sin
New Member
Posts • 614
Likes • 737
February 2013
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by sin on Apr 4, 2014 14:20:42 GMT 1, I know. Every so often the topic gets brought up. Usually connected to some specific instance.
This instance was the discussion about cosmonauts in the recent outsiders show.
I recently had a heated Facebook and Instagram discussion with some rabid Geddes fans on this same topic when a tourism board used a space man in their video and used some time stretch effects in the same video.
How can an artists or their fans hold ownership of an image. Particularly one not created from the imagination of an artist but rather one that has been seen millions of times prior to the artist using it. This isn't as ground breaking as using objects like Soup Cans, it's a guy in a space suit.
Now I understand that in both the video case and possibly this most recent show the cosmonaut is floating in space, but to be fair, isn't that was cosmonauts do? If the image was a cosmonaut in an apron, cooking breakfast, I get it. However a subject doing what it normally does... How can you lay claim to something so generic.
Let's try to keep this away from discussing the specific show out of common decency. The issue is universal and the operative question is how can someone be considered having appropriated and idea where the initial idea itself wasn't unique?
I know. Every so often the topic gets brought up. Usually connected to some specific instance.
This instance was the discussion about cosmonauts in the recent outsiders show.
I recently had a heated Facebook and Instagram discussion with some rabid Geddes fans on this same topic when a tourism board used a space man in their video and used some time stretch effects in the same video.
How can an artists or their fans hold ownership of an image. Particularly one not created from the imagination of an artist but rather one that has been seen millions of times prior to the artist using it. This isn't as ground breaking as using objects like Soup Cans, it's a guy in a space suit.
Now I understand that in both the video case and possibly this most recent show the cosmonaut is floating in space, but to be fair, isn't that was cosmonauts do? If the image was a cosmonaut in an apron, cooking breakfast, I get it. However a subject doing what it normally does... How can you lay claim to something so generic.
Let's try to keep this away from discussing the specific show out of common decency. The issue is universal and the operative question is how can someone be considered having appropriated and idea where the initial idea itself wasn't unique?
|
|
|
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by graffuturism on Apr 4, 2014 14:32:01 GMT 1, I know. Every so often the topic gets brought up. Usually connected to some specific instance. This instance was the discussion about cosmonauts in the recent outsiders show. I recently had a heated Facebook and Instagram discussion with some rabid Geddes fans on this same topic when a tourism board used a space man in their video and used some time stretch effects in the same video. How can an artists or their fans hold ownership of an image. Particularly one not created from the imagination of an artist but rather one that has been seen millions of times prior to the artist using it. This isn't as ground breaking as using objects like Soup Cans, it's a guy in a space suit. Now I understand that in both the video case and possibly this most recent show the cosmonaut is floating in space, but to be fair, isn't that was cosmonauts do? If the image was a cosmonaut in an apron, cooking breakfast, I get it. However a subject doing what it normally does... How can you lay claim to something so generic. Let's try to keep this away from discussing the specific show out of common decency. The issue is universal and the operative question is how can someone be considered having appropriated and idea where the initial idea itself wasn't unique?
In art their are no rules, yet collectors and fans are not that gullible and should be able to spot authenticity. Ill leave it at that, as I dont want to get to personal with the example due to my very biased opinion on it.
