pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: You have no rights and your work can be stolen and used for free  (Read 2988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 09, 2017, 22:30 »
0
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/andy-warhol-estate-sues-over-image-of-prince/ar-BBzxXTn?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Works are "transformative and protected by fair use". My Ass!

If I can steal your work and paint it, then claim it's transformative. Nothing is protected.


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2017, 09:34 »
+4
Agreed.  But post that same comment on FAA - where that sort of ripped-off cr@ap is sold every day - and the forum admin will slap you down pretty hard.

Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2017, 09:59 »
+4
That's all Warhol and Lichtenstein did...they copied other peope's photos, drawings and designs and claimed they were art. And the public ate it up. For a long time I thought Lichtenstein at least created original paintings that mimicked comics, but then I discovered he actually lifted frames wholesale from comic books and just exactly copied them. The comic book artists he stole from made a pittance while he became rich.

And what about Koons, who made a sculpture of a typical balloon animal and then tried to sue people who "copied" "his" balloon animal by making balloon animal bookends?

« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2017, 10:37 »
+1
I agree about Lichtenstein, but there was more to Warhol.  But what's really bad is all these selling someone else's celebrity photos after playing with them in Photoshop for 10 minutes    Go to FAA and search on "Jimi Hendrix" or any other celeb.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 10:49 by stockastic »

« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2017, 15:52 »
0
y y y, i know where you're getting at.
most recently, i thought i saw some movie stills and i could believe my eyes when i saw the credit line
saying alamy. how did the guy or gal got to submit and get approved still of movies they never
directed or owned???

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2017, 16:39 »
+1
Never liked the lazily produced work of Warhol. A prime example of The Emperor's New Clothes. His work looks like crap, but nobody dared to say it to his face.

« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2017, 17:26 »
+1
I thought Warhol was a brilliant innovator, others see nothing worthwhile, and that's ok;  it's what he expected and intended.   It's definitely 'pop' art and not everyone's cup of tea - or maybe I should say, shot of espresso.   

The thing is, though, that he was clever and original in what he did - even when what he did was to copy, modify and re-package someone else's work.  It was ground-breaking at the time, fresh, enjoyable in a new and different way.  Today, there are a thousand Faux Photoshop Warhols without a spark of creativity, and the irony of these talentless hacks making money by Warhol-ing Warhol would certainly have been enjoyed by Warhol himself.   He'd be angry, but I think he'd also feel bad for them, knowing how much fun it was to actually come up with something new that feels like "you", and seeing other people responding to it, maybe even liking it.   
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 18:11 by stockastic »

« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2017, 14:45 »
+1
y y y, i know where you're getting at.
most recently, i thought i saw some movie stills and i could believe my eyes when i saw the credit line
saying alamy. how did the guy or gal got to submit and get approved still of movies they never
directed or owned???

Alamy has purchased rights to a lot of movie and vintage images, that they sell themselves.

« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2017, 22:47 »
+1
warhol was a copycat simple as, nothing artistic about the man, fake and a con artist that the only artist he was

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2017, 00:48 »
0
He'd be angry, but I think he'd also feel bad for them, knowing how much fun it was to actually come up with something new that feels like "you", and seeing other people responding to it


I'm sure the people he copied were also angry, but also felt bad for Warhol... knowing how much fun it was to come up with something new and seeing other people responding to it, and copying it.

« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2017, 21:40 »
0
you said: "If I can steal your work and paint it, then claim it's transformative. Nothing is protected."

copyrights protective creative works. if the painting can be considered an original creative work, then it is fair use.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2017, 22:03 »
0
you said: "If I can steal your work and paint it, then claim it's transformative. Nothing is protected."

copyrights protective creative works. if the painting can be considered an original creative work, then it is fair use.

Fair use doesn't really come into it if it's an original creative work. Then it's just an original creative work. In this instance, the photographer doesn't feel it's an original creative work,  and the estate does... so it'll be up to the courts to decide. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2724 Views
Last post March 06, 2009, 01:07
by basti
6 Replies
4314 Views
Last post October 28, 2009, 20:50
by yuliang11
26 Replies
11834 Views
Last post September 13, 2011, 05:55
by cathyslife
3 Replies
1864 Views
Last post February 03, 2013, 10:54
by ShadySue
3 Replies
1788 Views
Last post November 10, 2015, 05:54
by Shelma1

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results