|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2009 06:04:47 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
If that exact image, was not taken at that exact time, with the photographers knowledge of his camera, light, and composition. The artist rendition would not exist as is. Yes he might have stole a different image from someone else, but it would not be the same image.. |
You seriously think an AP photographer had control of the lighting? This was a snap taken from a gallery at the National Press Club. In fact the AP photographer...was a temp. Sounds impressive. :) |
|
|
|
02/06/2009 06:53:13 PM · #77 |
Note:
"The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
and:
A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street.
The poster was created a couple *years* after the image was captured. The artist works by searching Google Images for something he wants to use as the basis for his work. This isn't the first time he's done it. It's essentially what Andy Warhol did, except Andy didn't have Google of course. But his Elvis, his Marilyn, his soup cans, are ALL based on the works of others; all he did was change how the work is presented. Fairly radical changes, yes, but not in the substance of the prexisting work, but rather in how it is presented.
This obsession with who "owns" images, especially perfectly run-of-the-mill images, is a little disturbing to me. For example, Google has actually been sued (they won) for creating thumbnails of copyrighted work that was already posted on the web for the purpose of linking viewers to the websites where the work was posted. How screwed up is that?
On a larger canvas, so to speak, this brouhaha is related to issues regarding the morality of patenting of inventions; copyright, after all, is essentially the patenting of intellectual property. How many of you who are standing up here squawking that the "photographer's rights" have been infringed (never mind that the photographer *has* no rights in this case, as he assigned those to AP as a condition of his temporary employment by them) have found yourself on the opposite side of what is functionally the same issue when you have criticized (or agreed with critics of) Big Pharma and the way they are literally patenting sections of the human genome because they were the first to isolate and identify them? Or, in a less esoteric vein, have you ever railed against the same Big Pharma for the exorbitant prices it charges for patented medicines, charges so great that cancer victims (or their insurance companies, are stuck with prescription bills in the thousands of dollars per month for medications that offer, at best, only marginal hope of beating the disease?
The world is full of rapacious individuals and entities who champion the profit motive as some sort of god-given, capitalistic right, but how many of us actually *question* this seriously? I mean, I've heard all the arguments (if it weren't profitable it would never be invented, and so forth and so on) but I don't believe it.
For me, this whole tempest-in-a-teapot over the work of a respected artist who find his visual sources in images he encounters in the public spaces of the internet is more than borderline ridiculous. It's one thing to take an image of mine and claim authorship for yourself ("steal my pixels") and I don't approve of that at all, but what this man is doing falls squarely into a longish history of artistic efforts and we are making (or AP is making, really) a mountain out of a molehill here.
I think we have too many lawyers, is what I think.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-02-06 18:54:26.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2009 07:05:09 PM · #78 |
| Stick it to the MAN Robert! ;) |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 11:08:32 AM · #79 |
From the NY Times:
In a telephone interview on Monday, Mr. Garcia said he was unsure how he would proceed now that the matter had landed in court. But he said he was very happy when he found out that his photo was the source of the poster image and that he still is.
âI donât condone people taking things, just because they can, off the Internet,â Mr. Garcia said. âBut in this case I think itâs a very unique situation.â
He added, âIf you put all the legal stuff away, Iâm so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect itâs had.â
This isn't meant to suggest that the legal or moral issues should be decided after the fact based on the photographer's feelings. But there's something to be learned from Garcia's attitude. |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 11:24:24 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Note:
"The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
and:
A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street.
The poster was created a couple *years* after the image was captured. The artist works by searching Google Images for something he wants to use as the basis for his work. This isn't the first time he's done it. It's essentially what Andy Warhol did, except Andy didn't have Google of course. But his Elvis, his Marilyn, his soup cans, are ALL based on the works of others; all he did was change how the work is presented. Fairly radical changes, yes, but not in the substance of the prexisting work, but rather in how it is presented.
This obsession with who "owns" images, especially perfectly run-of-the-mill images, is a little disturbing to me. For example, Google has actually been sued (they won) for creating thumbnails of copyrighted work that was already posted on the web for the purpose of linking viewers to the websites where the work was posted. How screwed up is that?
On a larger canvas, so to speak, this brouhaha is related to issues regarding the morality of patenting of inventions; copyright, after all, is essentially the patenting of intellectual property. How many of you who are standing up here squawking that the "photographer's rights" have been infringed (never mind that the photographer *has* no rights in this case, as he assigned those to AP as a condition of his temporary employment by them) have found yourself on the opposite side of what is functionally the same issue when you have criticized (or agreed with critics of) Big Pharma and the way they are literally patenting sections of the human genome because they were the first to isolate and identify them? Or, in a less esoteric vein, have you ever railed against the same Big Pharma for the exorbitant prices it charges for patented medicines, charges so great that cancer victims (or their insurance companies, are stuck with prescription bills in the thousands of dollars per month for medications that offer, at best, only marginal hope of beating the disease?
