4 ms·

That seems incredibly transformative and especially since it would be part of a collection of many variations on the Prince print and displayed as such, playing

That seems incredibly transformative and especially since it would be part of a collection of many variations on the Prince print and displayed as such, playing with the idea of mass production and celebrity. Warhol’s art is like a meta-layer above celebrity photographs.

williamcotton 4y ago
Here’s an example of Warhol in situ: https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/andy-warholshadows-exhibition https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/andy-...
- acomjean 4y ago
  I’ve been to DIA beacon (one of my favorite museums). That large scale installation is kinda remarkable but not typical of Warhol’s art I’ve seen in other places.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Which is unfortunate because the kinds of large scale installations at DIA Beacon are how the artists originally conceived of their art! Most of the artists featured there also have some out-of-context work sitting in a wing of another modern museum somewhere.
arinlen 4y ago
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Art is in the eye of the beholder. I choose to accept Warhol’s gaze and I find it rewarding. His exposition means something different to me than the original photograph.
  - chrismcb 4y ago
    "art is in the eye of the beholder" had nothing to do with copyright. That fact that it means something different to you is not relevant. Actually it is, and it implies that copyright is still necessary.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    And this is the reason for fair use! It is quite clear to me that Warhol is presenting these images in a profoundly different manner than the original. A copyright regime without such an allowance would deprive people like me of an aesthetic experience. You have a choice with someone like Warhol. You can feel something or you can feel nothing. And yes, most of this is a personal choice, a matter of faith, a matter of letting yourself enter into the world of the artist. Or don’t! Just look at this art and say “this is terrible” and “this is theft” or any number of other negative emotions.
    - mhb 4y ago
      And if Warhol and his fans value the experience, they can pay for the use of the image.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      It’s really odd to frame such a dispute through the lens of whether it gives you enjoyment or not. A stolen Van Gogh would give the thieves’ house guests plenty of aesthetic pleasure otherwise unavailable as well.
      - shawnz 4y ago
        I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they are saying is that we should try to construct laws to maximize net utility for society and this is an example of where net utility would have been deceased if Warhol wasn't able to make his parody paintings.
        mannykannot 4y ago
        To anyone persuaded by this argument: consider that net utility could undoubtedly be increased by any number of redistributions of your net worth. In fact, it would arguably be easier to make this case than the one for the work in question. If the Warhol Foundation wishes to make this utility argument, it should first put all Warhol’s work into the public domain.
- tomcam 4y ago
  This is mind reading at a distance. You know nothing about GP’s state of mind.
grumbel 4y ago
How is that transformative? It's just a copy of the photo with some level adjustments and background colors. Takes about a couple of seconds to reproduce in your favorite photo editor.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The photo itself is "just" a copy of a physical scene with some level adjustments. Would have taken about one tenth of a second to produce with your favorite camera. Copyright is framed such that the subjects of photographs generally have no claim to the resulting image. Why should the photographer's claim be absolute? (And just for reference, I say this appreciating the work that goes into taking a good photo)
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I find it transformative because I know about Warhol, his art practices, and the context with which he worked. These works were made in one of his “factories” and were always a part of a larger series. The works were not made in a computer. They were very large screen prints. To me how they were made and why they were made are just as important as the finished product. One of my interpretations of Warhol is that celebrities might as well be produced on a factory line!
  - eCa 4y ago
    > I find it transformative because I know about Warhol, his art practices, and the context with which he worked. In other words, you feel that the Warhol piece is transformative because it was Warhol that made it and not because of the inherent properties of the work itself?
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      It isn’t because Warhol made it (in fact, his employees probably did most if not all of the work) but the context. It means something different to make many large silkscreen prints than it does to apply some filters in Photoshop. The ends don’t justify the means, it’s the journey not the destination, etc, etc. I understand that when presented with a digital image that the original context is missing so I’m not upset with anyone who has another perspective!
HillRat 4y ago
The problem, legally speaking, is that this is almost the exact same fact pattern as Rogers v. Koons, in that the photograph itself was not being commented on, so parodic fair use isn’t a valid defense.

