"If you're going to steal..." [Archive]

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 17:13

It's the whole question of "sampling" that's debated in the audio world.

Does presenting something "sampled" in a different context change the finished product into something new and unique?

Rather then a knee-jerk response, I think there are reasoned and valid arguments both pro and con.

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 17:17

ooooh. Don't get me started. This is fertile ground for the "Who Cares!" 700-pound gorillas everywhere. The same who don't know the difference between a photograph taken with a camera, and an image rendered in Photoshop.

Some minds can't tell optical illusion from superhuman powers.

So: Me like pie. Apple pie. Yeah. Definitely. Apple pie.

Peter55

12-06-2007, 17:37

I'm a painter and a photographer. If this guy took a photograph of one of my original paintings and had it hung in a museum, who's work would you say it really is? - Mine.
Well the same goes for a photograph of a photograph.

Talk about a rip off artist!!! This guy takes the cake. He can't come up with his own original images so he steals those that he likes from ad campaigns.

I understand his concept about the ad campaign photos, collectively, it's an idea. But once you break out individual images and get money for them then he is ripping off the original photographer, since he's selling one image at a time he is no longer true to his idea. This must stop!.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 17:49

sepiareverb

12-06-2007, 17:53

On the other hand, when blown up to size we are looking at a printed page- ie dots of ink on paper, not an enlarged negative. Screen shots of this won't really show the difference, and there is a difference. Visually the colors are different, and intellectually the intention is different.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 17:57

Here are two photos of signage I took in Manhattan. Are these "my" images, or if I published them do the sign painters "own" the images?

If I sold my photographs to, say, The New York Times, do I owe the people who painted the signs the money I received for the images?

Or are the images now something else? A "new" image with a "new" conceptual purpose?

http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/35937/2002680658778778673_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002680658778778673)

http://aycu11.webshots.com/image/36690/2002615535567326137_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002615535567326137)

sepiareverb

12-06-2007, 17:58

I'm a painter and a photographer. If this guy took a photograph of one of my original paintings and had it hung in a museum, who's work would you say it really is? - Mine.
Well the same goes for a photograph of a photograph.

...

And how about that photograph we take of that lovely old car, that art deco sign, or that modern building? We appropriate others work all the time.

-concurrent post time- well done M. Valdemar- you had the image to make the point.

jan normandale

12-06-2007, 17:59

Unfortunately the world of art, business, literature and film is full of theft. The courts do little about it and enforcement is costly, time consuming and slow.

As photographers karma is all we can hope for.

Maybe Krantz should take shots of Prince's shots of Krantz and sell them on the internet? I would if I was him ;- )

LuckyKarma

12-06-2007, 17:59

Can't understand why the guy's not in jail.

Agreed. Legal aspect aside though, how can this guy feel like he's doing anything by.. taking pictures of other people's pictures?

jan normandale

12-06-2007, 18:04

What's strange is the value collectors put on these photos... $1.2M! The digital age is going to make for strange times, is it original or a reproduction, questions abound.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 18:04

how can this guy feel like he's doing anything by.. taking pictures of other people's pictures?

Maybe that's the point of his "art".

I'm not saying that's it right or it's wrong. At what point does an image become something else from the original image.

Don't get huffy and immediately trumpet moral indignation.

Think about it.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 18:09

You guys in the states have a different mind set to europeans.
According to french law you could not publish these signs without the written permission from the owner of the property
Here's a random photo taken in Paris I found on the internet.

Is this photo illegal under French law?

http://freshphotography.org/photos/christine/CS_0095_sm.jpg

amateriat

12-06-2007, 18:23

Here's a random photo taken in Paris I found on the internet.

Is this photo illegal under French law?

http://freshphotography.org/photos/christine/CS_0095_sm.jpg
I doubt it...but, oh-my this brings back a memory or two. I was staying at Hotel Esmeralda, right around the corner from Shakespeare, in late '92. Thanks for the pleasant diversion!

- Barrett

kuzano

12-06-2007, 18:24

Just playing devil's advocate, if I set up a shot, adjust the lighting, point the camera on a tripod, tell the model to smile, then ask my photo assistant to press the shutter button for me, whose image is it? His? "Mine"?

What is "mine"?

The question has a second alternate version. If I set up a shot, adjust the lighting, point the camera on a tripod, tell the model to smile, then trip the shutter with my remote control, whose image is it. Mine, or the engineer who designed the remote control? In your case, the photo assistant is only different from the remote control in that he/she needs oxygen to get the job done.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 18:26

The question has a second alternate version. If I set up a shot, adjust the lighting, point the camera on a tripod, tell the model to smile, then trip the shutter with my remote control, whose image is it. Mine, or the engineer who designed the remote control? In your case, the photo assistant is only different from the remote control in that he/she needs oxygen to get the job done.

The remote control won't take you to court.

ampguy

12-06-2007, 18:45

I think it's a matter of degree. You have the big stock companies doing similar manipulations. Who owns the light?

mfunnell

12-06-2007, 18:53

Maybe that's the point of his "art".

I'm not saying that's it right or it's wrong. At what point does an image become something else from the original image.

Don't get huffy and immediately trumpet moral indignation.

Think about it.OK, perhaps, but if so its hardly a truly original observation. "Ceci n'est une pipe" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MagrittePipe.jpg) anyone?. Maybe that's the point. Or perhaps Manzoni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Manzoni) had a comment that might apply.

I really don't know enough about what this guy does to comment, and don't know that I'm sufficiently exercised to find out. I'd hope that for the prices being paid for his work that he brings something to the party that's beyond banal meta-commentary. But who knows? Certainly not me.

I can see the point of the original photographer wanting at least some acknowledgement of who's photo was being photographed here. I also appreciate the fact that he's not trying to sue everything in sight.

...Mike

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 18:58

http://emptyeasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/fountainbymarcelduchamp.jpg

amateriat

12-06-2007, 19:18

Mike: I think you've partly nailed it for me.

When I was a much younger pup than now, I used to dis Warhol all over the place for his "appropriations." As I got older, I came to like his stuff more, because I felt that he had, indeed, brought "more to the party", as it were. Others still regard him as an art-house grifter.

I think Jim Krantz is being one hell of a good sport about this. Perhaps this is in part because he knows that any legal action on his part would likely result in more heat than light (except, of course, for the lawyers on either side of the dispute), and he's been in the business long enough not to be a dummy about this stuff, but I can grok his dismay.

And we can chase our own tails (and each other's) about just what constitutes "original" art, and where photography does, or doesn't, fit in all this, but I think Prince sort of snaps the limb he's been long crawling out upon. Yes, you could blame the vapidity of the art establishment for throwing money at this stuff, which I regard as bad art (my mother, a painter for most of her life, talked about good and bad art, as opposed to art and non-art), but I don't think Prince alone should be piled-upon for this stuff; there's enough blame to go around, at least if you're of this mindset.

(Yikes...have I become Hilton Kramer????)

- Barrett

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 19:25

Ceci n'est pas une pissoir

Actually, it IS a pissoir, by Duchamp.

It's not a pipe either. but what YOU'RE looking at is a bunch of electrified pixels.

Or chemically stimulated synaptic tendrils. Actually, you're not looking at anything real at all, if you're here at all.

mfunnell

12-06-2007, 19:29

The idea of copyright is to protect the rights of the creator to make a profit, not to stop copies.

Actually, I thought the idea of copyright was to allow the creator a temporary monopoly over the use of their work (thus permitting a profit, despite the ready availability of cheap reproduction) in order to encourage them to create. Creation being useful, and all. As I understand it, the monopoly and the profit it allowed (allows) was a means to an end, not an end of itself. But tell that to those who legislated the "Mickey Mouse" timescale of modern copyright (Walt being somewhat unable to create these days).

So how about that Sherrie Levine?
So? How about her? A bit too much "The Painted Word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Painted_Word)" for my liking. But that's just me. Others seem to appreciate that sort of thing, and that's fine too, I guess.

...Mike

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 19:31

The internet is becoming one huge vindication for Sherrie Levine.

EVERYTHING is appropriated or regurgitated, usually by idiots.

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 19:33

Just playing devil's advocate, if I set up a shot, adjust the lighting, point the camera on a tripod, tell the model to smile, then ask my photo assistant to press the shutter button for me, whose image is it? His? "Mine"?

What is "mine"?
That's as much splitting invisible hairs as making air sandwiches with gas flavor; that path of logic can take you to conclude that the camera took the photo, not the person who pressed the button.

If you can show me a camera that can take photos without any human intervention (no humans charging batteries, changing film/memory cards, dialing in aperture/shutter settings or shooting modes/programs, mounting, etc.) I'll show you a pen that signs itself with clear evidence of self-awareness.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 19:38

No, it's clear cut. Someone other than you took the photo. At what point does it become "yours"?

That's as much splitting invisible hairs as making air sandwiches with gas flavor; that path of logic can take you to conclude that the camera took the photo, not the person who pressed the button.

If you can show me a camera that can take photos without any human intervention (no humans charging batteries, changing film/memory cards, dialing in aperture/shutter settings or shooting modes/programs, mounting, etc.) I'll show you a pen that signs itself with clear evidence of self-awareness.

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 19:38

Here are two photos of signage I took in Manhattan. Are these "my" images, or if I published them do the sign painters "own" the images?
Here we go...

If I typed exactly what you just typed, are these your words?

Or are people really that much lacking in intelligence to think that they can get away with this kind of logic (or lack thereof)?

Oh, wait... I'm looking at a can of Campbell's Tomato Soup.

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 19:43

No, it's clear cut. Someone other than you took the photo.
It's the camera that took the photo.

I too can reduce any argument to hyper-gloriously-silly arguments just for the sake of argument.

And who owns the camera? You? What if you didn't pay it, but somebody else handed over the money for you.

I can go Ad Nauseum. This sort of fallaced, Fox-News style of logic can only take your mind off the real argument.

Now you can ask: what is "real"? What is an "argument". Is it really "your" argument? Do "you" own arguments?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 19:44

It's got you all vehemently debating the point, which I think IS the point. I think the Sherrie Levine stuff is crap, for example, but it's crap which inspires thought, which is the real point after all. Therefore it has validity.

As for typing my words, there are those three monkeys still pounding on the typewriters........

Here we go...

If I typed exactly what you just typed, are these your words?

Or are people really that much lacking in intelligence to think that they can get away with this kind of logic (or lack thereof)?

Oh, wait... I'm looking at a can of Campbell's Tomato Soup.

sirius

12-06-2007, 19:44

I find it sad.

This artist's art is about the frame, the context, he places around these found objects.

Too bad that the original spark of creativity is someone else's.

Rhoyle

12-06-2007, 19:46

An old friend of mine who used to produce sculpture in neon light said to me..."Ya want to know what art is? It's what ya can get away with!" And I think that definition fits perfectly. This Prinz character is smooth enough to convince gallery people that his stealing other people's material is art. Those who buy into it are the fools.

BH

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 19:49

A little further up you just said cameras don't take photos. You're entirely missing the point just to make a straw man argument, then somehow you make the leap to Fox News, an entirely different agenda.

It's the camera that took the photo.

I too can reduce any argument to hyper-gloriously-silly arguments just for the sake of argument.

And who owns the camera? You? What if you didn't pay it, but somebody else handed over the money for you.

I can go Ad Nauseum. This sort of fallaced, Fox-News style of logic can only take your mind off the real argument.

