Snow Day...Slow Day

Taking a mini vacation today to work on a film about snow. Will post tomorrow with snaps and a movie of the Snippets Samplings Static opening. Here's your chance to be famous for at least 5 seconds... hope to see you there!

Snippets Samplings Static — You're Invited!

I'm thrilled to be in the group show, "Snippets Samplings Static " curated by Cora Cohen. Opening this Sunday 3-5 at the Educational Alliance's Ernest Rubenstein Gallery. Artists are: Billy Copley, Jason Duval, Andrew Guenther, Jac Lahav, Max Razdow, James Rosenthal, Susan Shaw, Jo-Jo Sherrow, Ana Wolovick, Haeri Yoo. I've seen and admired many of their artworks when I've seen the work in the gallery circuit. One of the best things about the show from my point of view is getting to meet the other artists. Every time you are in a show like this, you expand your own network of people who never mind talking about art. It's also great to see your own posse, those wonderful people who encourage and support your work. Here's a little taste of the artists, not necessarily the work you'll see in the show, but works I really like. Hope to see you Sunday, resplendent in your best posse get up. After all, my work is evolving and even "Charles Darwin has a posse." And for your further enjoyment, after the images, there's a video of Jac Lahav in action, shot and edited by JP Coakley.

Home is Where the Map Is...

As Artists we think a lot about mapping, whether it is in our paintings, drawings, sculptures or whatever. In addition, in one of my former jobs, I worked on the design and execution of the New York City subway and bus maps (I was lead designer for Manhattan and Staten Island as well as the guide-a-rides at the bus stops.) So it is not surprising I think a lot about maps and mapping. I've been using the web to explore this obsession, regularly visiting Google Earth (for those aerial views), Mapquest, and Google Maps and other applications like the very useful HopStop (to figure out the best subway combinations) and Street Locator (to find the cross street), and the always entertaining CrimeSpotNY. There even versions of maps that show local amenities. One thing is sure, in my neighborhood, I'll never go hungry.

I love to take photographs out of my studio window. Personal maps that are part of works in progress. Home is where the map is...

Copyright and Fair Use Issue #1000000000000000000000000000000000

Part 5

Artists don’t seem all that clear themselves when they discuss their relationship to copyright and fair use. For example in Print magazine, Milton Glaser says, "...For myself—this is subjective—I find the relationship between Fairey’s work and his sources discomforting. Nothing substantial has been added. In my own case, when I did the Dylan poster, I acknowledged using Duchamp’s profile as an influence... " Look at the pictures below and see why this raises the gray areas of fair use, plagiarism, referencing, and appropriation. The little block on the upper right of the famous Dylan poster says "Milton Glaser." Yup, I didn't see Duchamp's or Peter Max's name either.



Perhaps we should look to the old phrases guide us; "Let your conscience be your guide," "Handsome is as handsome does," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or maybe we just want to have our cake and eat it too.

If Ideas and Facts are Not Copyrightable, how about Someone’s Face?

PART 4

According to the Copyright Office, “the nature of the thing depicted or the subject of the photograph . . . is not regarded as a copyrightable element.” The reason for this is that facts and ideas are not copyrightable.

A lawsuit was filed against Oprah Winfrey by two photographers who had authorization to take photos on the set of Oprah’s show. Oprah used several of the photographs in a book, and the photographers sued her. The court determined that the photographers owned the copyrights in the photos because they were independent contractors. Oprah and her production company then said they were joint owners of the copyrights in the photos because they contributed Oprah herself who is featured, Oprah’s facial expressions, clothing, and the look and feel of the television show. The court determined these were non-copyrightable elements and the photographers prevailed.

Mel Gibson appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel show that aired in some markets after the Academy Awards. While briefly discussing Gibson's DUI arrest where he spouted anti-semitic comments, Kimmel then led to a scripted Gibson quick discussion of whether he also called a female police officer "sugar tits." Gibson denied saying it, the two laughed about it, and then Gibson said he'd wished he'd actually coined the phrase. "I wish I could copyright it" Gibson said, Kimmel agreed. Continuing the Donald "you're fired" Trump tradition, will we now be repeatedly exposed to Mel "Sugar Tits" Gibson?

Perhaps this is a Waterloo where the famous defend themselves with the "Right of Publicity"? For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger sued the maker of political Bobblehead caricature dolls, for infringing his “right of publicity.” Schwarzenegger comes from the entertainment world rather than the political arena, and he knows the value of himself. What's the matter with the politicians? Don't they understand the value of every nickel, penny or 10th of a cent? Jimmy Carter gifted the makers his book in response to his Bobblehead, and Rudy Giuliani carried his around for show and tell. Will Obama be next? Or worse—the Obama "Chia Pet"? @!?#&#!?

Educate yourself! Here is a link to a very good article at NYFA and here are a few books I have found to be of great value relative to these issues. Just click on any of the books below and go directly to Amazon. To be continued in Part 5...



And if you really have to own the Chia Obama.
Chia Obama Handmade Decorative Planter












Parts of this blog excerpted from Front Page News

Warholize me! Obamicon me! Sue me!