The world is full of rapacious individuals and entities who champion the profit motive as some sort of god-given, capitalistic right, but how many of us actually *question* this seriously? I mean, I've heard all the arguments (if it weren't profitable it would never be invented, and so forth and so on) but I don't believe it.
For me, this whole tempest-in-a-teapot over the work of a respected artist who find his visual sources in images he encounters in the public spaces of the internet is more than borderline ridiculous. It's one thing to take an image of mine and claim authorship for yourself ("steal my pixels") and I don't approve of that at all, but what this man is doing falls squarely into a longish history of artistic efforts and we are making (or AP is making, really) a mountain out of a molehill here.
I think we have too many lawyers, is what I think.
R. |
Hmmm, so those companies that invest hundreds of millions into research on new drugs don't deserve to recoup those expenses through the sales of those drugs? They don't deserve to profit from their hard work, but should simply hand the formula/design over to other companies and allow generics to be manufactured and profits made by those who did no work in developing the drug itself?
Those drugs are expensive, because they're expensive to create and, in many cases, the market for those drugs is limited. If developing new drugs wasn't profitable, the drugs wouldn't exist at all. Which would you prefer, a marginal hope or no hope? |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 11:29:20 AM · #81 |
LOL, Shepard Fairey filed the lawsuit, while in negations with the AP. Now Garcia claims to own copyright. This could get interesting.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2009 01:07:29 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmm, so those companies that invest hundreds of millions into research on new drugs don't deserve to recoup those expenses through the sales of those drugs? They don't deserve to profit from their hard work, but should simply hand the formula/design over to other companies and allow generics to be manufactured and profits made by those who did no work in developing the drug itself?
Those drugs are expensive, because they're expensive to create and, in many cases, the market for those drugs is limited. If developing new drugs wasn't profitable, the drugs wouldn't exist at all. Which would you prefer, a marginal hope or no hope? |
As I said, I've heard the arguments and don't believe them. I think Big Pharma's one of the dirtiest industries on the planet, and if you don't even *suspect* that's the case then you've swallowed the plunderer's line. Big Pharma and Big Oil are in the hands of the robber barons. They're not looking out for you and me, at ALL.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2009 01:25:16 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmm, so those companies that invest hundreds of millions into research on new drugs don't deserve to recoup those expenses through the sales of those drugs? They don't deserve to profit from their hard work, but should simply hand the formula/design over to other companies and allow generics to be manufactured and profits made by those who did no work in developing the drug itself?
Those drugs are expensive, because they're expensive to create and, in many cases, the market for those drugs is limited. If developing new drugs wasn't profitable, the drugs wouldn't exist at all. Which would you prefer, a marginal hope or no hope? |
As I said, I've heard the arguments and don't believe them. I think Big Pharma's one of the dirtiest industries on the planet, and if you don't even *suspect* that's the case then you've swallowed the plunderer's line. Big Pharma and Big Oil are in the hands of the robber barons. They're not looking out for you and me, at ALL.
R. |
I actually did a fair bit of research on Big Pharma for an Int'l Business class last semester. At one point, when they wouldn't give licensing to countries who couldn't afford it despite their obvious health crises, they offered, I think, a price of $700 per AIDS treatment. It was a deep discount, but missed the point: undeveloped countries still can't afford it. They spend most of their sales revenue on marketing efforts (think of all the random prescription drug commercials on TV, all the freebie pens and post-its and crap that sales reps leave at doctors' offices) instead on reinvesting in world health issues. In my research, I ran across a Harvard study that proved that the marketing doesn't even work. Also, the average drug company CEO took home $13 million in 2007 - the equivalent of 18,571 treatment programs at the discount rate. Fat cats get rich while people in undeveloped countries die for their greed. It's sickening.
But this is off topic... carry on.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 03:18:44 AM · #84 |
I was watching the Cobert Report today and they actually brought this up with a art gallery representative and a artist and had a amusing but interesting conversation battle on who is in the right and who's in the wrong. Either way both sides can fight it out but another interesting aspect on the original photo was it's never been claimed to be Artistic photography by either the AP or the original photographer. It is Photographic journalism and the INTENT of the photo also plays a part in the whole battle of rights. Anyhow I thought it was a good watch as Colbert usually is :D
|
|
|
|
02/13/2009 09:24:06 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
I actually did a fair bit of research on Big Pharma for an Int'l Business class last semester. At one point, when they wouldn't give licensing to countries who couldn't afford it despite their obvious health crises, they offered, I think, a price of $700 per AIDS treatment. It was a deep discount, but missed the point: undeveloped countries still can't afford it. They spend most of their sales revenue on marketing efforts (think of all the random prescription drug commercials on TV, all the freebie pens and post-its and crap that sales reps leave at doctors' offices) instead on reinvesting in world health issues. In my research, I ran across a Harvard study that proved that the marketing doesn't even work. Also, the average drug company CEO took home $13 million in 2007 - the equivalent of 18,571 treatment programs at the discount rate. Fat cats get rich while people in undeveloped countries die for their greed. It's sickening.
But this is off topic... carry on. |
Thanx for the support :-) It's the advertising that especially irks me, actually, since its designed to get patients to pressure their physicians into prescribing drugs they may not actually need.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2009 12:54:11 AM · #86 |
This is intended to be a friendly review of your post, chosen because you set forth strong opinions and concluded this matter is cut-and-dry while most people have struggled with this as a closer call.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This obsession with who "owns" images, especially perfectly run-of-the-mill images, is a little disturbing to me. |
I personally agree, but who decides what is run-of-the-mill and what is "worthy"?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For example, Google has actually been sued (they won) for creating thumbnails of copyrighted work that was already posted on the web for the purpose of linking viewers to the websites where the work was posted. How screwed up is that? |
I think Google was sued by a porn company that was trying to limit unauthorized use of its images that were illegally placed on websites other than that controlled by the porn hawking copyright owner. The complaint was that Google's thumbnails generated more traffic to the unauthorized webpages. Just noting that Google wasn't sued because they were linking viewers to authorized websites. Google won (thankfully - those thumbnails are handy!) but it was an interesting case from an academic standpoint because generating a thumbnail does create a copy of the work.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
On a larger canvas, so to speak, this brouhaha is related to issues regarding the morality of patenting of inventions; copyright, after all, is essentially the patenting of intellectual property. How many of you who are standing up here squawking that the "photographer's rights" have been infringed (never mind that the photographer *has* no rights in this case, as he assigned those to AP as a condition of his temporary employment by them) have found yourself on the opposite side of what is functionally the same issue when you have criticized (or agreed with critics of) Big Pharma and the way they are literally patenting sections of the human genome because they were the first to isolate and identify them? Or, in a less esoteric vein, have you ever railed against the same Big Pharma for the exorbitant prices it charges for patented medicines, charges so great that cancer victims (or their insurance companies, are stuck with prescription bills in the thousands of dollars per month for medications that offer, at best, only marginal hope of beating the disease? |
Not sure picking at the fringes supports arguments that an entire system, that works very well across many industries, is somehow immoral. After all, society presents nearly infinite possibilities, especially when time and changing values/ethics/morals are factored in. It's a monumental task to divine a system that satisfies all things we can throw at it. And just a quick note that the infamous human genome patents are not on the genes themselves, but on some use of the genes (e.g. use in a specific test/method of doing something). I don't practice in this area but imagine, in the thousands of patents in that area, that many uses are trivial/technicalities and yet patents were issued. Personally, I'm not a big fan of such patents and understand the many arguments against them - but I'm no expert on them.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The world is full of rapacious individuals and entities who champion the profit motive as some sort of god-given, capitalistic right, but how many of us actually *question* this seriously? I mean, I've heard all the arguments (if it weren't profitable it would never be invented, and so forth and so on) but I don't believe it. |
The world is full of a lot of people that aren't nearly so greedy yet fully support the profit motive. I really haven't heard a good argument that demonstrates we would be as socially and technologically advanced (or anywhere near so) or have as many creative works available to us without the profit motive.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For me, this whole tempest-in-a-teapot over the work of a respected artist who find his visual sources in images he encounters in the public spaces of the internet is more than borderline ridiculous. It's one thing to take an image of mine and claim authorship for yourself ("steal my pixels") and I don't approve of that at all, but what this man is doing falls squarely into a longish history of artistic efforts and we are making (or AP is making, really) a mountain out of a molehill here. |
Is it the copying of your image or the false claim of ownership that you do not approve of? As for falling squarely within acceptable grounds - as much as I may agree about the molehill nature of this - it's all a matter of degree and on such matters, reasonable minds can and will differ. It's like the question asked repeatedly by the OP of how much change would have to be done so that the 2nd artist is no longer considered to have "taken" an image of another and can legitimately claim authorship?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think we have too many lawyers, is what I think. |
I agree. Just not sure this matter is the best proof of that. There seem to be many people on each side of this one. So while you are always free to blame lawyers (which, frankly, seems too easy for someone with your mental firepower), at least this cross-section of society seems to suggest the matter is not free from doubt. As an "expert" on these issues, I have my own opinion of this one, but I really like reading people's gut reactions and the debate in general. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 11:59:14 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 11:59:14 AM EDT.
|
