Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 12:34:25 GMT 1, boingboing.net/2011/01/26/thierry-guetta-aka-m.html
Thierry Guetta, aka Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement over Run DMC image
Sean Bonner at 10:44 AM Wednesday, Jan 26, 2011
Sean Bonner has been involved with blogs and hackerspaces and art galleries and record labels of the punk rock variety. Now he's on Twitter.
Above Top: Photo of Run DMC, taken by Glen E. Friedman
Above Bottom: Invitation Thierry Guetta, aka Mr. Brainwash used for his debut exhibition 'Life Is Beautiful'
Earlier this month I noted that Banksy had finally spoken about the artist Thierry Guetta (aka Mr. Brainwash) profiled in his now Oscar nominated film Exit Through the Gift Shop. Still, suspicions run fairly rampant that he either doesn't exist or is merely the latest prank creation by Banksy. Guetta has now given sworn statements that the artwork is his own, as he's the subject of a copyright lawsuit initiated by photographer Glen E. Friedman. The two Run DMC images above should make that fairly obvious (as well as several others after the jump).
Friedman is arguing that Guetta used, without credit or permission, his iconic photo of Run DMC on invitations, artworks, merchandise and promotional materials. The Hollywood Reporter broke this story, connected some of the dots between many of the people involved, and then suggested it's basically the same situation as the Associated Press vs. Shepard Fairey case surrounding the Obama 'Hope' image. It's not, and for number of reasons which I'll get to in a second.
First, those dots: Shepard Fairey appeared in Banksy's film about Thierry Guetta, in fact he was the person who introduced Guetta to Banksy. Shepard Fairey and Glen E. Friedman have collaborated on many projects together in the past. And to disclose my connection to this, I previously co ran an art gallery that worked closely with Fairey, Friedman and Guetta's cousin, Space Invader. I met Guetta many times via the gallery, long before he became Mr. Brainwash. Glen and I were both deposed in relation to Shepard's dispute with the Associated press, and I consider both he and Shepard personal friends.
Now that that is out of the way - the major difference between the two cases is the use of an iconic image. In the Fairey v. AP case, Shepard used a random press image that was not iconic in anyway and changed it significantly. In fact the photographer who took the original image, Mannie Garcia, has stated that he didn't even recognize that the 'HOPE' image which he had seen for months while covering the Obama campaign was based on his photo which says quite a bit about both how much Shepard changed it, and how unremarkable of a photo it was in the first place.
In the Friedman v Guetta case, not only is the photo already famous and iconic, it's arguably *the most* famous photo of Run DMC that exists. In fact it was used as the cover image on a 20 year retrospective of photos of the group. The argument could easily be made that Guetta used the photo specifically for this reason, it was already iconic, very well known and he used it in his artwork because of that. He wasn't just referencing Run DMC, he was referencing the most famous photo of them. Additionally he used it in several instances throughout his exhibition, never once crediting Friedman as the creator of the original photo.
Shepard has argued that he believes what he did was covered by Fair Use laws, and references many instances of artwork he's created non-fair use works based on iconic images where he's worked with, and credited the photographer involve (such as the collaborations with Friedman). The photo of Obama by Garcia *became* iconic after Shepard used it, prior to that it was not noteworthy. In the Guetta case, there's no question the photo was iconic long before Guetta ever stepped onto the scene - and had been registered and sold as artwork on it's own right by Friedman for years.
At face value the cases might seem similar and contradictory, but those are in fact extremely important differences.
All that aside this case is interesting for many reasons. It should put to rest the speculation that Mr. Brainwash is just a creation of Banksy's. Should Friedman win the case, expect other artists and copyright holders to come out of the woodwork as basically every piece of artwork by Guetta is just a twist on an already well known image created, and uncredited, by someone else. What will happen to the values of the Guetta/MBW works that were sold at, as some have suggested, incredibly inflated prices to begin with? I think this story is long from over, and can't wait to see what happens in Exit Through The Gift Shop 2.
boingboing.net/2011/01/26/thierry-guetta-aka-m.htmlThierry Guetta, aka Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement over Run DMC imageSean Bonner at 10:44 AM Wednesday, Jan 26, 2011 Sean Bonner has been involved with blogs and hackerspaces and art galleries and record labels of the punk rock variety. Now he's on Twitter. Above Top: Photo of Run DMC, taken by Glen E. Friedman Above Bottom: Invitation Thierry Guetta, aka Mr. Brainwash used for his debut exhibition 'Life Is Beautiful' Earlier this month I noted that Banksy had finally spoken about the artist Thierry Guetta (aka Mr. Brainwash) profiled in his now Oscar nominated film Exit Through the Gift Shop. Still, suspicions run fairly rampant that he either doesn't exist or is merely the latest prank creation by Banksy. Guetta has now given sworn statements that the artwork is his own, as he's the subject of a copyright lawsuit initiated by photographer Glen E. Friedman. The two Run DMC images above should make that fairly obvious (as well as several others after the jump). Friedman is arguing that Guetta used, without credit or permission, his iconic photo of Run DMC on invitations, artworks, merchandise and promotional materials. The Hollywood Reporter broke this story, connected some of the dots between many of the people involved, and then suggested it's basically the same situation as the Associated Press vs. Shepard Fairey case surrounding the Obama 'Hope' image. It's not, and for number of reasons which I'll get to in a second. First, those dots: Shepard Fairey appeared in Banksy's film about Thierry Guetta, in fact he was the person who introduced Guetta to Banksy. Shepard Fairey and Glen E. Friedman have collaborated on many projects together in the past. And to disclose my connection to this, I previously co ran an art gallery that worked closely with Fairey, Friedman and Guetta's cousin, Space Invader. I met Guetta many times via the gallery, long before he became Mr. Brainwash. Glen and I were both deposed in relation to Shepard's dispute with the Associated press, and I consider both he and Shepard personal friends. Now that that is out of the way - the major difference between the two cases is the use of an iconic image. In the Fairey v. AP case, Shepard used a random press image that was not iconic in anyway and changed it significantly. In fact the photographer who took the original image, Mannie Garcia, has stated that he didn't even recognize that the 'HOPE' image which he had seen for months while covering the Obama campaign was based on his photo which says quite a bit about both how much Shepard changed it, and how unremarkable of a photo it was in the first place. In the Friedman v Guetta case, not only is the photo already famous and iconic, it's arguably *the most* famous photo of Run DMC that exists. In fact it was used as the cover image on a 20 year retrospective of photos of the group. The argument could easily be made that Guetta used the photo specifically for this reason, it was already iconic, very well known and he used it in his artwork because of that. He wasn't just referencing Run DMC, he was referencing the most famous photo of them. Additionally he used it in several instances throughout his exhibition, never once crediting Friedman as the creator of the original photo. Shepard has argued that he believes what he did was covered by Fair Use laws, and references many instances of artwork he's created non-fair use works based on iconic images where he's worked with, and credited the photographer involve (such as the collaborations with Friedman). The photo of Obama by Garcia *became* iconic after Shepard used it, prior to that it was not noteworthy. In the Guetta case, there's no question the photo was iconic long before Guetta ever stepped onto the scene - and had been registered and sold as artwork on it's own right by Friedman for years. At face value the cases might seem similar and contradictory, but those are in fact extremely important differences. All that aside this case is interesting for many reasons. It should put to rest the speculation that Mr. Brainwash is just a creation of Banksy's. Should Friedman win the case, expect other artists and copyright holders to come out of the woodwork as basically every piece of artwork by Guetta is just a twist on an already well known image created, and uncredited, by someone else. What will happen to the values of the Guetta/MBW works that were sold at, as some have suggested, incredibly inflated prices to begin with? I think this story is long from over, and can't wait to see what happens in Exit Through The Gift Shop 2.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Daniel Silk on Jan 27, 2011 12:55:17 GMT 1, Its all gonna gain him publicity 
Its all gonna gain him publicity |
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by des77 on Jan 27, 2011 13:02:21 GMT 1, Its all gonna gain him publicity
and that sums up everything that is wrong with people in this scene
Its all gonna gain him publicity and that sums up everything that is wrong with people in this scene |
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Happy Shopper on Jan 27, 2011 13:04:27 GMT 1, Would be easy enough for Theirry to pay Glen whatever he wanted for the image out of court... which is what will probably happen.
