I read a letter recently in an art magazine about art competitions and originality. The woman that wrote the letter is a regular juror for a regional art competition and she is of the opinion that all works of art should be completely concieved by the artist, and no part of it should be derived from any other art works of any kind, including photgraphs. A noble ideal to be sure, but one that is unrealistic I think. Some of the thinking for this idea comes from the Disney perspective on copywrite law.
In the modern commercial art scene all artistic creations belong to the artist, or in the case of Disney, the corporation that created them. No one can use the creation for their own commercial gain except for the artist. This applies to all art forms, painting, sculpture, music, film, writing. The copywrite is automaticaly applied as soon as the work is created and is in effect for the duration of the life of the artist plus some period of years beyond his death, unless renewed. The copywrite belongs to the artist, unless it is transfered, which is what happened to the music of the Beatles. Micheal Jackson now owns the copywrite to their music, and profits from the songs whenever they are played. As a result of this all, some artists are very possesive of their copywrite, and guard it ferociously. They stand to lose money if someone uses their material without permission.
But, does that mean that all works of art that have been created origianl? Absolutely not. It has been said, for instance, that there are only seven plots, and all novels written are but reiterations of these. Perhaps, but for sure art is reused, reworked, reinvented, recreated. One can look anywhere for examples, in movies, where many movies are direct plays of Shakespeare, or barely concealed plays, or perhaps only use the plot. (Ten things I Hate about you-The Taming of the Shrew;West Side Story-Romeo and Juliet ,for example) Of course Shakespeare has been dead for 400 years and there was no copywrite law when he wrote. Whenever I listen to music I can here bits and pieces that sound like other songs that I have heard.
What I am trying to say is that there is very little truley original art. That does not mean that we can have free rein to use other peoples images(photos, paintings, writings,etc) as is. That is what copywrite violation is about. But so often the grey areas are what show up in the law courts, which does nothing to help art flourish. What it all means is that go ahead and use other works to generate ideas, but be careful. Make what you create your own. Any elements that come from photos or other paintings should not be recognizable as such, unless permission has been acquired. Or a court of law could be in our future.
