[Graffiti Prints]

Aug 19, 2014 13:08:03 GMT 1 sake said:

Everyone recieved theirs yet? Getting a bit worried now..

If you have not had tracking emailed please email us at [e-mail] and we will look at it for you

[Deleted]

Received mine perfectly. Very happy with the print. This print makes me want the canvas even more.. SO if someone is willing to sell the canvas edition please get in touch!

[ceroxol]

Finally got mine from the norwegian customs. Bomb-proof packing. Absolutely beautiful print, really happy for this! Thanks Graffiti Prints!

[virus]

Finally got mine framed. I think she is beautiful. 

[Argiebaji]

VVV Wall friendly!! Well done!!

[probored]

The other day I was googling art and came across this page:
www.londonart.co.uk/sales/top30.asp

Scrolling down the list an image appeared by an artist called "Richard Young". Besides the tagging, it all looks very similar.

[Poster Bob]

I think both pieces are based on a photograph I've seen before. At least I'm pretty darn sure but happy to be corrected. 

[probored]

makes sense.

[natstan]

Oh no, this doesn't sound good. At all...

[Deleted]

From Richard Young's description of the "painting," a Barret Adams is credited... The guy is a photographer... I could not find the original photo... I am *guessing* Martin "borrowed" Mr. Young's image.

[samfrost]

Board meltdown in 3...2...

[Deleted]

Well, that was fun.

[Poster Bob]

Nov 1, 2014 18:27:35 GMT 1 samfrost said:

Board meltdown in 3...2...

The board meltdown occurs once someone sends Barrett Adams and R Young an email asking if they've received their royalties from Mr. Whatson from all of those £195 prints :


www.barrettsphotography.com/


www.ryoung-art.com/Contact.htm

[natstan]

Is lifting images from other artists prevalent in urban art only? Came across quite a few stories on this trend. Do fine arts guys do it out of imagination or getting ''live" models to stage the whole image, like what Harrington did recently??

There is actually no big deal about the original image, but it makes me wonder why anyone using the image would not even want to make some tweaks to it.

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2014 19:13:17 GMT 1 natstan said:

Is lifting images from other artists prevalent in urban art only? Came across quite a few stories on this trend. Do fine arts guys do it out of imagination or getting ''live" models to stage the whole image, like what Harrington did recently??

There is actually no big deal about the original image, but it makes me wonder why anyone using the image would not even want to make some tweaks to it.

'Copying', 'borrowing' and 'paying homage' is as old as the hills in the art world - it's only human nature afterall.  An interesting article?

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/revealed-how-turner-began-his-career-copying-the-old-masters-918048.html

[FЯ]

Nov 1, 2014 19:13:17 GMT 1 natstan said:

Is lifting images from other artists prevalent in urban art only? Came across quite a few stories on this trend. Do fine arts guys do it out of imagination or getting ''live" models to stage the whole image, like what Harrington did recently??

There is actually no big deal about the original image, but it makes me wonder why anyone using the image would not even want to make some tweaks to it.

This is a non argument or discussion.
eveyone uses an image as a base paid or not.
banksy nicks them all over the place. Go give him a hard time.

people whining about the usage of an image is so street.

[Deleted]

^^^ this.

Infact it is well known among those who know that if all the acetate proofs of Banksys prints ever done (up to now) were laid on top of each other and the whole lot held up to the light it would show a still from Fanny Hill.

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2014 19:36:17 GMT 1 FЯ said:

This is a non argument or discussion.
eveyone uses an image as a base paid or not.
banksy nicks them all over the place. Go give him a hard time.

people whining about the usage of an image is so street.

Is not about whining about someone "borrowing" someone else's image... It's about credit... Picasso used Velasquez often... Due to admiration, and what not...

If it were a non-argument, would you still respond?

[Argiebaji]

Nov 1, 2014 19:21:47 GMT 1 @ignorantwalnut said:

Nov 1, 2014 19:13:17 GMT 1 natstan said:

Is lifting images from other artists prevalent in urban art only? Came across quite a few stories on this trend. Do fine arts guys do it out of imagination or getting ''live" models to stage the whole image, like what Harrington did recently??

There is actually no big deal about the original image, but it makes me wonder why anyone using the image would not even want to make some tweaks to it.

'Copying', 'borrowing' and 'paying homage' is as old as the hills in the art world - it's only human nature afterall.  An interesting article?

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/revealed-how-turner-began-his-career-copying-the-old-masters-918048.html

Ditto to all of the above...

[FЯ]

People only just realised this?
Wow. Its been going on for centuries.
Use whatever image you like, f**k it.

quit the whinging, just because you do not like a piece does not mean you can go find little legal details to catch people out. Its quite sad, just enjoy it or ignore it.