I know. Every so often the topic gets brought up. Usually connected to some specific instance. This instance was the discussion about cosmonauts in the recent outsiders show. I recently had a heated Facebook and Instagram discussion with some rabid Geddes fans on this same topic when a tourism board used a space man in their video and used some time stretch effects in the same video. How can an artists or their fans hold ownership of an image. Particularly one not created from the imagination of an artist but rather one that has been seen millions of times prior to the artist using it. This isn't as ground breaking as using objects like Soup Cans, it's a guy in a space suit. Now I understand that in both the video case and possibly this most recent show the cosmonaut is floating in space, but to be fair, isn't that was cosmonauts do? If the image was a cosmonaut in an apron, cooking breakfast, I get it. However a subject doing what it normally does... How can you lay claim to something so generic. Let's try to keep this away from discussing the specific show out of common decency. The issue is universal and the operative question is how can someone be considered having appropriated and idea where the initial idea itself wasn't unique? I think its pretty easy to see when something is being re-appropriated from a similar artist such as the case you mentioned. As an artist you are to be aware of your peers and other contemporaries and you should also be cautious when entering this dangerous ground. The argument isnt about appropriation its about re-appropriating something that has already been appropriated by a peer or fellow artist. To me its obvious when this happens and its easy to spot an artist that copies what what might be a hit without much progression in their work, or a solid reasoning. As an artist you might make a similar work or do something similar at the same time, synchronicity exists yet when you do find out your work looks like something another artist has already established then well you can either do it different and explain why your work is different, or move in another direction. The artist mentioned has been called out before and mentioned as re-appropriating multiple contemporaries styles. In art their are no rules, yet collectors and fans are not that gullible and should be able to spot authenticity. Ill leave it at that, as I dont want to get to personal with the example due to my very biased opinion on it. |
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
Posts • 2,943
Likes • 2,731
November 2010
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by Hairbland on Apr 4, 2014 14:41:36 GMT 1, I know. Every so often the topic gets brought up. Usually connected to some specific instance. This instance was the discussion about cosmonauts in the recent outsiders show. I recently had a heated Facebook and Instagram discussion with some rabid Geddes fans on this same topic when a tourism board used a space man in their video and used some time stretch effects in the same video. How can an artists or their fans hold ownership of an image. Particularly one not created from the imagination of an artist but rather one that has been seen millions of times prior to the artist using it. This isn't as ground breaking as using objects like Soup Cans, it's a guy in a space suit. Now I understand that in both the video case and possibly this most recent show the cosmonaut is floating in space, but to be fair, isn't that was cosmonauts do? If the image was a cosmonaut in an apron, cooking breakfast, I get it. However a subject doing what it normally does... How can you lay claim to something so generic. Let's try to keep this away from discussing the specific show out of common decency. The issue is universal and the operative question is how can someone be considered having appropriated and idea where the initial idea itself wasn't unique?
I know. Every so often the topic gets brought up. Usually connected to some specific instance. This instance was the discussion about cosmonauts in the recent outsiders show. I recently had a heated Facebook and Instagram discussion with some rabid Geddes fans on this same topic when a tourism board used a space man in their video and used some time stretch effects in the same video. How can an artists or their fans hold ownership of an image. Particularly one not created from the imagination of an artist but rather one that has been seen millions of times prior to the artist using it. This isn't as ground breaking as using objects like Soup Cans, it's a guy in a space suit. Now I understand that in both the video case and possibly this most recent show the cosmonaut is floating in space, but to be fair, isn't that was cosmonauts do? If the image was a cosmonaut in an apron, cooking breakfast, I get it. However a subject doing what it normally does... How can you lay claim to something so generic. Let's try to keep this away from discussing the specific show out of common decency. The issue is universal and the operative question is how can someone be considered having appropriated and idea where the initial idea itself wasn't unique? As we've seen recently once again the courts have decided in the favor of Richard Prince as to artistic appropriation. I'm not familiar with all of the specifics regarding this current conflict but did notice Charming Baker had a floating astronaut print available in LA. |
|
sin
New Member
Posts • 614
Likes • 737
February 2013
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by sin on Apr 4, 2014 14:56:10 GMT 1, Yeah. As I said. Current show aside. Its bad form I think to make this topic a critique on something current. Someone is welcome to open that can of worms if they wish.
The matter that initially sparked it with me was when Geddes fans went crazy because a tourism board in Australia used space men and flying birds in less than 1/10 of an ad promoting whatever area of was. My point then is that you can't say Geddes owns the idea of putting spacemen in an urban landscape or floating in air or a time stretch on birds flying. These images were taken from other images that have been done repeatedly over the last 30 plus years.
In that case, commercial appropriation of a rather generic concept I don't see any foul. However I see your point that when the execution is fine art vs fine art the sensitivities are greater, particularly when dealing with an active artists. However it begs the question, with 7 billion people on this planet, and them all being so connected, can you really start laying claim to images that are so clearly taken from popular culture or modern cinema?
Yeah. As I said. Current show aside. Its bad form I think to make this topic a critique on something current. Someone is welcome to open that can of worms if they wish.
