gbee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.1 #6 · Great article in New York Times | |
I guess the SAME people who'd have bought it, if it had been packaged right?
It is commercial advertising published work being copied, anyone can do this, the artist is right.
A very famous similarity, and presumably, precedent, is Andy Warhol's Cambells Soup Can ~ the only difference is the medium used to capture the original.
Plus we see a few copyright anomalies, for the most part commercial photographers surrender their copyright, or they did a few years ago, the Marlboro ads certainly would be copyright to the commissioning company ~ this was a well known fact of life. The photographer gave up his original transparency, there were no copies and we have on record already how many commercial photographers only have record of their work in printed advertising campaigns.
It is interesting now that the Marlboro photographer is claiming a copyright, can new copyright rules be backdated?
I've shot commercials, I get paid the pics get published and I see them in many schools, local communities and even businesses promoting their Christmas Bazaar, Nativity play, soccer game or whatever ~ they are not my pictures, they are printed and published materials cut from the newspaper orr magazine, photocopied and enlarged ~ nothing new under the sun, but for someone then to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars for this? Now that's bizarre.
Shane Canfield wrote: Further, who are these people that are buying the stuff?
Edited on Dec 07, 2007 at 01:42 PM
|
