NEWSgrist - where spin is art

Painting and the Technical Image World - Pratt Talk 2012

Artist Joy Garnett to Speak on Painting and the Technical Image World,
Wednesday, Nov 28, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

Joy Garnett will deliver a lecture titled "Painting and the Technical Image World" as part of the Department of Digital Arts' fall 2012 lecture series. The talk will take place on Wednesday, November 28th from 12:45 PM to 1:45 PM in Myrtle Hall, Lecture Room 4E-3, on Pratt's Brooklyn campus.

FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

See event details on Facebook.

Joy Garnett is an interdisciplinary artist and writer. Her paintings, based on found images of explosive events, locate instances of the apocalyptic sublime in mass media culture. Her social media projects examine the intersections of our digital and material worlds. Garnett studied at the Ecole des beaux-arts in Paris and received her MFA from The City College of New York. She has received numerous fellowships including a grant from Anonymous Was a Woman.

Garnett is represented by Winkleman Gallery, NY.

More info: http://joygarnett.com

DDA Fall Lecture Series: http://prattddals.wordpress.com/

4 Possible Outcomes for Cariou v. Prince

 

Courtesy Flickr and the Artists; Illustration by BLOUIN ARTINFO - Image Via

Handicapping Cariou v. Prince: 4 Possible Outcomes for the Landmark Appropriation Art Lawsuit

by Rachel Corbett

Published: August 29, 2012 in ARTINFO.com

Rumors have been swirling that judges in the Patrick Cariou v. Richard Prince copyright lawsuit are nearing a decision. But while the outcome of the ongoing appeal has been eagerly anticipated on both sides, there’s a good chance the answer won’t be a simple “guilty” or “not guilty” for Prince. Instead, legal experts expect the judgment to fall somewhere in between, or perhaps even branch off into dozens of rulings — one for each painting in the contested series.

Last year, U.S. district court judge Deborah Batts sent shock waves through the art world when she ruled that Prince’s “Canal Zone” collages, which incorporate photographs from Cariou’s book, “Yes, Rasta,” infringed on the photographer’s copyright. Batts wrote that Prince didn’t meet the four standards of the fair use principle, and that ultimately the paintings — some of which are worth more than $10 million — could be destroyed.

Whatever the outcome of Prince’s appeal, that penalty doesn’t seem likely to stand. In May, one of the three appellate court judges, Barrington Parker, compared the injunction to “something that would appeal to, you know, Huns or the Taliban.” In fact, according to Columbia University law professor Philippa Loengard, it’s “very unlikely” that the judges will uphold the lower court’s decision in its entirety. “I would bet millions that’s not going to happen,” she told ARTINFO.

So, we asked Loengard, what are the other possible scenarios?

 

READ ON.....

NYU Comedies of Fair U$e (2006): Molotov talk now up on YouTube

My ancient googlevideo account just prompted me to transfer an old video to YouTube. I couldn't imagine what it was. It turned out to be my voice-over + slide show from the 2006 conference at NYU "Comedies of Fair U$e", organized by Larry Lessig and Lawrence Weschler for the New York Institute for the Humanities (that's LW's voice at the beginning of the clip introducing me and the subject of the panel). It was a great conference: all the panels were organized by cultural category (publishing, fiction writing, documentary film, visual art, music sampling, etc). The visual art panel included me and my then nemesis, Susan Meiselas, Art Spiegelman, Lebbeus Woods and Judge Alex Kozinsky. Here's my spiel, in a tightly wound 13-1/2 minutes (as opposed to my 45min Columbia Univ. talk given in 2004 on the same subject -- by 2006 I was much clearer on the issues):

WATCH THE VIDEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiO784BvVDE

Makers Weigh-in on Sarah Morris and Origami Crease-Pattern Flap

 

This post on the blog MAKE is highly unusual for the number of smart, insightful comments, which I include below.

via MAKE (thanks to Rob Myers):

“Lawsuit Between Origami Enthusiasts Unfolds” – What Do You Think Makers?

Posted by Phillip Torrone | Monday June 18th, 2012 3:00 PM

Lawsuit between origami enthusiasts unfolds – The Madeleine Brand Show:

Origami is the Japanese art of folding paper. You start with one square sheet. You crease it, fold it and pretty soon you’ve created a bird or maybe a frog.
Expert origami artists can take that same sheet and make elaborate flowers or lifelike insects.

