I have occasionally mucked around in some grey copyright areas — creating animations over television commercials and using images of art-gone-by for my Clip Art Project. So this story from ArtNet News about Andrea Blanch suing Jeff Koons struck a nerve:
In his decision, judge Louis L. Stanton of U.S. District Court found that Niagara was indeed a “transformative use” of Blanch’s photograph. “The paintingâ??s use does not ‘supersede’ or duplicate the objective of the original,” the judge wrote, “but uses it as raw material in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative.”
[…]
Blanch, a 20-year veteran of the photo world — she started out as an assistant for Richard Avedon, and in 1998 published Italian Men: Love & Sex, a book of interviews and photographs — told Artnet News that she had discovered Koonsâ?? use of her image by accident, during a visit to his 2002 exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. “At first I was flattered,” she said. She soon came to a different conclusion after thinking about the situation. “I really believe that if the person is living, you have to ask permission!”
I just don’t know that I agree with Blanch’s assertion that if I’m going to use a source material from someone living, that I need to send them a note to make sure it’s OK. As long as I’m not forging an artist’s work as my own, I see it as fair use of the public domain. I’m inclined to side with the judge who stated that if a work is used “in a novel way to create new information, new esthetics and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative.” This could, of course, raise the corpse of the discussion on Nike appropriating Minor Threat’s album cover for their skate tour. However, in that case, I don’t see Nike as trying to create a new esthetic or insight; only usurping the existing esthetic and information for their purposes.
I feel as though the grey area didn’t shrink so much as it just shifted a bit in its seat.
I agree with you chris.
Also, the internet. If a website has images that are not copyrighted (like just someone’s snapshot), is it wrong to use it in your art?
All photographs are copyrighted even though it doesn’t state the person who’s copyright it is. As a photographer, the copyright question is always in my mind when I see photographs cut and pasted into a piece of art. Permission with secured “usage rights” should be considered if dealing with a professionals photograph or any photograph for that matter. But the chance of getting sued by someone without professional knowledge is slim to none.
Is it still theft if the person you steal from doesn’t know the laws or their own rights? Then again everything is borrowed or stolen, rarely truely earned.
Interesting post. We’ve been discussing the exact topic over on my blog, but I hadn’t seen this perspective.
Comments