Art, Ethics And The Public Domain

Interesting questions, Mark.

Why would any artist with self-respect, sign another artist's work, be they dead or alive? Definitely not straight up, imo.

You sometimes refer to artwork here that has reference to another's work, but which has been modified in a very professional way, I noticed.

To answer this particular question, firstly one must wonder why anybody modifies another's artwork, rather than make an original artwork. But, if an artist does a 'derivative', (many have done so), I'd say it is imperative the artist cite the original artwork from which they derive theirs.....and sign it, as taught........"After ...Artist/name"............that would be straight up. Agreed?

Sign someone else's work?
That's not okay.
Modifying another's work SO you feel better about signing it, is also not okay.

Create your own work, then sign your life away.

PS-I'm a photographer, so in some cases, I have photographed another's work (Chihuly Glass is a good example) and signed the photograph, but always give credit where credit is due.

As I was taught as well Vivian. More like yelled at.......................

the only thing with chihuly is, he's not the one that made it either.

i think the answer really lies in what you did to it to make it really yours. how different is it? how much of the original is left? what made it yours?

if you did extensive things to make it yours, then you have the right to sign it- but not really call it a 100% yours. since a chunk of it wasn't ever yours.


but this can extend into other things - like if you take a recipe and make it, you can sign the cake because you made it, even though it's not your recipe. doubt that would work in a contest though. if you modify it, then maybe yes you can. but you didn't invent it. but sometimes it doesn't matter.


---Mike Savad

Half the time I don't sign my own work till someone else signs a check...............................................RJ

Great questions!

.

Although it's ridiculous to sign your own name to someone else's work, it's proper to sign a derivative work, since the artist actually owns the copyright of their derivative. There's no clear line that anyone will probably agree on as to how much "new work" is required to become a "derivative." The link above explains the big picture, including this paragraph:

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes."

Try this question: Your neighbor spends a ton of money remodeling and painting the exterior of their house. They spend a lot more with beautiful landscaping, including some imported exotic flowers and shrubs. You, as a photographer or artist, photograph or paint the house and landscape. Is that a "derivative work?" Are you exploiting his labor and expenses?

Allen, I don't think I understand what you are talking about. My questions are about ethics anyway.

I think I understood what you mean by ethics. I just explained it in terms of derivative works, signatures, etc.

Allen, no ........ but if some else takes the photo you took of your neighbors and then does another new version of yours that would be "derivative work"..................... once you pushed the button you can claim possession.......................

I don't understand why artists, of all people, would want to create artificial limitations to their artistic creativity and explorations when it is well within the legal rights of the artist to use the public domain to further their artistic creativity. Many would rightly argue that you must protect your copyrights for some obvious good reasons, but copyrights are intended to protect the rights of the artist only for a reasonable period of time unless he/she so feels that there would be value beyond that reasonable copyright period in which case he/she or his/her heir have the right and responsibility to renew the copyrights. But after that reasonable period of time and if the copyright is not renewed, that artwork in question is more than likely dead and forgotten to the world and have little to no artistic value, unless the creative minds of artists are so inclined to further the artistic value of that all but defunct piece of work by using it creatively through the public domain. There are other nonsensical reasons to NOT use the public domain too, and most are created to protect the corporate world and their monopolistic desires, not the artist, that's been brainwashed into society.

Very few artists realize that they must also work even harder to protect their artistic and creative freedom as an artist working well within their legal rights to use the public domain as a artistic palette to enhance the artistic community and remove those artificial creativity boundaries, otherwise the corporate world will be more than glad to take your creative freedom away for corporate greed under the guise of helping the artist. And when you are brainwashed by all the signals driven by corporate greed around you, you will inevitable only help to perpetuate the creative and artistic dearth around you.


-W

I have done a few pieces that are my take on masterpieces but with a twist,, they star my dog Gunther. I have always respectfully given credit for the original piece to it's creator. Having said all that,,, I spoke to an officer (also an artist) the other day who specializes in copyright law with the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and was informed that I am bordering on criminal activity when I recreate their creations for any sort of sale. The only saving grace for me is that the original artists are all well in the grave. When you take another person's creation,, be it a photograph,,, their own personal image or even just their 'idea' and rework or copy it for your own self to sell then that falls under a criminal offence and answerable in a court of law. Makes no difference what changes you make,,,, what you leave out,,,, what you add etc,,, etc. After having a lengthy discussion with this specialist I have decided that I will only take my own personal ideas from now on,,, especially when it comes down to my Gunther series,,, my sense of integrity means everything to me. It is not whether someone can get away with something or not because the most important person who will know is yourself. You can argue all you want but the fact is what the fact is,,,, and THAT is a fact. :>)

since when has the law and ethics been equivalent in connotation???????????????????????......................................................RJ

Also,,,, matters not a whit if you officially copyright your images or not,,,, if you pushed the button,,,, if you slapped on the paint,,,, if you came up with the concept it is yours. Not for a while,,,,not for a few years,,,, not for at least 50 or so years after you are dead and your heirs are no longer concerned to push the letter of the law.

Dale Chihuly Glass is like Walt Disney Enterprises: regardless of which artist actually worked on any given piece the credit for Disney Works goes back to Disney. So it is with Chihuly Glass. Giving credit where credit due works wonders. As far as actually signing another artist's work? Nope. One can say, "In the Manner Of", and be all right. Students working in galleries quietly copying what they see is an excellent way to learn. If you cannot actually find a gallery that allows this type of copy-teaching (some do not allow cameras either) working from well photographed books is another way to learn. Always give credit to the original artist and if you are working from fine photography that is accredited, give them credit, as well.

Well said Diane.......... RJ We are making the law right now. There is a more important court than the one full of lawyers. That court being history.

Yes,,,, you can say 'In the Manner Of' and keep it for your own viewing pleasure,,,, just don't profit from it. They are studies and not meant for sale or distribution.

As far as Chihuly Glass or Disney Enterprises,,,, when under contract whatever you touch it is as if your hands are their's,,,,,,, push a button,,,, it is them pushing the button. They own it,,,, not the artist involved who actually did the work.
He also informed me that if you take something off Facebook to paint or recreate from thinking that it is ok since it is in the public domain,,,, nah,,,, criminal.
Thanks Mark! :>)

Sometimes that contract can be very ugly--like anything created by an artist in their own studio becomes property of the giant...sometimes for years afterwards! Ouch!

Yes,,, that is one road I don't ever think I would want to go down for sure,,,,, I think,,,,, haha,,,,, make me an offer then I'll see. ;>)

it also depends how you define ethical. whether your caught in the act of not making something original. or risk your reputation for using someone else's idea. but then again one can then wonder how far that goes. because almost every idea has been done already at least once.

ok

download a picture of space from nasa and sign it as if you did something more than uploading it - that's wrong in my eyes.

download a picture of something public domain, and legally ok to use - if you didn't do anything, that's wrong. if you did something major, you can sign it, but still can't call it totally yours.

if the theme is something and you made your own image based off of it, like you drew ET or something, then that would be ok because it was yours.

it all becomes kind of confusing.

---Mike Savad

You know Mike, none of my teachers were confused and I don't think I am either.

Is is OK to sign someone else's work if they are dead? - In my opinion, no.

Do I modify someone else's work before before I sign it? - Why would you want to?

Why should I care about somebody that's been dead for 150 years? - I have no idea, why would you?

Who speaks for them anyway? - I have no idea.

Mike there is absolutely NOTHING confusing about the internationally recognized law of copyright and ownership.
If you play in mud,,, you may or may not get dirty,,, but YOU will know you were playing there.

For me,,, I have learned there is no grey area,,,, just black and white,,, it is so simple. On that note,,, I'm off to paint an ORIGINAL piece that I MYSELF came up with,,, that I might (hahahaha,, or might not) be proud to share in a while. Good night everyone. :>)

we're talking about public domain - not copyrighted work.


---Mike Savad

What's the difference Mike? We are talking about ethics here..........................

You don't have to copyright anything! If you made it and can prove it it is yours,,,, no need to do anything further. The courts do not care if you have 'copyrighted' your work,, doesn't matter. The work stands alone,,, on it's own.

An old expression says that character is about what you do when nobody is watching.

If I didn't make it, I don't put my name on it. It really is that simple. If you start with material that was in the public domain and you really do something creative with it, there's nothing wrong with that. The artist knows deep down whether he or she really deserves to sign the work.

there's a big difference. one is breaking a copyright which is illegal. and the other is free to use for your own pleasure. technically neither is artistically ethical.

however how a copyright works when you took another image that someone else took, and then let you use. or if their copyright expired and then you take it?

this is why i stick with my own work.

---Mike Savad

Yes, we all know the difference between copyrighted work and public domain. The first line of the thread says: "Some questions for you from an ethical point of view."

That's what's being discussed.

yes i know, but copyrights are being creeped into the discussion.

---Mike Savad

So what are you saying Mike, It's OK to "fix" public domain stuff and sign it? Do you think that is ethical for an artist to do?

first define what ethics are.

the word is tossed in loosely for all sorts of things.

can i call myself an artist doing that? no. however if i think it's ethical to do so because it has no solid meaning, sure, why not. would i do it? no.

but a real definition needs to be defined first.

---Mike Savad

How about the people stealing copyrighted photos, applying a few Photoshop filters or auto-painting them with some software, signing them, and then selling them on here? I saw two today (reported to Beth/Sean). I am so sick of this. It makes FAA look really bad and it takes away from the many fine artists on here who actually paint, draw, or photograph celebrities and have the rights to use and own the copyrights.

People think just because a photo is owned by Reuters or Associated Press that it's fair game to steal....it's not! Read up on the law people. I may be a one-woman copyright infringement reporting bureau on here, but I don't care. If I see something so blatant like the two I saw today, I am going to report them. And guess what? A photo doesn't automatically become an oil painting just because you put an auto-paint process on it. People sit back and take all the accolades for their 'incredible paintings', but notice they never say how they accomplished such photo-realistic results. And people must think we're stupid...who paints a portrait of someone and cuts the top of their head off? lol SOOOOO obvious.

So very tired of seeing this every day on here.

Mike try Websters and do some homework from there...........

I wouldnt sign someone elses work alive or dead out of respect
I do care about people who died 150+ years ago... the past influences the future in my humble opinion
I wouldnt rework someone elses work... for the simple fact I would feel it wasnt mine

hearing a definition from a book is irrelevant. the problem with the word is that it's used for everything.

look at religion - they use ethics freely. anything from killing because a book says it's ok and ethical. and there are many ways it can be described. the simplest form is good or bad depending on how you decide how to define the word.

ethics in art would have to first be defined before answering. and to be perfectly honest i don't care. because i have better things to do than to look up a meaningless word.

1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

here

if you look at each line, all of them are based on how you define that word to me. moral principles? you decide it. rules of conduct - you decide it, etc. the word is actually very loose. it would be better to ask:

can you call yourself an artist if you use public domain things? as that would be far more accurate then mixing ethics in to it. since the answer will yield all sorts of answers depending on who you ask.

---Mike Savad

"ethics in art would have to first be defined before answering. and to be perfectly honest i don't care. because i have better things to do than to look up a meaningless word."

Like, say, spending hours confusing people with unnecessary complexity and arguing about the meanings of words everyone already understands.

are you certain people really know what that word means? i bet each person has their own meanings for it depending on how they use it.

like if one persons ethical boundaries are - if i change the colors, then it's mine. so it's ok.

another might say, well, if i found it online on a wall paper site, it's free. and when i run a painter over it, i did something making it look more unique, there for, ethically speaking, it's ok.

another might say, well i got it free from some guy, i used as the central theme of whatever it was i was doing, but i added the rest, so i feel fine signing my name and claiming ownership.

other's might say that if the image was given away and i was allowed to sign it as my own, then that would be ok, as defined by their own version of that word.

are you confused? i guess you should be. it is a complex statement to ask, because the word has no real meaning - you give it meaning in another words. it's like ethically killing a deer. was it for food? or was it for furry car seats? - which part is ethical? the meaning changes. it's not a simple conversation as you think. you have to think outside the box, because there is more than one viewpoint then the definition of something.


---Mike Savad

hm............... well............. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS" anon

Isn't that your philosophy, Mark?

So is it "ethical" to use paint someone else made as a medium to express the art you create? Public Domain is the paint, you are still the artist. No one claims to have created the paint.


-W

You think that one will really fly there Wing?

"are you certain people really know what that word means? i bet each person has their own meanings for it depending on how they use it."

People will of course have different ideas on ethics. That's not the same as getting into the weeds on what the word "ethics" means, much less getting into silly nihilism like claiming the word is "meaningless".

If that's what you think, and you apparently view the entire concept of ethics as unknowable, why are you here gumming up this thread for those who are interested in the subject?

These discussions go 'round and 'round because no one is discussing specifics, only vague concepts.

Meaningful discussion can be had by showing a public domain picture, one (or even several) modifications of that picture, or instances where the picture was used as inspiration, and THEN soliciting opinions. If that were done, there would be a lot less disagreement.

do you have high standards ?................. is that any clearer ? as just a guy who makes easel pictures with the hair of a pigs ass tied to a stick dipped in oiled pigment smeared on cloth,,,, the question is no less complex or simple at the same time....................RJ

from another thread........... "I've been on a public domain addiction lately and I find it artistically stimulating, it's opened up another avenue for my artistic outlet. There is a wealth of stuff in the public domain that can be used creatively and "resurrected for the furtherment of the art world."

Wonder what this really means?

My reality may not "fly" here, Mark, because your opening post has already put the legal use of public domain images in a hole by associating it with questionable ethical issues when in fact it is simply the legal and ethical right of any artist to use public domain images to further their creativity and not be deminished by artificial restrictions based on either personal dislikes or corporate brainwashing.

Like I said before, you need to protect your copyrights. But in fact, you need to work doubly hard to protect your artistic freedom within the legal bounds of the law which the last I checked allows the use of public domain images. It would be unethical to put those who use public domain images legally in a disrespected position.


-W

"RJ We are making the law right now. There is a more important court than the one full of lawyers. That court being history."

Mark, could you expand on this? if we're talking history the people who are making history as we speak are more like designers who's shtik is to never touch the work with their own physical hands..

That sounds like it's coming from a commercial artist lawyer. What about the ethics of using the work of another artist and taking it for your own? Be that artist living or dead.

Wings< in a previous post some time back I remember you diminishing another " artists" work because you said they where obviously done from "stock photo's" ...I believe that was the term you used??????????????

Robert, I never said anything like that. Can you please edit your post otherwise I would be in contradiction with that bad misinformation when I am not. If you think I said it, please refer me to the post.


-W

it was a critique of Big Bill S........... am I wrong?

RJ Need to think about that for awhile. As far as "designers" go, sooner or later they will all just disappear. I hope..................

I'm trying to sort out the big picture too Mark...........

There was alot of things said on Bill's thread, Robert, if it was said there, it was likely taken out of context, and if I recall correctly, most of the stuff said was in response to his insistence of his superiority, not any specific components of his work. The world is still alive and well, by the way, contrary to his predictions.


-W

I'm not saying he didn't deserve it wings..as a matter of fact I was proud of you for saying it

"As far as "designers" go, sooner or later they will all just disappear."

Do tell. The demand for good design is higher than it's ever been. What prompted the "designer" comment?

I said this Dan..
if we're talking history the people who are making history as we speak are more like designers who's shtik is to never touch the work with their own physical hands..

Reference to Dale C. in Seattle Dan. and people like him,

I just don't recall it, Robert. In any case, the disrespect was not towards any component of his work, it was towards his insistence on forcing his will of self-proclaimed superiority on everyone else which deserves disrespect. Here, we are talking about a specific component in public domain images which is both legal and ethical to use. If you don't continue to protect your copyrights through the law by renewing it or having your heirs renew it, you're showing the world you yourself don't care about your own work. Copyrights are not really "rights", they are responsibilities as is obtaining a drivers license. And so is creative freedom within the bounds of the law, it's also a responsibility.


-W

Are you really serious Wing? Did you by any chance read the header on this thread?

As a painter I have less rights than any of you........ you should see what they do to you in a divorce and inheritance

second that Robert.....................

Yea, I'm serious, Mark, are you? Like I said, your opening post and even your header ("Art, ethics and the public domain") has already associated public domain with question in ethics. According to you, there is no discussion here, just a confirmation of your own bias towards those who use public domain images. Those who disagrees are more than likely to be smuthered and the wolf pack are howling, not talking about any specific people here, just stating the psychology of these topics.


-W

"if we're talking history the people who are making history as we speak are more like designers who's shtik is to never touch the work with their own physical hands.."

Okay, got it. I personally admire those kind of management skills. In some forms of art, it's the only way to go. Most people, especially artists, can't do it even if they tried. It isn't in them. So that sort of thing won't be taking over any time soon.

I take it you disagree then Wing................. Why do you think apropriating public domain work is ethical for an artist?

Dan that sort of thing has been taking over since Warhol

"apropriating"

That's the kind of language Wings is objecting to, Mark. Me too.

"Dan that sort of thing has been taking over since Warhol "

RJ, more people are attempting it, but it's still a miniscule part of the art market.

perhaps the language is insulting but the question is valid... to me anyway..

