Official Portrait For Pope's US Visit... Being Investigated For Copyright Infringement
from the the-holy-copyright-infringement dept
The previous pope, Benedict XVI a few years ago made some waves by suggesting that intellectual property had gone too far, saying:On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property...The current Pope may now be at the center of a copyright dispute as well. Apparently, Pope Francis is heading to the US in a few weeks. And, as a part of this, apparently someone asked Philadelphia pop artist Perry Milou to create an "official" portrait of the Pope for his tour. And he did:
And most normal people would agree that this should be perfectly fine. Creating the painting is absolutely transformative. It doesn't take away from the rights of the original photograph and certainly is not a replacement for the original photograph and might even make the original photograph more recognizable and more in demand.
But, we live in the real world where copyright extremists freak out about just about anything. And Getty, for one, has a reputation as quite the copyright troll.
And, tragically, Getty is probably remembering what happened the last time a well known "pop artist" created a big recognizable portrait of someone based on a photograph held by a news agency: the infamous Sheppard Fairey/Obama Hope poster, that was based on a photo by photographer Manny Garcia, but where the Associated Press held the copyright:
One hopes that, should Getty go legal, that Milou doesn't follow Fairey's lead, and actually mounts a strong fair use defense. One would think that, at the very least, he'd have the Pope on his side, and that can't hurt.
Of course, given the ridiculous freakouts about these people daring to paint portraits based on news photographs, we're still wondering why no one ever threatened to sue former President George W. Bush for his paintings of famous world leaders that were also based on Google Image search results. Remember this masterpiece by the former President painting Russian leader Vladimir Putin based on the first result in Google Images at the time?
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: copyright, fair use, perry milou, pope, pope francis, portrait, shepard fairey
Companies: getty, getty images
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On a related issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Getty has thus far done nothing but state the fact it's based on photograph it owns?
Go on to next non-story -- if you have one. The three so far today total up to nothing.
Since imagining is valid, I imagine that next you'll run another piece gushing about Google getting billions for spying on everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Getty has thus far done nothing but state the fact it's based on photograph it owns?
It's like they're targeting you, forcing you to publicly embarrass yourself with ridiculous hissy fits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Getty has thus far done nothing but state the fact it's based on photograph it owns?
The complaint "you've ginned up a non-story" should be directed to Buzzfeed, since this is commenting on a Buzzfeed story. It was Buzzfeed that first linked this story to the Obama "Hope" poster controversy, since they too seemed to think this story warranted coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if there is a legal stoush
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
Stop fueling the non-discussion from the troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's cool.
I'm going to exercise my own free will and use my report clicks for those who continually bitch about who other people choose to respond to.
Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Isn't it wonderful how everybody these days appear to have found their personal sacred cow, or is well on their way to finding it? It's like a golden age or something. Everybody's looking, everybody's finding, yet we appear to be suffering no shortage. In fact, they're multiplying, or coming out of the woodwork, or just spontaneously popping into existence.
"Brings a tear to me eye."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I guess you think you're breaking my heart or making me angry or something, but that's what I do to my own comments on these idiotic threads. So what you're doing to me is every bit as pointless as replying to the King of Idiots in the first place.
So, yea, have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Don't really care, to be honest. I was just pointing out that your opinions are exactly that - YOUR opinion and not necessarily the views held by others here.
So what you're doing to me is every bit as pointless as replying to the King of Idiots in the first place.
Once again, that's strictly your opinion and it's not one I subscribe to. I don't believe it's pointless to showcase Blue's incorrect statements to other readers.
To be honest, I think your constant bitching about people replying to Blue is actually the pointless endeavor. If it bugs you that much, don't read them or write a Greasemonkey script to hide all replies to hidden comments or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everybody should have a hobby. Anything that keeps people from lockin' and loadin' and heading down to [insert popular shoot 'em up meme here] is a good thing.
I don't mind you reporting them to death. We can still read them, and reply to them, and you can report both of us, and yourself too; everybody wins! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
I thought that AC was wrong. While my response was sarcastic, it explained why.
Another AC thought that AC was wrong, and explained why.
Your preferred response is to shun AC. Fair enough, but it doesn't give you the right to force others to do so. For your efforts to supress others' speech, you earn a well-deserved Report vote yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
Yeah, that is probably true. On the other hand, the constant reporting of Blue hasn't deterred him one iota either.
I do firmly believe that incorrect speech should be countered with more speech and I, like Roger, don't do it for the benefit of the original troll, but for the benefit of those who come along and read these comments at a later date.
I've even responded to Blue on articles that were two or three years old, because he was going back to comment on them in an attempt to get in the last word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
That's not true. They'll be back regardless of anything we do. They've an agenda to push, independent of facts, reality, or push-back.
It's possible (with some) to engage them and possibly draw them out. I did it just last week. Nothing's proved by it, but at least it keeps things honest. "I'm looking to hear your point of view assuming you have one. It appears you're just deflecting or lying. Prove I'm mistaken."
Nobody's forced to recognize their screeds, but it is wrong to allow them the big lie without any confronting of them. However, I am sympathetic to the idea it gets tedious seeing them pull the same boring arguments refuted years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
Explain to me how I'm "forcing" anyone to do anything.
Hyperbole much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
*YOU* obviously think there are consequences, or at least want others to believe there are, since you so proudly proclaim that you report those who disagree with your personal policy.
C'mon. You're making AC/Blue look honest and reasonable by comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
Here's an idea: if you can't respond with further explanations about accusations you yourself made, go fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
anything from penalties
Like what? There are none.
for having a lower reputation score
What's YOUR reputation score knucklehead?
to having your account terminated.
Never heard of that happening here, and doubt it ever would.
there are consequences, or at least want others to believe there are,
Yea? Quote me on that, shit-for-brains.
since you so proudly proclaim that you report those who disagree with your personal policy.
I don't report people for disagreeing with me (again, quote where I said anything to that effect. I Report people who are stupid enough to reply to trolls you dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
You're also making AC/Blue look good with respect to comprehension and maturity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
Hardly. You made some unrelated and moronic suppositions that are totally false. See above.
You really should go fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"nitwits"
"go fuck yourself"
"the idiocy you posted"
"knucklehead"
"shit-for-brains"
"people who are stupid enough to reply to trolls"
"you dumbass"
"You really should go fuck yourself"
Do you know what else the report button is for? Abusive behavior. Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was about to mention this to him, but decided not to. None of my business. Frankly, I couldn't much care what windmills others choose to tilt against. None of my business either. *All* of this sound and fury's pretty easy to ignore.
I don't enjoy watching others fling epithets and insults at others who're merely attempting to discuss a situation, but again, still not really my business. I like to stand up to them and refuse them the right to intimidate others into quivering silence, but that's all I care about in the matter.
Bottom line: It's better to be thought a fool than to speak out and confirm the fact. Everybody (I think) is well aware of OoTB's agenda. So what if people (still!) insist on calling *it* out?
I also like to think of Mike looking on, as if Zeus on Mt. Olympus. "Should I do anything about this? Nah! Pick a side and fight, silly humans."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All regular readers are, but those who are visiting the site for the first time, and some of those visitors may be new to the Internet. Therefore it is worth refuting some of his points for their benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, I started a campaign to report him and anyone with little enough sense to reply to him. Guess what? It WORKED.
But, keep on replying to him and getting all self righteous about it. Let us know how that works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bravo, more power to ya, I'm not complaining. Have fun. Others may complain you're adding to the noise. I'm not. No skin off my nose. It's fun to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See how well that works? Oh...I guess is doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I've got this magic rock that totally protects you against tiger attacks, you can have it for a great price...
I have to assume that by "It WORKED", you mean that you successfully reported him and everyone who replied to him. Good for you. Extrapolating any other effect from your cause is... oversimplifying at best, but more likely to be just wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He copied it without the right. Hell hounds is calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh man, that Bush painting
That's so, so Godwin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse then Göring
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Göring approaches 1
WWII historians have dissected at length what probably would have happened if Hitler were either assassinated or diverted from politics. The momentum of history would have kept things moving forward like an overloaded freight train.
The line up of the Nationalsozialismus administration might have been different. It would be a stretch to suggest the Nuremberg laws would be repealed before the Endlösung was implemented. Maybe a more conservative plan for German expansionism might have been drawn up.
And we'd be iconizing whichever leader as the ultimate evil to whom we compare our rivals when we're distraut. Hopefully he'd still have a silly moustache that we could mock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't the pope's parents sue Getty?
And, uh, the pope would be his parents' copyright heir in case they are no longer around? Or is that lost in some sort of poperty vow? But then wouldn't the Vatican be the copyright holder to his holy likeness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further study of the CE01 gene is warranted, not only to relieve these horrible symptoms but because we could patent it and make money money MONEY!!! AH HAHAHAHAHAHA oh no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does the copyright cover?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush whack
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the current high profile copyright dispute all I can say is God Bless America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh Oh.
Starting with renewed demands that heretics who question their doctrine be excommunicated from the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(http://i.imgur.com/pw2ATQ9.jpg)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought this was a normal thing for art
Why would it be inappropriate for Milou to base a work off a photograph, even a copyrighted one? It's a sufficiently derivative work, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought this was a normal thing for art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just checking.
It's time to abolish IP. We really, really can't do worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought this was a normal thing for art
The reality is Getty has pointed out that their image was the basis. But since painting is not done by digitally manipulating an image but rather by looking at and reproducing certain aspects of an image, it's generally considered a transformative use.
Many painters work from photographs, rending them in their own way as a painting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That in my opinion does kill so much if not all for what Art stands for. I can only hope the court will laugh at Getty Images and kick them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This video was released in 2011, the artist made an album with the original creator in 2013 so I guess this perfomance was at the time, according to the Getty Images example, illegal. It was a normal person transforming a known piece of art into something different or you might even say into something better, at least that is what I'd call it.
★ Ewan Dobson ★ Time 2 ★ [ DRUM COVER by Zack B ]
https://youtu.be/mLgUbMXEk2w
Funny how things work out.They made an album in 2013 and a 2nd album in 2015. Yeah.. the whole transforming art thing is just a bad idea *cough*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am on the fence on this issue
I do wonder, if the shoe was on the other foot, and a photographer took a photo of a painting and "transformed" it, how the painter would react.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG I cannot stop laughing Mr Bush
[ link to this | view in chronology ]