Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 469
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
So let me ask the question, is my work 'Glen DMC' enough of an artistic statement to protect me from Glens attorney? Or if I start selling these on t-shirts should Glen get his cut?
| Sponsored Links | |||
| Advertisement | | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 469
Heres another example of Glen Friedman Suing an artist. David Flores.
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2...rd-fairey.html
Seriously Glen?
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 469
Freedom of the press ensures that Glen can take his camera anywhere and photograph anyone and then go and sell those photos without fear of being sued by the subjects hes pointing his camera at. The law protects Glen from RunDMC.
Why doesnt that same freedom protect me from Glen?
Why doesnt that same freedom protect me from Glen?
| | |
Member's AlbumsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
I disagree to some extent, as It wasnt the exact photograph. It was an interpretation of a piece of the photo. The piece was even revised to have paint dripping from the bottom, incinuating the graffiti/ street art revision of the original. Theres no brick background. theres much less detail.
The question is, did Brainwash change it enough to be something new?
I would argue yes. Its not as if he just started printing Glens photo to t-shirts and started selling them.
..and sure, If Brainwash had copied the brick background and left out the Rap icons, Glen wouldnt really care. Hmmm, now why is that?
Because music fans pay for images of their cultural heros. (Not because of the skill of the shutter-bug, but because of the cultural legacy of the person in front of the camera.
The question is, did Brainwash change it enough to be something new?
I would argue yes. Its not as if he just started printing Glens photo to t-shirts and started selling them.
..and sure, If Brainwash had copied the brick background and left out the Rap icons, Glen wouldnt really care. Hmmm, now why is that?
Because music fans pay for images of their cultural heros. (Not because of the skill of the shutter-bug, but because of the cultural legacy of the person in front of the camera.
Thus there is nothing of artistic value in this rendering... he just basically stole (used, manipulated, whatever verbiage you want to use) the image. He didn't create it in any way. A paint drip and editing out the background doesn't count!
JMO
D
D
vidBushcraft On Fire
Art From The Bush - https://www.facebook.com/ArtFromTheBush
Deviant Art - http://bushcraftonfire.deviantart.com/
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 469
Oh yes believe me I know about photoshop.
Manipulated IE changed. IE not the same.
We can agree to disagree that Glen deserved to be compensated for Brainwash's use of his photo.
..and yes I agree Brainwash should have expected trouble - because of the clear similarities + the fact he himself is famous
soo.. what do you think about Flores's works and him being sued?
Manipulated IE changed. IE not the same.
We can agree to disagree that Glen deserved to be compensated for Brainwash's use of his photo.
..and yes I agree Brainwash should have expected trouble - because of the clear similarities + the fact he himself is famous
soo.. what do you think about Flores's works and him being sued?
Last edited by Jeff; 05-07-2015 at 01:21 PM.
Yeah.. I'm not sure about that one.. I think (personally) that it could be the artists rendition of the singer... He definitely ( I don't think) manipulated these photos.. rather did an outtake of HIS work of what the photo represented to him. I guess the courts saw it differently.
D
D
D
vidBushcraft On Fire
Art From The Bush - https://www.facebook.com/ArtFromTheBush
Deviant Art - http://bushcraftonfire.deviantart.com/
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushcraftonfire View Post
Yeah.. I'm not sure about that one.. I think (personally) that it could be the artists rendition of the singer... He definitely ( I don't think) manipulated these photos.. rather did an outtake of HIS work of what the photo represented to him. I guess the courts saw it differently.
D
D
cant seem to find results of the flores lawsuit. hmm.
Last edited by Jeff; 05-07-2015 at 01:49 PM.
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 469
BTW I do appreciate everyones thoughts on this. It is clearly a very complicated issue.
Junior Member
I think it's pretty cut and dry.
Would this image exists without the existence of the original photograph? No, not like this.
Did the artist profit from the work that he made from the existing photographs manipulation? I don't know that much about it. But if yes, then the photographer is entitled to at least some of those profits. If the photographer actually copyrighted his work with the copyright office then he gets way more weight in the courtroom.
But I do think that a photographer shooting this caliber of star should expect that artists may create derivative works.
Would this image exists without the existence of the original photograph? No, not like this.
Did the artist profit from the work that he made from the existing photographs manipulation? I don't know that much about it. But if yes, then the photographer is entitled to at least some of those profits. If the photographer actually copyrighted his work with the copyright office then he gets way more weight in the courtroom.
But I do think that a photographer shooting this caliber of star should expect that artists may create derivative works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
im not sure if he won the Flores suit Ill try to find that.
cant seem to find results of the flores lawsuit. hmm.
cant seem to find results of the flores lawsuit. hmm.
| |
« Symbolism
|
PVA Glue or RSG »
| Thread Tools | |
| Show Printable Version Show Printable Version Email this Page Email this Page |
| |
| Posting Rules | |
