WHAAM! BLAM! Roy Lichtenstein and the Art of Appropriation 0

[Rick2you2]

On 3/5/2023 at 12:58 AM, adamstrange said:

 

I'm pretty sure Marvel and DC properly registered their 60s comic publications as they have defended them in court in a variety of cases.

…

For art, there was a court case where an artist took a photograph and made only minor additions to it with paint and managed to get a ruling that they had not infringed.  If Liechtenstein's art were held to the same standard applied to music, I've no doubt it would be infringement.

1. Copyrights don’t have to be registered to have value. They could have defended their ownership based on common law copyright. Proof of damages is just harder. 

2. Fair use is a valid exception, one version of which is parody. I can’t imagine a snippet of a song qualifying as parody, but blowing up a panel of art, while modifying its flatness and absurd dialog, certainly is. And don’t forget to consider how the new art would be used. Lichtenstein was not duplicating it to sell in a comic book, so, it could not be claimed to have stolen sales from the original. Key factor.

3. Transforming an image, like a photograph of Marilyn Monroe, into something different also qualifies; the debatable issue is where to draw the line (no pun intended).

Don’t forget that pop art is like cotton candy in the fine art world. It’s designed to make you smile, and quickly. Most fine art is designed to be enjoyed, but also, studied. No one looks at the Mona Lisa, grins, and walks away. 

[The Voord]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:49 AM, vodou said:

Pre-Pop Roy from 1951-52, he can draw just fine.

Further he can paint, which a majority of historical if not current comic artists cannot.

He was good in The Twilight Zone episode, 'The Dummy'.

 

 

[adamstrange]

On 3/5/2023 at 6:43 AM, Rick2you2 said:

2. Fair use is a valid exception, one version of which is parody. I can’t imagine a snippet of a song qualifying as parody, but blowing up a panel of art, while modifying its flatness and absurd dialog, certainly is. And don’t forget to consider how the new art would be used. Lichtenstein was not duplicating it to sell in a comic book, so, it could not be claimed to have stolen sales from the original. Key factor.

In the art case I mentioned, the additional painted element was viewed as "transformative", i.e.,  a new artwork was created.  It was not let off due to a parody defense (to my non-legal understanding of the case).

From my research, even legal experts think that copyright is a very murky area.  Many interesting test cases never make it through the court system because they are expensive and the copyright holder is often a ginormous corporate entity willing to fight to the death to block all use.  The Superman vs. Capt Marvel case took a dozen years before DC was in a strong enough position for Fawcett to submit.  The law and case law have changed some since then so I think it unlikely a similar case would win in the current environment.

The Obama "Hope" poster case shows there is a lot of complexity to copyright law.  https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/02/the-obama-hope-poster-case-a-copyright-catch-22/.  In the music world, there have been many cases of dubious infringement; Robin Thicke and "Blurred Lines" is one of the more prominent.

 

[Rick2you2]

On 3/5/2023 at 3:07 PM, adamstrange said:

In the art case I mentioned, the additional painted element was viewed as "transformative", i.e.,  a new artwork was created.  It was not let off due to a parody defense (to my non-legal understanding of the case).

From my research, even legal experts think that copyright is a very murky area.  Many interesting test cases never make it through the court system because they are expensive and the copyright holder is often a ginormous corporate entity willing to fight to the death to block all use.  The Superman vs. Capt Marvel case took a dozen years before DC was in a strong enough position for Fawcett to submit.  The law and case law have changed some since then so I think it unlikely a similar case would win in the current environment.

The Obama "Hope" poster case shows there is a lot of complexity to copyright law.  https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/02/the-obama-hope-poster-case-a-copyright-catch-22/.  In the music world, there have been many cases of dubious infringement; Robin Thicke and "Blurred Lines" is one of the more prominent.

 

The Copyright office recently rejected a copyright claim where the art was purely generated by AI, even while allowing it for the same work where portions were created by humans. This is going to get really ugly in the coming years: where to draw the line?