Where's the drawn line?

Not sure if this is the right department, maybe "street legal" would fit better,

but it does to a degree concern philosophy perhaps too, maybe.

The image here is simply to illustrate. When does copyright get infringed

really? Recently I've been seeing work by Richard Prince. Apparently he

photographed the Marlborough Cigarette/Cowboy posters and other images, e.g.

screen actors publicity photographs and so on and turned them into his own

works. (he was of course not just copying but saying something different). As

far as I know he hasn't got busted and he now claims his own copyright on the

images he made from the images he photographed. How does he get away with that?

I'm curious not disapproving; I've had ideas of my own concern this. But take

the picture here. I imaging as it stands it it does not infringe copyright

since it's just a part of a room. But if I cropped close to the woman on the

monitor would I be as it were sinning? Breaking the law? I don't see why I

would be because on a simple level the texture of the monitor would make the

image unlike the original. However if I downloaded a full size copy of the

original image and started knocking out prints to sell I'd say that was an

infringement. What about if I photographed an image on the TV, say to make some

comment on culture. Or some poster in the street to make the point that they

really infringe on say my perception of tidiness. Is that an infringement?

Where's the line? Is it to do with copying the original, but photographing a

poster on the street or an image in a magazine is fair game?<div></div>

It's delicate, Al, and I'm no lawyer, but: I believe this would fall into the category of "derivitive" work. The orginal artist's work is still very recognizeable. And (in the example of the woman on the monitor) can't possibly be confused with just a bit of life that happens to be on display in the background of your image... it is arguably the focus OF the image. Unless this is being used editorially, in which case various fair use doctrines would seem to kick in, I'd stay away from it as your "own" art - especially art that you would consider selling or using to promote yourself. Hopefully a legal eagle will chime in, here... but that's my first impression.

I this may help clarify: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

 

"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material."

Matt and Geoff thanks for commenting and for the link. The picture I showed is I think unlikely to cause any problems simply because it's not going to be something anyone wants to buy, or something I would want to use because it has no meaning to me. It could be a possibility that with the Marlborough advert that Prince used maybe they did a deal. As far as I know the only difference between the original and the Richard Prince version of the Marlborough cowboy was that his simply dropped any text from the picture, otherwise it was identical, a straight copy. It then went on to became something like the first photograph to be sold for a million +. Marlborough presumably got lots of happy publicity and Prince made his million. I imagine if you used a companies advertising or whatever in a way they didn't like then they'd soon be on the case. Maybe copyright used as a form of censorship. Perhaps you're right, a delicate matter.

ah yes forgot to say they call it appropriation art.

An image from the "Marlborough" series sold for $1.2 million in 2005.

Thanks William. Well yes, he's very good.

"Well yes, he's very good."

 

 

Good for what?

Al, I have no ability to comment on the copyright status of your photo, but I do like it (FWIW).

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

Dave thanks. ?Good for what?? Well I suppose one could say who?s good for that? Good for nothing maybe and nothing is I?ve heard the sound of one hand clapping. He?s good for a cuddle I imagine and his pillow talk probably would be at the very least amusing. I suppose he?s good for business but also good for art. I only came across him last week and so far have found him good. I have to agree with you though because In fact I thought after posting ?he?s good? I really should have made it ?he?s interesting?, at least to me. Oh and Marlborough is Marlboro. Geoff thanks your very kind but maybe this new image here will be more evocative. I photographed a page from a cataloge of Wolfgang Tillmans work, and this shows an exhibition of some of his images in a museum. Clearly he?s photographed/photocopied a copy of the Herald Tribune. There must be the original photographers copyright breached there and maybe the newspaper could have some issues. But apparently the museum showed the exhibition. Best wishes, Al<div></div>

"Geoff thanks your very kind but maybe this new image here will be more evocative."

 

Sorry, I like the first one better. The juxtaposition of the on-screen image and the "real" surroundings, combined with the surreal-feeling high-contrast and softness just "clicked" for me. Very viseral thing - I just like the shot! :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

Geoff thanks. I wasn't showing this second image as something I liked. I thought the second picture taken from a catalog illustrated very clearly that some of Tillmans pictures are simply straight copies of a newspapers front page. That's the entire image. And he seems to have not been penalized. This possibly indicates that if I for example copied some well known image and used Photoshop to introduce into it say a shot of a UFO then I'd be legal. But I accept that this is a cloudy area. Thanks again Geoff, I take your point. Best wishes, Al.

