lha
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 1,605
ππ» 1,793
Member is Online
August 2009
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by lha on Nov 8, 2014 11:16:14 GMT 1, In the case of Banksy surely the ripping off, lifting, copying etc was in some cases a two fingers up approach and the things he did rip off he transformed into something else as with Morons
This approach has the been used by others whether it's disingenuous etc can be argued. Seems as the the crux is with artists other than Banksy doing it is that folks think they are being misled, deceived or cheated in some way and that not as much work has gone into creating the piece. That's not my personal view. Another example below for the melting pot..
In the case of Banksy surely the ripping off, lifting, copying etc was in some cases a two fingers up approach and the things he did rip off he transformed into something else as with Morons This approach has the been used by others whether it's disingenuous etc can be argued. Seems as the the crux is with artists other than Banksy doing it is that folks think they are being misled, deceived or cheated in some way and that not as much work has gone into creating the piece. That's not my personal view. Another example below for the melting pot.. |
|
natstan
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 1,807
ππ» 1,128
March 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by natstan on Nov 8, 2014 15:05:18 GMT 1, This thread seems to be dragging on its feet for much longer than it should be. There aren't any more new angles that can be considered or discussed in this case - copyright is law, and whatever we say don't really matter does it? White is white and black is black.
Basically, I think the idea is not so much as lifting an image fom another artist or not. It's more like whether the second artist added on another 'perspective' on the original image being 'copied'.
In the case of the john doe image, he added and appropriated the solar system as bubbles to create a fresh and attractive image, even if it is not a piece with deep meaning. There is this hint of either one or a combination of the following: wit, humor, sarcacism or critique by the use of the original image in those cases where the 'copying' artist don't come across as plagarising. So the question to ask oneself would really be, how does the artist inject an original image with ideas of his own so that it works on another level and doesn't look like a poor rip-off of the original image. It's really just that.
I just felt this thread should make its way out by now to make way for other threads. Unless there is a new angle in which one can look at this whole issue.
This thread seems to be dragging on its feet for much longer than it should be. There aren't any more new angles that can be considered or discussed in this case - copyright is law, and whatever we say don't really matter does it? White is white and black is black.
Basically, I think the idea is not so much as lifting an image fom another artist or not. It's more like whether the second artist added on another 'perspective' on the original image being 'copied'.
In the case of the john doe image, he added and appropriated the solar system as bubbles to create a fresh and attractive image, even if it is not a piece with deep meaning. There is this hint of either one or a combination of the following: wit, humor, sarcacism or critique by the use of the original image in those cases where the 'copying' artist don't come across as plagarising. So the question to ask oneself would really be, how does the artist inject an original image with ideas of his own so that it works on another level and doesn't look like a poor rip-off of the original image. It's really just that.
I just felt this thread should make its way out by now to make way for other threads. Unless there is a new angle in which one can look at this whole issue.
|
|
mutatis
New Member
π¨οΈ 671
ππ» 492
July 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by mutatis on Nov 8, 2014 15:20:15 GMT 1, Generally in the art world people can't afford to care. To global a market and infringement is difficult to police and to chase up etc. lawyers, bills etc and you would probably Winn little in compensation etc. Music on the other hand is ran by corporations and music publishing houses.....they have lawyers and legal departments coming out of their ears. Also the people infringing are either no bodies in which case they watch and care little or they are signed to another large publishing house or a large record label who have s**t loads of money and can pay big sums for any copyright infringements that they make. So as usual is controlled by economics as opposed to right and wrong. Ps Rene's problem was probably the fact that he knicked it from someone else!!!!
I don't know how true it is that artists cannot afford to care. There becomes a point where it makes economic sense to enforce ones strict legal rights. Whilst understanding the nuances of UK copyright law is helpful, a litigation culture of no win no fee, more ready access to justice through the IP Enterprise Court and DACS the rights' management organisation - artists should they be inclined, have options. Of course you have to do a cost (not just financial)/benefit analysis and assess the merits of success. Some artists simply do not care, to some the legal system is anathema, whilst others are worried about reputation management. There might even be an unwritten code of conduct between certain types of artists. Bottom line is, it is hard to generalise about individual artists and their motivations.