Do some of you NOT read?? I mean seriously,,,,, this goes round and round and round again. All has been said,,,,,,, IF you steal,,, rework,,, ride on the back of another artist and their work,,, the criminal courts can and will make the final decision about who has rights to what. It is obvious to those paying attention who here may have been messing with other people's images and work by their struggle to make it all seem okay to do so. In the eyes of the law it is NEVER okay.
Yeah know,,, it is only 'public domain' until the artist/photographer says "Hey,,, someone has stolen my image!! Get permission if you wish to borrow their image since you can NEVER own it.

Is there some other, more PC way to say it Dan?

Appropriating: Take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.

That's not discussing Public Domain. That's personal bias and commentary meant to associate artists with criminal activity.

You should look into who the real players are Dan...I'm off to bed...RJ

I don't think you understand what a majority of people use public domain images for, Mark. Unlike your simplistic viewpoint, very few take a public domain image and just sign their name on it - about the same number of people who would take your non-public domain image and do the same. Public domain images are no more than another legal medium among numerous other legal medium at the artists' disposal, how he or she uses that legal medium should only be limited by his or her own creativity, not by someone else's artificially self-indulged motivated boundary.



-W

As a photographer, this issue doesn't really affect me at all, at least directly. I don't reuse anyone else's imagery at all.

But I suppose, indirectly, most photographers start *entirely* with the "public domain".. they are usually taking pictures of things out in the open that are either public or can be seen by anyone in the public. This is especially the case with iconic subjects.. Yosemite Valley or the Empire State Building, for example.

Anyone can just walk up to a site that has been photographed a million times before and just take a pedestrian snapshot of it and put their name on it -- but is it really art? Yes, though it's hardly a creative expression. This is sort of like taking a public domain image, running it through a filter and putting your name on it.

But good photographers can also go up to a landmark that's been shot countless times and create an image that is unique.

Also, the amount of change made to the original work is not always the determinant of whether or not the result can be considered original. There's a famous parody of the Mona Lisa that involves nothing more than a couple of scribbles and a few letters having been added.

I make no excuses for my "simplistic viewpoint" on this issue. I am aware of many commercial artists who use the public domain or anything else they can lay their hands on to do the job. Just the way it is. This thread, however, is about ethics in Art.

Having read all of the above, I am still not clear about some things. I have recently started (not posted yet) a new series of paintings based on famous but not recent , childrens' books. One of the images in my first painting has a component that was used in a movie based on these books... it is a real object, not a drawing or painting. The rest of my painting is totally out of my head. Would copyright come into play here?

Another thing... I am saying in the description that these paintings were based on these books..

"Would copyright come into play here?"

You'd have to post the image to get any sort of educated opinion, Catherine. I'm guessing "no" from your description, but that's only a guess.

I was asked to bring this over here...so I am...(copied from the other thread)

I think my point about American Gothic, while not an example of my work, is valid to this thread.

American Gothic is NOT in the public Domain so technically, the piece is not a public domain work.


http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html

"The copyright in a work of art created in 1930 had to be renewed in 1958 (see more info about copyright renewal here). There is no indication that Wood or the Art Institute of Chicago (to whom he sold the painting) renewed the copyright. But Nan Wood Graham, the artist’s sister and the model for the woman in the painting, registered a reproduction of American Gothic in 1952 and renewed the copyright in 1980.

Whether you believe Nan’s registration and renewal saved the copyright in this iconic image or not, the Visual Artists and Galleries Association (VAGA) oversees commercial uses of Grant Wood’s work, and you had better believe you’ll be dealing with VAGA if VAGA believes you need copyright clearance."



Just saying...not trying to cause a big debate but shouldn't a work truly be in the public domain to qualify for "Public Domain Works"?

Thanks Dan... I will post the first one in this discussion when it is finished and get some opinions... hopefully yours also... I have only recently returned to painting, after an absence of 30+ years... and have questions!

Thanks, John. Again, parodies of American Gothic are still parodies which fall under fair use laws.

-W

What is your post about John?

It is a parody...but it is for sale.

Understand Wings,

This has nothing to do with the quality of your work, I am just looking at it from the copyright perspective.

just fyi................"appropriate".....

There is a very big difference between putting an oil paint simulation or other digital program onto a photograph or image of a painting which isn't your own and messing with your own images, IMO.

Furthermore, I don't see how anyone but the original artist could be comfortable doing a derivative, (A derivative work is a new version of an already existing work) and don't think doing a derivative of another artists work is ethical. Being inspired by another's work, and creating something of your own from that exposure, which is in the same vain somehow, is a valid part of creating, but that is not a derivative work. There is a difference. If you have to explain (to yourself or others) why what you have done is yours, then it probably isn't. Legal or not, public domain or not. In my opinion.

What is the intention?

Is it authentic, (genuine - true - real - veritable - original) ?

"I don't see how anyone but the original artist could be comfortable doing a derivative"

Thousands upon thousands of artists are doing derivative work every day. It is legal, ethical, time-honored, traditional and very much a standard practice. From any of the millions of images posted to this site, please point to even ONE where there's just NEVER been anything like it.

Diane, you said "Do some of you NOT read?? I mean seriously,,,,, this goes round and round and round again. All has been said,,,,,,, IF you steal,,, rework,,, ride on the back of another artist and their work,,, the criminal courts can and will make the final decision about who has rights to what. It is obvious to those paying attention who here may have been messing with other people's images and work by their struggle to make it all seem okay to do so. In the eyes of the law it is NEVER okay.
Yeah know,,, it is only 'public domain' until the artist/photographer says "Hey,,, someone has stolen my image!! Get permission if you wish to borrow their image since you can NEVER own it."

I don't think your statement is about "true" Public Domain images. Stolen images and Public Domain are very, very different. Let's take some of the major galleries on FAA - they are selling mere photographs of old works - clearly they paid for the rights to do this - I did the same thing - paid for the rights - that is not theft and is not against the law, in fact the estate of the family gains from this. Having said that - the hundred of images I could legally put up against the big galleries here I don't - why? Because there is NO dedication to them in doing that. That is my own ethic. I understand what you are saying, what everyone is saying, but I feel true Public Domain is being confused with theft as is "rights to use paid for" being confused.

Where then, I ask anyone, do I stand as someone who freely releases images into the Public Domain for artists to use? Do I spit the dummy after seeing their creations? No way. It makes me feel happy that I made someone else happy.

In a sense, there are two kinds of derivative art, IMO. Someone like Andy Warhol, for instance, created art that was mostly "derivative" art. He took recognizable photos of famous people and blatantly redid them in his own unique pop-art style . And then there are more typical artists who create their own mental images but produce their art by trying to copy the style of other artists. That's a sort of derivative art, in the sense of deriving a style modeled on other artists. Both types of art are common. I see Warhol-style art, for example, with all sorts of celebrities, including our president, sold as original art. Yet the style was derived from Warhol. I realize I'm only stretching the concept of "derivative art," beyond the legal definition, but as a general rule I'd guess that most "original" art is still derived from other art.

@Dan, what a challenge !!! Heres one, non-derivitive.......totally unique......

Speaking of derivative work, even if you feel you've changed the work a significant amount...or any amount...you STILL need permission from the copyright holder in order to display or sell the work. That's the part people neglect to read, understand and carry out. Works in the public domain are a completely different story. You can rework them to death and put your name on them, because you don't have to report back to any copyright holder....there isn't one. Either the copyright has run out, or the family or estate of the deceased artist has failed to renew the copyright.

Dan, you wrote: "These discussions go 'round and 'round because no one is discussing specifics, only vague concepts"...well, as you know, on here we can't show specific examples because of the Name and Shame rule.

One point, the family or heirs of a deceased artist do not have to "renew" copyright, it is theirs by right.

You may use this example as it is my only work done with someone else's image and I am naming and shaming myself which is allowed, obviously

This is a NASA photo (public domain) heavily manipulated in a digital editing programme so,

It is a public domain image AND a derivative

Have at it......

Some on this thread argue that there is nothing new under the sun. All work is dirivitive. All thought has been thought before. Really? Not in my world. New thinking is the artist job description. New ways to look at the world. (Unless the world is still flat). Is this why some argue for "fixing" public domain work? Can;t seem to come up with original thought? It's OK to lift the work the dead?

Philip and Mike........ Does that make it ethical? By the way, "Appropriation" artists wind up in court al;l the time.

I find ethics an interesting topic Philip. And, multitasking is OK.

Art history is full of copies and derivatives. Some derivatives are better than the originals.

Public Domain images are different in that they, nowadays, are legal and, the others, are no longer

As for ethics. That differs from counrty to country and, within those countries, on upbringing to upbringing

Mark, suffice to say that I do not condone such practices, I merely provided what appears to be a good example of all three of the points raised.

Beth, you're not naming and shaming....well, you're naming, yes...but there's no shame. If it's a public domain image, you can do what you want to the image, sign your name, and sell it. It's lovely, btw. :)

i know that Mike. good example to, Are you saying that anything is fair Beth? No way to include ethics in Art?

Dan, I am aware that, "thousands and thousands of artists are doing derivative work everyday". As Joy has pointed out the work used must be in the public domain or have the permission of the copyright holder, and we all know that that is always the case here on FAA. But Mark asked if using others work was ethical, and my thought is no. It is not. And there is a difference between being inspired by someones work and then responding to that experience and retracing or re colouring someone else's original thought, and expertise. Aside from the fact that it seems so needless.

That is one hell of an example Mike.

Rose I hate to contradict you but it is NOT the case here on FAA that all members abide by those criteria, but the Name and Shame rule forbids their being named.

Thank you too Rose that example could have been made for the question or vice-versa.

removed by Joy

Where would art be without shame?

Right, Robert...we'd have nothing to talk about then!

Fear can keep you safe and shame can keep you honest................RJ

Shame can keep you in fear..................

The days of art galleries and their hand-selected art is disappearing. The owners of those galleries put their reputation on the line in what they sold and how it was described in both the gallery description, details about the artist, and in how the salesperson promoted and described the significance of the piece. A lot of that is still seen when we go to art fairs where the artist is present and answers browser's questions on the spot.

But with the internet, such galleries and showings are becoming less important, with convenience to buyers being more important, and accuracy and honesty only an option. Where a gallery's reputation was previously at stake, and many even promised to buy back original art in the future from their loyal customers, browse-and-click buying is making a lot of that quaint.

Here's a test of honesty for even ethical artists: Imagine you visit a friend or relative's house this holiday. You notice some beautifully-framed art on the wall that looks like a print of something you recognize. So you ask the friend about it and they say it was a print of an original oil painting by a new artist they bought online cheaply. You look at it closer and can see clearly it was a photoshopped derivative, mostly done by basic filtering effects, not even brushwork. In other words, a sham. Would you tell them the truth? Would it be ethical not to, to your friend?

It is one of my hobbies Allen.

edit: You are right Allen that online sales is very different from mortar and brick galleries. But I assure you that the real art world is alive and well. The internet is not ever going to change that. As internet sales can be a tool, it can also cheapen and water down. Like a loaded gun, it must be handled carefully.

Hard to keep your mouth shut on that one Allen. If you tell him, you will save him from further pain.

I'd tell him and try to sell him a real original------one of mine!

"thousands and thousands of artists are doing derivative work everyday"

..and thousands and thousands of people make meth everyday. What's your point?

Making meth is illegal, the use of it is deadly. Derivative artwork isn't, and as far as I know hasn't killed anyone.

I've seen fistfights over this Jeff

john makes a great point

I wonder how Modigliani felt about Picasso ..................

I have deleted the post where a members work is brought into disrepute.
Rule #8 http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=260080

Ethical questions. Ethical questioning is an individuals way of deciding upon what is acceptable and not. Closely related to personal integrity. Ethics are personally decided upon, and often show some consensus, which in essence has nothing to do with its rightness or wrongness, but is exactly why this sort of questioning as in this discussion is valid and important.

edit: I can certainly understand removing the image used as an example of someone colouring digitally some dead artists work and signing their name to it. But is is astounding to me that the posts should be removed by admin. What are we talking about here? Removing the image would completely put that person out of harms way. What was the reasoning in deleting posts? Should we not be having a discussion asking ethical questions on this site?

edit: Please accept my apology Beth, as on second look removing the image was all that was done.

Some work IS illegal Jeff. If it violates a copyright.

But you are right in that it doesn't kill anyone.

Point is just because a bunch of people do it, it doesn't automatically make it "right".

So the number of people doing it has nothing to do with ethics.

I can forgive almost anything but bad taste.............................RJ

Modigliani and Picasso were brothers in art, for a time anyway. They shared some influences, and painted each others portraits. I am sure they closely watched each other and responded in their own art to the others art, as they would any influence.

edit: John I think the number of people can definitely affect the outcome of an ethical question, but that still doesn't make it something any given person can live with in their heart and soul of course. Consensus is a powerful thing, which is why it is important to speak out with your personal conviction, have some say and or say against.

@ Mark up at the beginning, "To clarify............. I am not talking about stuff from stock houses or NASA. This thread is about "fixing", with no credit of any kind, the work of artists living or dead and taking it for your own.)"

I suppose people rationalize it somehow. I don't understand how it is so prevalent online. Because they can get away with it? Nobody is looking? nobody cares? They have no self respect? In the case of a dead artist, it is sort of like rolling(robbing) a corpse, it is not like they are going to need it anymore? It is identity theft. In the case of the living artist it is identity theft, but there must be some need to see if they can get away with it. A thrill seeker and a coward all at once? Just plain ignorance? No fear, no shame?

Liza

Very few people possess true artistic ability.  It is therefore both unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.  If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat something sweet and the feeling will pass.  ~Fran Lebowitz

Vincent heard a lot of voices Philip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"John I think the number of people can definitely affect the outcome of an ethical question, but that still doesn't make it something any given person can live with in their heart and soul of course"

Good point Rose. I guess that is why meth is illegal and booze is legal!

@Mark, love it.

I hope you take your posted quotes seriously Philip. A lot of artists do...........

Good points, Philip.

-W

I would never change or add to another artists painting,I guess,I feel for the artist,it is his work as he saw fit

I think the Fran Lebowitz quote is very tongue in cheek as well as appropriate to this conversation. If a "wanna be"artist, feels free to sign his name to someone elses work, and claim it as their own, then he she is not committed to any perceived personal talent, and should do something else less destructive, to amuse himself with.
A poser is easily distracted. The opposite of dedicated.

Anne was also just a photographer and I don't believe she ever called her photographs "art." Others might have, but not her. Yet by most standards of portrait photography, her rock and roll portraits were indeed "art." Living in the NY wannabe artist mecca, I'm sure she was only half kidding.

Vincents quotes and paintings mean alot to me...

Allen, I am curious about the mindset. Do you feel it is ethical to sign ones name to digitally painted photos of famous celebrity by famous photographers, while giving no credit to authors of the photos?

Fran Liebowitz is a writer............ worked for Warhol for awhile at Interview

I think Allen is mixing up Anne Lebowitz with Fran Lebowitz. One a writer, one a photographer.

edit: A. Leibovitz and F. Lebowitz

edit; @ Allen, 7:55, just a photographer?

This should fit in this thread someplace

Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
Oscar Wilde

Right, I mixed up the two names. I feel than any derivative work, even if the new art is a major alteration and artistic, should always attribute the source of the photo if the photographer was well known. If the photograph is still under copyright, then to be legal permission is needed anyway. And if it's out of copyright, it would be wiser to give the photographer's name to simply avoid embarrassment, in case someone says, "hey, isn't that a photo by such and such?" For my own photo revisions, I've only used photos that are either out of copyright or were never copyrighted, and where the photographer was simply an unknown employee of the studio as opposed to one of the few well-known photographers, like Clarence Bull and George Hurrell. Here's a good article about the copyrights for old film stills.

ya
edit: Sounds like no respect.
edit: no one has copyright to the Barbara Streisand one? Must have been a studio employee shot?

edit: "were never copyrighted"??? who ever took the pic, or the studio in some cases owns the copyright. It always comes with an original owner of the copyright. Then, yes it goes into the public domain. Does that mean that one has no responsibility to credit the original author, before they put their name on it? Isn't to do otherwise, to claim authorship which is not yours?

ya@Rose, too right.
What I want to say is: maybe derivitives are Art, maybe not. Why not start from scratch and make original responses to others' art rather than re-work another's......or does that take too much talent or imagination??????? Ooops..........oh well! I've said it !! Might get a 'break' for this......truth hurts, eh what ??

Hi Viv. Derivatives are definitely art. It is just that the right to make them should be left to the original author, imo. Who else ? It is legal with prior consent of the original artist, if they choose to give it. Otherwise, public domain whatever, it is just bottom feeder sludge.

edit: And as I said before how can anyone else but the original author be comfortable doing a derivative? To me only the author has the right. I know what is legal. I just don't like the concept at all. Have no respect for it.

I don't need to copy other peoples work for what ever reason. For me my mind contains enough concepts of my own. I don't have enough time to put on paper in what's in my brain!
I need more than 100 yrs. to share what I want to share with the world. PERIOD.

Regarding copyrights of publicity photos, the link from my last post explains the big picture. And "no," the studios didn't have a copyright, since prior to 1989 all photos, like text and anything else, had to have a copyright notice on the material, and that was not done. As the "film still" article explains, publicity photos traditionally were not copyrighted. I don't believe I have ever seen a glamour or straight publicity photo of any celebrity that included a copyright, certainly not before 1989. I also know how to use the online copyright search which includes all renewals from 1978, which anyone can use free.
The Streisand image was from 1971 and had no copyright. In fact it was among her publicity photos taken by her agency in New York when she was starting in movies.

Not only did I use to collect these as a hobby, one of my part-time jobs while in college was main assistant to a semi-retired photographer who used to shoot those of many stars. All her work was done with an 8"x10" studio camera and half a dozen giant strobes. I use to see her work on magazine covers all the time, sometimes twice in the same month. In any case, I'm only doing these digital derivatives as a hobby and have only sold a few since the summer. A few more sales, and I'll be able to buy one from FAA to see how they look!

For the full picture of copyright rules, anyone can use this chart.

Allen, that copyright chart is very useful, concise and easy to understand for the layman. Thanks for sharing. Everyone should take a look at it to not only understand the legal aspects of copyrights and what is public domain and legal to use according to letter of the law, but also to understand that there is a legal responsibility we'll have to renew or have our heirs renew our own images if we are really serious about protecting our own images.



-W

Rose@ edit: Please accept my apology Beth, as on second look removing the image was all that was done.

Rose both the image AND the comment about the 78 votes which put into context the posting of the image have been deleted, making that section of the discussion rather confusing to follow.

Unfortunately, editing is not an option ....yet. Don't break the rules and the thread will stay intact.

Beth naturally I have to respect that you have the last word on the interpretation of the rules and I am sorry if I broke them, but I thought the example that I posted illustrated perfectly all three points brought up in the original post and therefore was valid.

Mike, whether it did, or not, is not the point. It was naming and shaming, which is only done in private using the contact form http://fineartamerica.com/contactus.html

A lady recently named and shamed somewhere and may now be facing a libel suit. PLEASE realise I am not doing this rule for the fun of it. It is important not to name and shame in a thread.

If you all do not care about the risk then that's cool. Do it on your own sites or blogs where I am not responsible for your safety but, you are not doing it here. Ever. At all. Even a bit.

Simples

I am unanimous on that and it is all I am saying on the subject from now on

Mike Jeffries, I removed my post that referred to your post, so as to not cause confusion.

So it appears this thread is trying to change from ethics to legalities. Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Beth, as you seem to be worried about rules, how about some obvious violations that have been brought up in this thread? Deleting the accusation won't make it go away.

If you have a problem Mark, please use the proper channels. http://fineartamerica.com/contactus.html

Thank you

Allen and Wingsdomain............ Both of you have much to say on the legal issues of copyright infringment. How do you defend your ethics asnd morality?

Beth, this is a discussion, not a complaint.

Ethics start with the law of a civilized nation confirmed by a majority of it's inhabitants. Without laws, your ethics is just that, yours, and we all know we don't need a dictator of ethics, dictators never work, not even for the dictator himself. Public Domain is legally part of our civilized nation and is used legally by those who chooses to use it, anyone who don't agree to the existence of public domain should work to change the law of the land that was confirmed by a majority of it's inhabitants by getting a majority of those same inhabitants to stand behand your point of view, not just those vocal and bias few on FAA that you are here only to seek affirmation from. Most are likely too afraid of the wolfpack mentality here or even your uneven tempered and persistent verbage ( I dare say, some would equate this to online bullying!) or just have no vested interest in this topic to say anything contrary to your explicit bias opinions. Your opening header and your continued bias framing of this topic hiding behind the presumption of ethics, has not allowed any voice contrary to your own. Bottom line, public domain is the law, we pay taxes on it to keep it in law, and we should be free to use it in the spirit of the law and not be persecuted and recklessly labeled as an inferior being. There is no ethics in persecution nor reckless defamation.


-w

Are you going to stick with that arguement Wings? Seems to me that ethics and the law are always at each others throats. At least in the US.

Ethics have nothing to do with laws. Laws are created for a variety of reasons and they change over time again, for a variety of reasons. Financial, reasons. Political reasons. Stupid reasons. Ethical standards do not change over time. Slavery used to be legal in the US. Does that mean it was ethical when it was legal and only became unethical when the slavery laws in the US were changed?

Things are either ethical or unethical and the only things laws apply to are what is considered legal or illegal. They are mutually exclusively.

As Mark has stated, the legal issue of copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the ethical discussion about is it right or not. Not is it legal.

Mark, you have not been able to deny anything I have said thus far. Thus, there is no discussion here, only your dictation, and I have better things to do today than to listen to dicatators. Like I said, and it's worth repeating below, think about it, when you have something worth listening to, other than your dictation, I'll be back.

"There is no ethics in persecution nor reckless defamation. " -W

Ethics don't have anything to do with laws?

You can't buy booze in Indiana on Sunday. It is illegal.

Dictator huh? I've always wanted to be a dictator. I like yelling at art students.................

And the ethical dilemma is what?

John (Crothers), you also cannot buy alcohol in retail stores on Sunday in Massachusetts...it is one of the Blue Laws made in the case of alcohol to reserve Sunday for worship and rest. It's a very old law on the books. Also you cannot buy alcohol in a bar until 12noon, again, so that the men (who were the ones who went to the Public Houses back then) would accompany family to church for worship, instead of drinking in the bar. It's a religious law, not an ethics law.

Back in the day, we just drove up 95 to the New Hampshire border where they had the State Liquor Store directly over the state line....if we just had to throw back a few on a Sunday! lol

Exactly Joy. That's a morals discussion and nothing to do with ethics. Again, what the law of the land is has no bearing on your moral compass as well. You either believe something to be moral or not. Same with ethics, you either believe something to be ethical or not regardless of the laws at that moment in time.

Right, John R....in the case of medical ethics, there are big committees for discussion, because people's ideas on what is ethical vary so much. They have to decide by a majority in many cases as to just what is the 'ethical' treatment for a patient. In many cases, no one doctor wants the burden of what she/he thinks is ethical on their shoulders.

^ John, I would have thought that morals and ethics were synonymous - no?

This a pretty good definition.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm

Disney has been doing it for years. Rewriting classic, stylizing characters such as Winnie the Poo, Snow White and on and on and on......
The funny thing is that Mickey is approaching 100. I am very interested in seeing how Disney is going to deal with the 100 year copyright limit. Any guesses?

Here's another question for you. Should artists be held to a "higher standard" or, does that only apply to those who do "High Art"?

"The funny thing is that Mickey is approaching 100. I am very interested in seeing how Disney is going to deal with the 100 year copyright limit. Any guesses?"

They will no doubt be pushing the expiration dates further into the future. They have enough clout to keep Mickey and their other properties out of the public domain indefinitely. Now they own Star Wars (they recently bought Lucasfilm for $4 billion), so any hopes of Darth Vader & Family going into the public domain are now lost.

Great discussion on public domain and copyright extensions here:
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=869284

"I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man."


- Thomas Jefferson

I wonder if Disney is now going to come down hard on Star Wars related merchandise.

I saw a stormtrooper image sell recently here.

My feeling is Disney is going to treat their new merchandise with the same protection as their old catalog.

Stormtrooper art on FAA? A case in point.......................

And just how do you define "High Art"??

You know the answer to that one Vivian

“And just how do you define "High Art"??”



:P

'Course I do, Mark......so do you, I sincerely hope! Especially if, as I surmise, you are in the responsible position of teaching Art; and run a gallery too.

In light of your statement/topic: quote :"This thread is about "fixing", with no credit of any kind, the work of artists living or dead and taking it for your own.)", how / what do you expect as an answer to the issue of what is 'high art' ? (which might include many 'derivative' works)...

Mickey Mouse might be 100 years old soon but Disney, his creator, didn't die 100 years ago, the copyright runs out 70years after his death, quite a time left before the vultures have a chance to pick over Mickey's bones.

Vivian........ The gallery is closed and just as well. I was tired of it. My teaching career was short. {I am a rotten teacher). I am doing landscapes on the Washington coast right now. It's cold and wet, no light to boot.

"High Art" Go look it up Danial........................

I would never rework or fix another artist's work. It is their painting, even unfinished. Mine is my painting, even unfinished.

1. Complexity of formal properties.
2. Complexity of the responses to the works, which sometimes have no name.
3. The fact that a full and fuller understanding of the work (either the form or the content) allows for an ever fuller enjoyment of the work. One has to gradually grow into the work. It does not reveal everything it has in one exposure.
4. The fact that a full understanding of the work can enhance an understanding of other aspects of life as well.
5. The fact that great works of high art are cross-cultural. They can be enjoyed by people of other cultures who have no other experience of the culture that generated the great work. Each great work of art is potentially a work of world art, not subject to the conditions of its composition.
6. If, according to 5, the work does not fade with distance, it is also true that it does not fade with time.
7. Works of high art are deeply related to morality, in the widest sense of the term, and sometimes problematize morality itself.
8. High art has a history, in which styles, techniques, genres and the entire orientation of the work of art is changed. Properly speaking, low art has no history.
9. Works of high art are individual. They bespeak a personality behind the work. Low art is best when it is anonymous.

Ditto RJ Can I steal that one?

Sure it's public domain ..................... http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/HighArt.htm

This begs the question, there are alot of landscape shots "pioneered" by greats like Ansel Adams. What is the difference between taking his work and altering it a bit and calling it your own, versus going out to a spot he photographed and trying to mimic that shot down to the most minute detail? Some would call both unethical, and some have tried to sue people for doing the latter, but does that then imply that Ansel Adams and others own certain views of nature for the rest of human history? ;o)

Here is one example. I would say this was nowhere near an attempt to replicate his classic shot, but it is a subject matter that has been done to death I am sure, in fact Wyoming proudly proclaims its the most photographed spot in America. I don't believe that, but nonetheless I am sure someone has a shot very similar to mine..

LOL RJ but, is it ethical to use it :)

Dan,

I am not sure they can stop people from copying the earliest designs of Mickey Mouse, although I truly believe the law doesn't matter if you have lots of money, a good lawyer, Congress in your pocket and aren't a pyschopath.

That said I think the way Disney will keep much of Mickey out of the Public Domain is through derivative works which have much longer shelf lives.

RJ Good I want to put some flowery thingys around it and sell it on ebay. What do you think?

Gary,

The difference is you gotta pay the "dues".

I'm not sure which dues are higher, becoming a master at photoshop, or getting an awesome picture of a natural landscape straight from the camera. I am sure that would involve a long winded debate. ;o)

I've told this story before but will tell it again in risk of boring those who've heard it before........... I lived near the home of Fredrick Church, Olana, for many years ...the view from Olana is one of the most painted scenes I know.I worked there for many years and did learn a lot and do some good work but one day I was reviewing what works of mine sold most and realized that everything I had ever painted from Olana had sold and for good prices..... I never painted there again after asking myself " Do they want the picture or the painting?"

I personally have never heard of Fredrick Church or Olana, and if someone had dropped me at the Snake River viewpoint with no knowledge of Ansel Adams, under the right conditions I would have shot the picture, and been completely inspired without anybody's help. Which is my way of saying its not always the photographer, or the photograph (or the painter and the painting) that draw people, alot of the time its the scene. And in this case only nature owns the rights.

"The picture or the painting".....great RJ........that IS the question !

I get your point Gary but I was giving an example of personal standards as a painter who loathes object relations .................. RJ

Church was a hard act to follow RJ For his time, he went far. I'm an Innes fan myself. And both in the public domain too. Object relationshiips are a hard one. Even with your work you need to put the sun in the sky no matter what the personal relationships of the sun and sky are......................

Yeah I feel like such a whore.......... you should read some of Innes's writings, he was a trip..He worked in the town I grew up in..........RJ

I'm not sure which dues are higher, becoming a master at photoshop, or getting an awesome picture of a natural landscape straight from the camera. I am sure that would involve a long winded debate. ;o)

Actually Adams didn't get his shots straight out of the camera he did a lot of "old school" photoshop...in the darkroom!

But don't forget the dues of hauling your butt and gear out into the wild and the heat and the cold or the rain or the snow to get the shot in the first place. That is much harder than "right click, copy, paste".

You also had to be a chemist and print maker to work in the dark room...........

John I lugged a 8 x 10 around for thirty years. My small camera was a 4 x 5 linhoff. steel majestic tripod. I know what you mean. Nothing like dk50 and zone exposure. That's just part of the dues you get to pay.

Mark, there's no "meat" to this discussion. Do you know why? Because everything — and I mean everything — is a variation of something that's come before. Trying to paint people as less ethical, less moral, less original or less honest just because they aren't YOU is silly.

over 1800 views in 2 days is not silly...


as the honorary head of the lurkers, I disagree with you Dan

Everything Dan? I don't believe I've ever seen the topic of High Art or a list of it's qualifications ever listed............

Wonder what the definition of low art is......................................

You know Dan. people pretty much paint themselves. I wonder, at least in this thread, what people think about the ethics and morality of certain activities in art. I also wonder why they would do it.

Wow. I am so impressed. This is a most awesome thread.
Wings talking about who dictates what is ethical is spot on.
Exactly!
I 'm not taking your def. of ethical Wings. That is what (I think ) this whole thread is about.
I cannot live with that premise.
There is so much meat to this discussion Dan, that I am sure that with your bad diet that your arteries are completely clogged.
RJ, yep.

edit: and Penny has that right.

edit: I hope you post some of your landscapes Mark. No light on the Washington coast? I know you don't mean that. Although I understand the challenge.

@Because everything — and I mean everything — is a variation of something that's come before. Trying to paint people as less ethical, less moral, less original or less honest just because they aren't YOU is silly.

Do tell us, Dan, where dear old Mickey Mouse was hiding before Walt discovered him. Please post a pre-Disney link or image to illustrate your point.

Could it possibly be that the Mickey we know was an original product of Walt's mind thereby making Walt more original and therefore more honest, ethical and moral than lesser artists who lacking his talent wish to profit from his idea?

Rose "No light on the Washington coast?" It's dark here. Rained 5 inches in the last 2 days. But then, according to Pete Seegar, "You only need a light if you have a dark to put it in".

i completely disagree with the the notion that everything has already been done, i find that statement to be a cop out for ones own creative inadequacies .....

"over 1800 views in 2 days is not silly" LMAO Silly is the reason for >1800 views.....
BTW just how many angels can dance on a pinhead?
Take off your hat and let us know.....generally speaking

Who copyrighted the Bible anyway....
In the beginning there was Mickey and Walt said this is good:
the next day Walt created Disney Land...
on the last day Walt took an icy dirt nap and the corporation created Disney World and the corporation said "THIS IS GOOOOOD! Then they took over everything G, & PG
;)

from southparks "The Ring" ......

"Oh gosh, fellas, let me explain this to you one more time. You have to wear the purity rings because that's how we can sell sex to little girls, haha! See, if we make the posters with little girls reaching for your junk, then you have to wear purity rings or else the Disney Company looks bad, haha!" -Mickey

"You think God is in control here? I'm in control. I've been in control since the '50s, in case you haven't noticed!" -Mickey

"Vengeance is mine! You are all ants, and I am your destroyer!! Ha-ha." -Mickey

FYI

Before Micky there was Ignatz

Your point?'..................................

RE: "Do tell us, Dan, where dear old Mickey Mouse was hiding before Walt discovered him. Please post a pre-Disney link or image to illustrate your point."

Just helping Dan.

How about a comment from some of you "lurkers" ou there. What do you think of some of the thoughts on this thread?

If there is a literarily classic and its can be modernized; new artwork can be added and there is an acknowledgement to the original author than I see absolutely nothing ethical wrong with that. To sign anything with the intent to deceive is done by those whose morality has been removed from the equation. If the law allows this then the only reason one would do this is for money, pride, deceit or controversy.
Which DA da artist painted the Mona Lisa and put a mustache on it?

"What do you think of some of the thoughts on this thread?"

You know what I think of it, Mark: The thread is a cauldron of heavy judgment and intolerance from a handful of people who have no grasp of history and a complete misunderstanding of copyright, public domain and the creative process.

Regarding Mickey Mouse: In the mid-1920s Walt Disney (who I hold in the highest esteem) asked his friend and animator, Ub Iwerks, to start drawing up new character ideas (shades of Andy Warhol!). Walt liked Ub's mouse drawing and named him "Mortimer Mouse." Walt's wife, Lillian, thought "Mortimer" was too stuffy of a name and convinced Walt to change it. They ended up using Mickey. There's a lot more to the story, it's fascinating, and has nothing to do with "highly original" and more to do with contract disputes, betrayals, character rights and "Necessity is the mother of invention." Check out Roger's post at 12:15.

