Arts
A Christmas controversy at the Toronto Star
The Toronto Star recently ran a cover contest for their Christmas Eve edition, the winner of which has caused some controversy. Selected on December 20 by a pretty impressive panel of judges, Kelley Turgeon's painting of a streetcar in snow is both festive and locally inspired, and thus a fitting winner. The problem, however, is that it's a derivative work.
Plug "Toronto Streetcar Snow" into a Google image search, and it shouldn't take too long to find the photograph upon which the painting is based. Taken by Brain Labelle back in 2007 and posted on Flickr, it's painfully obvious that it serves as the source image for the painting. For her part, the artist has admitted to awareness of the photograph, saying "that was one of the pictures that I looked at, but it was also one of dozens."
That's not particularly convincing when the two works are held up side by side. Indeed, another photographer, Robert Prior, has created a rather damning animation that demonstrates just how indebted the painting really is.
Now, this sort of thing happens rather frequently, but what's rather dissatisfying is the Star's response. After the photographer started a discussion thread regarding the use of his image, the response from the community was swift and one-sided: the sentiment is that the paper should acknowledge the situation and split the prize money -- $2,500 -- between both parties. After all, the contest rules do state that any works submitted should be "wholly original."
But while the Star has noted that a controversy exists, the article in which the publication does so offers no indication as to a possible resolution of the situation. And worse still, according to comments on the Flickr thread, the paper is refusing to publish negative feedback from readers about the controversy (comments on the original article have been moderated, while the follow-up doesn't allow comments at all).
This is all rather bush league. Despite widespread misunderstanding of copyright laws in this area, one cannot use a source photograph for a painting in this manner in the absence of the author's permission. The Star should very well know this, and it's disheartening to see them point to the controversy without acknowledging their own complicity.
Lead photo by Brian Labelle animation by etherflyer (Robert Prior) on Flickr.
Discussion
94 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Of the "top ten", 2 and 4 are great, but the rest are HORRRRRRRRRRIBLE.
The second an image, a piece of audio, a video, anything, is placed on the internet, it is instantly made available to interpretation. and should be embraced as such, or not done.
I'm trying to follow that bizarre "logic"..... ok, hopefully lots and lots of photographers will take photos of Ms Turgeon's painting.....and sell them, or enter them in contests as their own "wholly original" work....and then let's see if she is simply flattered (especially if the photograph of HER painting wins a hunk of cash)
Ridiculous.
My plan now is to photograph the painting and submit that to a contest and not credit either of you.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Great! So I'm going to paint my "own version" of Turgeon's painting, you know, "re-create" it using the blocking technique and everything, and enter it in a contest. While I'm at it, I'm also going to paint a copy of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory" and sell them as my own.
Having said that, I think she's talented, put a lot of work into this, has undoubtedly learned from the experience and would do things differently in the future. I think there are some that are enjoying her faux pas too much and it smells a bit like a lynch mob.
It might be good form if she were to contact the photographer and say, you know I was out of line, I hadn't completely thought through the consequences, I apologize and here is a portion of the prize money (250-500 would do IMHO), no hard feelings?
We all @#$%&! up once in a while. Chill people, it is Christmas.
Now where is my x-mas turkey leg at?
There aren't any pictures of that on the interweb!
Personally, I think that they should split it, but what is "original" is certainly open to interpretation as is "inspired by".
My two cents.
Merry Christmas.
Does an artist responsible for a painting such as this one owe royalties to each of the included works? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Private_View_at_the_Royal_Academy,_1881)
Or if someone decides to screen print the image of a tomato soup can, obviously any money he earns from that piece should go Campbell's, or at least be split between them, right?
And I suppose Picasso should have paid the various newspapers and magazines he used in his collage work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Compotier_avec_fruits,_violon_et_verre.jpg)
Does this recursive logic make sense to anyone other than lawyers?
It is clear the artist of this painting is no revolutionary, but if we turn our thinking towards simply who owns what and away from process, we'll deny the possibility of any future achievement within art. These sorts of laws are simplistic and neglect to account for artistic principle.
Selling a copy of a master as a genuine article is nothing like this. I mean, foremost, she's passing this work as HER OWN. A forger would benefit from selling the work as someone else's, and thus a reputation and public trust that she did not build.
