Urban Art Association

thats a tough question. legally, you shouldnt do it, but it seems everyone does. I too want to use images that are either copyrighted or at least someone elses intellectual property. Look at Banksys napalm. Hes using the famous war photo image (the photographers property), Ronald McDonald and Mickey Mouse. Talk about a powerhouse of images!

What about Dorothy from Wizard of Oz?
What about Kate Moss?
What about Golf Sale?
What about HMV?
What about Pulp Fiction?

These are just a few that come to mind. Take a look at Warhol, he did the same thing. If you find out any more, Id really like to hear what others said. Good post.

I saw a Ron English documentary a few months ago and as I recall both Disney and McDonalds (or one of them) initially tried to stop him doing his art but then eventually left him alone as they felt that the publicity they would receive would not be good. I know on official Warhol Soup posters the small print on it states "Trademarks licensed by Campbells Soup" but Banksy's Tesco ones don't!

i don't think there's a chance of a lawsuit 'closing you down'. basically if their lawyers do get to hear about it you'd get issued with a writ to cease and desist. obviously if you got one of those you would claim the images have all been distributed and promise to behave in the future. if you're prints get enough exposure to get that kind of response, youre laughing!

This is an interesting report based on videos mostly but its a good read

www.centerforsocialmedia.org/files/pdf/CSM_Recut_Reframe_Recycle_report.pdf

Yes Bongo I fully agree, and I have concerns about it, but the images I want to use are not logos but characters and personalities from other media. Monroe and Che are the obvious examples that are copyright images used by thousands without worry, I'm interested in the way smaller figures in our cultural experience (childhood / teen tv faves, pop culture icons), resonate now, and what messages they can carry.
For instance, if I wanted to use an image of Richard and Judy in some way, there would be a wide spectrum of possibilities for what they could be doing in that image , but are they a 'brand' that is protected ? The weight and impact many tv characters / actors carry in our cultural memory is fascinating, and while I know it is cliche'd there are still so many themes to explore in this, I feel, but I take your point all the same.

I believe there is something called the "artists bill of rights", whereupon if the art is intended as some sort of social commentary and is 'part' of the larger image, as opposed to 'being the focus of the larger image' then the artist is protected under first ammendment rights (free speech).

Also, something worth noting. If you use the original of something you own, ie. A McDonald's bag, a coca cola wrapper, actual pieces from disney toy packaging, or etc. (I'm talking something paid for or that has come into your posession legally -- by law that constitutes some sort of 'trade agreement'), then you are fit to change/alter/paint on/whatever and sell said art piece without the threat of legal action because a.) you own it and it is therefore yours to do with as you please and b.) you have not "copied" anything, you are using the original product. Intellectual copyright issues refer to the act of 'copying'. anytime a reproduction is made of a copyrighted image that is where you come into copyright law. If you tamper with the original of something you are fine - again you are protected under first ammendment rights (free speech).

This probably has been posted a million times but its an article on how Shep Fairey rips off just about everything without bothering to even add his own personal touches to it.

www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

Shouldnt Disney be mighty annoyed with Bast then?