independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 20th Jul 2019 7:07am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Judge: Andy Warhol didn't violate Prince picture copyright
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/02/19 1:13am

mattj

Judge: Andy Warhol didn't violate Prince picture copyright

*** Mod Alteration ***

https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

Andy Warhol transcended a photographer's copyright by transforming a picture of a vulnerable and uncomfortable Prince into an artwork that made the singer an "iconic, larger-than-life figure," a judge ruled Monday. U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in Manhattan sided with the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts over renowned photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The case tested whether the legendary artist who died in 1987 made fair use of a 1981 picture of the famed late singer when he created a series of 16 artworks that became known as the "Prince Series." The series contained 12 silkscreen paintings, two screen prints on paper and two drawings.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/02/19 2:02am

PurplePartyFix

This article shows a comparison of the photograph and one of the prints: https://www.artforum.com/...tion-77092

[Edited 7/2/19 2:02am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/02/19 2:17am

TheFreakerFant
astic

avatar

Ugh Warhol is so overrated, all he did is copy things and add colours, do not understand all the hype around him at all! Anyone can do that. To me this is disrespectful to the photographer and theft! He should have been forced to give her some of the royalties for that photo as without it he wouldn't have had a basis for an artwork at all.

[Edited 7/2/19 2:23am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/02/19 2:46am

NouveauDance

avatar

poke

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/02/19 3:45am

BartVanHemelen

avatar

Why did you copy-paste an entire article without a source link? https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

© Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for
your use. All rights reserved.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/02/19 5:10am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I saw the 'art' I totally assumed it was just some app that did that... I was not inpressed. But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art. (like comedy if no one is offended or if too many people get the joke...it is not comedy)

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/02/19 6:32am

mattj

BartVanHemelen said:

Why did you copy-paste an entire article without a source link? https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

snip -of4$

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/02/19 8:17am

EddieC

mattj said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Why did you copy-paste an entire article without a source link? https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

snip - of4$

Well, it does seem a particularly interesting choice for a copyright-related case. smile

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/02/19 12:32pm

thedoorkeeper

OnlyNDaUsa said:

But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art.


No that's not how you should be viewing Andy Warhol's work. Its a modern take on portraiture. Not really different from viewing the Mona Lisa.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/02/19 4:49pm

BEAUGARDE

P should have Gangsta Glammed that bitch with his body guards

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/03/19 2:37am

BartVanHemelen

avatar

The photographer's view from 2017: https://www.facebook.com/...8104516758

© Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights.
It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for
your use. All rights reserved.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/03/19 4:18am

nextedition

avatar

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Ugh Warhol is so overrated, all he did is copy things and add colours, do not understand all the hype around him at all! Anyone can do that. To me this is disrespectful to the photographer and theft! He should have been forced to give her some of the royalties for that photo as without it he wouldn't have had a basis for an artwork at all.


[Edited 7/2/19 2:23am]


Anyone can do it...but nobody did, that is the point
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/03/19 4:28am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Ugh Warhol is so overrated, all he did is copy things and add colours, do not understand all the hype around him at all! Anyone can do that. To me this is disrespectful to the photographer and theft! He should have been forced to give her some of the royalties for that photo as without it he wouldn't have had a basis for an artwork at all.

[Edited 7/2/19 2:23am]

I agree

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/03/19 6:22am

NouveauDance

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

I agree

Is that a banksy avatar? wink

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/03/19 11:18am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

thedoorkeeper said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art.

No that's not how you should be viewing Andy Warhol's work. Its a modern take on portraiture. Not really different from viewing the Mona Lisa.

you seem to have missed the point of what I said... but that is okay. I do not get the appeal of Warhol's art... but if you do...that is cool. I do not belive it is even close to the Mona Lisa...but whatever.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/03/19 11:47am

42Kristen

rolleyes

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/03/19 3:46pm

herb4

avatar

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/03/19 7:12pm

ufoclub

avatar

herb4 said:

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.



Really? Where’d you go to school?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/03/19 8:27pm

Zannaloaf

herb4 said:

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.


Ever look at Warhols early work?
Of course not...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/04/19 3:59am

herb4

avatar

ufoclub said:

herb4 said:

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

Really? Where’d you go to school?


UNiversity of the Arts in Philadelphia

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/04/19 5:44am

NouveauDance

avatar

herb4 said:

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

Wasn't this kind of the point?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/04/19 5:58am

lurker316

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I saw the 'art' I totally assumed it was just some app that did that... I was not inpressed. But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art. (like comedy if no one is offended or if too many people get the joke...it is not comedy)


That's a clever insight.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/04/19 6:31am

jdcxc

Does anyone have more background info on Prince’s photo shoot with Mapplethorpe? There was an article that also stated that Prince went to the artist’s wake/vigil which I thought was un-Princelike.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/04/19 4:04pm

jone70

avatar

I mean...anyone who knows Warhol knows his entire m.o. was using photos from popular culture. shrug Yeah, anyone *could* do it, but no one did, before Andy. That's how the cookie crumbles in art sometimes -- the act or idea of doing it (especialy post M. Duchamp) is just as important as the finished product.


[Warhol's Tunafish Disaster is my personal favorite.]

The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/06/19 10:03am

herb4

avatar

NouveauDance said:

herb4 said:

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

Wasn't this kind of the point?


Yes.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/12/19 9:18am

Matthaus

Y'all can't judge an artist's work based on today's standards. Warhol's coloring of B&W photographs can be done on a cellphone today, but in the 60s it was made exactly to show the main philosophy of pop-art: in this day and age (the 60s), a celebrity's/artist's face is as much an artwork as their work. Their face becomes an icon more recognizable than their acting/music/whatever. That's why a musicians's record has a photo of the musician and not some abstract painting meaning to portray the albums' songs' mood (like many Miles Davis album covers).

.

I wouldn't put an art degree above recognizing this, as most art school curriculums are still quite conservative, with only interest in studying and duplicating very very classical art movements and leaving out a lot of modernist and avant-garde stuff, which leads to this thinking that some things "are" art and some things are not.

[Edited 7/12/19 9:21am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/12/19 1:24pm

herb4

avatar

I know what Warhol's angle was and as a pop culture messiah, he was rather prescient in many ways. I've just never been much impressed what i consider to be "gimmicky" art and stuff that's too cool for the room. Where, unless you have an art degree, you're too scared to suggest that "isn't it just a bunch of scribbles" or "that's just 2 red and green squares".

My art education covered modern art - I even took entire classes dedicated to it - and we studied all the "orange bowling balls in a fish tank" and "steel urns full of body fluids" sorts or stuff. So it wasn't all DaVinci, Michelangelo and what have you. I like a lot of modern art and, in fact, generally prefer it to the "classic" and traditional stuff.

I just tend to dislike when critics, collectors and star makers cram their heads too far up their collective asses and tell the rest of us we're wrong for not getting it. The art world can be incredibly pretentious and off putting, usually to its detriment.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/14/19 2:39pm

ufoclub

avatar

herb4 said:

I know what Warhol's angle was and as a pop culture messiah, he was rather prescient in many ways. I've just never been much impressed what i consider to be "gimmicky" art and stuff that's too cool for the room. Where, unless you have an art degree, you're too scared to suggest that "isn't it just a bunch of scribbles" or "that's just 2 red and green squares".

My art education covered modern art - I even took entire classes dedicated to it - and we studied all the "orange bowling balls in a fish tank" and "steel urns full of body fluids" sorts or stuff. So it wasn't all DaVinci, Michelangelo and what have you. I like a lot of modern art and, in fact, generally prefer it to the "classic" and traditional stuff.

I just tend to dislike when critics, collectors and star makers cram their heads too far up their collective asses and tell the rest of us we're wrong for not getting it. The art world can be incredibly pretentious and off putting, usually to its detriment.


I think it's called contemporary art. Modern period refers to an specific time period now.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Judge: Andy Warhol didn't violate Prince picture copyright