Not saying this artist didn't do anything wrong, but by reducing the argument like that you're doing a disservice to everyone involved, including the original photographer.
Merry Christmas!
This is what it call comes down to, right?
Artists my ass.
It's his commenters going for the throat.
weighty aesthetic statement of purpose - these days any
amateur with a minimally written crackpot manifesto can
make waves in the world of art - but I still can ’ t imagine a
more juvenile -sounding rationalization for an art project ,
especially when current conditions cry out for art that is
socially engaged and introspective.
To say it's not art because it's a painting of a photo is like saying landscapes aren't art because they're a painting of view - it takes a trained eye and a steadied hand to first recognize and then materialize.
And don't get me started on our stupid copyright laws.
On top of that, even if the painter made their own impression of an existing piece of art, they are denying the original artist and work.
A more accurate similie is saying I drew an exact image of the CN tower but it was a tower of my own design, although I may have seen the CN Tower and used it as part of my 'inspiration'.
to those who say "who cares?", i imagine *you* would if someone else was profiting from and/or taking credit for your work (or modified versions thereof), whatever your work may be. it might not be illegal, but it ain't right.
I didn't say you ripped off my photo and made it into a painting. I said you ripped off my photo. And I will link to the <a href="http://www.blogto.com/city/2007/10/now_you_can_register_your_bike_online/"; target="_blank">transgression</a> since you so politely asked.
And <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/insubstantial /1474695042/" target="_blank">here</a> is a link to my flickr page with more information
http://www.stylescoop.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/loboutin-sky-high-heels-300x300.jpg
It's one of the first pictures that pops up when punching "high heels" into google.
second matter.. where's brad's link? lol
http://sitebuilder.cgi.netfirms.com/extras/res/js/slideshow/slideshow.html?cc=0.5723039940930903&;accountId=ANFI20IN27EZ&instanceId=42d6496478d552bcd9b85892585f070f&sort=byuploaddate¶site=http://www.kelleyturgeon.com/4501.html%3Fcc%3D0.05863142665475607%26sort%3Dbyuploaddate%26limit%3D9%26offset%3D0&;filter=&jumpTo=07166ead9be31e4f2aba158414ccdd78b6cd&LC=en_US
Crappy 'painting' from a crappy 'photo'. And this 'photographer', lapping it up.
You have 'photographers' who take photos of, say, graffiti art. And they copyright the photo. Are you kidding me? What in the HELL have you done. "Give me credit!" God, shut up.
Unless you're Yousuf Karsh, or others like him, actually applying the art of photo, shut up.
I was under the impression that it was common practice to at least share the influences behind your work. Forget copyright laws, it's called not being a dick.
Moreover, "If someone did not want their 3 year old photo being used then they should have watermarked it"?
I fail to see how that would have prevented this situation. It's not like the artist took a photo of the photo and then submitted it. Maybe this comes down to my lack of knowledge of painting techniques but, I am still pretty sure (as in 100% sure) that the artist could have still made the EXACT same painting that was submitted even if the original photo had a watermark.
Yeah, no.
Just how can one charge for free publicity especially when the publicity was not requested?
Shall I post your posting all over the internet without your consent and then send you a bill for $10 000 for services rendered?
She painted a copy of someone else's photo. Therefore, she should certainly admit it and secondly, the Star should acknowledge that the "wholly original" part of the contest rules have not been met.
Oh, and Anna Karenina "If you dont want your images jacked then dont put them online. Too bad."
Great attitude, hope you feel the same when you leave your bike outside (or more likely tricycle) or leave your door unlocked, or your wallet on the table. Too bad. Not the thief's fault. That's life.
Get REAL.
The photo isn't tht great and the painting is even worse. Give the money to charity.
@blackinson - exactly. how would a watermark have prevented this? wtf.
@ annakarenina - you went to art school and you don't know the difference between source material and repdroducing? yeesh.
and the idea that any image that is posted on the internet is public property has got to go, especially when there is an explicit copyright attached to it (as on flickr).
Like Turgeon, I am an artist who focuses on painting. Also, like Turgeon, my work sometimes will draw inspiration from photographic references.
I believe this is where the similarities ends as she seems to have been taught the "old school" method of utilizing reference for creating works of art.
This of course being the 10% method wherein the artist doesn't need to give reference to the referencor's image when changing more than 10% of the image. There's also the more colourful method whereby the artist doesn't need to ask permission for sourcing material when utilizing multiple images.
