login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Copyright - artist learns the hard way Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9,090
Pelham, New York, US


Dec 12 12 03:44 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,438
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


QOTD

" ... I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his house burned to the GROUND! I wanna go there in the middle of the night and I wanna PISS ON HIS ASHES! ... "
- - - Al Capone, from The Untouchables (1987)

Studio36
Dec 12 12 03:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9,090
Pelham, New York, US


Miranda has contacted Riptide, saying the controversy had "damaged his life." "I don't have a gallery. I don't have a job," he says.

Somehow my heart doesn't bleed for him. All he had to do was get permission. Artists ask me all the time and I give it freely as long as I am cited as the source.
Dec 12 12 04:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Orcatek Photography
Posts: 1,684
Tempe, Arizona, US


I too get requests all the time.  Shame on the artist.
Dec 12 12 04:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SME
Posts: 20,702
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US


And even after all this, he still doesn't get it.

"There are millions of piece of art in the world by millions of artists. Yes, I made a mistake by not giving the original artists credit, but come those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's art."
Dec 12 12 04:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FootNote Fotography
Posts: 18,807
Olympia, Washington, US


Jeff Fiore wrote:
Miranda has contacted Riptide, saying the controversy had "damaged his life." "I don't have a gallery. I don't have a job," he says.

Somehow my heart doesn't bleed for him. All he had to do was get permission. Artists ask me all the time and I give it freely as long as I am cited as the source.

Thats what really gets me. Don't get mad because you don't have a job, you being an artist has nothing to do with that. Its not one or the other.

Dec 12 12 04:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael DBA Expressions
Posts: 3,082
Lynchburg, Virginia, US


Sita Mae wrote:
And even after all this, he still doesn't get it.

"There are millions of piece of art in the world by millions of artists. Yes, I made a mistake by not giving the original artists credit, but come those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's art."

He clearly still doesn't get it. His mistake was not failure to credit, that was only a minor issue, and completely separate from the REAL issue: copying without permission.

Dec 12 12 04:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9,090
Pelham, New York, US


Michael DBA Expressions wrote:

He clearly still doesn't get it. His mistake was not failure to credit, that was only a minor issue, and completely separate from the REAL issue: copying without permission.

Most of us would gladly give permission. I have no problem with a derivative work based on my photo

Dec 12 12 05:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sospix
Posts: 20,908
Orlando, Florida, US


I at least like my name mentioned, even if they don't spell it correctly  .  .  .  wink

SOS
Dec 12 12 05:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R A V E N D R I V E
Posts: 15,867
New York, New York, US


hahahaha artist fail.
Dec 12 12 05:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 862
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


What a silly Billy.
Dec 12 12 05:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9,090
Pelham, New York, US


sospix wrote:
I at least like my name mentioned, even if they don't spell it correctly  .  .  .  wink

SOS

Like this?

...---...

Dec 12 12 06:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
natural beauties of qld
Posts: 2,082
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


There is so much theft around, it is nice to see the good guys winning for a change, but I suspect that it is not a common event.
Dec 12 12 07:03 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 33,421
San Francisco, California, US


I loved this comment at the bottom: 

comments from original article by jnelson.0.1 wrote:
Shepard Fairey almost went because the Associated Press came after him cause they owned the photo not the photographer. He was acquitted because he applied his own creative touch to the image.

Those people don't get it.  It is about getting consent, not giving the photographer credit.  Not only did Fairey not get acquitted, he ended up in a passle of trouble.  He settled the infringement case and then plead guilty to contempt of court for lying during the proceedings.

Wikipedia wrote:
Fairey's lawyers announced they were no longer representing him, and Laurence Pulgram, an intellectual property lawyer stated that the revelation definitely put Mr. Fairey's case "in trouble". In May 2010, a judge urged Fairey to settle. The parties settled in January 2011. On February 24, 2012 Fairey pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court for "destroying documents and manufacturing evidence."  On September 7, 2012 Fairey was sentenced to 300 hours of community service, ordered to pay a $25,000 federal fine, and placed on probation for two years by U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas.

