Someone robbing you putting you on the Internet which gets you doxxed is crazy work 😭 she better get least 2 billion a swat team level body guard paid for and one of them data deleters that wipe her from the web so she can start over
i'm just kind of surprised that this lawsuit dragged on as long as it did with such *obvious* plagiarism. This case pre-dates all the current generative-AI bullshit by several years. That guy must've had really shitty lawyers
Does somebody have a link to the decision? The articles I find online (including her own blog post) don't include one, and I'm very curious about the specifics of the reasoning.
I'm not sure I like this? Do I need Anish Kapoor's permission to photograph Cloud Gate (aka the Chicago Bean)? Do I need Richard Drew's permission to paint The Falling Man?
I'm not sure if you're serious, but if you were to paint the falling man and then enter it into a competition yes you would need Richard Drew's permission (or maybe Elton Johns since he owns it I'm not really sure) but you'd need somebody's permission, or at least give credit!
This is excellent. He was being so unrepentant and insisting that his work was original so he earned the prize money he got from... mirroring her photo as a painting with no credit.
Transforming stock art or referencing it is one thing. This was NOT that and I'm so glad she won.
I've been following her work for years, first thing I saw this morning was her post about this on Instagram and I've been going round sharing since - look, actual good news!!
I went and tracked down this clip which does a like for like comparison, which is a useful illustration for anyone just coming to the story today https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmDsJWmDr5O/
Wonder if the photographer who's suing the NFL over the use of his Barry Sanders photo will get a similar result. (I believe there were multiple uses and recently a whole ass sculpture, which they did directly use his photo for... it was in the video of their process for making it)
Using a photo to produce a master copy just for practicing and some likes on socials? Why yes, we've all done it at some point haven't we... Now, attempting to pass such a copy as an original and profit from it without consent of the original source... Now wait a minute 🤔
I am legit annoyed on her behalf that only one article exists about her victory and it’s paywalled, vs the countless free stories about her earlier loss. I hope the record is corrected soon
I cannot believe how long she's been fighting this when it's so OBVIOUSLY a valid copyright infringement claim. Like there is no wiggle room or anything when the painting is a 1:1 copy
this dude stole from other artists (also women). he was casually racist about zhang when questioned about the court case. he wasn’t even claiming copying is still art he kept trying to say he WASN’T copying lmaooo sucks to suck
I struggle with this as an artist. I use field photographs of insects as inspiration for my work. Most of the time I consider them exercises. I wouldn’t want anyone doxxed and harassed for it. And if it came down I would give credit back where it’s due - as inspiration.
Inspiration is fine. Straight up copying a photo (like the nob in the story) isn’t, unless you use one with the correct license for it, or get permission to do so. Your work where you copy the pose but it isn’t realism is likely fine-though giving credit is nice for the photographers regardless :)
BTW, on Flickr at least, there are a lot of US government profiles (so the content is public domain, you can see on each pic) and there’s a lot of cool insect photo accounts! Where the photos are HD and labelled and totally free to do whatever with
Linking one of the galleries for people reading-after you click a photo, you can see on the right under the photo the license. These are all public domain-all the US gov accounts should be, there's even a filter for it in search!
I’m not able to swim with leatherbacks, find the perfect set up of ants, ladybugs, bees, and hang with pandas. I can’t afford a telephoto lens, flashes, professional camera set up. I can’t travel ATM. I use colored pencils and paint. The change in medium used to be enough. This is kinda scary.
Do you make 1:1 copies of somebody else's artistic work by tracing it from a projection, do exhibitions, sell your paintings and get prizes for it and refuse to acknowledge that you did all that from somebody else's work? Because that's different from using reference photos, like most artists do.
And that’s all totally fine if you find cool photos online but you change their content 30% or you ask the photographer if you can make a study of his/her piece then you don’t have to change a thing.
You can search for images in the creative commons to use as reference. I think every photo on inaturalist has to be in the CC to be used on that site. I've referenced images on there (with the photographers permission) then liscenced my own work in the creative commons as well. All art is derivative
you are not like this guy at all. I've been following this case for a long time, this guy is a straight up dick who basically laughed in the artist's face when she asked for acknowledgment.
In this case, the 'artist' made a direct copy (probably traced IMHO) of the original photo & sold it as his own work. Best practice would be for you to contact the photographer of the work you want to use & tell them of your intended use. They may ask you for a license fee & /or acknowledgement.
I’ve also seen some good recommendations in this thread for use of stock photos. Something I hadn’t considered. Plein air when possible, my own shots when possible. I really have been thinking: do not need a professional photo rig anymore with phone cameras. Moving to mammals too.
It's fine to use them for practice (I do this a lot!) But not to sell the work without permission. My own compromise is to just give the art away to the rights holder if they want it
Right like I've done studies where I bought pictures from shutterstock and tried to recreate them, in order to train my photorealistic skills. But I always said so in my description of the work, linked to the original, and I certainly never entered them in a contest! That last was particularly bad
I live in Lux and there are so many rich weirdos here it surprises me not at all that some guy would do this and just think he would get away with it. Glad she got justice
to put in context, this scammer simply took the work of others, flipped 180°, retouched a little and posted as his own. he went far as selling the doctored pics on Getty and participating in exhibitions
Roy Lichtenstein blantantly copied panels drawn by literally starving comics artists, and now his plagarist shit sells for more than almost any other artist who isn't from the Renaissance. Rich art dealer types are scum
While the original artists he stole from likely passed on destitute and forgotten, as they usually were on work-for-hire schemes with no margin for copyright claims. Granted, Lichtenstein has also passed already so it's kind of a moot point now. But still.
slowly, it's easier to focus today but still going through the emotions..we all collectively are. Seeing all the post cut quotes coming out of xbox games isnt helping tho.
Comments
Now with this othera have a precedent to fight back too!
Transforming stock art or referencing it is one thing. This was NOT that and I'm so glad she won.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmDsJWmDr5O/
The last photo I got of them just under a year old. Sadly they did not make it to their second summer, this is the life of a squirrel in the city.
A good fluffy tail.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/usgsbiml/
If you’re nervous, ask for permission!
Or public domain/free stock photo references
This guy made almost an exact copy
that is not you.
Good news is nice.
War photographer who survived leukaemia exposed as a fake
She was put through a ringer of shit for her HER OWN ART.
how's news with you? not much time has passed, but I hope you're getting stuff figured out?