The handful of artistic copyright cases that reach the news or the courts are the tip of the iceberg, there are thousands of matters which are discretely being settled away from any publicity.
Generally in the art world people can't afford to care. To global a market and infringement is difficult to police and to chase up etc. lawyers, bills etc and you would probably Winn little in compensation etc. Music on the other hand is ran by corporations and music publishing houses.....they have lawyers and legal departments coming out of their ears. Also the people infringing are either no bodies in which case they watch and care little or they are signed to another large publishing house or a large record label who have s**t loads of money and can pay big sums for any copyright infringements that they make. So as usual is controlled by economics as opposed to right and wrong. Ps Rene's problem was probably the fact that he knicked it from someone else!!!! Agreed in part. Copyright is and always has been about economics, regardless of creative field. It is an economic right. Suing on a point of principle for an individual at least, whilst noble, will leave you out of pocket. The situation that you refer to in the music industry, is increasingly becoming mirrored in the "art world" as huge media corporations increasingly acquire content (images). I don't know how true it is that artists cannot afford to care. There becomes a point where it makes economic sense to enforce ones strict legal rights. Whilst understanding the nuances of UK copyright law is helpful, a litigation culture of no win no fee, more ready access to justice through the IP Enterprise Court and DACS the rights' management organisation - artists should they be inclined, have options. Of course you have to do a cost (not just financial)/benefit analysis and assess the merits of success. Some artists simply do not care, to some the legal system is anathema, whilst others are worried about reputation management. There might even be an unwritten code of conduct between certain types of artists. Bottom line is, it is hard to generalise about individual artists and their motivations. The handful of artistic copyright cases that reach the news or the courts are the tip of the iceberg, there are thousands of matters which are discretely being settled away from any publicity. |
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 4,492
ππ» 2,102
March 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by johnnyh on Nov 8, 2014 15:34:52 GMT 1, Sorry Natsan but that is completely wrong...it is a big mistake to think the copy right law is simply it is or it isn't. Sorry but the law does not work that way it's all about interpretation and who is interpreting.
there is a Swiss case of plagiarism on Artnet news at the moment. Some say a blatant copy other say appropriation
Concerns these two pieces here
It it is a serious issue that does affect artists both ways but also people should have an understanding. It's an interesting discussion that is not just about MW. Looking at the above it looks obvious but when you read the article it is not as cut and dry as you think
as mentioned I would hazard a guess that legally he would probably win a legal case on copyright
.
Sorry Natsan but that is completely wrong...it is a big mistake to think the copy right law is simply it is or it isn't. Sorry but the law does not work that way it's all about interpretation and who is interpreting. there is a Swiss case of plagiarism on Artnet news at the moment. Some say a blatant copy other say appropriation Concerns these two pieces here It it is a serious issue that does affect artists both ways but also people should have an understanding. It's an interesting discussion that is not just about MW. Looking at the above it looks obvious but when you read the article it is not as cut and dry as you think as mentioned I would hazard a guess that legally he would probably win a legal case on copyright . |
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 4,492
ππ» 2,102
March 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by johnnyh on Nov 8, 2014 15:46:47 GMT 1, Generally in the art world people can't afford to care. To global a market and infringement is difficult to police and to chase up etc. lawyers, bills etc and you would probably Winn little in compensation etc. Music on the other hand is ran by corporations and music publishing houses.....they have lawyers and legal departments coming out of their ears. Also the people infringing are either no bodies in which case they watch and care little or they are signed to another large publishing house or a large record label who have s**t loads of money and can pay big sums for any copyright infringements that they make. So as usual is controlled by economics as opposed to right and wrong. Ps Rene's problem was probably the fact that he knicked it from someone else!!!! Agreed in part. Copyright is and always has been about economics, regardless of creative field. It is an economic right. Suing on a point of principle for an individual at least, whilst noble, will leave you out of pocket. The situation that you refer to in the music industry, is increasingly becoming mirrored in the "art world" as huge media corporations increasingly acquire content (images). I don't know how true it is that artists cannot afford to care. There becomes a point where it makes economic sense to enforce ones strict legal rights. Whilst understanding the nuances of UK copyright law is helpful, a litigation culture of no win no fee, more ready access to justice through the IP Enterprise Court and DACS the rights' management organisation - artists should they be inclined, have options. Of course you have to do a cost (not just financial)/benefit analysis and assess the merits of success. Some artists simply do not care, to some the legal system is anathema, whilst others are worried about reputation management. There might even be an unwritten code of conduct between certain types of artists. Bottom line is, it is hard to generalise about individual artists and their motivations. The handful of artistic copyright cases that reach the news or the courts are the tip of the iceberg, there are thousands of matters which are discretely being settled away from any publicity.
