Posted by Foto Care | Posted in Business and Marketing Tips
Posted on October 14, 2011
There are now more images on Flickr than people on the face of the Earth. These images are mainly made in the last 10-15 years with the growth of digital cameras and exclude the billions of images made since Niepce made the first known photograph in the early 19th century. The online music store iTunes now boasts over 19 million songs available for purchase. With an overwhelming amount of media out there is it possible to have a unique idea in any art form? If you have an original idea, should you copyright it and protect it from any unauthorized use/reuse?
The first photograph. Nicephore Niepce
Some musicians argue that by sampling another artist’s work and remixing it they are creating a new piece, that what they have made is transformative and therefore an entirely new work. Greg Gillis, better known by his stage name Girl Talk, is a mashup/remix artist who works entirely with samples of other songs. His work will overlay two, three, and sometimes four different elements from songs created by other artists. Black Sabbath’s guitar riffs will play beneath Ludacris’ aggressive rapping, while on another track John Lennon’s Imagine is combined with Rich Boy and UGK. In 2007 three men made a documentary called Good Copy/Bad Copy that discusses copyright law, piracy, and free culture, with a segment surrounding Gillis. Within the documentary Gillis shows one of his album insets that has every artist he sampled listed. “I feel like I did my own work but I absolutely owed them all a little credit because they are blatantly on the album, and I have a lot of respect for all their music.” See the clip containing this quote from the documentary on youtube here. You can see the full documentary here.
Girl Talk samples directly, while other instances of copying that have sparked debate over copyright have been less direct. Justin Bieber’s new fragrance shares similarities with a Marc Jacobs bottle, Beyonce declares that she referenced a ballet named Rosas danst Rosas in the music video for her song Countdown, and Rihanna is being sued by photographer David La Chapelle over her S&M music video which, Chapelle claims, rips off a series of his images, a side-by-side representation can be seen on the Daily Mail’s website. All of these instances bring up a debate that the supreme court has avoided ruling on, choosing instead to persuade out of court a settlements and other work-arounds.
Few images have become as prolific as the Hope poster of President Obama, created in 2008 by street artist Shepard Fairey. As the image gained popularity two different photographers emerged who believed the poster to be a copy of their image. After further analysis and an (eventual) admission from Fairey, it was discovered that the artist had used a photograph by an Associated Press photographer to create the Hope poster. The legal battle that ensued was followed closely by the creative community because the case could have set a legal precedent for transformative and fair use art. Unfortunately, whether or not Fairey was justified under copyright law to produce the graphic based on an AP photo was not determined, as the AP and Fairey settled out of court.
Copyright law in the U.S. strictly prohibits “actionable copying” of an image by being “substantially similar”, a statement that is both difficult to substantiate and is based on perception. What is even more difficult to enforce is the concept of fair use and appropriation within art. How many elements of an image have to be reproduced to be considered infringement? Bob Dylan has come under fire in the past month for a series of paintings that reference the work of Bresson, Bruce Gilden, and others (side by side examples can be seen here and here). Dylan is well known for his distaste for the media profiting off his image and there have been incidences at his concerts where security will wade into the first few rows and take point and shoots from fans who photographed him. These cases have all brought up the same debate of appropriation versus infringement, referencing and influence versus plagiarism.
Some court cases have dismissed copyright infringement suits based on whether or not the infringing is “art”, a question that is as old as art itself. One of the most famous examples, Marcel Duchamp ’s urinal signed with the pseudonym R Mutt, is on display in the Tate Modern. Many argue that by re-purposing and intending the object to be viewed as something other than its original purpose, the artist has created a work of art. While Duchamp’s Pissotiere is intended to question what art is, it brings up an interesting issue that has been prevalent in both a campaign for the presidency of the United States and now in a gallery showing of one of the most famous and prolific musicians in the world.
Are we impeding the flow of art and media with enforcing copyright laws or protecting the artists who rely on their work to live?
Helpful links on copyright
The American Society of Media Photographer’s FAQ on Copyright
The U.S. Government’s Copyright Laws FAQ
Digital Millenium Copyright Act Explained