There’s a lawsuit pending though, that could shake up the craft of origami, and the art world in general. Reporter Sanden Totten takes us inside a dispute between and origami maker and a painter.

Origami artist Robert Lang is suing abstract painter Sarah Morris, claiming that she used his designs in her paintings without asking permission.

We’ve featured Robert Lang’s origami here at MAKE (and CRAFT) so – please review the entire article (and listen the show, MP3) and post up what you think about this. Is it fair use for the artist, Sarah Morris, to make artwork from Robert’s computer generated folding-designs, or is it a copyright violation? Her paintings are the crease pattens, blown up, colored, and they’re paintings – not folded up. Robert does not appear to be credited in her works according to the article. Armchair lawyers, weigh in!

15 Responses to “Lawsuit Between Origami Enthusiasts Unfolds” – What Do You Think Makers?

1. Steve Hoefer (@Grathio) on June 18th, 2012 at 3:36 pm said:

   Credit is a weird and complex thing. I once received a legal threat to _remove_ credit that I had given someone who inspired me. (No, I don’t understand either.) I’ve run across projects very obviously inspired by things that I’ve done and not been given credit. And that sucks, it’s like a punch in the gut. There’s this person out there whom I inspired to do something great (good!) who is claiming all the credit for themselves. (bad!) Every time I see it happen I get wound up, throw a tiny little angry party in my head. Could I sue? Sure! Would I win? Possibly, sometimes.

   But I don’t sue. I rarely even send a nasty (or passive agressive) letter. Because what do I really want? Do I want to get paid? Sure, who doesn’t, but any settlement is going to be small and I’ll have to deduct the legal fees. That’s if I win the suit. If I loose, it’s all out of pocket. There are better ways to get paid.

   Do I want to get recognition? Of course! But do I want to be recognized as someone who creates and encourages inspiration, or recognized as someone who sues those who are inspired by my work? I most definitely don’t want to be known as the latter. If the choice is between no recognition and being an inspirational wet blanket, I’ll take obscurity.

   So I don’t sue (or haven’t yet). It’s not the solution to my problem, ans sometimes there is no good, correct solution to a problem. I figure it all comes out in the karmic wash. A person simply can’t build a good reputation on ripping off the work of others.

   Reply ↓
2. chuck on June 18th, 2012 at 4:01 pm said:

   The internet has made intellectual property as we know it an obsolete thing. I see too many novel things in a day to catalog what inspired what and why. As far as direct inspiration or the modification of someone else’s idea goes, credit is what matters and we should all give it where it is due. If your interest in your ideas is purely financial then don’t share them. Ideas are viral and you can’t claim ownership of a shared idea any more than you can sneeze in my face and demand I don’t catch your cold.

   Reply ↓
3. Stryder on June 18th, 2012 at 4:17 pm said:

   It would be one thing is she was “inspired” by the stuff and rendered a painting from my mind’s eye. It might even be ok if she looked at the pic and free handed her own interpretation. But if she did multiple 99%-to-scale cut n pastes and presented it as abstract art, giving due credit would have been calling herself out for fraud.

   Reply ↓
4. Janebot on June 18th, 2012 at 4:19 pm said:

   Robert Lang makes his living off those patterns. They are made with his own software, (he is an engineer) which he writes and designs, and he uses the software to create unique paper patterns. He sells books, teaches classes, displays his folds in museums, and sells special order (life size paper origami quartet for an orchestra performance)origami. Those are his livelihood, and when she takes them, laters them, makes money off them, and does not credit him, she is acting dishonorably at the least, illegally at the worst. Those patterns are the work of a master folder, with decades of experience and teaching, and most of his designs are only foldable by masters, since the computer allows him to design folds that stretch the limits of what the paper can do in terms of thickness and strength. I am a hobbyist and my mother is a master folder of 30 years experience, and his incredible designs are beyond our ability to replicate. I have met him and seen his folds on display at a museum in California, and they’re astonishing. His folding patterns are his property and the result of his hard work, and she should credit and purchase them accordingly.