Generally in the art world people can't afford to care. To global a market and infringement is difficult to police and to chase up etc. lawyers, bills etc and you would probably Winn little in compensation etc. Music on the other hand is ran by corporations and music publishing houses.....they have lawyers and legal departments coming out of their ears. Also the people infringing are either no bodies in which case they watch and care little or they are signed to another large publishing house or a large record label who have s**t loads of money and can pay big sums for any copyright infringements that they make. So as usual is controlled by economics as opposed to right and wrong. Ps Rene's problem was probably the fact that he knicked it from someone else!!!! Agreed in part. Copyright is and always has been about economics, regardless of creative field. It is an economic right. Suing on a point of principle for an individual at least, whilst noble, will leave you out of pocket. The situation that you refer to in the music industry, is increasingly becoming mirrored in the "art world" as huge media corporations increasingly acquire content (images). I don't know how true it is that artists cannot afford to care. There becomes a point where it makes economic sense to enforce ones strict legal rights. Whilst understanding the nuances of UK copyright law is helpful, a litigation culture of no win no fee, more ready access to justice through the IP Enterprise Court and DACS the rights' management organisation - artists should they be inclined, have options. Of course you have to do a cost (not just financial)/benefit analysis and assess the merits of success. Some artists simply do not care, to some the legal system is anathema, whilst others are worried about reputation management. There might even be an unwritten code of conduct between certain types of artists. Bottom line is, it is hard to generalise about individual artists and their motivations. The handful of artistic copyright cases that reach the news or the courts are the tip of the iceberg, there are thousands of matters which are discretely being settled away from any publicity. Agree with a lot of the above however the key point is that much of the art world involves different artists in different legal jurisdictions which makes the no win no fee type scenario out the window unless there is big bucks involved. Similarly what a lot of people as mentioned see as a simple it is or it isn't is often not the case as open to interpretation. Lawyers will as you say be involved at the big end of the art world but in most cases particularly looking at urban street etc these artists are not in that game. Most common practice to settle are cease and desist letters. Similarly these in general are short term hits small print run etc etc likewise these are generally hard cases to prove |
|
mutatis
New Member
π¨οΈ 671
ππ» 492
July 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by mutatis on Nov 8, 2014 16:13:49 GMT 1, Agreed in part. Copyright is and always has been about economics, regardless of creative field. It is an economic right. Suing on a point of principle for an individual at least, whilst noble, will leave you out of pocket. The situation that you refer to in the music industry, is increasingly becoming mirrored in the "art world" as huge media corporations increasingly acquire content (images). I don't know how true it is that artists cannot afford to care. There becomes a point where it makes economic sense to enforce ones strict legal rights. Whilst understanding the nuances of UK copyright law is helpful, a litigation culture of no win no fee, more ready access to justice through the IP Enterprise Court and DACS the rights' management organisation - artists should they be inclined, have options. Of course you have to do a cost (not just financial)/benefit analysis and assess the merits of success. Some artists simply do not care, to some the legal system is anathema, whilst others are worried about reputation management. There might even be an unwritten code of conduct between certain types of artists. Bottom line is, it is hard to generalise about individual artists and their motivations. The handful of artistic copyright cases that reach the news or the courts are the tip of the iceberg, there are thousands of matters which are discretely being settled away from any publicity. Agree with a lot of the above however the key point is that much of the art world involves different artists in different legal jurisdictions which makes the no win no fee type scenario out the window unless there is big bucks involved. Similarly what a lot of people as mentioned see as a simple it is or it isn't is often not the case as open to interpretation. Lawyers will as you say be involved at the big end of the art world but in most cases particularly looking at urban street etc these artists are not in that game. Most common practice to settle are cease and desist letters. Similarly these in general are short term hits small print run etc etc likewise these are generally hard cases to prove
What makes things more interesting, for instance the reference above to Cariou v Prince is as you say, a different jurisdiction. The doctrine of fair use under US law is more liberal and broader than the UK exceptions under fair dealing. In the UK we don't have the judicial construct of "transformative works". If for the sake of argument, Whatson was sued in the UK, as copying is not in issue, it falls to be decided whether Whatson copied a substantial part of the original work. The test is not whether the images look the same, but whether the similarities and differences amount to a substantial taking of the skill, labour and judgment in the original image. As judges themselves often differ in answering this very issue, it shows how difficult it is (for those interested, one of the leading cases in the UK is the HoL decision in Designer Guild v Russell Williams Textiles) Would Whatson have a defence? The only one available would be parody. Is it applicable here? This is where it would get interesting.
