ON COPYCATS
02.08.09
I really hate to see this sort of thing, and I take no pleasure in singling anyone out. But prominent artists I admire very much seem to be getting sloppy and calling their hard work into question lately. Let this be a lesson to young artists that “homage” or “borrowing” (or whatever you call it once you’re caught) can and will be found out. It’s a small world after all.
Having worked in the t-shirt industry I can tell you that stealing is the norm there. Property is lifted and slapped on a new tee with a single click of the mouse. Ideas are taken, slightly changed, and repackaged in seconds. This mentality suits the cutthroat, anonymous, quick-turn t-shirt industry, but seems far more indefensible in the art realm. Artists work so hard to build their names and careers, it’s really unfortunate when we’re forced to put their accomplishments under scrutiny, or when others use their property to prop up their own lack of skill.
I considered not posting about this, but opening up dialogue on the subject is better than saying nothing. Tracers should be afraid of damage to their perhaps undeserved reputations as well. There needs to be more awareness of this growing problem, as google and livetrace continue to turn any asshole with a computer into an “artist”. Where’s the line? How do we change this mentality and educate people? Can anything even be done? I’d like to know.
Tags: borrowing, copyright, homage, image rights, stealing
Options: Mail this, Digg, del.icio.us
One of my inner circle friends on Behance is addressing a similar problem in Bulgaria.
August 2, 5:45 pm Richardhttp://www.behance.net/Gallery/Retrogressive-chalga-sucks_jun-2009/248881
RF
I totally agree! It’s complete bullshit and way too many people are getting away with it. TRACERS SUCK!!!
August 2, 6:43 pm Mike GravesIf you open up the discussion, the discussion is going to get opened up onto you.
August 2, 9:21 pm Alex SkazatAlex, I don’t know what that means. If you mean people are going to attack me for pointing this out then so be it. I didn’t name any names or make it personal. I’m just completely tired of seeing things like this pop up all the time, and the photo examples are only a few of the many I’ve seen in the past couple of months. It’s a good thing if artists are afraid of being called out on their excessive “borrowing”, and young or self-trained artists can learn from this.
August 2, 9:58 pm Josh HollandIt is sitting in front of this box in long periods that makes the brain snooze and forget all things about creativity. perhaps to some folks copying is the shortest road to FAME.
August 3, 5:46 am mao leeTracers, not to be confused with inkers or colorist…
August 3, 9:34 am C13 – 1/3 – Lucian Fhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMwhZryRUr4
None of these are even sterling examples of what you’re talking about. I find this whole movement to be horribly antiquated. Do you also hate hiphop music that samples? What about collage artists? What about French New Wave films?
At the end of the day the final result is what matters. If you take a piece of someone else’s work and then freak it in a new way, then more power to you.
This is all so Joe Rogan played out.
August 3, 10:41 am sarah horrocksSarah, there’s absolutely no connection here to music sampling. The fact that you think images are free to be “freaked” tells me that you have no investment in being an image maker, or any stake in image rights-management. Collage is a technique predicated on found imagery, and even it has limitations to how much of another artist’s work you can use. This argument would be laughed out of a courtroom.
Jon Foster would disagree with you violently. So would Joe Rogan actually.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7841918711943453918
August 3, 11:14 am Josh Hollandevery single one of these images is an example of stealing and over-borrowing, not “freaking something in a new way”. there are loads of respectable interpretations, inspirations, homages, whatever you want to label them as out there, but these here are less in line with hip hop sampling and more in line with taking an existing song in it’s entirety, changing the lyrics, and collecting a paycheck for it. anyone would find that audacious. copyright laws apply to artists’ work just as they do anything else. the way around violation in cases like these would be satire or reinterpretation, and none of these are employing that.
i think the point of this post is more about reminding artist’s to educate themselves. imagery copyright can be a blurry area and the more you know about what you’re doing, the more you realize that the internet is not just an image free for all, then the better off you’ll be in the long run. study other artists, yes. be inspired by what they do, yes. but DO YOUR RESEARCH and then use it to create your own images and ideas. that’s what will keep all of us and this “horribly antiquated” movement evolving.
