Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million 2 2

[comix4fun]

The problem is 2D vs 3D doesn't really matter. The uses for a pipe and a painting of a pipe are completely different. As different as the use of the frame to tell a romance story in a comic book vs a frame blown up taken out of its context to be apart of a greater dialog about modern artwork. (Among other things)

 

An admission of the source material can be glorified if one wants but detracts nothing from the piece.

 

I used René Magritte because it IS a simple example of a much greater art dialog that is missing in the understanding of the context of the piece under discussion.

 

 

While the use or storytelling intent behind the piece may be different, the piece itself is very much the same by many easily quantifiable variables and categories. In most cases the images are so much so the same that arguments to the contrary by galleries, "experts", and auction house representative can be interpreted to be disingenuous and, ultimately, call motives into question.

 

It's not about diminishing the RL piece as it is giving another artist, without whom there would be no RL piece at all, his just credit and proper attribution. That's what's fair. It's well short of what's equitable, but it's certainly what's fair given the state of the work and when it was done and under what circumstances.

 

Perhaps you feel that it would not diminish RL's pieces of artwork, but perhaps there are people that feel differently. Perhaps those people had/have a vested, monetary interest in how these pieces were and are perceived. How quickly (or at all) would RL's career have taken off? How well would these pieces have sold if they were displayed along side the source material, if the artists of those pieces had their names included along with RL? There are people who made sure that NEVER happened. A very large amount of money has been made over the years, in part, by keeping the original artists OFF the pieces in question, marginalizing the art form where the source material was lifted, and putting great effort into euphemistically defending the practice of "lift and appropriate".

 

When something as simple as attributing source material to another artist is delayed, fought, hidden, and resisted with so much vigor, while at the same time saying 'it matters little" makes me wonder why it was fought (and is still fought) to this day.

 

If it doesn't diminish the piece to attribute to the source material, then the source should be cited, every time, without fail. There's something to be said for artistic honesty. To allow the viewer to see the piece for all that it is, all that it was, and what it has become.

 

The Lichtenstein pieces can have their power and impact, and they can still tell their story as he saw it, and as those who appreciate it see it, without marginalizing and stepping on the people that gave him the material without which there would be no power, no impact, and no story to tell.

[VintageComics]

Yes it's a completely different way.

It's vastly different, about as much as a real pipe and a painting of a pipe.

Each has a different use and each tells a far different story.

 

Many here seem unwilling to understand its new context.

 

 

 

The real pipe, painting of a pipe is a faulty analogy when we are talking about dual artistic renderings of an image that are rather similar.

 

This isn't a "real girl' and the "drawing of a girl."

 

It's a "drawing of a girl" and a "drawing of a girl."

 

It's the same format of visual media, it's a two dimensional artistic rendering, in cartoon form.

 

It's not a tangible, 3 dimensional item that is now a painting.

 

Many are unwilling to admit, even on the most basic level, how very very similar many of these images are. As if, the admission of the source material, and how intangible these purported changes are will somehow undermine this carefully crafted marketing "house of cards."

 

Making it larger, and hanging it in a gallery does not change the basic essence of the image you are looking at, certainly not enough to call it "Completely Different".

 

 

Yes, but does the person drawing the pipe owe the true originator of the pipe a nod?

 

We are sitting on what was previously native soil arguing about whether an artist should give an artist credit when using his work.

 

Again, I'm not cool with the idea of someone stealing someone else's property (whether intellectual or physical) but Gene's article speaks volumes about what it was like at the time.

 

50 years ago, many comic book artists did not even sign their work, let along get recognition (beyond a paycheck) for it by their own employers: There are literally millions of comics out there where the original artist is simply unattributed.

 

Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.

[comix4fun]

Yes it's a completely different way.

It's vastly different, about as much as a real pipe and a painting of a pipe.

Each has a different use and each tells a far different story.

 

Many here seem unwilling to understand its new context.

 

 

 

The real pipe, painting of a pipe is a faulty analogy when we are talking about dual artistic renderings of an image that are rather similar.

 

This isn't a "real girl' and the "drawing of a girl."

 

It's a "drawing of a girl" and a "drawing of a girl."

 

It's the same format of visual media, it's a two dimensional artistic rendering, in cartoon form.

 

It's not a tangible, 3 dimensional item that is now a painting.

 

Many are unwilling to admit, even on the most basic level, how very very similar many of these images are. As if, the admission of the source material, and how intangible these purported changes are will somehow undermine this carefully crafted marketing "house of cards."

 

Making it larger, and hanging it in a gallery does not change the basic essence of the image you are looking at, certainly not enough to call it "Completely Different".

 

 

Yes, but does the person drawing the pipe owe the true originator of the pipe a nod?

 

We are sitting on what was previously native soil arguing about whether an artist should give an artist credit when using his work.

 

Again, I'm not cool with the idea of someone stealing someone else's property (whether intellectual or physical) but Gene's article speaks volumes about what it was like at the time.

 

50 years ago, many comic book artists did not even sign their work, let along get recognition (beyond a paycheck) for it by their own employers: There are literally millions of comics out there where the original artist is simply unattributed.

 

Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.

 

 

Gene's article was from Eddie Campbell, who was 4 years old when RL started lifting images. He's a Scottish artist, living in Australia, lecturing about how things were in America and American copyrights when he was barely out of diapers? This is the controlling article?

 

Joe Kubert, Jack Kirby, John Romita, Mike Sekowsky...these were the guys items were lifted from. They signed their work, and even if they didn't sign it, it was their creation the moment they put pencil to paper.

 

Overgard signed his work, and is being called "small minded" for not taking the lifting of his artwork with no credit or compensation with a smile? Holy Carp!!!

 

Thomas Jefferson first brought up copyright protection and wanted it included in the US Constitution in 1789.

 

This isn't a new concept for the US or the planet, much something that didn't exist in the 60's. It was all there. Because publishers weren't savvy enough at the time to protect their rights more completely and the transfer of information was slower is not the same as it being an accepted practice.

[VintageComics]

I'm not suggesting it should be an accepted practice, I'm suggesting that at the time lifting a panel from a comic and expanding on it would be akin to finding a piece of anonymous newsprint in a garbage can and lifting a panel from it and calling it art.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think comics were ever garbage...I personally think they are fine art, but they were perceived as garbage by most of the world at the time.

 

It was sensationalism and rebellion all wrapped up into one and because it was so against social norms (calling comics art) it struck a chord with people during a time when rebellion was king.

 

I agree that at the very least, RL should have said that he got the idea from panels he had used/copied.

 

So how would intellectual law break down compensation in this case? Since RL made it popular how do you decide who gets how much?

 

 

[Rip]

The problem is 2D vs 3D doesn't really matter. The uses for a pipe and a painting of a pipe are completely different. As different as the use of the frame to tell a romance story in a comic book vs a frame blown up taken out of its context to be apart of a greater dialog about modern artwork. (Among other things)

 

An admission of the source material can be glorified if one wants but detracts nothing from the piece.

 

I used René Magritte because it IS a simple example of a much greater art dialog that is missing in the understanding of the context of the piece under discussion.

 

 

While the use or storytelling intent behind the piece may be different, the piece itself is very much the same by many easily quantifiable variables and categories. In most cases the images are so much so the same that arguments to the contrary by galleries, "experts", and auction house representative can be interpreted to be disingenuous and, ultimately, call motives into question.

 

It's not about diminishing the RL piece as it is giving another artist, without whom there would be no RL piece at all, his just credit and proper attribution. That's what's fair. It's well short of what's equitable, but it's certainly what's fair given the state of the work and when it was done and under what circumstances.

 

Perhaps you feel that it would not diminish RL's pieces of artwork, but perhaps there are people that feel differently. Perhaps those people had/have a vested, monetary interest in how these pieces were and are perceived. How quickly (or at all) would RL's career have taken off? How well would these pieces have sold if they were displayed along side the source material, if the artists of those pieces had their names included along with RL? There are people who made sure that NEVER happened. A very large amount of money has been made over the years, in part, by keeping the original artists OFF the pieces in question, marginalizing the art form where the source material was lifted, and putting great effort into euphemistically defending the practice of "lift and appropriate".

 

When something as simple as attributing source material to another artist is delayed, fought, hidden, and resisted with so much vigor, while at the same time saying 'it matters little" makes me wonder why it was fought (and is still fought) to this day.

 

If it doesn't diminish the piece to attribute to the source material, then the source should be cited, every time, without fail. There's something to be said for artistic honesty. To allow the viewer to see the piece for all that it is, all that it was, and what it has become.

 

The Lichtenstein pieces can have their power and impact, and they can still tell their story as he saw it, and as those who appreciate it see it, without marginalizing and stepping on the people that gave him the material without which there would be no power, no impact, and no story to tell.

 

Again you attribute this underlining sinister nature to the piece. When in fact it is quite often a given (and wanted element) among historians to tell the full story in art history classes, museums, and text books. Unless the buyers are lacking the most basic knowledge of the pieces, I doubt a copy of the original to go along with the RL troubles them in the slightest.

 

Is it shown beside every piece, at every museum I doubt it. But I suspect very little lack the understanding in the art community that the original came from a comic book.

 

I'm sure there are also many who really don't care who's name goes along with it, anymore than it slights the pipe maker or the newspaper, or the Brillo Box logo designer etc etc.

 

I would also suggest you see one of these in person. It's not as close as you think. The changes to the originals are very intentional.

 

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[comix4fun]

 

So how would intellectual law break down compensation in this case? Since RL made it popular how do you decide who gets how much?

 

 

 

I wasn't getting into the legalities as much as artistic equities in this situation but we can give it a shot.

 

Without speaking to what would actually happen and any specific piece of artwork, it doesn't matter who made it popular. It only matters to what extent the piece is infringing upon another piece of work. How similar they are, etc.

 

In music, using a material portion of another song, as short as 2.5 seconds long would give the original artist a claim to half or more of the royalties and proceeds from that song. It all depends on how close to the original the new song is.

 

That was my line about "Freddie Mercury". One, small, less than 3 second section of "under pressure" and Vanilla Ice owed him a gigantic sum of money.

 

It's come up over and over again in films, music and artwork. Derivative works, deemed too close to the source material, without license or compensation and there will be money owed.

 

If someone, today, tried to do what Lichtenstein did, they wouldn't get very far and word would have spread and C&D letters issues before the check cleared from the first sale at a gallery show. Nothing flies under the radar and creators, and other rights holders, normally now don't mess around with their livelihood and creations as may have happened.

 

Pull a panel from Walking Dead, blow it up for 1000% size, drop some dots on the page and try to sell it at a gallery. The sparks will fly immediately. Ask Brian Bolland, he (by himself with no legal help) just shut down a French artist trying to do the exact same thing to his work.

 

It's not so much a change in the law as it is a change in awareness of the law and of the free (and fast) flow of information we have today.

 

[VintageComics]

It's not so much a change in the law as it is a change in awareness of the law and of the free (and fast) flow of information we have today.

 

Admittedly, I'm relatively new to the discussion.

 

Did anyone protest RL's use of panels back when he did it? Did any of the original artists recognize their panels and comment on them?

 

 

[Lebowski]

Is it shown beside every piece, at every museum I doubt it. But I suspect very little lack the understanding in the art community that the original came from a comic book.

 

Dammit, said I wasn't going to comment again, but... this knowledge and understanding that people keep alluding to... that everyone knew Roy was using specific panels from already-created comics is not a widespread phenomenon, in my mind. In my art classes, the sources for Lichtenstein's paintings were never mentioned. I don't recall them being cited in my art history books. I don't recall seeing them cited at the show I went to of some of his pieces. Indeed, I would argue that VERY FEW people knew (and even, given recent articles I've seen, know NOW) that Roy lifted his panels directly from other works. It wasn't something I was made aware of until closer to the end of my collegiate career.

 

And guess what? That "knowledge" completely changed my opinion of his work. Believe it or not, I used to be an "I like Lichtenstein" kind of guy in my earlier years. But I changed my mind on him. Preposterously baffling to some here, I'm sure.

[Rip]

Is it shown beside every piece, at every museum I doubt it. But I suspect very little lack the understanding in the art community that the original came from a comic book.

 

Dammit, said I wasn't going to comment again, but... this knowledge and understanding that people keep alluding to... that everyone knew Roy was using specific panels from already-created comics is not a widespread phenomenon, in my mind. In my art classes, the sources for Lichtenstein's paintings were never mentioned. I don't recall them being cited in my art history books. I don't recall seeing them cited at the show I went to of some of his pieces. Indeed, I would argue that VERY FEW people knew (and even, given recent articles I've seen, know NOW) that Roy lifted his panels directly from other works. It wasn't something I was made aware of until closer to the end of my collegiate career.

 

And guess what? That "knowledge" completely changed my opinion of his work. Believe it or not, I used to be an "I like Lichtenstein" kind of guy in my earlier years. But I changed my mind on him. Preposterously baffling to some here, I'm sure.

 

In my classes they were. In my text books they were. In the museums I saw them in they were. In fact that's how I tracked many of them down.

But I can't speak as to how much art history you got or how detailed your education was.

 

For what its worth I have a Art History degree and a Art Studio degree at CSUC.

I'm also currently a graphic designer. (And part time comic book trader )

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[Rip]

 

So how would intellectual law break down compensation in this case? Since RL made it popular how do you decide who gets how much?

 

 

 

I wasn't getting into the legalities as much as artistic equities in this situation but we can give it a shot.

 

Without speaking to what would actually happen and any specific piece of artwork, it doesn't matter who made it popular. It only matters to what extent the piece is infringing upon another piece of work. How similar they are, etc.

 

In music, using a material portion of another song, as short as 2.5 seconds long would give the original artist a claim to half or more of the royalties and proceeds from that song. It all depends on how close to the original the new song is.

 

That was my line about "Freddie Mercury". One, small, less than 3 second section of "under pressure" and Vanilla Ice owed him a gigantic sum of money.

 

It's come up over and over again in films, music and artwork. Derivative works, deemed too close to the source material, without license or compensation and there will be money owed.

 

If someone, today, tried to do what Lichtenstein did, they wouldn't get very far and word would have spread and C&D letters issues before the check cleared from the first sale at a gallery show. Nothing flies under the radar and creators, and other rights holders, normally now don't mess around with their livelihood and creations as may have happened.

 

Pull a panel from Walking Dead, blow it up for 1000% size, drop some dots on the page and try to sell it at a gallery. The sparks will fly immediately. Ask Brian Bolland, he (by himself with no legal help) just shut down a French artist trying to do the exact same thing to his work.

 

It's not so much a change in the law as it is a change in awareness of the law and of the free (and fast) flow of information we have today.

 

It wouldn't work at all in this day and age and it shouldn't work. The context is now different.

The dialog has been done.

[Aman619]

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it!

 

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material.

 

How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes."

 

This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another.

 

 

 

before I slog thru 37 new posts, Ill answer. ALl these artists are commercial artists. ALL their work was throwaway and under the control of their clients/bosses. Very few of them fetishized their quick comics assignments nor asked or expected their "artworks" back. That was the way it was for them their whole careers.

 

dont project your ideas of what they should have thought about what they did for a living. They lived job to job, check to check. meeting a deadline, NOT "creating art" beyond their personal responsibility as craftsmen, and knowing that doing too poor of a job would mean no more work and they be manning a rubber cement pot in the bullpen at an ad agency.

[Aman619]

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it!

 

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material.

 

How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes."

 

This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another.

 

 

well, thats not quite a fair comparison, but I get your point. However, no gallery would show such photographs of paintings. and if they did, I dont think the show would be successful enough (not enough of a disctinction between the two forms) so we;d never have to worry about the photos stealing from the painter 50 years later!

 

[Lebowski]

In my classes they were. In my text books they were. In the museums I saw them in they were. In fact that's how I tracked many of them down.

But I can't speak as to how much art history you got or how detailed your education was.

 

For what its worth I have a Art History degree and a Art Studio degree at CSUC.

I'm also currently a graphic designer. (And part time comic book trader )

 

I wish they were cited when I was learning about him. That way I could've saved myself the shock and embarrassment of finding out later. I still find it puzzling how people can push past the intellectually insulting (IMO) nature of his work.

 

 

[delekkerste]

Pull a panel from Walking Dead, blow it up for 1000% size, drop some dots on the page and try to sell it at a gallery. The sparks will fly immediately. Ask Brian Bolland, he (by himself with no legal help) just shut down a French artist trying to do the exact same thing to his work.

 

I wrote a whole paper on the Brian Bolland-Erro case (not sure if that's the one you were referring to, as that was 2-3 years ago and the artist is Icelandic). Appropriating an entire cover of a trademarked character and making minimal changes to it is NOT equivalent to what Lichtenstein did. Your Vanilla Ice-Queen analogy is also not equivalent - it's only the same in your mind because you are refusing to distinguish any gradations between art or even different comic art (hence, my "value neutral" comment a while back) while giving the appropriated work an artificially high value and giving little to no credit to Lichtenstein's work as a result.

 

 

Did anyone protest RL's use of panels back when he did it? Did any of the original artists recognize their panels and comment on them?

 

Nobody protested enough to bring a lawsuit against RL, probably because there is little to no chance they would have won given the prevailing attitudes of the day. Even in today's litigious climate, a good lawyer will claim Fair Use and still have a decent shot at winning. Taking a generic panel from a non-character comic book and transforming it sufficiently as RL did to make it his own is NOT the same thing as ripping off an entire cover of a DC comic book or sampling the signature riff of a platinum hit song by two of the biggest names in rock 'n roll history. :doh:

[Aman619]

...Lichtenstein did, and he came with a daring creative and bold approach that tied in low art and high art.

 

This is the kind of high-brow talk that really gets my goat...in this day and age, where does someone get off calling comic book art "low"? I can hear them now saying: "I say, ol' boy that Lichtenstein is a genius! He took lemons and made not lemonade, but champagne!".

Beats the hell out of THIS conversation:

 

"Well gollee, Leroy, I just got me one of them there dogs playin` poker posters. It shore is purty!"

 

"What did ya`ll just say, Cletus? I can`t hear a danged thing you`re sayin` over the sound of them Nascars!"

 

 

Did you happen to see what the "dogs playing poker" original painting sold for at auction?

 

This conversation is happening across the income strata.

 

 

at this point, after years of all of us thinking the dog paintings were just the lowest kitschy trash, Id like to own one of the originals because they are a true original American art. They have stood the test of time. How many are there? Ill bet there are not that many and probably a great investment! Maybe a couple dozen pieces??

 

I mean, look at how far pinup art has come? Sure they're more fun to look at, but dogs playing poker? At this point, they feel classic to me.

[Rip]

If you guys are looking for an example of an artist who DID indeed cross that legal line, look no further than Jeff Koons who I mentioned before.

 

The famous case of Rogers VS Koons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[delekkerste]

I still find it puzzling how people can push past the intellectually insulting (IMO) nature of his work.

 

It's only intellectually insulting if you think that (a) comic book art in general is too low-brow to be considered fine art, even transformed by someone like Lichtenstein or (b) you make no distinction between the original and Lichtenstein's version, viewing the latter as just a stolen copy. Obviously, the anti-RL people here fall into the latter camp, though you can't help but wonder if there is some insecurity about the former that causes them to adamantly argue, if implicitly, that all comic book art should be considered worthy of being fine art.