The matter that initially sparked it with me was when Geddes fans went crazy because a tourism board in Australia used space men and flying birds in less than 1/10 of an ad promoting whatever area of was. My point then is that you can't say Geddes owns the idea of putting spacemen in an urban landscape or floating in air or a time stretch on birds flying. These images were taken from other images that have been done repeatedly over the last 30 plus years.
In that case, commercial appropriation of a rather generic concept I don't see any foul. However I see your point that when the execution is fine art vs fine art the sensitivities are greater, particularly when dealing with an active artists. However it begs the question, with 7 billion people on this planet, and them all being so connected, can you really start laying claim to images that are so clearly taken from popular culture or modern cinema?
|
|
raindogs
New Member
Posts • 462
Likes • 482
June 2011
|
About the appropriation art, obviously the Cariou vs. Prince is a must read.  Everything started with this Cariou complaint: docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2008cv11327/338136/1* Then Gagosian / Prince answer docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2008cv11327/338136/14* MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Defendants shall notify in writing any current or future owners of the Paintings of whom they are or become aware that the Paintings infringe the copyright in the Photographs, that the Paintings were not lawfully made under the Copyright Act of 1976, and that the Paintings cannot lawfully be displayed under 17 U.S.C. § 109(c). docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2008cv11327/338136/71* MOTION, to dismiss, on behalf of Appellee Patrick Cariou docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/51* OPPOSITION TO MOTION to dismiss [51], on behalf of Appellant Lawrence Gagosian and Gagosian Gallery, Inc., docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/68* REPLY TO OPPOSITION [68], on behalf of Appellee Patrick Cariou docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/73* BRIEF & SPECIAL APPENDIX, on behalf of Appellant Lawrence Gagosian, Gagosian Gallery, Inc. and Richard Prince docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/100* AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Art Museums and Association of Art Museum Directors docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/125* AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Google, Inc. docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/130* AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc., docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/139* BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Patrick Cariou docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/148* AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Ameican Society of Media Photographers, Inc. and Picture Archive Coucil of America docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/178* REPLY BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Richard Prince, Lawrence Gagosian and Gagosian Gallery, Inc. docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/194* AMICUS REPLY BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae The Andy Wahol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/11-1197/207* The final OPINION of the US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/65b7b90c-6ee3-407f-83ac-8c2990efec8c/1/doc/11-1197_complete_opn.pdf* An interesting comment about the decision: clancco.com/wp/2013/04/art-law-cariou-prince-copyright/* And finally the news of the settlement artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/richard-prince-settles-copyright-suit-with-patrick-cariou-over-photographs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 |
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 15:37:33 GMT 1, People were painting astronauts long before Geddes was born.
There is appropriation which technically is theft in some circles and there is downright plagiarism.
Koons, Hirst, Fairey and probably others have been publicly accused of plagiarism.
Others have ripped off Warhol and appropriated other artists images and chucked a bit of paint on them like Mr Brainwash does.
Then there is parody and satire where artists have made versions of the Mona Lisa and other artists works to make a statement or take the piss.
I like satire.
If someone ripped off blatantly something I had created I wouldn't bother with lawyers i'd just kick them in the nuts.
People were painting astronauts long before Geddes was born.
There is appropriation which technically is theft in some circles and there is downright plagiarism.
Koons, Hirst, Fairey and probably others have been publicly accused of plagiarism.
Others have ripped off Warhol and appropriated other artists images and chucked a bit of paint on them like Mr Brainwash does.
Then there is parody and satire where artists have made versions of the Mona Lisa and other artists works to make a statement or take the piss.
I like satire.
If someone ripped off blatantly something I had created I wouldn't bother with lawyers i'd just kick them in the nuts.
|
|
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
Posts • 4,492
Likes • 2,102
March 2011
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by johnnyh on Apr 4, 2014 19:06:33 GMT 1, In all of these cases there are really two key elements 1) Is ethics sadly so easily lost these days. Some use others images whether protected or not to create original works of art. Others use others images and or concepts as they are unable to create their own concepts
2) The law is a very funny thing and these cases are rarely black and white. There is rarely a clear and straight answer regardless of one party thinking it's obvious. Eg he used my picture I must win concept. This is why corporations threaten copyright but rarely go to court. They use cease and desist threats. 1) it's usually enough to stop someone using or doing it. 2) They are scared to lose as it opens a very big door just as the Prince case might of for photography and artists or others using their images.