August 3, 11:15 am shannon bonatakisFound this over at ‘You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice’ and thought I would repost here.
Sam Flores:
First and foremost, I’d like to offer my sincerest apologies to anyone I’ve offended regarding a mistake I’ve made recently reinterpreting a Jon Foster image. Before I explain the carelessness that led to this, I want you to know that I have already contacted him directly and offered all compensation made from the posters, as well as a public apology for not thoroughly researching my source of inspiration. I was looking online awhile ago searching for old illustrations from the 1900s and came across a small image of a tree painting that I dragged to my desktop. It was on the same page as Arthur Rackham’s paintings, and my mistake was assuming it also belonged to Rackham, and revisiting the image without thorough research, i wanted to have one of my characters visiting his painting as sort of a homage . There’s absolutely no excuse for this neglect on my behalf, and I’ve learned a huge lesson in all this to always do your homework. I never intended to deliberately use his art and pass it off as my own. My biggest regret, however, was meeting such a talented artist under such unfortunate and preventable circumstances, and undermining his work on account of my negligence. Once again, I apologize if I let anyone down and promise to be more responsible as a working artist humbly in the presence of exceptionally talented peers.
Jon Foster:
Thank you Sam, but I do want to be clear to all reading. I would like the image that used my work to be taken down and no other financial gain made by it’s use.
Also to be clear as I have read that some or misconstruing Sam’s message, I have not asked for or taken any money from Sam.
August 3, 11:19 am C13 – 1/3 – Lucian FOh and here’s the link. Some pretty good points get brought up: http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=3818
As for you Sarah, I would have to agree with Josh and Shannon, you’re way off base here…
August 3, 11:23 am C13 – 1/3 – Lucian FThanks Lucian. The pic links to that statement in a discussion thread in fairness to Sam, an artist I still admire very much. The original thread was taken down.
August 3, 11:28 am Josh HollandPretty sure none of these would violate fair use. There’s nothing illegal about using parts or even all of an image, if you change it’s meaning and context. Which all of these examples do. The first one has turned that pose from being on a wall, to being a stomach pain nowhere near a wall. The second example is completely laughable that you are up in arms on that. You would lose that case in court. They’ve taken that head, tilted it, put it inside a jellyfish–if that’s not changing the context and meaning of the image, I don’t know what is. And then the final example has a completely diffrent central character, has changed the season, and even changed the species of the animal on the main characters shoulder. Two entirely diffrent images.
Do you not feel that Shepard Fairey did something radically diffrent from the image he “copycatted”?
I dunno, do you feel there is a diffrence between a black line and a white line? They are both a line, but one is black and one is white. Would you say the black line is copycatting the white line? Or would you say the meaning of the line is changed because it’s in a diffrent color?
In these cases we are talking about different colors of many lines, different settings, different central characters, and wholly different meanings of the work as a whole.
And I do have a stake in this arguement, because I do surrealist collage work, and I take offense to the notion that “any asshole with a computer can be an artist” as a bad thing. I’m sorry but that’s a very snobby elitist thing to say. If tools and methods come about which allow for the greatest spread of wider interpretations and artistic visions then that’s a good thing. More people making art, is great.
Someone like Bunuel would have not been able to do anything with his vision if he were born a hundred years earlier, but that he was born in the time of film’s invention allowed him to be a master.
At the end of the day it should come down to your artistic vision, and what the complaint should be about is wack artists, not “copycat” artists. If you’ve got no vision, you’ve got no vision. I don’t care whether you’re “tracing” others work or not. Conversely, if you can make something of genius tracing over other people’s work, then that’s all great too.
August 3, 11:37 am sarah horrocksShannon,
How aren’t these examples of reinterpretation? In every instance here the context is completely changed.