[.dappy]

... Oh! f*ck it ...

[Deleted]

It's not a case of just being influenced by a style or painting and making your own version.

fineartamerica.com/profiles/richard-young.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=28322

Young could use the argument that Whatsons art is identical apart from the graf sprayed on the Tutu and that Young is selling prints base don his painting and Whatsons version could affect his sales or devalue his painting etc.

  There is also the www.arsny.com/basics.html Artists Rights Society whic protects artists rights as well as intellectual artists rights too.

""What is Copyright?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) to the creators of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available for both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
•To reproduce the work in copies or phono records;
•To prepare derivative works based upon the work;"""

     Fairey and Brainfart got done for copyright infringement and for not crediting the original source of their image too.

  Brainwash got done for his Sid Vicious ripoff.

Picasso in his versions of other artists Velasquez and Delacroix femmes d'Algiers versions credited the original source of his versions which looked nothing like the originals.

 If street and urban art consists of lots of so called artists that are too idle or unimaginative to create their own unique images and all they do is rip off other images then people who buy the art and editions are being taken for suckers.

   and no wonder it's not being taken seriously.

[Dr Plip]

How is this really an issue? It's a little amusing to come across the stock image that an artist has used, but that's about it. If an artist is caught out lying about not using a stock image, then that might be another matter. But is this new? F**k no. Artists use life models all the time. Where you can't afford that or if you can't stand the thought of spending time with another living human being, there are stock images. Urban or street artists use stock images loads of the time. Especially if they're being subversive.

Edit: I mean really, if you're a street artist, how the heck are you supposed to gain access to a f**king ballerina for an hour or two so you can draw her? The Bolshoi don't just leave them lying around y'know.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 0:42:14 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

How is this really an issue? It's a little amusing to come across the stock image that an artist has used, but that's about it. If an artist is caught out lying about not using a stock image, then that might me another matter. But is this new? F**k no. Artists use life models all the time. Where you can't afford that or if you can't stand the thought of spending time with another living human being, there are stock images. Urban or street artists use stock images loads of the time. Especially if they're being subversive.

Edit: I mean really, if you're a street artist, how the heck are you supposed to gain access to a f**king ballerina for an hour or two so you can draw her? The Bolshoi don't just leave them lying around y'know.

surely if two different artists made paintings based on a stock image. Their paintings would be different from each others not look identical including shaded areas etc.

Unless of course both artists just scaled up the stock image using a magic lantern or computer or photographic enlargment made into a stencil.

[natstan]

I'm just wondering why an artist, street artist, must derive his image from another wholesale and not simply use it just as a reference (or piece together different parts of images to create a new one). For eg, in MW's cases, could he not have changed the face, her height, her direction of facing etc?

I think many of you are missing the point. That something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean it's right or 'clever', or that it is acceptable (especially those artists mentioned who were not sued by others). Of course, unless credit mention is given.

[natstan]

Nov 2, 2014 6:57:14 GMT 1 @nordicstar said:

I'm just wondering why more artist are not using me as a model. Copy copy copy take it have it.

Maybe you should start sending in pictures, ha...

Hasn't Chevrier been looking for models on social media platforms recently? ;P

[Hairbland]

Nov 1, 2014 20:18:47 GMT 1 FЯ said:

People only just realised this?
Wow. Its been going on for centuries.
Use whatever image you like, f**k it.

quit the whinging, just because you do not like a piece does not mean you can go find little legal details to catch people out. Its quite sad, just enjoy it or ignore it.

This becomes an issue because people are questioning Whatson's work to begin with. It's not like he's Richard Prince. Many thought the ballerina a lazy photoshop that now seems to be the case. Regarding his seemingly programmed but otherwise meaningless tagging it's a cheap addition to images that perhaps he doesn't create that combined equal nothing.

Which many thought already without seeing this.

[FЯ]

It was pretty obvious that all of the images whatson uses are not drawn or photographed by him.
Did people really think those images were all original?. Mad!

[Hairbland]

Nov 2, 2014 11:54:21 GMT 1 FЯ said:

It was pretty obvious that all of the images whatson uses are not drawn or photographed by him.
Did people really think those images were all original?. Mad!

I don't think people think his images were original, certainly not anymore. But a bit lazy in copping them.

[Daniel Silk]

Nov 2, 2014 12:11:46 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Nov 2, 2014 11:54:21 GMT 1 FЯ said:

It was pretty obvious that all of the images whatson uses are not drawn or photographed by him.
Did people really think those images were all original?. Mad!

I don't think people think his images were original, certainly not anymore. But a bit lazy in copping them.

Do people think Banksy's images are all original?