Why Isn’t Ivan Navarro’s Nowhere Man 1 Plagiarism?

@greg
I think you’re confusing my comment with Nicole’s: I didn’t mention Prince, nor did I bring up issues of copyright. With regard to Levine, who I did reference, again, my definition of plagiarism was theoretical, not legal. I don’t know enough about the intricacies of intellectual property and copyright law to comment about where these issues stand legally. However, I think there’s a difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. For instance, Hank Willis Thomas’ appropriation of corporate logos and advertisements may well be considered copyright infringement (I don’t know whether he specifically has run into issues) but it’s certainly not plagiarism in my view: he’s obviously not trying to claim that he invented the Nike symbol or AmEx card designs (in fact, quite the opposite.) Likewise, the copyright holder on the Munich designs might be able to sue Navarro (whether or not they’d be successful is another question) but that doesn’t make it plagiarism (it also doesn’t make it good art: I think appropriation for appropriation’s sake is at this point pretty boring.)

@greg
I think you’re confusing my comment with Nicole’s: I didn’t mention Prince, nor did I bring up issues of copyright. With regard to Levine, who I did reference, again, my definition of plagiarism was theoretical, not legal. I don’t know enough about the intricacies of intellectual property and copyright law to comment about where these issues stand legally. However, I think there’s a difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. For instance, Hank Willis Thomas’ appropriation of corporate logos and advertisements may well be considered copyright infringement (I don’t know whether he specifically has run into issues) but it’s certainly not plagiarism in my view: he’s obviously not trying to claim that he invented the Nike symbol or AmEx card designs (in fact, quite the opposite.) Likewise, the copyright holder on the Munich designs might be able to sue Navarro (whether or not they’d be successful is another question) but that doesn’t make it plagiarism (it also doesn’t make it good art: I think appropriation for appropriation’s sake is at this point pretty boring.)

The debate about plagiarism is misguided in this case. Otl Aicher’s 1972 Olympic pictograms are actually purchasable as a font if you need to use them. This is something the museum where I first showed this work did in order to publish the images in the catalogue of the exhibition. My investigation into this is related to how the proportions of standard sizes of fluorescent lights match the proportions in the pictograms which already follow the Renaissance ideals of human proportion.

The debate about plagiarism is misguided in this case. Otl Aicher’s 1972 Olympic pictograms are actually purchasable as a font if you need to use them. This is something the museum where I first showed this work did in order to publish the images in the catalogue of the exhibition. My investigation into this is related to how the proportions of standard sizes of fluorescent lights match the proportions in the pictograms which already follow the Renaissance ideals of human proportion.

The debate about plagiarism is misguided in this case. Otl Aicher’s 1972 Olympic pictograms are actually purchasable as a font if you need to use them. This is something the museum where I first showed this work did in order to publish the images in the catalogue of the exhibition. My investigation into this is related to how the proportions of standard sizes of fluorescent lights match the proportions in the pictograms which already follow the Renaissance ideals of human proportion.

It kind of looks like lincoln logs. It’s a double plagiarism!

It kind of looks like lincoln logs. It’s a double plagiarism!

I’m with Nicole, 100% right!

I’m with Nicole, 100% right!

read the comment above by Mike @ MAO

Postproduction

Postproduction

Postproduction

Plagiarism Checker – http://plagiarisma.net – free online duplicate content finder.

Plagiarism Checker – http://plagiarisma.net – free online duplicate content finder.