We posted about Cali Killa’s copyright issue with Urban Outfitters last January, and how the corporation has blatantly stolen from the street artist to sell tshirts. Now, Melrose and Fairfax is reporting that Cali Killa had copyrighted his image and was able win his case.
Last Sunday, we linked to the story about a monkey who took a photo and resulting legal issue of copyright around the image. Well, Techdirt who first asked the question, “Who Owns the Copyright?” just received a takedown notice requesting that they remove the monkey photos.
This week’s Required Reading examines how copyright law impacts images by animals, art’s LGBT problem, a history of English, China’s political prisoners, against reviews and Frank Lloyd Wright’s dislike of intellectuals.
In our quest to uphold justice and the American way, we feel compelled to publish the follow information we received about an artistic response to a fair use travesty …
I had the opportunity, to interview Robert J Lang, the origami artist who, along with several others, has filed a lawsuit against painter Sarah Morris who, they say, infringed on their copyrights when she produced 24 of her Origami series of paintings based on crease patterns.
In the following article, we explore Lang’s art, the many forms and practices of origami artists now and in the past, and the diversity of its uses. The article is followed by an interview with Lang in which he addresses, among other things, his lawsuit against Sarah Morris.
In the latest who’s-suing-whom story, six origami artists have filed suit for copyright infringement against artist Sarah Morris for jacking their crease maps to use as a basis for her colorful Origami series of thirty seven paintings.
My first thoughts: Morris cannot lose this one. We have mass-marketed two-dimensional recipes for creating three-dimensional folded paper items, and these recipes have been used as the formal basis for multi-colored two-dimensional paintings. What of it?
The recent Cariou v Prince District Court decision has brought to the fore, once and for all, the elephant in the art world and courtroom, Fair Use, which had, until now, managed to avoid close scrutiny in the popular press.
Fair use is a term we hear bandied about all the time nowadays (Shepard Fairey vs. AP, Patrick Cariou vs. Richard Prince, etc.), but what is it really? The library of the University of Minnesota wants to help you out.
The story of Louis Vuitton’s recent legal action against 29-year-old Dutch artist Nadia Plesner is a curious one. Not only because Plesner had already been sued by Louis Vuitton in 2008, and not only because it was over her use of the same design, and it involved the same bit of imagery, a starved and platter-eyed young African boy, holding a chihuahua and the Audra bag, à la Paris Hilton, but because Plesner is using the same defense that failed her in 2008 and Louis Vuitton took the same action against her that it did three years ago: an ex parte court ruling against her. But let’s take a closer look.
Advertise on Hyperallergic with Nectar Ads
Subscribe to our Email Newsletter
Advertise on Hyperallergic with Nectar Ads
A Truly Subversive Artist Is Not Necessarily Someone Who Is Theatrical or Gimmicky
Graffiti Writer Gets Pwnd by Marc Jacobs
North Korea's New Website
The Daily Practice of the Impossible
Worker Bees of the Art World, Unite
The End of Performance Art as We Know It
Required Reading: Barnes Museum Special
A View from the Easel
It's Time for Recess: A Unique Nonprofit You Need to Know About
