The line between plagiarism and tribute work continues to be
nearly indiscernible – as is shown by a series of posters created by various
graphical designers and arranged for viewing ease by Bob Caruthers, a retired
design professor. He presents the posters alongside the older posters that certainly
provided their graphical inspiration. What is most striking is how utterly
similar the pairs are – the content of a poster may have been changed, say,
from a 1960’s movie to a concert advertisement, but the main content is, in
most cases, nearly untouched. The obvious similarities leave us wondering, “Is
this tribute work, or merely lazy graphical design?”
The authors of the post believe that no individual person is
entitled to solely explore an idea, but rather that ideas, once formulated,
should be free for anyone to use. In the age of the internet, when access to
information is unprecedentedly easy to obtain, they argue, artists should be
reveling in the availability of new mediums through which to express
themselves, and not hung up on getting credit for their work. If this were the case,
then artists would not have the right to claim an idea as their own – and as
far as copyright goes, this is technically the case. It is not the idea
protected by law, but the creator’s individual expression of what the idea
means to them.
A few of the oldest posters shown are unquestionably in
public domain, so any recent iterations are safe and legal. The newer posters,
though, are often a rehashing of designs that were created just a year or two
before. Would these posters be protected, then? Could the modern-day designers make
a legitimate claim that their work is more tribute than a copy of another
artist’s work?
Should the new posters be considered artistic translations?
Does the line between plagiarism and tribute work actually
become more or less clear when the core designs are so clearly identifiable in
both the original work and the iteration?
Is it ethical to act in the interest of the “idea” rather
than the artists who have created works based on the idea in the past?
The only reason an artist would have to worry about these things would be if their expression or presentation of an idea matches that of another, or uses pieces from another published work. According to fair use, if it changes the work in some way (aesthetic, meaning, etc.), then the artist is in the clear. However, one should be on their toes about these issues (not to the extent of worry, though.)
ReplyDeleteAs far as the posters as artistic translations are concerned, it would, again, need to be have some kind of change to make it original to the creating artist. I feel that if it were to be categorized as "tribute", it would imply that an artist would need to contact the original publisher for permission.
According the rules of fair use, manipulating a previous work in unique way that changes the aesthetics, the artist should not be concerned about an issue of copyright. However, since the decision of fair use is left to a judge to interpret, there is a grey area for artists to be worried about.
ReplyDeleteThe tributes that artists make should make an effort to contact the original publishers for permission, but even that may not take care of the copyright issue if the contributor is unaware of other parties involved in the making of the original work.
I do not think that it is ethical to act in the interest of an idea rather than that of the author. I believe that the author should always receive credit for their work; it is unfair to them as a person for someone to practically steal their ideas. Although I do think that the artwork in these cases can be changed, as long as the original creator is given credit for their original idea.
ReplyDeleteMost of these posters could be considered as artistic translations as opposed to complete copies. Most of the time, the new artists change the purpose of the art entirely (i.e. from a propaganda poster to a concert promotion) while modifying the original work itself, which is covered by fair use. If the 'idea' that the new work was created to communicate differs from the original in any way, then it technically does not infringe on the creator's rights. The creator of the new work should probably contact the creator of the original, or somehow credit him/her anyway, just to make sure.
ReplyDeleteI feel like just as you would write a paper and cite all the sources you used to help create that papers, you should "cite" all the sources from which your artwork came. It could go through a couple different generations of "tributes" in which all of the previous art works you used to create yours should be noted. This is tricky though, because maybe someone made an artwork before yours that is similar, and you never even seen it before. I think that's why there is still a debate going on about this subject. I remember wondering in high school how artists come up with so many cool things, and my art teacher specifically told me to look at other artists works to get some ideas. That being said, I wonder how many artists research other art to get some "inspiration". So, I don't know that using someone's idea is fair to fall under the plagarism category. This will never be a clear subject to me...
ReplyDelete