Here are some questions to contemplate:
What do you consider “fair use” in relation to an artist’s image? What about the image of an individual? When is it OK to “borrow” and image in order to create something new? What constitutes “new”? If someone is inspired by the work of another artist, should it be acknowledged? If so how should this acknowledgement take place? Does it matter if the new artist has paid for rights to use the original image? Should it still be acknowledged? If so how should this acknowledgement take place?
Now let’s look at two current examples:
Recently, an image and quote of John F. Kennedy has appeared in a 2009 advertising selling Omega Speed- master watches. (see images below)
JFK is also appears in a TV ad for Omega that uses historical film footage of a speech he gave in 1962. (see clip below)
Omega Speedmaster watches have history with the U.S. space program; as does JFK, Omega is linking the two by association. There was never any agreed upon endorsement.
It is important to note that there is not copyright infringement here. Omega obtained the required permissions to use the JFK material from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston. The amount they paid for the use of the image has not been revealed publicly, but there is a drawing of the library building in the lower left hand corner of the ad with a line urging readers to “learn more” by visiting the JFK Library at their website, http://www.jfklibrary.org/. So it is possible this was part of the agreement.
Does this impact how you feel about the appropriation of this image?
Here is the second example…
This image is also of JFK, it was taken on the day of his assignation. It appears in an advertising flyer for a bicycle race which created much controversy around the DFW area. (See image below)
You can see the image on the bike shops website here.
The really interesting part is that the image that was creating all this controversy was not even an original image; it was actually copied from a 1978 Misfits album cover “Bullet.” (see image below)
So this begs the question whose image is it? Did anyone have the right to use the image of JFK in the first place? How does appropriation of images impact the way you teach?
Posts
December 2, 2009 at 7:05 PM
This image of JFK is really disturbing. I don't think it's appropriate for a punk rock group to use it so lightly.
December 5, 2009 at 8:08 AM
I have no problem with appropriation because I see it as a creative act. I feel however an appropriated image whether for art or advertising should be open to interpretation before making a judgment. The act of appropriation should be seen in relation to the message.
December 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I think the nature of the image fits the style of its use perfectly. Disturbing, unsettled, irreverent. There is artistic merit here. Whether it's good or bad doesn't matter. The Misfits WERE selling something, but I'm much more offended by the watch ad. (Chris Lee)
December 12, 2009 at 9:50 AM
One objective of advertising is audience retention, or how long people remember and talk about the add. Unfortunately there are many non-creative (from a design perspective) ways of achieving this. One would be using a very loud bearded man to push your product and another would be whats called shock advertising. The JFk image is shocking and thus memorable and if you remember the image then you remember the product. You getting offended is irrelevant to the advertiser. However this technique can backfire and many times does, giving the product a negative connotation.
In regards to appropriation, if the original image is altered significantly then it is no longer an issue to me.