Both of these are incorrect and very outdated but somehow still taught in higher institutions for art. Luckliy for me, where I went to University the knowledge was there from the staff and artists to pass on that unless you're referencing a minor singular component (a tree in the background) all images that can be recognized either through composition, shape, texture, colour, etc. should be referenced to the artist whose original work it is *after* asking their go-ahead first.
An easier alternative to thsi is to use the original artists work (say in this case a streetcar scene) and go out and photograph it yourself with a clear date stamp on the image.
For Turgeon to not be able to do this shows a lack of ability on her part, creatively and inspirationally.
I'd like to use a photo I found on Flickr. How do I do that?
Our members share an incredible amount of amazing work on Flickr. If there is an image you'd like to use, look for the "Request to license" link near the license on the photo page. We've partnered with Getty Images who will review the image, determine if it's a good fit for licensing through them, and work out all the details if so.
Not all members have this enabled. If you don't see it you can also contact the member directly. As a member of Flickr, you can move your mouse over someone's buddy icon and click the little arrow to open the "person menu." Then select "Send FlickrMail" and compose your message. When you contact a photographer, it's best to include as much info as possible about the photo, yourself, and how you want to use the photo.
Image was stolen....Toronto Star should acknowledge this and grant the 2nd runner up the prize.....and "you're a mean one, Miss Grinch" (Kelley Turgeon).......boooooooo!!!
Her bio claims, "She also dabbles a little in photography." - If she is interested in photography, she should think about how SHE might feel if someone blatantly copied one of her photos and made money off it by claiming it as their own... I can't believe she had the gall to say she "looked at many photos" including the one in question - it was CLEARLY a copy of the photo. I doubt the shoes, and images of celebrities, were also done from "many pictures for inspiration".
Copying photos, art, etc is a GREAT way to learn how to paint - but you shouldn't be profiting off it until it's an original work!!
Maybe since she "dabbles in photography" she should take her own photos to copy from if that's the only way she's capable of painting.
I'm eating turkey sammmmiches....
> While Canada doesn't explicitly use the term "derivative work," we use virtually the same criteria to identify infringements in this capacity, so the clarity of the information linked to was a plus.
That was your first mistake. US copyright law is quite different than Canadian law and the devil is in the details.
>But, becuase you bring it up, I added another link that relates to Canadian law.
And if you read the excerpt of the Copyright Act found at that link, you would note that there is no prohibition on adapting an artistic work - in this case a photograph - to another medium, which is what the painter allegedly did.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea in a fixed medium, not the idea itself. In this case, the expression of that idea is so generic - two streetcars passing each other on Queens Quay in a snowstorm followed by a truck and the silhouette of a building in the background - that the photographer himself has little to claim as original.
In sum, what the painter did was not copyright infringement in Canadian law.
Making a painting with inspiration from someone's photo is a big no-no, but taking photos of other peoples art or performing their art and then slapping "All rights reserved" is cool???
Gotcha
By your "logic," someone like Edward Burtynsky wouldn't enjoy copyright to any of his photographs of shipping containers because the images could be hypothetically labeled generic. The subject matter is, after all, ubiquitous.
It obviously doesn't work that way. Photographs pose numerous difficulties when determining copyright, and your perspective is far too rigid to appreciate the complexity of this issue.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beachdigital/5295421814/
"EMERGING ARTIST COVER CONTEST" RULES
In connection with your submission, you affirm, represent and warrant that: (i) the artwork is wholly original; (ii) you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents and permissions to use and authorize Sponsor to use all copyright, trademark and/or other proprietary rights in and to your submission to enable inclusion and use of the submission in the manner contemplated by these Contest rules; (iii) does not infringe the intellectual property, privacy or publicity rights or any other legal or moral rights of any third party or violate applicable laws, regulations or network standards; (iv) has not been entered into a previous contest or has received any awards; (v) has not been published previously in any medium; (vi) you have not granted or transferred any rights in or to the submission to any third party prior to the Contest Closing Date; (vii) you have not done anything which will impair and will not do anything to impair the rights granted to Sponsor in any way; (viii) you have the written consent, release and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in the submission to use the name or likeness of each and every such identifiable individual person to enable inclusion and use of the submission in the matter contemplated by these Contest rules.
