Artist Paints Worldly Paintings Via Google Street View; Google Cheers Him On
from the hear-that,-AP? dept
By now you've all heard about the lawsuit between Shepard Fairey for taking a photo, which the AP claims it owns (though, that's in dispute), and turning it into the iconic election poster for Barack Obama. However, it seems that other companies don't react in such a way when people turn their photographs into art. Ed Kohler points us to a story of a painter, Bill Guffey, who has been using Google Street View to find scenes around the globe to paint. He's able to paint far away towns without leaving his house. And he's doing it for commercial purposes. The article notes that he's painted nearly 100 such images, and sold 30 to 40 of them, some for as much as $1,500.Now, if Google were acting like the AP, it might freak out and demand compensation. Of course, it would probably lose in court (as the AP is likely to lose) because the works are transformative and almost certainly fair use. But, being Google (and having copyright lawyers who understand these things), it doesn't seem likely to do that. Instead, it actually appears to be quite thrilled to find out about this project:
"When we were creating Street View, we were excited about all the everyday uses, like looking for parking or planning trips," Stephen Chau, product manager for Google Street View, said. "Bill's use of Street View, to inspire his paintings and to create a virtual community of artists, is a remarkable example that we hadn't imagined but are really excited to see. It's been amazing to see the possibilities that have opened up as Street View has been brought to more places around the world."The AP really ought to take note.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill guffey, copyright, painting, street view
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference is pretty simple - Bill Guffey is looking at a picture, and making an entirely new work of art from scratch.
Shepard Fairey took a digital image, manipulated it in photoshop, and claimed it as original.
The difference is night and day. Nice try, but FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fail . . . He used many of the same techniques Andy Warhol used i.e. stencil and acrylic on paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It has been posted here before how he did the work, and it involved manipulation of a digital image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Source info as the method used has been posted here many times and it id not include PS.
Please do your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know this? I don't know his method, but he conceivably could've captured and printed the digital image, transferred it to whatever he paints on, and painted on top of it. Or created a film slide he could project onto the surface to be painted over.
Much like Fairey had done, only digitally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This ain't paint by numbers, that is for sure. It certainly isn't a digital manipulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The painter? He does what plenty of painters do, look at a picture and paint their interpretation of it.
If the Obama Hope poster dude had done that, there would be no issue.
AP show pay attention to this story, only because it's a great example of what is right and what is wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you done this? If so, you may be the first.
There have been claims that the tilt of the head is different. Did you check this?
The answer to both is probably no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Guffey had printed the Street View images and painted over them, transforming the canvas to the images he has now, would it make any difference that the original is hiding beneath?
I also recommend you look up Kutiman's "Thru You" album. It was mentioned on TechDirt a while back. Essentially this artist took existing YouTube video clips and re-mixed them info full-length songs. Does this not count as art because he didn't go into a studio and record each instrument from scratch? In the end, all he did was use a computer, like Fairey, and I have a hard time believing it isn't art, or original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite a valid comparison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not quite a valid comparison
Google did a lot of leg work to make a product that it didn't expect to get paid for directly. Someone else thought of a creative way to make money off of it.
This is where many companies today would sue. Google didn't.
Kudos, Google and Mr. Guffey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paintings
And just as a side note, I spoke to Google reps before I ever sold the first piece. Wanted to make sure there was no copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: paintings
Thanks for the clarification of how your work was done. I think the point the earlier posters were trying to make, though, was to offset the AC's contention that Fairey's use of a computer meant his work was still infringing. The theory is that it didn't matter what tool was used (computer or hand), in the end the work is still transformative.
On a side note, I find it a rather sad testament to the state of copyright today that an artist now thinks of clearing whether or not his original art is infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: paintings
As an occasional painter who is drawn to architectural subject matter, I love what you're doing, Mr. Guffey!
Artists (of all kinds, really) constantly use reference materials, in process or before beginning, in plain sight or even from memory. If one wants to depict cherry blossoms in a painting but it's the dead of winter, do I have to obtain consent from someone who snapped a pic and shot it onto the internet before I can use it as a reference?
Is that where things are headed? Is that what copyright was meant to do? Are we all supposed to hire lawyers to ride herd on our works - for infringement upon our or others' copyright - instead of just...yanno...doing the work?
Because that, to me, seems an unnatural anathema to any and ALL creative achievement since humans started making marks on cave walls.
'Og dip hand in blood, slap hand on wall - Og make art!'
'Ug put hand in poop, slap hand on wall - Ug make art too!'
'Og call lawyer! Ug make unauthorized derivative work! Og claim harm!'
'Ug claim fair use!'
Then Og stifles Ug and any other poop handed artists to death with a bison femur.
Who loses? History. Culture. Humans. It's depressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streetview art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
easels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]