So let's see if this works better.
For Tuesday, October 12 want you to bring in some sketches and ideas for your spoof ad (look at the Ad Busters spoof ads for some ideas).
Read the articles about digital images (listed on the right, here)
Look at all the links about copyright available on the moodle page (listed under the label COPYRIGHT INFO/RESOURCES). Find a similar case related to artwork you are interested in and describe the case and the outcome here as comments.
Respond to all other forums on moodle that you haven't done yet.
Gather materials and images for your spoof ad.
PLEASE email me or message me here if you have a problem. I am available so if you don't do homework because you didn't understand without trying to get in touch with me, you will get a "0" for the homework.
Copyright laws are really confusing, and the legal jargon is very difficult to read. So, it's no surprise that copyright infrigement happens alot. Even well known artist like, Jeff Koons have been sued for copyright infringment. Koons was sued for copyright infringement by Art Rogers because Koons had made a sculpture of a photograph Rogers had taken. Koons did not give Rogers credit, and admitted that he had used the picture to create his statue, but thought that since his statue was a parody that he was protected by fair use laws. The statue depicts a man and a women holding puppies, except the dogs are blue and have big noses, and the people have flowers in there hair. The photo by Rogers is in black and white and shows a man and a woman holding puppies. Rogers sued both Koons and the Sonnabend Gallery, and won the case because the statue was not a parody of the style or type of Roger's work but of the actual picture itself. Rogers received a settlement from Koons, and one of the statues was also sent to Rogers. Honestly, I don't know who to side with on this case. I mean, Koons did copy the work, but for what he considered to be a parody. However, Koons probably should have asked Rogers to use the image or at least given him credit in some way. After all, Rogers did take that picture and does deserve credit for it, and I would probably be angry too if someone was making money from a parody of my work.
ReplyDeleteAllison Smith
I agree with Allison, all the copyright laws and terminology is very confusing. There's so much red tape it's no wonder there's so many lawsuits concerning copyright out there.
ReplyDeleteThe case that really caught my eye was UFW vs Corbis. I think that Corbis shouldn't be allowed to just use the public murals as they wish just because they're public. Taking a photograph of a mural and using it for profit without the artist's consent is pretty much the same as taking a print of that mural and using it the same way.
Even though the case is still ongoing, I believe that UFW should have the right to deny Corbis the right to take photos of their murals, because even though the artwork is on a public building in a public spot, it was created for non-profit reasons. If Corbis had asked permission first, maybe it would be different. At least that way the UFW could ask for a share in the profit if they desired it.
- Amanda Doughty
Well I Agree that Copyrghts are quite silly and not so clear to understand and lots of people will find a way to go around it. Yet at same time I would hate if someone told me and sue me for playing American Idiot somewhere outside my house . From Anotherside i can say that in some countries coppy rights are so uncomfterble that band selling CD get more money from seling show tickets then from CD marketing. Since price of CD in other countries are a bit to much to aford for a tipical teenager who in this sytuation will go on the web and download free music... Well FREE IS GOOD
ReplyDeleteI had difficulty finding another case that was not already mentioned here on the blog. I am sure there are thousands more, but none that I saw I felt fit with the assignment. Reading "Artist vs.Tiger Woods" though, was a perfect case. The fact that the artist painted Tiger Woods and sold it, even though he was not copying anyone, (I feel) he was invading on Woods' territory. If he had gotten permission from Woods to have the painting down, then okay, no issue. But because he made money off of someone else's face without them gaining anything from it, shows that he "stole" from Woods. Does that make sense? Like he stole Woods' opportunity to make money off a self portrait he could have done on his own time.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to what Amanda said about the UFW vs Corbis case. If the art was public to start, and they are trying to sell for profit, shouldn't the artists have been more involved to claim the art as theirown if they did care? A lot of artists that do public work, work under different names so they can make their work known, but they themselves don't become known. those artists might not mind the selling of photographs of their work.
ReplyDeleteOn the music side of things, there is one artist in particular on the border of copyright laws.
http://www.myspace.com/girltalk
GIrl Talk is a guy on a computer who takes bits of words and instrumentals from different songs to create his own songs. He gave a full-leangth away for free online to avoid most of the controversy. He wins copyright cases because he only uses words or the instruments from a song at one time, and each bit of the song is under 30 seconds which is a cutoff point to copyright laws.
In the Rauschenberg and Turner case Rauschenberg was sued for using a photograph of a car from Time magazine that Tuner took. Rauschenberg is an artist that uses found objects and his work is like a collage. Collages are images put together. I think that it's stupid that he was sued and Turner won the case. Rauschenberg used the ad in another way, he didn't just take it and sell it. As long as the image is altered or the context is, it's ok.
ReplyDeleteFairey v. AP. :D
ReplyDeleteA relative case to all artists. On the side of Fairey, who used AP's photo as a reference to create the now /huge/ HOPE picture, all he did was use it as guideline. Its obvious if you compare the two side by side that its from the photo, but its an obvious replication. We, as artists have more than likely used an image from the internet as a reference to even doodle from. If AP wins, then we all will get sued for selling doodles that we used as a reference. And it was our hard work and elbow grease that we're selling, so is that fair?
On the opposite side, if you're a photographer, and someone uses your photograph to make huge amounts of dollars, then not only is it not fair to you, but its downright frustrating as hell. You may not be losing money, but you certainly aren't gaining it while someone else is. So, if AP's photographer was the one suing, I would entirely understand both sides well. The only problem is that the photographer dropped the case, and AP is still pushing through with it. Greedy bastards.
Ugh. Copyrights. There is so much you have to look for when copyrighting because if you give your art away anyone can do whatever they want with it, In Green Eggs and Lawsuits the creator of the Cat in the Hat tried to sue a certain company for using his art to create dolls that he said were ugly and a mockery of his work. Because of his copyright laws he lost the suit and got no money for the dolls that were obviously his creations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jonco48.com/blog/baby_20burger.jpg&imgrefurl=http://atheistcookbook.wordpress.com/&usg=__oMiffKBNddU7U5Kiv9GNk7cgG3k=&h=480&w=640&sz=45&hl=en&start=28&sig2=J2SERX6GtOYRQmiFyyRAFw&zoom=1&tbnid=UoknRCeEW_AIuM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=221&ei=rJ20TLveLtntnQe-_5D-BA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dburger%2Bmeat%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1418%26bih%3D779%26tbs%3Disch:1,itp:photo0%2C1035&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=990&vpy=199&dur=575&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=205&ty=144&oei=n520TOKOMYG88gayyPCOCg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:27,s:28&biw=1418&bih=779
ReplyDeleteIn the starbucks vs. Dwyer case, Dwyer is sued for displaying and selling his own version of the starbucks logo which made fun of starbucks. It was settled that Dwyer would be allowed to use the logo in extremely limited circumstances. He could no longer use it in comic books, t-shirts, or stickers. It was allowed on the web but not on his website and he could post a link link from his website to any other sites that showed the parody.
ReplyDeleteSo basically no one can really see it anywhere or know it's his. I thought this was dumb, the logo he made looks very similar to the starbucks one but is clearly different and doesn't say starbucks on it anywhere. So, if he made it and it happens to remind people of starbucks then that's too bad. I thought parodies were legal.