Copyright and Fair Use PARTS 2 and 3




"Steal this blog," or rather "Sue this Blog," might be where we're going next in the continuing saga of Fair Use. Copyright infringement lawsuits directed at bloggers and other online publishers are on the rise. According to the New York Times, the number of suits rose more than 500% in 2007. These legal disputes are symptomatic of the ease of “sharing” and the Internet’s link economy. Many web sites post excerpts from time to time, including this one. At what point does excerpting from an article become illegal copying?

The courts have not provided much of an answer. In the United States, the copyright law provides a four-point definition of fair use, which takes into consideration the purpose (commercial vs. educational) and the substantiality of the excerpt.

As Mr. Ardia, whose Citizen Media Law Project is part of the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School said, “New modes of creation, reuse, mixing and mash-ups made possible by digital technologies and the Internet have made it even more clear that Congress’s attempt to define fair use is woefully inadequate.”

For now, Web sites are defining it themselves. Sites like Alley Insider and The Huffington Post are ad-supported businesses that filter the Web for readers, highlighting what they deem to be the most meaningful parts of newspaper articles and TV segments.

The Huffington Post, co-founded by the author and columnist Arianna Huffington, is perhaps the star of the excerpting debate. Ms. Huffington’s editors are especially adept at optimizing the site for search engine results, so that in a Google search, a Huffington Post summary may appear ahead of the original article.

Read the full article in today’s New York Times, it is our future.

See Yourself as Others Sue You




Adding to this is the current rage for portraits "in the style of" that you can create yourself. There are thousands of sites today where you can have your snaphot turned into a "Warhol" for $69.95 canvas wrapped and like they say in the commercials "sofa-sized. " Or perhaps you would prefer an original "Fairey" courtesy of Pasteboard Magazine. To be continued...

Steal this book!

Steal this book! by Abbie Hoffman—I don’t know if you remember this tome about among other things liberating oneself from “corporate feudalism” but it was prescient of today. The imagined corporate feudalism has today become “branding”, and the protectiveness of those brands for profit is impacting our ability to have free speech. You cannot speak about society today or perhaps even express it fully in artwork without suggesting the major impact of brands on culture. Your lawsuit probability may be about 50%.

As I understand it, copyright was made to give creators some benefit from their works during their lifetime and also to promote the sharing of ideas so that science, and in our case art, can move forward and build upon others discoveries. The sticky part comes when it becomes about money and the potential for money made from “derivative works.” The argument becomes then about the art itself and whether it is derivative or “fair use.” And you know what? The decision will be made by someone not currently involved in the art world, someone who may never have had time or inclination to take an art course or even to look at art, that’s right, a judge or jury.

As a former software developer and current artist, I absolutely believe in intellectual property laws but I also don’t believe they have to be used like a cudgel. I don’t think we should be self-censored so we won’t get sued. I don’t think that we should allow our government to trademark common speech like “You’re fired,”

I’m sure you are sick to death about the Shepard Fairey lawsuit but it seems important enough to keep the dialog open. It’s going to run over the next couple of posts, so here’s an art scorecard to start the ball rolling:

Duchamp is not sued by Leonardo DaVinci or by the maker of fine sanitary porcelain.

Warhol is sued by a photographer Patricia Caulfield. Andy Warhol's Flowers were based on a color photograph of blossoms taken by Caulfield which appeared in the June 1964 issue of Modern Photography magazine. When Caulfield saw Warhol's Flowers, she brought a lawsuit against the artist and was offered two sets of Flowers portfolios as payment for use of her work, but she declined the offer and a cash settlement was arranged.

Warhol is sued by a photographer Charles Moore for a photograph of men attacked by police dogs (photo previously published in Life magazine0 which he used in “Red Riot.”

Warhol is not sued by Campbell’s Soup.

Rauschenberg was sued by including a photograph by Morton Beebe in “Pull” one of his important works.

Koons sued for “String of Puppies sculpture, original photograph taken from Art Rogers photograph



Elaine Sturtevant is not sued for appropriating Warhol’s work. Bansky is not sued for appropriating Warhol’s work. ( Sturtevant Marilyn left, Banksy Kate Moss right)

Shepard Fairey is sued by AP and sues also in a pre-emptive strike regarding the photograph referenced by artist for his Obama HOPE poster. The original photographer is undecided. Fairey’s attorneys filed for a declaratory judgment on the matter, seeking to vindicate the artist’s rights in regard to the works he created to support the candidacy of President Obama by arguing that it is protected under copyright law’s doctrine of fair use. The argument is further inflamed by the usual showing of only a heavily cropped version of the original photograph.

In a Huffington Post blog entry, attorney Jonathan Melber describes the four factors used to determine fair use as, “what, exactly, the original work is, how much of it you're using, how you transform it, and whether your new work hurts the commercial market for the original.” Furthermore, he notes, “…the transformation that really matters is the conceptual one, not the physical one.” Indeed, the complaint filed by Fairey’s attorneys contends that Fairey used the photo "as a visual reference," which he "altered...with new meaning, new expression, and new messages."

Check out the US gov's post on copyright and fair use. See what you think...