AFC Receives Cease and Desist From The Estate of Helmut Newton

Interesting. I was wondering how long it would take before this would happen to an art blogger, since so much of our commentary relies on the ability to reproduce artists’ works. I had assumed the first attack would be on behalf of Robert Smithson and Spiral Jetty. Newton’s work rides that line between art and commerce, leaning heavily in the commerce camp, so this makes sense.

Interesting. I was wondering how long it would take before this would happen to an art blogger, since so much of our commentary relies on the ability to reproduce artists’ works. I had assumed the first attack would be on behalf of Robert Smithson and Spiral Jetty. Newton’s work rides that line between art and commerce, leaning heavily in the commerce camp, so this makes sense.

Interesting. I was wondering how long it would take before this would happen to an art blogger, since so much of our commentary relies on the ability to reproduce artists’ works. I had assumed the first attack would be on behalf of Robert Smithson and Spiral Jetty. Newton’s work rides that line between art and commerce, leaning heavily in the commerce camp, so this makes sense.

Well, obviously the Newton estate didn’t do any kind of research at all, ‘Mr’ Paddy. Their cluelessness and hubris is astounding. What kind of a profit do they think they’re losing on loose 72 dpi jpegs, anyway?

Thanks for both taking a clear stand on this issue and sharing your legal research with us. It’s always good to be armed against bullies.

Well, obviously the Newton estate didn’t do any kind of research at all, ‘Mr’ Paddy. Their cluelessness and hubris is astounding. What kind of a profit do they think they’re losing on loose 72 dpi jpegs, anyway?

Thanks for both taking a clear stand on this issue and sharing your legal research with us. It’s always good to be armed against bullies.

Well, obviously the Newton estate didn’t do any kind of research at all, ‘Mr’ Paddy. Their cluelessness and hubris is astounding. What kind of a profit do they think they’re losing on loose 72 dpi jpegs, anyway?

Thanks for both taking a clear stand on this issue and sharing your legal research with us. It’s always good to be armed against bullies.

Go Paddy!
That is so absurd!
I saw your previous posting and they should be thanking you for remembering Helmut Newton’s work.
Let the wars begin. I am on your side!

Go Paddy!
That is so absurd!
I saw your previous posting and they should be thanking you for remembering Helmut Newton’s work.
Let the wars begin. I am on your side!

Go Paddy!
That is so absurd!
I saw your previous posting and they should be thanking you for remembering Helmut Newton’s work.
Let the wars begin. I am on your side!

I’d be more concerned about Naomi’s temper than Newton’s lawyers.

I’d be more concerned about Naomi’s temper than Newton’s lawyers.

You are a spitfire, arent you? Keep it up, jsut watching and waiting.
Donald

You are a spitfire, arent you? Keep it up, jsut watching and waiting.
Donald

Speak it sister!

Speak it sister!

Speak it sister!

Yeah, Mr., Naomi may throw a Manolo at you.

Yeah, Mr., Naomi may throw a Manolo at you.

Yeah, Mr., Naomi may throw a Manolo at you.

I’m afraid your interpretation of fair use regarding news coverage is wrong, albeit on a technicality.

It is fair use to use a photo / likeness if it is the SUBJECT of the news piece. Such as this photo, in THIS blog post would be fair use.

However, since the aforementioned blog post is about Naomi Campbell and has little to do with the photograph in question you would be running afoul of the fair use doctrine.

Be careful, but you’re risking a lawsuit on this one.

I’m afraid your interpretation of fair use regarding news coverage is wrong, albeit on a technicality.

It is fair use to use a photo / likeness if it is the SUBJECT of the news piece. Such as this photo, in THIS blog post would be fair use.

However, since the aforementioned blog post is about Naomi Campbell and has little to do with the photograph in question you would be running afoul of the fair use doctrine.

Be careful, but you’re risking a lawsuit on this one.

Just a note that comments from people who fail to leave a valid email will not be approved, particularly as those in question tend to be issued by people who can’t make a point without taking an inappropriately assholian tone.

Just a note that comments from people who fail to leave a valid email will not be approved, particularly as those in question tend to be issued by people who can’t make a point without taking an inappropriately assholian tone.

Colin: I’ve spoken to a few people about this, and you have a point. It may be prudent for me to remove the image from the original post. I should note however that I found the image on artnet’s website; one could destroy the already teetering auction market by making a lot of noise about their use of images.

Colin: I’ve spoken to a few people about this, and you have a point. It may be prudent for me to remove the image from the original post. I should note however that I found the image on artnet’s website; one could destroy the already teetering auction market by making a lot of noise about their use of images.

You are a Maverick, Miss Paddy

You are a Maverick, Miss Paddy

How about this: Take the damn picture off and change the description of your blog to: “As relevant as Helmut Newton.” That way you will have desisted and persisted. Good luck!

How about this: Take the damn picture off and change the description of your blog to: “As relevant as Helmut Newton.” That way you will have desisted and persisted. Good luck!

How about this: Take the damn picture off and change the description of your blog to: “As relevant as Helmut Newton.” That way you will have desisted and persisted. Good luck!

@Joanne Okay, that’s pretty funny.

@Joanne Okay, that’s pretty funny.

@Joanne Okay, that’s pretty funny.

This kind of crap is exactly the reason why James and I have never put our art collection online. We don’t have the resources to get permission from every artist (at least several hundred) in the collection. We don’t even know how to reach many of them.

This kind of crap is exactly the reason why James and I have never put our art collection online. We don’t have the resources to get permission from every artist (at least several hundred) in the collection. We don’t even know how to reach many of them.

This kind of crap is exactly the reason why James and I have never put our art collection online. We don’t have the resources to get permission from every artist (at least several hundred) in the collection. We don’t even know how to reach many of them.

I have to agree with Colin here. Also wanted to point out that the positive advertising effects for the estate of Helmut Newton flowing from the posting of his works is traditionally not taken into account by U.S. courts when determining fair use.

Although it’s a tautology, when looking at fair use, a court will assume that others would’ve paid for a license for the work, and since you didn’t, the fourth fair use factor (the effect of the particular use on the potential market for or value of the work) weighs against you. This is because courts evaluate this factor by assuming the scenario where the particular use (posting on a website) is being replicated by many individuals.

The unsoundness of this logic lies in the fact that you don’t have to pay a license fee when it’s a fair use, so how can you take the lack of licensing fees into account when deciding that it’s not a fair use?

Ain’t the world strange?

I have to agree with Colin here. Also wanted to point out that the positive advertising effects for the estate of Helmut Newton flowing from the posting of his works is traditionally not taken into account by U.S. courts when determining fair use.

Although it’s a tautology, when looking at fair use, a court will assume that others would’ve paid for a license for the work, and since you didn’t, the fourth fair use factor (the effect of the particular use on the potential market for or value of the work) weighs against you. This is because courts evaluate this factor by assuming the scenario where the particular use (posting on a website) is being replicated by many individuals.

The unsoundness of this logic lies in the fact that you don’t have to pay a license fee when it’s a fair use, so how can you take the lack of licensing fees into account when deciding that it’s not a fair use?

Ain’t the world strange?

I have to agree with Colin here. Also wanted to point out that the positive advertising effects for the estate of Helmut Newton flowing from the posting of his works is traditionally not taken into account by U.S. courts when determining fair use.

Although it’s a tautology, when looking at fair use, a court will assume that others would’ve paid for a license for the work, and since you didn’t, the fourth fair use factor (the effect of the particular use on the potential market for or value of the work) weighs against you. This is because courts evaluate this factor by assuming the scenario where the particular use (posting on a website) is being replicated by many individuals.

The unsoundness of this logic lies in the fact that you don’t have to pay a license fee when it’s a fair use, so how can you take the lack of licensing fees into account when deciding that it’s not a fair use?

Ain’t the world strange?

Brett: In the case of art work shouldn’t courts take “positive advertising effects” into account? We’re not talking about a small amount of money here. Helmut Newton photographs sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the link even indirectly leads to a sale I’d say the Newton estate has benefited — certainly much more than a small licensing fee, (should they charge it, which it seems they won’t because they didn’t ask for it, they asked for the image to be removed). I guess the question I have is how much money would a suit like this potentially be worth to the estate versus what they would spend?

Brett: In the case of art work shouldn’t courts take “positive advertising effects” into account? We’re not talking about a small amount of money here. Helmut Newton photographs sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the link even indirectly leads to a sale I’d say the Newton estate has benefited — certainly much more than a small licensing fee, (should they charge it, which it seems they won’t because they didn’t ask for it, they asked for the image to be removed). I guess the question I have is how much money would a suit like this potentially be worth to the estate versus what they would spend?

Brett: In the case of art work shouldn’t courts take “positive advertising effects” into account? We’re not talking about a small amount of money here. Helmut Newton photographs sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the link even indirectly leads to a sale I’d say the Newton estate has benefited — certainly much more than a small licensing fee, (should they charge it, which it seems they won’t because they didn’t ask for it, they asked for the image to be removed). I guess the question I have is how much money would a suit like this potentially be worth to the estate versus what they would spend?

I hear you and agree with what you’re saying. However, these cases many times deal with works of fine art and courts typically don’t look at the one potentially infringing use when determining market harm. I agree that they should take advertising into account absolutely. I’m just saying that they typically don’t.

Here a court would (if they’re following precedent) look at market harm in terms of what would be the effect if lots of people were displaying his works without paying a license (since a copyright owner has an exclusive right to display their works). Not on the effect that the free advertising would have on a sale of the negative or of a print. The market harm looks at the particular market, and, here, that market would probably be regarded as generating licensing fees for displaying digital images on websites.

I really can’t say what a suit would be worth, it’s up to a jury. It seems clear that they don’t want to litigate, they just want to have the thing taken down. Since this might be some kind of personal crusade suit by the heiress, who knows what she might want to spend?

I hear you and agree with what you’re saying. However, these cases many times deal with works of fine art and courts typically don’t look at the one potentially infringing use when determining market harm. I agree that they should take advertising into account absolutely. I’m just saying that they typically don’t.

Here a court would (if they’re following precedent) look at market harm in terms of what would be the effect if lots of people were displaying his works without paying a license (since a copyright owner has an exclusive right to display their works). Not on the effect that the free advertising would have on a sale of the negative or of a print. The market harm looks at the particular market, and, here, that market would probably be regarded as generating licensing fees for displaying digital images on websites.

I really can’t say what a suit would be worth, it’s up to a jury. It seems clear that they don’t want to litigate, they just want to have the thing taken down. Since this might be some kind of personal crusade suit by the heiress, who knows what she might want to spend?

I hear you and agree with what you’re saying. However, these cases many times deal with works of fine art and courts typically don’t look at the one potentially infringing use when determining market harm. I agree that they should take advertising into account absolutely. I’m just saying that they typically don’t.

Here a court would (if they’re following precedent) look at market harm in terms of what would be the effect if lots of people were displaying his works without paying a license (since a copyright owner has an exclusive right to display their works). Not on the effect that the free advertising would have on a sale of the negative or of a print. The market harm looks at the particular market, and, here, that market would probably be regarded as generating licensing fees for displaying digital images on websites.

