Movie Poster "Homage" Copyright Infringement

[crosshair]

That is a totally defeatist attitude Rick G.

It isn't about slaying the dragon.

It's about people, here, producers, or even people who drive by with questions about what they can get away with, thinking about what the fuck they are doing. Rather than just doing it without thinking. If they think about it, and its implications, and decide to do it anyway, then so be it. There will always be someone there to satisfy a demand, without regard for ethics or integrity. It is because I do respect my peers, including you, that I ask them to consider whether they aspire to something higher than that.

[ImJustRickG]

We don't disagree. I just think Pandora is making bank while the rest of us work to make only ourselves happy.

You see defeatist. I see cynical. Same coin.

Even the totally licensed and legit stuff leaves me feeling empty. I try - and probably often fail, but I try - to design ideas. Aesthetics are often secondary and if stuff looks good it's a happy coincidence. To that end, reappropriation of found art (another GP horse we've beaten to death) doesn't bother me at all; I like to see old things with new contexts.

But posters of someone else's ideas? I just find it boring no matter how well done. Yet I see that's where the money is at. If anything I hold it against the consumers, not the artists.

[ricv64]

I don't know . It;s like people have no faith in their vision and so called dealers and galleries have no faith in their ability to sell a artists " work " unless there's a cloudy tie in . It's like no one is trying to show , " Recent Work "

[bingybunny]

I've just exhausted myself trying to discuss any of these perspectives with the consumers over at expressobeans.
And the silkscreen fan facebook page is equally frustrating and disappointing when the most active members can't seem to tell the difference between the mediocre bootlegs and the well done bootlegs. I'm done trying to interject any moral/ethical idealism into it.

This was refreshing to see today. An artist forging out on a road less traveled.

[bingybunny]

I can't seem to let this go. I feel like Ann Romney on sodium pentothal. So anyway... Fascinated as I am by the pop culture craze I did make it over to the Crazy for Cult Gallery 1988 pop up show after the crowds died down. And I did love this piece by Johnny Crap.
On the issues of pop ethics I'll have to ultimately err on the side of "if it looks good eat it".

[Brainiac]

I've just exhausted myself trying to discuss any of these perspectives with the consumers over at expressobeans.
And the silkscreen fan facebook page is equally frustrating and disappointing when the most active members can't seem to tell the difference between the mediocre bootlegs and the well done bootlegs. I'm done trying to interject any moral/ethical idealism into it.

This was refreshing to see today. An artist forging out on a road less traveled.

I think I see the cloudy tie in Ric64 was talking about.

[Brainiac]

What, nobody's gonna make an Olly Moss joke? Is this thing on?

[michael_0]

On the ethical side, as opposed to my own creative attitude, the way is see it is the same as the rest of the moral and legal stands that we've unionized against.

I was re-listening to the AID podcast yesterday where they tear a piece out of that Matt Needle guy and Mark made a good point; he'd over heard a couple of kids passing his booth at an event recently and one was explaining to the other that with the film posters, if the artist can persuade a cinema to put a film on, they have every right to make and sell posters for it. Now, if this kid gets back to college and tells his friends that's how it works, they tell their friends and so on, it becomes an actual thing.

The creative community made a stand against the concept of spec work and working for 'exposure' so we could retain a level of professional credibility and I don't see this as being any different. The arseholes buying this stuff without a care as to it's authenticity are no different from the arseholes that don't understand why you wouldn't work for free.

We've persuaded young designers to respect themselves and their work and not give it away, and similarly, we need to educate them on copyright law and bootlegging so they can better construct a career founded on legitimate professional practices. Same way we chose to contact bands to work for instead of just making the most badass Metallica poster we could think of.

[ricv64]

I know a guy whose Metallica posters were confiscated ..... I put some thought into what could be a devils adovcate argument and that would be , great artists such as Titian , Velazquez , Joesph Wright of Derby and their schools and followers often did works based on Aesops fables , Ovid . In the 17th century through the Pre Raphealite brotherhood , artist often painted scenes from popular plays . A really wordy illustrator could bash out a manifesto and give the moment some literary cred but I still think it's more about what Dan said trying to cash in .

" I bet the artist has a lot of tattoos " that was funny too


I think alot of people are also jumping on the bandwagon cause they think thats whats in and don't want to be seen as obsolete

[michael_0]

Even back when those guys were operating those stories were a few hundred years old. Aesop's Fables even older. It's no different from us using nursery rhymes.

I actually used to live in Derby and drink in the pub Joseph Wright lived above. He used to pay his landlord with paintings. How chuffed would you be if you were that guy?

I don't think obsolescence is a consideration here, though...