Darnielle, lead singer of the The Mountain Goats—a man about as well-respected and as well-loved as they come in the indie set—weighed in on the mess on his blog, Last Plane to Jakarta. His article opened simply: "Sure, they made one of my favorite albums of the year so far, but—not to put too fine a point on it—Crystal Castles can go to Hell and stay there."

Email This Entry







Advertisement: Torontoist Continues Below!

Comments (23) [rss]

I've only heard one song by CC and it sounds like someone mumbling over the sound track to Mega Man.

 

Yeah, there's much better chiptune out there - by far.

Other than that, I don't buy the manager's story here at all.

 

Reading the conversation that the artist himself chose to put on his blog, I find entirely plausible that the band is fairly reasonable and the artist is incredibly difficult. I'm guessing if he had a manager to deal with this sort of thing it would be sorted out fairly quickly, he clearly doesn't have the temperament to deal with this.

This is clearly a situation - a presumably poorish artist talking to a presumably poorish band - where one should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the other party, not ripping out insults at every opportunity. I'm thinking TB isn't quite realizing that CC hasn't reached the "actually making money" level of success, and is probably in debt up to their eyeballs and *maybe* graduated from eating ramen noodles every night at this point.

 

Yeah, I'm definitely taking the artist's side in this case. The final contract offered to him sounds like a complete slap in the face.

 

Rek: I asked my younger brother, who's an expert on Mega Man music (and happened to be listening to Mega Man music when I told him to take his headphones off and listen to Crystal Castles), what he thought of the songs on the CC Myspace page, and he didn't think it was an accurate comparison. He did, however, observe that "Untrust Us" and "Courtship Dating" sound like they could be from Donkey Kong Country 3.

 

Crystal Castles are fun and their album is good. Should people be expected to pay for the album if they don't pay for their artwork?

Torrent to CC album:
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4104339/Crystal_Castles_Album_320kbps

Until they pay I say their art should be the same price.

The artist does sound a little crazy though, but that's to be expected.

 

The artist should have delivered a cease and desist letter by registered mail back in 2006. If he couldn't afford a lawyer to do this, there are countless templates just a Google search away. If he isn't aware of such a simple professional concept as a C&D letter, then I'm inclined to believe Crystal Castles' side of the story. Yes, they knew what they were doing was infringing upon somebody's copyright but they would come clean at a later date.

For one, precisely what was this artist selling? Was it specific licensing rights and if so, what were the terms? It sounds to me like what this artist needs more than a soap box of a blog to whine on, is to spend $6 on a free 30 minute consultation with The Law Society of Upper Canada's Lawyer Referral Service at 1-900-565-4LRS (4577) so that he can find an intellectual property lawyer.

Keep in mind that in the artist's own recollection of events, long after this quagmire had been discovered, new labels were coming to him inquiring about reproduction rights. That means that basically, the man was not out to get this poor starving artist, but rather was trying to play by the rules and feed him a bone. I wonder if, upon being contacted by these other labels, the artist sent them the terms under which his work could be licensed, or if he just sent them a whiny email?

And if the artist won't give an address, as CC management claims, then all is probably lost. Where the heck are the Crystal Castles management supposed to send the contract? They are supposed to be signed, dated, and witnessed in duplicate. I mean seriously if you are going to try to make money off your art, you need to be professional. That means establishing precisely how you are making money, ensuring you are legally protected, and being able to enforce your intellectual property rights.

The artist didn't ask to be placed into this situation and perhaps never wanted to commercialize his work. But the moment he went from thinking "I never wanted you to use this work, you should stop using it right now" to "I never wanted you to use this work, but you have, so it will cost $300" is the moment he should have had all his cards lined up properly because he was acting in a professional capacity.

 

Does Madonna have any say in her image being used like this? Does she know?

 

"thingy" hit a few points spot on.
another thing I would like to mention that wasn't included in the above piece:

1. the "banned" edition never actually
went to print, EVER.
It was the label's idea to make a few limited copies, but these have never seen the light of day.
Period.
The artwork that appeared briefly on Last Gang's website was a cover layout, and not a photo of
a physical copy of the record.

2. as well,...TB's comments on the contract are selective.
by licensing the image to us for a fee, true, we can use the image as we like for an agreed
period, but he clearly left out a significant portion of the contract which says artist still owns and retains all rights and use of the original artwork.
This is exactly the kind of manipulative nonsense Trevor has been spouting since the issue began.
It's incredibly irritating that anyone would buy his story wholesale as though it is some David and Goliath fable.
Isn't it clear from the simple fact that we have always given him credit for the image (just Google TB and CC and you can read this in the results) that we have never meant any ill will toward Trevor?
You would assume anyone "stealing" art would try hide the creator's existence at the very least.
We have been waiting with money in hand to reimburse him, have left things open on his terms, and he simply will not communicate with us.
Which reminds me, we also offered to amend the contract, even let him write his own, in any way he wanted to...just to settle this issue
and make him happy.
Again, as soon as we offer him open terms to resolve things, he turns away from us.
Clear proof he is enjoying his newfound status.
Bravo, TB.

 

And what about the shirts, hmm?

I'm surprised artists would be so stupid to steal another artist's work, and then be so stupid to keep using it after the creator was found and expressed his displeasure with it. You can't just take something, without permission and pretty much unmodified, and appropriate it for your own use. And you then can't complain about it if negotiations over it fail.

 

it is pretty foolish to just begin using a found image without knowing who the artist is, period. to be painfully obvious, it's the work of SOMEONE and they should've waited until they knew whose it was before they began plastering it all over their merch. while they say that "it was their hope that the artist might reveal themselves and make contact with the band," if they really liked the artist's work enough and were so concerned with finding out who had done the piece, there are better ways of discovering this fact than simply continuing to use the image on your products, in the hopes that they will see it and get in touch with you. this holds regardless of all of the drama that came after.

here's an idea: don't use other peoples' art unless you actually have permission.

 

Until they pay I say their art should be the same price.

Haha. Yeah. That's a good excuse. As if people like you would have paid for it either way.

 

As someone who does band artwork - posters, CD covers, t-shirts - in a professional capacity, I feel qualified to chime in.

The standard fee for a t-shirt design is $500. This grants the client an unlimited license to reproduce the artwork on garments, but not for any other purpose such as posters or other merch.

To own the copyright completely - ie. the artist gives up all claims and ownership of the specific work - you're looking at about $2500.

$10,000 for a single image seems excessive.

I'm inclined to fall on the side of the band in this dispute, judging from the linked articles.

 

Ok, this explains a lot. I bought one of those CDs thinking it contained a bunch of previously unreleased Madonna songs I hadn't heard of. Instead it was a bunch of new-fangled electronic music that didn't really sound like Madonna at all.

To Crystal Castles: if you want to clear up this legal mess and band recognition problem all at once, I'd be willing to do an original ink portrait of your lead singer with full legal permission to use however you want, for cheap.

 

Brown could conduct all future communications with swearing and middle fingers for what it's worth: CC stole his work and left it up to him to get in contact and ask for reimbursement. CC is 100% in the wrong, regardless of Brown's behaviour following contact, regardless of how much he's asking for the rights, and regardless of whatever good intentions the band may have had.

Asking 400% above market price might be excessive but doesn't make the property CC's by default. In fact, considering how integral they seem to have made the image in their branding without his permission or foreknowledge of their intentions, $10,000 seems quite reasonable – in effect they've stolen his right to sell the image to anyone else, because it's so tied to the CC brand.

 

Did anyone at Torontoist bother to ask this artist if he even contacted a lawyer? There really is no point in discussing any of this if he will not act in good faith to legally resolve this matter. It's obvious he is not willing to act in good faith himself. Acting like a child and whining on your blog only gains you the sympathy of outraged keyboard jockies. I like the way NOW covered this story... one sentence which is probably one sentence more than is actually newsworthy.

I've been growing tired of Torontoist's leading and embellishing stories. I registered to post these past two comments just because it's getting pathetic guys. First there was all the negative sarcasm and holier than thou attitude that others were copying your ideas and/or plagiarizing your material. Now mountains are being made out of mole hills. Try not to emulate the Toronto Sun.

 

Rule 1 of litigation: Wait long enough until said offender garners enough popularity and money so then you can sue the living shit out of them. Who said patience isn't a virtue?

 

Just reading through everyone's comments and it strikes me that perhaps nobody has actually read the above article.
In particular, the part where we mention that Trevor Brown did in fact give the band permission to use his artwork.
Yet, despite stating this in the piece, people
still insist that we stole his art or never had his permission.
The issue here is our difficulty paying him for the permission we were granted.
This topic has literally gone in circles while missing this basic point.
As well,....we agreed to halt selling the t-shirts some time ago, yet people continue to bring this up.
It's a good rule of thumb to absorb information before making comments.

 

I read the article and it's only according to you that the band reached a happy agreement with Brown. And there isn't any doubt that Crystal Castles used the art without his permission (stole it basically) as we have that in their own words.

Why are you so tetchy about this and blaming the artist for everything? Is this your idea of professional handling of the matter? The artist has every right to be accusatory, you do not. Ever heard of tact and diplomacy? If communications have broken down I think I can now understand the reason why.

Frankly, your manic posts here insulting everyone and hitting at everything are scary!

 

Jonathan - Upon hearing the same song again, I'll revise to say it sounds like Final Fantasy (the game) for the NES.

 

the story's on pitchfork.

 

Here's my honest take as I've been following this whole saga:

It is plainly evident to me that CC the band (and by this I mean, the band itself, not Last Gang, not Mikey, nor anyone else) saw the image, liked it, and used it not thinking much of it. Now, what's done is done - it was not the smartest move, but it seems the first conversations between the band and Trevor Brown regarding how to handle the gaffe/theft (take your pick, based on your bias) were actually civil and even promising, and payment was definitely discussed.

Unfortunately, it's obvious the dialogue broke down, and broke down badly (due to Trevor Brown's sense that he was being stalled or just played, yet I actually have to tip my hat to Mikey here, because some of his comments to Brown were conciliatory and genuine WELL past the point where Brown could be bothered to return the favour, such was his anger at the misuse and/or sheer lack of desire to play nice with others, again, take your pick). Alas, honestly, most people involved here seem to lack some basic business chops. Sometimes you call _lawyers_ to sort your rights out, people. That said, we're not talking big companies - we're talking artists, and while this situation seems totally ridiculously mishandled, I'm actually not sure we want a world where every artist has a lawyer on speed dial.

Compounding all of this was that it truly seems that some parties involved - Trevor and Last Gang in particular - seem extremely scared by any possible ramifications of using the Madonna likeness (again, _call lawyers_ people), and this has kept both sides from pushing harder to really assert their rights/whims/desires.

What is not clear to me is that it seems at least possible that Brown was paid a small amount earlier on in this debacle (something like $300) -- if so, what did this cover? Past use? Was it even really paid?

Anyway, this is like the object lesson in how not to go about dealing with artists and obtaining the rights to an image.

My major shock here isn't with Brown's temperment or the band's promises - it's that Last Gang has been around a good while, has chops, yet could not pull this out of the fire with a sound agreement with Brown despite the need to protect their interests and that of a "big thing" new act on their roster. That is just completely and utterly stunning to me.

 
 
Post a comment (Comment Policy)

2003-2008 Gothamist LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. We use MovableType.