Artist Paints Worldly Paintings Via Google Street View; Google Cheers Him On

from the hear-that,-AP? dept

Wed, Aug 12th 2009 5:18pm — Mike Masnick

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

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Occasionally Paints, 12 Aug 2009 @ 5:31pm

That is hella cool. Idea, execution, and Googlethink-wise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:09pm

Mike, nice try, but FAIL!

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 thread ]
DJ (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:10pm

But...
Don't they know that innovation stifles short-term income? Not to mention the long-term profits from garnishing Mr. Guffey's income. What are they thinking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:14pm

Re: FAIL
Whenever Mike submits a post, a comment like this automatically appears. This leads me to believe that either Mike is masochistically increasing his comment count or that there is some serious flaw in the programming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Esahc (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:32pm

Re:
"Shepard Fairey took a digital image, manipulated it in photoshop, and claimed it as original."

Fail . . . He used many of the same techniques Andy Warhol used i.e. stencil and acrylic on paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re:
Source?

It has been posted here before how he did the work, and it involved manipulation of a digital image.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
..., 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re:
We cant have facts interfering with emotional arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iris (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:51pm

Not quite a valid comparison
While I generally agree with the get-over-yourself-AP sentiment, in this case you're comparing the reaction to what's essentially a nonmonetized side business for Google with the core of the AP's operation (selling content). Google's in the ad biz, not the content biz, so it views the world (pardon the pun) differently and is far less likely to perceive use of its content, regardless of its transformative nature, as "theft".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OP, 12 Aug 2009 @ 7:05pm

Re:
"The difference is pretty simple - Bill Guffey is looking at a picture, and making an entirely new work of art from scratch."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re:
If you took a couple of seconds to check the images in the article, you will see that the paintings, while having many of the features of the street view images, are not exactly of the same perspective and such, which is a good indication of a true work of art (artist looks at something, and paints it) as opposed to a copy or digital manipulation.

This ain't paint by numbers, that is for sure. It certainly isn't a digital manipulation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 10:22pm

Re: Re: Re:
The same thing could be said about the re innovation of the AP's Obama picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 11:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not in the slightest - you can take the obama picture and show a point to point correlation, exact same angle, etc - because at the root, he used the digital image and manipulated it from there.

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 thread ]
E-Rocker, 12 Aug 2009 @ 11:14pm

Re:
Your claim seems to be that because a computer was used to modify existing art, and not a brush, it can not be original.

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 thread ]
Bill Guffey, 13 Aug 2009 @ 3:54am

paintings
Interesting conversation. And just to clarify, these are totally my creations with paint and canvas. No printing and pasting. Not even a use of a projector. There are a few paintings that I posted the steps of the painting, from intial sketch to the final painting. They're on my blog if anyone wants to see them.

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 thread ]
ClverName, 13 Aug 2009 @ 5:36am

Re: Re: Re:
You are wrong, go pound sand.
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 thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Aug 2009 @ 5:39am

Re: Not quite a valid comparison
Actually, I think it's a pretty good 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 thread ]
CleverName, 13 Aug 2009 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"you can take the obama picture and show a point to point correlation, exact same angle,"

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 thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 13 Aug 2009 @ 6:11am

Re: paintings
Nice to see the artist involved in the online discussion!

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2009 @ 7:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get the two images, put them in photoshop - it isn't hard to see a point to point correlation (within the boundries of the fat outline too used in the copy).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leviathant (profile), 13 Aug 2009 @ 7:31am

Re:
Could you cite a source - any source - where Fairey claimed his image was original?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OP, 13 Aug 2009 @ 8:16am

Re: Re: paintings
Mike C. interpreted my comment correctly (thanks!) - it's why I disclaimed that I didn't know your method, merely speculated a potentially realistic scenario for the AC comment.

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 thread ]
Jason, 13 Aug 2009 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but you know someone is just going to come along and create some kind of perspective tool that will just let you change the perspective digitally to make it look like original work. Sheesh, how lame would that be?

Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
briex, 21 Nov 2009 @ 11:47pm

Streetview art
Nice what and how Bill is painting! I do the lazy thing: transforming Streeview screendrops into digital art. Btw the Streetview art I make is not for sale. Have a look of my Streeview art between some own pictures: http://www.briex.eu/streeviewart/page5.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
easels, 21 May 2010 @ 12:28am

easels
magnificant
[ link to this | view in thread ]