Speedy-D Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 By the way....speaking of challenging pre-conceived notions, every one of you should experience John Cage's "4'33"" at least once in your life. It is magnificence in mind-bending conception of what is music and musicality. Pish tosh...Swift's 1989 uber alles!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mio Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 His drawing are also inferior when viewed side by side with the originals If you're comparing the drawing quality of Lichtenstein to the original comic book artists, you're asking the wrong question (plus you're just wrong anyway; Lichtenstein's versions were much more evocative than the throwaway panels he swiped). Lichtenstein at this point in his career (he only did these paintings for a few years out of a glorious multi-decade career) was all about turning everyday commercial images into art. Taken out of a nondescript comic book and blown up to huge size with vivid colors, Ben-Day dots, etc., and putting it into a gallery setting? It's as much about the idea as it is the execution. Seeing one of RL's paintings in a gallery or a museum evokes a much difference response from staring at two identically sized images on David Barsalou's anti-Lichtenstein website (which, I'm sorry, is just pointless and preposterous). Comics historian Arlen Schumer has some things to say about this latest round of Lichtenstein-bashing: Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers. Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later. Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work. He also makes a great point (can't find his exact post on Facebook) about how comic book fans have this perception that the fine art world snubs their noses at them, and yet, they're doing the same thing in reverse when it comes to Lichtenstein. Aside from the blatant plagiarism that should have anybody kicked out of any reputable higher education institution, there are more criticisms/observations of Lichtenstein that his supporters sometimes ignore: - there is little novel about his work aside from using modern stuff as motives (vs traditional still life) - tight cropping and large-scale blow-ups might have been novel for the first painting, but after that it was more of the same - there is little talent or skill involved in the execution of his paintings - the lack of skill in L´s paintings is part of the general erosion of technical ability in 20th century art - his works are too easy to reproduce - more time and effort was spent on marketing than on creating the works themselves I find pop art boring, myself, and think L should have sought permission to reproduce his sources (I acknowledge that the comic publishers probably would not have relayed any of this to the artists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 - there is little novel about his work aside from using modern stuff as motives (vs traditional still life) - tight cropping and large-scale blow-ups might have been novel for the first painting, but after that it was more of the same - there is little talent or skill involved in the execution of his paintings - the lack of skill in L´s paintings is part of the general erosion of technical ability in 20th century art - his works are too easy to reproduce - more time and effort was spent on marketing than on creating the works themselves the artists). It was extremely novel, innovative and pioneering in the early '60s. That it may not seem so now, is testament to the impact Lichtenstein had on our culture. And the end products still speak for themselves - they are beautiful, clever and are broadly appealing to both the cognoscenti and to much of the masses. They are also much more than "large scale blow-ups" - what about the idea to take a small piece of a throwaway object and turn it into a singular work of art that would hang in a gallery? Changing the art to make it look as if it was a product of commercial printing (colors, lines, dots, etc.)? Often adding/omitting/changing/modifying the text to suit its new purpose? Sorry, what you describe is the least impressive part of his work. Lack of skill, works are too easy to reproduce? You mean like all the Old Masters and 19th century works which can easily be knocked off for a hundred bucks in any number of tourist shops in China or Vietnam? Technical skill is commonplace and overrated by devotees of illustration. Pop art is boring? To each his or her own, but its impact on the art world is undeniable...even Marvel jumped on the bandwagon back in the '60s. Don't think Stan Lee thought it was boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't agree with you here. Photographers have their rights to their work too. For years painters treated their work as scrap to be copied at will. If the final product elites heavily on a particular photographic image I believe the photograph is within his rights to seek compensation. But Fairey's final piece involved a lot more than copying a photo. Breaking it down into color areas isn't pushing a button, even in Photoshop. As I wrote yesterday, his mistake IMO was denying that he used that photo. He would have been far better to say yes he STARTED with it, but look how much I changed it! Whoa, whoa, whoa - I never said that photographers shouldn't have rights! Just look at Cariou vs. Prince - I wholeheartedly agreed with the Court in that case. But, as you even admit in the second paragraph, Fairey didn't just reproduce with photo (or with minor alterations in Prince's case) - he transformed it to something with meaning, thus constituting Fair Use under Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act (no, I didn't Google that; I completed the Art Business program at NYU, where one of my papers was arguing that Lichtenstein's appropriation constituted fair use and, in any case, wouldn't have been penalized in the business/legal climate of the early 1960s, whereas Erro's ripping off Brian Bolland was indeed a copyright infringement).it Speaking of the this statute, it wasn't around when Lichtenstein was doing his early comic paintings. But, it asks: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect on the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work In the case of Lichtenstein: 1. In Cariou vs. Prince, where the Court asked whether there was a Transformative Use, offering meaning and critique, you'd have to say yes. Lichtenstein's created a beautiful work of art and, whether you personally like it or not, it was transformative and offered meaning and certainly critique as we are seeing here. 2. This is the only one that goes against Lichtenstein. Even though the source material was the most banal of "original and creative works" (sorry, truth hurts), it still falls within the realm of copyrightable material. 3. The quantity and importance of the material used was small relative to the whole of the issue. Less than 1%. 4. Effect on the value of such? If anything, the source material was helped by Lichtenstein. I'd say the legal grounds of what Lichtenstein did are far less clear cut than many here seem to think, especially considering the time period. In any case, the world is better off for having Lichtenstein and Fairey in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mio Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 - there is little novel about his work aside from using modern stuff as motives (vs traditional still life) - tight cropping and large-scale blow-ups might have been novel for the first painting, but after that it was more of the same - there is little talent or skill involved in the execution of his paintings - the lack of skill in L´s paintings is part of the general erosion of technical ability in 20th century art - his works are too easy to reproduce - more time and effort was spent on marketing than on creating the works themselves the artists). It was extremely novel, innovative and pioneering in the early '60s. That it may not seem so now, is testament to the impact Lichtenstein had on our culture. And the end products still speak for themselves - they are beautiful, clever and are broadly appealing to both the cognoscenti and to much of the masses. They are also much more than "large scale blow-ups" - what about the idea to take a small piece of a throwaway object and turn it into a singular work of art that would hang in a gallery? Changing the art to make it look as if it was a product of commercial printing (colors, lines, dots, etc.)? Often adding/omitting/changing/modifying the text to suit its new purpose? Sorry, what you describe is the least impressive part of his work. Lack of skill, works are too easy to reproduce? You mean like all the Old Masters and 19th century works which can easily be knocked off for a hundred bucks in any number of tourist shops in China or Vietnam? Technical skill is commonplace and overrated by devotees of illustration. Pop art is boring? To each his or her own, but its impact on the art world is undeniable...even Marvel jumped on the bandwagon back in the '60s. Don't think Stan Lee thought it was boring. Old Master works are not "easily" knocked off by anyone. People train hard and long to do it; the low price of labour in Asia is irrelevant. Contrast that by the ease of nigh any untrained person to knock off an L. Technical skill is only "commonplace" because there are many people in the world who value hard work and dedication. Yes, pop art did have an impact in pop culture. An unfortunate one, though. Ls works still are nothing more than derivative blow-ups. His subtle changes could easily be accidental from sloppy copying and would still be celebrated. It does not matter, really. I have little more than "meh" to say about any of it. Indeed, a matter of preference! He still should have asked for the rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicwiz Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Someone mentioned "character of art" and I have to admit, this point intrigues me, and in some ways, I just can't wrap my head around some of the talking points concerning Heath's strip, RL's legacy, and the way his estate has behaved. It's a chat board, so meta-arguments/discussion come with the territory. But what's strange to me is the degree of intellectual laziness and dishonesty that's swept under the pop art/post-modernist rug. I guess it's a bit of a cop out to say this won't effect me because I'd never be caught dead buying, much less owning any of Lichtenstein's work. However that doesn't cover all the bases, especially when considering an organization needed to be set-up, requiring continual funding by "fan-boys", to act as a safety net for all the artists who got treated like refuse by the same people and industry we continue to support, laud and to some extent (some more than others) worship. It's difficult to reconcile because I see the art world as a bizarro world reputational model than the one that our hobby has remained steadfast in patrolling and defending. In other words, the majority of people here would want nothing to do with a collector or seller that earns themselves a reputation of lying, stealing, and/or acting dishonestly. Yet some seem to be perfectly willing to hand out get out of jail cards in Licthensteins defence. It's a strange cultural mash-up of conditional ethics, governed by greed and an acceptance that as long as you can pull the wool-over people's eyes and be successful, it's all good. If this is what "contemporary" ethics tries to ram down our throats, I'm not having it. Cheaters never prosper. I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't agree with you here. Photographers have their rights to their work too. For years painters treated their work as scrap to be copied at will. If the final product elites heavily on a particular photographic image I believe the photograph is within his rights to seek compensation. But Fairey's final piece involved a lot more than copying a photo. Breaking it down into color areas isn't pushing a button, even in Photoshop. As I wrote yesterday, his mistake IMO was denying that he used that photo. He would have been far better to say yes he STARTED with it, but look how much I changed it! Whoa, whoa, whoa - I never said that photographers shouldn't have rights! Just look at Cariou vs. Prince - I wholeheartedly agreed with the Court in that case. But, as you even admit in the second paragraph, Fairey didn't just reproduce with photo (or with minor alterations in Prince's case) - he transformed it to something with meaning, thus constituting Fair Use under Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act (no, I didn't Google that; I completed the Art Business program at NYU, where one of my papers was arguing that Lichtenstein's appropriation constituted fair use and, in any case, wouldn't have been penalized in the business/legal climate of the early 1960s, whereas Erro's ripping off Brian Bolland was indeed a copyright infringement).it Speaking of the this statute, it wasn't around when Lichtenstein was doing his early comic paintings. But, it asks: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect on the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work In the case of Lichtenstein: 1. In Cariou vs. Prince, where the Court asked whether there was a Transformative Use, offering meaning and critique, you'd have to say yes. Lichtenstein's created a beautiful work of art and, whether you personally like it or not, it was transformative and offered meaning and certainly critique as we are seeing here. 2. This is the only one that goes against Lichtenstein. Even though the source material was the most banal of "original and creative works" (sorry, truth hurts), it still falls within the realm of copyrightable material. 3. The quantity and importance of the material used was small relative to the whole of the issue. Less than 1%. 4. Effect on the value of such? If anything, the source material was helped by Lichtenstein. I'd say the legal grounds of what Lichtenstein did are far less clear cut than many here seem to think, especially considering the time period. In any case, the world is better off for having Lichtenstein and Fairey in it. 1. It's of a commercial nature. He created it to sell. 2. Yes. Copyrighted material. 3. Seriously? Less than 1%? You mean percentage of difference? I just asked someone who walked by my office - "It's a just a little different. That one's clearer." 4. That panel was a part of a comic that was bought and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people. It's subtle conscious recognition is exactly what made it easily acceptable to the those who made Lichtenstein's work commercially popular. Today, companies are paying for the rights to reproduce comic images, some as old as 75 years ago, that they can put on pillows, lunch boxes, canvas, pieces of wood, whatever they can... because even people who weren't around 75 years ago, can recognize the image, see it as welcoming, entertaining, and purchasable. But all of that is just speculation... opinion, whatever. Bottom line: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. His purpose was for financial gain. He may have arted it up. He may have some talent. I find that inconsequential to the point. No one's going to sue him over it. He'll never pay a dime. He got away with it, But, Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Plain and simple. Did he lead a Pop Art Renaissance and blah, blah, blah Yeah sure, whatever. Still, Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Was the art 'important' before Lichtenstein got a hold of it... was it 'the most banal of "original and creative works' or whatever... Inconsequential. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 "Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own." This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 "Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own." This. Not you too, Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 "Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own." This. Not you too, Andrew. Is that statement not true Gene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Someone mentioned "character of art" and I have to admit, this point intrigues me, and in some ways, I just can't wrap my head around some of the talking points concerning Heath's strip, RL's legacy, and the way his estate has behaved. It's a chat board, so meta-arguments/discussion come with the territory. But what's strange to me is the degree of intellectual laziness and dishonesty that's swept under the pop art/post-modernist rug. I guess it's a bit of a cop out to say this won't effect me because I'd never be caught dead buying, much less owning any of Lichtenstein's work. However that doesn't cover all the bases, especially when considering an organization needed to be set-up, requiring continual funding by "fan-boys", to act as a safety net for all the artists who got treated like refuse by the same people and industry we continue to support, laud and to some extent (some more than others) worship. It's difficult to reconcile because I see the art world as a bizarro world reputational model than the one that our hobby has remained steadfast in patrolling and defending. In other words, the majority of people here would want nothing to do with a collector or seller that earns themselves a reputation of lying, stealing, and/or acting dishonestly. Yet some seem to be perfectly willing to hand out get out of jail cards in Licthensteins defence. It's a strange cultural mash-up of conditional ethics, governed by greed and an acceptance that as long as you can pull the wool-over people's eyes and be successful, it's all good. If this is