LONDON — Belgian artist Luc Tuymans, known for his paintings that rework existing photographic source material, has been found guilty of plagiarism in a European court for using a copyrighted photograph as the inspiration for an artwork.
At what point does artistic appropriation become copyright infringement? A Jeff Koons sculpture has reopened the 50-year-old debate.
Museums and libraries in the United Kingdom are demanding copyright reform by leaving exhibits and display cases conspicuously empty in protest. The institutions are making a stand against a law that prevents them from showing millions of unpublished documents, particularly those dating from World War I.
What should an artist do when they get a bad review? Taking the criticism into consideration and thinking more about their work is so… difficult. The Danish artist Kristian von Hornsleth incorporated a journalist who wrote a critical article about him in the newspaper Politiken into a pornographic collage, but instead of getting slapped with a harassment suit, he’s getting fined for copyright infringement.
Though the internet allows for distributing media and imagery faster and wider than ever before, it has also taken ownership of the image out of the hands of its creators. That means artists can’t necessarily control where and when their work shows up — a revolutionary change from the era when estates and museums had monopolies on publishing rights over iconic works of art. Imgembed is a new technology platform that lets creators take back some power over their creations as they filter through the web.
An op-ed on the current Prince v Cariou appeal and how it’s about money.
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.
On April 8, I wrote a story on Bravo’s Gallery Girls, a new reality show in the making, and the name and concept’s similarity to a popular independent webcomic, also called Gallery Girls. In this post, Bravo responds to the possible conflict and I take stock of commenter responses.
The art world is apparently supposed to line up behind Richard Prince. If you’re radical right now, you view intellectual property (IP) as a vestige of an archaic market strategy. You think of IP enforcement as a form of hoarding. And you think that anyone who objects, just “doesn’t get it.” And any artist who wishes to build a brand or even to get paid for serial prints (mind you, this includes some of the very radicals mentioned above!) — well, they are supposed to line up behind Patrick Cariou. If you’ve got a vested interest in a body of work, you think of appropriation artists as vermin, lazy, energy-sapping parasites. And you think that anyone who objects is an egomaniac with a crazed sense of entitlement. Want to pick a side in the debate? Here are a few things you’ll need to know.
There have been rumors that Bravo is developing a new “reality” TV show based around the lives of Chelsea’s young, questionably glamorous gallerinas, but with an April 6 announcement came confirmation and a title: the show in development is named “Gallery Girls,” and will “follow the lives of 6 young, 20-something women that work in New York City’s hippest art galleries.” The announcement was met with an immediate negative reaction — “Gallery Girls” happens to also be the name of a webcomic, created and copyrighted in October 2008 by Chinatown resident Mary Blakemore, that covers much the same territory as Bravo’s proposed show. Is Bravo’s show a rip off of Blakemore’s comic? Or could this be a case of unintentional copyright infringement?
Jamie Alexander and Derek Song were surprised in late December of last year when they received a letter from the New York law firm of Jones Day, which represents Jeff Koons, LLC. Their San Francisco retail store and gallery, Park Life, had never attracted the attention of the art world’s big hitters before, but now, one Peter D. Vogl had sent them a cease-and-desist letter calling for the immediate cessation of their sale of balloon dog bookends. Apparently the 10.2” matte plastic pooches were threatening the Koons art empire and potentially confusing customers who are more accustomed to spending a lot more money on ten foot high hi-gloss steel versions of the same species.