Copycat artist ruffles feathers with blatant rip-off

[Bear Dale]

Interesting read -

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/copycat-artist-ruffles-feathers-with-blatant-ripoff-20120707-21nrv.html

[ricktas]

Good to see that those relevant to the copy being sold have taken action.

[arthurking83]

I have to be honest here and think that it's a bit of a beat up.

I can understand if the photographer was concerned about the rip off being in the form of another photo done in exactly the same manner, or the more usual blatant copying of the image and passing it off as someone else's...

but the media is different, the representation is slightly different and so on.

In other words, if I were Ozzie Osbourne, I'd be contacting this Petrina photographer and asking for her to remove the bird from the subject mouth, lest it breach his own copyright/signature of eating birds heads!!

;)

ie. this crap about breaching copyright, when a piece of artwork posesses 'similar' aspects to another is just totally stupid and needs to stop, before it gets completely out of hand and there is nothing left for any artist to do, for fear of breaching the copyright of some other obscure 'artwork' piece throughout the annals of history and time.

It's idiotic interpretation of copyright needs to stop!

otherwise it will only usher in a new breed of artist .. the copyright infringement nazi impressionist .. the one that simply captures any sort of image of everything and anything ... and then spends their questionable existence looking for similarities in all other artworks looking for a way to make money via copyright infringing settlement.


As I understand it, art is all derivative of something else.
It's an amalgamation of experiences we have of the various things we encounter throughout our lives.

[Ezookiel]

Not a copy?
The light on both sides of the face, the light on the nose, the lighter area around the jaw line, and as the article mentions, the cutout on the model's right shoulder, that is way too similar to be anything but a copy with a few changes to background and under the eyes. It's a not just a copy, but it's a really bad copy.

To a degree I agree with Arthur, it could get to a point where you can't photograph or paint anything without reproducing to some extent someone else's work, but this isn't just SOME parts of the work reproduced, this is damned near the entire work reproduced, and quite clearly so, so I can see where copyright law really should apply to this image. Of course, why anyone would pay anything at all for that painting is another matter all together.

[arthurking83]

.....

..... but this isn't just SOME parts of the work reproduced, this is damned near the entire work reproduced, and quite clearly so, so I can see where copyright law really should apply to this image. Of course, why anyone would pay anything at all for that painting is another matter all together.

Yep! I get that, and the way I understand it, the real premise of copyrighting is to punish duplicating copycats!!. ie. the bludgers that make 'easy money' off the hard yakka of others, with simply copy and paste artwork.

This painter, while took the easy way and used less brain power to summon any form of creativity, still had to paint the picture for it to exist.

While that may be easy, it still has his own 'signature' brush stroke style and so on.. so in effect it's his own work .. it's just not creative!!

That to me is not breaching copyright, and as I said, if this idea that you can copyright an idea(or sense of creativity) doesn't get stamped on quickly and decisively, the future for all artists may become bleak at some point in the distant future.

No matter how you look at it, there are always people with not so pure intentions, and there's no reason to believe that this won't change into the future.
So rather than maintain the old method of trying to encourage creative thinking, these laws(once fully realised) will only serve to develop a new breed of forward thinking types, ceative in their own way, but not for the good of mankind, simply for their own financial gain.

And what'll happen is that software will develop to the point where an artist need to simply type in a series of commands using PS/CS or whatever and literally millions of combinations of artwork will spew out of the machine.
This covers all artistic bases, and the artist simply needs to mark it it with some form of recognised time stamp, so that if anyone else ever produces a similar looking copy of an art piece, the non creative batch file artist is armed with a license to sue.

Sounds implausible?

think back to the bad old days of domain name squatting .. and the lunacy of the subsequent legal actions required for the rightful owners of those celebrity names to be able to use their celebrity name for their own websites.

Domain name squatting is now basically outlawed, so it's harder for someone to simply register a domain name(that they have no real affiliation with nor need for) and hold onto it for the sake of fleecing easy money out of the likes of Kylie Minogue and other would be celebs!!

I can't see this form of legal discouragement ever happening in the art world .. artists produce real work, and it's simply a numbers game.

