Copyright

An ethical conundrum (now with comments, sort-of)

• Add Comment
• Friday 18th July 2008

Obviously, I’m familiar with many of the fair use rationales available regarding sampling in the sake of art, cultural commentary, editorial commentary, etc. This is usually a situation where an artist has appropriated cultural information or symbolism from a source (often, but not always, corporate) and recontextualized it for their own use.

Now, would the situation and ethics be different if an entity – for instance, a large corporate ad agency working for an even larger corporate client – appropriated subject matter and technique from an artist and used it in an advertising campaign? And suppose they’d already approached the artist involved to participate in the campaign (for $$ and recognition), and the artist declined?

Mia Fineman brings up these interesting topics and more in an article in the NY Times which got by me when it came out. Much gratitude to Graham in Chi for the tip.

From the article:

In an age when sampling and appropriation have become widespread practices in contemporary art and in the culture at large, some find it paradoxical that artists are now guarding their own creations more vigilantly.

Michael Lobel, a professor of 20th-century art at Purchase College who has written about Roy Lichtenstein and Richard Prince, said the easy availability of digital images on the Web had helped foster this defensiveness.

“There’s a broader consciousness among artists about owning their work and keeping tight control over its distribution,” he said. “The more available images have become, the more of a countermovement there is to clamp down on them.”

I’m still thinking about this issue, but I don’t like thinking alone; I get scared. I’ll share it with you. If you’re so inclined, let me know what you think.

COMMENT 1

I’m 1/2 way through the NYT article and in my (ever so humble opinion) I don’t see any difference between Apple or a kid down the street basing a work on another idea. If they took Marclay’s film and then played that (with his editing intact) I would say he should be compensated for his work in whole… But for basing an idea upon another idea… That’s the way of any movement in art – commercial or not. Hell, if they even used 5 seconds on a 30 second spot of his work, it’s re-contextualization and to whine over it just seems foolish to me, being that he is such an innovator of collage (in so many different forms).

I have been a long admirer of Marclay’s work. However when he writes:

“I don’t consider what I do stealing,” Mr. Marclay said. “I’m quoting
cultural references that everyone is familiar with. I make art that reflects the culture I live in.” And unlike advertisers, he said, “I’m not trying to sell phones.”

Why would he even contemplate bringing legal action towards anyone else for juxtapositions of his output? Seems like a bit of a contradiction. I agree with his quotes above. But hell, get the press from it and be proud someone like Apple ran with an idea you had. And then… Show the Apple ad as a comparison at a future show and offer cultural commentary! I do understand however that he did not favor the idea of Apple or another large entity using his original work. But that’s the way of the world – that’s why inventors keep straight-jacket top secret holds on ideas, as competitors will rape and pillage them senseless. Same for art. Once you release it to the world is therefore open to commentary and reuse in the eyes of like-minded artists (unlike the eyes of laws within countries).

Fun topic. Always makes for a good read.

Cheers,

COMMENT 2

oh please, you can’t have your cake and eat it man. Kind of beggars belief, like a burglar trying to claim compensation if he was injured breaking into someone’s house. Take it like a man and be grateful your arse hasn’t be sued off, I lost a bit of respect for him when I read that.