Posted on 01/24/2014 7:30:49 PM PST by Uncle Chip
“We need a Stand Your Canvas law.”
Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
A bit of trivia re: Zimmerman’s first painting. He kept getting questions about whether it was oil or acrylic. Finally he responded and said it was latex house paint. Not, I wd imagine, the answer anyone was expecting.
Add a handlebar mustache, fangs (2), a scar, a pirate patch, a nazi tattoo, and horns (2). That’s 8 changes right there.
However, you CAN sell guns on gunbroker.com
It's like ebay, but for guns.
Lol. The truth is, however, that when I heard Zimmerman had painted Angela Corey, my first thought was, ‘Oh no; I bet he put devil horns on her’.
I like his text better than horns, though. It’s so true, and it’s got to hurt/zing. I bet Corey’s been in a rotten mood lately.
The only problem with this case is that the ones destroying and fabricating documents were: Angie, AP, NBC, the State of Florida, Crump, and a host of others. George was not among them.
Yes.
I had no idea the “Hope” artist was indicted and pleaded guilty.
Nice job of suppressing the news, Main Stream Media.
The artist made a huge amount of money off that plagiarized poster.
The fact that he lied in court, destroyed documents, and fabricated documents in an attempt to keep his unjust earnings, but got probation, is astounding.
Zimmerman would get sentenced to hard time for a stunt like that.
And who came to Flynt's defense? Scalia.
So if George says it was a "parody", isn't he in the clear?
BTW, does George own the rights to HIS image?
Many thousands of paintings, drawings, and even photographs have been made of him.
Can HE sue over each and every one?
Now if only George had urinated into a cup, and put the picture into the cup, THEN IT WOULD ART. /S
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.
I should think all George would have to do is not sell the painting (take it off the market) and do a new one based on memory or a non copyright picture. End of story.
Thanks for that info! I’m planning to bookmark the page; it looks like a keeper.
I'm not sure of the exact details of the case but,as Richard Jewell did,he's got a huge case against NBC...and maybe others as well.Yes,NBC will fight it...or pretend to...but behind closed doors they'll say,in the end,"OK,you're asking ten million,we'll give you three".That is,if they're smart.And if GZ's smart he'll take the three million from NBC and then move on to the next target.
Just my 2 cents' worth...
The way I've heard it, you can make an Elvis painting and even sell it. You may not make 50 copies of the same painting and sell them.
And it matters not if you source from a photo or your own representation of Elvis. Elvis likeness has been "trademarked". It's all new ground in the copyright world.
The Louvre now claims copyright to the Mona Lisa. Long after the fact.
Until NBC makes a reasonable offer and Zimmerman accepts it, he’s still got to make a living. It may yet take a while. Also, a settlement of 3 mil after lawyers fees [a third of the settlement + court costs and out of pocket expense] and after paying off his legal bills [for the trial, etc.] wd probably leave him still in the hole, or close to it. I hope he ends up getting more than that.
Warhol was sued over the flowers picture he stole from a science textbook.
The difference between what Zimmerman did and that of Fairey and Warhol is that Zimmerman painted his interpretation of the image. The others manipulated copies of the photos they used (scanned a picture and printed it with factory reproduction techniques).
There are lawsuits when “sports painters” do this but they are making several copies of the same thing. If you are “one and done” there is generally more tolerance in the courts for your actions.
It is not illegal to use a picture as a reference for artwork.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), is a leading U.S. court case on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an artist copying a photograph could be liable for infringement when there was no clear need to imitate the photograph for parody.
Art Rogers, a professional photographer, took a black-and-white photo of a man and a woman with their arms full of puppies. The photograph was simply entitled, Puppies, and was used on greeting cards and other generic merchandise.
Jeff Koons, an internationally known artist, found the picture on a postcard and wanted to make a sculpture based on the photograph for an art show on the theme of banality of everyday items. After removing the copyright label from the postcard, he gave it to his assistants with instructions on how to model the sculpture. He asked that as much detail be copied as possible, though the puppies were to be made blue, their noses exaggerated, and flowers to be added to the hair of the man and woman.
The sculpture, entitled, String of Puppies, became a success. Koons sold three of them for a total of $367,000.
Upon discovering that his picture had been copied, Rogers sued Koons and the Sonnabend Gallery for copyright infringement. Koons admitted to having copied the image intentionally, but attempted to claim fair use by parody.
The Court found both “substantial similarity” and that Koons had access to the picture. The similarity was so close that the average lay person would recognize the copying, a measure for evaluation. Thus the sculpture was found to be a copy of the work by Rogers.
On the issue of fair use, the court rejected the parody argument, as Koons could have constructed his parody of that general type of art without copying Rogers’ specific work. That is, Koons was not commenting on Rogers’ work specifically, and so his copying of that work did not fall under the fair use exception.
Strike my previous post.
As has been pointed out, there are guidelines and conditions that could make this illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.