This could be a very interesting development it's a very interesting rendition on what was perceived as the original copyright laws and standards. The goal posts have moved
In all of these cases there are really two key elements 1) Is ethics sadly so easily lost these days. Some use others images whether protected or not to create original works of art. Others use others images and or concepts as they are unable to create their own concepts
2) The law is a very funny thing and these cases are rarely black and white. There is rarely a clear and straight answer regardless of one party thinking it's obvious. Eg he used my picture I must win concept. This is why corporations threaten copyright but rarely go to court. They use cease and desist threats. 1) it's usually enough to stop someone using or doing it. 2) They are scared to lose as it opens a very big door just as the Prince case might of for photography and artists or others using their images.
This could be a very interesting development it's a very interesting rendition on what was perceived as the original copyright laws and standards. The goal posts have moved
|
|
|
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by graffuturism on Apr 4, 2014 22:59:05 GMT 1, From a law standpoint there is a huge range of interpretations, and I wouldn't want to get into the legal aspect. What brought up this thread was a recent artist taking from other contemporaries. To me its more about getting it right and looking at an artists intentions deeper. For people that dont know the artists that one artist is appropriating from and then attributing a style that has been lifted to the new artist is wrong. Legally it might be ok and maybe I could see if there was some conceptual reasoning behind it we could be critical and debate that part. The artist though mentioned did not want to discuss it publicly and is not addressing it, so its like yeah it is what it is. Most artists who have used appropriation of other contemporaries do swo with detailed reasoning and a conceptual intention. They are able to debate the appropriation and aesthetics does not come into play in most cases. This re-appropriating of contemporaries involves aesthetic elements that are easy to spot, to me when you are appropriating another person aesthetic elements you better be ready to defend yourelf. The issue I have is a gallery cosigning this even when the artists are those they represent and also the collectors that are so hungry for a copy of another high priced artist they take a 2nd rate copy in hopes he might also rise to a level where an investment pays off.
In the end if the artist copying others styles lasts the test of time he will find his own style and these works will be poor examples of a body of work unless you cant afford the artist he is copying and dont mind the replica. Either is fine, I just thought more people would be able to see through the re-appropiation and look for authenticity in the work.
From a law standpoint there is a huge range of interpretations, and I wouldn't want to get into the legal aspect. What brought up this thread was a recent artist taking from other contemporaries. To me its more about getting it right and looking at an artists intentions deeper. For people that dont know the artists that one artist is appropriating from and then attributing a style that has been lifted to the new artist is wrong. Legally it might be ok and maybe I could see if there was some conceptual reasoning behind it we could be critical and debate that part. The artist though mentioned did not want to discuss it publicly and is not addressing it, so its like yeah it is what it is. Most artists who have used appropriation of other contemporaries do swo with detailed reasoning and a conceptual intention. They are able to debate the appropriation and aesthetics does not come into play in most cases. This re-appropriating of contemporaries involves aesthetic elements that are easy to spot, to me when you are appropriating another person aesthetic elements you better be ready to defend yourelf. The issue I have is a gallery cosigning this even when the artists are those they represent and also the collectors that are so hungry for a copy of another high priced artist they take a 2nd rate copy in hopes he might also rise to a level where an investment pays off.
In the end if the artist copying others styles lasts the test of time he will find his own style and these works will be poor examples of a body of work unless you cant afford the artist he is copying and dont mind the replica. Either is fine, I just thought more people would be able to see through the re-appropiation and look for authenticity in the work.
|
|
raindogs
New Member
Posts • 462
Likes • 482
June 2011
|
This months thread about appropriation. , by raindogs on Apr 4, 2014 23:22:57 GMT 1, Good call, about Jeff Koons.
Here you are.
*
www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Rogers+v.+Koons
www.case.edu/affil/sce/authorship/Rogers_v_Koons.pdf
****
www.leagle.com/decision/19931187817FSupp370_11116.xml/UNITED%20FEATURE%20SYNDICATE,%20INC.%20v.%20KOONS
***
www.softic.or.jp/Ysemi/2009/4_090917/Blanch%20v.Koons.pdf
****
 
You probably heard of the incredible case of Jeff Koons and the ballon dog.