It is more than just "not nice" to steal a photographer's work, it can get you into deep "doo-doo."  I thought the photographer in the original article did a good job of keeping his kewl.  As for the artist, his exhibit should have been pulled.  He was selling stolen work.

Dec 12 12 07:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,300
Asheville, North Carolina, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
It is more than just "not nice" to steal a photographer's work, it can get you into deep "doo-doo."  I thought the photographer in the original article did a good job of keeping his kewl.  As for the artist, his exhibit should have been pulled.  He was selling stolen work.

I agree, but it does seem possible that a good bit of money was left on the table. I can't be sure without knowing the details.

Dec 12 12 07:55 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 33,421
San Francisco, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
It is more than just "not nice" to steal a photographer's work, it can get you into deep "doo-doo."  I thought the photographer in the original article did a good job of keeping his kewl.  As for the artist, his exhibit should have been pulled.  He was selling stolen work.
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I agree, but it does seem possible that a good bit of money was left on the table. I can't be sure without knowing the details.

I think the suit was brought to make a point.  I don't think it was about money.  Indeed, I suspect that once he was charged criminally they got their point across.

Dec 12 12 08:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,300
Asheville, North Carolina, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
It is more than just "not nice" to steal a photographer's work, it can get you into deep "doo-doo."  I thought the photographer in the original article did a good job of keeping his kewl.  As for the artist, his exhibit should have been pulled.  He was selling stolen work.
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I agree, but it does seem possible that a good bit of money was left on the table. I can't be sure without knowing the details.
ei Total Productions wrote:
I think the suit was brought to make a point.  I don't think it was about money.  Indeed, I suspect that once he was charged criminally they got their point across.

Not the Fairey case, the one in the op of this thread.

Dec 12 12 08:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


Sita Mae wrote:
And even after all this, he still doesn't get it.

"There are millions of piece of art in the world by millions of artists. Yes, I made a mistake by not giving the original artists credit, but come those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's art."

Those last two words are the most troubling to me. No, he clearly doesn't get it and even now it's still all about HIM. He was selfish before and still is.

But "it's art" as a defense for stealing someone else's property to claiming it as your own? That is the really troubling comment. If "it's art" it doesn't follow the same laws of ownership? Everything is fair game if "it's art?" Inexcusable for someone who claims to be an artist themselves.

My neighbor stole my car and repainted it and called it his. When the police arrested him and confiscated the car his response was, "But I won't be able to get to work! It's just transportation."

Dec 12 12 08:27 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 33,421
San Francisco, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
It is more than just "not nice" to steal a photographer's work, it can get you into deep "doo-doo."  I thought the photographer in the original article did a good job of keeping his kewl.  As for the artist, his exhibit should have been pulled.  He was selling stolen work.
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I agree, but it does seem possible that a good bit of money was left on the table. I can't be sure without knowing the details.
ei Total Productions wrote:
I think the suit was brought to make a point.  I don't think it was about money.  Indeed, I suspect that once he was charged criminally they got their point across.
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
Not the Fairey case, the one in the op of this thread.

oops, sorry, I misread your post.  Do you really think the guy has any money to give him?  He lost his gallery and, for the moment, can't even sell his legal work.  I think he got his attention, but you are right.  He could have sued.

Dec 12 12 08:42 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Dekilah
Posts: 4,785
Detroit, Michigan, US


In regards to the case in the article in the OP... I have actually had a fair amount of experience with this in a few different ways.

I work with the DAMNED show and a lot of other art events in Detroit. I also know a lot of artists, photographers, and models. In one case there is a guy that takes images and makes them into graffiti looking pop art on various things. Most of the people around here do not mind, but he is just taking the images, sometimes just better known photos of people in the circle of acquaintances and turns them into some sort of template. To me he should at least have permission and if I ever saw a photo of myself on one of his pieces, I would probably ask that it be removed, particularly if I did not hold copyrights to the photo.

I do also think it is worth noting that usually the model's name or the reference, etc does not generally go on art tags. Sometimes if there is a bio sheet it might go there and many artists include it on their website, but galleries generally do not. I do not think that was so much a factor in this since he admits he never gave credit, but it would be possible to see pieces in a gallery with no credit to the source that was not the fault of the artist.

