Technical > Digital Imaging > Is it image theft, or acceptable conceptual art?

Is it image theft, or acceptable conceptual art?

... photographer Harry Benson was recently flipping through the New York Times when he came across an article about the Whitney Biennial exhibition in NYC, one of the leading shows for up-and-coming artists. He was shocked to find that the installation featured in the main photograph was using one of his photographs without permission. ...

Infringement pure and simple.

Wayne

reply to vrp
Yes, infringement.

Tim

reply to vrp
I agree with Splitpair and timcuth ; that was wrong of the "artist"

reply to vrp
I'm no attorney, I have no legal experience and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night but I think this is infringment written all over it.
--
»www.jrslaterphotography.com/

reply to vrp
I'd sue the pants off of her. Then photograph her privates.

reply to vrp
Just another example of how low the 'morals' of society have fallen.

reply to vrp
Infringement indeed.

I enjoy PetaPixel. Glad to see others here do as well. I do believe it's the ONLY blog I ever read with any modicum of consistency.
--
"And Tehuno said let there be haste, not mp5, and there was haste. All creatures of the world rejoiced." -WotLK Ch. 3.3.2

reply to vrp
Infringement is far too polite a word--I believe that theft fits much better!
--
amicitia sine fraude

reply to vrp
I have to agree with Chuck. That's blatant stealing.

reply to vrp
Conceptual art? I'm not even sure what that means? As far as I know, there is no such phrase in copyright law. If we're talking about derivative works, the offending "art piece" isn't even close to representing a derivative work. Besides that,"[o]nly the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." And fair use is something totally different, which would not apply in this case.

It is copyright infringement, no doubt about it. One would think Ms. O'Grady, being an artist herself, would know better.

I found a dictionary definition for conceptual art, and I do not see how it would apply in this case.

The definition is as follows.
art conveying concepts: art designed to present an idea rather than to be appreciated for its creative skill or beauty, often making use of unconventional media instead of painting or sculpture

reply to vrp
I'd say theft. She used the image without permission, didn't even bother to change it much (not enough from my POV to fall under "art") or to give the original photographer credit, and is planning to run off a series of prints and make money off of it.

reply to SueS

reply to vrp
Based on the images I see in the articles if I were on a jury and saw the photo and the artwork, I'd conclude the artwork the photograph that's been used as a painting, or printed or photoshopped to an artistic effect. If that's "derivative work", then Benson should prevail.

Mr. Benson probably has the resources to effectively pursue such matters should a perpetrator refuse to cooperate. It's just a shame he may have to go through the process.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Interesting article! I wonder how many other people's work she may have "conceptualized".

With sufficient publicity, Ms. O'Grady's name may become a verb associated with "conceptual Plagiarism".

reply to vrp
After viewing here web site it is apparent that none of her work is original or based upon her own original work. Her process seem to be to Photoshop others efforts and lay claim to them as her own.

Too bad PILLORY is no longer used!!
--
****aka The WIZARD *** A Founding member of Seti BBR Team Starfire***

reply to vrp
I wouldn't necessarily use the word theft so much as complete lack of imagination......um, maybe that's the same as 'conceptual art.'