what "contemporary" ethics tries to ram down our throats, I'm not having it. Cheaters never prosper. I'm out. It's an American thing. If you ever want to know the truth about anything in this country, all you have to do is follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I don't agree with you here. Photographers have their rights to their work too. For years painters treated their work as scrap to be copied at will. If the final product elites heavily on a particular photographic image I believe the photograph is within his rights to seek compensation. But Fairey's final piece involved a lot more than copying a photo. Breaking it down into color areas isn't pushing a button, even in Photoshop. As I wrote yesterday, his mistake IMO was denying that he used that photo. He would have been far better to say yes he STARTED with it, but look how much I changed it! Whoa, whoa, whoa - I never said that photographers shouldn't have rights! Just look at Cariou vs. Prince - I wholeheartedly agreed with the Court in that case. But, as you even admit in the second paragraph, Fairey didn't just reproduce with photo (or with minor alterations in Prince's case) - he transformed it to something with meaning, thus constituting Fair Use under Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act (no, I didn't Google that; I completed the Art Business program at NYU, where one of my papers was arguing that Lichtenstein's appropriation constituted fair use and, in any case, wouldn't have been penalized in the business/legal climate of the early 1960s, whereas Erro's ripping off Brian Bolland was indeed a copyright infringement).it Speaking of the this statute, it wasn't around when Lichtenstein was doing his early comic paintings. But, it asks: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect on the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work In the case of Lichtenstein: 1. In Cariou vs. Prince, where the Court asked whether there was a Transformative Use, offering meaning and critique, you'd have to say yes. Lichtenstein's created a beautiful work of art and, whether you personally like it or not, it was transformative and offered meaning and certainly critique as we are seeing here. 2. This is the only one that goes against Lichtenstein. Even though the source material was the most banal of "original and creative works" (sorry, truth hurts), it still falls within the realm of copyrightable material. 3. The quantity and importance of the material used was small relative to the whole of the issue. Less than 1%. 4. Effect on the value of such? If anything, the source material was helped by Lichtenstein. I'd say the legal grounds of what Lichtenstein did are far less clear cut than many here seem to think, especially considering the time period. In any case, the world is better off for having Lichtenstein and Fairey in it. 1. It's of a commercial nature. He created it to sell. 2. Yes. Copyrighted material. 3. Seriously? Less than 1%? You mean percentage of difference? I just asked someone who walked by my office - "It's a just a little different. That one's clearer." 4. That panel was a part of a comic that was bought and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people. It's subtle conscious recognition is exactly what made it easily acceptable to the those who made Lichtenstein's work commercially popular. Today, companies are paying for the rights to reproduce comic images, some as old as 75 years ago, that they can put on pillows, lunch boxes, canvas, pieces of wood, whatever they can... because even people who weren't around 75 years ago, can recognize the image, see it as welcoming, entertaining, and purchasable. But all of that is just speculation... opinion, whatever. Bottom line: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. His purpose was for financial gain. He may have arted it up. He may have some talent. I find that inconsequential to the point. No one's going to sue him over it. He'll never pay a dime. He got away with it, But, Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Plain and simple. Did he lead a Pop Art Renaissance and blah, blah, blah Yeah sure, whatever. Still, Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Was the art 'important' before Lichtenstein got a hold of it... was it 'the most banal of "original and creative works' or whatever... Inconsequential. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. You're forgetting he was a genius and drawing skill is overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 "Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own." This. Not you too, Andrew. Is that statement not true Gene? Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. For example, in a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court primarily because the work was not transformative. Aging the character and placing him in present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).) Purposes such as scholarship, research, or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary. EXAMPLE Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use. Determining what is transformative—and the degree of transformation—is often challenging. For example, the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), but this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense in light of the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. (Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).) While RL's use was certainly commercial, it quite easily passes the transformative factor test. New expression? Check. New meaning? Check. New aesthetics? Check. So, basically you're left with, "B-b-b-b-b-b-but he's still a bad guy!" and "Modern and contemporary art is all a big scam and comic art is underappreciated!" Never mind the fact that it was the publishers and work-for-hire system that gave no ownership or voice to the artists in question, that they were