Duchamp I think. A lot of people have done that one as well. Not me, I have no ax to grind with Da Vinci

Takashi Murakami called his mammoth statue Oval Buddha his urinal ...Sorry I'm not so up on the history of mickey ... I didn't go to cartoon school

Mickey vs. Micky

Edit:





Performo Toy's Micky: August 17, 1926
Mickey Mouse is one of the most loved cartoon characters in the history of animation industry.
The similarities between both mice have led to speculation that Walt Disney stole his most successful idea from the Performo Toy Company. The wooden mouse was very popular in New York City (where Performo's distributor was located) in 1928. Coincidentally, at about the same time, Disney thought of the idea for his animation studio's new character and began drafting cartoons, which then aired as shorts, padding the time between one film and the next, and were extremely popular. Other shorts included newsreels, which showed film of events from around the world, much as does a nightly news broadcast in the heyday of television broadcasting. Such news clips are now ubiquitous on the Internet from thousands of sources.
There is a well known legend in Middletown about how Performo Toy Company sued The Walt Disney Company, which included some coverage in the local paper. A conspiracy theory might have arisen from this story, however, History Detectives, a television program on PBS, conducted an extensive investigation on the topic.[1] The historians and researchers of the PBS program conducted a nationwide search, finding that there are no records nor evidence of any legal action between the two parties. Inquiries to Disney historians and archivists resulted in a letter stating that no such action had ever existed between the companies. Hence the legend is dismissed as local gossip made urban myth.
Part of the program showed that Performo's Micky, while very close to Walt Disney's, actually grew more that way after the cartoon's success. Performo's Micky Mouse, without the "e", suddenly developed red shorts with white buttons, as was shown by Mickey collector who had both products in his multi-room collection. The program's investigating historian concluded that it was a series of generic mice that featured in Felix the Cat (1922), Milton Mouse from Aesop's Film Fables (1920) or Ignatz Mouse from Krazy Kat (1914), which provided the inspiration for Mickey Mouse. When viewed side by side and in sequence of appearance, an evolution of the many mice in cartoons of the era is striking, if not conclusive.[according to whom?]
Further, in 1932 the sales of Mickey Mouse toy paraphernalia out-grossed the revenues for the films themselves, the first time that happened in the experience of Hollywood. At nearly the same time, Performo came onto hard times despite its rapid growth and filed for bankruptcy in 1933. The PBS historian concludes it became a victim of the depression like many other toy companies and other luxury goods producers while the movie tie-in enabled Disney's nascent toys and novelties business to weather the hard times of the Great Depression.
The Simpsons episode "The Day the Violence Died" bears a remarkable similar story line to the Grove–Disney debate.[according to whom?]

RJ Mickey M. seems to me like a trip sideways for this thread. Commercial artists do that sort of thing to each other all the time. I wonder what would happen to an artist who, say, tinted the Mona Lisa's blouse purple and then signed it. The same sort of thing happens to lesser artists all the time.

Some of us are citing specifics, Mark, while the "moralists" are being vague and playing what-if and then pretending that there are hard and fast rules for art and creativity.

Mike..... What do you think creativity is? What do you think Art is?

Well... no comment from Mike. Here is what many people think Art is and I agree. I have no idea what creativity is.

From RJ

High Art

1. Complexity of formal properties.
2. Complexity of the responses to the works, which sometimes have no name.
3. The fact that a full and fuller understanding of the work (either the form or the content) allows for an ever fuller enjoyment of the work. One has to gradually grow into the work. It does not reveal everything it has in one exposure.
4. The fact that a full understanding of the work can enhance an understanding of other aspects of life as well.
5. The fact that great works of high art are cross-cultural. They can be enjoyed by people of other cultures who have no other experience of the culture that generated the great work. Each great work of art is potentially a work of world art, not subject to the conditions of its composition.
6. If, according to 5, the work does not fade with distance, it is also true that it does not fade with time.
7. Works of high art are deeply related to morality, in the widest sense of the term, and sometimes problematize morality itself.
8. High art has a history, in which styles, techniques, genres and the entire orientation of the work of art is changed. Properly speaking, low art has no history.
9. Works of high art are individual. They bespeak a personality behind the work. Low art is best when it is anonymous.

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/HighArt.htm

I really don't know what "High Art" is.

I describe "Great Art" with one word: "Seminal"

Note: Please no "Smart Ass" retort to that word (that's my job)

What is the difference between using someone elses words and attributing them to someone who did not say them originally, to using artwork and not attributing that to the original artist?

You mean signing your name to someone elses work? I think I miss your meaning on the word part. What do you think?

I didn't get it either,...Could you play it again Sam?....Oh, I mean Beth

Plagiarism is not much different ................. RJ

Exactly.

But words were put in here belonging to someone else and not attributed til asked about, then repeated and attributed to the wrong person by the person saying using public domain work is wrong.

What's the difference between that and art....is that ethical?

Mark told someone to look it up so I did, I did not say it was own words, and when Mark re-quoted he noted the source at the bottom..I was not claiming it to be my writing... but if I did that would be plagiarism...

What?...................

the definition of high art Mark...............for the record in my own words:" I don't know I'd go so far as to say someone using public domain work is immoral, I would say that it is a weak source of material to work from.. like an easy bad habit ... The pure personal vision is often more powerful and of course original .. and being authentic or knowing ones origin is paramount to making good art... High art is far more complex and requires even more to qualify than just good art"....RJ

I can only agree with you on the points you make. I would further, like for everyone to aspire the the "idea" of high art. Art for Arts sake".That is still at the top of my mind as if I were still in art school. As far as this thread goes, this is a discussion about issues some, including me, feel are important. It is not a personal attack on anyone. This is about issues, that's all.

Two cents here, but I'd guess that most of what we consider high art was considered low art when it was introduced. Try to name some artists whose work was not originally looked down on and heavily criticized for not being good.

Edit: Examples: Monet, Guillaumin, Cézanne, Renoir, Pissarro, Cassatt. Founders of the Impressionism school. How do you think these high artists, all of whose work today sells for the millions, were received by the public and art critics? Well, the first Impressionist Exhibition in Paris "shocked and horrified" the critics because their work failed to portray religious, historical, or mythological settings.

Among the other reasons, notes one source, "the subject matter was considered 'vulgar' and 'commonplace,' with scenes of street people going about their everyday lives. Pissarro’s paintings, for instance, showed scenes of muddy, dirty, and unkempt settings; The manner of painting was too sketchy and looked incomplete, especially compared to the traditional styles of the period. The use of visible and expressive brushwork by all the artists was considered an insult to the craft of traditional artists, who often spent weeks on their work. Here, the paintings were often done in one sitting and the paints were applied wet-on-wet," what we today call plein air.

It is hard to put into words,(for me) but you are doing a great job of it RJ.

Mark, I feel ya. I know that rain. Canada Howe sound. I actually created quite a bit of art in that place. When I got over the initial shock of the relentless rain, and got out into it, I was amazed by the colours and the richness.

Allen that is too much cutting and pasting for me, and Dan you sound very insecure.

Wow, yall are going at it here.

Morality = whatever I think is right by my standards and everyone else is wrong.

Legal means I don't go to jail and can't get sued for doing it.

When it comes down to it, keep YOUR own morals and you will be happy. Try and force your morals on anyone else and you simply become intolerant and miserable. But then, there are a LOT of wars fought by intolerable and miserable people.

I could care less what anyone else does so long as it is legal. Beyond that, I do what I think is right and don't worry about anyone else.

I think JC is absolutely right.....couldn't have said it better myself

Which part Sheena. Whats your spin. In context of this discussion and all.

Quoting JC......I agree with both of his statements.....

"When it comes down to it, keep YOUR own morals and you will be happy. Try and force your morals on anyone else and you simply become intolerant and miserable."

"I could care less what anyone else does so long as it is legal. Beyond that, I do what I think is right and don't worry about anyone else."



As JC mentioned I have come across "intolerant and miserable".......

Opinions are like assholes....everyone's got one......what it boils down to is who decides what is ethical and what isn't?.....I am not here to fight nor do I have the time to care about what others are doing....but felt compelled to comment because I agree with JC....... he kept it simple and to the point. It seems it doesn't matter what you say around here someone will jump down your throat regardless......I am no ethics police........and agree with what JC has said.

*skips merrily away minding my own business......*

What is ethical: is, what in your heart you can live with. It is different for different people.

edit; there are alot of touchy responses going on here.

Allan Glass...

Wet on wet can only occur when completing a canvas in one sitting and in situ. (plein air or studio)

Monet painted wet onto a drying canvas over multiple days. (apart from a few canvases during his twenties..as also the case with Gauguin and Renoir) There are very few artists in history that were able to complete a work of oils on canvas in one single sitting. The technology applied here involves use of the wrist and the ability to lay oils over an existing color without the incidence of sullying. This is how I paint.

As for ethics in Art. There is very little of this left in a contemporary setting given the blurring of values and refusal to question the gross ambitions of a suicidal status quo.

Visit www.enver.net

I was not saying anything bad about what you did RJ. I was asking a simple question to Mark who seems to want to ignore it. But, that's fine. I sort of assumed he would not answer me properly and would add the address so my sentence meant not as much.

@When it comes down to it, keep YOUR own morals and you will be happy. Try and force your morals on anyone else and you simply become intolerant and miserable. But then, there are a LOT of wars fought by intolerable and miserable people.

You bet we fought JC, the British people finally got really intolerant of Hitler back in 1939, what a miserable thing that was to do. If only we had just shown a little restraint and let the poor fellow follow his star unhindered the Second World War could have been averted and we'd all be happy.

I have not followed this thread and it seems rather large to get up-to-date now, but the idea of "Appropriation Art" and the philosophy behind may fit on the subject. Just in case you have not discussed the works of Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine, here are a couple of links you may find interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrie_Levine

Apparently art appropriation isnt new, its been goin on decades and was popular in the 70s... reading Xos link i quote from wikipedia -

"In December 2008, photographer Patrick Cariou filed suit against Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian and Rizzoli International Publications in Federal district court for copyright infringement in work shown at Prince's Canal Zone exhibit at the Gagosian gallery. He appropriated 35 photographs made by Cariou. Several of the pieces were barely changed by Prince. Prince also made 28 paintings that included images from Cariou’s Yes Rasta book. The book featured a series of photographs of Rastafarians that Cariou had taken in Jamaica.[8]

On March 18, 2011, US District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled against Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Inc., and Lawrence Gagosian. The court found that the use by Prince was not fair use (his primary defence), and Cariou's issue of liability for copyright infringement was granted in its entirety.[9] The court cited much case law including the Rogers v. Koons case of 1992.[9]"


**** These are legal precedences *****... i dont think its a good idea to encourage this kind of appropriation as being ok.... i mean what next - should we sign off as shakespeare if we add a sentence to a play? the mona lisa with a red hat on is now my work? I mean if its specifically stated to be public domain, take it, use it then its obviously fine but when copyright is being asserted its not right or legal...

Ive had a look at UK copyright and this has international status and anyone in the world can file there and it says:-

"Common questions

Copyright and the Internet

Material that can be found on the Internet will of course also be subject to copyright. There are a number of licensing schemes that are popular with online publication and allow some free (normally non-commercial) use, the most notable being GPL and Creative Commons.

If you are making/distributing copies of work that you find on the Internet you should check that the licence for the work (or instructions on the site) allow this and that the site you obtained the work from is itself acting legally. If there is no such licence, do not use the work until you have the permission of the copyright owner.

What if the copyright owner does not answer my request for permission or I cannot locate the copyright owner?

If this is the case you have not obtained permission and should not use the work."

Using copyright works fact sheet from UK Copyright Service.

Mike J, now see, there ya go twisting my words...

You are going to use Hitler to show that you SHOULD judge mortality? Really? I mean isn't Hitler himself one of the great evils BECAUSE he did that? Lets throw in OBL while we are at it and the terrorist attacks or perhaps we could talk about how same sex relations were "immoral" at one time...

Oh wait, you are talking about how the great "moralist" country that was Britain at the start of WWII saved the world by being enforcing morals. uh huh. Britain fought Hitler because they figured out they had to or would cease to exist, not because of a great "moral" dilemma. Besides, Hitler was in fact killing millions of people. That is kind of what I mean by "illegal" and beyond just a foul to my morals.

But hey, like I said, do what you want, think what you want as it is no skin off my nose.

:)

Just to fair to the thread,I'm the one who used the word immoral, not Mark...excuse me that's not right , Dan did first used the word "moralist" in his brand of judging the judgmental ......... I don't think it's 100 percent on the up and up to tweak others work and that is more an ethical question or level of standards not a moral question..I didn't mean to stir up the fascists by using the word moral........

Painting over the work of others?

Eduard Manet tried this over the canvases of Berthe Morisot and look at what history has done to him.....if you care to be interested.

Is is OK to sign someone else's work if they are dead?

Yes. If they forgot to sign it.

Do I modify someone else's work before before I sign it?

If you can improve it, yes.

Why should I care about somebody that's been dead for 150 years? Who speaks for them anyway?

Why wait 150 years?

Questions of this nature. And, by the term OK, I mean ethical, stand up and strait up in your behavior.

This thread is about ethics in art. Is that to difficult people? Are you that insecure? Do a few questions scare you that badly? And Beth, you have not mentioned my name in this thread until now, you have not e-mailed me. You Have not messaged me. What are you talking about. Be clear.

An artist usually dreaded a visit from George Innes .. He would often work on other artists paintings in their studies because he thought they just needed in his words " a little tickling up"
I would be interested in the Manet story Enver.....

Most of the threads I have been involve with concerning copyright, morality and the definition of art ends up with someone pissed; bout like discussing religion and politics. With that said, if you do create original art and/or compilations of any type, it is wise to research copyright law as it pertains to your specific situation. I have in the past and I will be publishing a film in 6 months or so. Before a single trailer is published, I will have done copyright research and have consulted with copy write legal professionals.
Peace to all and if that does not work, bring in the peace makers;)

@Mark,

Like I said before I have not followed the thread and this may have been previously discussed but, on the issue of Ethics in Art, Don you think Ethics would restrain the freedom in Art which many claim to be free? In other words, Should a sincere search for Truth be hindered by socially adopted ethics? And such search, should it not question the very basis of those ethics?

I do believe that images in the Public Domain, or those of deceased artists should be given the attribution - no matter how much change has been done.

There is a problem that can arise as did with me. I paid for rights to use images - thousands of them - "as is" - I chose not to do that. However, the company I purchased from gave me as a returning "good customer" some images they believed I would like - Vintage images. In spare time, and in times of low creative energy they provided a boost to me which I enjoyed. The only reason the attribution of the originators is not named in my works in that gallery are because the company I received them from did NOT catalogue a name as they did in things I chose for my private works. But my gallery name does state that the credit goes to the original artists - words to that effect - I just couldn't state who, as I didn't and still don't know for sure.

I have stated many times that I adore that period in time as well as bygone era's. To be honest - I care very little for most art created now except by a select few. I find it too garish, too bright, too lacking in the study of perspective - but I have a condition where I am hypersensitive to light, sound, overly colored things etc, and that probably clouds my judgement.

So, after a lot of thought, that is my opinion - and my ethics.

"This thread is about ethics in art. Is that to[o] difficult people?"

Mark, no disrespect intended, but who's ethics are we using? You're assuming everyone has the same ethics as you. And that's the same as assuming everyone has the same religion.

This " Anyone Can be an Artist phenomenon" with no structure attached that has infested the main stream and flooding the print market with posters is merely a symptom of the dumbing down of America that began in the early 70's in which our public school system began focusing on teaching to the middle and lower levels in order that everyone get an "equal education" ....... It is being further acted out in the current Pop media by pandering to the ignorant in order to get them riled and afraid of intellectualism and art................

Going back to Dan's point, about whether anything is really original. I thought I'd bring up the work of an another American icon...George Lucas. Many would be quick to say that the movies he created, namely Indiana Jones and Star Wars were like nothing that ever came before, and in some ways that would be true, but the reality is that the broader themes and story arcs seen in both movie series have been used countless times before and since. Even George Lucas acknowledges this by giving great credit to Joseph Campbell for inspiring him. And Joseph Campbell is best known for his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", which describes the common story arc and elements that underly just about every piece of adventure fiction out there, including those passed by word of mouth thousands of years ago.

And I think the reason this is the case, is because very few us are going to create something that goes against certain "built-in" characteristics of being human. Very few of us, for example are going to read a story where the hero is killed off in the first five minutes, and most of us prefer to look at pictures of pretty landscapes and not potholes. Where originality comes into play is around the edges, telling the same story but in a unique way. And that is something George Lucas definitely did.

This may be useful to avoid confusing Ethics with Morals

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Is this any different from some garage band covering a song from a famous group in some dive bar?

They "can" do it. I would wager what they are doing is not legal but, just like in the art world, there are so many laws being broke everyday we just get to a point where we accept it as "the nature of the beast".

Does THAT make it "right"?

No matter how well you "improve" that piece of artwork or how well you play that famous song it will NEVER be yours. Never. So what is the point?

John,

As far as the famous song goes, who really makes the song "there's" the person who penned it, or the person that made it famous. As the two are not always the same. And I think song writers are often forgotten, just like script writers. Is it right? Not in my book...but its reality, given the nature of audience and the business in general.

And there are plenty of artists out there who redo old songs in their own voice...but depending on who you are most of the time its just not the same.

In Truth nothing is ever yours John, "Ownership" is part of a Social Contract, just like Ethics are Socially accepted behaviours, both inevitably "imposed".