Agreed in part. Copyright is and always has been about economics, regardless of creative field. It is an economic right. Suing on a point of principle for an individual at least, whilst noble, will leave you out of pocket. The situation that you refer to in the music industry, is increasingly becoming mirrored in the "art world" as huge media corporations increasingly acquire content (images). I don't know how true it is that artists cannot afford to care. There becomes a point where it makes economic sense to enforce ones strict legal rights. Whilst understanding the nuances of UK copyright law is helpful, a litigation culture of no win no fee, more ready access to justice through the IP Enterprise Court and DACS the rights' management organisation - artists should they be inclined, have options. Of course you have to do a cost (not just financial)/benefit analysis and assess the merits of success. Some artists simply do not care, to some the legal system is anathema, whilst others are worried about reputation management. There might even be an unwritten code of conduct between certain types of artists. Bottom line is, it is hard to generalise about individual artists and their motivations. The handful of artistic copyright cases that reach the news or the courts are the tip of the iceberg, there are thousands of matters which are discretely being settled away from any publicity. Agree with a lot of the above however the key point is that much of the art world involves different artists in different legal jurisdictions which makes the no win no fee type scenario out the window unless there is big bucks involved. Similarly what a lot of people as mentioned see as a simple it is or it isn't is often not the case as open to interpretation. Lawyers will as you say be involved at the big end of the art world but in most cases particularly looking at urban street etc these artists are not in that game. Most common practice to settle are cease and desist letters. Similarly these in general are short term hits small print run etc etc likewise these are generally hard cases to prove This is an interesting discussion. For clarification, I was referring solely to the UK, but I take your points. What makes things more interesting, for instance the reference above to Cariou v Prince is as you say, a different jurisdiction. The doctrine of fair use under US law is more liberal and broader than the UK exceptions under fair dealing. In the UK we don't have the judicial construct of "transformative works". If for the sake of argument, Whatson was sued in the UK, as copying is not in issue, it falls to be decided whether Whatson copied a substantial part of the original work. The test is not whether the images look the same, but whether the similarities and differences amount to a substantial taking of the skill, labour and judgment in the original image. As judges themselves often differ in answering this very issue, it shows how difficult it is (for those interested, one of the leading cases in the UK is the HoL decision in Designer Guild v Russell Williams Textiles) Would Whatson have a defence? The only one available would be parody. Is it applicable here? This is where it would get interesting. |
|
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 4,492
ππ» 2,102
March 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by johnnyh on Nov 8, 2014 16:33:06 GMT 1, Your absolutely correct Mutatis on UK law it is a lot simpler and cleaner in my view but still as you say open to a lot of interpretation. Tis quite fascinating really...in a sad way
Cheers
Your absolutely correct Mutatis on UK law it is a lot simpler and cleaner in my view but still as you say open to a lot of interpretation. Tis quite fascinating really...in a sad way
Cheers
|
|
hnkpnk
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 1,344
ππ» 1,423
July 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by hnkpnk on Nov 8, 2014 16:41:07 GMT 1, So when banksy ripped off the rene gagnon praying boy, that was copyright infringement. got you. did anyone care. Did they f**k. 
The original image used to be on the first page when searching for "praying boy".
Banksys and Gagnons versions of it are clearly different (although obviously from the same source image) and it's not impossible they got the idea simultaneously.
