5 ms·

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 you

• 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!
      • squeaky-clean 4y ago
        And yet for some reason when I silk-screen a bunch of Tad Nugent t-shirts and sell them outside his concerts, it's not considered fair use.
        • williamcotton 4y ago
          That’s a trademark and not a copyright issue. You should instead be selling Grateful Dead t-shirts as they have never enforced their trademark!
          • adhesive_wombat 4y ago
            It's also a copyright issue if the artwork is not owned or licensed correctly. If you drew the image yourself, and didn't derive from a copyrighted work, and then printed that, then it's "only" a trademark issue.
          • squeaky-clean 4y ago
            It's a reference to an episode of That 70's Show where they do rip off the design of a Ted Nugent tour t-shirt. Punchline of the episode is Kelso spelled Ted Nugent wrong on the shirts so the boys get away without penalty.
      • joshuamorton 4y ago
        We have lots of examples of this on music, where the same melody reproduced for only a few seconds by a different artist on different instruments in the context of a different song, is still a derivative work. A different artistic context alone usually isn't sufficiently transformative.
    • MichaelCollins 4y ago
      When dealing with celebrity artists like Warhol, who made the art is always 99% of the story, 99.9% of the value at auction. You'll never get the art fanboys to admit this, because part of the game is pretending to see something special which puts them above the mere plebeians who can only perceive the mundane (who call a spade a spade.)
  • fastball 4y ago
    These works being made in one of his "factories" makes it feel less transformative to me, not moreso. Doesn't seem like much artistic value has been added when you take a photo and silkscreen it 16 different ways with slight variations.