I learned the hard way...

I am also a Graphic Designer and have been ripped off so many times
I have to work a second job. But in this case I don't agree with this one.
Number 1, $10,000 was a ton of money 40 years ago.
Number 2, the Stones were already one of the biggest bands in the
world at the time. This designer should have made a better deal.
He should have had legal representation working for him.
Believe me I've learned the hard way.
[pagesix.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 20:35 by bv.

Tumbling Dice album ...



ROCKMAN

Prolly my least favorite tongue.

I fully concur with the statement at the end of the article made by Jaggers people.
He made a bad deal by not having the trademark of the logo made in his name. Very sad that he is saying this stuff now.

Cheers,
Wuudy

"The famous tongue and lip design and countless variations of such has graced countless
official and unofficial Rolling Stones memorabilia and products since it first appeared
when the band formed "Rolling Stones Records" in 1971. Credit for the creation of the
original design has been mistakenly given to several people over the years. Many have
stated that Andy Warhol was the originator. He did design two album covers for the band,
but not the tongue design. In 1995, Billboard Magazine printed that it was from the mind
of Ruby Mazur. Discovering their mistake, they later corrected their statement, identi-
fying Mazur as the designer of the first official variation of the tongue design. With
further research later that year, Billboard definitely uncovered that the original
classic design came from John Pasch. Two years later, Mick Jagger confirmed that Pasch
was the originator of the fabled logo."



ROCKMAN

The New York Post is on a anti-Jagger / anti-Stones crusade. It didnt start with this article.

Thankfully Jagger probably won't ever see this, but that guy sounds like a horrible man. Completely insensitive at this time, just to kick someone while they're down.

And I don't even understand what he's saying. Tumbling Dice? They've had the tongue since Sticky Fingers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 04:27 by RollingFreak.

Quote
RollingFreak
Thankfully Jagger probably won't ever see this, but that guy sounds like a horrible man. Completely insensitive at this time, just to kick someone while they're down.

And I don't even understand what he's saying. Tumbling Dice? They've had the tongue since Sticky Fingers.

He did the tongue for the Tumbling Dice 45.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 04:55 by MingSubu.

Right, but thats not the original tongue like he's saying. Wasn't the tongue on Sticky Fingers, thus his tongue is one of the many many copies that would follow? Why is he stating he created it?

Mazur met Jagger in the 1970s in London, and created the original “mouth and tongue” artwork for the “Tumbling Dice” album. Jagger paid him $10,000 for the art at the time to use for the cover. Since then, the image has been used on Stones merchandise and become one of the most recognizable logos in pop culture.

Taken from the pagesix.com article linked in the first post.

Has the Tumbling Dice tongue been reworked at all?

Maybe just poor writing. The original seems to be the writer's words. Not Mazur's.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 05:15 by MingSubu.

That's almost $60k in today's money - good enough for a few VIP packages.

Anyway, it's a derivative work and/or work for hire. So he's outta luck either way.

Maybe he's depressed about being named Ruby.

I have that perticular 45 cover and also the JJF 45 cover. Two of my favorite pieces of Stones stuff I've collected over the years.

Maybe he's depressed about being named Ruby.

Well if ya go to his web-site he claims Mick named Ruby Tuesday after him ...


[www.rubymazurgallery.com]



ROCKMAN

Mick didn't write the lyircs to 'Ruby Tuesday', Keith did

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

.... I know marshall ...I know



ROCKMAN

Wasn't saying it to you Rockman,

Was trying to debunk Ruby's lil story

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

...cool man ... plus he wouldn't have met Mick till early 70's and Ruby Tuesday is a 66er ...



ROCKMAN

You the man Rockman.

You don't need my help calling this guy out!

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Quote
Wuudy
I fully concur with the statement at the end of the article made by Jaggers people.
He made a bad deal by not having the trademark of the logo made in his name. Very sad that he is saying this stuff now.

I wonder if we'll be seeing a whole parade of disgruntled people from Mick's past..Ry Cooder, etc.

Some graphic artists do not understand the concept of work for hire. I own a company who regularly uses graphic artists, and if any of them start talking about "rights" (basically the right to use my own idea) that is the end of the discussion. There is a difference between original artistic expression and commercial work for hire. The woman who designed the Nike "swoosh" did it for $35. Yes, the logo went on to become the iconic image of a billion-dollar brand. Does she deserve to get royalties the rest of his life? No. That wasn't the deal she made. (However Phil Knight later gave her some stock to express his gratitude, but he wasn't legally or ethically required to).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 10:19 by 71Tele.

Right and even with "legal representation" he wouldn't have been able to register that trademark back in the day? I suppose the Stones did do that right about that time?

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

So if I understand correctly the guy was commitioned/directed to copy a logo designed/created by another person (John Pasche).
He was just asked to add his own touch/style (if he had one).

He was paid a handsome sum of money (10K) for a few days of work and 40+ years later he moans and pukes on a man in pain, who's mourning his partner.

