Posted in music on September 11, 2008

by Black Bubblegum

original (back?) cover art (publicity stunt?)
United Nations

The new record by supersecret supergroup United Nations almost didn't hit store shelves due to controversial artwork. Hmmm.... I wonder what the controversy is all about?

Check out the new cover below and order a limited edition version with the original cover here.

modified cover art
United Nations

---

      

Comments (27)

i'm confused as to how that's a copyright infringement. its been years since my one media law class in college, but if i remember correctly stuff like this is protected under parody laws.

basically, they're not trying to claim the abbey road artwork as their own, they're parodying it.

Posted by bearface | September 11, 2008 5:05 PM

they're using a photograph that is protected under copyright. if they were to restage the photo themselves, then it would be parody.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:16 PM

This album is fucking harsh. Love it.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:16 PM

The album is in stores now, but its an almost all black cover.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:16 PM

I am offended by this.

Posted by Paul Cole | September 11, 2008 5:18 PM

"The album is in stores now, but its an almost all black cover."

Good point. Post modified slightly. thanks

Posted by brooklynvegan | September 11, 2008 5:28 PM

I think it is fair comment and not copyright infringement but what the fuck do I know?

Posted by see you in tea | September 11, 2008 5:33 PM

APPLE's lawyers will sue anybody even remotely infringing on the Beatles. If they had the power and the money to being APPLE COMPUTERS to court over the name, then this band certainly wouldn;t have the means o fight this.


Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:33 PM

Agreed. Apple will bring anybody to court. However, they wouldn't win in this case. But what the fuck do I know? Definitely would cost this band too much to find out.

Posted by see you in tea | September 11, 2008 5:37 PM

this story is bullshit. the "modified" cover art was always going to be the normal version released to stores, the abbey road one is just a limited edition version only available only.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:43 PM

haha @ "this band is harsh."

this has to be the lamest, most emo-screamo crapshoot ive ever heard. every song sounds exactly the same and the singing vocals/non scream whoops are completely intolerable. these hardcore losers need to get their head out of their asses and listen to something else besides mid 90s screamo. the target audience seems to be 14 yr old girls or something too. way lowbrow shit here.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:46 PM

not as offensive as the original cover for "smell the glove" but the compromise is similar.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:47 PM

""We've gotten some cease-and-desists," he explained. "We worked [on the cover art] with this British anarchist artist named James Cauty, and he did all this great stuff. But it had some copyright issues, and that's why all the distributors and stores refuse to carry it. We have 1,000 copies of this album sitting around with artwork that has been banned and we're trying to figure out what to do with those." "

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:48 PM

"british anarchist artist..."

is that supposed to give the band some underground cred or something? sheesh what a bunch of herbs.

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:50 PM

they're kidding about copyright issues. millions of parodies of the Abbey Road album cover have gone unhassled (Booker T and the MGs, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sesame Street, the "Spies Are Us" video...)

replacing flames with black is very Lynyrd Skynyrd "Street Survivors."

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:51 PM

That and more James Cauty prints can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/romanywg/sets/72157601918239393/

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 5:57 PM

"way lowbrow shit here."

like this entire site and everything you've ever heard of

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 6:49 PM

..."We have 1,000 copies of this album sitting around with artwork that has been banned and we're trying to figure out what to do with those."


That's what LIVE SHOWS are for.

Posted by b.LOUD | September 11, 2008 6:51 PM

Thursday sucks who cares

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 7:26 PM

because it doesn't sound like Thursday maybe?

Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2008 7:53 PM

John, George and the lads gotta eat, you know.

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:15 AM

James Cauty AND United Nations are pretty badass.

hopefully this limited edition version is still available

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 6:57 AM

wow. 22 comments about this and not a single residents reference? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Residents what's wrong with you poseurs?

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:29 AM

A tempest in a teapot

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:33 AM

haha to even mention this band in the same breath as the residents. thats like mentioning jessica simpson in the same breath as francois hardy or brigitte st.john. besides. these fools can even wrap their head around what the residents were doing. they weren't using anonymity as a marketing tool! these fuckers are. FUCK THIS BAND.

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:43 AM

*can't

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:46 AM

re: the residents. i am talking about the album covers in addition to their anonymity.

Posted by Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:32 PM

Leave a Comment