Who said copyright is a bore? Not in the art world, it’s not.
There’s an interesting battle brewing in reaction to Damien Hirst’s reaction to a 16-year-old artist’s collage containing a picture of Hirst’s (infamous?) diamond-encrusted skull. Hirst threatened to sue, the 16-year-old handed over the collage as well as the £200 he had made. (Since Hirst’s skull sold for £50 million, this was apparently considered necessary.)
So, in protest, a group of artists including “Jamie Reed, who designed the Sex Pistols’ sleeve for the single God Save the Queen,” made and sold works containing images of Hirst’s skull. They can all be seen at the site Red Rag to a Bull. The young artist was compensated for the £200 he had to fork over. Everyone is happy. Except perhaps Hirst and DACS.
February 24th, 2009 11:16
brilliant! It continues to baffle me that the concept of Fair Use and derivative works is so contentious that artists and licensing agencies continue to beat down those who build on their inspiration.
February 25th, 2009 12:22
Perian: Especially agencies, agents, and heirs. Artists themselves are usually quite fair. In this case, it was reported that Hirst requested that DACS take action. Who knows, that may or may not be accurate.
Of course, there may be a certain logic in the above: the job of an artist is to be inspired and inspiring. The job of an agency is to look out for any harm to the artist’s economic interests (and their own percentage, of course).