I have seen a local photographer friend work to recreate into photography paintings of women done by a somewhat well known artist. To my knowledge everyone thought it was awesome. He "may" have had permission or spoken to the original artist, but did not mention that.

I am also somewhat active on DeviantArt. There was an instance where I had a photo (shot by a photographer) in my gallery. I guess this guy sent me a message asking me to use it, but I did not respond as I was too busy to be on DA at the time. A week later he posted on my comment wall saying he had not heard back. So then he proceeded to take the image and do his Photoshop on it without my permission. But what just irked me beyond anything else was in the description of his image (the PSed version of the photo of me) he included a link back to me claiming I was the original owner and he had mad efforts to contact me but I had not responded so I must have not cared and so he used the image anyway. The one other hitch was that he was from the UK where I guess copyright laws are different.

Anyway... I messaged him firmly saying that what he had done was considered image theft from my point of view and that he needed to take it down immediately. I also explained that I could not give him permission to use that photo because I was the model and not photographer and here the photographer owns the copyright. I also found where he had submitted the image to a couple online galleries and requested it removed (they did). I contacted the photographer to let him know what was going on as well. And what is really too bad is that he is a super nice guy and if the guy had just waited for my response, I would have happily put him in contact with the photographer who probably would have let him use it with proper credit. He did finally take it down but never did care to admit what he did was wrong, I think he just was done with the drama he stirred up.

My take on the whole thing... is that people will be inspired by other people's art, photos, etc. And people who have not seen each other's work could have a very similar idea (posing is a great example). But if you are going to directly copy or reference someone else's art in detailed form, you should get their permission. I also think that not every one knows or understands this and if you do catch someone doing this you should contact that person first and call them on it professionally. Only if they become an issue or if they ignore you for quite a while should you move to other means, at least in cases where things are in a gallery or such. If it is just posted on a blog or whatnot contacting the site to have it removed is fine as they generally do not make those things public. People are dumb and they make mistakes. I am not planning to ruin someone's life because they posted a picture of me online or are trying to sell it. But I will call them on it and I do expect them to stop. I would only escalate if they would not cooperate.
Dec 12 12 08:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,300
Asheville, North Carolina, US


ei Total Productions wrote:

ei Total Productions wrote:
It is more than just "not nice" to steal a photographer's work, it can get you into deep "doo-doo."  I thought the photographer in the original article did a good job of keeping his kewl.  As for the artist, his exhibit should have been pulled.  He was selling stolen work.
Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I agree, but it does seem possible that a good bit of money was left on the table. I can't be sure without knowing the details.

oops, sorry, I misread your post.  Do you really think the guy has any money to give him?  He lost his gallery and, for the moment, can't even sell his legal work.  I think he got his attention, but you are right.  He could have sued.

I think there was more money in it before the recent events. The paintings were priced at $4,000 and the gallery owner indicated that perhaps there had been sales. Even at 50% commission that's $2,000 each. Not counting any benefits that could be derived from possible recognition. If some limited single use licence could have been negotiated, even with payment put off until sale of the paintings it seems it could have been a nice profit on the image. Even being paid with a painting or two, if cash was tight, could have been a pretty good windfall if the careers went right. All of this value evaporated with the way it was handled.

I have some suspicion that the painter may have had such a difficult view of the ownership and value of the photographic works as to make negotiations difficult if not impossible but I don't know this.

edit: I'm not suggesting a suit or anything that would have funneled money to lawyers but rather the now impossible, mutually profitable arrangement.

Dec 12 12 09:13 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 5,637
New York, New York, US


There's a lesson to be learned here, not only the one Miranda learned the hard way, but one we all need to learn and relearn. 

Two of the essential elements of creating art are, to my mind, responsibility and discipline, but how often do we commit essentially similar crimes by ignoring these elements in our own work.  Not so egregious, perhaps, but still crimes against our own art, our own self-discipline and our own responsibility.

