Comments on: The Obama “Hope” Poster Case — What’s a “Visual Reference”? http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/03/12/the-obama-hope-poster-case-whats-a-visual-reference/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:08:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sherry Rotan Harvie http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/03/12/the-obama-hope-poster-case-whats-a-visual-reference/comment-page-1/#comment-29825 Sherry Rotan Harvie Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:32:04 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=4021#comment-29825 Intellectual copyright is a delicate issue. It involves the passions of two artists that collide. I am a photographer and a painter. But often I cannot attain the photos I need for the "visions" in my head. I see photography as a fine art. Painting and computer artistry are fine arts. In some cases paintings require an image that an artist cannot get unless they have access to an event or location. Artists should work with each other, not against one another. They should honor one another's gifts. If a photo is used by another artist there should be a feasible stipend given (to allow the photographer to be compensated). But if the second artist alters the original creative piece, then it is not an exact copy and should not be considered breaking copywrite. Nothing is new in the world. Photographers just happen to capture much of it and call it "theirs". It reminds me of kids tattling "copycat" in school. It is adults being a bit childlike. To insinuate that the creative gifting of a photographer is the "more original", more valuable than someone who labors for hours on a computer or with paints is off balance. It takes a good eye, right circumstances, opportunity, knowledge and skill to get a great photo. I know I work over 100 hours on many of my paintings. I see it as a privilege each time I get a striking photo. I know I have been given a gift, nurtured it and a creature, person or animal struck a pose at the right time (great lighting) and I know how to get in for a great angle and frame it. For me to "guard" that photo is arrogance and lacks humility. I would be honored if another artist "remade" one of my photographs or even one of my paintings in a fresh new way. I would see it as a compliment. Intellectual copyright is a delicate issue. It involves the passions of two artists that collide. I am a photographer and a painter. But often I cannot attain the photos I need for the “visions” in my head.

I see photography as a fine art. Painting and computer artistry are fine arts. In some cases paintings require an image that an artist cannot get unless they have access to an event or location. Artists should work with each other, not against one another. They should honor one another’s gifts.

If a photo is used by another artist there should be a feasible stipend given (to allow the photographer to be compensated). But if the second artist alters the original creative piece, then it is not an exact copy and should not be considered breaking copywrite.

Nothing is new in the world. Photographers just happen to capture much of it and call it “theirs”. It reminds me of kids tattling “copycat” in school. It is adults being a bit childlike.

To insinuate that the creative gifting of a photographer is the “more original”, more valuable than someone who labors for hours on a computer or with paints is off balance. It takes a good eye, right circumstances, opportunity, knowledge and skill to get a great photo. I know I work over 100 hours on many of my paintings.

I see it as a privilege each time I get a striking photo. I know I have been given a gift, nurtured it and a creature, person or animal struck a pose at the right time (great lighting) and I know how to get in for a great angle and frame it. For me to “guard” that photo is arrogance and lacks humility.

I would be honored if another artist “remade” one of my photographs or even one of my paintings in a fresh new way. I would see it as a compliment.

]]> By: Charlie Perry http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/03/12/the-obama-hope-poster-case-whats-a-visual-reference/comment-page-1/#comment-24819 Charlie Perry Sun, 31 May 2009 23:34:01 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=4021#comment-24819 Please keep in mind that a skilled graphic artist working in Photoshop can creatively render a new work of art, not only transformed, but entirely different than the original. Please keep in mind that a skilled graphic artist working in Photoshop can creatively render a new work of art, not only transformed, but entirely different than the original.

]]>