Here's an interesting problem for (all of) you to think about.
Previously I have tried to inform people on copyright issues. According to Wikimedia Commons, for example board games are one example on subject that people should avoid photographing.
But then there is a concept of derivative works to consider. So, the question is:
What makes something as a derivative work (enough)?
For example on case of such image as above, is the subject altered enough to become as a derivative work? Original subject is a jigsaw puzzle by Ravensburg and subject of illustration by Aimee Stewart. Well, removing colors is very likely not enough. But if the pieces of puzzle are spread out like seen above, and part of the puzzle is out of focus, would it be then enough? And the same case concerning for example any copyright protected image. So, was Andy Warhol an ingenious artist or a biggest con artist of all time?
The fact that "derivations" are a sensitive issue from a copyright perspective is exemplified by the cases of Andy Warhol and Richard Prince. I think it remains to be seen how the legal situation develops for the authors of the originals - as well as for those who create derivations from them, but it is already a fact that all too naturally works are described as "derivations" under abuse of the concept of "artistic freedom" or even the "fair use" doctrine, which do not even come close to meeting the minimum legal requirements for "original" works. We (all) should therefore, in our own interest, pay attention to what we favor.
All the more reason why I have seriously started to consider "nature photography" as only safe option, and forget all man made artifacts =,D
When I was starting amateur photography, I especially admired nature photographers like Finnish Hannu Hautala. I was even dreaming to become like him. And now the dream has returned...
The interesting question then again is that when the photo montage made out of someone else's photos becomes a separate independent work(?) Although, one can of course use only one's own material to create a photo montage.
"Was Andy Warhol an ingenious artist or the biggest con artist of all time?" Yes, he was. He said as much himself -- at least, he distinguished between the work he thought of as art and the stuff he churned out for commercial purposes. He called himself a weekend artist.
Rauschenberg? Well, he started licensing images after a few lawsuits.
In general I think pop art failed to live up to its potential -- as Bradford Collins has noted, the pop artists were the first artists to realize that religious and political iconography had been replaced in the modern world by the iconography of advertising. Unfortunately, they didn't get anywhere as far with that idea as non-artists had earlier -- for example, Marshall McLuhan in The Mechanical Bride.
Maybe their reputation as con artists comes from that failure. I don't know which reputation would be better to have.
The issue of course varies from country to country. In Canada street photography has been protected by publishers who have gone to court to protect their use of photos of public events. In the EU, I gather, there is less protection. If Trump gets a second term, I think we will soon see an executive order requiring all US news photographs be approved by the Republican National Committee.
Loading
12 comments
©UdoSm said:
Xata said:
neira-Dan said:
Sylvain Wiart said:
Ern Jacoby said:
╰☆☆June☆☆╮ said:
◦•●◉✿ Have a great day, and stay well. ✿◉●•◦
*ઇଓ* said:
The fact that "derivations" are a sensitive issue from a copyright perspective is exemplified by the cases of Andy Warhol and Richard Prince. I think it remains to be seen how the legal situation develops for the authors of the originals - as well as for those who create derivations from them, but it is already a fact that all too naturally works are described as "derivations" under abuse of the concept of "artistic freedom" or even the "fair use" doctrine, which do not even come close to meeting the minimum legal requirements for "original" works. We (all) should therefore, in our own interest, pay attention to what we favor.
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to *ઇଓ*:
When I was starting amateur photography, I especially admired nature photographers like Finnish Hannu Hautala. I was even dreaming to become like him. And now the dream has returned...
Au Cœur... diagonalh… said:
do you know the meaning of con
in french
lol !
I feel very curious about these ideas of coping with copying
reproducing vs creating
not only for "the Magritte story" ;-)
like collages for instance. Exm www.instagram.com/p/B-RjaPfntt4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Sami Serola (inactiv… replied to Au Cœur... diagonalh…:
No vittu joo! =D
What comes to collages, I suppose they are usually called in English and Freanch as "photomontages".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomontage
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomontage
The interesting question then again is that when the photo montage made out of someone else's photos becomes a separate independent work(?) Although, one can of course use only one's own material to create a photo montage.
John FitzGerald said:
Rauschenberg? Well, he started licensing images after a few lawsuits.
In general I think pop art failed to live up to its potential -- as Bradford Collins has noted, the pop artists were the first artists to realize that religious and political iconography had been replaced in the modern world by the iconography of advertising. Unfortunately, they didn't get anywhere as far with that idea as non-artists had earlier -- for example, Marshall McLuhan in The Mechanical Bride.
Maybe their reputation as con artists comes from that failure. I don't know which reputation would be better to have.
John FitzGerald said: