'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
from the go-the-f**k-to-court dept
Well, well. We've written about how the massive success of the book Go the F**k to Sleep could likely be attributed to mass file sharing of the book itself, long before it was actually published (which, according to some, makes it a felony). While the publisher and the author originally tried to fight the sharing, they eventually calmed down when they realized that it was (massively) helping with sales. However, we noted the oddity of the author still then insisting that "piracy" was bad.So it struck as quite interesting, in a comment on that post by Mark, that an artist is now suggesting that the illustrator of Go the F**k to Sleep appears to have copied at least one of his illustrations for one of the book's classic images:
From my perusal of Mr. Cortes' other works, it does appear that he makes extensive use of photographic references in his work. Whether he paints over them or just uses them as visual references I cannot say.That's really too bad. Why do people get so freaked out when others are inspired by their own artwork? Of course, I'd also imagine that if people looked, they might be able to find similar photographic "templates" for other images in the book. But do those harm the original artwork? Of course not.
I don't doubt that a lot of artists download references from the Internet and then adapt them to suit their needs. 9 times out of 10 no one is going to be the wiser, especially if they think they are looking at a stock nature photo someone took. Why drag your easel to Norway when you can hit up GIS?
What happens when the reference isn't a photo however, but is an original artwork? The difference isn't always clear and I do usually strive for photorealism in my nature work.
Either way, I will definitely be looking into this matter in the weeks ahead. It's not personal of course (he seems like a cool guy), merely business.
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: adam mansbach, copying, go the fuck to sleep, piracy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm guilty of camping @ a similar sight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad
I put "original" in quotes because I don't see how the two are copies of each other at all. The trees are in different spots, the shoreline is different, etc. There is literally nothing "copied" beyond a vague "trees around a lake at night" style, and you can't copyright a style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this isnt even news, because nobody cares about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Other people might care. Thanks for telling us what we think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't somebody think of the f**king children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is only about money, the settlement and the free advertising he gains from the case coverage.
I painted a tree, I think I will now sue everyone that has a picture with a damned tree in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the problem for the plaintiff would be that the image isn't that original. The parts that were copied, if there even are any, are unprotectable scenes-a-faire. Just about anyone who's ever thrown on a backpack and hiked in the mountains has seen this sort of imagery.
Such common scenery images don't get that much copyright protection. The less protectable the image, the more exacting the copy must be to be infringing. The fact that there are so many differences between the two, I think, would get the defendant off the hook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And that's a good example. Paintings and pictures of trees are quite common, so they get less copyright protection. In order for an image to be infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original, if not exactly like it.
Since the scenery here is quite common, I think that in order for the work in question to be considered infringing, it would have to look almost exactly like the original. I think there are enough objective, extrinsic ways in which they differ that it wouldn't be infringing.
The problem for the author is that he may not want to put this in the hands of a judge/jury, and the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to get a settlement out of him. Oh well, them's the breaks.
P.S. Who says I always side with the plaintiff in a copyright case? I think it was nasch. I don't. I side with whichever side I think has the better argument. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who cares what they think FUD, your posts are very entertaining, and occasionally informative.. keep it up :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do I get a tinfoil hat and a decoder ring? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy!!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyways, some people shouldn't be so fast to start talking about lobotomies... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why? Because the norhern lights and night forests reflecting in a lake looks f*cking awesome. And has for some time.
So, for the same reason as the creator of "song of the sky", I bet there are dozens if not hundreds of photgraphers and/or artists that have explored this very vista.
I would not be surprised if there is one or more works from before 2000 that could spell legal trouble for the creator of "song in the sky", if they found out he has been stealing their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem for the author is that he may not want to put this in the hands of a judge/jury, and the threat of a lawsuit might be enough to get a settlement out of him. Oh well, them's the breaks.
This is the part we don't agree on, the attitude that it's not a big deal for someone to abuse the legal process to get money from an innocent person, and especially that it's set up so that this happens a lot. Them's the breaks? I would say, wow, that's really broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
having said that however, there are more than enough differences, and besides that... can you really say that you 'own' any depiction of the northern lights over a forrestline that includes a body of water simply because you took a picture of it once? im sure some people will say yes... but we have a name for them.... they're called "idiots".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
**copyrightards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good artists copy. Great artists steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attribution
Even if DigitalBlasphemy's work was the inspiration, so what? No one would mistake one image for the other - they are quite different in many significant ways. Besides, if I build a 'kit car' that takes its design cues from Porsche, must I stick an attribution sign on it crediting Porsche?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attribution
Anyways, attribution isn't put there to make sure there isn't confusion, it's there to say "hey, if you like this, you may also like other things by this guy." I don't think there needs to be a legal mandate but again doing so is nice.
As far as if it was an inspiration or not? -shrugs- Fair point. I think I see enough similarities that I'd be pretty skeptical of a contrary claim, but "evergreens around a lake at night" is fairly generic. As Ryan Bliss points out below, though, there are some key details that hint otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Attribution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puzzle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- The problem we are facing with copyright in a nutshell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I'm going to sue someone (which I've never done by the way) I not going to be posting about it beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Display Advertising
Reach up to 92% of the US Online Population w/ Microsoft Display Ads
Advertising.Microsoft.com
Ads by Google"
Techdirt is displaying a Google ad for Microsoft ads. I want to send that screenshot to the anti-trust authorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Blasphemy
Usually in these cases Ryan is just looking for attribution, but since he HAS left his job to support his family entirely through selling memberships and this has been a huge marketing success, it wouldn't really surprise me if he went after more in this case.
Before anyone starts slamming me, I'm very copyleft and I'm also not sure how I feel about Ryan's position here. I find it understandable, in a way, since it would at least be nice if they gave him credit for inspiring the image (assuming, of course, that he did). But I can hardly be accused of being anti-piracy, even with respect to Digital Blasphemy. While I paid for a lifetime membership ($99) years ago, I've since shared my login with a number of people to spread the word about him. And while they otherwise probably wouldn't have paid the relatively high cost of his free images for simple desktop wallpaper, my one subscription being copied out like that has caused numerous others to use his wallpapers on their desktops every day, including in some offices, inspiring notice and comment from visitors, co-workers, etc. In short, even if he didn't like what I'm doing, I'm sure I've gotten him a lot more attention than I would have if I'd kept my subscription just for myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digital Blasphemy
On a side note, I once pointed out to Vlad of Vladstudio, who has the same type of business as Digital Blasphemy, that one of his most iconic wallpapers was clearly visible on the computers of the TV show Dollhouse. His response: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Digital Blasphemy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Digital Blasphemy
And yet, they feel they need to get a signed release to do what they want with it. :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not unique
This one is not a particulalrly good example - but then I only looked at the first few that came up when I Googled "northern lights".
I reckon the Alaskan or Norwegian tourist boards probably have a pretty good case against both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a little overblown.
Oh, but I forget myself. They stole this guy's art and they should pay infinity dollars in damages because the book is so popular!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you can't copyright a style
As the picture is not the same as the original but has a similar style are they trying to say the style itself is copyrighted ?
If so them many aspiring art students and in the deep do-do's - most artists start out copying other peoples work that they admire, indeed, one of my friends got an report from his tutor that said "wants to be an illustrator, knows which illustrator he wants to be"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copied? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(I'm a little bitter because I've had to deal with some minor copyright issues getting my memoir published. I've written about them here: http://fletchathustra.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/copyright-is-often-dumb/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recently, they had an exhibition where every painting was a variation on this.
More specifically: "A view of the night-time sky from a lake in Canada during winter". I guess because they had a lot of those from a lot of different artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And there is no such thing as fair use when any use will get you sued. How is that fair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never accused any one of stealing...
Yes, it looks generic now because it rendered it over 10 years ago (when digital cameras were only 1 megapixel). I thought it looked pretty cool at the time, but obviously times change.
I don't have any plans to take this to court but if Mr. Cortes did use my render as the inspiration for this I would love to know about it. More importantly I would love the millions of people who read "Go the F*ck To Sleep" to know about it.
Like I said in my Facebook post: It looks like Mr. Cortes uses photographic references for his work. I'm just wondering if he thought my render was a photograph (it's happened before). The "stealing" accusation was filled in by others. I do, however, think there is a big difference between using a photograph as a reference and an original artwork (that was not based on a photograph).
If anyone has any questions I will be happy to answer them. Thanks to the folks here who have enjoyed my work over the years. Especially Kevin ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
Maybe there isn't. That's sort of the question I was asking by bringing this up in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
I always appreciate when the topic of a TD post is able to reply in the comments, but I do have a comment of my own about the above. You stated this...
I do, however, think there is a big difference between using a photograph as a reference and an original artwork (that was not based on a photograph).
I'm sorry, but that's not a question; it's a definitive statement. Would you explain what you think the difference is and, more importantly, the relevance of this distinction in the question of whether there was anything wrong or illegal with what Mr. Cortes did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
As for myself, I don't use references at all in my work. Maybe it would qualify as "art" if I did. My "Song of the Sky" image was based on a time (around 1995) that I was driving in northern Michagan and saw the aurora for the first time. I rendered it in 2000 and while it may seem generic now, it was pretty well received given that "home rendering" software was still pretty crude.
It's one thing if someone copies a photo because anyone could conceivably go to that location and paint the same scene. I'm sure some landscape photographers would argue against that point. I don't know, I'm not a copyright lawyer.