So when banksy ripped off the rene gagnon praying boy, that was copyright infringement. got you. did anyone care. Did they f**k. The original image used to be on the first page when searching for "praying boy". Banksys and Gagnons versions of it are clearly different (although obviously from the same source image) and it's not impossible they got the idea simultaneously. |
|
natstan
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 1,807
ππ» 1,128
March 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by natstan on Nov 8, 2014 17:08:56 GMT 1, Sorry Natsan but that is completely wrong...it is a big mistake to think the copy right law is simply it is or it isn't. Sorry but the law does not work that way it's all about interpretation and who is interpreting. there is a Swiss case of plagiarism on Artnet news at the moment. Some say a blatant copy other say appropriation Concerns these two pieces here It it is a serious issue that does affect artists both ways but also people should have an understanding. It's an interesting discussion that is not just about MW. Looking at the above it looks obvious but when you read the article it is not as cut and dry as you think as mentioned I would hazard a guess that legally he would probably win a legal case on copyrightΒ .
Which brings me back to my point - what did that second copy version did which the original piece didn't achieve?
Sorry Natsan but that is completely wrong...it is a big mistake to think the copy right law is simply it is or it isn't. Sorry but the law does not work that way it's all about interpretation and who is interpreting. there is a Swiss case of plagiarism on Artnet news at the moment. Some say a blatant copy other say appropriation Concerns these two pieces here It it is a serious issue that does affect artists both ways but also people should have an understanding. It's an interesting discussion that is not just about MW. Looking at the above it looks obvious but when you read the article it is not as cut and dry as you think as mentioned I would hazard a guess that legally he would probably win a legal case on copyrightΒ . Which brings me back to my point - what did that second copy version did which the original piece didn't achieve? |
|
FΠ―
Full Member
π¨οΈ 8,264
ππ» 9,252
May 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by FΠ― on Nov 8, 2014 17:10:40 GMT 1, So when banksy ripped off the rene gagnon praying boy, that was copyright infringement. got you. did anyone care. Did they f**k. The original image used to be on the first page when searching for "praying boy". Banksys and Gagnons versions of it are clearly different (although obviously from the same source image) and it's not impossible they got the idea simultaneously.
Yeah but its not about that, its about copyright.
both broke it here but that did not get anyones arse in a tit.
So when banksy ripped off the rene gagnon praying boy, that was copyright infringement. got you. did anyone care. Did they f**k. The original image used to be on the first page when searching for "praying boy". Banksys and Gagnons versions of it are clearly different (although obviously from the same source image) and it's not impossible they got the idea simultaneously. Yeah but its not about that, its about copyright. both broke it here but that did not get anyones arse in a tit. |
|
Wearology
Junior Member
Staff at FatFreeArt
π¨οΈ 3,601
ππ» 4,522
April 2008
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Wearology on Nov 8, 2014 17:22:09 GMT 1, Some people and or companies are just better at selling the same product, concept & or image.
There was a company back in the early 90's called Ask Jeeves.
Ask Jeeves was an internet search engine where you could ask it a question and
it would answer that question for you. That company was the Google of the 90's.
Google is a multi billion dollar company now and Ask Jeeves is a company that has
most of you thinking wow Wearology is old as dirt.
Some people and or companies are just better at selling the same product, concept & or image.
There was a company back in the early 90's called Ask Jeeves.
Ask Jeeves was an internet search engine where you could ask it a question and
it would answer that question for you. That company was the Google of the 90's.
Google is a multi billion dollar company now and Ask Jeeves is a company that has
most of you thinking wow Wearology is old as dirt.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 7,043
ππ» 8,981
August 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Dr Plip on Nov 8, 2014 17:29:22 GMT 1, I really hope Banksy creates a new peace soon. Have some of us really got nothing better to bicker about than copyright and plagiarism in urban art?
I really hope Banksy creates a new peace soon. Have some of us really got nothing better to bicker about than copyright and plagiarism in urban art?
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 4,492
ππ» 2,102
March 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by johnnyh on Nov 8, 2014 17:31:01 GMT 1, Which brings me back to my point - what did that second copy version did which the original piece didn't achieve? No actually your point was that the copyright law was black and white. Obviously it isn't because if you read the article where the photo comes from they are discussing whether it plagiarism or not. Eg the copy right law in not black and white at all. Similarly different jurisdictions have different interpretations of and different criteria on copyright law.
Which brings me back to my point - what did that second copy version did which the original piece didn't achieve? No actually your point was that the copyright law was black and white. Obviously it isn't because if you read the article where the photo comes from they are discussing whether it plagiarism or not. Eg the copy right law in not black and white at all. Similarly different jurisdictions have different interpretations of and different criteria on copyright law. |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 7,043
ππ» 8,981
August 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Dr Plip on Nov 8, 2014 17:33:14 GMT 1, Some people and or companies are just better at selling the same product, concept & or image. There was a company back in the early 90's called Ask Jeeves. Ask Jeeves was an internet search engine where you could ask it a question and it would answer that question for you. That company was the Google of the 90's. Google is a multi billion dollar company now and Ask Jeeves is a company that has most of you thinking wow Wearology is old as dirt. 
Some people and or companies are just better at selling the same product, concept & or image. There was a company back in the early 90's called Ask Jeeves. Ask Jeeves was an internet search engine where you could ask it a question and it would answer that question for you. That company was the Google of the 90's. Google is a multi billion dollar company now and Ask Jeeves is a company that has most of you thinking wow Wearology is old as dirt. |
|
|
|
FΠ―
Full Member
π¨οΈ 8,264
ππ» 9,252
May 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by FΠ― on Nov 8, 2014 17:35:37 GMT 1, Some people and or companies are just better at selling the same product, concept & or image. There was a company back in the early 90's called Ask Jeeves. Ask Jeeves was an internet search engine where you could ask it a question and it would answer that question for you. That company was the Google of the 90's. Google is a multi billion dollar company now and Ask Jeeves is a company that has most of you thinking wow Wearology is old as dirt.
started using tinternets in 1995
Some people and or companies are just better at selling the same product, concept & or image. There was a company back in the early 90's called Ask Jeeves. Ask Jeeves was an internet search engine where you could ask it a question and it would answer that question for you. That company was the Google of the 90's. Google is a multi billion dollar company now and Ask Jeeves is a company that has most of you thinking wow Wearology is old as dirt. I was using Altavista way before ask jeeves. started using tinternets in 1995 |
|
Wearology
Junior Member
Staff at FatFreeArt
π¨οΈ 3,601
ππ» 4,522
April 2008
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Wearology on Nov 8, 2014 17:41:24 GMT 1, The first few hundred web sites began in 1993 and most of them were at colleges, but long before most of them existed came Archie. The first search engine created was Archie, created in 1990 by Alan Emtage, a student at McGill University in Montreal.
The first few hundred web sites began in 1993 and most of them were at colleges, but long before most of them existed came Archie. The first search engine created was Archie, created in 1990 by Alan Emtage, a student at McGill University in Montreal.
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 4,492
ππ» 2,102
March 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by johnnyh on Nov 8, 2014 17:49:08 GMT 1, Don't want to upset your timelines but the UK had mail back in 1516 making it electronic 400 years later not necessarily the greatest achievement
Don't want to upset your timelines but the UK had mail back in 1516 making it electronic 400 years later not necessarily the greatest achievement
|
|
Deleted
π¨οΈ 0
ππ»
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 8, 2014 19:56:42 GMT 1, anyone and their dog can trace a photo or picture or print using a magic lantern to enlarge it and then cut a stencil from that. most can even do decent faces. Whatsons trademark seems to be the taggy stuff which is applied to an image. I think Chevrier is fine on copyright as she tends to collage the images as opposed to use a complete image. ... so what's your excuse mr ploppi ...  (PS: Chevrier is not alright in her use of collages) whats my excuse in what?
give me an example some of my art is on my bookface
anyone and their dog can trace a photo or picture or print using a magic lantern to enlarge it and then cut a stencil from that. most can even do decent faces. Whatsons trademark seems to be the taggy stuff which is applied to an image. I think Chevrier is fine on copyright as she tends to collage the images as opposed to use a complete image. ... so what's your excuse mr ploppi ... (PS: Chevrier is not alright in her use of collages) whats my excuse in what?
give me an example some of my art is on my bookface
|
|
Deleted
π¨οΈ 0
ππ»
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 8, 2014 20:00:06 GMT 1, So when banksy ripped off the rene gagnon praying boy, that was copyright infringement. got you. did anyone care. Did they f**k. The original image used to be on the first page when searching for "praying boy". Banksys and Gagnons versions of it are clearly different (although obviously from the same source image) and it's not impossible they got the idea simultaneously. Gagnon stencilled his artistic version of the image on a wall as graffiti.
Then Bankson also made a stencilled image of the same pic.
So did Bankson and co decide to rip off Gagnons idea?
So when banksy ripped off the rene gagnon praying boy, that was copyright infringement. got you. did anyone care. Did they f**k. The original image used to be on the first page when searching for "praying boy". Banksys and Gagnons versions of it are clearly different (although obviously from the same source image) and it's not impossible they got the idea simultaneously. Gagnon stencilled his artistic version of the image on a wall as graffiti.
Then Bankson also made a stencilled image of the same pic.
So did Bankson and co decide to rip off Gagnons idea?
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
π¨οΈ 9,190
ππ» 8,545
May 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by iamzero on Nov 8, 2014 20:10:58 GMT 1, I used Altavista all the time in the early 90's... And Astalavista for stuff too. Way before google, yahoo used be ok too but Google blew the lot away.
I used Altavista all the time in the early 90's... And Astalavista for stuff too. Way before google, yahoo used be ok too but Google blew the lot away.
|
|
cyoungart
New Member
π¨οΈ 4
ππ» 2
November 2014
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by cyoungart on Nov 9, 2014 9:42:23 GMT 1, Wow it's great to see that loads of people don't agree with copying someone's artwork without permission! Shame that some don't feel the same, if it were your artwork that had blatantly been copied without permission perhaps you'd feel differently.. The artist Richard Young is my dad and he's fully aware of Martins 3 pieces he's 'borrowed' from him without copy right permission from my father or the photographer (who is also aware). He has contacted both graffiti prints and Martin and if they don't come to an agreement he will be pursuing via Design and Copyright Society (DACS), the Fine Art Trade Guild and at the Royal Society for Arts (RSA) who represent him.
For anyone who hasn't seen dads painting here's a link..
www.ryoung-art.com/Dancer%20at%20peace%20oil%20painting.htm
If only Martin had asked permission eh!
Wow it's great to see that loads of people don't agree with copying someone's artwork without permission! Shame that some don't feel the same, if it were your artwork that had blatantly been copied without permission perhaps you'd feel differently.. The artist Richard Young is my dad and he's fully aware of Martins 3 pieces he's 'borrowed' from him without copy right permission from my father or the photographer (who is also aware). He has contacted both graffiti prints and Martin and if they don't come to an agreement he will be pursuing via Design and Copyright Society (DACS), the Fine Art Trade Guild and at the Royal Society for Arts (RSA) who represent him. For anyone who hasn't seen dads painting here's a link.. www.ryoung-art.com/Dancer%20at%20peace%20oil%20painting.htmIf only Martin had asked permission eh! |
|
FΠ―
Full Member
π¨οΈ 8,264
ππ» 9,252
May 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by FΠ― on Nov 9, 2014 9:46:58 GMT 1, Wow it's great to see that loads of people don't agree with copying someone's artwork without permission! Shame that some don't feel the same, if it were your artwork that had blatantly been copied without permission perhaps you'd feel differently.. The artist Richard Young is my dad and he's fully aware of Martins 3 pieces he's 'borrowed' from him without copy right permission from my father or the photographer (who is also aware). He has contacted both graffiti prints and Martin and if they don't come to an agreement he will be pursuing via Design and Copyright Society (DACS), the Fine Art Trade Guild and at the Royal Society for Arts (RSA) who represent him. For anyone who hasn't seen dads painting here's a link.. www.ryoung-art.com/Dancer%20at%20peace%20oil%20painting.htmIf only Martin had asked permission eh!
Oops.
