Should Art Be Copyright Protected?

[Lil Red]

I was reading [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/08/banksy-thierry-guetta-lawsuit"]this article[/url] about the director of the movie "Exit through the Gift Shop" (about artist Banksy). Here's the quote that intrigued me:

[quote]Glen Friedman, a well-known photographer, successfully sued Guetta for breach of copyright after a federal judge ruled that a photograph of the rap group Run DMC, which Guetta manipulated for his piece, could be protected by copyright. A further hearing will decide the extent of damages.

Guetta downloaded Friedman's photograph from the internet, altered it and projected it on to a large piece of wood. He then proceeded to paint the resulting image on the wood, and also glued on 1,000 pieces of vinyl records for good measure. The artist had argued that Friedman's shot was similar to many others taken of Run DMC in the 1980s, but California federal judge Dean Pregerson dismissed his argument, also ruling that Guetta had no defence under a transformative fair use law.

"To permit one artist the right to use without consequence the original creative and copyrighted work of another artist simply because that artist wished to create an alternative work would eviscerate any protection by the copyright act," said Judge Pregerson in his ruling. "Without such protection, artists would lack the ability to control the reproduction and public display of their work and, by extension, to justly benefit from their original creative work."

The decision could impact on other artists working in the US, because it appears to limit their ability to freely use manipulated images in art. The transformative fair use law had previously been seen as a strong defence against copyright claims in such cases.[/quote]

what do you think, not only about this case, but copyrights on art in general?

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm not able select any of the options provided -- for me it's not medium of art that determines where copyright and violation of it applies, but rather the circumstances.

If someone in an art class or as a personal project wants to draw from, manipulate or reference a commercial photo or illustration that has a copyright attached to it, as long as they are not profiting from it, they really can't be sued, nor should they be. Copyright also does not apply to images and art that is public domain -- often this includes government archives and material, or material that is very old (any work published before Jan. 1, 1923 is public domain in the U.S.) If an artist wants to create art that is copyright free and, well, "open source" and something that can be used and manipulated without permission, they can also freely do this as well. There are a number of art and photography collectives that do just that.

This is not how the commercial domain works, and there is a reason for it. As a commercial artist myself, I would have to take Friedman's side of the issue as far as the fact that his work was protected by copyright, and copyrights do exist for a reason to protect artists and their work. Chances are, Friedman took the photo as part of a commercial job where a considerable amount of his own time, resources and work was put into it. Lord knows we get ripped off all the time, and if someone took an illustration that I did where the end product is still retains an obvious reference to the original and can't stand alone as a piece of work on its own, and this person was making a profit from it without my consent, you bet I would look into legal options. It isn't just about money, it's also about the integrity of our field and protecting ourselves and our work.

[img]http://pdnpulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/friedman_guetta.jpg[/img]

Images in question. No doubt in my mind that Friedman's work is still very much apparent and he was within his rights to take legal action.

I don't know if I'm making sense as I'm tired but copyright depends on circumstances, not necessarily medium.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Ash Wednesday

[Ash Wednesday]

Among artists, it is felt that what Guetta did was in very poor form. I have used the photography of others in commercial work, but in those cases I always, ALWAYS make sure that the client has permission and rights secured allowing me to use the photos. Or if I'm drawing directly from someone else's photo and it is clearly distinguishable, I always let them know what is going on and consult them first. It is standard practice for artists and clients to purchase rights to images before ever using them if any of this is done for commercial profit.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Ash Wednesday

[CatherineM]

I value my copyrights.

[Ash Wednesday]

What's amazing to me is that Guetta just flat out ripped off the photo. It wasn't just that the photo was like "all the other Run DMC photos from the 80s" as his side argued, like it could have been any photo -- the clothes, poses and everything are exactly the same. The essence of the photo is still clearly there. He could have gotten 3 friends and staged a cheap, simple photo shoot to get some figure and clothing references and created a base illustration with the same feel, totally legal and heck, given us all something new to look at!

Edited June 13, 2011 by Ash Wednesday

[Mr.Cat]

I support intellectual property being reformed to distinguish between free use and commercial use.

[Luigi]

I support copyright. Using another artist's image as the essence of your own work is essentially the same thing as plagiarism in writing. The original artist created the work and has the right to regulate its use - within the limitations mentioned above by Ash Wednesday - older works in public domain, "open source" works, works created & paid for once (in which case the person or group who commissioned the work probably holds the copyright).

Also, there are very well established guidelines that creative artists follow to "quote" the work of other artists, but it's always obvious that the second artist is doing as as an homage, or to make a comment on the original work (NOT the original group DMC).

For instance:
Grant Wood's "American Gothic" - http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/images/standard/WebLarge/WebImg_000067/50629_592067.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/6565&h=768&w=639&sz=75&tbnid=l8i3JbVwT4PbHM:&tbnh=142&tbnw=118&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgrant%2Bwood%2Bamerican%2Bgothic%2Bimage%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=grant+wood+american+gothic+image&usg=__0otlTzfMN_XLpeadgTxlL_AGDNg=&sa=X&ei=isL2TZzdBInAtgeM5rDGCg&ved=0CB4Q9QEwAA

Ben Shahn's "Rural rehabilitation clients. Boone County, Arkansas" - http://www.shorpy.com/node/2921

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1307998227' post='2253300']
I'm not able select any of the options provided -- for me it's not medium of art that determines where copyright and violation of it applies, but rather the circumstances.

If someone in an art class or as a personal project wants to draw from, manipulate or reference a commercial photo or illustration that has a copyright attached to it, as long as they are not profiting from it, they really can't be sued, nor should they be.[/quote]

We'd never be able to keep up with the legal bills if we got sued for this lol.