About 20 years ago, I was in the studio of a friend of mine looking at the new work of his girlfriend, a well known painter. Several other artist were there as well. She wa working on a piece for an upcoming show at a well known gallery, the theme being "shipwrecks". Her composition was a hat floating on the water with a ship going down in the distance. One of the guys, also to be in the show, was there. When the show opened he had the same composition as the woman artist. A critic from the Seattle Times reviewed the show and accused her of copying work that wasn't hers. Several of us tried to set it right and did to some degree, but the damage was done.

20 years later that story still goes around. Friendships were lost and reputations were damaged. A good reason to do your own work.

Good point Gary, look at Elton John so many of the songs he sang he didn't write.

But just because we perceive it as Elton's that doesn't mean that Bernie isn't being paid well for writing it.

Writing credits have destroyed many bands like the Eagles and Pink Floyd. Because that is where the royality money comes from.

Which really seems fair. If you can't sing, at least you can still write.

If you don't "give" the song you wrote to someone to perform your song will never be known to the world.

If this were the case in the art world maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion? If the original artist was always paid somehow, be it their heirs or a charity, at least their would be some compensation for the work.

To me a big part of this ethics issue is someone making money directly off the work of another. I firmly believe in paying dues. It is how we get good at doing things...anything. Cut, Copy and Paste is NOT paying dues. It is standing on the shoulders of those that have paid the dues. To me that is wrong and I really can't understand why anybody would want to do that.

Is that really true Xoanxo?

If I create a masterpiece here in my home and it stays in my closet for as long as I live who own's it? If it destroyed on the day I die, never seeing the light of day, nobody ever sees it.

I decided to hide it from the world. It is only when we show the world that we have to worry about other's taking our creation and making it their own.

How many great works of art are sitting in boxes or drawers in the world today? For whatever reason the artist decides not to share them.

When my grandfather died we found a box full of drawing he did. None of them would be considered "fine art" but it was his life on paper. We had an idea he liked to draw, but we had no extent of how many drawings he did in his life. For some reason he saved them, but didn't share them.

I am sure he is not the only one.

Good Art is ultimately independently free from ethical or moral constraint.

The last few posts by Cespon, whitton and Hacunda refer to the "social contract" that is by its very nature a construct of fashion and thereby subject to period, (time i.e.) and also states examples (Lucas etc) This "contract" enables a broad appeal that crosses all socio, religious and ethnic borders and simultaneously directly responsible for most conflict that derives from it. The death / slaying of Theo van Gogh - filmmaker (great grandson of Theo van Gogh - the painter van Gogh's brother) at the hands of fundamentalist Jihadists in Amsterdam, illustrates this very well. The issue discussed by the question posed here raises itself across a wider social landscape when ethical considerations are thrown onto the scale.

Although repugnant to many (like myself), copying is here to stay in its variant forms as illustrated by FAA. However, this new minefield does not necessary direct one's choices but enables a greater degree of conscious application when confronted by a blank white canvas.

I think photoshop will soon come out with a Van Gogh filter...........

they already have one robert. just doesn't work.................

maybe they need to add a little worm wood...............

i could use some of that myself...................

Van Gogh Filter

Praise the Lord and pass the Absinthe!

Thank you, John Crothers! You wrote: "To me a big part of this ethics issue is someone making money directly off the work of another. I firmly believe in paying dues. It is how we get good at doing things...anything. Cut, Copy and Paste is NOT paying dues. It is standing on the shoulders of those that have paid the dues. To me that is wrong and I really can't understand why anybody would want to do that".

Exactly! Pay your dues! Get good at what you are trying to do. Don't take the shortcut of stealing someone's work, then throw up a new background from Photoshop or add some other lame detail, and then sign your own name to it. The part that really gets me is, these 'artists' think that no one knows what they're doing! That no one sees blatantly that they are using an iconic image that they could not possibly own, because the subject of the photograph died well before they were even born. They rely on people being stupid, I guess. They don't realize some older people have seen the image they're using maybe 20 times before...maybe they even know personally the artist or photographer that created it! I'm not saying it's young artists..not by a long shot. MOST young artists have their own ideas...fresh ideas...even enviable ideas because they're so creative!...they don't need to steal from the well of already-created images. I learn from new and upcoming artists...they amaze me 99% of the time.

My advice to people who 'appropriate art for their own'...don't rely on people being uninformed and stupid. Most working artists are NOT. They know the art world and what is out there. They've studied and many have degrees in art history and photography. And it's a slap in the face to every working artist to see iconic art being stolen and attempted to be attributed to someone else. Personally, I don't know how some people sleep at night.

(edited to add: I'm not speaking of public domain art in this post...I'm talking about copyrighted art).

Sorry, what was it we were talking about here? Ethics?

First definition that popped up on google;

ethicsplural of eth·ics (Noun)
Noun:
1.)Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
2.)The moral correctness of specified conduct.

Ah, that's right, thanks so much for clearing that up, allow me to restate this properly.....

________________________________________________________________

Wow, yall are going at it here.

Morality, um make that ethical = whatever I think is right by my standards and everyone else is wrong.

Legal means I don't go to jail and can't get sued for doing it.

When it comes down to it, keep YOUR own morals (insert ethics here) and you will be happy. Try and force your morals (and here) on anyone else and you simply become intolerant and miserable. But then, there are a LOT of wars fought by intolerable and miserable people.

I could care less what anyone else does so long as it is legal. Beyond that, I do what I think is right and don't worry about anyone else

No wonder you wear a mask............................

Does it bother you if someone smokes Pot in a state where it is illegal or drinks Absinth JC ?

What's Absinth?

Lets make the question a full up moral, ethical AND legal question though.

Would it bother me that a doctor, after smoking weed, operated on a patient while kicking a puppy?

Yes, it would.

The real difference between ethics and morals, at least the way the words are commonly used, is that ethics applies to a group standard whereas morals can be either individual or societal. The problem with using the word "ethics" here is we are not a "group" that has a set standard. We took no oath to serve and protect. We didn't take the Hippocratic Oath. We don't have a "standard" to live up to. We have to abide by our own personal morals, or ethics if you prefer.

See, a firefighter that leaves someone that he could have saved in a burning building is acting unethically but probably not illegally. If he wasn't a firefighter, it wouldn't be unethical though would be considered immoral by some. Now, that same firefighter sees a puppy in the same burning building and chooses not to rescue the puppy. He is neither acting unethically or illegally but would be acting immorally by my standards.

Would "I" sign my name on someone else's work? No.

Would "I" create a derivative of a master and not give credit? No.

There are all sorts of things "I" would not do but don't judge others for. Would I judge someone for kicking a puppy or hurting a child? Yes, I would.

I don't always wear a mask BTW.

You do like to protect yourself I see.........

@JC, please note "moral" an "ethics" are not the same, for a clear simple difference I refer to my previous post links

@John, Yes it is True. There are relative truths and Fundamental Truths, with the latter is very difficult to argue because we often recognise them when we hear them for what they are. We know we come with nothing, we leave with nothing, all those things we believe to own we simply make temporary use of. By our social contract we accept and respect exclusive use of and the right to designate an inheritor for continued temporary exclusive use (socially accepted and respected), but don't be mistaken, that is only due to a Social Contract (agreement), no human really owns the earth or no part of any of its elements, in any case the opposite may be truer. We built a system of ownership, and here some argue in defence or against it, while I am referring to a Fundamental Truth, "we own nothing".

@Enver, you may have begun well but here you deviated off course, I quote "This "contract" enables a broad appeal that crosses all socio, religious and ethnic borders and simultaneously directly responsible for most conflict that derives from it." (Enver) . The Social Contract and the rules of Ethics on which is often based actually does exactly the opposite, it often does not allow nor enable to surpass cultural, social, religious or ethic borders. Precisely many have paid a high prize for either leading lives outside that contract or even questioning their foundations. Our history is full of them, religious leaders, politicians, scientists, artists, writers, philosophers...Truth lies beyond our little social organising efforts, their concepts and limitations

JC As artists we do have "standard" to live up to. History of Western Art. There is a difference between building on the work of others and stealing it.

Just wondering,

Can one be amoral and still be ethical?

and/or

Can one be unethical and still be moral?

Roger..Yes

Morals = The Ten Commandments

Ethics = The Golden Rule

Historically, many unethical things have been done in the name of morality.

Two more words: Winston Smith - Google him (the artist - not the character in 1984).

Now, if anyone thinks that using public domain images is unethical, stealing and being unoriginal after your Google search, well, congrats on being the most original, uninfluenced artist to ever walk the earth. Why haven't they done a vignette on you on Sunday Morning?

What we are really talking about is context. I think that everyone can use a little common sense when looking at a piece on whether it is ethical or not. If you are incorporating someone else's work into your own and placing it in an original composition, you are creating a new context for that work and thus, you are making it your own. Nothing is black and white - especially in art (unless the art is literally in black and white O_o).

Well said, Lance, I think you nailed it.

-W

"There is a difference between building on the work of others and stealing it."

Precisely. The zero-tolerance group conveniently always misses that important distinction.

@Lance — fabulous post!

"how well you play that famous song it will NEVER be yours. Never. So what is the point?"

I guess you should ask the over 2,200 artists who have recorded cover versions of Paul McCartney's "Yesterday."

You've obviously never been in a popular cover band :-) I have (still am) and the advantages are too numerous to mention. It's LIVE for one thing. It's LOUD, it's usually a total party, sexed-up dancing girls are all over the place, everyone in the room is having an "experience" that will never be repeated in quite that way again. It's magic. If you want to kill the mood, go ahead and play an original tune. The crowd doesn't know the song, most of the dancers interpret original tunes as "break time" and nobody knows the words!

Nearly every band and big performer you can name, whether it's The Beatles, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Van Halen, Sugarland, Elvis, Joni Mitchell, Joe Bonamassa etc etc etc ALL started out playing covers. Attend any live concert by a big-name act. Over 90% will include covers in their set, and often for the encore!

Hopefully you'll change your tune on that one :-)

You may also find this link interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

For those who do not link, here's some food for thought...

"Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the field of ethics"

"He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[16] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock."

"Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the state, an act contrary to Socratic principle".

"Being an artist carries with it a great potential and a great obligation... In a culture made up of images, sound, and the stories created by artists who do not hold themselves accountable for that very culture, we have a set-up for destruction." Suzanne Lacey

For culture to evolve, it must continue to be questioned. True Art plays a very important role in that questioning!!!

Dan the " experience" you've described seems rather base to me...........

RJ, it is base. It's grounded. It's as real as it gets. It's a slice of authentic humanity. It's not "high cultcha" at all. But the clubs do pay the ASCAP fees so no artist is financially harmed by the activity.

Yeah and a fart joke will always get a laugh in Indonesia.............

LOL! How about we just outlaw bar bands and replace them with string quartets playing all-original compositions? That's not the experience I'm looking for, but if it makes you happy...!

Yupp, Whitney Houston singing I Will Always Love You was truly one of the most pointless songs of all time since it belonged to Dolly and all. I am also having a hard time finding any original recordings of Bach. ALL I seem to be able to find are remakes. Bummer.

...and those songs will NEVER belong to the London Symphony Orchestra. Why do they even get up in the morning? Copycats!

We should probably get rid of college marching bands too.... pointless.

I guess you should ask the over 2,200 artists who have recorded cover versions of Paul McCartney's "Yesterday."

Yet YOU called it "Paul McCartney's". It is the version people think of when they think of the song.



"You've obviously never been in a popular cover band :-) I have (still am) and the advantages are too numerous to mention. It's LIVE for one thing. It's LOUD, it's usually a total party, sexed-up dancing girls are all over the place, everyone in the room is having an "experience" that will never be repeated in quite that way again. It's magic. If you want to kill the mood, go ahead and play an original tune. The crowd doesn't know the song, most of the dancers interpret original tunes as "break time" and nobody knows the words! "


Yeah, sounds super fantastic. But I would think playing in a band like the Rolling Stones, or Pink Floyd or AC/DC would be even cooler. I bet it is LOUDER and the true meaning of a total party with everyone in the STADIUM having an "experience" that will never be repeated. The famous bands do not play covers, they play original music and nobody in the crowd seems to care.

But I guess the difference between a cover band and a real band is the same difference between original artist and the Cut and paste ones. In other words...night and day.


"Nearly every band and big performer you can name, whether it's The Beatles, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Van Halen, Sugarland, Elvis, Joni Mitchell, Joe Bonamassa etc etc etc ALL started out playing covers. Attend any live concert by a big-name act. Over 90% will include covers in their set, and often for the encore!"


They started out that way, but didn't get big by staying that way. Some may do covers but it is a very small part of what they do and it is not what the people go to see.

If everyone settled with covering songs we'd have five songs being played by every group on earth. Sounds kind of boring. It was musicians desire to be different that gave us variety. Copying creates stagnation.

"The painter will produce pictures of little merit if he takes the works of others as his standard." Leonardo da Vinci

But John, no one is saying that is in fact how you become or stay great. The point being is there is in fact a time and place for a cover band OR even an established artist redoing someone else's song. The point being is that it is not unethical to do that if that is your thing.

It may in fact be better to be a rolling stone, but I am pretty sure Kieth Richards will outlive everyone on this site so at least that spot isn't opening up so other musicians have to do what they can.

John, again, with all due respect, you're not as good as Ansel Adams or Herb Lubalin and you're probably never going to be. Does that mean you should stop doing what you love? Or do you do the best you can?

I'm never going to play golf like Tiger Woods, but I get out there and have a great time anyway.

"They started out that way, but didn't get big by staying that way."

Now you're catching on. If they had tried it your way they would have been out of the music business in a heartbeat. Covers allowed them to get a foot in the door and to build their chops and develop their talent.

Not everyone is on the same level. "Art", even so-called great art, is all over the map. Why not allow people to do what they want? Why do you feel they have to be Picasso or Rembrandt right out of the gate? Some (most!) will never make a dent in the art market. They aren't hurting you or anybody else.

That include the Beatles Dan?

I hear ya, Mark.........replied Tony's thread......thank you.

"It matters, it always matters, to name rubbish as rubbish... to do otherwise is to legitimize it." Salman Rushdie

Mark, to me "That sucks" is a legitimate critique. Albeit short. But that sort of comment is frowned upon around these parts. I believe it's a bannable offense. So, yeah, all of us need to play the bite-your-tongue game if we wish to participate in the forum.

@Mark Perry,"It matters, it always matters, to name rubbish as rubbish... to do otherwise is to legitimize it." Salman Rushdie.

bite MY tongue Dan. Participating on this forum is a very sad experience. It is why so many of the originals do not anymore. Participating on this forum means nothing.

Banned huh Dan. Which comment is that?

"to name rubbish as rubbish"

Telling someone "That sucks". Truthful or not, you can't do it here. You and I may want to, but them's the rules.

Dan I use Rushdie's quote is the same context he did in the firat place. Wonder what he would think about it?

John, just a bit more education for you:

Johnny Cash – “Hurt” (Original Recording by Nine Inch Nails)
Jimi Hendrix – “Hey Joe” (Original Recording by Billy Roberts)
The Byrds - ”Mr. Tambourine Man” (Original Recording by Bob Dylan)
Joe Cocker – “With a Little Help from My Friends” (Original Recording by The Beatles)
The Beatles – “Twist and Shout” (Original Recording by the Top Notes)
Aretha Franklin – “Respect” (Original Recording by Otis Redding)
Jimi Hendrix - “All Along the Watchtower” (Original Recording by Bob Dylan)
Eric Clapton – “I Shot the Sheriff” (Original Recording by Bob Marley & The Wailers)
The Clash – “I Fought the Law” (Original Recording by Sonny Curtis and The Crickets)
Cream – “Crossroads” (Original Recording by Robert Johnson)
Led Zeppelin – “You Shook Me” (Original Recording by Earl Hooker and Muddy Waters)
John Lennon – “Stand By Me” (Original Recording by Ben E. King)
Nirvana – “The Man Who Sold the World” (Original Recording by David Bowie)
Elvis Presley – “Hound Dog” (Original Recording by Big Mama Thornton)
Rage Against the Machine – “The Ghost of Tom Joad” (Original Recording by Bruce Springsteen)
Santana – “Black Magic Woman” (Original Recording by Fleetwood Mac)
Stevie Wonder – “For Once in My Life” (Original Recording by Jean DuShon)

The COVERS, as it turns out, were the biggest recordings of some of these artists careers. It's what they're known for. Any questions?

Your point Dan? I think a few bucks changed hands in every one of those deals.

Ya.
Do you really think Johnny Cash used that Nine Inch Nails song "Hurt" without those guys giving consent and being plumply compensated? Give me a break. You are simply not clear on the concept.

You guys aren't keeping up! John C. said "No matter how well you "improve" that piece of artwork or how well you play that famous song it will NEVER be yours. Never. So what is the point? "

Just giving him something to think about :-)

To equate the music world and the visual art world is ridiculous. An original piece of visual art, and an original song has a very different career and marketing path. Completely different animals. Maybe herein lies at least part of the problem.

Nope, same concept, Rose. Music examples are often easier to understand, in turn making the bridge to the art easier to see.

Dan's right, they are very much the same in all aspects. You can't pick and choose which art world to apply your theories on, they either hold water or they don't.


