PDA

View Full Version : Art Appropriation



sanking
12-Mar-2017, 12:18
PetaPixel has published a number of articles on art appropriation, including this recent oine.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/11/artist-plagiarized-french-photographer-naked-sculpture-court-rules/

Others at,

https://petapixel.com/tag/appropriation/

Would be interested in thoughts on the ruling by the French court with regard to Jeff Koons porcelain statue that the judge found infringed the copy right of a photograph.

Sandy

bob carnie
12-Mar-2017, 12:35
I make copy negs of all your carbons here, put them on the lambda and solarize then quad tone and sell them , business has been brisk.

Mark Sawyer
12-Mar-2017, 13:18
For what it's worth, here's the U.S. Government's Copyright Office's take on Fair Use:

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

faberryman
12-Mar-2017, 15:06
Where you hold yourself out as an "appropriation artist", you would perhaps expect something like this since it is evidence of intent.

jnanian
12-Mar-2017, 15:11
i think the whole - gonna take someone else's art or ideas and repackage them and sell them as my own - movement
has been around for a long time. pablo said: good artists borrow, great artists steal...
http://1vze7o2h8a2b2tyahl3i0t68.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Cap-04-27-CAT_600.jpg

architects have been doing this as well. the "greatest" church built in the usa ( trinity church in coply plaza boston )
it's tower is a copy of one from another church ( in italy? can't remember the name ) and it was "scaled" down to fit the church being bult by hh richardson.
nothing new ...
its kind of funny selling someone else's instagram photo for 90,000$

stawastawa
12-Mar-2017, 16:07
We all need to find inspiration somewhere.
If you are going to rake in the big bucks you should have some decency and give back to the things that inspire you.

If you 'modify' it to create your art and a different message, then you are making something new. However it does strike me as strange/on the edge If the image is blatantly Marked "no use without permission" and then the new art looks like a xerox of the object... but mainly I come back to my second point - if someone uses the work, and has success, they should go and thank their inspiration and share their success.
I think this is similar to what the appeals court said in Prince's case. And I find it a shame that he can rip off peoples images and that he doesn't share any of the earning with them. I also think it is outrageous and maybe he could make just as much money by honestly representing the artists instead of ripping them off. There are plenting of Great photographers out there who struggle with marketing, I imagine he does some great marketing ;)


on a specific note for the sculptural case, (and maybe for both cases) I would argue that the sculpture could not be made without direct use of the copied work, and that to use the work the artist should have been made. (in contrast to making photograms with magazine cutouts or collaging over a digital art work, the sculpture has to go through a more remote translation process to arrive at final form). So while the 'copying' aspect is more involved, I think that because of that it is obvious that the intent involves copying and that permission should be required.

Willie
12-Mar-2017, 18:30
Sorry, but Koons has a history of theft of others work. He is a piece of dog crap and deserves every bad thing possible to happen to him as a result of his stealing the work of others. He is not an artist, he is a thief.

faberryman
13-Mar-2017, 10:16
I tried andouillette only once and would prefer not to repeat the experience.
Try it wiith a good Chianti, Claire.

koraks
13-Mar-2017, 10:18
The experience wasn't necessarily elementary in my becoming a pescetarian later on, but neither was it of the sort that would make me revert back to my meat-eating days ;)

Vaughn
15-Mar-2017, 09:32
The comment was in poor taste.


Try it with a good Chianti...

Could not resist.

seezee
15-Mar-2017, 17:25
If you 'modify' it to create your art and a different message, then you are making something new.

This definition does not meet the fair use test. In order to pass, the work must meet all 4 criteria. Be prepared to be dragged into court, otherwise.

Wayne
19-Mar-2017, 11:05
Fish are made out of meat.

JMB
20-Mar-2017, 03:31
Where you hold yourself out as an "appropriation artist", you would perhaps expect something like this since it is evidence of intent.

The recent Koons case is a fairly obvious and direct representation of the original photograph in another medium. It would be hard to object to the finding of a copyright violation in this case without objecting to copyright law in principle. And frankly, although this particular representation is nowhere near as grossly disfiguring as Koon's other rip-offs, I don't think that I would object if the French added a Koons specific fine for art desecration, too.

Mark Sawyer
20-Mar-2017, 11:50
Someone who's work was "appropriated" by Koons should have reproduced Koons' gallery version, scrawled "F**k Jeff Koons" across his text, and sold them on the sidewalk outside the gallery at the opening...

pjd
21-Mar-2017, 04:36
its kind of funny selling someone else's instagram photo for 90,000$

It's a kind of genius! Not artistic...but sales and marketing genius. I looked up his net worth, google came up with a figure of $100 million. I think Koons originally was a stockbroker? I watched a documentary on him years ago, my memories are a bit vague.

I found it amusing that he saw his wife in a top shelf mag at an Italian petrol station (just had to meet her having seen her - her beauty transcended pornography it seems), but later got fed up with her when she offered to sleep with Saddam Hussein to prevent a war in Iraq. The vicissitudes of the artistic life :rolleyes: