"If you're going to steal..."

[amateriat]

Someone here might've beat me to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), but I thought I'd share it anyway. Warhol redux, anyone?


- Barrett

[M. Valdemar]

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.]

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]

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!.

[Pitxu]

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

There is another thread on this in the philo section

[M. Valdemar]

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"?

[sepiareverb]

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.

[Pitxu]

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"?


Don't be silly. Making a work of art is not just "pressing the button"

[M. Valdemar]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Pitxu]

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

[jan normandale]

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]

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]

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

[Pitxu]

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

The photo isn't illeagal but you risk a law suit if you try to publish it without the shop owners "written" consent

[amateriat]

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

[Pitxu]

Some of you must remember Robert Doisneau's famous picture "Le baiser de l'hotel de ville" (the kiss in front of the town hall). This was actually a set up shot. Doisneau had seen the couple kissing just a few meters away and asked them to repeat it for him, they did and went on there way. Now in the late 90s this couple tried to sue Doisneau because they had not given written permission to publish.
They did not win the case but only on the grounds that they could not prove that it was themselves. (there faces in the photo were not that clear and they had both aged a hell of a lot)

[kuzano]

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]

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]

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

[mfunnell]

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]

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

[Pitxu]

Ceci n'est pas une pissoir

[nikonhswebmaster]

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

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).

But a photograph for art, not a chance you need a release to shoot a photo of a building, or a sign. Journalists and artists' work is considered fair use almost all the time.

There have been some famous exceptions. Jeff Koons lost a case in the painting "Niagara," but the decision was overthrown in appeal, since it was considered fair use. He was not so successful with "String of Puppies."

One of the real world measure of fair use is -- will that use "impact sales by the original photographer."

The copy of artwork is a very old tradition, dating back to the Roman Empire. The idea of copyright is to protect the rights of the creator to make a profit, not to stop copies.

"Fair use" is not a clear path, but without some ability to copy prior art there is no progress. One of the greatest debates going on right now is business copyrights. Do I have the right to copyright how I say "hello" to my customers, or how I say "buy now" on the internet? Too much copyright, of what is clearly fair use is not a good thing.

So how about that Sherrie Levine?

[amateriat]

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]

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.

[nikonhswebmaster]

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


not that...

I am still trying to sell photos for a few thousand, I stand amazed by these sales, and certainly envious. Frankly I never thought I would see living artists selling anything for a million, but I have artist friends and acquaintances who are so rich now I have simply lost track, they are so beyond.

[mfunnell]

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]

The internet is becoming one huge vindication for Sherrie Levine.

EVERYTHING is appropriated or regurgitated, usually by idiots.

[Gabriel M.A.]

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.

[Pitxu]

"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 !!!
Things have gone real crazy here in the last 3 years. Post card companies have been sued by home owners whose home is regognizable in a landscape. A major water company (Volvic) were sued because one of there ads was an air shot of some mountains (actualy extinct volcanos) They were sued by the land owner on whose property the volcanos werel
It is ok to shoot the eiffel tower during the day but not at hight, the lighting set-up is copyrighted. To put a tripod on the ground in paris you need a permit from the police, stating time and excact location, 100meters further up the road and you'll need another permit.
I could go on all night, it is so so CRAZY !

[nikonhswebmaster]

When i first was aware of what Sherrie Levine was up to (she was part of my crowd) I frankly just did not pay any mind to it. Seemed interesting as a discussion, but I never saw Prince coming! I missed a lot that was going on around me, perhaps too much time at the Mudd Club and not enough in the studio.

[M. Valdemar]

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.]

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.

[Pitxu]

"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."

That was my point

[Gabriel M.A.]

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]

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]

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]

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

[nikonhswebmaster]

"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 !!!
Things have gone real crazy here in the last 3 years. Post card companies have been sued by home owners whose home is regognizable in a landscape. A major water company (Volvic) were sued because one of there ads was an air shot of some mountains (actualy extinct volcanos) They were sued by the land owner on whose property the volcanos werel
It is ok to shoot the eiffel tower during the day but not at hight, the lighting set-up is copyrighted. To put a tripod on the ground in paris you need a permit from the police, stating time and excact location, 100meters further up the road and you'll need another permit.
I could go on all night, it is so so CRAZY !

Exactly the same here. You cannot sell postcards of a building, but you can put photos of the building in a museum. You do not need permission from a building owner to shoot a photo for journalism, otherwise there would be no way to publish a photo of a fire, or a pie eating contest :p.

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. You cannot use a company trademark in another company's ad in theory, however it has been done when comparing. Without editorial freedoms, camera reviews, hotel reviews etc would be impossible. Even in France you still have a free press -- I hope.

You cannot use a tripod anywhere on the streets of New York City without a permit from the city. You can sneak tripods, and seldom have a issue, but you are supposed to have a permit from the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting, and like you describe, it only covers what it covers, not the whole city. This rule by the way does not seem to cover monopods... I have never been bothered even in midtown.

All my artwork involves using photos of buildings in NYC, my current Avatar is a building on 9th Street near me (well not the actual building).

