This started making the rounds yesterday. The Stolen Scream: A Story About Noam Galai. I thought it important to post here. Wanted your thoughts to be a part of the conversation.
IMHO, this is:
Exciting.
Scary.
Different.
Opportunistic.
Cannibalistic.
Visionary.
Divisive.
Should we celebrate it or hate it? Lawsuits or a new suit of clothes that recognizes the times?
Two obvious sides with no obvious answer. And on and on… It’s our newest classic challenge as a rapidly evolving industry with the rapid deployment and sharing of information.
What say you?
(via the nice folks at fstoppers)
From the commercial side; cannibalistic, vultures does come to mind (hope they choke on the bones one day). From the artistic side; how cool is that to be have created an image used to express oppression, frustration and revolution that gets painted on walls all over the world? There is a bit or irony tho… anyone recall the images, one in particular, used for Pink Floyd’s The Wall? (check amazon out for a reminder).
Vigilance, awareness, and education are the only things that will combat this; protect what is yours and respect what belongs to others. Idealistic, I know, but good rules to live by.
Quick…Someone dig Hopper up and get his read!
So, somebody can own the “Happy Birthday” song. Shouldn’t a photographer own the rights to their images?
It seems to me that “plagarized art” is an oxymoron and that profiting from someone else’s art, without their compensation and/or consent is clearly theft. I agree with folks that said he should issue a Cease & Desist at least to those for-profit ventures using his image, but I’m curious how difficult or expensive it would be for him to file suit, particularly across international borders. I’m thinking specifically about the graphic designer selling images online. Isn’t this something an IP attorney would take with the fee based on damages recovered and little or no up-front costs? (I’m forgetting the legal term for working on ‘spec’)
How different must an image be from the original, that it becomes some kind of derivative not subject to the copyright of the original piece? I’m also curious how the readers here (and legal precedent in the USA) view this issue of derivative works. I’m reminded of the Obama “Hope” image.
Get a good IP Lawyer buddy.. The payday you’ll get from it will set you up for life.
Actually I was thinking the same. If he sues all the companies he could be set for life. Even though it would be a hassle and a lot of sleepless nights..
These companies should definitely have to pay and they should be taking action against so-called photographers who misrepresent their ownership of an image.
I think the street art aspect however makes things a little muddy though. I don’t think you can stop (or should stop) someone from creating art, free for public consumption, inspired by another image. But what happens when a photographer takes a picture of the street art. How are they to know it’s a copyrighted image?
I wish we could give our art away but someone’s got to pay the bills sadly.