- All Forums
-
Model Insider Forums
-
General Discussion
-
Andy Warhol
Andy Warhol
3x
18x
28x
Andy Warhol
Mar/08/2009 18:53:48
I went to an exhibition of Andy Warhol's work today. In the exhibition were about 150 photographs that he had taken; the exhibition was titled Snap Shots, which they were.
I have never been a big fan of Warhol - I have always felt Jasper Johns was a better a Pop Art artist, but I have found a new respect for Warhol's artwork through this exhibition.
Which led me to a question that I hope can be answered here.
Warhol's later celebrity portraits and his artwork were done from his own photographic images taken from his Polaroid 'Big Shot", however his earlier work, especially an entire series on Jackie Kennedy was done from photographs that he had taken from major magazines (Time, Life etc.). His famous Mao series and a Lenin series were also taken from photographs that Warhol was not responsible for taking.
Recently I heard that the self-aggrandizing artist, Shepard Fairey, who did the Obama "Hope" posters was sued by the photographer who originally took the image that he used.
What is the line here that an artist can't go over when using someone else's work as an inspiration for their own?
For I don't see much of a difference between what Warhol had done and what Shepard Fairey has done.
-
- JD
-
- Photographer
- Brandon, Mississippi
-
- 181 Posts
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/08/2009 19:40:16
I don't know enough about the copyright laws to intelligent answer your question, but I do have to wonder if Warhol got away with it because of his fame and when he did his work, i.e. before the USA became sue happy.
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/08/2009 20:14:39
JD wrote:
I don't know enough about the copyright laws to intelligent answer your question, but I do have to wonder if Warhol got away with it because of his fame and when he did his work, i.e. before the USA became sue happy.
Actually you got me to look at the "Fair Use" laws and, well, they don't clear much up. But I feel that since Warhol was famous he would be more inclined to be sued.
I really want this to turn into a law question though even though it probably will,
but let's say an artist took a photograph that was owned by you (anyone on this site not just JD) and used it for their artwork either through Warhol's screen/paint manipulations or Fairey's graphic manipulations or anything of that sort and then sold their new piece as their own, of course, what would you do?
would you be flattered? PO'ed? calling your lawyer right up?
-
- b*man
-
- Photographer
- SFV, California
-
- 38 Posts
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/08/2009 21:19:53
great points you raise...hard to answer.
-
- JD
-
- Photographer
- Brandon, Mississippi
-
- 181 Posts
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/08/2009 21:26:04
gpmcguire wrote:
JD wrote:
I don't know enough about the copyright laws to intelligent answer your question, but I do have to wonder if Warhol got away with it because of his fame and when he did his work, i.e. before the USA became sue happy.Actually you got me to look at the "Fair Use" laws and, well, they don't clear much up. But I feel that since Warhol was famous he would be more inclined to be sued.
I really want this to turn into a law question though even though it probably will,
but let's say an artist took a photograph that was owned by you (anyone on this site not just JD) and used it for their artwork either through Warhol's screen/paint manipulations or Fairey's graphic manipulations or anything of that sort and then sold their new piece as their own, of course, what would you do?
would you be flattered? PO'ed? calling your lawyer right up?
Call my lawyer.
I'd never think to use another person's copyrighted material in a project, unless I had already acquired the rights to do so.
-
- Malixe Photo
-
- Photographer
- Seattle, Washington
-
- 25 Posts
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/08/2009 21:41:17
Shepard Fairey was -not- sued by the photographer who took the image he made his poster from, he was sued by Associated Press, whom that photographer works for and which owns copyright on his work.
And if I recall correctly, I think Shepard sued the AP *first* in order to proactively seek a decision. While its source image is recongizable, it's different enough that the 'derivatives' language comes into play, and it's a lot less cut-and-dried than some people think it is.
Here's this:
I'll let the 'internet lawyers' hash it out from here. 
Hung like Einstein. Smart as a horse.
-
- The Polaroid Guy
-
- Photographer
- Arlington, Texas
-
- 135 Posts
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/09/2009 06:41:43
Dont get famous by appropriating others' work. Be famous before you do it, and you'll be fine.
2x
3x
5x
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/09/2009 06:46:22
Malixe Photo wrote:
While its source image is recongizable, it's different enough that the 'derivatives' language comes into play, and it's a lot less cut-and-dried than some people think it is.
No, "derivatives" is not what comes into play. If this were just a matter of Fairey's work being "a derivative work" then the issue would be simple, and he would lose. You can't make a "derivative work" without the permission of the copyright holder.
However, you can do a parody, or other uses protected under the "fair use" doctrine, without permission. That's the issue.
-
-
- Guest
-
- Posts
Re: Andy Warhol
Mar/09/2009 09:43:34
Parody, excerpts for review, excerpts for articles about the originator. Those are all fair use, and offer loads of protection for people. Publications depend heavily on that to get their stories published and illustrated.
The court will have to decide whether the Obama posters were fair use of an existing image.
- All Forums
-
Model Insider Forums
-
General Discussion
-
Andy Warhol