Now you can ask: what is "real"? What is an "argument". Is it really "your" argument? Do "you" own arguments?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 19:54

Modern "art" as dispensed through the gallery system is not really "art" but the manipulation of speculative marketing to well-heeled idiots.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/fashion/08storr.html?em&ex=1194757200&en=d9e94cfd8f38ca70&ei=5087%0A

An old friend of mine who used to produce sculpture in neon light said to me..."Ya want to know what art is? It's what ya can get away with!" And I think that definition fits perfectly. This Prinz character is smooth enough to convince gallery people that his stealing other people's material is art. Those who buy into it are the fools.

BH

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 19:54

"I imagine if you look more closely you will find the law in France to be exactly like here, if you use the photograph commercially in an ad, then you may need permission, especially from trademark holders (there are at least 2 in MVs photo of the sign)."

No no no !!!
<snip>
I could go on all night, it is so so CRAZY !
Yes. You are correct.

It's all like a Monty Python sketch.

Usually, in a non-dark-matter world, somebody who claims rights to an image is the owner of the image, unless it can be proved that somebody else took the exact same image which you then used to make your own.

If somebody paints a moustache over a photo of Julia Roberts and claims it his own, sells it for profit (or uses it outside of fair use laws --which other m@r@ns stretch to suit their own twisted mind), that guy (or gal) is going to get his (or hers) pants sued off.

If Da Vinci had been alive, he very well have sued Duchamp's facial hair, each follicle one by one. He had an open mind, but he didn't suffer fools either. Duchamp challenged established views. And like Warhol, laughed at them.

By the way...did I write this, or did the keys on my keyboard do it?

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 19:56

A little further up you just said cameras don't take photos.
Show me where I said that.

Or did I?

Laptops don't type, so it wasn't my laptop. I haven't opened my mouth... so...

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 19:58

Most ads in the US blur the backgrounds. The entire reason for the use of the 300 2.8 in fashion work is to blur trademarks when outdoors.
I need to trademark that one: Canon 300 f/2.8 IS: "its whole reason for use is to blur trademarks when outdoors"(tm) :angel:

mfunnell

12-06-2007, 20:02

The entire reason for the use of the 300 2.8 in fashion work is to blur trademarks when outdoors.And improve the upper-body strength of photographers?

...Mike

Gabriel M.A.

12-06-2007, 20:02

come on -- you have to admit the idea of "Fox-News style of logic" is a good one, when referring to fuzzy logic? Not that yours was, but I like the term.

Maybe shortened to you are being very Fox News!
Fuzzy logic is pretty advanced logic. Paradoxically, it's used to make the most illogical points.

For example: "the leading cause of divorce is marriage" :eek:

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 20:03

I don't find Fox News very logical at all......it's simply the 21st Century brand of 1910 Hearst journalism combined with moving Composographs.

http://www.unc.edu/~rbstepno/graphic/newimages/rudicar1.jpg

LuckyKarma

12-06-2007, 20:26

Maybe that's the point of his "art".

I'm not saying that's it right or it's wrong. At what point does an image become something else from the original image.

Don't get huffy and immediately trumpet moral indignation.

Think about it.
OK - I'm not familiar with this guy's work, I was just basing my opinion on what I read in the article. I don't know if all of his stuff is like this so I suppose I shouldn't be so quick to judge.

But I don't see how he can just blatantly take

this photo (http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9375/stretchslideza0.jpg)

and

call it his own (http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7141/princeso5.jpg).

He hasn't done anything here, besides using someone else's photo.

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 20:33

he hasn't done anything here, besides using someone else's photo.

He got a million dollars for it, and the original guy got zippo. I'd call it pure genius.

LuckyKarma

12-06-2007, 20:36

he hasn't done anything here, besides using someone else's photo.

He got a million dollars for it, and the original guy got zippo. I'd call it pure genius.

Touché. It's a shame the original photographer didn't see any of that million though ;)

M. Valdemar

12-06-2007, 21:07

If I made a million off a copied photo, I would be certain to offer the original photographer a sincere handshake.

jan normandale

12-06-2007, 21:41

Haven't had a fun read like this in a while! What I find interesting is the fact people will agree music is one of the arts. Samples used by other artists (and the cases are many) have resulted in the sample user being successfully sued even if the sample was only seconds long.