Wow it's great to see that loads of people don't agree with copying someone's artwork without permission! Shame that some don't feel the same, if it were your artwork that had blatantly been copied without permission perhaps you'd feel differently.. The artist Richard Young is my dad and he's fully aware of Martins 3 pieces he's 'borrowed' from him without copy right permission from my father or the photographer (who is also aware). He has contacted both graffiti prints and Martin and if they don't come to an agreement he will be pursuing via Design and Copyright Society (DACS), the Fine Art Trade Guild and at the Royal Society for Arts (RSA) who represent him. For anyone who hasn't seen dads painting here's a link.. www.ryoung-art.com/Dancer%20at%20peace%20oil%20painting.htmIf only Martin had asked permission eh! Oops. |
|
|
|
andyroo0312
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,174
ππ» 1,675
July 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by andyroo0312 on Nov 9, 2014 10:08:26 GMT 1, People just don't have manners anymore, instead of "please", "thank you" and "do you mind if i use your picture" you get " fu@k off", "mind your own business" or " what ever mate who gives a shit" the human race is de-evolving, the end is nigh.. 
People just don't have manners anymore, instead of "please", "thank you" and "do you mind if i use your picture" you get " fu@k off", "mind your own business" or " what ever mate who gives a shit" the human race is de-evolving, the end is nigh.. |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 7,043
ππ» 8,981
August 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Dr Plip on Nov 9, 2014 10:11:51 GMT 1, I'm picturing a cease and desist letter with tags all over it.
I'm picturing a cease and desist letter with tags all over it.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 7,043
ππ» 8,981
August 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Dr Plip on Nov 9, 2014 10:15:13 GMT 1, Hello cyoungart. Welcome to the forum. Can I just ask out of curiosity, how did your father become aware of his work being used without his permission?
Hello cyoungart. Welcome to the forum. Can I just ask out of curiosity, how did your father become aware of his work being used without his permission? |
|
Deleted
π¨οΈ 0
ππ»
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 10:18:06 GMT 1, Stubbs was'nt that hot on Hooves, he also could'nt paint a Gangsta Rat to save his life, tried but they all looked a bit equineish.
Stubbs was'nt that hot on Hooves, he also could'nt paint a Gangsta Rat to save his life, tried but they all looked a bit equineish.
|
|
gatecrasher
New Member
π¨οΈ 687
ππ» 560
December 2012
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by gatecrasher on Nov 9, 2014 10:23:27 GMT 1, Im sure someone's pointed out the models left hand is a claw .. maybe it's really Banksy.
Seriously though. I'm starting to feel a bit of a mock outrage situation here.
You can still buy the "original", but MWs prints sold out in seconds .. the art world speaketh 
Im sure someone's pointed out the models left hand is a claw .. maybe it's really Banksy. Seriously though. I'm starting to feel a bit of a mock outrage situation here. You can still buy the "original", but MWs prints sold out in seconds .. the art world speaketh |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 7,043
ππ» 8,981
August 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Dr Plip on Nov 9, 2014 10:25:54 GMT 1, For years (possibly still), the comic book artist Rob Liefeld couldn't draw feet. Quite often, his characters would be standing with objects just in front of one or both feet. Like a clump of earth or a wisp of smoke or summin'.
All these little artist tricks.
For years (possibly still), the comic book artist Rob Liefeld couldn't draw feet. Quite often, his characters would be standing with objects just in front of one or both feet. Like a clump of earth or a wisp of smoke or summin'.
All these little artist tricks. |
|
gatecrasher
New Member
π¨οΈ 687
ππ» 560
December 2012
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by gatecrasher on Nov 9, 2014 10:30:35 GMT 1, Oddly when you go on the R Young website it auto downloads something to your computer. I'm not PC expert and didn't feel the need to open the file but it's pretty dodgy anyhoo.
Oddly when you go on the R Young website it auto downloads something to your computer. I'm not PC expert and didn't feel the need to open the file but it's pretty dodgy anyhoo.
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 4,492
ππ» 2,102
March 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by johnnyh on Nov 9, 2014 12:36:15 GMT 1, Sounds like someone off here sent him an email Drplip.
Well we should have our answers to the copyright discussion shortly I suppose.
Mentions the photographer so will be interesting to see if he took his stencil from the painting or a photo and where it came from etc.
Sounds like someone off here sent him an email Drplip.
Well we should have our answers to the copyright discussion shortly I suppose.
Mentions the photographer so will be interesting to see if he took his stencil from the painting or a photo and where it came from etc.
|
|
