Getty took the right and just action against the "odious appropriator".
There is little keeping Warhol from the same opprobrium.Quote:
... Warhol ...
"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." Noah Cross/'Chinatown'/R. Towne
Warhol, if I remember correctly, took his own pictures of the soup cans and then did his thing.
This guy took someone else work and then mucked them up.
That is the difference I was pointing out.
As far as Campbell Co suing Warhol, they probably thought about it but decided it was good publicity.
If someone took one of my pictures and messed with them I'd sue them. Actually I'd probably go find where they live and fuck them up.
I was thinking of Triple Elvis.
I'm not sure but I don't think he had permission to use the image. I recall reading that he would often use images from magazines.Quote:
The image of Elvis was taken from a publicity still for the film Flaming Star 1960 (Twentieth Century Fox).
I wrote to the Letters to the Editor at the Sydney Morning Herald (if anyone still reads the print edition :-( )
These are my reflections (as "appropriation" or whatever term you use is a valid artistic procedure IMHO):
<<I hope that Getty Images and the original photographer whose work Ben Ali Ong appropriated are in agreement with Picasso's "stealing" axiom as quoted (or misquoted) by Andrew Frost.
Borrowing is certainly well established in artistic practice; in modern days Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake", Christian Marclay's "The Clock", Luciano Berio quoting Mahler in "Sinfonia", Soda Jerk's video pieces etc. However, and if the Herald's selection of Ong's images depicts them accurately, neither of them shows any evidence of the interpretation, contextualisation, or new vision that would afford the viewer any of the new insights to be found in those and many other works . They really do look like something downloaded, tarted up and merchandised using the easily employed tools of the digital age.>>
More information in this thread:
Apparently the "artist", Ong, told the gallery owner that he took the images himself and that he had the negatives of the picture.