It's Art, however, whether or no it's derivative art, depends on if the inspiration came from other artists art.
Yayoi Kusama did create artworks with Mount Fuji as the subject: 1, 2, 3 but what I shared in my earlier post was not created by her. Those were produced by Artificial Intelligence in Yayoi Kusama's style. And hence my questions.
Yayoi Kusama did create artworks with Mount Fuji as the subject: 1, 2, 3 but what I shared in my earlier post was not created by her. Those were produced by Artificial Intelligence in Yayoi Kusama's style. And hence my questions.
I recently heard of this photographer who has mostly been under the radar and might be a suitable cliche substitute, provided enough people start copying him. His name is Ansel something or other…let me get back to you.
I agree with your last sentence there, and find the Warhol work sufficiently transformative compared to the photograph. But it's anyone's guess what this court will decide.Vanity Fair magazine once paid a photographer to take photos of Prince, then bought the licensing rights to them. Later they hired Warhol to make silkscreens of the photos in his signature style. The Warhol foundation wants to reissue the works, but the original photographer says they don't legally have the to right and is suing.
It's a very interesting case. The question seems to be...... what is a copy, and what is a directive work based upon someone else's imagery? Should the Warhol foundation be allowed to reissue these works?
To me, unless a work is a direct copy, you can do what ever you wish w/ it.
Supreme Court to take up dispute over Andy Warhol images of Prince
The court will consider an issue that arises when a new work of art is based on an existing one: How different does the new work have to be?www.nbcnews.com
I guess the world will see what the full implications of this are. It was a hell of an image to pick, since it really is not transformative - it's really just a way of printing that photo. The images have no significance greater or less than the photo did - and they were done under contract for a definite commercial purpose. So, how could the court not side with the photographer?
Vanity Fair magazine once paid a photographer to take photos of Prince, then bought the licensing rights to them. Later they hired Warhol to make silkscreens of the photos in his signature style. The Warhol foundation wants to reissue the works, but the original photographer says they don't legally have the to right and is suing.
It's a very interesting case. The question seems to be...... what is a copy, and what is a directive work based upon someone else's imagery? Should the Warhol foundation be allowed to reissue these works?
To me, unless a work is a direct copy, you can do what ever you wish w/ it.
Supreme Court to take up dispute over Andy Warhol images of Prince
The court will consider an issue that arises when a new work of art is based on an existing one: How different does the new work have to be?www.nbcnews.com
The original photographer sold his rights
I think it was transformative btw
Everything that happened after he began with the source material photograph.I'd like to know what you find transformative about the Prince Warhol prints.
No. The original photographer licensed the image for the use of the magazine issue publication, which included a Warhol colourization. There was no understanding that the photographer was selling the rights to the image permanently.
I'd like to know what you find transformative about the Prince Warhol prints. They seem more-or-less slapped out, from my point of view - maybe even done completely by an employee (of which Warhol had numerous who did his silkscreens). The photo itself is pretty lame, in my opinion, and the silkscreens don't show much in the way of inspiration.
It's difficult to say anything definitively about the Warhol photographs because, just by association with other Warhol products, they gain an amount of credibility (or total lack thereof, depending who you ask). The Warhol Marilyn silkscreens and the Elvis silkscreens have more weight than these Prince ones, simply because of just how enormous those people were in the broader culture (way, way bigger than Prince). A more iconic photo of Prince may have actually been transformative - but this photo is pretty bland milquetoast.
You miss the point of, Warhol.
Everything that happened after he began with the source material photograph [was transformative].
I’m not going to relitigate this case with you, sorry. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone to change your minds about what you think is transformative or non-transformative.No, I don't. What you went on to say was fine about certain things that he did. But these Prince "prints" are on the level of the 4- or 6-square silkscreens he made on commission - basic plain printing. So, you are correct in your general statements about Warhol and his significance and the significance of many of his works. But the Prince prints are just prints.
Ever hear the expression "He dialed it in"? It's appropriate here.
I don't think painting a room or even putting up wallpaper can be called "transformative" and I don't see what the difference is with what Warhol did with this photo. He made prints. "Everything that happened after he began" could just as easily have been done with a photocopier and a handful of highlighters. (that is an exaggeration. But there's no guarantee that Warhol himself was even the person who made the Prince prints.)
Is this transformative?
View attachment 339179
I’m not trying to convince you or anyone to change your minds about what you think is transformative or non-transformative.
Does anybody know..........If the sampler is an exact and clearly discernable chunk from another person work... you are dead! (legally speaking) The whole piece can be considered "derivative" and you need author's license to use it, at least in the UE.
Does anybody know..........
When somebody "samples" a song, do they credit the original song writer.?
If they do, is that any different than "covering" a song.?
If The Rolling Stones cover "Aint Too Proud To Beg" on one of their records, they credit the song to The Temptations.
If a band "samples" Sympathy For The Devil and credit it to Jagger/Richards, is that different..?
It is complex.
But those who publish music that contains samples need to license the use of those samples - i.e. pay money!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?