4 ms·

Ironically, the image you linked completely disproves your point. The derivative work is identical to the point that it is an obvious copy. Warhol should absolu

by sbuk 4y ago

Ironically, the image you linked completely disproves your point. The derivative work is identical to the point that it is an obvious copy. Warhol should absolutely have sought permission, especially since he and his estate have profited handsomely from the copy.

Aerroon 4y ago
But you don't know whether you will profit or not before you make the work. And asking for permission after the fact is too late and might even weaken your fair use case.
- sbuk 4y ago
  I should retract the part about profiting, but it's there because, undoubtedly, given Prince's iconic status even at the time, and Warhol's reputation, it has a bearing on the outcome. Ultimately the moral thing to do, artist to artist, would have been to seek permission.
treerunner 4y ago
It’s worth noting that this particular Warhol piece was done much later in his career after he had established his style. Usually he didn’t even execute the work, it was done by assistants in the studio. This painting of Prince is an example of Warhol as art business — which incidentally was one of his statements as an artist. Opinion: bout the photo and the painting are actually not very good representation of either artists work. I imagine both the photo and the painting would be considered unimportant if it wasn’t for this legal wrangling. There are many ways that this issue could be approached. For example, could Warhol be allowed fair use in execution but, post-mortem, his estate pay? After all, one thing that the author of the article did not go into is that this argument is really no longer about the creative act.
musingsole 4y ago
Despite your emphasis, I don't find that anything has been "obvious" or "proven" about these pieces. The fact of the ongoing lawsuit implies it's not definitive for the authorities involved either. If you see it so clearly, it's because you're uninformed about or otherwise disrespectful to the actual social norms/rules at play.

by sbuk 4y ago

Aerroon 4y ago

But you don't know whether you will profit or not before you make the work. And asking for permission after the fact is too late and might even weaken your fair use case.

sbuk 4y ago
I should retract the part about profiting, but it's there because, undoubtedly, given Prince's iconic status even at the time, and Warhol's reputation, it has a bearing on the outcome. Ultimately the moral thing to do, artist to artist, would have been to seek permission.

treerunner 4y ago

It’s worth noting that this particular Warhol piece was done much later in his career after he had established his style. Usually he didn’t even execute the work, it was done by assistants in the studio. This painting of Prince is an example of Warhol as art business — which incidentally was one of his statements as an artist. Opinion: bout the photo and the painting are actually not very good representation of either artists work. I imagine both the photo and the painting would be considered unimportant if it wasn’t for this legal wrangling. There are many ways that this issue could be approached. For example, could Warhol be allowed fair use in execution but, post-mortem, his estate pay? After all, one thing that the author of the article did not go into is that this argument is really no longer about the creative act.

musingsole 4y ago

Despite your emphasis, I don't find that anything has been "obvious" or "proven" about these pieces. The fact of the ongoing lawsuit implies it's not definitive for the authorities involved either. If you see it so clearly, it's because you're uninformed about or otherwise disrespectful to the actual social norms/rules at play.