I really can’t say what a suit would be worth, it’s up to a jury. It seems clear that they don’t want to litigate, they just want to have the thing taken down. Since this might be some kind of personal crusade suit by the heiress, who knows what she might want to spend?

If Colin is correct about the photo in THIS blog post being fair use (but not the original one) I suggest you do loads more posts about art and copyright law and always refer back to this post by using this photo.

If Colin is correct about the photo in THIS blog post being fair use (but not the original one) I suggest you do loads more posts about art and copyright law and always refer back to this post by using this photo.

If Colin is correct about the photo in THIS blog post being fair use (but not the original one) I suggest you do loads more posts about art and copyright law and always refer back to this post by using this photo.

Why is there this arrogant sense of entitlement among bloggers that everything and anything on the internet is public domain and falls under “fair use”. What’s the problem with contacting the creator and requesting permission to use their art? Doubtless it is easier to just take it, than to ask permission? But if it’s just too inconvenient or complicated to ask permission, the decent thing would be to just do without it than to rip it. If a blogger were to request use of my art, provided they had no advertising on their website–as is the case of AFC–I’d gladly permit use. However, commercial blogs like Gawker, Perez Hilton and Boing Boing regularly steal images neither asking permission, nor offering compensation, yet they are COMMERCIAL blogs generating advertising revenue. Why they think they are above the copyright laws and needn’t compensate their contributors is arrogant and cheap.

Why is there this arrogant sense of entitlement among bloggers that everything and anything on the internet is public domain and falls under “fair use”. What’s the problem with contacting the creator and requesting permission to use their art? Doubtless it is easier to just take it, than to ask permission? But if it’s just too inconvenient or complicated to ask permission, the decent thing would be to just do without it than to rip it. If a blogger were to request use of my art, provided they had no advertising on their website–as is the case of AFC–I’d gladly permit use. However, commercial blogs like Gawker, Perez Hilton and Boing Boing regularly steal images neither asking permission, nor offering compensation, yet they are COMMERCIAL blogs generating advertising revenue. Why they think they are above the copyright laws and needn’t compensate their contributors is arrogant and cheap.

Why is there this arrogant sense of entitlement among bloggers that everything and anything on the internet is public domain and falls under “fair use”. What’s the problem with contacting the creator and requesting permission to use their art? Doubtless it is easier to just take it, than to ask permission? But if it’s just too inconvenient or complicated to ask permission, the decent thing would be to just do without it than to rip it. If a blogger were to request use of my art, provided they had no advertising on their website–as is the case of AFC–I’d gladly permit use. However, commercial blogs like Gawker, Perez Hilton and Boing Boing regularly steal images neither asking permission, nor offering compensation, yet they are COMMERCIAL blogs generating advertising revenue. Why they think they are above the copyright laws and needn’t compensate their contributors is arrogant and cheap.

@Ambrose: There are practical limitations to doing something like that, namely, if we spent all of our time requesting image permission rights, we’d never get posts up. Also, given that the artist is likely to benefit financially from the exposure a commercial blog will give them, I don’t think it’s all that cheap to not pay a fee. When I worked at commercial galleries, we charged a fee for transparency rental, but it was only to recover the cost of the transparency since nobody ever sent them back. If I had to pay a fee or even ask permissions rights for every image I used I’d have to shut down the blog. I simply don’t have the resources to do that. Also, I do think it places unnecessary creative limitations on artists to have those kinds of fees built in. John Oswald, was sued for his plunderphonics albums in the 90′s and that effectively shut down really valuable work. In my opinion, attacking people for their use of images is bad for critics, bloggers and artists.

@Ambrose: There are practical limitations to doing something like that, namely, if we spent all of our time requesting image permission rights, we’d never get posts up. Also, given that the artist is likely to benefit financially from the exposure a commercial blog will give them, I don’t think it’s all that cheap to not pay a fee. When I worked at commercial galleries, we charged a fee for transparency rental, but it was only to recover the cost of the transparency since nobody ever sent them back. If I had to pay a fee or even ask permissions rights for every image I used I’d have to shut down the blog. I simply don’t have the resources to do that. Also, I do think it places unnecessary creative limitations on artists to have those kinds of fees built in. John Oswald, was sued for his plunderphonics albums in the 90′s and that effectively shut down really valuable work. In my opinion, attacking people for their use of images is bad for critics, bloggers and artists.

@Ambrose: There are practical limitations to doing something like that, namely, if we spent all of our time requesting image permission rights, we’d never get posts up. Also, given that the artist is likely to benefit financially from the exposure a commercial blog will give them, I don’t think it’s all that cheap to not pay a fee. When I worked at commercial galleries, we charged a fee for transparency rental, but it was only to recover the cost of the transparency since nobody ever sent them back. If I had to pay a fee or even ask permissions rights for every image I used I’d have to shut down the blog. I simply don’t have the resources to do that. Also, I do think it places unnecessary creative limitations on artists to have those kinds of fees built in. John Oswald, was sued for his plunderphonics albums in the 90′s and that effectively shut down really valuable work. In my opinion, attacking people for their use of images is bad for critics, bloggers and artists.

Paddy, I can’t believe you didn’t remember the hard lessons learned from that time you accidentally leaked the new G’N'R….

Paddy, I can’t believe you didn’t remember the hard lessons learned from that time you accidentally leaked the new G’N'R….

Paddy, I can’t believe you didn’t remember the hard lessons learned from that time you accidentally leaked the new G’N'R….

@AFC: No one is attacking you. If you are offering criticism of the work, that’s one thing, and I would agree that there may be value in promotion to the artist.

However, in this case, the image was used to illustrate a story about Naomi Campbell and had nothing to do with the artist Helmut Newton who created the image.

I looked at your blog, and for the most part, I do think you are promoting artists through criticism, which is a good thing.

However, there is distinction between use of an image as an illustration, and use of an image as the subject of a review.

Take a site like Gawker, Paris Hilton, or Boing Boing, all of which are commercial news organizations in the guise of blogs. None of the images they use to illustrate the stories on their sites are paid for. They steal them because the prevailing opinion among bloggers is that blogs don’t have to pay, because they are blogs–despite many of them bringing in millions in advertising revenue each year. Great business model, huh. Great for the publisher, sucks for the creative person.

The truth is that there are a huge number of hard working artists, photographers, illustrators and writers (Helmut Newtons aside) who depend in large part on income from licensing their work. When they see one of their images used to illustrate a publishers commercial blog they find that problematic, unless, of course, the work itself is under review or if the blog using the image is non-commercial.

This is what is getting lost in the message here, and instead what comes through loud and clear is that copyright is a nuisance. This is an unfortunate aspect of the Web 2.0 culture, and is hurting everyone alike–including critics, bloggers and artists.

@AFC: No one is attacking you. If you are offering criticism of the work, that’s one thing, and I would agree that there may be value in promotion to the artist.

However, in this case, the image was used to illustrate a story about Naomi Campbell and had nothing to do with the artist Helmut Newton who created the image.

I looked at your blog, and for the most part, I do think you are promoting artists through criticism, which is a good thing.

However, there is distinction between use of an image as an illustration, and use of an image as the subject of a review.

Take a site like Gawker, Paris Hilton, or Boing Boing, all of which are commercial news organizations in the guise of blogs. None of the images they use to illustrate the stories on their sites are paid for. They steal them because the prevailing opinion among bloggers is that blogs don’t have to pay, because they are blogs–despite many of them bringing in millions in advertising revenue each year. Great business model, huh. Great for the publisher, sucks for the creative person.

The truth is that there are a huge number of hard working artists, photographers, illustrators and writers (Helmut Newtons aside) who depend in large part on income from licensing their work. When they see one of their images used to illustrate a publishers commercial blog they find that problematic, unless, of course, the work itself is under review or if the blog using the image is non-commercial.

This is what is getting lost in the message here, and instead what comes through loud and clear is that copyright is a nuisance. This is an unfortunate aspect of the Web 2.0 culture, and is hurting everyone alike–including critics, bloggers and artists.

@AFC: No one is attacking you. If you are offering criticism of the work, that’s one thing, and I would agree that there may be value in promotion to the artist.

However, in this case, the image was used to illustrate a story about Naomi Campbell and had nothing to do with the artist Helmut Newton who created the image.

I looked at your blog, and for the most part, I do think you are promoting artists through criticism, which is a good thing.

However, there is distinction between use of an image as an illustration, and use of an image as the subject of a review.

Take a site like Gawker, Paris Hilton, or Boing Boing, all of which are commercial news organizations in the guise of blogs. None of the images they use to illustrate the stories on their sites are paid for. They steal them because the prevailing opinion among bloggers is that blogs don’t have to pay, because they are blogs–despite many of them bringing in millions in advertising revenue each year. Great business model, huh. Great for the publisher, sucks for the creative person.

The truth is that there are a huge number of hard working artists, photographers, illustrators and writers (Helmut Newtons aside) who depend in large part on income from licensing their work. When they see one of their images used to illustrate a publishers commercial blog they find that problematic, unless, of course, the work itself is under review or if the blog using the image is non-commercial.

This is what is getting lost in the message here, and instead what comes through loud and clear is that copyright is a nuisance. This is an unfortunate aspect of the Web 2.0 culture, and is hurting everyone alike–including critics, bloggers and artists.

@Ambrose I really don’t see how you can interpret a legal notice threatening suit, as anything other than an attack. Also, nobody has responded to my requests for additional information. Had I received an email that explained why they were requesting that image be removed (ie. This image isn’t representative of the story you wrote because of xyz, please remove it) we might be having a different conversation all together right now.

The original story is about an exhibition during Art Basel Miami that will feature photographs of Naomi Campbell; the use is a very appropriate illustration (although as you point out, that doesn’t matter much.) Personally, I’m not thrilled with this. Since the estate will likely benefit financially from the exposure (I doubt the sale of the work in question would hurt his secondary market), I’m not sure why that point is given a little more weight. The fact that I don’t directly discuss the work is not an indication that it won’t benefit: On more than one occasion work featured on this blog has been sold to collectors simply by being posted.

You seem to know more about licensing fees for illustrators and writers than I do — I don’t know enough about it to speak to that issue — but on the subject of Fine Art, it’s worth noting that that was never the currency of the art world to begin with. Image circulation with the fine art world is still based on a model of scarcity: (ie, I see it all the time at auction, what’s wrong with this painting? It must not be very good, it isn’t loved). But every dealer I’ve ever worked with has been careful releasing images due to that sensitivity. If this were an issue for the gallerist, I guarantee you they would have never released the image on the web in the first place.

@Ambrose I really don’t see how you can interpret a legal notice threatening suit, as anything other than an attack. Also, nobody has responded to my requests for additional information. Had I received an email that explained why they were requesting that image be removed (ie. This image isn’t representative of the story you wrote because of xyz, please remove it) we might be having a different conversation all together right now.

The original story is about an exhibition during Art Basel Miami that will feature photographs of Naomi Campbell; the use is a very appropriate illustration (although as you point out, that doesn’t matter much.) Personally, I’m not thrilled with this. Since the estate will likely benefit financially from the exposure (I doubt the sale of the work in question would hurt his secondary market), I’m not sure why that point is given a little more weight. The fact that I don’t directly discuss the work is not an indication that it won’t benefit: On more than one occasion work featured on this blog has been sold to collectors simply by being posted.

You seem to know more about licensing fees for illustrators and writers than I do — I don’t know enough about it to speak to that issue — but on the subject of Fine Art, it’s worth noting that that was never the currency of the art world to begin with. Image circulation with the fine art world is still based on a model of scarcity: (ie, I see it all the time at auction, what’s wrong with this painting? It must not be very good, it isn’t loved). But every dealer I’ve ever worked with has been careful releasing images due to that sensitivity. If this were an issue for the gallerist, I guarantee you they would have never released the image on the web in the first place.

I would like to remind everyone, particularly regular readers employed by the College Art Association, that trolling comments will not be approved, nor those without a valid email address.

I would like to remind everyone, particularly regular readers employed by the College Art Association, that trolling comments will not be approved, nor those without a valid email address.

For a short primer watch the video here http://www.copyrightalliance.org/

It troubles me that because someone doesn’t have time to ask permission they go ahead and infringe.
It’s not the copyright holder’s problem that you wouldn’t get any posts done if you had to ask permission. How you and your readers think you have any right to suggest that the copyright holder will only benefit is rather egocentric – why should you be the one to decide what benefits an artist? You have no argument that this is fair use and your opinion as to why you should be able to use it anyway is like saying any law should be waived for you if you feel like it. I can’t imagine why you think their attorneys should waste time giving you information, you’re in breach of copyright (a federal offense) and they’ve asked to you to remove the offending image, so now it looks as if you’re just being obtuse.

Help protect artists’ rights, educate the people who read your blog, learn about copyright, I’m sure you are dedicated to providing intelligent discourse.

For a short primer watch the video here http://www.copyrightalliance.org/

It troubles me that because someone doesn’t have time to ask permission they go ahead and infringe.
It’s not the copyright holder’s problem that you wouldn’t get any posts done if you had to ask permission. How you and your readers think you have any right to suggest that the copyright holder will only benefit is rather egocentric – why should you be the one to decide what benefits an artist? You have no argument that this is fair use and your opinion as to why you should be able to use it anyway is like saying any law should be waived for you if you feel like it. I can’t imagine why you think their attorneys should waste time giving you information, you’re in breach of copyright (a federal offense) and they’ve asked to you to remove the offending image, so now it looks as if you’re just being obtuse.

Help protect artists’ rights, educate the people who read your blog, learn about copyright, I’m sure you are dedicated to providing intelligent discourse.

For a short primer watch the video here http://www.copyrightalliance.org/

It troubles me that because someone doesn’t have time to ask permission they go ahead and infringe.
It’s not the copyright holder’s problem that you wouldn’t get any posts done if you had to ask permission. How you and your readers think you have any right to suggest that the copyright holder will only benefit is rather egocentric – why should you be the one to decide what benefits an artist? You have no argument that this is fair use and your opinion as to why you should be able to use it anyway is like saying any law should be waived for you if you feel like it. I can’t imagine why you think their attorneys should waste time giving you information, you’re in breach of copyright (a federal offense) and they’ve asked to you to remove the offending image, so now it looks as if you’re just being obtuse.

Help protect artists’ rights, educate the people who read your blog, learn about copyright, I’m sure you are dedicated to providing intelligent discourse.

You win. I removed the image and updated the post. My egocentric and obtuse promoting of Mr. Newton’s work stops here.

You win. I removed the image and updated the post. My egocentric and obtuse promoting of Mr. Newton’s work stops here.

You win. I removed the image and updated the post. My egocentric and obtuse promoting of Mr. Newton’s work stops here.

Paddy: You’re right, they’re wrong, and I’m not at all surprised that asshats from the CAA are showing up to troll your site in response. Their refusal to understand notions that threaten their ecology has been thoroughly demonstrated.

Paddy: You’re right, they’re wrong, and I’m not at all surprised that asshats from the CAA are showing up to troll your site in response. Their refusal to understand notions that threaten their ecology has been thoroughly demonstrated.

Paddy: You’re right, they’re wrong, and I’m not at all surprised that asshats from the CAA are showing up to troll your site in response. Their refusal to understand notions that threaten their ecology has been thoroughly demonstrated.

To be perfectly honest, since 9 times out 10 posts I write do fall under fair use, I’m not sure why my comments are viewed as such a gross violation of artists rights. I’m not going to break the law just because I think I should be able to. There are however five million postcards and other web graphics that I pick up without attribution. Maybe commenters who don’t blog don’t understand the impracticality of asking permission for everything, but I have to repeat it’s simply not feasible. The implication that this site is not acting in good conscientious simply because we must work within the practical limitations of running a website is misplaced.

To be perfectly honest, since 9 times out 10 posts I write do fall under fair use, I’m not sure why my comments are viewed as such a gross violation of artists rights. I’m not going to break the law just because I think I should be able to. There are however five million postcards and other web graphics that I pick up without attribution. Maybe commenters who don’t blog don’t understand the impracticality of asking permission for everything, but I have to repeat it’s simply not feasible. The implication that this site is not acting in good conscientious simply because we must work within the practical limitations of running a website is misplaced.