   Reply ↓

   • Dominic Muren (@dmuren) on June 19th, 2012 at 12:15 am said:

     Legal technicalities aside (because copyright has been around long enough, and ben revised enough, that it cannot accurately represent the interests of the majority of people):

     “Robert Lang makes his living off those patterns. They are made with his own software, (he is an engineer) which he writes and designs, and he uses the software to create unique paper patterns. He sells books, teaches classes, displays his folds in museums, and sells special order (life size paper origami quartet for an orchestra performance)origami. Those are his livelihood, and when she takes them, laters them, makes money off them, and does not credit him, she is acting dishonorably at the least, illegally at the worst.”

     Robert Lang does not make print-based modern art. There is no reasonable way that this piece of artwork diverts revenue from him. In fact, if it gave credit (which would be polite, but is not required by copyright law) it might even expose more people to his work (since he can’t exhibit in all museums at once).

     Let me be clear: I’m not saying she’s not breaking copyright law. I’m just frustrated that copyright law, as it stands today, causes artists to get sued unnecessarily, and encourages Robert Lang, one of my favorite thinkers, to act like a troll.

     Reply ↓
5. Janebot on June 18th, 2012 at 4:22 pm said:

   *alters derp!
   I appreciate that we all stand on the shoulders of giants- there is a great deal of origami that is hundreds of years old, unattributable, or public domain that she could have used, or she could have put on her artist hat- and made her own designs, like Robert Lang did to begin with.

   Reply ↓
6. johngineer on June 18th, 2012 at 4:48 pm said:

   She probably looked at the original patterns and said to herself: “those are fascinating” and wanted to find a way to showcase what she found so interesting about them, so she made paintings of them. It’s really not uncommon to get hung-up on some small piece of a larger work, and want to celebrate it and create from that starting point. Mimicry is a valid (if presently overused) creative avenue.

   In another time, she might have called her work “Origami (after Robert Lang)”.

   But we live in the early 21st century, where inspiration without written permission (and royalties) is verboten. So rather than ask for permission, get the wrong answer, and end up on someone’s radar, she went ahead and did it on the QT and then got caught. The penalty for either is about the same.

   Reply ↓
7. Wicker on June 18th, 2012 at 5:25 pm said:

   I think it’s a pretty far stretch to attempt to sue an artist in a different medium, using small sections of software generated patterns which she layered and otherwise altered to produce her finished product. A product which in no way appears to mimic the work of the person suing her. He works in paper to create a three-d object, hers is two-d. If no one had told me she was inspired by his work, I would have easily believed she simply drew the shapes herself. I think Lang should probably save himself some stress and let it go.

   Should she credit him, absolutely if he desires it. Why not? She said herself his work inspired her.

   In terms of a court case, he has as much chance to win as lose I would say. Depends on the judge more than anything else and whether he can produce hard evidence of “copying”. It would need to be virtually traced from the original to have a prayer. I hope they settle out of court and save the world one more rather silly litigation.

   Reply ↓
8. Brent Marshall on June 18th, 2012 at 5:44 pm said:

   A couple of years ago I had an extended conversation with CARFAC (http://www.carfac.ca/) regarding this exact topic. After getting several levels of people experienced in copyright law, the result was murky at best. As an Origami folder I use crease patterns (CPs) to learn from, and sometimes reproduce for a commissioned rate, but at all times you provide the original credit for the design.

   In a conversation a few years ago with the late Origami artist Eric Joisel (http://www.ericjoisel.com/) I was asked to change the credit from a photo of my fold / his design because it was not folded the way he folds. He also provided a photo of his finished product, which was simply astounding. It was a fascinating lesson in proper accreditation.

   Reply ↓
9. Ed on June 18th, 2012 at 5:52 pm said:

   What does his software license say?

   Reply ↓
10. Matthew Krawczun on June 18th, 2012 at 7:39 pm said:

    there’s an old saying.

    “a good artist borrows a great artist steals”

    if you had to get or give credit for everything piece of art made there would be no art in the world. I understand this man makes a living off his art but this isn’t going to change that. this is about greed, feeding an outdated belief that we own ideas

    Reply ↓
11. Sean Ragan on June 18th, 2012 at 10:00 pm said:

    Here’s a key bit of language from Blanch v. Koons, a recent (2005) and important US federal case about artistic “appropriation,” as it is known:

    “The painting’s use does not ‘supersede’ or duplicate the objective of the original, but uses it as raw material in a novel way to create new information, new aesthetics and new insights. Such use, whether successful or not artistically, is transformative.”

