Art world in a flap as it takes stock of contentious images

[norwest]

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/art-world-in-a-flap-as-it-takes-stock-of-contentious-images-20120831-255nj.html

[Kym]

Meh! © infringement - he deserves what he gets

[Steve Axford]

It's interesting the arguments used to support him, like ''He's always working on the surfaces of his images, he sandwiches negatives together, he does all sorts of unusual stuff and makes them into very poetic, artistic images." Yet he submits images to Obscura that have other people metadata on them. I know of some people who seem to resent acknowledging that others have made a significant contribution to their work.

[arthurking83]

If he has legally obtained a license to use the images then go ahead .. but to initially deny they're just ripoffs .. LOL!

"He's always working on the surface" .. is that leet speak for " he applies various ripped off actions" and then saves the image as his own ....

idiot doesn't even know how to remove metadata! .. artist :rolleyes:

Now the world knows what kind of 'artist' ;) he really is! :p

[Kym]

His problem is that he has blown all credibility -- no one will be interested -- may as well get a job a Macca's coz any further in art is gone

[Mark L]

His problem is that he has blown all credibility -- .....
There were people defending him in the article.
Not sure why either, but they were.:scrtch:

[Mark L]

And the result ...... http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/gallery-dumps-artist-over-photo-controversy-20120902-258m4.html

[Kym]

And the result ...... http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/gallery-dumps-artist-over-photo-controversy-20120902-258m4.html

The Gallery did the right thing and this is telling...

Matt Hansen, the US photographer who took the original eagle image used in Ong's 1000 Years Beside Myself #1, said he thought the use was ''extremely unethical'' and was inquiring with Getty about its legality.

A buyer of Ong's sold-out raven image, Jacky Wilkes, said she believed it was an original photograph that he had taken. ''Had I known that the artwork was based on a stock image, I would never have purchased the artwork … I was misled by the artist.''

[Analog6]

I posted about this on FB at the time. To me, it is not so much the buying other's images as the lying about it, right up until the metadata 'outed' him. I'm not fond of this type of art anyway, but this guy is obviously just a parasite.

[ricktas]

For me, the biggest issue was that he outright lied when initially asked about the images.


Ong, 30, told the Herald he took those photos himself and that claims he did not were false and "heartbreaking''.


Once he realised he had really been caught out, he changed his story. But for me, the fact he initially lied about the images tells me a lot about his character, and his intent to deceive.

[Rattus79]

Throw the book at him.

The industry needs to have a scape goat in general to help make sure that this kind of thing does not become prevelant within the industry at large.

Personally, I think it's disgusting!

[Mark L]

Not that I'm necessarily swayed this way, but there's always a right of reply and another side to a story.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/artist-says-stock-photos-not-meant-to-mislead-20120903-25ana.html
and http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-popular-but-a-remix-can-be-seen-as-a-racket-20120903-25adb.html

[Analog6]

No matter how many sides to this if you don't say it is your interpretation of another's work it is (a) theft and (b) fraud - ie obtaining money by false pretences.