<p>In truth the sheer power of Richard Prince's work Untitled Cowboy rests entirely in the act of appropriation and specifically as applied to this iconic advertising image and its representation--it is genius pure and simple. It was a bargain at $1.2 million and will be worth tens of millions if not more in years to come.</p>

 

<p>I remember when it sold a few years back watching a dozen art critics fumble around as each tried and failed to grasp its monumental significance.</p>

 

<p>In my mind it is the most powerful conceptual art ever produced--he'll never trump it and I doubt anyone ever will.</p>

"In my mind it is the most powerful conceptual art ever produced--he'll never trump it and I

doubt anyone ever will."

 

Yup. And we never forgot the story of the Emperor's New Clothes either.

Never be ashamed to say that you just don't get it Dave :)

Oh, I get it John. It's a joke. A very big joke.

 

As a piece of conceptuaal art, it failed on the day it was sold. The art, and the social

commentary was in the act, not the artifact. When the focus shifted from the concept to

the artifact, any meaning that it might have carried was lost. There is no intrinsic value in

this artifact, and the fact that it commanded such a ridiculously high price is further proof

that the joke was on the art market.

 

As I see it, the concept might have a chance to be redeemed. If either the "owner" of the

artifact, or the artist himself would make a high quality scan of it and offfer it free to

anyone that sends a blank CD and a self addressed stamped envelope, I might be

persuaded to recognize some value.

 

Unfortunately, the artifact, and its sale are a very sad commentary on the state of the art

culture. Years from now, art historians will refer to it in footnotes, and the main item of

interest will be the price that was paid. This is a dead end mutation in the evolution of art.

Nothing of any value can or will come of it. It is, by its very nature destructive, as opposed

to creative.

 

But then again, what do I know? Maybe I don't get it.

<p>Dave Reichert wrote: <i>"As I see it, the concept might have a chance to be redeemed. If either the "owner" of the artifact, or the artist himself would make a high quality scan of it and offfer it free to anyone that sends a blank CD and a self addressed stamped envelope, I might be persuaded to recognize some value."</i></p>

 

<p>Unfortunately, it is the <i>"giving"</i> that kills the new meaning that this level of appropriation affords. In context, this wasn't just your garden variety appropriation. Richard didn't just use the ticks and mannerisms of consumerism a la Warhol or appropriate store mannequins or Hollywood persona's as leverage on the female condition as did Cindy Sherman. No. Richard took appropriation art to whole new level by literally taking someone else's photo and without permission making it his own through the simple act of re-contextualising it and not just any photo but a very specific photo that could be said to embody the American psyche.</p>

 

<p>I guess the joke, if there is one, lies in the irony; that we can become so easily indignant about the appropriation of a single photograph whilst remaining for all practical purposes blithely indifferent to the fact that as Americans and Australians we owe our existence as nations to the very act of appropriating them from their indigenous peoples (original owners). Many of us might counter that it is only through that act of appropriation that the original's potential or true worth could be fully realised.<p>

 

<p>I imagine Richard's argument is much the same :)</p>

getting Richard Prince.

 

I imagine he chose his images for two reasons. 1) being luck, that is he came upon them. 2) obsession, he couldn't resist them. In short he liked what he was doing. Maybe the original photographer was more unhappy, he was told what to do. What is there to get? Either you do or you don't.

"I guess the joke, if there is one, lies in the irony; that we can become so easily indignant

about the appropriation of a single photograph whilst remaining for all practical purposes

blithely indifferent to the fact that as Americans and Australians we owe our existence as

nations to the very act of appropriating them from their indigenous peoples (original

owners). Many of us might counter that it is only through that act of appropriation that the

original's potential or true worth could be fully realised.

 

 

I imagine Richard's argument is much the same :)"

 

 

So, what you're saying, is that the larger the theft, the more justifiable it becomes. This is

indefensible on so many levels. You appear to be resurrecting the priciple of Manifest

Destiny. I really hope that the little smiley you tacked on to the end of your response,

means that you're speaking with tongue in cheek.

<p>Dave Reichert <i>"So, what you're saying, is that the larger the theft, the more justifiable it becomes."</i></p>

 

<p>Dave, I haven't said anything of the sort. All I've done is provide some context to better explain Richard Prince's Untitled Cowboy piece.</p>

Back around 1970 a magazine named "Avant Garde" had a cover showing a bunch of the front pages of "underground" newspapers, what we'd now call "counter culture". One of them featured one of my photographs filling the newspaper's cover page. On one hand I felt flattered that they chose that cover but on the other I felt ripped off. I couldn't find an attorney willing to take my case. They said that if the magazine had used just that photo as their cover maybe I'd have a case.

Thanks Al. I find what you have to say useful and I understand the problem. With Prince though he was usually using magazines themselves as a source. John, "explanation", with art it's not a question of "getting it", more that it gets you perhaps.