or

Why You Don’t Own Anything You Create Anymore

 

Bloggers will just take your shit. It’s not a question of why or what, more so when. I’ve seen my work lifted, reblogged without credit, in the logo of a popular fashion blog, Tumblr, Twitter backgrounds, literally everywhere. This is the beauty of the Internet. This allows for creative endadeavors to travel far and wide.

We live in a digital age. And we don’t own anything we create. If an artist wants to have complete control over the use of their work they should keep it locked away in their studios. Once it’s out there, once it’s on the Internet, it’s fair game to be remixed, rewired, rework, analyzed, criticized, You-tubed, Tweeted, all over a FuckYeah Tumblr. This is just the time we live in.

If you’re Prince you think this is bullshit. The artist recently went to lengths to argue on Lopez Tonight that ‘once a cover is recorded the original ceases to exhibit.’ Hard to fathom when Chaka Khan famously covered a little known cut of his, “I Feel For You,” and had a massive crossover hit. Prince himself, had a hit with a cover of “Betcha By Golly Wow.” And who could forget this?

If Prince wants to block covers, fine. He has every right. But artists also have a right to the work. To think, If we do that, we may never get another one of these:

 

Prince may be on to something though. The recent ruling which found Richard Prince guilty of appropriating imagery created by others – violated the law by using photographs from a book about Rastafarians to create a series of collages and painting. This is one of those cases where fair use can’t save you.

Where does this leave other artists who rely on images from other artists? Bansky, Ron English, Shepard Fairey, Kehinde Wiley. The list could rival a laundry list. Then I got to thinking. All artists reuse images from other artists. In literature this is called Intertextuality. There can’t really be any copyright infringement. If Richard Prince can be sued for using those images, why can’t the subjects who the photographer did not have permission to shoot sue him? And the slippery slope begins.

David LaChapelle’s recent lawsuit against Rihanna reminds me a bigger lawsuit between Madonna and the estate of late photographer Guy Bourdin. The estate claimed Madonna’s video for her song “Hollywood” directly lifted photos by Bourdin. Madge called it inspiration. Who’s right? They both are.

I’m on the fence about it all. On one hand I’m an art editor who has seen press release and articles I’ve written repost, cut and pasted all over the Internet, so naturally that side would place me on the side of the photographer. On the other hand, I’m a collage artist whose work consists of images that I have not taken.

In our digital age we have a very different definition of what it is to be creative. Our generation, artists aside, creatively express themselves mainly through the creations of others. The music they listen to, the brands they strap across their backs, whether they’re #teamiphone or #teamblackberry, this how our generation defines itself. And you can’t tell a generation that uses Tumblr what creativity is. I’m sure they’re a song lyric away from tweeting the exact feeling.

Related Posts: