I think it's less about either/or and more about "if you use an idea that 'I' came up with and you didn't, you can not claim it as only yours."
Also branching off of another's work is considered fine, if it's done in a way that changes it significantly.
I don't understand why someone would want to just take someone's idea, modify it such a small amount, then pretend it was all their own idea.
Unless they are not creatively talented enough to stand on their own two feet. It's called credit where credit is due.
While I find your comment to be intelligent and an interesting take on the matter, I feel that the whole discussion is missing the point. The Cambell's painting was free advertising because it was a giant Cambell's can. Everyone knew where that came from. No one would have known the photographer of the original Obama image if there wasn't a lawsuit. I'm pretty sure no one does anyway, just that it was an AP image. It would have been great advertising if he would have said, "Image based on photograph by XYZ from AP." However, maybe said photographer thought his image was worth more than free publicity he didn't ask for. I think it's very presumptuous to assume another artist is going to appreciate the kind of publicity artist B is going to give him. What if I did a painting based on a Christian artists loving portrayal of Christ, but I made it Satanic. Do you think said Christian artist would appreciate my audiences interest? I think the artist is the person who should decide what their image is worth, not the person who is trying to steal it. Clearly they would undervalue it for their own purposes.
So what your saying is that if someone else writes a song, I make a better version, I shouldn't owe the first person any credit/monetary reward?
While I agree the vinyl image is a fantastic idea, I don't think it's enough on it's own.
If he went so far as to come up with an extremely interesting method of creation why could he not spend a little more effort to come up with an original image. Yes it's an iconic image. If he must use that image, why not contact the original artist?
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to just get permission. As with the example of a song, if the original songwriter did not write the song, "artist B" would not have anything to go off of. At the very least it's a collaboration and the original artist deserves credit.
I would love to see what all of these people would be saying if it was their art that was being stolen.
Usually it's the fact that people are not giving any credit to the original artist, i.e. portraying their artwork as completely theirs, that is the problem. It's a falsehood.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Elisha Dasenbrock.
Re: Re:
I think it's less about either/or and more about "if you use an idea that 'I' came up with and you didn't, you can not claim it as only yours."
Also branching off of another's work is considered fine, if it's done in a way that changes it significantly.
I don't understand why someone would want to just take someone's idea, modify it such a small amount, then pretend it was all their own idea.
Unless they are not creatively talented enough to stand on their own two feet. It's called credit where credit is due.
While I find your comment to be intelligent and an interesting take on the matter, I feel that the whole discussion is missing the point. The Cambell's painting was free advertising because it was a giant Cambell's can. Everyone knew where that came from. No one would have known the photographer of the original Obama image if there wasn't a lawsuit. I'm pretty sure no one does anyway, just that it was an AP image. It would have been great advertising if he would have said, "Image based on photograph by XYZ from AP." However, maybe said photographer thought his image was worth more than free publicity he didn't ask for. I think it's very presumptuous to assume another artist is going to appreciate the kind of publicity artist B is going to give him. What if I did a painting based on a Christian artists loving portrayal of Christ, but I made it Satanic. Do you think said Christian artist would appreciate my audiences interest? I think the artist is the person who should decide what their image is worth, not the person who is trying to steal it. Clearly they would undervalue it for their own purposes.
Re:
So what your saying is that if someone else writes a song, I make a better version, I shouldn't owe the first person any credit/monetary reward?
While I agree the vinyl image is a fantastic idea, I don't think it's enough on it's own.
If he went so far as to come up with an extremely interesting method of creation why could he not spend a little more effort to come up with an original image. Yes it's an iconic image. If he must use that image, why not contact the original artist?
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to just get permission. As with the example of a song, if the original songwriter did not write the song, "artist B" would not have anything to go off of. At the very least it's a collaboration and the original artist deserves credit.
I would love to see what all of these people would be saying if it was their art that was being stolen.
Usually it's the fact that people are not giving any credit to the original artist, i.e. portraying their artwork as completely theirs, that is the problem. It's a falsehood.