-W

Dan,

I was beat to the punch.

The difference is those people PAID to cover those songs. Remember when Vanilla Ice was sued by Queen because he "sampled" (a modern word used to cover a theft) the beginning of the song "Under Pressure"? Vanilla Ice was like the kid on the computer copying an image to use in his artwork. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft. It really is that simple.

When using a public domain work to create art the original artist doesn't get paid.

It is like the earlier discussion of the music writers getting paid for their work.

I guess if you boil down my objection to one simple thing is that the work being copied, manipulated (or whatver you want to call it) is being used without compensation.

I know that to some profiting from one's own work is unheard of, but profit is a HUGE motivator in any matter (art,music,medicine,whatever). Profit drives innovation. Always has, always will.

And no, I am not Ansel Adams. Nor would I want to be. I would like to have his success but I don't want to copy him to get it. If I get there, and that is a big IF for all of us, I want it to be on work I create by paying dues. Not by standing on shoulders of others.

If one does not strive to do something better, than all they will ever be is part of a "cover band". Some are happy there, some are not. How far did the 2,000 people that covered the song "Yesterday" get? All bands may start doing covers in a bar but none of the "greats" get great by staying there. To me to make it in music one must HATE doing those covers in those bars. They have to want something better.

Look at all the stupid reality singing shows. They are all cookie cutter shows where people try their best to cover songs made famous by others. They all blend together into the same old show. They lack orginiality, just like an image made from someone elses work.

http://www.pdinfo.com/Public-Domain-Music-List.php

Lots of songs in the public domain. As we get to the Christmas season, ever wonder if the original writer of "Silent Night" gets paid for each and every version of the song that gets played... over and over? Most of the classic Christmas songs are free to use. Lots of folk music is also public domain. Celtic music..I love. Many of those are free to use as well...

Many of the British Invasion bands from the '60s were great at taking American Blues and early rock and giving it a new vision. I'm sure they paid for the rights to use it (usually), but they certainly made the music their own. From all that I have read and understood, they "copied" these songs because they truly respected the work, and this is how they paid homage to the music. The Beatles "Twist and Show" and the Stone's "Walkin the Dog" come to mind....

So, my take is that one can copy and be creative. And compensation is a matter of law, and isn't part of the "creativity". In some cases, you have to pay the original artist. Some, you don't. What is true for music is also true for visual arts. If it is public domain...you don't.

Just for the record, it was David Bowie that sued Vanilla Ice. While I like Queen, it is quite unethical to confuse the two. :o))))))

But yeah, Christmas songs in the PD are a great example.

To me:

Taking someone else's original output, and tweaking it, to make your own unique statement is fine

but

Taking someone else's original output, and tweaking it, just to have it pass as your own work ain't fine.

This pop music comparison is lame........... loose to say the least... You guys weren't in the debate club were you?

I was not on the debate club but do a fair amount of that kind of thing now. I am pretty sure if I ever said "That argument is lame." I would be benched.

The music argument is in fact on point for this debate. It is about artist A taking artist B's work and making it his or her own. Isn't that in fact what this debate is about? Now, whether artist A has to pay artist B is a matter of law and not one of ethics or morals. If you sing a Christmas song that has been around for 150 years who would artist A pay?

assuming you consider a pop music performer an "artist".........

Most musical performances are a collaborative to begin with...It's the nature of the beast... music is a moment, a crack between the past and the present.. it has no matter ..

So music isn't art? Or pop music isn't art?

Then that gets into the "what is art" argument and since I am a mere photographer I am not even sure I am an artist. Would that explain why I never had to be sworn in and take an oath to uphold the "code of ethics" I knew nothing about?

eh, I will just keep taking my pretty pictures and not worry too much about it since I don't actually use anyone else's work and it takes way to much effort for me to worry about policing others...

I think there are certain artists who would like to make art exclusive to a self-appointed few, through psuedo intellectual snobbery, not through any real art. I tend to value artistic freedom removed from those chains of exclusion, open to all that want to appreciate art in it's pure sense, an equal opportunity medium that crosses all dividing social institutions. To make art exclusive for artficial reasons would only help to deminish creativity - that can only be a one way trip backwards, and we might as well start brushing up on religious art to help us when that sad day should come upon us.


-W

"The painting world is awash with people who cannot paint. This is a condition that would not be tolerated in other professions such as Dentistry, Medicine, or among members of the Airline Pilot's Association." Robert Genn

Cou;d be the reason for digital art being so full of copies. They figured out they can't do there own work well and well, look what has happened,

You're absolutely right Wings and JC.. Elitism is a fixation my ego tends to hide behind................ what is yours?

Actually, I don't think the Airline Pilot Association cares if you can paint or not.

Of course, bad art doesn't kill or maim like perhaps a bad doctor or bad pilot might. ;) And I've seen all levels of proficiency in artists, both traditional and digital. Perhaps a bias toward digital art is coming out? ;)

Interesting points Robert and Wings...

Robert, I assume you realise that not only "music is a moment", all that is (including matter) manifest itself in "The Moment".

Wings, there is Art as a process, capable of being completely free of any social constraints and then there is the result of such process the "Art Work", often subjected to all kinds of social constructed limitations.

JC wrote-- "it takes way to much effort for me to worry about policing others..." Of all the comments made within this discussion, that one cuts to the core and speaks to me.

-Peter

Robert, I was talking in general terms, not about you, but if you are so quick to admit it, then perhaps that's the subconscious issue we are dealing with here and perhaps that is a personal conflict that you have been living with. We can help, we are here for you as fellow, though non-exclusive, artists.


-W

In all seriousness, it is completely irreverent that Pilots, doctors and dentists actually NEED to know what they are doing. In two of those professions people would DIE if they didn't. In dentistry they could die but at the very least would have messed up teeth.

Sorry guys, art is just not that critical. Seriously. If you produce bad art, nobody buys it. Who cares? You don't die and you don't have bad teeth even if you do choose to buy bad art.

Edit, yeah, what Jeff said.

I made the mistake of studying philosophy and physics and came to the conclusion that not all matter matters................

It is just a matter of Time Robert :-)

Einstein and Hawkings would argue that all matter do matter.

-W

JC, your take is just too simplistic.

A recording "artist" records a song, depending on public domain or not, pays the original author a royalty or some kind of licencing, or settlement agreement.

A visual "artist" decides he wants to use all or part of someone else's work, depending on public domain or not, pays the original author a royalty or some kind of licencing or settlement agreement.

so far so good,
however.........

there is a big difference between, a singer or musician, as Simon (American Idol reference) would say, " really making that song your own"
and
copying part of another visual artists work, or colouring an old master and deciding that you have made it your own, claiming that now it is your own and signing it.

edit: To me this comment below concerns me of all the comments made in this discussion, because it has been latched onto, and will now become the new mantra.

@Peter ChilelliE-Mail , "JC wrote-- "it takes way to much effort for me to worry about policing others..." Of all the comments made within this discussion, that one cuts to the core and speaks to me. -Peter"

Kind of like plugging your ears and singing la la la la to drown out any chance of any new thought process.

Rose, you said "there is a big difference between, a singer or musician, as Simon (American Idol reference) would say, " really making that song your own" "

I disagree with this. No singer/musician can make the song/aria/concerto their own - not one. But they can make their interpretation a signature of their own talent - an ability to go within.

Is there such a thing as high and low music in the arts?

Rose Art..it's kind of like watching fox news

Or something, RJ.

Zeana I meant not to muddy the waters further. Arguing whether or not Simon is full of crap or not is not the point. Nor at this time, is discussing "high and low music in the arts."
imo

^ Ok, I hear you, Rose.

Throughout my life, I've tried to convince myself that I did it "My Way"

No matter how many times I sing it at a karaoke bar..it's.only Frank Sinatra's Way...Not mine.

It's not Paul Anka's lyrics...It's not the original tune (see below)....It's not all the cover recordings...even the Sex Pistols.....It's pure and simple Frank's

"My Way" is a song popularized by Frank Sinatra. Its lyrics were written by Paul Anka and set to music based on the French song "Comme d'habitude" composed in 1967 by Claude François and Jacques Revaux, with lyrics by Claude François and Gilles Thibault. "Comme d'habitude" had in turn originally been written in English, titled "For Me". Anka's English lyrics are unrelated to the original French song or the earlier English version. "My Way" is often quoted as the most covered song in history[citation needed]

I think of painting as a secret but you guys have no idea how much we are revealing ourselves here.... It's all just hanging out there to see if you know how to read the code...

Mr RJ - some of us see it.

Like this that I adore.

Robert, I learned a long time ago that words do not belong to anyone but themselves, if anything they would more to the reader or listener...Not sure of your codes...but I am certainly not here to judge anyone (for there is nothing to judge), but mainly to exchange opinions and views, expressing mine and learning from others. We should also respect the right of everyone to say tomorrow exactly the opposite of today, for there lies the freedom of wisdom!!!

I always thought that one of the reasons why a painter likes especially to have other painters look at his or her work is the shared experience of having pushed paint around.
Chuck Close

X...Words belong only to themselves........... but still the order in which they are placed and the time and place in which they are delivered convey thoughts, ideas and feelings that originate into a form through a personality..

thank you Zeana

The questions brought up in this thread are not about what can be done or what is being done but, what should be done and still call yourself an artist. Should an artist scan the work of another artist (or download it) and sign it? How about just changing it around? Using work or works for reference is not the same thing. Anyone who has gone to art school or been trained has copied other work. Good way to know how someone else worked. To sign it as your own is quite another deal. To use the Mona Lisa as satire has been done a lot. Not the same deal either. What about the work of lesser more obscure artists? Are they fair game? Has America been so "dumbed down" that it real;ly works? My question is, once again, what SHOULD be done?

I went to Art School, ...Thank goodness that I went to the High School of Music & Art, NYC. For the first day , we signed the pledge not to ever copy again..Everything was drawn from the imagination or real life..... And that made all the difference.

Mark, intelligent artists know what should be done. Do they always do it? No. Plain and simple. There will always be people trying to get away with something. Hoping no one will notice. Hoping to make one more sale before their image is found out and taken down. There are a LOT of unethical people in this world...and not just artists. They exist in every profession.

There are laws about public domain, laws concerning copyright, etc. The best we can hope for is that the renegades read up on these topics and maybe grow a backbone or conscience and begin to respect the rules. But the world is a big place full of many different people...people who feel they are entitled to steal, people who don't care if they steal, people who don't know they're stealing, people who will argue that something is a drawing they made when it is obviously someone else's photograph...a famous photograph at that!

To thine own self be true. You'll sleep better at night and won't find yourself handed a subpoena to appear in court. I don't know anymore, Mark. It's an impossible situation lately. I even see two sides of the fence on here....on HERE where people should know the laws. We'll never march in step as a unit...it would be boring anyway. But the whole subject gives me an icepick migraine (I think I'm hungry...or something!). It's good to debate this subject, but we'll never see agreement. That's what I've seen.

Right on, Roger! I like your thinking and style!

Agreed Joy. But then, a wake-up call is still a good thing.

"My question is, once again, what SHOULD be done?"

Ultimately? There's always only one rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You think certain things are abhorrent and would never ever...! But others think those same things are wonderful and they want everyone to participate.

And therein lies the rub :-)

Sorry to disagree Robert, there is more to a human being as a vehicle of expression than "personality"!!!

Then Dan, what it gets down to is what work lives and what work winds up in a yard sale on it's way to death.

Anyone heard of John Myatt.....loookk on Youtube....Makes a great living at it!

Mark, I am going to answer your question with my opinion and probably get thrown out of this and future threads !!! :-) Oh well...if that's the price...

Art should be Free!!! but not like in Kandinsky's quote "Art is Free"!!!

Artist should be maintained by society so they could focus in creating works for "Public Global Domain"!!!

The more people pay for art the more likely they are to take care of it. I do like the swedes idea of art welfare. Works for me.................

It was asked for a "Lurker's" opinion, so I hope I do not disappoint.

Mr. Perry,

You have unfortunately asked a question where there cannot possibly be a definitive answer. Are these practices "moral" or "ethical" ?

Albeit it makes for great discussion fodder but may fall short on conclusions---with the worldwide bar on ethics and morals being so varied--- in such where common place activities in some areas of the world may send some screaming into the night in a "Munchian" sort of way....the scope is too great.

Now had you asked if these practices should be made illegal under copyright infringement----it may have been more yes or no.

From a purely personal perspective....I believe these practices you describe---may show an individuals skill level---but it also shows a lacking in imagination and or self confidence--wheras an individual is producing an already accepted piece ie; Safe.

An artists make-up consists of revealing a part of themselves...however minute

A re-work lends itself to a mercenary position in art production

Thank You

Good observations Mo and thank you. I am just trying to get a little strife and tension here and it seems to be working.

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." Orson Welles

Mark, I wonder if you are familiar with the Dadaist movement?

Of course.

Well I wonder then if Orson Welles did!!!

I'm sure of it.

Interesting then to obliterate an Art movement that in a way shaped and heavily influenced twentieth century Art, and in all mediums!!!

?????

"In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did they produce?"

Dadaism began in Zurich

dada was from the radical left and the current anti culture movement is from the radical right.............

Robert that is quite an statement!!!

from wikepedia...

"Dada was born out of negative reaction to the horrors of World War I. This international movement was begun by a group of artists and poets associated with the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich. Dada rejected reason and logic, prizing nonsense, irrationality and intuition. The origin of the name Dada is unclear; some believe that it is a nonsensical word. Others maintain that it originates from the Romanian artists Tristan Tzara and Marcel Janco's frequent use of the words da, da, meaning yes, yes in the Romanian language. Another theory says that the name "Dada" came during a meeting of the group when a paper knife stuck into a French-German dictionary happened to point to 'dada', a French word for 'hobbyhorse'."

I studied Dada and Andre Breton when I was 21 and what followed Dada in a massive way has led us to where we are, questioning what is Art, An Artist...They initially seemed to fail in their endeavours, but...Here we are ;-)

Wiki
The movement primarily involved visual arts, literature, poetry, art manifestoes, art theory, theatre, and graphic design, and concentrated its anti-war politics through a rejection of the prevailing standards in art through anti-art cultural works. In addition to being anti-war, Dada was also anti-bourgeois and had political affinities with the radical left.

Thank you Robert I was aware of that, some even became extreme communists, just when Fascism and the Futurists were also around!!!

don't forget the cuckoo clock...............

:-) I am just not sure if there is an anti culture movement from the radical right....

the anti art culture sentiment being spouted here is from the right ..... it's an american thing...

The entire radical right is anticultural.

Ah! Sorry, I honestly missed that reading!!! I studied Political Sciences and since I finished it seems I have subconsciously or perhaps consciously, "obliterated" them!!!

The entire radical right is anticultural - agricultural, actually, and, there's a drought now............couldn't resist..............carry on gentlemen

Radical, extremists, fundamentalists, left or right are dependably problematic.
All I know is that I won't share everything, and I am passionate about art, intention, and whats mine to manage and do with as I decide.

edit; vid above. Forger went to jail and it led to a "rather unhappy" time in his life! I wonder where his bank accounts are. I hope he lost his ju ju.

edit: JUJU, the "magic" of a given plant, liquid or object.

One could say, well who did he hurt, the artists were all dead.
He hurt the whole art market, and if he lost his own juju, he hurt himself.
What he did was illegal. He was caught and went to jail( for a time?)

I know it ain't so, but I wish direct descendants down the centuries reaped the rewards of an artists life work. Now that would be respect., and fitting. Just think of the dent that would make in public domain.

Rose as far as painters go once the painting leaves their hands they don't even reap the rewards...I will never see another dime for work I've already sold...

I know I know, it was just a wish.

edit: all I know, is that the players should be related either by blood or by money.

I might as well be making furniture as far as the legal and tax system are concerned...it is sad..

unfortunately, as long as your blood still pumps the ira or in Canada the cra only knows you for how they can tax you. All you can do is prepare for your descendants the best you can. It can be a legacy left with love, and should be encouraged, made possible and respected.
Legally while an artist lives, I would encourage each and every one of you to protect your work. Be proactive, educate yourself and make a fuss.

it is not beating a dead horse. IT is defending yourself.

is propaganda moral?
is trying to paint God moral?
are religious works of art idols?
is beautiful art folly?

no, but human nature
sure
no
no

what did you really want to say Drew?

a painters heirs can suffer huge tax bills when inheriting work and potentially loose it or be force to sell under value in the US....

Mother Mary.
how the hell can any tax dept. do that until money changes hands. Makes you wonder who is running the country huh? Canada is just as bad I believe. Damned civil servants, whose paychecks we all provide, need some reeling in aye what?
We got to say.

You should see what they can do to you in a divorce... say it can be proved that an artist sold a 10x10 inch canvas for say $1000..the artist would then have to buy their own work from their spouse at that rate per square inch or divide the work in half just like the furniture..

Mexico Robert.....................

I have been known to say that I wish my husband were still alive so that I could divorce him, but hey, maybe not.

ya Mexico

bottom line, watch who youtie yourself to legally. Mistakes you can spend the rest of your life paying for or what?

@Rose as far as painters go once the painting leaves their hands they don't even reap the rewards...I will never see another dime for work I've already sold...