To be perfectly honest, since 9 times out 10 posts I write do fall under fair use, I’m not sure why my comments are viewed as such a gross violation of artists rights. I’m not going to break the law just because I think I should be able to. There are however five million postcards and other web graphics that I pick up without attribution. Maybe commenters who don’t blog don’t understand the impracticality of asking permission for everything, but I have to repeat it’s simply not feasible. The implication that this site is not acting in good conscientious simply because we must work within the practical limitations of running a website is misplaced.

first time visitor as an painter and sculptor I realize that if my artwork had validity and was truly unique a 70dpi copy would hardly be viewed as as stolen copy of my work. If a person stole or copied my work by copying it and sold it I feel sad for the uneducated purchaser for it would not be mine. The quality of such shows a lack of value. Posting anything on the internet is giving it to the world and would show a great deal of ignorance in suspecting that IF it were unique in any way it wouldn’t be copied and distributed.

first time visitor as an painter and sculptor I realize that if my artwork had validity and was truly unique a 70dpi copy would hardly be viewed as as stolen copy of my work. If a person stole or copied my work by copying it and sold it I feel sad for the uneducated purchaser for it would not be mine. The quality of such shows a lack of value. Posting anything on the internet is giving it to the world and would show a great deal of ignorance in suspecting that IF it were unique in any way it wouldn’t be copied and distributed.

first time visitor as an painter and sculptor I realize that if my artwork had validity and was truly unique a 70dpi copy would hardly be viewed as as stolen copy of my work. If a person stole or copied my work by copying it and sold it I feel sad for the uneducated purchaser for it would not be mine. The quality of such shows a lack of value. Posting anything on the internet is giving it to the world and would show a great deal of ignorance in suspecting that IF it were unique in any way it wouldn’t be copied and distributed.

I hear the underlying whispers of so many formally educated artists.Get the cash get the cash,the truth is art schools and collages produce hundreds of artists,times hundreds of schools each year each school makes thousands a year telling you that you will without a doubt make your mark on the art world. I would to if you give me cash to say it.
The truth is location location who you know and of course a sizable amount of skill and talent.Most of us will be welders waiters and cubical slaves it just the facts.

I hear the underlying whispers of so many formally educated artists.Get the cash get the cash,the truth is art schools and collages produce hundreds of artists,times hundreds of schools each year each school makes thousands a year telling you that you will without a doubt make your mark on the art world. I would to if you give me cash to say it.
The truth is location location who you know and of course a sizable amount of skill and talent.Most of us will be welders waiters and cubical slaves it just the facts.

I hear the underlying whispers of so many formally educated artists.Get the cash get the cash,the truth is art schools and collages produce hundreds of artists,times hundreds of schools each year each school makes thousands a year telling you that you will without a doubt make your mark on the art world. I would to if you give me cash to say it.
The truth is location location who you know and of course a sizable amount of skill and talent.Most of us will be welders waiters and cubical slaves it just the facts.

Just went to the CAA link you posted. My point has been clearly made. An artist creates because he/she has to its every day money or not.
A craftsman make art like creations for sale. Most people who start out with profit as the motive for creation are craftsmen/women. Its made to be easily recreated for multiple sales. as in that photo copy art we see in resort areas or the 1 of 300 bronze ballet dancers or that really silly giraffe running in the Serengeti WHO buys this stuff anyway I would be embarrassed for them if I saw anything such as this in a living room.
andI see great really creative artist starve because they create art that is new and innovative not made for the local dentist office or law waiting room bland uninspired inoffensive yet what’s the deal with the pain and suffering worshipers only the rich buy and enjoy the pain if others sad melancholy pain who wants to see that every day on their wall. Man no wonder people love these blog things its quite therapeutic to vent

Just went to the CAA link you posted. My point has been clearly made. An artist creates because he/she has to its every day money or not.
A craftsman make art like creations for sale. Most people who start out with profit as the motive for creation are craftsmen/women. Its made to be easily recreated for multiple sales. as in that photo copy art we see in resort areas or the 1 of 300 bronze ballet dancers or that really silly giraffe running in the Serengeti WHO buys this stuff anyway I would be embarrassed for them if I saw anything such as this in a living room.
andI see great really creative artist starve because they create art that is new and innovative not made for the local dentist office or law waiting room bland uninspired inoffensive yet what’s the deal with the pain and suffering worshipers only the rich buy and enjoy the pain if others sad melancholy pain who wants to see that every day on their wall. Man no wonder people love these blog things its quite therapeutic to vent

Just went to the CAA link you posted. My point has been clearly made. An artist creates because he/she has to its every day money or not.
A craftsman make art like creations for sale. Most people who start out with profit as the motive for creation are craftsmen/women. Its made to be easily recreated for multiple sales. as in that photo copy art we see in resort areas or the 1 of 300 bronze ballet dancers or that really silly giraffe running in the Serengeti WHO buys this stuff anyway I would be embarrassed for them if I saw anything such as this in a living room.
andI see great really creative artist starve because they create art that is new and innovative not made for the local dentist office or law waiting room bland uninspired inoffensive yet what’s the deal with the pain and suffering worshipers only the rich buy and enjoy the pain if others sad melancholy pain who wants to see that every day on their wall. Man no wonder people love these blog things its quite therapeutic to vent

I have two different policies about using jpgs on the net. One applies to the jpgs of others that I use as a blogger, the other applies to my own copyrighted images and jpegs as an artist. I also know a legal way to include jpegs without permission.

As an artist who blogs regularly on art, including shows and events, I use other artist’s images. I ALWAYS have permission, which I cite from the artist or gallery.

Aside from gaining good will and respect (as I am an emerging artist founding a new Post Conceptual theory of art so that is a good thing), my dad was a lawyer, so I have a healthy respect for the copyright laws.

The copyright laws protect photographers as well as artists. Thus, unless the photographer of a work was hired by the gallery or artist, the photographer owns the copyright of the photo of a painting while the artist owns the copyright of the painting.

For instance, if I go to a gallery show, and snap a photo of an artwork with my camera, the copyright of the photo belongs to me. I probably can use it on my web site, especially covering news or in a review. But, I cannot make prints of it to sell or license, especially if it is all that is in the photo.

As an artist, I am very open to allowing my work to appear of web sites. Some have asked, but usually the work is simply “swiped”. Recently someone swiped a thumbnail of a portrait of Rembrandt created all in my unique symbol-strokes. I offered a larger jpg, which was quickly accepted.

Finally, because I create my own sites and know html, you can always and apparently legally swipe a “jpg” by using the URL of the jpg itself at the other site to bring the work to your site. The obvious problem with this is the other site where the image is hosted can simply change the URL of the jpg or remove it. The other upside of this method is that it is hosted at the other site, saving space, if that matters.

Sites like Boing Boing, Paris Hilton and others are great places to gain publicity as they are known as news sites. Most savvy folks allow them the use of images. Many were probability submitted.

Sorry you had the problem that resulted in your removing the image and blog. If it were my blog I would not have put the image up without permission, and if it were my image I would have written to thank you for using it!

I have two different policies about using jpgs on the net. One applies to the jpgs of others that I use as a blogger, the other applies to my own copyrighted images and jpegs as an artist. I also know a legal way to include jpegs without permission.

As an artist who blogs regularly on art, including shows and events, I use other artist’s images. I ALWAYS have permission, which I cite from the artist or gallery.

Aside from gaining good will and respect (as I am an emerging artist founding a new Post Conceptual theory of art so that is a good thing), my dad was a lawyer, so I have a healthy respect for the copyright laws.

The copyright laws protect photographers as well as artists. Thus, unless the photographer of a work was hired by the gallery or artist, the photographer owns the copyright of the photo of a painting while the artist owns the copyright of the painting.

For instance, if I go to a gallery show, and snap a photo of an artwork with my camera, the copyright of the photo belongs to me. I probably can use it on my web site, especially covering news or in a review. But, I cannot make prints of it to sell or license, especially if it is all that is in the photo.

As an artist, I am very open to allowing my work to appear of web sites. Some have asked, but usually the work is simply “swiped”. Recently someone swiped a thumbnail of a portrait of Rembrandt created all in my unique symbol-strokes. I offered a larger jpg, which was quickly accepted.

Finally, because I create my own sites and know html, you can always and apparently legally swipe a “jpg” by using the URL of the jpg itself at the other site to bring the work to your site. The obvious problem with this is the other site where the image is hosted can simply change the URL of the jpg or remove it. The other upside of this method is that it is hosted at the other site, saving space, if that matters.

Sites like Boing Boing, Paris Hilton and others are great places to gain publicity as they are known as news sites. Most savvy folks allow them the use of images. Many were probability submitted.

Sorry you had the problem that resulted in your removing the image and blog. If it were my blog I would not have put the image up without permission, and if it were my image I would have written to thank you for using it!

I have two different policies about using jpgs on the net. One applies to the jpgs of others that I use as a blogger, the other applies to my own copyrighted images and jpegs as an artist. I also know a legal way to include jpegs without permission.

As an artist who blogs regularly on art, including shows and events, I use other artist’s images. I ALWAYS have permission, which I cite from the artist or gallery.

Aside from gaining good will and respect (as I am an emerging artist founding a new Post Conceptual theory of art so that is a good thing), my dad was a lawyer, so I have a healthy respect for the copyright laws.

The copyright laws protect photographers as well as artists. Thus, unless the photographer of a work was hired by the gallery or artist, the photographer owns the copyright of the photo of a painting while the artist owns the copyright of the painting.

For instance, if I go to a gallery show, and snap a photo of an artwork with my camera, the copyright of the photo belongs to me. I probably can use it on my web site, especially covering news or in a review. But, I cannot make prints of it to sell or license, especially if it is all that is in the photo.

As an artist, I am very open to allowing my work to appear of web sites. Some have asked, but usually the work is simply “swiped”. Recently someone swiped a thumbnail of a portrait of Rembrandt created all in my unique symbol-strokes. I offered a larger jpg, which was quickly accepted.

Finally, because I create my own sites and know html, you can always and apparently legally swipe a “jpg” by using the URL of the jpg itself at the other site to bring the work to your site. The obvious problem with this is the other site where the image is hosted can simply change the URL of the jpg or remove it. The other upside of this method is that it is hosted at the other site, saving space, if that matters.

Sites like Boing Boing, Paris Hilton and others are great places to gain publicity as they are known as news sites. Most savvy folks allow them the use of images. Many were probability submitted.

Sorry you had the problem that resulted in your removing the image and blog. If it were my blog I would not have put the image up without permission, and if it were my image I would have written to thank you for using it!

“Help protect artists’ rights”

The right to get sued or C&D’d for using part of the visual environment as the basis of new art or criticism isn’t one I’m particularly keen to help protect.

If you are making money off copyright you are an illustrator, not an artist. Illustrators are very cool, but it’s a different economy and it would be bad for both artists and illustrators to confuse the two in order to try and scare them into joining this or that organization.

Paddy was right to send the C&D to Chilling Effects. The rote moralistic tone of those criticizing use of the image is not a substitute for the palpable absence of any economic or reputational harm being caused.

“Help protect artists’ rights”

The right to get sued or C&D’d for using part of the visual environment as the basis of new art or criticism isn’t one I’m particularly keen to help protect.

If you are making money off copyright you are an illustrator, not an artist. Illustrators are very cool, but it’s a different economy and it would be bad for both artists and illustrators to confuse the two in order to try and scare them into joining this or that organization.

Paddy was right to send the C&D to Chilling Effects. The rote moralistic tone of those criticizing use of the image is not a substitute for the palpable absence of any economic or reputational harm being caused.

“Help protect artists’ rights”

The right to get sued or C&D’d for using part of the visual environment as the basis of new art or criticism isn’t one I’m particularly keen to help protect.

