4 ms·
I agree that Warhol has done something different, but it's entirely derivative to the original image, I can't see how there would ever be a question of whether
by pbhjpbhj 4y ago
I agree that Warhol has done something different, but it's entirely derivative to the original image, I can't see how there would ever be a question of whether he copied the image, he did.
For Fair Use one asks if the copy is transformative, ie for a different purpose to the original, but it clearly shares the purpose of representing Prince.
[Outside the USA, where we don't have Fair Use, this presumably would be tortuous infringement.]
- williamcotton 4y agoBut Warhol did not intend to reproduce Prince. He intended to mass produce images of a celebrity in one of his “factories”.
- ethanbond 4y ago“No your honor I did not steal the painting off the gallery walls. I made a performance art piece, a derivative work, about art theft.” Awfully convenient eh?
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoCopyright infringement is not theft. A video of someone stealing a piece of art from a gallery does not infringe the copyright of the art being stolen. It is still theft, though.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 4y agoWe could discuss reproduction as a vibe, but it's easier and more falsifiable to discuss it as taking a photograph of a work, separating its colors, using those color separations to create plates (whether physical or digital), and using those plates to direct the application of dyes to a surface. We can't deny that Warhol both intended to do and did that to the photograph.
- shawnz 4y ago> it's easier and more falsifiable to discuss it as taking a photograph of a work, separating its colors, using those color separations to create plates (whether physical or digital), and using those plates to direct the application of dyes to a surface. You can't determine whether a usage falls under fair use just by looking at the end product without considering the intent though.