Stay classy Ruby!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 11:49 by dcba.

This guy is completely full of shit, or (and I suspect this is more likely) he's a little nuts. Everyone knows that the tongue design was created by a very well known graphic designer (Forget his name, but he is very famous). He was paid something like $50 for the work, but I believe he also later sold the copyright to the band and was involved in other projects for them.

Besides the whole premise of the guy's argument is flawed, even if he were the original designer of the logo (which he isn't). A logo like the tongue isn't inherently worth hundreds of millions at the time it leaves the designer's hands. The Stones invested a lot of money, time and effort over many years to develop the brand. They bore the financial risk at the initial stage. Would they have done so if they didn't own the copyright to the mark? Probably not, and the tongue would be nothing more than a mark on a record label, and all of the t-shirts would probably have an iconic picture of the band, or a stylized version of their name.

I would add that a fair deal would be one in which the designer also takes some financial risk. For example, if the going rate for a work like that is, say $10,000. A fair deal might be to agree to do the work for $1000 but receive a royalty on any merchandise featuring the mark. It's nonsense to be paid market rates to create a work for hire and then ask for additional compensation if the customer is successful using the mark. Of course, the Stones probably wouldn't agree to such a deal because they can afford to pay market rates. I am sure that even today, there are band just starting out who would be willing to give a percentage in exchange for discounted graphic design work.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-03-23 11:53 by drbryant.

His website is shite as well.

Quote
MingSubu
Mazur met Jagger in the 1970s in London, and created the original “mouth and tongue” artwork for the “Tumbling Dice” album. Jagger paid him $10,000 for the art at the time to use for the cover. Since then, the image has been used on Stones merchandise and become one of the most recognizable logos in pop culture.

Taken from the pagesix.com article linked in the first post.

Has the Tumbling Dice tongue been reworked at all?

Maybe just poor writing. The original seems to be the writer's words. Not Mazur's.

Still a little confused. Obviously, there's no Tumbling Dice Album. If they mean the 45, are they referring to that picture sleeve, which is an adaptation of the original tongue? If so, that's not really a popular item, being a single, hard to imagine what you would get for royalties for a pic sleeve. That tongue, as shown on the pic sleeve is not known by anybody. Elsewhere, it seems like they are referring to work done earlier.

Quote
71Tele
Some graphic artists do not understand the concept of work for hire. I own a company who regularly uses graphic artists, and if any of them start talking about "rights" (basically the right to use my own idea) that is the end of the discussion. There is a difference between original artistic expression and commercial work for hire. The woman who designed the Nike "swoosh" did it for $35. Yes, the logo went on to become the iconic image of a billion-dollar brand. Does she deserve to get royalties the rest of his life? No. That wasn't the deal she made. (However Phil Knight later gave her some stock to express his gratitude, but he wasn't legally or ethically required to).

you nailed it. that's the point.
i know what i'm talking about, cause i do both: art and graphics design for hire.
but i'm sure this guy knows it too. this is only a very bad tasted way to get attention

The tongue/mouth on the Tumbling Dice single sleave is the tongue/mouth he has on his site.

This guy seems oblivious to the fact THE Rolling Stones tongue logo had appeared on stones stuff before that single was released.

Quote
Bliss

Quote
Wuudy
I fully concur with the statement at the end of the article made by Jaggers people.
He made a bad deal by not having the trademark of the logo made in his name. Very sad that he is saying this stuff now.

I wonder if we'll be seeing a whole parade of disgruntled people from Mick's past..Ry Cooder, etc.

Some of those attention seekers will probably pop up.
I always thought Ry Cooder had a "problem" with Keith not Mick?

Cheers,
Wuudy

You guys have nailed it. He didn't do the original tongue, so there isn't even a story other than what an SOB he is.

The tongue he did do, the Tumbling Dice 45 tongue, he was overpaid for (I think my parents bought their first house in 1972 for $10000) probably because MJ wanted to avoid any issues in the future.

That 'stock' 45 sleeve was used in a few other 45s...I believe the last one I have it for was Hang Fire. Still, nothing this guy was going to make oodles of money off of, if he'd have been able to negotiate a different contract which we know he wouldn't have been able to do.

Should have embraced his proximity to greatness and used it as a positive instead of harbouring resentment for 42 years.

Quote
71Tele
Some graphic artists do not understand the concept of work for hire. I own a company who regularly uses graphic artists, and if any of them start talking about "rights" (basically the right to use my own idea) that is the end of the discussion. There is a difference between original artistic expression and commercial work for hire. The woman who designed the Nike "swoosh" did it for $35. Yes, the logo went on to become the iconic image of a billion-dollar brand. Does she deserve to get royalties the rest of his life? No. That wasn't the deal she made. (However Phil Knight later gave her some stock to express his gratitude, but he wasn't legally or ethically required to).

That sounds like a judicious compromise for situations like these.