In December , 2010, Koons LLC sent a “cease and desist” letter to Park Life concerning its sale of a bookend that resemble a balloon dog, which is a dog-shaped figure formed from a twisted balloon (of the long, thin variety) by clowns, magicians, and the like, at children’s birthday parties and other events.
In the letter, Koons LLC asserts that Park Life is violating Koons’ intellectual property rights because the bookend has the same “’shape and style’” as his well-known Balloon Dog Sculpture.
Further, Koons LLC claims that the masses that purchase the bookends will be under the misapprehension that they are associated with or endorsed by Koons.
In the letter, Koons LLC demanded that Park Life:
1. cease and desist all advertisements, marketing, or promotions concerning the Balloon Dog Bookend (including on its website);
2. cease and desist all sale and/or distribution of the Balloon Dog Bookend;
3. send all existing and remaining inventory of the Balloon Dog Bookend in Park Life’s possession to a mutually agreed address;
4. provide an accounting of all sales of the Balloon Dog Bookend;
5. provide written assurance that Park Life will no longer make, offer for sale, sell and/or distribute the Balloon Dog Bookend (or anything substantially similar to the Balloon Dog Bookend); and
6. identify the original source of the Balloon Dog Bookend (e.g. manufacturer), including such source’s name and address.
So Park Life had to start a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Balloon Dog Bookend does not infringe on Koons LLC’s intellectual property rights—copyrights, trademarks etc.
*
Please read the complaint by Park Life, very funny:
prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/park-life-v-koons-cplt.pdf
*
At the end Koons officially dropped any plans to take legal action, based on the promise that the store would not refer to Koons' work in selling the bookends.
Crazy, isn't it?
***********
And finally an interesting matter about fair use and appropriation art, based on Koons cases.
Fair Use in the 21st Century: Bill Graham and. Blanch v. Koons
scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=btlj
Good call, about Jeff Koons. Here you are. * www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Rogers+v.+Koonswww.case.edu/affil/sce/authorship/Rogers_v_Koons.pdf**** www.leagle.com/decision/19931187817FSupp370_11116.xml/UNITED%20FEATURE%20SYNDICATE,%20INC.%20v.%20KOONS *** www.softic.or.jp/Ysemi/2009/4_090917/Blanch%20v.Koons.pdf**** You probably heard of the incredible case of Jeff Koons and the ballon dog. In December , 2010, Koons LLC sent a “cease and desist” letter to Park Life concerning its sale of a bookend that resemble a balloon dog, which is a dog-shaped figure formed from a twisted balloon (of the long, thin variety) by clowns, magicians, and the like, at children’s birthday parties and other events. In the letter, Koons LLC asserts that Park Life is violating Koons’ intellectual property rights because the bookend has the same “’shape and style’” as his well-known Balloon Dog Sculpture. Further, Koons LLC claims that the masses that purchase the bookends will be under the misapprehension that they are associated with or endorsed by Koons. In the letter, Koons LLC demanded that Park Life: 1. cease and desist all advertisements, marketing, or promotions concerning the Balloon Dog Bookend (including on its website); 2. cease and desist all sale and/or distribution of the Balloon Dog Bookend; 3. send all existing and remaining inventory of the Balloon Dog Bookend in Park Life’s possession to a mutually agreed address; 4. provide an accounting of all sales of the Balloon Dog Bookend; 5. provide written assurance that Park Life will no longer make, offer for sale, sell and/or distribute the Balloon Dog Bookend (or anything substantially similar to the Balloon Dog Bookend); and 6. identify the original source of the Balloon Dog Bookend (e.g. manufacturer), including such source’s name and address. So Park Life had to start a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Balloon Dog Bookend does not infringe on Koons LLC’s intellectual property rights—copyrights, trademarks etc. * Please read the complaint by Park Life, very funny: prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/park-life-v-koons-cplt.pdf* At the end Koons officially dropped any plans to take legal action, based on the promise that the store would not refer to Koons' work in selling the bookends. Crazy, isn't it? *********** And finally an interesting matter about fair use and appropriation art, based on Koons cases. Fair Use in the 21st Century: Bill Graham and. Blanch v. Koons scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=btlj |
|
|
|