[M. Valdemar]

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]

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.]

"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?

[Pitxu]

Yes we sure do still have a free press, you can get away with things in a press photo that would't pass anyplace else. That is "the freedom of the press" I suppose.

[Gabriel M.A.]

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...

[nikonhswebmaster]

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!

:mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;) :D :bang: :o :angel: :( :confused: :) :eek:

[Gabriel M.A.]

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]

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.]

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]

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

[nikonhswebmaster]

And improve the upper-body strength of photographers?

...Mike

For weight training I recommend the Nikkor 400 2.8 If-ED. I once owned one for a few hours, I sold it to someone stronger.

In a pinch you can use the 300 f2, if you can find one.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Yes we sure do still have a free press, you can get away with things in a press photo that would't pass anyplace else. That is "the freedom of the press" I suppose.

We still have one here, but it is beginning to look more and more like 15th century Venice.

[LuckyKarma]

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]

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]

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 ;)

[nikonhswebmaster]

I have to say the whole thing sure is a mystery to me. I would do it if I could, in fact I would even take up smoking if it would help.

[M. Valdemar]

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

[jan normandale]

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]

Ceci n'est pas une pissoir

non.. c'est Duchamp

[sepiareverb]

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.

[nikonhswebmaster]

or are we really discussing art? Maybe we're discussing business practice.

Probably, but music has taken on a special perversity in the marketplace, not even film is so widely distributed, or so commercialized.

I do not listen to recorded music, except at the grocery and drug store myself, so I look at it from afar at this point. To me it is all just white noise.

[Solinar]

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?

[Pitxu]

And Ansel won't sue you, he's dead!

[nikonhswebmaster]

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?

Well it depends entirely on the context, and who currently owns the original images you use to copy, and how you represent and sell them.

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).

[edlake]

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.]

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

[Pitxu]

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

[nikonhswebmaster]

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.

I don't think any Graphic designers would agree, but to the normal reader the subtleties are hard to see. But Arial looks about as much like Helvetica as a BMW Mini looks like an original Mini Cooper. I would not call these type faces made for screen reading, especially Verdana, a rip off, but some certainly do call them ugly. I am not a big fan of Microsoft but Matthew Carter's Verdana is much easier to read online than Helvetica, and was a totally new sans serif, not derived from Helvetica.

All of these san serif fonts are derived form the 19th century grotesque fonts.

There is a new IFC movie called Helvetica, that everyone interested in fonts and graphic design should not miss.

[Solinar]

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]

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

I like it. It has a certain cache.

[nikonhswebmaster]

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.

There seems to be a pretty major disconnect here on what constitutes "fair use" the exhibition you propose would clearly violate all current copyright laws.

Re adverts, they are VERY careful, not to step on other company trademarks. There is an interesting distinction in Magazines like Vogue, between ad photos, and editorial photos. The editorial ones can contain copyrighted material, and often do, as well as unlicensed locations.

[Pitxu]

I was just going to ask fred to stop changing his avatar every 2 minutes !!!

[nikonhswebmaster]

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?

I was just going to ask fred to stop changing his avatar every 2 minutes !!!

I change it constantly, whatever mood I am in, it is an avatar, not me. I have looked like you at other times, but thinner maybe.

^o^;>

[Gabriel M.A.]

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]

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

[Roger Hicks]

If I missed it in my run-through of the thread so far, I apologize, but I don't think anyone has raised the old truism,

"Talent borrows. Genius steals."

Cheers,

R.

[jan normandale]

If I missed it in my run-through of the thread so far, I apologize, but I don't think anyone has raised the old truism,

"Talent borrows. Genius steals."

Cheers,

R.

We weren't talking about Picasso.. ;- )

[RdEoSg]

I wonder if there is a rule when you go to the exhibit about no photography allowed? Wouldn't want to copy it....

[patrickjames]

If you guys really want to know how he gets away with it (and probably how Warhol got away with it too), the copyright for the images he copies are not owned by Krantz, they are owned by Phillip Morris, or whoever owns the brand Marlboro. Krantz can do nothing since he sold his right to the images when he originally made them. Philip Morris could sue, but the publicity is far more valuable to them then the money they could get from Prince. Prince uses this to his advantage. He has been sued by other photographers who didn't do a buyout and settled the suits, so he knows what he is doing is iffy. If Philip Morris wanted to shut him down, they could. I guess that is his genius. I think the prices are bolstered by speculating collectors and that is a self fulfilling prophecy. Once work starts to sell for high prices, it usually only goes up. Museums like this type of work because it creates a buzz, which bolsters the acceptance of what he does even more. The genius isn't in the images, it is in the business behind the images.

Patrick

[Pitxu]

That's an extremely interesting insight Patrick, Thanks.
Pitxu.


("and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get !"........John Lennon)

[sepiareverb]

...Museums like this type of work because it creates a buzz, which bolsters the acceptance of what he does even more....Patrick

And generates admissions. A museum after all needs to sell tickets, and get folks into the 'gift' shop.