It just feels wrong to me to take an original work that someone else did, paint my own copy of it (leaving the framing, lightning, and structure intact), and then sell it for huge royalty checks (I'm sure Mr. Cortes did not foresee the massive popularity of this self-published book). I'm certainly not saying he did that, but the images are similar enough (to my eye) that I felt it was a valid question.
I'm sure I would have never heard of the similarity if the book hadn't attained such popularity. I have two little boys but I don't ready that many kids books. As soon as people started reading the book I started getting emails from people asking that I look into it. Asking my fans is my way of looking into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
I guess the question is what can an artist use as reference.
IANAL, but I believe that from a legal standpoint, the question is about the specific expression and the transformative nature of a given piece of art rather than what was used as a reference. In other words, it would be perfectly legal for someone to use another's art -- be it a picture, a painting, or a rendering -- as a reference (or for inspiration, if you like) as long as the expression of that work was different or it was transformed in some meaningful way.
It just feels wrong to me to take an original work that someone else did, paint my own copy of it (leaving the framing, lightning, and structure intact), and then sell it for huge royalty checks
I can certainly sympathize with your feelings. Being a common reader of TD, I sometimes come across cases where my initial feelings conflict with the law. However, there is a big difference between feelings, what is moral, and what is legal. If Mr. Cortes did use your work as a reference, I might think a bit less of his originality, but I wouldn't think of that as an immoral or even illegal act.
It's a blunt way to say it, but the fact is that copyright law was not designed to protect the feelings of artists. They were designed to incentivize the creation of art. If more and better art can be created in a world where people can reference other art as long as there is some meaningful transformation, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
How the heck can you make anything with no reference? You obviously use references. The trees you have seen and lakes and stars and such. Some you have seen in person, some you have probably seen some in people's pictures, on tv, or god forbid maybe even in a painting. Even if you have never seen a tree, lake or stars on tv or in a picture you still use the ones you have seen in person as a reference, otherwise you would never be able to make anything resembling a tree since you wouldn't know what it looks like!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
Either way, I will definitely be looking into this matter in the weeks ahead. It's not personal of course (he seems like a cool guy), merely business.
- but I am very glad to hear that's not the case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
Your clarification is thoughtful and to the point. Hopefully your response will shut everyone up (but doubt it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the purpose of copyright and patents is to protect artists. It's not. Protecting the artist is merely the means by which, in our current system, the real goal of copyright and patents -- incentivizing the creation of new works to benefit the public -- is intended to be achieved. The problem is that people of your viewpoint are putting the cart before the horse. You focus on protecting the artist to the exclusion of the benefit to society as a whole.
Would I prefer a system where an artist or inventor can make a good living or even get rich from their work? Sure, but the problem is that this has become the driving force in IP law. Which in turn leads to the countless number of inane and outrageous lawsuits listed out on TD day after day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
Well, it didn't shut up you so you spilled your bullshit. Fortunately anyone who read Mike's postings knows that you just pulled that out of your a**.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG
I hope some one sues him for using a generic image/landscape/whatever in one of his worthless amateur recycled renderings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG
Well whaddayaknow? All these centuries trying to pin down the definition of "art" and it turns out Anonymous Matt knew it all along!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG
As for the rest of your post you seem somehow bitter and antagonistic towards Digital Blasphemy... but I'm not here to psychoanalyze you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everquest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does it matter?
It's win/win.
The author of the "original" clearly doesn't care for copyright, but in this day and age, it is pretty standard for the majority of people to think that once again, somebody is out to get them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Combine 'em!
http://www.novacodova.com/shawn/combined.jpg
To the argument at hand, there are more than simple similarities at play here which leads me to believe that it is a derivative work. If this artist from Go the F**... is known for doing so, then he should, ethically, give credit to his inspirations. Money, not so much.
I'm no lawyer, this is my opinion and I'm also a lifetime member of DB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron
And the treelines don't match up.
Those are just two examples of how it they aren't alike.
They just LOOK, at first glance, as similar.
Upon further inspection this is not the case. You just have to open your eyes to the possibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Team Bliss!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can it be made more clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can it be made more clear?
You mean except for how it's not a "copy" in any way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How can it be made more clear?
Look at Ryan's work, now look at the picture from the book. Do you see the obvious similarities? If not, perhaps a visit to an Optometrist is in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How can it be made more clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How can it be made more clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How can it be made more clear?
Of course, in the sense that they both depict trees around a lake at night.
That has nothing to do with whether or not one is a "copy" of the other. They clearly aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How can it be made more clear?
IF this was an exact copy of Ryan Bliss's work then I'd agree with you but it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying the book art is original because of the addition of the boy is like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saying the book art is original because of the addition of the boy is like...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So according to Marcel Duchamp, it takes no talent to create 'art'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So according to Marcel Duchamp, it takes no talent to create 'art'...
You have a weird definition of talent. Photorealistic painting is not the only kind of talent. Talent is not measured by time spent or labour exerted, either. Sometimes talent can mean realizing that something very, very simple - like adding a moustache and a clever title to a centuries-old cultural icon - can actually produce a result that is profoundly meaningful to a lot of people.
Using that logic maybe I'll just randomly splatter some paint on a canvas and convince people it's art as well. Oh wait...
Ever been in a room with one of Pollock's huge pieces? I admit, I also didn't see the value of his stuff at first. Then I saw it hanging on the wall at the MET. There's something to it, even if I don't fully understand it. It is, undoubtedly, art - and it took, undoubtedly, talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saying the book art is original because of the addition of the boy is like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saying the book art is original because of the addition of the boy is like...
Did anyone actually say that? Strawman much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commercial Licenses are Cheap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creator of this image
http://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/520566/
Sues both Cortes and the other guy for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/picklejar.shtml?i=skysong2&mode=dir
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+1 for Ryan Bliss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everything you have said here has made it clear that you are pretty level-headed and thoughtful about this stuff, which is by far the most important thing even if there are details of what you've said that I don't entirely agree on. I think you're handling this extremely well and I'm sorry that some people here continue to be so hard on you... It was really just that one line I mentioned earlier that sounded a lot like a hint that you were planning on breaking out the lawyers - everything else you've said is completely reasonable, and I really appreciate that you don't claim any certainty one way or the other regarding what's okay and what's going too far in terms of art, inspiration and appropriation.
Thanks for bringing your thoughts straight to the comments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja Vu
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8086
Video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeLF6j1kWU
Thanks for the enlightening debate. Hope you all will stop by my gallery sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja Vu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja Vu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deja Vu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deja Vu
Here's hoping you get some new customers rolling in because of all the hoopla.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps this was the original from which BOTH copied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very valid concern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Very valid concern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cause that makes it better. Basically: "I'm just going to sue this 'cool guy' because I want more money."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No doubt whatsoever that the painting is a direct copy of the photo.
A REALLY GOOD LOOK...
First look at the big tree on the right side of the picture, the one with the curve in it, this tree is cut off at the top at exactly the same place, it has the same curve (lens aboration from the camera) it has the same branch structure, the same diameter, it is clearly the SAME TREE.
This means the 'painter' of this picture happend to be standing at exactly the same place as the photographer, with the same 'size' lens.
Look at the foreshore line, and the hill in the middle and the smaller hill on the left of the picture, they are the same, (same position, same perspective, size, shape ect).
Now the painter has tried to cover up his deception by moving a number of the trees.
But he was not smart enough to modify the reflection on the lake water of the original tree line.
That means the reflection of the tree line does not match his modifications to the actual tree line, but in fact is the same tree line reflection as is shown on the photo.
So he modified the tree line slightly, but forgot to also modify the reflection of the tree line that is clearly visible in both the photo and the painting.
IT's THE SAME PICTURE !!! without a doubt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Pic Ryan - and that painting is a COPY of your talent.
A copy and a bastardisation of your work......
It is without doubt a painting based on your photograph, which is an excellent photo I have to say.
But there are far more similarities in his 'painting' than there are differences.
It is very clear that the photo, and painting were taken from exactly the same place and same perspective.
Allthough he modified the tree line very slightly, he did not correct the reflection in the lake from the original tree line.
Nice pic BTW: you have every right to be proud of your work, and to get the credit for it.
If I were you, I would most certainly take action and not let someone else profit from your obvious talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great Pic Ryan - and that painting is a COPY of your talent.
"It is very clear that the photo, and painting were taken from exactly the same place and same perspective.
This means the 'painter' of this picture happend to be standing at exactly the same place as the photographer, with the same 'size' lens."
You realize that you don't have to be looking at something to paint it right? That you can paint from memory or imagination? Also painters don't use lenses.
But your brain function seems to be slowly returning darryl at least I could understand these posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this debate still going on?
2. Didn't the "author" said that he's not saying that the image was stolen?
3. Didn't the "author" just asked for a mere mention if the "contested" picture was in fact inspired by his work? He didn't ask for any money, just a mention if the before condition is true. Which is not more than a few words mentioning him and his work as the inspiration.
From what I've seen from the Facebook page and the website of the "author", he's just a normal nice guy trying to sell his work to the people out there. He's not the copyright "monster" everyone is trying to make him out to be. For this once I think people went a little overboard in the comments.
I think this whole thing is just a storm inside a glass of water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope God had a license to borrow from this image, because he certainly drew from it about a thousand times in Minnesota alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]