I think it’s worth researching Jeff Koons and the image case he lost vs. the one he won. The Puppies sculpture vs. the Niagara one with the shoes. The former was a straight rip, the latter was put into a different context.
August 3, 11:47 am sarah horrockssarah, these arguments you’re presenting are feeble at best.
1. removing a wall, dropping out a background, or changing an outfit hardly counts as changing an image.
2. this is a product image that this artist does not have permission to use. almost every single face that this particular artist uses is an existing doll. she has been contacted by several of the companies that create them about how they did not give her permission to use them. she charges decent money for these prints. she has also been found to trace poses from other artists, which, yes, constitutes copyright infringement and demonstrates just a general amount of disrespect for another artist’s hard and original work.
3. this composition is straight up stolen. the creature stayed the same. all that has changed is the character. in this case, the artist did in fact think he was paying homage to a dead artist’s work (which would probably have been made more clear if he had titled the piece in a way to suggest this). his unfortunate mistake would absolutely render a court case if the opposing artist was so inclined. hence the public apology.
in the case of shepard fairey, i actually do believe that he’s far too established to have made the mistake that he made. all that would have been required of him would have been to get a release form from the photographer stating he had permission to reference his photo. the entire hoopla would have been avoided. but if the publicity of that case didn’t bring to light the intricacies of what constitutes copyright infringement, than i am not sure that i will be able to convince you either.
August 3, 11:57 am shannon bonatakisSarah, try to keep in mind that we’re talking commercial art here, not some one off gallery piece to be sold to a single art buyer. Should someone be able to take your piece, tilt it, put it inside a jellyfish, and do a huge lucrative print run of it? Click on that image and you’ll see an entire library of examples of this artist taking imagery from a variety of sources. The problem here is not the inability to use outside imagery, it’s the deception of an artist that doesn’t claim to use other’s imagery. The images fall apart where they are not stolen, and those who have paid good money for the work should feel cheated.
In the case of this girl, she has used protected property for COMMERCIAL work. One of the pieces was lifted from Audrey Kawasaki and sold to Playstation. I can’t take a James Jean piece, “change the meaning” by putting Nikes and a gold chain on the subject, then sell that image to Nike for them to plaster on billboards, merchandise, etc. This argument is ludicrous!
Make whatever images you want. Your chosen technique would dictate that you’re more open to using imagery than someone like me who draws from imagination. In the fine art world rules are broken for the sake of freedom, but in the commercial art world there’s no place for this. I agree with you from the vague, spacey fine art mentality that everyone’s an artist, and all art is essentially good. But good luck making a living the second our images are no longer protected, and “any asshole” can slap your painting on a t-shirt to hijack your success as an artist.
August 3, 11:59 am Josh Hollandweak artists borrow, great artists steal… you philistine. Everybody posting from now on, take a look to the right at ‘Studio K – Gus Keymon’. You look like an ass. Good day sir.
August 3, 11:59 am nathan leeWe’ll all be sure to take that unintelligible point into account from now on. Thank you.
August 3, 12:20 pm Josh HollandI’m sorry but isn’t the difference between “commercial art” and gallery art that is sold to a single buyer just artifice?
I suppose where I cringe at this kind of thing is that you’re conflating captilist corporate ideas into artistic ones. Your arguement here is wholey about making that money. And that’s what you’re protecting is dollar signs. Which whatever, it’s your wallet, and bills don’t pay themselves. However, when you drag that into a discussion about artistic integrity, that’s when I think it’s a problem.
Because from a purely artistic standpoint, this argument has no merit.
It’s only the legal-corporate money side that your arguments have any ground. So why not stay on that point? Why wonder off that path under this guise of having an artistic discussion that you clearly are not having?
And Shannon, the reason you think the arguments I’m presenting are feeble is because you’re hooked up into a nice little bit of group think on this issue, and may be a little too used to having people agree full heartedly with you on this position. Surely you are capable of enough of a perspective to understand that your arguments would appear just as feeble to me? That’s sort of what it means to have opposing viewpoints, no? Probably it’s possible to have this discussion without things getting so heated. I assume we’re adults here?