I'm talking about the little things that contribute to a sense of self-importance and self-indulgence that are the base of Mr. Miranda's actions:

How often do we fudge or even outright ignore our commitment to get the model her pictures because we're too busy "making art"?

How often do we sneak past that "No Trespassing" sign to get that perfect sunset?

How often do we flash a little kid on the beach to get that exterior nude?

How often do we flake on a shoot, leaving the photographer to pay for an unused studio rental or MUA fee, in order to do another shoot?

How often do we buy and then return a piece of wardrobe after using it, convincing ourselves that it's not stealing the store's profit because we're "creating art"

When we do these things, we're stealing, just as Mr Miranda did--stealing someone else's time, talent, privacy, profit--stealing.  It can be argued that it's a smaller theft, that there is a difference in degree or a difference in kind, but there is really no difference in essence.  It's still stealing.  Doing so in the name of art doesn't make it any better, it just further defames and demeans art.

Perhaps we all might want to take a moment to reflect on this.
Dec 12 12 10:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,142
New York, New York, US


It's a little hypocritical for photographers to criticize a painter for not getting it.

Photographers shoot clothes that people have designed they shoot images on the the street with other people's artwork in them.

Yes, it's different to use a photo to reproduce something exactly, and the meaning is different when something is incidental rather than the subject, but photographer's do the same thing all the time.

That doesn't excuse the artist at all, but we can't get too self-righteous.
Dec 12 12 10:39 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 5,637
New York, New York, US


MC Photo wrote:
It's a little hypocritical for photographers to criticize a painter for not getting it.

Photographers shoot clothes that people have designed they shoot images on the the street with other people's artwork in them.

Yes, it's different to use a photo to reproduce something exactly, and the meaning is different when something is incidental rather than the subject, but photographer's do the same thing all the time.

That doesn't excuse the artist at all, but we can't get too self-righteous.

Ahhh, not so much!

In the one case you have a direct copy for the purpose of creating a competing piece of merchandise, i.e. the artwork.  In the other, you have a record being created of an object (not the design of an object but the object itself) being used for its intended purpose.  A picture of someone wearing a dress is not a violation of the copyright that is intrinsic to the design of the dress because it is only the design that is copyrightable, not the dress itself, just as a physical building cannot be copyrighted but the architectural rendering, as well as the overall design and all its elements, of that building,  can be.

Dec 12 12 10:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2,874
Port Townsend, Washington, US


Rays Fine Art wrote:
There's a lesson to be learned here, not only the one Miranda learned the hard way, but one we all need to learn and relearn...

don't forget that our [most of us] ancestors stole the land that we are shooting on presently.

Dec 12 12 11:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,005
New York, New York, US


Jeff Fiore wrote:
Miranda has contacted Riptide, saying the controversy had "damaged his life." "I don't have a gallery. I don't have a job," he says.

Somehow my heart doesn't bleed for him. All he had to do was get permission. Artists ask me all the time and I give it freely as long as I am cited as the source.

Without stealing those images, he wouldn't have had much of a career in the first place.

He could have contacted the artists before starting to paint, asking for permission to use those photos and offer some royalties if sold...

Dec 12 12 11:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2,874
Port Townsend, Washington, US


MC Photo wrote:
Yes, it's different to use a photo to reproduce something exactly, and the meaning is different when something is incidental rather than the subject, but photographer's do the same thing all the time.

so, it's different but the same? hmm

Dec 12 12 11:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,005
New York, New York, US


Sita Mae wrote:
And even after all this, he still doesn't get it.

"There are millions of piece of art in the world by millions of artists. Yes, I made a mistake by not giving the original artists credit, but come those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's art."

When I was teaching painting and drawing, I emphasized on the fact that we as artists, are being paid to have unique ideas.

If we steal someone else's ideas, we are taking money off the colleague's table... not only is that unethical, but also illegal...

So, I encouraged my students to collect ideas for their own, original work and demonstrated by example during class the process, by showing my original ideas in my sketch book, and how they developed into unique pieces of art, without the need to copy someone else's.