RJ : Look up Artists' Resale Rights on DACS website, also if you haven't sold the copyright income can be generated by selling the image. As an example below is an image of a painting I sold ten or more years ago---------------a couple of days ago I sold 50 greetings cards of it on Redbubble.

RE: " once the painting leaves their hands they don't even reap the rewards"

RJ,...You can say that Again!!!

A case in point: Back in the early 80's a batch of vulture sculptures left my hands going to a shop on consignment....Before ever getting a cent, the shop disappeared, along with the sculptures.

I never expected to ever see those pieces again. And then recently ,there the were, posted for sale on Ebay.

So it goes

Perhaps this ethics thing (are we atill talking about ethics?) comes down to profit?

The musician has to practice his craft, just like the artist, to get good. (The old 10,000 hour rule)

Maybe there IS merit in copying someone's work or trying to make it your own?

My problem with it, where it crosses the line, is when said artist tries to profit from the effort without the consent and /or compensation to the original artist.

I like to do pen and ink drawings on occasion. I have been known to use "found" pictures for my work. The last one I did was a lion at the throat of a zebra. I liked the photograph, so I made it into a drawing.

But here is the thing. I would NEVER post said picture here, or anywhere, for sale. I don't even hang them on the walls of my own house. They are made for me and that is it. Even if it was public domain I would not sell it. I would not even try. It may be legal for me to do so but it would violate MY code of ethics of only taking credit for work that was 100% done by me.

one can sell originals and retain the copywrite or vis versa. Registering one's copywrite become less expensive if a catalog is registered.
Peace to all

Lesson learned. I agree with Vivian.

^ Free Textures are also either commercial or released into the PD - it isn't a quick process to create a good texture - maybe give some of we free texture creators some credit when saying "except for a few free textures". You see, I want ppl to use things I create/photograph and release into the PD, but for those who keep up the "my work is all mine except for blah blah - not so good - it's all fine with me, but you elevate yourself above others using PD material. :=)

John, I was happy to read your post at 10:36. We may not be close to agreement but I think we make great strides when we are at least able to understand one another's position.

Somehow, somewhere, probably in art classes it has been ingrained in me: DO NOT COPY ANYONE ELSE'S WORK.....not a hair not a smidgen, not a piece or part. Copying as an academic exercise, as a teaching method is the only exception.
There are numerous works of art, both from the Old Masters, the Impressionists and contemporary work; certainly work I have seen here on FAA; that I admire greatly. But I would no more copy and sign as my own, or even alter somewhat, and/or give credit to the original artist, than I would jump off Brooklyn Bridge.
It is unethical......the "shady" question of legality is beside the point and I read with great interest Diane's posts about her conversation with an authority on the topic.
I may come across as harsh, in this statement, but my thoughts are: If one must copy or "derive" the work of another artist, it's time to reassess. It's time to evaluate your artistic endeavors. The entire point of being an artist is depicting one's interpretation of subject matter in the style of the artist's choosing and it needs to be original and hopefully unique. Otherwise one is a "copyist".
I have never seen the point in copying, unless it is part of the learning process.

Well stated Elizebeth. I think this issue can be solved from the bottom up. Internet publishers don't seem to care but, I can't imagine a new art collector wanting to be duped. Bad for sales I would think.

What is the profile of the new art collector .. I once thought of the people buying the Kingkade/ Doolittle prints as the new pseudo art collector back in the 90's..Who are they now? the yuppie is dead.......

Good question.......... I have no idea. Kinkade sure did a number though. Glad to see he got his "just deserts".

RE: "Just desserts"

Mark,

Now,that's just not right

RE: "Just desserts"

Mark,

Now,that's just not right

WOW! is this what this thread is all about? the praise of those whom agree such that ones morality is imposed on those who are subject to the winds of the crowd? Jeeeez

It's Ok for me to have ersonal opinions H. Drew. At least I hope so. The "crowd" still loves Kinkade.

"Kinkade sure did a number though. Glad to see he got his "just deserts".

Cold, cruel, heartless comment, Mark. You're a real piece of work.

"The entire point of being an artist is depicting one's interpretation of subject matter in the style of the artist's choosing and it needs to be original and hopefully unique."

Elizabeth, those kind of statements need to be preceded with "For me..."

If there was ever a human endeavor with the widest possible interpretation, it's art. It can be created and defined an infinite number of ways. Some people need to suffer for their art, others find instant and lasting joy. There is no one-size-fits all, nor should there be.

WOW! is this what this thread is all about? the praise of those whom agree such that ones morality is imposed on those who are subject to the winds of the crowd? Jeeeez

Your statement is confusing, H Drew, are you referring to observations on Thomas Kincaid, or statements about copying?
If this is about copying, then if you will read the preponderance of evidence would indicate it is not a good idea......not a matter of "imposing morality" on others. If you want to copy everybody's art, go for it.
My supposition is your work as an artist will not be enhanced, (and you could wind in court in a lawsuit, as well).
We are certainly free to choose our morals; no one is imposing morals on anyone.
Copyright laws are there for a reason......to protect the intellectual property rights of those who author or create a work of art. It may not successfully keep all copying at bay, but it does serve to deter those who have no morals and do not care, and lack imagination, to some extent.

Dan, .....does "my thoughts are" not cover "For me"????

which part of Elizabeth's post makes you uncomfortable Dan?

depicting one's interpretation of subject matter?
the style of the artists choosing?
needs to be original?
or creating something unique?

for your information Dan

Thomas Kinkade: Painter of Crap
Published by Waldo Jaquith on February 28, 2006 in Art, Business and Law and Justice


The couple who ran that ill-fated Thomas Kinkade gallery on the Downtown Mall have won $860,000 in their lawsuit against Kinkade, with the court having agreed that they, along with many other gallery owners, were defrauded, Kate Andrews reports in today’s Progress. That sum may well rise to $3.5M. There are 21 other dealers that have filed similar suits across the nation, all charging that Kinkade forced dealers to buy prints (“paintings”) at vastly inflated rates, undercut them at area discount stores, and then refused to let the dealers lower their prices.

These things run nearly a grand apiece, but Tuesday Morning might sell them for under a hundred bucks, leaving nobody to buy the stuff at the downtown gallery. The couple have now realized that the “I’m just a humble Christian businessman” schtick of Kinkade’s is B.S. Here’s hoping they’ve realized that his work is garbage, too.

03/05 Update: The L.A. Times has a big-big story about this. Turns out Kinkade is a drunk, fondles women, and engages in public urination as “ritual territory marking,” as he calls it.

http://cvillenews.com/2006/02/28/kinkade-suit-won/

Sorry Elizabeth that you are confused. Kinkade died young....some sort of Karma, i guess is the implication but who here truely knows? Hate him or love him who his the judge here?

I wonder if it is ethical to sign, publish and sell without credit to the original author, photo's and digital derivatives of a well know public sculpture?
Dan? or anyone.

Rose, like copying Mike's David; turning it into a bird bath and selling it out the back of a white van at the gas station next to the velvet Elvis?

Not really ethical but if it's in the Public Domain, like Michaelangelo's David, perfectly legal.

Mike, why not ethical? Would you deny the pigeons a refreshing drink on David's head?

"Judges and jealousies" go together... don't they?

I agree with Theresa, who agrees with me.........all the talk hasn't changed anything/understanding, when the answer is blatantly clear. Don't copy. Make your own. No excuses !!

A lot of people read these threads. Many of them will note "certain points of view". I believe most are honest and will go out of their way to make sure other people percieve them that way. By the way, I had no idea Kinkade croaked. Too bad. I'm for his girlfriend however. Doesn't change my view of him or his work. He hurt a lot of people.

I see a divide between the views of people with traditional art backgrounds and educations with the views of a new breed of outsider artists ..... and it's true one is exclusive and one is inclusive to a point

In my opinion it is a breach of ethics to take another's work and try to pass it off as your own.

Ethical to copy someone else's work, or modify someone else's work and sell it as a copy or a derivative work. Give fair credit where credit is due.

Legally reworking someone else's copyright work may be a violation of law, but ethically it is not wrong if you credit the original creator.

David, that last sentence makes no sense.

My point about the pictures of sculpture was, is it fair or reasonable to not give credit to the sculptor? So many people don't bother. Case in point a recent thread posting pictures to do with love. A sculpture by Robert Indiana, pictures of his work, as well as digital derivatives, with no credit, or homage given, by the person. It may be legal to do it, but doesn't that mean with credit? Or is that just if you feel like it or not.

Don't you feel Vivian that continued dialogue has a greater chance of keeping it in the forefront of peoples minds, and thinking about it. Instead of mindlessly using anything and everything they see on the internet, as if it were all public domain, and or free for the taking. There are new people to the game every minute, what do you think the average joe , or howmuch do you think the average joe thinks about copyright, not to mention his or her own ethic, regarding usage of others work, and signing it as their own.

Rose, it could very well be that a simple lack of education on the point is happening. If so, we should try to teach beginners a better more ethical way. RJ is probably right as well in that a "new breed of outsider artists" at work. ( who think they can get away with whatever they want.) My view.

wiki

The term outsider art was coined by art critic Roger Cardinal in 1972 as an English synonym for art brut (French: [aʁ bʁyt], "raw art" or "rough art"), a label created by French artist Jean Dubuffet to describe art created outside the boundaries of official culture; Dubuffet focused particularly on art by those on the outsides of the established art scene such as insane-asylum inmates and children.[1][2]

While Dubuffet's term is quite specific, the English term "outsider art" is often applied more broadly, to include certain self-taught or naïve art makers who were never institutionalized. Typically, those labeled as outsider artists have little or no contact with the mainstream art world or art institutions. In many cases, their work is discovered only after their deaths. Often, outsider art illustrates extreme mental states, unconventional ideas, or elaborate fantasy worlds.

Outsider art has emerged as a successful art marketing category (an annual Outsider Art Fair has taken place in New York since 1993). The term is sometimes misapplied as a catch-all marketing label for art created by people outside the mainstream "art world," regardless of their circumstances or the content of their work.

It's funny, how many photographers get in a tizzy when the thought of one of their pieces being appropriated for another use comes to the fore.

But could care less ,when a photographer snaps a picture of someone else's art.

When brought out, this is, more or less, their response:

"RJ is probably right as well in that a "new breed of outsider artists" at work. ( who think they can get away with whatever they want.) My view."

Actually, it is an old ingrained "elitism" at work in my opinion. Heaven forbid people without an art "education" should even try art.

Yall really need to get over yourselves. There is no "official code of ethics" for artists. Frankly, it doesn't effect anyone else if the artist can't paint well or the photographer has no clue how to shoot a good image. They are all free to try and even learn as they go. Sorry, but ensuring an artist can paint is not relevant in the way making sure an airline pilot can fly is. No one cares if you suck.

You may feel that it is your job to "educate" them but really, it simply isn't working is it?

The long and short of it is if you don't violate copyright, then it is legal. If it is legal people are free to choose to operate that way or not. They do not need your approval. They do not need a fine art education. They CAN in fact "get away with it" so long as it is legal and there is not a thing a self proclaimed art ethics expert can do about it but whine.

I don't use anyone else's work as it would be constraining. It would not satiate my creative need. I doubt it would put food on my table because I would not create work people would buy without my creativity working the way it does.

I also don't judge others because they do not view things the way I do.

euw....having a De je vie moment.....

just how many angels can dance on a pinhead?
Take off your hat and lets count

Most of the threads I have been involve with concerning copyright, morality and the definition of art ends up with someone pissed; bout like discussing religion and politics. With that said, if you do create original art and/or compilations of any type, it is wise to research copyright law as it pertains to your specific situation.

told ya so
LMAO;)

Touchy, you all are not free to do what ever the heck you feel like because you want to or think you can get away with it as you "learn as you go along"
edit; as it pertains to the law. JC, 'as long as it is legal' is not a common enough concept.

Roger it sure looks that way. I am sure you would appreciate your due credit when someone publishes a photo of one of your sculptures. I would think it a fair expectation. edit: seems unethical and correct me if I am wrong, ILLEGAL, to do otherwise.

"you all are not free to do what ever the heck you feel like because you want to or think you can get away with it as you "learn as you go along"
edit; as it pertains to the law."

Ah, the edit is the critical part of that statement and I did in fact say, so long as it is legal, people CAN do what they wish. So, we are in fact in agreement, no?

Touchy? Yeah, I never found elitism a very attractive attribute.

Yes,Rose...these discussions no doubt influence for the good.........ad nauseum

"Jealousy is all the fun you think they had." Erica Jong

@ H. Drew, that clears it up for me.
As to Thomas Kincaid, I really don't have any thoughts on him......Other than it is sad that an artist takes his work to such heights and yet appears to enjoy so little of his fame and fortune: He was obviously a very unhappy person at the end of his life.

No one is obliged to read if they find it boring.

Jc, and that is what we are saying also.
JC, is it or is it not illegal AND unethical to take a pic of anothers art, give no credit, sign it and sell it, whether or not if it is in the public domain.
JC, is it legal and ethical to do a derivative of another artists work without giving credit to the original author at least as a homage.

it is seen daily in this forum, on this site and many others on the web. Who ever 'all', in my opinion, it applies to needs a kick in the ass, but talking about the concepts is the best we can do. You want to shut us up. If it doesn't apply to you don't read and carry on your merry way. If maybe you are living on the edge, know it ain't cool, and as others have said, never under any stretch will be.

Erica Jong, now thats going to date us.

I do not know the answers to those questions Rose as I have no need to know.

I simply contend that if it is legal, and much of what is called "unethical" on this thread is, then there is not a thing anyone can do about it beyond point a finger in shame. It is not for me to judge what is ethical and what is not and it will not be my finger doing the pointing.

Now, if you are in fact violating copyright, you can and should be held accountable but that is for the owner of the copyright to pursue.

Actually JC, there is something collectors on this site can do about it- they can pass on work that is created unethically.
I would not be interested in art from someone who is more interested in "sales" than origin...

Hardly boring....or I'd have ignored it.......but, imho, 'asked and answered'.........Cheers.

Isn't it amazing how we tend to categorize everything??? Outsider Art...I wonder if an "Insider Artist" can still become an "Outsider Artist"??? Anyhow....despite all this categorizing, born of our failure to recognise each individual "Perfect Uniqueness"... Yes, I agree, I think we need more "Outsiders Artists" Creating more "Outside Art from the Inside"!!!

@ JC , " I simply contend that if it is legal, and much of what is called "unethical" on this thread is..."

Please give me an example of something which is legal, and has been labelled unethical, here or anywhere. If JC can't or won't someone else please feel free to give an example.

Penny I am with you on that one.

Rose/Liza, you're one making all the "unethical" allegations, passing judgment and wanting to "kick people in the ass". How 'bout you post some examples of what you're talking about?

No? Didn't think so :-)

Some of you should know that there several real genuine art collectors are following this thread. You may want to upgrade your systems and reboot.................................. That's providing the system between your ears can handle it.

My contention has been that many things that are legal and for that matter ethical are just bad taste............

Ah, the buyer of art, the collector.

Yes, I agree collectors can and should judge for themselves what is original or what is not. They can and should judge what they want to spend their hard earned money on. I have said it many times before, Friends lie, family lie and critics lie because they all have preconceived biases as to what art should be and how someone surpasses or comes short of that preconceived notion. Visa, Mastercard and cash not only speak the truth but they do it rather loudly. You see, it is in fact the collector that judges what art is and since they are the ones paying for it they have every right to do so. THAT is why bad art cannot hurt anyone assuming it is created within the law. The airline pilot that is a poor aviator endangers others. An artist that fails to create memorable and marketable art simply fails to sell anything. (and if you can reboot the area between your ears, perhaps you can see that critical difference.)


Regarding your question Rose, many people have claimed that taking work from the public domain and reworking it and calling it your own is unethical. That is really the whole premise of this thread. There is in fact nothing illegal about it though.

And since you informed me of the collectors following this thread I in fact invite them to peruse my portfolio. They will find nothing that violates my personal morals nor the "ethics" that you traditionally educated artists wish to impose on me. As I have said throughout, I create my own work. My argument here is not about what I do but rather the elitism and trying to tell the uneducated masses that we should ALL follow your ethics because YOU think it's the right thing to do.

Oh, and since there are collectors here, might as well market a bit here.

Good! The thread finally turns productive! All of these have sold multiple times. Are they unethical? Did the collectors get burned? I came up with these all by myself. Or did I? Hehheheh :-)

Predictable................... Sorry I couldn't help myself

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
~ Howard H. Aiken, 1900-1973

And Profitable! ........................ Sorry I couldn't help myself.

And you are right JC, if signing public domain with no credit or homage to the original author is legal, then I will stay sitting "on my high horse", because to me and many others it is unethical.

I would give examples of illegal, but Beth says we can't do that in the forum, name and shame and all. I asked for legal and unethical. Too funny you guys are posting your stuff in this thread in this context. It makes it look like you are defending yourselves. Dan , your work and JC's is what it is, I have no opinion on it, and it does indeed look perfectly legal.
Examples of , "not really what we are talking about."