August 3, 12:41 pm sarah horrocksI’m not trying to have a heated debate, Sarah. This is the unfortunate side of communicating through a screen. You can’t hear my tone, I can’t hear yours. I’m perfectly open to debating differing viewpoints, and if we want to discuss as adults here, how about you don’t go ahead and make assumptions about where my thoughts come from? Your insinuation that I only feel this way based on group think and being surrounded by people who are like-minded to me is insulting at best. Please don’t assume that you know anything at all about me. I am speaking about copyright laws, plain and simple. And dollar signs, as much as all artists may hate it, are an essential part of the argument. In fact, once dollar signs are involved that is really when the issue becomes relevant. Anyone can create anything and not sell it. As soon as you’re exchanging that work for money, it becomes something else entirely.
And as far as changing a copyrighted work goes, here’s something to reference, straight from copyright.gov -
“How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else’s work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another’s work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner’s consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.”
Look, if you’re making art to hang in your house, or give to your friends, or just to enjoy yourself, have fun, or express yourself – do absolutely whatever you want. The second you’re selling it, you’re liable. And that’s just a fact.
August 3, 1:13 pm shannon bonatakisI on the other hand am not an adult yet. CONCEPT IS KING steal my shit and your ass is mine….
August 3, 1:19 pm Shitty KittenSarah, clearly we’re not going to see eye to eye on this because I’m an illustrator, and you’re a collage artist. Go ahead, make whatever images you want to, don’t live by rules, it’s your right. Make conceptual artwork that bends rules and challenges conventional wisdom, take risks, make statements, by all means. I’m just making a statement on this art blog, a site that covers mostly graphic design and illustration, commercial mediums mind you. People in this industry need to understand that they can be SUED. Their clients and employers can be sued, and their businesses ruined in your name. If you’re right then why is Sam Flores’s piece wiped clean from the poster site, the original thread deleted, and Jon Foster offered 100% of profits? The answer is damage control, mistakes were admitted because this is not legitimate.
In the art world, all of these examples may be legitimate as exercise (albeit cheap, disrespectful, deceptive, and uneducated). Kids go out and copy your favorite artists to your heart’s content. See what happens. Shitty Kitten will tear that ass UP!
August 3, 1:39 pm Josh HollandCONCEPT IS QUEEN.
August 3, 1:57 pm MMMWhen an artist steals direct imagery from another work (there own or someone elses) the energy of the piece is blocked. The theft kills the work. So…go ahead and keep stealing and posing if you think it is legally ok, because you are ultimately suffocating yourself. I would rather continue of the path of concept making and the often difficult process to realize it in a tangable form.
You are all suffocating me! Go home and eat some nice food.
August 3, 8:54 pm mao leeSleep.
Tomorrow show me what makes you different from the rest.
Sarah thanks for speaking up. I was hoping to draw out some discussion and you helped immensely. More people should be willing to put their name on something they have to say. Too much anonymity on the net, makes people talk crazy.
I’d like to hear more from MMM, you’ve always got a unique perspective on things.
And Mao, I’m sorry we’re stressing you out all the way over in the Philippines haha.
August 3, 9:35 pm Josh HollandStealing direct imagery only kills the energy of the piece if the person viewing it has a stick up their butt.
You guys should really look up Jeff Koons and the copyright litigation he’s been through.
FWIW, the extent to which you make a profit off a work of art, actually does not have anything to do with how it’s viewed through the law. So even if you’re just making a gallery piece you still have to toe the same lines. And that’s where Koons case is especially instructive on what constitutes infringement and what constitutes a fair use. With his piece Puppies it was held that he did not alter the meaning or context of the original image, it was deemed a replication. Even though it was done in different colors. However in his subsequent piece Niagra, he did not alter the colors or shapes of the shoe ads he pulled from, but he put them with other shoe ads, and changed the overall meaning of the original work he was using. The latter case was considered a highly transformative use of the original image and it was a thumbs up.
Here’s an article on it:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2006/11/koons_wins_appe.html
It would have been interesting to see how Shepard Fairey’s case would have gone. But alas.
August 3, 10:03 pm sarah horrocksAnd Josh it’s been a pleasure discussing this issue with you. I came across this blog through my google reader, and for whatever reason felt compelled to respond to it
It’s been interesting for sure.
August 3, 10:06 pm sarah horrocksi really didn’t want to comment again, but… i think if you take a closer look at the koons cases you’d see these are actually a perfect example of josh’s original intent with this post. particularly in the case of the sam flores image, which you stated yourself was an “entirely different image” from jon foster’s. all sam did was change the colors, the main character, and the linework shifted in the slightest. all koons did in “puppies” was change the colors, the characters of the people, and dropped the background. his case lost in court and was deemed a replication. sam released a public apology, pulled his image, and agreed to collect no more profit from it. there seems to be a parallel there.
i absolutely agree that the second case constitutes fair use. i wouldn’t argue that for a second. none of us here were or would ever say that reusing or “sampling” imagery is never appropriate or legal, but it needs to be done correctly, smartly (this is the most important), and artists need to understand what really is legal and what is not. the images posted above are definitely toeing the line.
the unfortunate reality of this art world that we were trying to comment on is that most artist’s don’t have the resources financially or legally to protect infringement on their work, so it really is up to the community to respect each other’s hard work and look out for people who are taking other people’s long hours (and they are long late and sleepless hours) and claiming them as their own. that’s all we ever meant by this. sorry if we rubbed you the wrong way.
August 3, 10:53 pm shannon bonatakisIts called “Sampling” and it happens in music, art, everything… get used to it… the only thing you can do is stay 1 step ahead with creativity and originality!
August 4, 1:25 pm PeterNice to see that people still think this is a matter of opinion with two legitimate sides after all that. Sigh.
Please stop taking your legal cues from Shepard Fairey and Puff Daddy people. You can’t afford Johnny Cochran.
August 4, 1:49 pm Josh HollandPersonally, I don’t think of the subject as being entirely wrong. The artist who proclaims to produce work based on something that inspired them to create the same thing is not doing it to steal the idea or concept of what they are recreating. I would interpret their efforts more as an interest to discover how the original artist went about producing their work. Its a learning and movement forward in exploring art. There is a point where “copying” does have its limit, but to those, like myself, who enjoy re-creating something that inspires them, I see no harm in it. I say do it and take what you learn from the recreation and create your own masterpiece.
August 7, 1:30 pm Sam(I entirely agree with Shannon on this btw)
August 7, 1:31 pm SamAs far as I’m concerned; PROCESS is Queen Only through the virtue of solid process is unique concept achieved, authenticity established, and technical execution honed and perfected. And by “process” I mean the applied fundamentals of art and design and concept building, NOT the borrowing or tracing of another’s final product that was originally achieved through the application of strong practices. One thing is for sure; as far as work that is progressing the world of illustration as a whole, it certainly isn’t found in the examples on the left column of this post. HATS OFF to Shannon and Josh for fending off all the leeches with this issue.
August 7, 8:06 pm oscar WoodruffGood post- wow. nice examples- makes me think of the Obama poster
fairey did- I thought the guy would have at least used his own photo
to base that on.
Now how about doing articles on those that lift complete images without even redrawing them. Example- bunch of these stencil & “street art”
August 9, 10:31 am Lou Patrouguys that take famous photos and reprint them onto an abstract field
into a new compilation. CRAP! I have seen elvis, clint eastwood, marilyn,
che gavarra, and more to name a few. OUTRIGHT copyright infringement as far as I am concerned- same as in music. but some hoh these guys arelet off the hook.