 

Lichtenstein took panels from disposable, throwaway entertainment and gave them a voice of their own blown-up in his trademarked style, cropped and with slight alterations, displayed in a gallery (and later museums). Those panels in their original form served only to advance a readily forgettable storyline aimed at gung-ho teenage boys and hormonal teenage girls. In the gallery, they served to highlight the horrors of war and women's issues in a heavily male-dominated society in the 1960s. They affected the entire cultural landscape - and that's to say nothing of the Pop Art revolution in general, advancing the language of art with new subjects and techniques. To equate that impact and worth with the original is preposterous. Fine, give credit where it's due regarding the original inspiration, but let's give Lichtenstein his due as well instead of marginalizing him and insulting the entire mainstream art world as being a bunch of beret-sporting, cigarillo-smoking, black turtleneck-wearing dupes. :doh:

 

[delekkerste]

If you guys are looking for an example of an artist who DID indeed cross that legal line, look no further than Jeff Koons who I mentioned before.

 

The famous case of Rogers VS Koons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

 

Let's not forget Cariou vs. Prince, Gagosian, etc. Prince clearly failed on all four grounds of Fair Use, as would have Erro had the Bolland case gone to court. Lichtenstein, though? Not so clear (see below).

 

Here's also a link to a lawyer who argues for loosening copyright laws for the betterment of art & society:

 

Roy Lichtenstein - Copyright Thief?

 

Regarding Lichtenstein, let me crib from a paper I wrote about the Bolland-Erro case:

 

The fine art world has a long history of appropriating images from comic books, starting with “Pop Artists” such as Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein and Mel Ramos in the 1960s. Some have argued that, had copyright laws been more aggressively enforced at the time, perhaps “we would have no Lichtensteins.” After all, the artist was known to have used a projector to blow up a panel from a published comic book onto a blank canvas in order to recreate it line by line, and often copied the accompanying text verbatim as well.

 

If there can be any defense for Lichtenstein’s appropriation under the doctrine of Fair Use, it could be argued under two of the criteria set out in Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act: (1) The nature of the copyrighted work and (2) The substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. One could argue that Lichtenstein appropriated only a small portion (one panel from a single comic book issue) of the copyrighted work. Furthermore, comic book artists at the time were largely “work for hire” employees who did not retain any rights to their work, and few considered comic books to be anything but disposable entertainment at the time. And, in most cases, Lichtenstein appropriated images from romance comic books which featured nondescript “real people” and not trademarked characters like Superman or Green Lantern (who feature prominently in works by Warhol and Ramos, for example). In any case, in the less litigious era of the early 1960s, the comic book publishers themselves who held the copyrights did not pursue any action against Lichtenstein and the other Pop Artists, probably for the betterment of art history (and, thankfully, the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years and has long passed for the early pioneers of Pop Art).

[comix4fun]

Pull a panel from Walking Dead, blow it up for 1000% size, drop some dots on the page and try to sell it at a gallery. The sparks will fly immediately. Ask Brian Bolland, he (by himself with no legal help) just shut down a French artist trying to do the exact same thing to his work.

 

I wrote a whole paper on the Brian Bolland-Erro case (not sure if that's the one you were referring to, as that was 2-3 years ago and the artist is Icelandic).

 

They were shown in a French Gallery, that was what I was alluding to.

 

 

 

 

Your Vanilla Ice-Queen analogy is also not equivalent - it's only the same in your mind because you are refusing to distinguish any gradations between art or even different comic art (hence, my "value neutral" comment a while back) while giving the appropriated work an artificially high value and giving little to no credit to Lichtenstein's work as a result.

 

You're right! The Vanilla Ice-Queen analogy isn't an equivalent. Vanilla Ice only took 3 seconds of a 4:15 second song, 1.1% of the song...these panels have far more borrowed from them than 1.1%.

 

Each page, each panel were it's own piece of artwork. They were all their own drawings, individually, and then brought together to tell a larger story.

