Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,450
So open for your opinions on the Warhol case before the Supreme Court. Of course hard and fast lines are hard to "draw" when talking about derivations from prior works, especially since themes, compositions, and subjects have always been considered a legit source - even an honored one in some cultures - to copy for learning or creating.
To my view this one should go to the original photographer, same as I personally think Lichtenstein blatantly stole his stuff. But that's a personal opinion. As to the contention that Van Gogh appropriated from Millet, that's very true, only it wasn't copyrighted work at the time, I believe. But I do agree that Warhol isn't stealing the Campbell's soup can image, any more than your painting the Golden Gate Bridge would be (or pick your own bridge or landmark or commonly visible item.) It is complicated after all!
And display (as in museum) is different from "sale", though you could argue that display in an exhibit catalogue is definitely sale.
See what you think: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/arts/design/warhol-prince-goldsmith-museums.html
To my view this one should go to the original photographer, same as I personally think Lichtenstein blatantly stole his stuff. But that's a personal opinion. As to the contention that Van Gogh appropriated from Millet, that's very true, only it wasn't copyrighted work at the time, I believe. But I do agree that Warhol isn't stealing the Campbell's soup can image, any more than your painting the Golden Gate Bridge would be (or pick your own bridge or landmark or commonly visible item.) It is complicated after all!
And display (as in museum) is different from "sale", though you could argue that display in an exhibit catalogue is definitely sale.
See what you think: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/arts/design/warhol-prince-goldsmith-museums.html