Copyright battle over Obama picture

DDCSD wrote in post #7347310
So, lets say I make up a stencil and start spray painting this on blank walls all over town. Would you consider me a vandal or an artist? I would consider myself a vandal and a copyright infringer. But you are saying that since there is an overtly political and socio-cultural message it would be fine and you would have no problem with your work being used like this? I suspect you would have an issue with it. I know that I would.

You're so lucky you wrote "Palin" on there DDCSD, otherwise it would be considered "political", and that's against the rules! As it is, it's just pseudo-sexual art, with the name of some woman from the TV added.
Hang on...I am right aren't I? Palin's that comediene who impersonnated Tina Fey, isn't she? I wonder what Fey will do, now that Obama pushed her and that old guy out of the running for prez'.....

Anyway, what's really interesting is how you guys love to "steal" from POTN...or more accurately, me, while trying to make a point about how terrible copyright infringement is!
Use yer own damn pictures/Avatars to make into crappy posters!!!!

skygod44 wrote in post #7347356
Anyway, what's really interesting is how you guys love to "steal" from POTN...or more accurately, me, while trying to make a point about how terrible copyright infringement is!
Use yer own damn pictures/Avatars to make into crappy posters!!!!

Just trying to point out that you can't let emotions and political views decide what is right and what is wrong. There are reasons that there are laws, to attempt to keep personal views and emotions out of the argument.

If people were allowed to steal anyone's intellectual property to use in any way they deem fit (in the name of "art"), then there will be no more artists. Unless it is the government's responsibility to pay everyone that claims to be an artist a yearly salary, then the government artists' work is automatically in the public domain for the greater good. That would be the only way to get rid of copyright laws and still have artists.

I didn't "steal" from you. I used the artwork that you posted as inspiration for my own art. I did it exactly as Fairey did (except I only spent 2 minutes on my "inspired" version).


Oh, and you avoided my question very nicely, so I'll add a second scenario and elaborate on my first.

1) If I made a stencil out of my "inspired" artwork above and spray painted it on the wall of The Isson Tanaka Commemorative Art Gallery, would I be an artist or a vandal?

2) If I made hundreds of thousands of posters, stickers, buttons, shirts, hats, etc of my "inspired" artwork and mailed them to people in exchange for a political donation, would you feel violated (infringed upon)? Would you want me to stop doing that? Would you want any compensation? Would you hire legal counsel to try and force me to stop if I ignored your requests?

skygod44 wrote in post #7347356
You're so lucky you wrote "Palin" on there DDCSD, otherwise it would be considered "political", and that's against the rules!

I'm not making a political statement, just using a politician's name in an example.

I would have used Hillary Clinton in the example, but uggghhhhhhh...........​.

Now I'm blind.

I wish Palin was vice president. What are the comedy writers going to do now?

Hillary drove Bill to Monica.... that's saying something.

Sorry, forgot. This is a serious discussion about something serious, so let's all be serious about it. Seriously!!!11

"In an effort to understand the complex subculture of graffiti writing, I participated briefly in that world. I felt this to be a necessary component of ethnographic research, which attempts to understand social worlds in all of their complexity and confusion. In this vein I believe that I have offered a thick and detailed description of graffiti subculture, and discovered an empirical reality that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Graffiti writers for the most part are not immoral, crime-addled imps."

Quoted from somewhere on the net. Makes you think and ponder and stuff. Like, totally.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7349037
I wish Palin was vice president. What are the comedy writers going to do now?

Have you seen the governor of NY?

(note: I am not making fun of blind people. I don't know any blind photographers, though. Although, when my wife looks at my pictures, she says "you don't have an eye for ****!!!" Which might mean I am a blind photographer.)

**** = love?

rdenney wrote in post #7344319
Nobody ever claimed that art and vandalism were mutually exclusive...

Oh, it wasn't you Rick "always so balanced that he might end up agreeing with everyone" Denney, that I was responding to. It was Speedy who was stating rather strongly that Fairey, in his opinion, was little more than a Jackass street punk. Seemed we'd had enough insults in this trhead without hinting that they weren't necessary.

DDCSD wrote in post #7348465
Just trying to point out that you can't let emotions and political views decide what is right and what is wrong.....
I didn't "steal" from you. I used the artwork that you posted as inspiration for my own art. I did it exactly as Fairey did....and you avoided my question very nicely, so I'll...elaborate on my first.
1) If I made a stencil out of my "inspired" artwork...and spray painted it on the wall of The Isson Tanaka Commemorative Art Gallery, would I be an artist or a vandal?
2) If I made hundreds of thousands of posters, stickers [etc],...mailed them to people in exchange for a political donation, would you feel violated (infringed upon)? Would you want me to stop doing that,...want any compensation.....hire legal counsel to try and force me to stop....?