Dec 12 12 11:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2,874
Port Townsend, Washington, US


udor wrote:
So, I encouraged my students to collect ideas for their own, original work and demonstrated by example during class the process, by showing my original ideas in my sketch book, and how they developed into unique pieces of art, without the need to copy someone else's.

and where did the students collect ideas from?

Dec 12 12 11:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SME
Posts: 20,702
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US


udor wrote:
He could have contacted the artists before starting to paint, asking for permission to use those photos and offer some royalties if sold...

Yep.  Artists do this with me all the time.  Everybody wins.  It's not that hard.

Dec 12 12 11:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


nyk fury wrote:

and where did the students collect ideas from?

From the stolen land of our ancestors?

Do I pass the Native American Studies course you're conducting?

Dec 12 12 11:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1,067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US


Sita Mae wrote:
And even after all this, he still doesn't get it.

"There are millions of piece of art in the world by millions of artists. Yes, I made a mistake by not giving the original artists credit, but come those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's art."

+1

Dec 12 12 11:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1,067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US


DP
Dec 12 12 11:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2,874
Port Townsend, Washington, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
From the stolen land of our ancestors?

Do I pass the Native American Studies course you're conducting?

everybody steals. native americans, for that matter did too. artists steal creatively. douchtards steal stupidly and then get all butthurt when they get caught.

Dec 12 12 11:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9,090
Pelham, New York, US


udor wrote:

Without stealing those images, he wouldn't have had much of a career in the first place.

He could have contacted the artists before starting to paint, asking for permission to use those photos and offer some royalties if sold...

This is exactly what I do. i don't expect an artist to pay me to use one of my images as a reference because it may not sell. However, if he does sell it, I do expect some royalties.

Dec 12 12 01:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,005
New York, New York, US


nyk fury wrote:
and where did the students collect ideas from?

Like I do it... my own fantasy!

When I go on in my day... anytime... I may have an idea for something... I immediately write it down, including an as detailed description of what I saw in my mind... e.g. "The Optimist", which I envisioned when listening to NPR's Morning edition and they were talking about some war zone... and I drifted away and saw the initial painting in front of my eyes... then I sketched it, made the description and months later, I painted it.

I have enough ideas, and variations of my own ideas in my sketchbook that, if I'd be able to paint one painting every months, without having any new ideas, I'd be busy for the next 4 years.

You know... it IS possible to have your own ideas!

... and that's what I was teaching my students and there came some remarkable results!

Dec 12 12 01:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,005
New York, New York, US


nyk fury wrote:
everybody steals. native americans, for that matter did too. artists steal creatively. douchtards steal stupidly and then get all butthurt when they get caught.

It's a pretty sad attitude!

Can people be inspired to create a new variation on some existing thing... of course, but to accuse all people of stealing ideas and reproducing those ideas... it's a pretty hefty claim.

Dec 12 12 01:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Managing Light
Posts: 1,720
Salem, Virginia, US


The aspect of all of this that I cannot understand is wanting to copy another's work.  Where is their pride?  Are they artist-wannabes whose creativity and vision is on empty?  Why do the work if you have nothing to say?
Dec 12 12 02:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 862
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Managing Light wrote:
Why do the work if you have nothing to say?

Money I guess.

Dec 12 12 02:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2,874
Port Townsend, Washington, US


udor wrote:

Like I do it... my own fantasy!

When I go on in my day... anytime... I may have an idea for something... I immediately write it down, including an as detailed description of what I saw in my mind... e.g. "The Optimist", which I envisioned when listening to NPR's Morning edition and they were talking about some war zone... and I drifted away and saw the initial painting in front of my eyes... then I sketched it, made the description and months later, I painted it.

I have enough ideas, and variations of my own ideas in my sketchbook that, if I'd be able to paint one painting every months, without having any new ideas, I'd be busy for the next 4 years.

You know... it IS possible to have your own ideas!

... and that's what I was teaching my students and there came some remarkable results!

believe me, i understand what you are saying. however, where do your own fantasies come from? they come from your thoughts/imaginings and those are built from what you have taken in perceptually and conceptually from others and the world around you. in other words, we are moving around what already exists, and reshaping, reinventing.

Dec 12 12 02:26 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers