What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
You Are The Last-Minute Gift Master! (Guaranteed Win.) view!
bestbuy.com - This gift is never obsolete, everyone likes it and it's always in stock at the last minute...
39 Comments
- dtele, on 10/15/2009, -2/+18Should a 'copy' be termed as 'art'?
I've asked this before and been buried, but it is a valid question.
http://digg.com/arts_culture/Amazing_10_Foot_Photo ... - sidekicksuicide, on 10/15/2009, -0/+9This is a duplicate story.
- jrm125, on 10/15/2009, -1/+10Let's ask Shepard Fairey...
- wakx, on 10/15/2009, -1/+9It looks like someone needs an apology slip. http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Apology_Slip
- mbraynard, on 10/15/2009, -1/+8I guess it's easier than being original.
- sidekicksuicide, on 10/15/2009, -2/+9That argument doesn't fly...she didn't photocopy a photograph. She based an artistic drawing off of a photograph. The other artist enlarged and copied her drawing, point for point.
- sidekicksuicide, on 10/15/2009, -0/+7He is showing an entire gallery worth of portraits he copied from the Wall Street Journal. He is probably getting paid to show them, and I would assume he will sell them at some point.
- pongsifu88, on 10/15/2009, -0/+6He's not asking if copying is legal or ok, he's asking if copying something is considered art.
Though if you have to ask you really have no idea how hard it is to copy something exactly by drawing it, it is an art form. - praisethelard, on 10/15/2009, -3/+8Yes. Artists copy all the time. For example, a still life is a copy of real life.
- sidekicksuicide, on 10/15/2009, -0/+3You're right. AP should drop the Fairey case.
- KVachon, on 10/15/2009, -0/+3I brought the 2 versions into PShop, they are dot-for-dot the same.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/kvachon/stole ...
Hopefully the administration will at least put the original artists name under the frame - qwertydvorak, on 10/15/2009, -0/+3plenty of people have been sued for painting disney characters on the walls of daycare centers. not much difference really.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp - Insightful, on 10/15/2009, -2/+5First, the illustrator does not own the rights to her own drawing. Her employer, Wall Street Journal does.
Second, like the article states, this clearly falls under reinterpretation much like Warhol with the Campbell soup cans. Any second year law student can defend this easily in court.
Venting? Sure. Copyright infringement? Hardly. - Mejari, on 10/15/2009, -1/+4And the artist of the larger portrait didn't photocopy the small portrait either. It specifically states that it was recreated in a wax medium, so it wasn't just a photocopy as you claim. Recreating it in wax is just as "artistic" as stippling from a photograph.
- xerodustrial, on 10/15/2009, -0/+3As far as I'm concerned I would side with the original creator on this 100%. I would hope a judge would as well.
Last I checked, performing a "copy+paste -> enlarge image 1000%" job on a picture is not actually making anything uniquely you, nor uniquely artistic. You just ripped someone else's art off, said you made it, and became famous with it. There was absolutely no new artistic effort applied. There is no extension, modification, or interpretation of the work in any way shape or form. If asked to reproduce the work as close as they possibly could, it'd look absolutely nothing like what's already been made, because they didn't make it.
And that's *****. - hikaruzero, on 10/15/2009, -4/+6Yeah but real life isn't copyrighted, so the analogy doesn't stand at all.
- aladrin, on 10/15/2009, -0/+2Legal or not, using someone else's work and presenting it as wholly your own is -wrong-. That's what is really going on here. The legal aspect is just a way to make sure people are represented.
- Mejari, on 10/15/2009, -1/+3What about the fact that he recreated the portrait in a completely different medium that altered it's characteristics? He didn't just blow it up and print it out, the larger piece was made out of, i believe, some form of paraffin wax, which by its very nature as a substantially different medium alters the original work in a very important way.
- Meep3D, on 10/15/2009, -1/+3It's a carbon copy.
Simply changing the medium does not somehow make it copyright free. If I printed a book with an electric typewriter it would not somehow make the copyright disappear. Just because he used crayons rather than an industrial printer doesn't change the fact that the work is identical to the original - only bigger.
Format shifting and enlargement do not count when it comes to copyright. - BuenoCabra, on 10/15/2009, -4/+6Regardless of whether it's legal, it's bad form.
Edit: No art pun intended. - inactive, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1Using the first image on google images doesn't have much merit when using photographic reference.
- sonofabe, on 10/15/2009, -3/+4I think it's a bad comparison...
Fairey created a stylized portrait based on a photograph. I can see how this is legally blurry, but I don't think it takes away from his work artistically.
Cano's painting is literally a blow-up of an original stipple portrait by a WSJ illustrator... flanked with badly-placed text no less. If it doesn't infringe on copyright, I don't know what does... - digitalArtform, on 10/15/2009, -3/+4Whose photograph did the so-called 'original artist' base her drawing on?
Does he or she get credit in this?
Are we to believe that was from a live sitting the president granted her? Or is her drawing from imagination just that good? Did she do the same thing Shephard Fairey did with an AP photo? If so, is that okay or not? Is her use valid? Did she have the rights to the photo? - sidekicksuicide, on 10/15/2009, -3/+4I do not believe this would qualify as appropriation. His works are getting praise because the quality of the portrait drawings- not because of the text he slapped on it. The portrait drawing is the work of another artist.
- keozen, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1This is a duplicate comment
- digitalArtform, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1Well, well. Looky what TinEye.com found
http://tineye.com/search/fb78eb739836c0bea60b3026c ...
Did they credit the wsj woman? - DaviDTC, on 10/15/2009, -1/+2http://digg.com/arts_culture/Obama_Portrait_Hangin ...
- yardie, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1IAMNAL, but didn't Andy Warhol do something similar with Campbell Soup cans and Brillo Pad boxes? If I'm reading this right then this is interpretive art and not plagiarism. The artist took a small drawing in a newspaper and created a large 3D wax copy of it. This looks like someone venting really.
- Drealoth, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_Soup_Cans
- MacHarborGuy, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1BAN TRACING PAPER, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR ART TO BE COPIED!!!
:) - JimSwarthow, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1Obama has some serious handle-bars.
- Taiyoryu, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1FTA: "Novak’s dismay is understandable, of course: she’s seeing another artist win praise for copying her work, without crediting her."
The original artist would like some sort of attribution. The publicity is certainly helping in that regard because now anyone who has read the article knows the source material of the portrait. However, since she sold the rights to the image, she can't make a financial claim. - inactive, on 10/15/2009, -1/+2We'll see. Now I'm planning on copying the copy of Obama.
- Mejari, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1"If I printed a book with an electric typewriter it would not somehow make the copyright disappear"
That's a horrible example. What do you end up with? A book on paper, same as the original book.
What did this guy get after he was done? A blown up picture on a different medium with different context. If he had just printed it on paper then yeah, I would agree, but the medium he chose is very different and adds its own qualities to the piece. I would suggest going and looking at a wax art piece, they are very different from any other form. - tugo2k1, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1Boo Hoo !
- MWeather, on 10/15/2009, -0/+1"There is no extension, modification, or interpretation of the work in any way shape or form."
If it's used for a different purpose, art instead of news, then by definition it has been reinterpreted. - digitalArtform, on 10/15/2009, -4/+4Not only does it fly, it slingshots around the sun fast enough to turn back time.
Or the AP photography should drop the Shephard Fairey case.
-------------
Evidently this drawing is based on this photo. As a derivative work, the drawing can only be published under a free license if the photo is under a license that allows doing so, or if there is the express permission of the copyright owner of the photograph to create and publish such derivative works. Lupo 08:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion ... - mandraque, on 10/15/2009, -1/+1Look at Jeff Koon's lawsuit Roger v. Koon and you see that protection of the initial artist in the decision. I don't see any parody or anything in the artwork, so I would guess that the original illustrator would easily win the lawsuit.
- LouisCipher777, on 10/15/2009, -6/+1is he selling it? It seems to be definitely fair use if not
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