DDCSD, maybe you missed my comment before due to all the fun, but I don't believe anyone is capable of keeping "emotions and political views" from influencing what they think is right and wrong. This theory that the law is somehow able to, is dangerous. We make the law. We are all bound by the fact that we are human, to include our emotions/politics/beli​ef structures etc., whether we are deciding laws, education policy or what to put on our toast!
That's why I keep arguing about this from such a fundamental standpoint. Besides which, it's good brain-food arguing with you guys!

Oh and about your scenario after the THEFT of my artwork:
1) If you "did it the same as Fairey", you'll need to take a photo of the screen print you made. Otherwise, you've fallen at the first hurdle.
2) BUT let's assume - cos I'm feeling generous - that you have made a screen print, and then you go off and spray it all over the Tanaka Isson Commemorative Art Gallery's wall, I'd be honoured you'd chosen my art, to base your art upon, and then to paint it on the gallery wall. The owners might be a bit pissed at you, but that's not surprising.
3) Here's the info' you guys are missing...are you sitting down? If not, I suggest you do.
I sold the original painting 5 years ago to a doctor who works in the neonate ward of a hospital where I worked. I got a fair price. The painting is now bringing happiness to a LOT of people, as she hung it in the hospital.
So no, I would not sue you. I would not expect direct compensation. I wouldn't want money for damages, and definitely no lawyers!!!! It's just a photo record of a painting I did. I'm done with that picture. If it creates more art, I'd be VERY happy.
If you included my name as the inspiration for your political message - and I think most/all true artists would, in your scenario! - I'd be more than happy. If you chose not to include me in your acknowledgments, it would just tell what kind of person you are.
Hypothetically speaking.

DDCSD wrote in post #7348487
I'm not making a political statement, just using a politician's name in an example. I would have used Hillary Clinton in the example, but uggghhhhhhh...........​.
Now I'm blind.

I don't get it. Why do you keep referring to that comediene as a "politician"?

mattograph wrote in post #7349059
Have you seen the governor of NY?

(note: I am not making fun of blind people. I don't know any blind photographers, though. Although, when my wife looks at my pictures, she says "you don't have an eye for ****!!!" Which might mean I am a blind photographer.)

I'm not really an SNL fan, but their rendition of the NY governor is HILARIOUS!

JMHO

DDCSD wrote in post #7347310
So, lets say I make up a stencil and start spray painting this on blank walls all over town. Would you consider me a vandal or an artist? I would consider myself a vandal and a copyright infringer. But you are saying that since there is an overtly political and socio-cultural message it would be fine and you would have no problem with your work being used like this?

I suspect you would have an issue with it. I know that I would.

I'd consider you a vandal if you paint on any wall without permission.

BillsBayou wrote in post #7351838
I'd consider you a vandal if you paint on any wall without permission.

Just to be pedantic.

Just say, I sneak into an old ladies house while she's away. I scrape off all the drab grey paint from her walls, sand them smooth, fix all the cracks and paint them again (her favourite colour).

Vandal?

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7357638
Just to be pedantic.

Just say, I sneak into an old ladies house while she's away. I scrape off all the drab grey paint from her walls, sand them smooth, fix all the cracks and paint them again (her favourite colour).

Vandal?

Actually, yes! But if you swap out the curtains add froofie window treatments, pillows with tassles and an area you rug you've just committed a REAL SIN.

Drive By Interior Decorater!!!!

DOH!

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7357638
Just to be pedantic.

Just say, I sneak into an old ladies house while she's away. I scrape off all the drab grey paint from her walls, sand them smooth, fix all the cracks and paint them again (her favourite colour).

Vandal?

I was going to say something immature about the thought of you filling in an old lady's crack, but I thought better of it.
[Phew, think I got away with that!]

Totally unscientific, but ....

We watch a lot of USA network at our home (Can't get enough of House!). Anyway, I noticed this weekend that they did not show the Shep Fairey Character of the year profile.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #7357638
Just to be pedantic.

Just say, I sneak into an old ladies house while she's away. I scrape off all the drab grey paint from her walls, sand them smooth, fix all the cracks and paint them again (her favourite colour).

Vandal?

Of course. And, if you were on her property without permission, you can add trespass to vandalism.

A fundamental concept of private ownership is that the owner has control, even if he uses that control to neglect maintenance. Only when a neglected property provides a safety issue for those who are not trespassing would there be any justification to compel action. Of course, this principle has been encroached severely, often by do-gooders who want to make sure their neighbors don't lower their property values. Blech.

Forcing someone to receive goodness is not fundamentally different than forcing them to receive badness, for the simple reason that it puts the definition of goodness in the hands of the non-owner.

Rick "who doesn't want anyone appropriating his bad art" Denney

Isn't this covered by existing copyright law as a "derivative work"?

I've been asked by a friend to photograph his paintings. I own the copyright to the photos but he owns the copyright to the paintings. Nobody can copy or use my photos without my permission and I can't give that permission without permission from the copyright holder of the original work. Right? (EDIT: I should clarify - my friend's paintings are the primary subject, not just part of the background)

Why would the AP situation be different?