How About "peter Lik Inspired" ?

I've been inspired to push the saturation slider to 11.

It is a interesting problem, since you can search for something like "Peter Lik Throw Pillows" and stuff comes up. Of course none of it has "Peter Lik" in the artist line.

That's the point, Edward. And why I would like an official answer by Abbie.

Dear FAA,

Are we allowed to say that anything we create was inspired by (enter any artist's name)?

Keyword policing would require inspectors on upload like they have on stock sites.

Nobody said anything about keyword policing, edward. Focus.

I am asking for guidance by FAA on what is the policy.

Is it allowable for an artist to mention, in keywords and/or descriptions, they were inspired by another artist?

I've seen it here in the caption. I don't understand why one would put it in the keywords except to get hits for people searching for Peter Lik or whomever. So in that way, I imagine FAA's policy would be the same for "inspired" as it would be for "style." But I'm in no better position than you to say for sure.

How about saying, my work is better than Peter Lik, Ansel Adams, and Mary Ellen Mark in your description as well. Why do some get so jealous when others find a smart way to get noticed on this site. Peter is a master of marketing, I would bet anyone here complaining that he did the same thing, or something comparable in his marketing.

Lets bash anyone who thinks outside the box.

Still looking for official FAA policy guidance.

For some reason, my sister and I were talking about all of the Irish rock bands and admittedly, I didn't know some of them were Irish. And I said only half-jokingly, "You know what they all have in common? They all hate U2!" And we just laughed. I don't really think too much about Peter Lik myself other than when he is mentioned here or on Peta Pixel.

I am thinking about keywording my images "in the style of Joe the Photog" though.

Joseph,

Agree. That is why in posts above I tried to ask the question about inclusion of any artist's name, not just Peter Lik's.


We need some official guidance from FAA on whether or not it is allowable to mention any other artist's name in any context whether keyword, bio, description, or blog.

Or whether it is not allowed in any circumstance.

Hopefully, we will get a blue post (official FAA policy).

Dan,

Just got this private email from Abbie,tell Dan: " You can use Rich Franco inspired", no really Dan!!!

Rich

Thanks for the offer, Rich.

However, an official FAA post in this thread would enable many people to know official FAA policy.

Even long after the thread is forgotten and closed, it would come up in a search and be useful.

So FAA, please let us know what official FAA policy is.

Like any of these so-called clever tricks to game the system, if they work at all, they definitely only work until everyone starts doing it. For now there are only 216 "Peter Lik" results in search. I only presume these are all folks who had the same idea as you Dan. When you have 300,000 artists on a site how many do you think there would be if this "idea" takes off? :)

There are 1900+ Renoirs and 6000+ Goghs in search so obviously FAA would have a job on its hands to eliminate this practice (I realize there are a lot of actual van Gogh repro prints etc. mixed in to this). And no doubt there are some legit artists who really put a serious and honest effort into developing a Renoir-like style with their own interpretation and it's not *just* a keyword gambit. However, when it comes to using a living artist's name for your own profit - you might be concerned about more than what FAA has to say about it.

Kevin, I disagree that this kind of a strategy is "thinking outside the box". It is one of the more obvious ideas out there.

Who's Peter Lik?

Dan, why do we need an official policy on something that is total unneeded? Once you ask permission you are most likely to be told no. No one is being ripped off by this. If a buyer comes to FAA and buys a Lik inspire print at a fraction of a Lik thinking they are getting a Lik they are too stupid for words. But I personally have a Rembrandt I'll sell them. Why make a problem where none exists?

Kevin, I disagree that this kind of a strategy is "thinking outside the box". It is one of the more obvious ideas out there.

You may be right about that Tatiana, but I don't make it a practice to look or care about what others do to market themselves here..

Kevin, the problem is not mainly (I hope!) that someone would be fooled into thinking they are buying a real Peter Lik. It is about fairness in search.

"Who's Peter Lik?"

:D

Everybody,

PLEASE read the thread. Much focus still remains on Peter Lik, and it was clearly stated the question about FAA policy applies to any artist's name.

----------------------------
Kevin,
Perhaps you missed the other thread. Abbie, who is an official FAA policy maker, replied in the thread "No, it is not good to use someone elses name in keywords and can lead to huge trouble Please someone message me the link"
Although not clearly defined, "huge trouble" and "message me the link" in the same post assumes it is the FAA artist that is in trouble - HUGE trouble. Hence the need for official FAA policy clarification.

------------------------------------

Tatiana,

Please re-read the thread (for understanding). Nowhere did I mention anything about marketing, profit or money. If I did, please point it out to me. If I did not, you made a wrong assumption.

I am asking for official FAA policy as relates to artistic inspiration. Are we allowed to use phrases such as exampled below in blogs, descriptions, bios, and keywords?

Peter Lik inspired
Ansel Adams inspired
Trey Ratcliff inspired
Renoir inspired
Jan van Eyck inspired
and on and on...

or transposed:

inspired by Peter Lik
inspired by Ansel Adams
and on and on...

-----------------------------------

I am still hoping on clarification from an official FAA rep.

I really don't give a frig about Lik or Lik inspired work or any of the arguments for and against. What I am saying is: be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

We need a rule! We need a rule! Nope not really.

Listen if FAA was going be "in trouble" for something like this, they would have been sued into nonexistence years ago over "celebrity" portraits.

I think if we were totally honest, we would accept as truth that no one is really searching for "in the style of Peter Lik" (or any other name.) They are looking for "Peter Lik" (or any other name" and the person who puts "in the style of..." (or "inspired by...") is really hoping to either fool someone or that someone will actually buy their work and then tell others that it's a Peter Lik (or some other name) photograph.

"We need a rule! We need a rule! Nope not really. "

Your opinion, Kevin. But not shared by everybody here.
When a moderator says a posting artist is in "huge trouble" that might assume their account can be cancelled.
Perhaps you do not care if your account is cancelled, but others here might.
Hence the need for clarification of terms of service.

Dan,
Just an aside as you wait for your answer.....
The accompanying text on one of my paintings is directly inspired by a song of Leonard Cohen. I print the text on the back of fine art cards and include it with the original paintings when sold.
I contacted LC's manager to ask permission to use his name in the text and was asked not to. By the time I got the response, i had already decided how to word it so that the name was not used.
Sometimes, permission to use something doesn't always means it is ultimately, a good idea. It's a given that artists get their inspiration from many things....If another artist's name is mentioned, I think it can speak volumes about the one who penned it....it leads me to believe that they don't feel their work is worthy enough to stand alone.
At best, someone looking for Peter's work, might follow the link to another artist and then leave, since he's looking for Peter.

Years ago there was a car tire ad that used beautiful babies inside their tires to emphasize the need for family safety, so buy these tires.

I have since dubbed all such advertising as: "Buy these tires, or your wife and family will die" type ads.

What we have here is a "Buy these tires" moment.

Would these so called rules then transfer to the discussions as well. We all know a bunch of members can't ad to a discussion without referencing other famous artists names

Sounds like hundreds of different photos submitted here daily Edward. The one that sold for 6.5 million was certainly not saturated with color. Neither was it a wide landscape.

Does someone's style have to be unique? That's what he is know for and presents in his galleries - huge, eye popping color photographs, typically in a wide horizontal format. Don't blame me if you can find other's offering the same thing.

What he is known for is one thing... what he really does is another. Peter Lik has all kinds of different things that he does. I'm just looking for definition. As I look at his work I see that he is all over the map... literally.

One of the reasons why an artist gets pigeon-holed is because folks fail to realize that they do much more than what gets all the attention. That's probably why he doesn't really care what people think about him personally.

I know Peter Lik's work for more than just the general description you gave Edward. And large, eye-popping has been around for quite awhile.

But if people are going to use his name as bait... they ought to back it up with some knowledge and reason.

If you can describe it better than go for it.

Here is what it says on Wikipedia under "style": Lik is best known for his panoramic photos, and the large size and overall quality of his prints. He prints most of his photos on FujiFlex silver-halide paper, which increases the light sensitivity and glow, and helps accentuate the vibrant colors in the print

^ I asked nearly the same question as Glen McCarthy......."WTF is Peter Lik Style?" I wanted a definition, no takers.

Moving on, before this thread gets too far off track and vague I want to go back to the issue of the keyword tool and use specific examples.


1) Type in 'Peter Lik" in the search bar top of page. The highest ranking photo you first see is a gorgeous sunset from Canyonlands N.P Utah by Craig Bill. I've been familiar with Craig's work for years. He is a peer, and like myself and several other FineArt nature/outdoor photographers he is an accomplished, commercially successful professional photographer. I admire his work, along with the likes of Adam Schalleu and Tom Till (other notable American southwest photographers) So this is not a rant on him to keep this in it's proper perspective. I want to point out that if you look just below the image title 'Stargate-Open Edition" what do you see? On my monitor AND my tablet I read "Peter Lik Featured images". The issue lies with the fact that it is NOT a Peter Lik featured image, it is a Craig Bill. So, a show of hands here, can we all agree it's clearly NOT Peter's featured image??

2) Next up: type in Ansel Adams. First up today is a wonderful B&W image of Yosemite N.P. by Scott McGuire. Again, another noteworthy photographer who employs the FAA print shop to frame and mat his work for him. Look under his image title, what do you read? Ha, I see "Ansel Adams featured" images. If you browse at Scott's keywords you see immediately the phrases "Ansel Adams photographs" "Ansel Adams canvas prints" the list goes on.

That folks, right there is the issue. There has to be validity and truth behind a product you sell. A casual buyer unfamiliar with the works of an Elliot Porter or Ansel may be confused and perhaps think the artist name (seller) could in fact be a gallery or a representative of.

Thanks Edward. Wiki, as we all know, is only as good as the input given by folks. But it does seem to sum up what people "percieve" to be what Peter Lik is all about. Never mind what reality might be.

Seems to me that it is an FAA problem if it says "Peter Lik Featured images" or "Ansel Adams canvas prints" when they are not. If somene posts that their photography is "Like Peter Lik" as a keyword, that is what should be written... "Like Peter Lik Featured Images" or "Like Peter Lik Canvas"

It's graffiti keywording. Write what and where you like.

Type in "photograph" and Edward Hopper's Nighthawks shows up as the 15th "photograph".

Well said, Thomas.

Right now Craig Bill leads the few people that have the keywords "Peter Lik." Yesterday it was someone else, not saying who. Today that person does not have those keywords, Peter Lik, anymore.

I wonder if Abbie took them off. Or if that member took them off himself. It doesn't seem fair that Craig and one other guy can continue using those keywords.

People make the choice to be disingenuous all the time. Many profit from it. Trying to stop it one keyword (or name) at a time is not going to stop it. And as I said earlier, trying to create a "rule" against it will create a landslide of unintended consequences. Type in "award winning" and you get Award Winning Featured Images. Type in "famous artist" and you get Famous Artist Featured Images. Neither of which is necessarily true of the images returned for those search terms.

If it pi$$e$ off Peter Lik, he has more than enough resources to make it stop. I will know I have arrived when people start using Loree Johnson as a keyword, lol.

The problem is when open this can of worms it just doesn't end. There will always be something you don't agree with or think is unfair. Grab the torches and sharpen those pitch forks!

Thanks Carol. I would bet it was more guilt, or fear of being exposed :))

I would like to see some motivated form to "fix" or repair misleading keywords with regards to using the name of other artist/photographers to describe their own original work. If one is selling artwork prints of a creator other than themselves, then said seller should PROVE they are an agent of/for that creator. That would apply to myself adding "Carol Lux" to my keywords.

I think this is a righteous path to take, being respectful of ALL other creators.

Other artist I've found of note, Tony Sweet comes to mind. Certainly he is a peer to many of us, his scenes used commercially and has books published as several of us do. However, personally he has NO membership at FAA...... yet........ someone is selling some of Tony's © artworks. Tony has his very own website(s), and sure, it's very possible Tony & Susan at one time has contracted an agent to sell his prints. If that is the case, the seller should CLEARLY duly notify in the "about/bio" field they are a representative FOR specified artist. Art buyers are due proper disclosure, plain and simple.

"Art buyers are due proper disclosure, plain and simple."

True, but FAA is moving farther away from "fine art" every day. Pillow and phone case buyers aren't big on provenance.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

IMHO The examples Thomas Schoeller cites are blatant keyword spamming. And they most definitely should not be allowed. This sort of scamming hurts us all by degrading the search results.

Danny!!!

Sure, phone cases and throw pillows, but DEWVAYS!!! Total ART!!! GEEEZZ! Don't you know art when you see it!!!??? You'll probably slam "calendars" next!!!

Rich, inspired by "all the people here that sell stuff!" Franco

Is Peter's name trademarked? Might be.

I was discussing marketing ideas with a friend whose son is a small time Nashville Country Music
star. His son's name was trademarked for verification purposes with Facebook and Twitter.

There are just too many Wolfs in the world. First name withheld here.

I can see Peter's people talking to our people about who can use his name. Or our lawyers
talking to our people about who can use his name.

They all must have said drop the name.

Dave

Curious. So if an artist shows at a local gallery and the work is referred to by the journalist as being "like" any particular famous artist, is that wrong too? Seriously? I'm out of here. This conversation is ridiculous. We can't and should NOT trademark everything in the world. Maybe I should trademark/patent some of my painting techniques? Why? As an artist fairly unknown in the grand scheme of things, if I become famous one day I won't give a rat's ass if someone is making money just starting out by piggybacking off my techniques, my processes or my name. Kudos to them. To the art collectors that can't tell the difference between a real Peter Lik and a forgery or a look alike, sucks being them. Buyer beware. I have purchased art before that was overpriced and kicked myself in the ass later, but guess who's fault it was for buying something that wasn't genuine or valued appropriately. Mine. See ya.

Been in Alabama all day snake, turtle and gator hunting.

My answer is I have no idea. Helpful eh?

Anyhoo, I am sure Abbie will be along at some point.

Kim,

No, if someone says that you're like,say "Rich Franco" then fine. If you market yourself as "like Rich Franco" that seems to me to be wrong, but I encourage to use that technique!

Putting misleading keywords in your images is the same as spamming the system. Trying to "capture" clients by assuming you're close to what they want, is a bit sleazy to me.

We have here in Florida an amazing photographer and someone that I spent some time with, Clyde Butcher, who is often referred to as the "Ansel Adams of the Everglades" and in this case, this works. Few people here have that right to "borrow" other well known photographers names and justly use that comparision.

But this IS the Internet!

Rich

Oh, so it's okay to name drop if you're famous enough, or your work is good enough? And who decides which photographers are good enough or famous enough to make it okay?

I'm with Kim, this thread is ridiculous. I'm betting most of us have considered the idea of gaming the system in the same or at least a similar way. And then our integrity wouldn't let us. And now we're just complaining about how people with less integrity sometimes make more money. Isn't that the American Way? Now excuse me while I go dislodge my tongue from my cheek. :)

I'd like to think that some of my photos inspired Lik! I certainly never followed his work.
Why market yourself as a derivative artist, seriously?
I'm inspired by my subjects, in general, though I'll give non-specific credit to some of the masters. But in my keywords and descriptions? Nope. My vision is my own. Lik has been to some of the same places that I have, and has photographed some of the same subjects that I did, in a similar manner. But seriously, I don't know who got there first. Ansel Adams was there before me, of course. But I'd like to think that my photos of Antelope canyon are my own, rather than somehow derived from the thousands who have been there before me. Likewise for Tunnel View in Yosemite. I took the trouble to go there, so see what I saw, and to implement my own vision. I'm content to let Lik be Lik, and let Adams be Adams, and let me be myself. Sure, there are commonalities, but to me, that's not the point. Far from it. My experiences are uniquely my own, I've enjoyed the process tremendously, and create images that others may enjoy, also. Frankly, I'd credit the Creator, rather than any prior photographer. Neither Lik nor I are the "original" artist, and our work is always, to some extent, derive from a prior reality.

My internet record label specifically asks for names of other musicians.or bands that your album/music might be like, so that people whose taste falls for, say The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, and/or Taylor Swift can easily find similar in the search, which makes it easy to discover and explore.

(whoo - long sentence)

So why when it comes to visual art is it such a bad thing? People make references and comparisons to other things all the time - a little like "Ron Howard's latest movie is sort of Spielberg directing a script by Tarantino, and features a very deft lead performance by Angelina Jolie in a role particularly written for Meryl Streep!"

(actually I think I'd like to see it)

"So why when it comes to visual art is it such a bad thing?"

It isn't. You make good points, Mark. The people who want to make it a bad thing are the stockers who live and die by the search engines. Heaven forbid they have to do any actual marketing ('cause they don't know -- and they don't want to know -- the first thing about it).


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I suppose one could always use the term, "Peter Lik(e)"....

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

There are about 16 FAA groups that use the phrase ""Twelve pieces a year, is a good Crop." ~Ansel Adams" if not Ansel Adams in the title. Then we have three pages of artists whose last name is Adams. Then we have adam's apple....

I would rather have intelligent buyers than morons. Only a moron would think they are buying another artists work.
This thread is stupid, as my favorite, Judge Judy would say.

I dont judge my buyer's IQ, lest the buyers judge mine.

Dave

There are a whole bunch of FAA artists in a contest about work inspired by or in the style of someone....Want to vote? There is still a few hours left. http://fineartamerica.com/contests/replicating-famous-artist-styles-with-digital-art.html?tab=artwork