    If it is “transformative,” per earlier case law, then it is fair use. The qualifier that the artistic success of the use is irrelevant suggests that whether new information/aesthetics/insights are actually created, or not, is less important than the intention to create them, which Morris clearly has. The other part of Judge Stanton’s test–that the use not supersede or duplicate the objective of the original–also weighs strongly in Morris’ favor, because the objective of Lang’s originals is, clearly, to provide a pattern for producing folded paper works. Morris’s objectives–to provide patterns to be appreciated abstractly, as paintings, solely for their beauty as patterns–neither supersedes nor duplicates that objective.

    Reply ↓
12. Karl Royle on June 19th, 2012 at 12:42 am said:

    It may have been a nice idea to credit the original inspiration but it isn’t required legally not should it be. The paintings are not only a completely different medium but also not even a copy of his work. All she did (as far as I understand it) was to use small pieces of his work and create a new and original pattern then color it. The copyright only applies to the entire image not pieces of it and coloring it even if it was whole, changes the “use” of the original.
    One last thought; if I built a four foot high Cambell’s soup can would Andy Warhol or his estate deserve the royalties? Of course not.

    Reply ↓
13. Niall de Buitlear (@nialldebuitlear) on June 19th, 2012 at 2:34 am said:

    Don’t understand why this is going to court, really. Surely if both parties are reasonable they would agree an appropriate license fee and forget about it. I suspect the origami folder is being unreasonable and is angry about what he perceives to be plagiarism though I don’t accept that it is.

    Sarah Morris’s paintings do sell for a lot of money and no doubt this is also a factor in why he would be so annoyed. However I think that shows a complete failure to understand the art market and how it creates “value” as well as a failure to understand the tradition of abstract painting and conceptual art which Sarah Morris is involved with.

    Reply ↓
14. Shannon Hoover (@shahoo) on June 19th, 2012 at 4:11 am said:

    Robert should be flattered, art is highly derivative and can’t be patented or trademarked.

    Reply ↓

On Appropriation: Penelope Umbrico Weighs In

(Left) Photograph by Patrick Cariou from his 2000 book Yes Rasta, (right) painting from Richard Prince's 2008 "Canal Zone" series (powerHouse Books, Gagosian Gallery)

Detail from Suns (From Sunsets) from Flickr, Penelope Umbrico, 2006-ongoing (Penelope Umbrico)

 

This article is more interesting than its title suggests:

via Studio 360: 

APPROPRIATING IMAGES FOR ART: WHEN IS IT OKAY?

Interview 

Friday, April 06, 2012

 

Last year the artist Richard Prince was sued by Patrick Cariou, a photographer, for copyright infringement. Prince had used dozens of Cariou’s pictures — arty portraits of Rastafarians in Jamaica — in his paintings. This practice of appropriation, incorporating other people's work into new artworks, is well established in the art world, and Prince has based a successful career on it. But a federal judge ruled for Cariou last year, and if Prince loses his appeal, a swath of contemporary art making will become illegal.

Kurt Andersen spoke with attorney Michael Rips and artist Penelope Umbrico about the implications for the case. 

Rips represented Jeff Koons in a very similar case in the 1990s. (Koons had used a cute tourist postcard — a couple holding puppies — to create a multimillion-dollar sculpture.) These cases aren’t easy to argue, Rips tells Kurt. "At the end of the day, however much you appropriate — whatever you're commenting on — before you can have a copyright violation you have to show damages. You have to show that the person from whom you borrowed has been economically injured." Rips feels that the markets in which Cariou and Prince sell their work are quite distinct, so he isn't convinced Cariou experienced injury.

Penelope Umbrico appropriates images from the internet for much of her work. In her series called Suns (From Sunsets) from Flickr she used (without permission) bits of hundreds of amateur photographs. Umbrico contends that because her work is fragmentary and the original image so ubiquitous, it doesn't make sense "to ascribe an individual authorship in the original photograph."

And while Richard Prince's appropriation of Cariou's Rastafarians may be more obvious, she defends his use of the photos. “Prince is using that as an aesthetic device in his work. He is not interested in authoring images, he's interested in making paintings and employing images to be active inside the frame of his paintings."

If Prince loses the appeal, appropriation art like Umbrico’s will be on shakier ground legally. But she insists she won't change her method. "It'll make me more adamant about working this way."

 

Go Penelope!