It's not like this image made MBW's career. Just one average canvas amongst many.
Would be easy enough for Theirry to pay Glen whatever he wanted for the image out of court... which is what will probably happen.
It's not like this image made MBW's career. Just one average canvas amongst many.
|
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 13:08:28 GMT 1, 
It doesn't matter if that picture is iconic or not. As soon as you've used another person's work without their permission in your own work then you've infringed their copyright.
Making some photoshop alteration to the photo does not make it yours (unless of course the photo is already in public domain...)
It doesn't matter if that picture is iconic or not. As soon as you've used another person's work without their permission in your own work then you've infringed their copyright. Making some photoshop alteration to the photo does not make it yours (unless of course the photo is already in public domain...)
|
|
leumasdarnley
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,650
Likes โข 49
May 2007
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by leumasdarnley on Jan 27, 2011 13:09:16 GMT 1, Its the cool thing to do apparently...
Its the cool thing to do apparently...
|
|
|
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 13:11:27 GMT 1, Until you get a letter from their lawyer.
Until you get a letter from their lawyer.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 13:12:05 GMT 1, i suspect this wont be his first or last case of infringement either
i suspect this wont be his first or last case of infringement either
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Daniel Silk on Jan 27, 2011 13:14:14 GMT 1, Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised 
Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised |
|
leumasdarnley
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,650
Likes โข 49
May 2007
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by leumasdarnley on Jan 27, 2011 13:16:09 GMT 1, Until you get a letter from their lawyer.
Well as long as your a "profitable" artist I think the worst they will do is ask you to share the profits just ask Shep.
Until you get a letter from their lawyer. Well as long as your a "profitable" artist I think the worst they will do is ask you to share the profits just ask Shep. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Happy Shopper on Jan 27, 2011 13:19:32 GMT 1, There are definitely different laws regarding the use of an image for art... rather than commercial products or advertising.
It's a fine line though.
In this case he's done nothing to the image, and hasn't used it in a clever way, so perhaps he's in trouble??
There are definitely different laws regarding the use of an image for art... rather than commercial products or advertising.
It's a fine line though.
In this case he's done nothing to the image, and hasn't used it in a clever way, so perhaps he's in trouble??
|
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 13:24:18 GMT 1, Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised
No it shouldn't, but then we don't know if Banksy has permission or not, maybe he has...
Or maybe it's just a matter of time someone decides to sue him.
Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised No it shouldn't, but then we don't know if Banksy has permission or not, maybe he has... Or maybe it's just a matter of time someone decides to sue him. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by des77 on Jan 27, 2011 13:24:44 GMT 1, Its the cool thing to do apparently...
Its the cool thing to do apparently... |
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 13:26:40 GMT 1, There are definitely different laws regarding the use of an image for art... rather than commercial products or advertising. It's a fine line though. In this case he's done nothing to the image, and hasn't used it in a clever way, so perhaps he's in trouble??
If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so...
There are definitely different laws regarding the use of an image for art... rather than commercial products or advertising. It's a fine line though. In this case he's done nothing to the image, and hasn't used it in a clever way, so perhaps he's in trouble?? If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so... |
|
|
|
OutsideIn
New Member
Posts โข 780
Likes โข 9
May 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by OutsideIn on Jan 27, 2011 13:39:01 GMT 1, Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised
so who would they take to court?
if he covers his identity then theres no one to sue. 
Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised so who would they take to court? if he covers his identity then theres no one to sue. |
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 13:41:31 GMT 1, Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised so who would they take to court? if he covers his identity then theres no one to sue.
No difference to robbing a bank with a mask on then
Has anyone ever posted about Banksy getting copyright permission for some of his images? or does the particular Artist make a difference to if the subject ever gets raised so who would they take to court? if he covers his identity then theres no one to sue. No difference to robbing a bank with a mask on then |
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Happy Shopper on Jan 27, 2011 14:03:55 GMT 1, There are definitely different laws regarding the use of an image for art... rather than commercial products or advertising. It's a fine line though. In this case he's done nothing to the image, and hasn't used it in a clever way, so perhaps he's in trouble?? If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so...
I'm not sure how the law works, but obviously there are plenty of cases of artists creating work from "found" photography, news articles. Especially in the Pop art scene. Peter Blake, Richard Hamilton, Warhol being famous examples. fairly sure they didn't get permission for every photo used... or maybe I'm wrong?
There are definitely different laws regarding the use of an image for art... rather than commercial products or advertising. It's a fine line though. In this case he's done nothing to the image, and hasn't used it in a clever way, so perhaps he's in trouble?? If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so... I'm not sure how the law works, but obviously there are plenty of cases of artists creating work from "found" photography, news articles. Especially in the Pop art scene. Peter Blake, Richard Hamilton, Warhol being famous examples. fairly sure they didn't get permission for every photo used... or maybe I'm wrong? |
|
madtaper
New Member
Posts โข 179
Likes โข 63
November 2010
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by madtaper on Jan 27, 2011 14:56:46 GMT 1, Why risk getting sued,why not just ask permission up front? Does he think no one would know where it came from?
Why risk getting sued,why not just ask permission up front? Does he think no one would know where it came from?
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by rottenredrooster on Jan 27, 2011 14:58:15 GMT 1, Lots of artists infringe copyright. Take Beejoir's LV child for example, they tried to get him on that.
Lots of artists infringe copyright. Take Beejoir's LV child for example, they tried to get him on that.
|
|
bullet
Blank Rank
Posts โข 0
Likes โข 16
January 2013
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by bullet on Jan 27, 2011 15:07:55 GMT 1, not many people realise that copying music from a mp3, cd or record to any other device is also copyright infringement. If you make a copy for your car or your uncle petes 70th.... then you are also breaking copyright law and should all be reported.
not many people realise that copying music from a mp3, cd or record to any other device is also copyright infringement. If you make a copy for your car or your uncle petes 70th.... then you are also breaking copyright law and should all be reported.
|
|
lifeonwalls
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,407
Likes โข 173
September 2007
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by lifeonwalls on Jan 27, 2011 15:11:05 GMT 1, not many people realise that copying music from a mp3, cd or record to any other device is also copyright infringement. If you make a copy for your car or your uncle petes 70th.... then you are also breaking copyright law and should all be reported.
This would be a fantastic analogy if people were SELLING copies of the CD's for thousands of dollars. I believe there was a precedent set which allowed people to legally 'backup' things that they had legally purchased. There was a lawsuit against programmers who had broken the encryption for DVDs/Blu-Rays. I'll try and find it.
edit - Looks like the DVD Burner Vs. Hollywood settled and the product was stopped from being sold. Guess I was wrong!
www.informationweek.com/news/storage/portable/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223101488
not many people realise that copying music from a mp3, cd or record to any other device is also copyright infringement. If you make a copy for your car or your uncle petes 70th.... then you are also breaking copyright law and should all be reported. This would be a fantastic analogy if people were SELLING copies of the CD's for thousands of dollars. I believe there was a precedent set which allowed people to legally 'backup' things that they had legally purchased. There was a lawsuit against programmers who had broken the encryption for DVDs/Blu-Rays. I'll try and find it. edit - Looks like the DVD Burner Vs. Hollywood settled and the product was stopped from being sold. Guess I was wrong! www.informationweek.com/news/storage/portable/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=223101488 |
|
BK83
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,604
Likes โข 10
October 2006
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by BK83 on Jan 27, 2011 15:13:51 GMT 1, If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so... I'm not sure how the law works, but obviously there are plenty of cases of artists creating work from "found" photography, news articles. Especially in the Pop art scene. Peter Blake, Richard Hamilton, Warhol being famous examples. fairly sure they didn't get permission for every photo used... or maybe I'm wrong?
I'd go one further. Richard Prince has basically made a career out of this sort of thing.
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1
If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so... I'm not sure how the law works, but obviously there are plenty of cases of artists creating work from "found" photography, news articles. Especially in the Pop art scene. Peter Blake, Richard Hamilton, Warhol being famous examples. fairly sure they didn't get permission for every photo used... or maybe I'm wrong? I'd go one further. Richard Prince has basically made a career out of this sort of thing. www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Daniel Silk on Jan 27, 2011 15:15:05 GMT 1, [Banksy] - It's easier to get forgiveness than permission
[Banksy] - It's easier to get forgiveness than permission
|
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 15:26:46 GMT 1, [Banksy] - It's easier to get forgiveness than permission
One day he might have to tell that to the judge
[Banksy] - It's easier to get forgiveness than permission One day he might have to tell that to the judge |
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by snausages on Jan 27, 2011 15:28:23 GMT 1, ha, i love reading the amateur hour law analogies. So who does the blogger think he is? It's kind of funny how desperately he tries to explain it was ok for Fairey to do because he picked an image that he didn't think anyone would catch. Might make him a lil smarter than mbw but if that makes it ok, then why did fairey have to pay millions and get strong armed into being the AP's bitch boy! lol
I like how mbw transformed this image actually, (although I suppose it was his graphic designer) is it enough to avoid having to pay up? got no idea, let the judge and jury decide.
ha, i love reading the amateur hour law analogies. So who does the blogger think he is? It's kind of funny how desperately he tries to explain it was ok for Fairey to do because he picked an image that he didn't think anyone would catch. Might make him a lil smarter than mbw but if that makes it ok, then why did fairey have to pay millions and get strong armed into being the AP's bitch boy! lol I like how mbw transformed this image actually, (although I suppose it was his graphic designer) is it enough to avoid having to pay up? got no idea, let the judge and jury decide. |
|
waveydavey
New Member
Posts โข 293
Likes โข 24
July 2007
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by waveydavey on Jan 27, 2011 15:37:03 GMT 1, If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so... I'm not sure how the law works, but obviously there are plenty of cases of artists creating work from "found" photography, news articles. Especially in the Pop art scene. Peter Blake, Richard Hamilton, Warhol being famous examples. fairly sure they didn't get permission for every photo used... or maybe I'm wrong?
Uk and US are different. The amount of copied material in UK has to be 'substantial'. Despite its name this could be very little. Even if your copy is substantial then there are defences. In uk they are called 'fair dealing' in the us ' fair use' (covered in a different lecture).
Fair dealing defences could be
-research or private study
-instruction or examination
-criticism or review
-news reporting
have to acknowledge where the original material came from though.
What's that your saying? I'm boring. How dare you sir!!!
Oh also copyright must also persist in the work. So those very old oily paintings you are allow to copy gratis (unless its a picture someone else took of them.)
OOOOO i do go on don't i. Of course all this could be complete pile of ... Whats that your mumbling about potential remedies for infringement? Sorry thats it i'm affraid!!!!!
