Not all art springs from the imagination

Apr 18, 2009 09:28

There's a bit of a hoopla going on right now about copyrights and art sources for artists.
The street artist Shepard Fairey created the now-famous three-color "Obama Hope" posterTurns out the image is based on an Associated Press photo by freelance photographer MAnnie Garcia ( Read more... )

art, internet

Leave a comment

Comments 7

brooklynknight April 18 2009, 17:58:22 UTC
That second article pretty much explains the whole issue. The AP is being a bully. That Hope Poster is now a significant part of American History.

For example, this political cartoon
... )

Reply


lilithdarkmoon April 18 2009, 18:10:04 UTC
Imagination is a tricky thing. I've often said that inspiration can (and does) come from anywhere and everywhere, so trying to nail down its origin can sometimes be an exercise in futility. Art is full of slavish imitation - it is how we learn, after all. I can't count how many Jim Lee poses and covers I copied in my pursuits, but in order to continue that exploration or your own style...you eventually have to step off the path of the known onto Terra Incognita ( ... )

Reply


lstyer April 21 2009, 21:23:21 UTC
I think it probably depends on how close the derivative work is to the source. I mean, did the artist look at the photo to remind himself what Obama looked like, but essentially created his own image, or did he essentially recreate the specific image in the photo? The former strikes me as a lot more legitimate than the latter. In this case, it looks to me like the artist didn't draw Obama, he drew that particular photo of Obama. Why shouldn't the photographer get credit and a cut of the proceeds of something admittedly based on his photograph and used without his permission? Especially considering that Fairey was selling copies of the poster ( ... )

Reply

seankreynolds April 22 2009, 03:33:17 UTC
(1) Star Wars isn't a good analogy because I'm sure those characters are trademarked as well as copyrighted.

(2) For the AP photographing art, it's just another sort of hypocrisy.

Reply

lstyer April 22 2009, 15:00:35 UTC
Trademark has to do with how you sell the product, not the product itself. Marvel Comics owns the trademark on the name "Captain Marvel," but doesn't own the copyright on the Billy Batson version of Captain Marvel, which is why DC Comics can publish comics with Captain Marvel, but the cover always says "Shazam!" and he's nevertheless called "Captain Marvel" inside the comic. With that in mind Star Wars is a fine analogy, I just couldn't put the any words or likenesses on the cover that were trademarked.

As for the photographing art, yeah, it strikes me as hypocritical, but ultimately that doesn't justify a different act of infringement by a third party. It'd be like robbing the home of someone who has robbed other people's homes. It's arguably hypocritical for your victim to complain, but that's not really a defense.

Reply

seankreynolds April 22 2009, 15:15:45 UTC
It amuses me that you are explaining the difference between trademarks and copyrights to me. ;)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up