 

You are hung up on the "value of the original work" when it doesn't really matter. The right is automatic, and even if it was never published it could still create a value copyright claim.

 

Ignoring these artists from the beginning and only begrudgingly admitting they had anything to do with the work only to find new ways to marginalize their contribution is a double dose of insult they don't deserve.

 

If people want the art to mean something why is it so "dangerous" to give the full history of the piece and let the individual decide for themselves?

 

 

 

Did anyone protest RL's use of panels back when he did it? Did any of the original artists recognize their panels and comment on them?

 

Nobody protested enough to bring a lawsuit against RL, probably because there is little to no chance they would have won given the prevailing attitudes of the day. Even in today's litigious climate, a good lawyer will claim Fair Use and still have a decent shot at winning.

 

Oy Vey!

 

A crystal ball for the past and the future. Why not just use it to get those Powerball numbers? Then you could line your place with Lichtensteins, or maybe save a few bucks and just blow up panels of old Romance comics.

 

It's great you've taken the time to learn about art and donate your time to sit on the acquisitions board. I can respect that, but I have spent a far greater amount of time working on IP law and I would never attempt to divine why someone did or did not sue 50 years ago or what would happen to any sort of certainty today. What I do know is the further you have to go to prove how "different" something is, the less chance you have of getting anyone else to believe its different at all.

 

Someone taking a work, making something that resembles it this closely for commercial gain is going to fall under a "fair use exception"?

 

Everyone falls back to the "transformative" angle when apologizing for RL don't they?

 

Put it in front of a Jury of 12 people and explain how different they are: "LOOK AT THE DOTS!!"

 

 

Taking a generic panel from a non-character comic book and transforming it sufficiently as RL did to make it his own is NOT the same thing as ripping off an entire cover of a DC comic book or sampling the signature riff of a platinum hit song by two of the biggest names in rock 'n roll history. :doh:

 

 

I think you are making a gigantic mistake in your assumption as to what makes up an infringement case. The success, or lack thereof of the source material doesn't make the rights of the creator any less valid. It matters far more which came first and if there was in intentional incorporation of the original into the derivative work.

 

As long as it's not a coincidence (2 similar sounding hooks in a song) and an actual lift of the music, image, photograph, written work, etc. from something identifiable to come before the derivative work it doesn't matter if it sold a million copies or just one copy was made for fun.

 

And point of order: "Under Pressure" didn't get higher than #29 on the US charts.

 

I don't understand the need to prop up RL by stomping down these other artists and their works.

 

If RL's work is that good, that meaningful, and that powerful, then perhaps it will still be so without all the disrespect heaped on these artists.

 

If someone can't raise themselves up without diminishing others they didn't raise themselves up at all.

[comix4fun]

...Lichtenstein did, and he came with a daring creative and bold approach that tied in low art and high art.

 

This is the kind of high-brow talk that really gets my goat...in this day and age, where does someone get off calling comic book art "low"? I can hear them now saying: "I say, ol' boy that Lichtenstein is a genius! He took lemons and made not lemonade, but champagne!".

Beats the hell out of THIS conversation:

 

"Well gollee, Leroy, I just got me one of them there dogs playin` poker posters. It shore is purty!"

 

"What did ya`ll just say, Cletus? I can`t hear a danged thing you`re sayin` over the sound of them Nascars!"

 

 

Did you happen to see what the "dogs playing poker" original painting sold for at auction?

 

This conversation is happening across the income strata.

 

 

at this point, after years of all of us thinking the dog paintings were just the lowest kitschy trash, Id like to own one of the originals because they are a true original American art. They have stood the test of time. How many are there? Ill bet there are not that many and probably a great investment! Maybe a couple dozen pieces??

 

I mean, look at how far pinup art has come? Sure they're more fun to look at, but dogs playing poker? At this point, they feel classic to me.

 

 

There was a post on this board not long ago about a "dogs playing pool" or some such piece that just sold at auction. There were several variations, and have seeped right on into the cultural milieu.,

 

Now I have to find that article that talked about it.