An L.A. based artist, who created various illustrations for use at Lollapalooza, is suing those behind the event for copyright infringement, in breach of a licensing agreement.

Juan Marco, who has been the creative force behind various Warner Bros and Sony Music projects contracted with C3 Presents, a live act promotion and artist management company, Live Nation Entertainment Inc. an American events promoter and owner of Ticketmaster, and The Uprising Creative, a content creator.

The three year deal licensed particular drawings for use at the Chicago and Santiago editions of the festival for restricted use. In a lawsuit filed in early February in the California Central District Court, Marco claims such art and variations of it had been used without his consent and outside the contracted jurisdictions, alleging, for instance, that the drawings have been used to promote the Paris event with his drawings appearing on the festival site.

Taken from the suit filed, the left image was subject to the license whilst the right was displayed on allegedly unauthorised material. Original credit: Juan Marco from thefuturebones.com website.

He claims the licensed images have also appeared in their substantive form but across varying backgrounds and arrangements used throughout unauthorised marketing material and that the artwork had been sublicensed to third parties to produce Lollapalooza merchandise like hats and slippers.

Marco is therefore claiming for copyright infringement as well as vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. Under the former claim he is seeking $150,000 for each artwork infringed on the basis that the loss suffered to his business was caused by the Defendants’ intentional infringement.

The claim of vicarious liability and contribution to infringement details how the Defendants “knowingly induced, participated in, aided and abetted in and profited from the illegal reproduction and/or subsequent sales of product, marketing materials and installations featuring… [his illustrations] and derivative works”.

It is claimed that each Defendant is vicariously liable as “they had the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct… and because they had a direct financial interest in the sales and distribution” of the unauthorised works.

Much is made of their intention to obtain “direct and indirect profits” in the filed claim, as to prove such liability, each Defendant must have known, must have reasonably known, or had reason to know of the copyright infringement. In an effort to prove this Marco also notes that under the three year license the Defendants had certain permissions to copy his work.

As well as damages, Marco is also requesting an injunction to prevent further use of his artwork.