Produce more work of various types and one day you will hit the jackpot, when some apparently masterful art piece makes it big time.
All you need to do is show that it's similar, or 'an exact copy' but in another art genre or media, and that yours came before theirs and you're home and hosed.

That's not real art, and it needs to be killed off as an idea sooner rather than later.


I have no qualm with the photographer being angry at the painter for blatant copying, but don't go claiming copyright infringement willy nilly .. a better tact for her would have been to highlight the wonderfulness of her original photo, and how so wonderful it was that it inspired an unispiring painter to copy her work!!

two things come of this .. it discourages painters that want real success to simply copy works without prior approval from the original artist.
After all a painters only worth or value is in their artistic reputation .. not their ability to paint(house painters make more money on average than the average art painter!!)
and also it highlights the value of the original art piece, bringing it to prominence in the art scene and usually making it more valuable with exposure to a greater audience.


anyhow, I think I'm ranting again :D

[Bear Dale]

Arthur I see your point and enjoyed reading your posts, but I disagree a little with you because it's so much the same. The only difference is the medium. It's like scanning the image and using a photoshop plugin to "paint it".

It's so identical and hence I do see it as an infringement.

[Cris]

I agree with Arthur, what happens when a bunch of students all paint (or for that matter photograph) the same thing at the same time, do they each break each others copyright, and what about things like the sydney harbour bridge- or do we just stop taking photos for fear that someone else has already done it. Only a couple of weeks ago I went out and photographed something that was a copy of someone else's work that I saw?

[Bear Dale]

I agree with Arthur, what happens when a bunch of students all paint (or for that matter photograph) the same thing at the same time, do they each break each others copyright, and what about things like the sydney harbour bridge- or do we just stop taking photos for fear that someone else has already done it. Only a couple of weeks ago I went out and photographed something that was a copy of someone else's work that I saw?

I don't see how those analogies work for whats happened in this situation.

[Cris]

Fair enough, But I struggle with the concept that everything in art is unique, I have had some of my photos painted ( after being asked ) and yes they do look like a copy, but however the skill required to paint them was not small, I took it as flattery and was pleased with the end result.

[Mark L]

I've always thought this to be a wonderful photograph.
The painting would not exist if it weren't for the photograph.


....
I have no qualm with the photographer being angry at the painter for blatant copying, but don't go claiming copyright infringement willy nilly .. a better tact for her would have been to highlight the wonderfulness of her original photo, and how so wonderful it was that it inspired an unispiring painter to copy her work!!
.......

A better tact may have been for the painter to ask permission to reinterprete the original artwork.

[arthurking83]

.....


A better tact may have been for the painter to ask permission to reinterprete the original artwork.

I suppose that's what an honest and honourable artist would tend to do!

It's not like this painter bloke was a no one, he obviously already had a foot in the art scene, with an agent and being publicly represented and so on ...

You see something you like, you have a bit of a reputation as a fellow artist in another field, you contact the author of the works you admire and chat about it with the intention to ask for permission ... should be easy nuff to do if you have any decency!!

[jeffde]

Can anybody point me to the copyright act that refers to these area's - i know copyright in respect to my own photos etc but copyrighting an idea i can't find. Thanks

[Bear Dale]

Can anybody point me to the copyright act that refers to these area's - i know copyright in respect to my own photos etc but copyrighting an idea i can't find. Thanks

When you need a copyright clearance

You will need copyright permission if:
• you use something protected by copyright;
• you use a 'substantial part' (this may not necessarily be a big part);

http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/

[patrickv]

As a side note, am I the only one who can't look at the image without wanting to puke?

[bort]

Its an odd image, I agree

[junqbox]

For the detractors, of course it's copyright infringement when the artist copies someone elses work and presents it as their 'own original work'. The painting here is not an original work but a representation of an image created by someone else without very much in the way of modification, other than the medium and the background, or any kind of reference back to the original artist.
Had the painter asked, or even made reference to the original photograph, this story would most likely have never come up. It was the underhanded way the paintings have been presented to the community for sale which has alerted the original artist to their work being passed off by someone else as their own 'original concept'.

[sunny6teen]

well...I'm off to photograph 'Blue Poles' and claim the work as my own. cya.