PapaTango Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 Another challenge to the Fair Use Doctrine, this time involving silk screens prints of Prince, produced by Warhol. Numerous photographers (myself included) photograph objects created by others. We then 're-imagine' them to our seeing of a print. It seems to me that if this case is ruled in favor of the supplicant (pun intended), then we are on the dreaded "slippery slope" of being sued for using artistic license--aka 'derivative products.' What are your thoughts? https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics/andy-warhol-prince-supreme-court/index.html "I See Things..." The FotoFora Community Experience [Link] A new community for creative photographers. Come join us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 I think Marilyn suing Warhol would nip this litigiousness in the bud. Personally and completely out of court, when it comes to photos I’ve made and display with others’ art as the subject, I give a credit to the original artist. I see those as collaborations. I try to do enough with that subject to feel I’ve made something new out of it. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother. Many photos of art do that. The ones that seem only to be relying on the original artwork for their raison d’être bug me. But I don’t advocate suing … just post a mean tweet about it. 📸 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 viewing francis bacon at the Met "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_watson1 Posted October 13, 2022 Share Posted October 13, 2022 Wake up and smell the money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted October 13, 2022 Share Posted October 13, 2022 Stick with the Mona Lisa, There's no copyright. 1 Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movingfinger Posted May 20, 2023 Share Posted May 20, 2023 In a surprising (to me) ruling the Supreme Court essentially ruled against Warhol. The decision made strange bedfellows among the justices and it is a limited ruling (so the copyright waters are more muddied). You can read details here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted May 20, 2023 Share Posted May 20, 2023 Quote Art is anything you can get away with. —Andy Warhol Andy might be amused. Turns out he didn’t get way with it. His above declaration, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, strips his very own Prince silkscreens of their status as art. He has the last word. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted May 20, 2023 Share Posted May 20, 2023 It's really very easy. If you don't want to be sued, don't use someone else's work to create your own work especially if your intend to sell your work. Start fresh or pay them first for the right to use their work. 1 Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin McAmera Posted May 20, 2023 Share Posted May 20, 2023 A bad day for the artist formerly the prince of prints of the artist formerly known as Prince.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 20, 2023 Share Posted May 20, 2023 I am surprised that they let Warhol get away with it for almost 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
httpwww.photo.netbarry Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 (edited) The ruling sounds like it will be tested on a case by case basis. Interesting 7-2 majority. Edited May 21, 2023 by httpwww.photo.netbarry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 Legacy… wow! Andy is still stirring it up from the grave. I imagine it is his way of becoming involved in the AI debate. This decision may have an impact. 2 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
za33photo Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 Whatever happened to originality and the pride of creating your own "art" , but I suppose that there will always be "parasites" , there always has been and always will be. Sorry a bit grumpy today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 Can the photographer now demand payments for secondary sales of these Warhols works or is only the Warhol foundation liable for the original infringement value? Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 Quote Every person is a collective, a vast and complex gathering of interdependent life. —Guy P. Harrison, Author Photographer = parasitic flâneur "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricochetrider Posted May 29, 2023 Share Posted May 29, 2023 Maybe Ive missed something but is this an attack on art or copyrights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted May 30, 2023 Share Posted May 30, 2023 imo This case was pushing the limits ..... copyright infringement. That's Andy! But the difficulty in being able to have a clear line not to cross does endanger some artists. That is a concern but i doubt it will discourage any but the most financially successful artists and encourage the litigious minded. Also this is the kind of question that some artists love to say F>U. MR i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted May 30, 2023 Share Posted May 30, 2023 2 hours ago, inoneeye said: MR Copyright infringement as double entendre. “Thieving” from Jean-Augusta-Dominique Ingres via the f-hole instrumentation of MR. Plucky. Blurring the visuals and the lines. Making it yours. 1 "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
httpwww.photo.netbarry Posted May 30, 2023 Share Posted May 30, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, inoneeye said: imo This case was pushing the limits ..... copyright infringement. That's Andy! But the difficulty in being able to have a clear line not to cross does endanger some artists. That is a concern but i doubt it will discourage any but the most financially successful artists and encourage the litigious minded. Also this is the kind of question that some artists love to say F>U. MR I knew a woman who was a photo student when I was who had that as a tattoo on her back. I hope Man Ray stayed one of her faves! Hmmm, now I think of it, I wonder if tattoo artist have to pay royalties? Edited May 30, 2023 by httpwww.photo.netbarry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted May 30, 2023 Share Posted May 30, 2023 Sometime back Kat Von d a well known tattoo artist was sued for using a recognizable photo of Miles Davis. I don’t know how it turned out. I don’t think it has been decided yet. I just did a quick search and the most current news that showed up said the case was waiting for the Warhol case to be decided. i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted May 30, 2023 Share Posted May 30, 2023 22 hours ago, Ricochetrider said: Maybe Ive missed something but is this an attack on art or copyrights? Neither. It's the court clarifying certain copyright law protection. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanKlein Posted May 30, 2023 Share Posted May 30, 2023 12 hours ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said: I knew a woman who was a photo student when I was who had that as a tattoo on her back. I hope Man Ray stayed one of her faves! Hmmm, now I think of it, I wonder if tattoo artist have to pay royalties? 11 hours ago, inoneeye said: Sometime back Kat Von d a well known tattoo artist was sued for using a recognizable photo of Miles Davis. I don’t know how it turned out. I don’t think it has been decided yet. I just did a quick search and the most current news that showed up said the case was waiting for the Warhol case to be decided. Probably Yes. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) Quote Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose Nothin', don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, Edited January 16 by JDMvW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 2 days ago “Kat Von D, a celebrity tattoo artist, won a legal battle in federal court Friday when a jury ruled unanimously that her reproduction of a photo of celebrated jazz musician Miles Davis in a tattoo did not violate copyright law.” Edited January 29 by inoneeye 1 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now