As if the all the problems of the art world will be solved on this, or any other thread. People argue, discuss, converse..what have you, but in the end, it changes nothing. It's like arguing which is better....green or orange. You can have your opinion and others will have theirs. The only true test if something is wrong is if its illegal, and subject to some sort of action. Otherwise, if it isn't illegal, at that point it would seem to be just a matter of opinion. And not a whole lot can be done if it isn't illegal.... (in my opinion :P)

Now for the shameless promotion.... with a dash of copying....

For those collectors reading this thread, contact me for quantity discounts ;)

unbelievable........................

I will admit that taking something from the PD and signing your name to it is against my personal morals and ethics. I simply choose not to judge others on what they do so long is it is not illegal.

I am not defending my work but rather defending the uninformed masses that do not conform to the official artistic oath of ethics they didn't even know they were supposed to take.

A good reason to teach art history and esthics in secondary school.

I think they should teach aviation in secondary schools so people would know how to fly and not be bad pilots.

Unbelievable? thanks..I thought it was pretty good myself as well ;)

(i know..probably NOT to what you were referring....)

I thought he was referring to mine Jeff, but yours is pretty unbelievable as well.

"What is called a sincere work is one that is endowed with enough strength to give reality to an illusion." Max Jacob

"You use to say, live and let live" Paul M. former Beetle

I once visited a local artist in my area, who only copied the works of the Impressionist, Whistler and Sargent....and had a copy of "Columbia" painting on his walls. That was his "thing". He did not appear interested in marketing them, he explained they were copies of original works.
That was his learning process and he liked the originals.
I did not have a problem with it.
There lies the difference.
I also remember in school a fellow student entered a painting she had copied from a book jacket in the art competition, as her own work. The art teacher and other members of the judging committee saw through the fake....she did not win any rewards, even though it was very well done. The book was very popular, with copies for sale every where in the stores.
Two examples to consider........
I do not know where all this hysteria about "imposing morality on everyone" and we who have had an art education are considered "elite" or "inside artists" as opposed to "outside artists" (who did not), stems from.
It seems pretty clear-cut to me: produce your own original work. Why make a mountain out of a mole hill?

Unfortunatly elizabeth, there would be a lot of work titled "Blizzard at Noon"...................................

Well, J C, after reading this and how many other threads on copyright issues on this site, the "uninformed masses" should now be informed. We should, as artists, be educators as well.
Read my above post as to two views of the "copying spectrum".

"I would give examples of illegal, but Beth says we can't do that in the forum"

Then post a link OFF the forum, Rose/Liza and show us this rampant crime wave of counterfeit, unethical, immoral art. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Ya ok Dan I'll get right on that. Anyone visiting this site sees examples everyday, it is no secret.
edit: thats not slander, thats fact. FAA has said many times that with the sheer number of uploads daily that it would be impossible to check all of them. They have also swiftly dealt with obvious and proven infringements, when brought to their attention. There will always be image theft and the internet only makes that more prevalent. All the more reason to talk about it.

Vague accusations. You're blowing smoke. Keep up the slander.

Liza, yes, we do get images here we have to remove because the member is found to have copied work by others, you are correct.

Not all images reported are true copyright thefts as they are public domain images.

The written word is libel. Spoken is slander.

Indeed an entertaining thread...

This link shared before http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals says:

Ethics: "The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. It defines how thing are according to the rules. Social system/External. Because society says it is the right thing to do.Ethics are dependent on others for definition. They tend to be consistent within a certain context, but can vary between contexts".

Morals: "Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.It defines how things should work according to an individuals' ideals and principles.Individual/Internal. Because we believe in something being right or wrong. Usually consistent, although can change if an individual’s beliefs change".

Would by the above be fair to say that "Ethics" just like "Law" are imposed by society??

I am quite certain that our successors will be shocked at some of our ethics and laws, just as we are of some of those in the past!!!

By the way...So now the buyer decides what Art is??? Art, as I defended before, does not belong to anyone, no different of Wisdom, Love...The buyer simply decides in which commodity

spends his/her money (often as an investment), but please don't confuse this with neither Ownership of Art nor as defining what Art is or isn't!!!

"Originality is the sincere expression of Oneself" (Xoanxo)

I said this a while ago and I did not check through the endless number of books if someone had actually used the exact same words and in the exact same sequence in a very long and endless past...so, may I take claim for such choice, sequence and content of these words until I am shown factual evidence that it has been said before and in exactly the same manner?

Or would ownership be associated to the content? If anyone has implied the same idea but in different words...where would that leave "me" and "my" property (in this case "my" quote)? Can one really detach oneself of one's own surroundings and its influences? If not, could all Art Works just be copies or reworks of something previously observed (consciously or unconsciously)?

Dan,

Pick a name of any famous celebrity.... search it here ...peruse the outcome....and come back to us

"What is called a sincere work is one that is endowed with enough strength to give reality to an illusion." Max Jacob

Is that meant to mean something or is it just one of those bits of meaningless verbiage designed to look as if it means something to impress the masses?

@Vague accusations. You're blowing smoke. Keep up the slander.

One of the key definitions of slander is that the statement uttered is false so it follows that to utter the truth about an artist's work is not slander. One doesn't have to look too far on this site to see all kinds of falsehoods posted by certain artists' in describing their work, but because of the name and shame rule here any accusations need to be vague to avoid mentioning individuals.

Anyway the correct use of the word slander is that it is oral whereas posts here would be libel if indeed they were false.

As I have mentioned earlier I posted an artist's work on this thread that was a perfect example illustrating all three criteria of the original question, however Beth in her wisdom decided that I had breached the name and shame rule even though I had only pointed out that the work in question had managed to garner 78 votes. It is Beth's job to err on the side of caution in the interest of FAA and its members and so I can understand why my post was deleted. However my personal opinion of any work as described in the original post by Mark is that it is at best very disrespectful to a fellow deceased artist and at worse, by the standards one would expect of the highly developed cultured society in which we live, is unethical, dishonest and not OK.

Xoanxo, you are probably on target in the matter of ......could all Art Works just be copies or reworks of something previously observed (consciously or unconsciously)?
And a lot of us probably unconsciously are influenced by work from our predecessors or even contemporaries. I use the term unconsciously influenced, as opposed to outright copying.
I do believe all human beings have a vast visual memory, whether they are conscious of it or not. Artists have the ability to portray or convey snippets from their minds without realizing it. We who study the works of other artists, past and present, the Masters and the unknown are unconsciously influenced by what we see.....as to style, technique or subject matter. This can apply to photographs, people and places in our lives, anything we have seen, maybe felt or touched.
I include figures from my imagination in some of my landscape work. It's surprising how these figures, purely from my imagination, resemble a friend or members of my family and this has been pointed out to me.
What makes us artists is this ability to depict what we have stored in our visual memory and on the spot visualizations: using models or on location scenes as subject matter, in our own interpretation.
Down-loading someone else's work, pinning it to one's easel and copying it, signing your name to it and marketing it as your own is illegal, a disservice to the original artist, a disservice to ones own development as an artist.....and yes [that horrible word] immoral.
Ignorance of copyright laws by the "uninformed masses" will never hold up in court, as with the other laws of this country, and probably others as well.

Its nice that so many people want to help me with my Holiday Shopping, but the next peice I buy is from Vivian, (an original - not just her art either)

Dan, seriously, have you ever considered fabric design? most big companies have their own designers now because of copyright problems with stuff coming out of China. Your images would look great on fabric.

Oy...........Freudian castration anxiety and fear of incompetency is just dripping off these pages........... Do you guys really think that your POD print sales say anything?

Robert, if PoD sales mean nothing to you why are you here? Why do you list 171 images? Shouldn't you be concentrating on getting your work into the Louvre? Hypocrisy seems to drip from these pages as well.

PoD sales mean paying the rent and putting food on the table but hey, waiting to be discovered once you are dead is a great way to be a "real" artist as well.

I'm here for the juice JC..My other passion however is personality typography which you guys give me much fodder for....

Yeah JC, suicide is on his bucket list...

I do a little personality profiling myself. Being here for the kicks simply explains your participation in the thread. My question is why you have 171 images on here if PoD is meaningless?

So, I am curious, give me a reading on me and I would happily tell you how close you are. But then, you seem to fancy yourself an expert so I gather you know me better than I do.

JC in all respect to you as a human being it would not be fair for me to do this on the thread, I know you are going through a difficult time in your life where your faith has been shaken and I actually am a compassionate man...I would gladly do it in private... Also if you notice many of my images are just silly personal photographs..Having my work on here for others to see can give them some kind of bearing as to where I am coming from............

But yet, you have prices on many more.

I appreciate your compassion but my guess is that you would not even come close anyway, regardless of how good you think you are at this. Generally speaking arrogance rubs me the wrong way and is one of the few things that really sets me off. What you have seen of me in this thread is simply a response to the arrogance throughout it. Self confidence is a wonderful thing but there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Self confidence is "I am good." Arrogance is "I am better than you."

Watching how I respond within a tread filled with a preponderance of arrogance will show but a small part of my personality but then, judgmental people will assume what they wish from whatever they see.

JC you're last post demonstrate that you are reactive.....you are what I call a skeptic counter phobic loyalist.. you desire to test for the truth, to recognize and challenge what you consider a bad authority..A hero at heart capable of great acts of courage and loyality... It's not that you are fearless, actually you are afraid but get an adrenaline rush out of over coming your fear..money= security which is a fear issue...You post a picture of yourself as closed, armed and ridged ..I imagine you also have some pain issues. What you need most of all right now is positive reassurance and faith. ...


edit..yes I have prices..it's not like I don't cash the check . it is not my primary motivation however..

Not bad....

so

ethics in art......

Wow, how did we get to cyber palm readings in a discussion about art, ethics and public domain images? ::::pressing my palm to my monitor:::: ;c)

-Peter

Edit: lol Beth you beat me to it!

So..ethics in art.

Is like ethics in anything else. Some people have a stricter set of ethical codes than others. Which is fine. Great. Wonderful even. However, unless someone's actions violate law (copyright or other), ethics is a matter of personal choice. A person may be within his own set of ethic conduct while violating those of another person. But, that other person, to me at least, does not have the right to impose his ethical code on everyone else. Unless, again, it violates law.

Peter, the thread was opened for the sole purpose of throwing stones, passing judgment and bearing false witness. When the perpetrators were called out on it...well!! Now the game changes to cyber palm readings and character assassination :-) Is that ethical?

Dan, are you saying I assassinated someone's character ?????????? the only thing I think I was assassinating was belief systems..but then even an objective opinion is an oxymoron...........

This thread is not trying to "impose" anything on anyone. It is about a discussion on ethics. A concept several of you don'st seem to be able to grasp. Possibly from a lack of education? Or just plain amoral, I have no idea. I would however, ask you to knock off the personal attacks. Unseemly at the least. Starting with you Dan. In other words, lighten up.

Jeff as per your post concerning me. It's all about context.

"This thread is not trying to "impose" anything on anyone."

That is EXACTLY what you and others are trying to do, Mark. Are you not reading what you write???

It's a pointless topic, anyway. The people who downloaded my photos and entered them into a Qatar Airways contest (with dodgy rules, by the way, like most online contests) simply wanted to have the prize and didn't care how they got it. There are loads of people in the world like that and if that is how people think it is no use preaching to them, they'd just laugh. Then there is a whole continuum running from those who steal outright to those who want to try to create something unlike anything else, and each one will carry on doing exactly what they are comfortable doing.

Is it ethical to beg for votes in a photo contest because you want the prize? Is it ethical to vote for a crummy photo in a contest because you have been asked to? Is it ethical to use a secret trick to rig a search engine in your favour? Is it ethical to incorporate a bit of someone else's work in yours and try to profit from it? Is it ethical to photograph a pepper in black and white because Weston did it and you feel like doing something similar? It all depends how it fits with your personal view of life.

A line of thought that may arise from this discussion may or may not nail down the ethical dilemma,

But it does serve albeit on a local level to showcase-the current level of today's artist' mindset in the great evolution of creativity

History will decide if the direction was prudent

Originality will be graded I believe

Ethics is like religion without the deity. When you impose your presumption of ethics above the law and onto those around you, it becomes a personal misguided crusade to create a superficial superior and inferior race/religion/art amongst men, women, and children. The key is, and it's worth repeating, "when you impose your presumption of ethics above the law and onto those around you..." Using Public Domain images is legal by law. -W

"This evolutionary ethic shaped nearly every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare and racial extermination."

- Richard Weikart, "Hitler's Ethic"

Is that your idea of a "higher calling" Wing? Hide behind some law?

So wings, you see no evil?
Everything that is lawful is now ethical?
Ethical's route is ethos meaning character.
It is not being imposed on you to be part of a disscussion about character.

Some understanding of context Wings please. What's that thing you tell the first person who uses Hitler and Nazi's to make an argument? lost.

Good questions . A lot of really worth while posts, Iots to pick up on.

Dan, it's Marks thread and he is pointing out to you that this thread is not about imposing will, you are just not picking up what is being put down, you don't get it, your choice. (Correct me if I'm wrong Mark), but Dan, I believe it is about live and let live, have some respect for that which has gone before you. If its not yours don't take it.

I find original authors being violated a rather large imposition, if you want to talk about being imposed upon.

Mo, I do believe you are right, history will decide and originality will be graded.

RJ, that was the best flip and belly rub conquest I have witnessed in a long time.

"I find original authors being violated a rather large imposition"

And yet you make no attempt to link to these alleged damaged individuals, tell us how YOU have been damaged, or show us specifics or back up your accusations. Is this a big problem? Apparently not. Apparently you and the other rock-throwers are imagining problems where there are none.

Before you accuse others, take a look at yourself. How 'bout you worry about your own backyard? etc etc.

A thread that is laced with pitfalls should be avoided, only argument won here is that.... the fact are within;
peace to you all...

I think I touched some nerves, no? I see no real counter-argument, just continued denial when the facts are presented, like I said before, this is no more than the self-indulged vocal minoriity imposing their misguided will above the law and onto others. And from the masked man who has been putting forth nothing but personal attacks and then states, "I would however, ask you to knock off the personal attacks" - AND, first response from him is in fact a personal attack!? Full of uninformed contradictions and hypocrisy. And with all the psuedo-intellectual arguments flying around, still, no one's been able to defute this simple fact that without the law, there can be no ethics in a civilized society.

-W

"There is no excuse for bad taste" Wing. What is it you are defending? Why are you defending it?

Some big deal court cases on that Philip..................

virtue ethics

Wings, I think (though I haven't thought about it very deeply) that ethics is the source of law, law is not the source of ethics.

Ethics is deeply entwined with philosophy and Aristotle's writings lie at the foundations of it. I'm loth to say much about it since I know very little, but I believe he aimed to derive a proper set of rules for living from a set of basic principles which he considered everyone would accept.

I think we would probably all agree that simply downloading a NASA photo and pretending we took it would be unethical. But beyond that there plenty of grey areas. Is it ethical to profit from printing and selling NASA photos without claiming they are yours, just because you can? Is it ethical to incorporate elements of them in your work? If so, how much?

And ethics is not a one-way set of opinions, either: is it ethical to refuse to make money for ethical reasons while your children starve?

It's a huge grey area and it is entirely up to the individual to decide what he or she is happy with.

Excellent contribution, Philip. From the slides:

"As far as I'm concerned I'm painting things from real life. Like a painter going out and painting the landscape and the buildings, these paintings that I use do already exist and they are part of my life, my education and my way of understanding the world is through art,"

LOVE LOVE LOVE IT!!!!!

Mark, if you actually read some of the facts in response to your personal agendas and attacks, you would have read from my post at 12:44pm the facts which I had BOLDED for your convenience, instead of being quick on the attack response and smuthering anything counter to your simplistic views.


-W

And then there is the problem of finding a decent gallery to hang it in..........................................

"There is no excuse for bad taste"

Mark, I think RJ first used that cliche here, I see no credit to him nor any financial endowment. -W

Did someone defibrillate this?

oyuck

For Dan, you silly boy.

Being asked for permission to use and reproduce one of my images for a logo, business cards, Tee shirts and posters advertising some dental health clinic, for nothing. Saying no, and having the essence of my original painting stolen, and used anyway. First insult was that they thought I should be happy to give it over for free, the second was that, basically they took it anyway. It was on the other end of the country and they figured I wouldn't check.

Remember Lempicka? Big surprise, not public domain. What ever his name was also sold movie stills he put some simulated paint program onto.
Most of the movies were quite old, not sure how rights are kept on films, but he was happy to misrepresent them, sign and sell them as his own skilled handi work.

How about A. Wyeth's, Christine, the guy slightly changed the colour here and there and figured he could put his name on it and publish it for sale. Big surprise, Andrew Wyeth's family still owns his copyrights.

Regularly, photo's of an artists stained glass, blown glass, sculptures, pottery, installation pieces, carvings etc. are sold with no credit given to the work being photographed and sold. If the image was taken in a public place , it is legal, but is it respectful.

Mike posted the old master(yes public domain) tinted signed, and for sale, by someone here who felt no compunction about presenting it as her own skilled work,with no credit what so ever to the original artist. As Mike J. pointed out at the very least it is disrespect.

There are way too many to share. Like Roger has said, type in any famous artists name, and behold the rape and pillage.

good link Penny