If the original work is recognizable then you are in trouble... in this case very much so... I'm not sure how the law works, but obviously there are plenty of cases of artists creating work from "found" photography, news articles. Especially in the Pop art scene. Peter Blake, Richard Hamilton, Warhol being famous examples. fairly sure they didn't get permission for every photo used... or maybe I'm wrong? Uk and US are different. The amount of copied material in UK has to be 'substantial'. Despite its name this could be very little. Even if your copy is substantial then there are defences. In uk they are called 'fair dealing' in the us ' fair use' (covered in a different lecture). Fair dealing defences could be -research or private study -instruction or examination -criticism or review -news reporting have to acknowledge where the original material came from though. What's that your saying? I'm boring. How dare you sir!!! Oh also copyright must also persist in the work. So those very old oily paintings you are allow to copy gratis (unless its a picture someone else took of them.) OOOOO i do go on don't i. Of course all this could be complete pile of ... Whats that your mumbling about potential remedies for infringement? Sorry thats it i'm affraid!!!!! |
|
JKW
New Member
Posts โข 289
Likes โข 5
December 2008
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by JKW on Jan 27, 2011 15:44:37 GMT 1, So those very old oily paintings you are allow to copy gratis (unless its a picture someone else took of them.)
Thats more to do with those paintings are in public domain. 70 years after the death of the creator/author. Like the Mona Lisa, anyone can have a piece of it.
So those very old oily paintings you are allow to copy gratis (unless its a picture someone else took of them.) Thats more to do with those paintings are in public domain. 70 years after the death of the creator/author. Like the Mona Lisa, anyone can have a piece of it. |
|
jusdeep
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,797
Likes โข 464
October 2007
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by jusdeep on Jan 27, 2011 16:05:12 GMT 1, Anyone got one of these Run DMC prints for sale at 10x what they originally cost?
Anyone got one of these Run DMC prints for sale at 10x what they originally cost? |
|
Cedric Mnich
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,158
Likes โข 98
June 2009
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by Cedric Mnich on Jan 27, 2011 16:16:09 GMT 1, That was to be expected... Next will certainly be Robert Freeman (the Lennon Panda photographer) and Mondrian or Norman Rockwell Estates...
Vectorization and a pink splat of paint is not enough to make something original.
On the other hand I can't see why the "broken LP records" or spraypaint and stencil painting would be considered a copyright infringment... They are original works.
Problem is all about Money and Greed... Lawyers, those wolves have smelt the blood, err, money here. MBW is now famous and his works sell in the thousands. If he was an anonymous street artists, no one would give a f***
That was to be expected... Next will certainly be Robert Freeman (the Lennon Panda photographer) and Mondrian or Norman Rockwell Estates...
Vectorization and a pink splat of paint is not enough to make something original.
On the other hand I can't see why the "broken LP records" or spraypaint and stencil painting would be considered a copyright infringment... They are original works.
Problem is all about Money and Greed... Lawyers, those wolves have smelt the blood, err, money here. MBW is now famous and his works sell in the thousands. If he was an anonymous street artists, no one would give a f***
|
|
|
|
Mr. Brainwash sued for copyright infringement, by snausages on Jan 27, 2011 16:45:12 GMT 1, That was to be expected... Next will certainly be Robert Freeman (the Lennon Panda photographer) and Mondrian or Norman Rockwell Estates... Vectorization and a pink splat of paint is not enough to make something original.
I could see the problem with the lennon panda print, it's nothing but a straight up copy with a little color added, just like the Hope poster.
But for his norman rockwell and mondrian he totally changed the concept and context which is a big deal. And in fact he changed the concept and context of the Run DMC photo in some instances, but not all.
So with the public domain thing, does this mean in 2048 people will be able to make straight up copies of norman rockwell and sell it and in 2057 andy warhol? Or does keeping an estate functioning prevent that?
That was to be expected... Next will certainly be Robert Freeman (the Lennon Panda photographer) and Mondrian or Norman Rockwell Estates... Vectorization and a pink splat of paint is not enough to make something original. I could see the problem with the lennon panda print, it's nothing but a straight up copy with a little color added, just like the Hope poster. But for his norman rockwell and mondrian he totally changed the concept and context which is a big deal. And in fact he changed the concept and context of the Run DMC photo in some instances, but not all. So with the public domain thing, does this mean in 2048 people will be able to make straight up copies of norman rockwell and sell it and in 2057 andy warhol? Or does keeping an estate functioning prevent that? |
|
