The case against Ryan Mcginley seems to be the strongest argument against copyright infringement in all of the three articles. If each exhibit was shown separately the case would seem bizarre, when put together though Gordon has a good point. He makes a valid statement saying that nowadays it is nearly impossible to come up with âoriginalâ material because we are surrounded by images constantly. To not be inspired by them at all is difficult. It would make sense to draw inspiration from multiple artists, but to see similarities between two happen numerous times it is a bit strange.
The case of Shepard Fairey makes no sense to me. Shephard did exactly what a pop artist does, takes a recognizable image and puts their own spin on it. The image looks nothing like the original. In this example it is Shephardâs own fault for getting in as much trouble as he did for lying. I agree with the writer of the article stating that AP shouldâve been thrilled one of their own photos was the image most recognizable from the Obama campaign.
When looking at Girl Talk as an artist creating a painting or photograph or
whatever it is easier to understand that what he is doing is not copyright
infringement. Heâs taking bits from other pieces of art to create a completely
new piece of work. Itâs comparable to an artist creating a collage of
foundimages. It is different images put together to create a whole new
meaning, and in the case of Girl Talk,sound.After reading all three articles
copyright infringement seems like a problem that will be around for awhile.
As more ideas are used up and people are forced to draw inspiration from
past artistâs works, the problem will become bigger.