fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2007 · Great article in New York Times

  
 
robert hasty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Great article in New York Times


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?ei=5088&en=5db3fee6eac37f77&ex=1354597200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1196946019-3OrNkk0DgvLEQZ2Tkt+95Q

Enjoy!



Dec 06, 2007 at 08:07 AM
Mickey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Great article in New York Times


Isn't it interesting how the article keeps using the the words "lifted" and "borrowed" of Mr. Prince work done from the efforts of other photographers instead of the more correct word "stolen".


Dec 06, 2007 at 09:54 AM
henryp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Great article in New York Times


I read that on the train this morning and got so agitated my wife almost changed seats. The last line says it: “If I italicized ‘Moby-Dick,’ then would it be my book? I don’t know. But I don’t think so.”

I understand the orig photog, Jim Krantz, doesn't own the copyright to the “Stretchin’ Out” shot, but my PERSONAL opinion is Richard Prince is a thief and I am sorry Krantz's lawyers and Marlboro's don't join together to thrash him soundly.



Dec 06, 2007 at 04:08 PM
Bill Weaver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Great article in New York Times


It seems like Richard Prince is acknowledging the fact that he is a thief, and is laughing all the way to the bank.


Dec 06, 2007 at 09:17 PM
csm
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Great article in New York Times


Seems bizarre that this is allowed at all. And how does the guy sleep at night? Further, who are these people that are buying the stuff?


Dec 06, 2007 at 10:28 PM
gbee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: 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?




Dec 07, 2007 at 04:56 AM
Mark Pelletier
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Great article in New York Times


OK I am now totally confused

mark



Dec 07, 2007 at 08:42 AM





FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account