2 ms·
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 la
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoThat’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 agoIt'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 agoIt'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 agoWe 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.