If you are making money off copyright you are an illustrator, not an artist. Illustrators are very cool, but it’s a different economy and it would be bad for both artists and illustrators to confuse the two in order to try and scare them into joining this or that organization.

Paddy was right to send the C&D to Chilling Effects. The rote moralistic tone of those criticizing use of the image is not a substitute for the palpable absence of any economic or reputational harm being caused.

Jude Newton has a lot of time and money to waste, that’s what I’m getting from this ridicule story.

In less than 100 or 125 years, all Newton photos will loose all their copyrights, so if there is an equivalent to Naomi Campbell from 100 years ago, just post that. I find Newton’s work to be so vain that I’m not really surprised
of this kind of outcome from people surrounding the man. I presume the artist himself must have been a terrible person. Some sort of fashion nazi.

Jude Newton has a lot of time and money to waste, that’s what I’m getting from this ridicule story.

In less than 100 or 125 years, all Newton photos will loose all their copyrights, so if there is an equivalent to Naomi Campbell from 100 years ago, just post that. I find Newton’s work to be so vain that I’m not really surprised
of this kind of outcome from people surrounding the man. I presume the artist himself must have been a terrible person. Some sort of fashion nazi.

Jude Newton has a lot of time and money to waste, that’s what I’m getting from this ridicule story.

In less than 100 or 125 years, all Newton photos will loose all their copyrights, so if there is an equivalent to Naomi Campbell from 100 years ago, just post that. I find Newton’s work to be so vain that I’m not really surprised
of this kind of outcome from people surrounding the man. I presume the artist himself must have been a terrible person. Some sort of fashion nazi.

ugh, sorry you having to deal with this. Seems a very draconian attitude, especially in light of how you used the image. I wish you the best.
jafabrit

ugh, sorry you having to deal with this. Seems a very draconian attitude, especially in light of how you used the image. I wish you the best.
jafabrit

ugh, sorry you having to deal with this. Seems a very draconian attitude, especially in light of how you used the image. I wish you the best.
jafabrit

Wow this is interesting and a little scary. I wonder though if the image is out their in the Blogsphere, in a form that is a discussion if the copyright rules apply as they are written today at all. If you and I were sitting at the kitchen table having a discussion about artist X. And you opened a book and showed me a picture of artist X would that be a copyright infringement. And if a group of friends came over and said what are you talking about and you showed them the picture. Would that be infringement. I think the Internet has opened a whole new world for discussion. We are not talking about infringement of use to make money off of someone else’s work, we are talking about discussion. The difference is the discussion has left the kitchen or perhaps not depending on where your computer is located, maybe multiple kitchens. My point is, the discussion has been expanded, opened up for who ever is interested. The image is part of the discussion. The image is not being sold or profited from so I don’t believe there is any kind of infringement.

Wow this is interesting and a little scary. I wonder though if the image is out their in the Blogsphere, in a form that is a discussion if the copyright rules apply as they are written today at all. If you and I were sitting at the kitchen table having a discussion about artist X. And you opened a book and showed me a picture of artist X would that be a copyright infringement. And if a group of friends came over and said what are you talking about and you showed them the picture. Would that be infringement. I think the Internet has opened a whole new world for discussion. We are not talking about infringement of use to make money off of someone else’s work, we are talking about discussion. The difference is the discussion has left the kitchen or perhaps not depending on where your computer is located, maybe multiple kitchens. My point is, the discussion has been expanded, opened up for who ever is interested. The image is part of the discussion. The image is not being sold or profited from so I don’t believe there is any kind of infringement.

Wow this is interesting and a little scary. I wonder though if the image is out their in the Blogsphere, in a form that is a discussion if the copyright rules apply as they are written today at all. If you and I were sitting at the kitchen table having a discussion about artist X. And you opened a book and showed me a picture of artist X would that be a copyright infringement. And if a group of friends came over and said what are you talking about and you showed them the picture. Would that be infringement. I think the Internet has opened a whole new world for discussion. We are not talking about infringement of use to make money off of someone else’s work, we are talking about discussion. The difference is the discussion has left the kitchen or perhaps not depending on where your computer is located, maybe multiple kitchens. My point is, the discussion has been expanded, opened up for who ever is interested. The image is part of the discussion. The image is not being sold or profited from so I don’t believe there is any kind of infringement.

Copy right is the right to copy.
Newton wouldn’t mind if you did, his kids do . judge know that so you are clear.
besides that the bill goes at rate of visitors and kliks.
If they wanna piss us artlovers off,well let’s start a fire.
count me in.

Copy right is the right to copy.
Newton wouldn’t mind if you did, his kids do . judge know that so you are clear.
besides that the bill goes at rate of visitors and kliks.
If they wanna piss us artlovers off,well let’s start a fire.
count me in.

Copy right is the right to copy.
Newton wouldn’t mind if you did, his kids do . judge know that so you are clear.
besides that the bill goes at rate of visitors and kliks.
If they wanna piss us artlovers off,well let’s start a fire.
count me in.

I should note, Paddy, that by reprinting the lawyers’ letter to you, you’re infringing on their copyright. Although they sent you the letter, they retain copyright in the text, and you need their permission to reprint it.

Ain’t copyright grand?

I should note, Paddy, that by reprinting the lawyers’ letter to you, you’re infringing on their copyright. Although they sent you the letter, they retain copyright in the text, and you need their permission to reprint it.

Ain’t copyright grand?

I should note, Paddy, that by reprinting the lawyers’ letter to you, you’re infringing on their copyright. Although they sent you the letter, they retain copyright in the text, and you need their permission to reprint it.

Ain’t copyright grand?

This letter reads like an African scam email.

This letter reads like an African scam email.

This letter reads like an African scam email.