paid maybe a buck or two at most for any of the panels RL appropriated (all of which would be forgotten/worthless without RL), or that the artists weren't even always credited and that RL did, have positive things to say about those artists (as we know from interviews from the mid-1960s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1950's war comics Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 The defense of Rob Lichtenfield or whatever is that "spoons" name is.. is indefensible in a comic book chat room Russ Heath is revered in the comic community and here on these CGC boards, a lamb among wolfs to defend the wolf on a comic chatboard is frankly as about as low down as possible FoggyNelson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombat Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great. Most educated people think it is truly great? Do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great. Most educated people think it is truly great? Do they? Outside of a few indignant comic fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 "Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own." This. Not you too, Andrew. Is that statement not true Gene? Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. For example, in a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court primarily because the work was not transformative. Aging the character and placing him in present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).) Purposes such as scholarship, research, or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary. EXAMPLE Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use. Determining what is transformative—and the degree of transformation—is often challenging. For example, the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), but this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense in light of the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. (Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).) While RL's use was certainly commercial, it quite easily passes the transformative factor test. New expression? Check. New meaning? Check. New aesthetics? Check. So, basically you're left with, "B-b-b-b-b-b-but he's still a bad guy!" and "Modern and contemporary art is all a big scam and comic art is underappreciated!" Never mind the fact that it was the publishers and work-for-hire system that gave no ownership or voice to the artists in question, that they were paid maybe a buck or two at most for any of the panels RL appropriated (all of which would be forgotten/worthless without RL), or that the artists weren't even always credited and that RL did, have positive things to say about those artists (as we know from interviews from the mid-1960s). No matter how you dissect it, or what insults you throw or how much you devalue the source material, one thing stands true: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 "Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own." This. Not you too, Andrew. Is that statement not true Gene? Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings? In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. For example, in a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court primarily because the work was not transformative. Aging the character and placing him in present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).) Purposes such as scholarship, research, or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary. EXAMPLE Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use. Determining what is transformative—and the degree of transformation—is often challenging. For example, the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), but this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense in light of the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. (Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).) While RL's use was certainly commercial, it quite easily passes the transformative factor test. New expression? Check. New meaning? Check. New aesthetics? Check. So, basically you're left with, "B-b-b-b-b-b-but he's still a bad guy!" and "Modern and contemporary art is all a big scam and comic art is underappreciated!" Never mind the fact that it was the publishers and work-for-hire system that gave no ownership or voice to the artists in question, that they were paid maybe a buck or two at most for any of the panels RL appropriated (all of which would be forgotten/worthless without RL), or that the artists weren't even always credited and that RL did, have positive things to say about those artists (as we know from interviews from the mid-1960s). No matter how you dissect it, or what insults you throw or how much you devalue the source material, one thing stands true: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. If I did that at the art school I graduated from I would've been potentially expelled, not called a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Fahrenheit Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Did Gargle McLickmestein steal a piece of the pie, or did he make the pie bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delekkerste Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 No matter how you dissect it, or what insults you throw or how much you devalue the source material, one thing stands true: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. I guess if you have a limited vocabulary, you could make that argument. "Manipulation" hardly covers what RL did to the source material. "Commercial art"? Heck, why don't we say that Roy appropriated from a graphic novel to give it more titillating impact. He turned trash into treasure, and that upsets people who like trash and feel they are marginalized by people who like treasure, which they feel is actually trash. That's really the crux of this whole thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
