Friday, February 25, 2005
Andy Warhol and soup cans
Chandira raised an interesting question when she asked how the Churchill "art" differes from Andy Warhol's soup can paintings.
I found this link-- http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.htm --particularly good because it gives a checklist for "fair use." Going down the list, Churchill's "art" (which is simply a reversed copy of the actual artwork done and copyrighted by Thomas Mails in 1972) goes against "fair use" in almost every single instance. Andy Warhol's painting/s, for example, cannot be said to fall under either of the following (I have yet to hear of his painting/s threatening to damage the sales of Campbell's Soup):
Could replace sale of copyrighted work
Significantly impairs market or potential market for copyrighted work or derivative
Okay, I've gone down the entire checklist, and clicked each box appropriate to Ward Churchill.
"Commercial activity"--yes, he sold lithos/serigraphs of his "work."
"Profiting from the use"--again, yes, as he sold the work as his own, and made money from the sales.
"Denying credit to the original author"--yes, all you need do is look at his signature on his "work," and then take into account that the family of the copyright holder absolutely denies that there is any evidence whatsoever that Churchill ever had Mails' permission for use.
"Large portion or whole work used"--yes, he simply flipped the image. If you fold the 2 images together, they match up almost identically. I'd call that a "large portion" of the original work.
"Numerous copies made"--yes, there were numerous copies made, and sold.
"Repeated or long term use"--yes, this was done in 1981 without Mails' permission, and the work is still actively being sold on the internet, which incidentally fulfills another box on the checklist under "Opposing Fair Use"--"You made it accessible on Web or in other public forum."
And all of that is without getting into the law against selling artwork of any kind while claiming to be Native American unless you actually are Native American.
Andy Warhol hardly fulfills an argument in favor of Ward Churchill ripping off someone else's copyrighted drawing. If you go down the list considering the soup cans painting/s, you'll find that Warhol fulfills the "fair use" side of the equation if only since his artwork could be considered "New" by the fact that he altered the original soup labels in a significant enough manner to avoid copyright infringment. For examples of this kind of alteration, see Ethics - Copyright
As for copyright infringement--these laws are meant to protect the creators of original works. They are not meant to defend outright and blatant plagiarism, which it seems more and more that Ward Churchill is guilty of, both in his writings and in his "artwork."
I found this link-- http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.htm --particularly good because it gives a checklist for "fair use." Going down the list, Churchill's "art" (which is simply a reversed copy of the actual artwork done and copyrighted by Thomas Mails in 1972) goes against "fair use" in almost every single instance. Andy Warhol's painting/s, for example, cannot be said to fall under either of the following (I have yet to hear of his painting/s threatening to damage the sales of Campbell's Soup):
Could replace sale of copyrighted work
Significantly impairs market or potential market for copyrighted work or derivative
Okay, I've gone down the entire checklist, and clicked each box appropriate to Ward Churchill.
"Commercial activity"--yes, he sold lithos/serigraphs of his "work."
"Profiting from the use"--again, yes, as he sold the work as his own, and made money from the sales.
"Denying credit to the original author"--yes, all you need do is look at his signature on his "work," and then take into account that the family of the copyright holder absolutely denies that there is any evidence whatsoever that Churchill ever had Mails' permission for use.
"Large portion or whole work used"--yes, he simply flipped the image. If you fold the 2 images together, they match up almost identically. I'd call that a "large portion" of the original work.
"Numerous copies made"--yes, there were numerous copies made, and sold.
"Repeated or long term use"--yes, this was done in 1981 without Mails' permission, and the work is still actively being sold on the internet, which incidentally fulfills another box on the checklist under "Opposing Fair Use"--"You made it accessible on Web or in other public forum."
And all of that is without getting into the law against selling artwork of any kind while claiming to be Native American unless you actually are Native American.
Andy Warhol hardly fulfills an argument in favor of Ward Churchill ripping off someone else's copyrighted drawing. If you go down the list considering the soup cans painting/s, you'll find that Warhol fulfills the "fair use" side of the equation if only since his artwork could be considered "New" by the fact that he altered the original soup labels in a significant enough manner to avoid copyright infringment. For examples of this kind of alteration, see Ethics - Copyright
As for copyright infringement--these laws are meant to protect the creators of original works. They are not meant to defend outright and blatant plagiarism, which it seems more and more that Ward Churchill is guilty of, both in his writings and in his "artwork."
