Would it possible for you to stand in front of the artwork by Matisse and have the same experience that you have when you stand in front of the artwork by Thomas?
This one does not disparage the original work, but it surely exploits it.
It would seem by your unconventional legal standards, it would be permissible for any film-maker to make a movie out of a best-seller, without contacting with the author for the movie rights, no?
As far as whether the copying was revealed, it’s unclear whether that was done by apologists after the fact, or openly at the time. That would affect my moral judgment of the copying, but not the legal judgment. The advance confessing of infringement is no defense.
If you’d like to show me Picasso’s “copy” of an African artwork, I’ll be happy to apply the same standard (sort of - as copying an unattributable primitive work is different from infringing the legal rights of a copyright owner).
You can read all you like about Picasso’s African-influenced period on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picasso
One of the African-influenced pieces Picasso is most famous for is his 1907 Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. Countless artists have made their own variations inspired by this work. One such example is the 1991 quilt-like painting by the African American artist Faith Ringgold, which directly uses portions of Picasso’s original composition.
http://greg.org/archive/ringgold_picasso_studio.jpg
There are thousands of other examples I can refer you to – Andy Warhol created an entire series of Last Supper paintings based on the original by da Vinci, many of which he literally created by screen-printing photographs of da Vinci’s painting onto a new canvas. You will not need to overlay any gifs to recognize that the compositions are identical. Warhol made common use of this practice of “copying” others’ works and recreating them, yet he is so highly respected that he’s widely considered the one of the most influential American artists ever, and there’s even a US postage stamp with his portrait on it.
There’s no misunderstanding of copyright law on my part; these are all established works of art that have been bought and sold for decades. There is only a misunderstanding on your part. You’re giving yourself too much credit for being able to accurately compare and understand two works of art after seeing only tiny thumbnails on the internet, and you’re also professing to “break news” of a relationship between two works of art even though that relationship has been known and discussed since 1963. Based on only the most cursory internet research you’ve gone ahead and accused a decent, hardworking person of outright legal misdoing. I think you’re doing it all to make some political point which has no bearing on the life and work of Thomas.
I think it would be appropriate to post an apology and a correction, but at the very least I implore you to give some more thought to the matter before you jump to similar conclusions in the future.
