Parking a project
25/01/15 15:45 Filed in: Visual Enquiry
I've come to a decision to put the war film project on hold, maybe permanently, maybe not. One of the reasons for deciding to do this is the recent Tuymans case whereby he has been found "guilty" of a copyright violation for making a painting of a photograph of a politician. Looking deeper (as I have recently), those "famous" appropriation artists (Koons, Warhol and Levine, etc.) are known to get permission for using the works they appropriate. Where they don't, the work is sometimes withdrawn from circulation, such as Sherrie Levine's After Walker Evans which now belongs to Evans' estate.
As things stand now, I don't have permission to use the films as my source material, and so the next step will be to seek out that permission so that the work can be used. If there's a large cost involved, then the images won't be used other than for "educational purposes" as part of this MA. Whether that will hold any water, well, we'll see if anyone notices. I do have doubts whether permission will be granted by the film distributers.
So, what next?
This update isn't about what I m right end up doing next, I haven't a clue. Rather, it's some further thinking about the Tuymans case highlighted above, and others including Fairey, Prince and whoever might fit the bill. The people litigating in these instances appears just to be the photographers, and there might be a purely economical reason for this as their own market diminishes, this is in terms of the fact that the end-users pay less - micro-stock being something that's encroaching here, diminishing the returns available and also the amount that users are willing to pay. There's also the fact that any muppet with a camera can often think themselves a photographer, which then can mean that some end-users turn to "citizen photography", or even just ripping images off from the Internet (notably social media) as being fair game. So, with less money available, if someone uses an image without authorisation, especially if that someone is a corporation or otherwise has money, then the legal battle ensues.
Having said that, there are instances whereby the big corporates go after "the little man" - Paramount and @555uhz with Top Gun being a particularly pertinent example, and U2's record label with Negativeland. I'm not really willing to go down that route just at the moment, so as I said, I'm parked whilst I find the time to write to all these film companies and ask them nicely...