I'm waiting for someone to take this perspective into the other arts... or are we really discussing art? Maybe we're discussing business practice.

As a sidebar there is a market for 'known art forgeries'

jan normandale

12-06-2007, 21:47

Ceci n'est pas une pissoir

non.. c'est Duchamp

sepiareverb

12-07-2007, 03:09

Once again, he's photographing a printed page, not a photograph.

And, once again, just like in 1910, people are too close-minded to allow one individuals notion of what art can be if it isn't acceptable to them.

Duchamp opened a very large debate, which has been going on nearly one-hundred years. Not in the art world though, we've gotten over it long ago.

Solinar

12-07-2007, 03:50

I guess the art world isn't too concerned with policing its own. I'm in academia and I find it very disturbing that no one at the Guggenheim bothered to contact the original photographer, Jim Krantz.

Does mean I'm free to photograph or digitally capture Ansel Adam's work, then digitally re-resolve them to room sized prints for commercial gain?

edlake

12-07-2007, 05:47

Greetings:
According to the source of this web page these are the fonts we are reading "font: 10pt verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;" Helvetica is a standard font, perhaps the most widely used font in the world. Arial is basically an imitation Helvetica published by Microsoft. The source code allows any of these fonts to be used, depending upon your particular setup. There are also Helvetica rip off (especially in the pre digital world of typesetting, believe it or not) such as Megaron, Heldustry, CG Triumvirate, Vega, and even Geneva. This is just a few.
Ethical or not, there is no (US) law that prevents the creation of Helvetica look alikes. You just can't use the same name.
This is just an analogy to the photography issue raised in the NY Times article which I read yesterday. But you can see that its not really different. BTW, Helvetica is a trademark of Linotype AG and/or its subsidiaries.
Cheers.

Gabriel M.A.

12-07-2007, 06:17

Ah, Microsnot: the master of taking somebody else's idea and repackaging it as your own. And if that fails, "buy them out".

Well, they say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Funny thing is, usually that isn't flattery, but a slap in the face if the work is or can be your livelihood.

And this is why God invented lawyers. :D

Solinar

12-07-2007, 07:20

If you call them "Ansel Adams" (his name by the by is Adams not Adam) you might be in trouble, or if you use them in a film. But if you call them Solinar's and put them in a gallery setting, with only the one copy, or a small edition, you are on safe ground (see Sherrie Levine).

With regards to context - I doubt that it would pass the "smell test" if I were to get paid big bucks to exhibit 12foot by whatever cloned images of let say Cartier-Bresson and others from the 1940's, then call the exhibit "The 1940's -Larger than life".

With regards to photos of advertising, it can be at times difficult to avoid including such images within the frame in an urban environment, but those images are usually juxtapositioned with real life, include the photographers POV.

I'll defend the latter, but not the former.

Solinar

12-07-2007, 07:25

It wasn't god who invented lawyers, it was the other guy!

I like it. It has a certain cache.

Gabriel M.A.

12-07-2007, 08:29

Mine is currently an Ad -- although I am still surprised at some of them. But they are Avatars. You do understand however I am not the Mahatma?
You'd be surprised at the number of people who'd think you are; a picture is worth more than 1000 words: it is worth the million others that came before it.

jan normandale

12-07-2007, 08:43

I think Prince's shot is more like a 'decoupage' just bigger than most used to cover tin cans converted to pencil holders. People photocopy regularly and I'm afraid there's little will in the courts to deal with the 'small stuff' however $1.2M isn't small

I still think Krantz should take a photo of the MoMA poster for the Prince show, make 'art' posters and sell them for $8.95 each. I'd be tempted to show my middle finger in the poster if I was Krantz, available as a limited edition of say 500 ;D