ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
An important court case is being fought in Boston, which will undoubtedly impact the legality of reference photographs being used in art in the United States.
Shepard Fairey, creator of the famous "Hope" portrait of President Barak Obama, now hanging in the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, is being questioned for it's legal copyrights.
The original photograph, taken by Manny Garcia of the Associated Press, is challenging the relationship of the original image to the portrait by Fairey. They are seeking compensation for the reference. Their basic argument is that no-one should be able to work from a reference photo without licensing it.
Mr. Fairey believes that a piece of art that transforms both the intent and the esthetics of an image is actually a valuable new piece independent of the original. Also, in this case, his work does not compete with the original market. He is fighting this basically not just for himself, but the rights of all artists who make grass roots images about, for or against, leaders that they don't have access to having personal portrait sittings with, or possibly the financial means to license an image in order to make something that makes a comment or speaks to the public.
"It's about showing that an individual who doesn't have the power of a corporation, or any other means than just a Zerox machine can make something that effects people, that makes them think about things differently. That's what is important to me about spreading images and showing the power that one individual with a grass roots effort can effect people and inspire them to be a part of the dialog."
"Public space shouldn't just be a one way dialog with advertising, there should be other forms of expression."
Whatever the outcome, the rulings will undoubtedly effect artists everywhere, as legal court battles over copyright law will reference this ruling as precedence in future findings.
Shepard Fairey, creator of the famous "Hope" portrait of President Barak Obama, now hanging in the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, is being questioned for it's legal copyrights.
The original photograph, taken by Manny Garcia of the Associated Press, is challenging the relationship of the original image to the portrait by Fairey. They are seeking compensation for the reference. Their basic argument is that no-one should be able to work from a reference photo without licensing it.
Mr. Fairey believes that a piece of art that transforms both the intent and the esthetics of an image is actually a valuable new piece independent of the original. Also, in this case, his work does not compete with the original market. He is fighting this basically not just for himself, but the rights of all artists who make grass roots images about, for or against, leaders that they don't have access to having personal portrait sittings with, or possibly the financial means to license an image in order to make something that makes a comment or speaks to the public.
"It's about showing that an individual who doesn't have the power of a corporation, or any other means than just a Zerox machine can make something that effects people, that makes them think about things differently. That's what is important to me about spreading images and showing the power that one individual with a grass roots effort can effect people and inspire them to be a part of the dialog."
"Public space shouldn't just be a one way dialog with advertising, there should be other forms of expression."
Whatever the outcome, the rulings will undoubtedly effect artists everywhere, as legal court battles over copyright law will reference this ruling as precedence in future findings.
Quick Draw #1 - 2000 POINTS!!!
Quick Draw #1 - 2000 POINTS!!
Check out #VectorMasters (https://www.deviantart.com/vectormasters) for the first quick draw competition!!
2000 points to the winner!!!!
_____________________________________________
:iconvectormasters: Logo Contest
We need a logo/avatar. Something that says VectorMasters, professional, clean design is what we want here. The secret you need to know is that I am sending my own clients to this page to show them the best vector work that DeviantArt has to offer. The judges are from a range of industries and professions. They all know what it takes to create design work that sells, and they may want to work with you on their own projects if your awe
Vector Masters Logo Contest!!! 5600 Points!!
We don't have a lot of members yet, but that doesn't mean the fun can't start. This is whats up.....
We need a logo/avatar. Something that says VectorMasters, professional, clean design is what we want here. The secret you need to know is that I am sending my own clients to this page to show them the best vector work that DeviantArt has to offer. The judges are from a range of industries and professions. They all know what it takes to create design work that sells, and they may want to work with you on their own projects if your awesome......so they make a great opening panel for judging.
Our logo has to be eye catching. Our logo must captu
My New Group!!!
Hey guys! If your interested, I have started a group where I can organize some of the stuff I've wanted to do for a while now on dA. There's gonna be a lot of unique activities that are meant to challenge your creativity and motivate you to make some great artwork! I will have random giveaways, features, and great activities and contests!! My primary focus will be vector and vexel, but I want to have a group that has resources as well. Stock photographers/Font/Background artists that want their work to be used are very welcome! This is a great way to get some of your work used for a contest! I will be organizing commissions as well, so art a
My DeviantHEART Match!!
