Nili , what your doing IS ILLEAGLE
Of course whether or not this is true becomes a jurisdictional question. However let us assume for the moment that we are talking about jurisdictions that apply the Berne Convention, which is the international treaty for intellectual property law. Assuming this convention, we can simply apply what is known as the "Berne Three Step Test" (found in Article 9(2) of the international treaty) to determine if this usage is legitimate or not.
Article 9 reads:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
(3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.
Did coke give NILI special authorization?
(Probably not.)Is NILI's reproductive use covered under a special exemption in their jurisdiction which does not conflict with a normal exploitation and which does not unreasonably prejudice Coke's interests?
Is NILI's reproductive use covered under a special exemption in their jurisdiction?
If so, does this use conflict with a normal exploitation of the work?
If not, does the use prejudice the legitimate interests of Coke?
(This is all highly dependent on both the jurisdiction in question, as well as Coke's own usage of and legitimate interest in the works within that jurisdiction!!)Is the reproduction a sound or visual recording?
(I think we can all agree, at least, that the answer to this is yes.)So it is not as simple as "NILI reproduced some IP so now they are screwed" but a question of in what jurisdiction that reproduction was made *AND* if it happens to be a legitimate special exemption in that jurisdiction *AND* what Coke's own ("allowed") exploitation *AND* interests in the matter are.
This is assuming that the Berne convention even applies. The laws are certainly very different in places that do not adopt this convention.
EDIT: Disclaimer: IANAL!!
you are hired, HMC. :-) (I pay in mouse coins)
I would like now to introduce to our discussion here the issue of appropriation art and show you the direction which I have chosen as a conceptual artist. In the photos below I have use other artist work and made it my art work by applying to it a few new layers, conceptual and visual. The entire piece was created on twitter as twitpics. I was going to a show opening and photographing the art works while incorporating the event visuals in a way that was related to the art itself. the following pics are a few samples from two of my best works. Remember that the artwork in the pick is another artist's IP
It is important to understand the conceptual end of these works. being done on twitter and tweeting it in real time, is of itself adding a conceptual layer that was not part of the original work. On top of it adding another feature that is part of the body of work remove it even further from the original work and finally stating the original owner of the IP of the appropriated piece, In these case the original creator (by name or gallery opening event) is also get the credit as part of the title of the piece.
(here is a link more example for that type of appropriation art work
http://twitpic.com/photos/nililerner?page=6)
My Coca-Cola Coin and the other brand name Coin I have created as Art-Coins follow that same exact formula. The title of the piece is named after the original author of the piece, In that case it is the coca-coal company that have the IP legal rights. Then there is the added conceptual layer which in this case is the coin itself. and the added feature that entire thread, which I use as the medium of my art like a picture is the medium of these pieces above.