williamcotton 4y ago

Here’s an example of Warhol in situ: https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/andy-warholshadows-exhibition https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/andy-...

acomjean 4y ago
I’ve been to DIA beacon (one of my favorite museums). That large scale installation is kinda remarkable but not typical of Warhol’s art I’ve seen in other places.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Which is unfortunate because the kinds of large scale installations at DIA Beacon are how the artists originally conceived of their art! Most of the artists featured there also have some out-of-context work sitting in a wing of another modern museum somewhere.

arinlen 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago
Art is in the eye of the beholder. I choose to accept Warhol’s gaze and I find it rewarding. His exposition means something different to me than the original photograph.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  "art is in the eye of the beholder" had nothing to do with copyright. That fact that it means something different to you is not relevant. Actually it is, and it implies that copyright is still necessary.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  And this is the reason for fair use! It is quite clear to me that Warhol is presenting these images in a profoundly different manner than the original. A copyright regime without such an allowance would deprive people like me of an aesthetic experience. You have a choice with someone like Warhol. You can feel something or you can feel nothing. And yes, most of this is a personal choice, a matter of faith, a matter of letting yourself enter into the world of the artist. Or don’t! Just look at this art and say “this is terrible” and “this is theft” or any number of other negative emotions.
  - mhb 4y ago
    And if Warhol and his fans value the experience, they can pay for the use of the image.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    It’s really odd to frame such a dispute through the lens of whether it gives you enjoyment or not. A stolen Van Gogh would give the thieves’ house guests plenty of aesthetic pleasure otherwise unavailable as well.
    - shawnz 4y ago
      I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they are saying is that we should try to construct laws to maximize net utility for society and this is an example of where net utility would have been deceased if Warhol wasn't able to make his parody paintings.
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        To anyone persuaded by this argument: consider that net utility could undoubtedly be increased by any number of redistributions of your net worth. In fact, it would arguably be easier to make this case than the one for the work in question. If the Warhol Foundation wishes to make this utility argument, it should first put all Warhol’s work into the public domain.
tomcam 4y ago
This is mind reading at a distance. You know nothing about GP’s state of mind.

grumbel 4y ago

How is that transformative? It's just a copy of the photo with some level adjustments and background colors. Takes about a couple of seconds to reproduce in your favorite photo editor.

mindslight 4y ago
The photo itself is "just" a copy of a physical scene with some level adjustments. Would have taken about one tenth of a second to produce with your favorite camera. Copyright is framed such that the subjects of photographs generally have no claim to the resulting image. Why should the photographer's claim be absolute? (And just for reference, I say this appreciating the work that goes into taking a good photo)
williamcotton 4y ago
I find it transformative because I know about Warhol, his art practices, and the context with which he worked. These works were made in one of his “factories” and were always a part of a larger series. The works were not made in a computer. They were very large screen prints. To me how they were made and why they were made are just as important as the finished product. One of my interpretations of Warhol is that celebrities might as well be produced on a factory line!
- eCa 4y ago
  > I find it transformative because I know about Warhol, his art practices, and the context with which he worked. In other words, you feel that the Warhol piece is transformative because it was Warhol that made it and not because of the inherent properties of the work itself?
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    It isn’t because Warhol made it (in fact, his employees probably did most if not all of the work) but the context. It means something different to make many large silkscreen prints than it does to apply some filters in Photoshop. The ends don’t justify the means, it’s the journey not the destination, etc, etc. I understand that when presented with a digital image that the original context is missing so I’m not upset with anyone who has another perspective!

HillRat 4y ago

The problem, legally speaking, is that this is almost the exact same fact pattern as Rogers v. Koons, in that the photograph itself was not being commented on, so parodic fair use isn’t a valid defense.