|
Forums >
General Industry >
Copyright - artist learns the hard way
Dec 12 12 03:44 am Link 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 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 I too get requests all the time. Shame on the artist. Dec 12 12 04:21 am Link 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 Jeff Fiore wrote: 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 Sita Mae 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. Dec 12 12 04:50 am Link Michael DBA Expressions wrote: 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 I at least like my name mentioned, even if they don't spell it correctly . . .  SOS Dec 12 12 05:08 am Link hahahaha artist fail. Dec 12 12 05:12 am Link What a silly Billy. Dec 12 12 05:28 am Link sospix wrote: Like this? Dec 12 12 06:16 am Link 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 I loved this comment at the bottom: comments from original article by jnelson.0.1 wrote: 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: 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 ei Total Productions 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. Dec 12 12 07:55 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Jeffrey M Fletcher 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. Dec 12 12 08:14 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: ei Total Productions wrote: Not the Fairey case, the one in the op of this thread. Dec 12 12 08:26 am Link Sita Mae wrote: 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. Dec 12 12 08:27 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: ei Total Productions wrote: Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: 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 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 ei Total Productions wrote: ei Total Productions wrote: Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote: 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. Dec 12 12 09:13 am Link 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 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 MC Photo wrote: Ahhh, not so much! Dec 12 12 10:49 am Link Rays Fine Art wrote: 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 Jeff Fiore wrote: Without stealing those images, he wouldn't have had much of a career in the first place. Dec 12 12 11:20 am Link MC Photo wrote: so, it's different but the same? Dec 12 12 11:20 am Link Sita Mae wrote: When I was teaching painting and drawing, I emphasized on the fact that we as artists, are being paid to have unique ideas. Dec 12 12 11:26 am Link udor wrote: and where did the students collect ideas from? Dec 12 12 11:34 am Link udor wrote: Yep. Artists do this with me all the time. Everybody wins. It's not that hard. Dec 12 12 11:38 am Link nyk fury wrote: From the stolen land of our ancestors? Dec 12 12 11:44 am Link Sita Mae wrote: +1 Dec 12 12 11:48 am Link DP Dec 12 12 11:48 am Link Michael Pandolfo 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. Dec 12 12 11:49 am Link udor wrote: 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 nyk fury wrote: Like I do it... my own fantasy! Dec 12 12 01:47 pm Link nyk fury wrote: It's a pretty sad attitude! Dec 12 12 01:52 pm Link 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 Managing Light wrote: Money I guess. Dec 12 12 02:22 pm Link udor wrote: 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 |