So I did the DeviantHEART match.......
It seems my perfect mate is
:heart:~KoopaBooX (https://www.deviantart.com/koopaboox):heart:
Unfortunately, she is a 16 year old lesbian female from Australia, hahahaha. So we will have to wait a few years before we can even start dating, and, well......I'm probably not what she had in mind for a knight in shining armor......so lots of persuasion as well.
Oh, and one of us will have to move......and get a sex change :(
© 2009 - 2024 rjonesdesign
Comments37
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I completely support Fairey in this case. 
Saying artists can't reference images in unique and original works is like prohibiting people from talking about or expanding upon certain topics without paying individuals from prior conversations. In this case rather than using speech, artists use imagery in their quest for visual communication.
Sometimes, the success of visual communication is based upon the fact that viewers can recognize images in a piece. For instance, if an artist wanted to comment on "corporate America" by using a recognized image of Mickey Mouse as a corporate symbol in his piece, the ability of the piece to get its message across to the public is reliant on the recognization of the Disney symbol. Disney shouldn't have the right to prevent the commentary.
It would be like allowing corporations or individuals the ability to prevent anyone from critiquing them or building off their work. This is similar to preventing parody or preventing the incorporation of prior knowledge into new inventions (like stopping the invention of the automobile, because Henry Ford didn't own the wheel).
Now again, this isn't like "bootlegging" art or replicating art. If the work is in many ways different from the original and has an entirely different purpose than the original, then the artist should have their rights to expression protected. Again, it is similar to parody rights in this way.
In other notes, even Renaissance masters used to entirely mimic the poses/figures of their teachers and of other artists in their overall work, yet we do not consider them thieves. Artists like Duchamp and Warhol used the images of other artists in their work, and were called thieves in their day, but are now respected for the social artistic commentary that their actions brought about.
Really, it was only the Post Modernist movement that indicated that artists "were not allowed to reference images ever." It was a singular movement in the history of art, yet the ideals behind it continue today to a certain extent not due to the benefit of the independent artist (as is often claimed) but rather for the benefit of the corporations that discovered they could own images and be regularly paid for their use.
Well, I could go on and on about this topic, but to quote Warhol when criticized for using recognized images in his works: "Post Moderism is dead."
Let the freedom of speech overpower monetary greed.
Saying artists can't reference images in unique and original works is like prohibiting people from talking about or expanding upon certain topics without paying individuals from prior conversations. In this case rather than using speech, artists use imagery in their quest for visual communication.
Sometimes, the success of visual communication is based upon the fact that viewers can recognize images in a piece. For instance, if an artist wanted to comment on "corporate America" by using a recognized image of Mickey Mouse as a corporate symbol in his piece, the ability of the piece to get its message across to the public is reliant on the recognization of the Disney symbol. Disney shouldn't have the right to prevent the commentary.
It would be like allowing corporations or individuals the ability to prevent anyone from critiquing them or building off their work. This is similar to preventing parody or preventing the incorporation of prior knowledge into new inventions (like stopping the invention of the automobile, because Henry Ford didn't own the wheel).
Now again, this isn't like "bootlegging" art or replicating art. If the work is in many ways different from the original and has an entirely different purpose than the original, then the artist should have their rights to expression protected. Again, it is similar to parody rights in this way.
In other notes, even Renaissance masters used to entirely mimic the poses/figures of their teachers and of other artists in their overall work, yet we do not consider them thieves. Artists like Duchamp and Warhol used the images of other artists in their work, and were called thieves in their day, but are now respected for the social artistic commentary that their actions brought about.
Really, it was only the Post Modernist movement that indicated that artists "were not allowed to reference images ever." It was a singular movement in the history of art, yet the ideals behind it continue today to a certain extent not due to the benefit of the independent artist (as is often claimed) but rather for the benefit of the corporations that discovered they could own images and be regularly paid for their use.
Well, I could go on and on about this topic, but to quote Warhol when criticized for using recognized images in his works: "Post Moderism is dead."
Let the freedom of speech overpower monetary greed.