That's a matter of perspective, of course. From my perspective you're insulting one art form's technique in expressing your personal preference for another.
The photo is question has some artistic merit and qualities. It's not a random shot taken with a point and shoot camera: the photographer has made creative use of depth of field to create an image that has unique qualities.
If it *were* a generic point and shoot photo the fairly obvious copying wouldn't be any more legal, mind you.
In any case, as a photographer your statement is insulting, short sighted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the medium.
You should probably consider graduating from grade school before you start yammering on nonsensically in online forums.
> watermarked it
How would a watermark have helped? Any watermark that would allow the photo to remain visible would't prevent anybody from copying it by numbers.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/911946--the-winners-of-the-star-s-emerging-artist-cover-contest
http://kelleyturgeon.com/4501.html
http://www.etsy.com/shop/KelleyTurgeonMedia
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZNfMOm3L6DIJ:www.normanfelix.com/sobi2/all-artists/kelley-turgeon.html+kelley+turgeon&;cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk
There is so much going on here. There are a lot of foolish, mis-informed people involved in this so called scandal and the key person who is fueling this rubbish is the "author" of the article. The most important thing to note here is that this is Canada not the USA, our copyright laws a vastly different and to use About.COM (an american site) as reference for Canadian copyright law is foolish, incompetent, and reckless. BlogTO should have known better before they ever let this article see print. But this is why the internet is often regarded as a non-reputable source of information.
Artists use photo reference all the time in varying degrees of likeness and it is BY LAW completely legal. Sorry to burst Mr. Labelle's bubble but if someone takes a photograph of a streetcar and then someone else comes along and draws a picture from that photograph it is no longer a photograph, it is now a drawing. If you were the first person to take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower that certainly doesn't mean the any subsequent photos of similar or exact likeness should pay tribute or credit to the first of it's kind.
In this case although the painting bears a striking resemblance to the photograph it has been altered in such a way that makes the work wholly original whether people are "adult" enough to admit it or not. That being said all artists should credit their sources in order to show artistic integrity and their sources of inspiration. That was Miss Turgeon's one and ONLY folly. She does not owe anybody anything else and this would be why the Star refuses to lower themselves to the borderline libel that BlogTO is pushing in this article. Be careful BlogTO for it may be you who next receives a cease and desist. If this was my case I would certainly pursue you.
People should also do competent research before shooting their mouths off about plagiarism. Plagiarism is the exact word for word carbon duplicate of something and this is not the case here at all.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT
To say that one copying photos outright (i.e. merely changing the medium to paint) is legal behaviour under Canadian law is absolutely incorrect. Yes we're more lax on this particular area of copyright, but I can assure you that if Mr. Labelle thought it worth his time and money to pursue this, I'd be confident that I'd win a settlement. Somebody mentioned it before, but photos can be a peculiar case when it comes to copyright, a fact which is supported case law (sorry, not going to grab the books off the shelf and cite here).
So tone done the vitriol everyone - at least until you know what you're talking about.
Aside from being a different author, it doesn't look like they denied the situation (as in this case). The author at that time made a mistake (you okay'd it after the fact so I assume they apologized).
Should it disqualify them (or even the whole blog) from ever commenting on copyright issues in the news forever?
BTW I like how exact the building and cars in the background are.
"“That was one of the pictures that I looked at, but it was also one of dozens,”"
She's implying that when she was looking for inspiration she looked at a bunch of photos then started painting. When in reality, to get the final painting as similar to the original she would have had have left that image open (and only that image) for her to make DIRECT REFERENCE TO.
If she would have just admitted to it, 'ya, I copied that photo', I wouldn't have cared. But she ended up completely downplaying the significant role of the original photograph and that's really not fair to the photographer.
Then she caps it off with a non-apology. "<i>I'm sorry <b>IF</b> I offended somebody</i>"
Looking forward to the Star making some sort of statement regarding this.
As to the winner, shame on her! As to Toronto Star, shame on them too for tolerating this kind of violation of journalistic integrity. I will not buy the Toronto Star anymore.
It was about a decade after CLRV/ALRV production ended that UTDC ended up in Bombardier's hands after the first post-privatization owner of UTDC (Lavalin) failed to make a go of it.
How ironic that you've wrongly attributed years (and million$) of technical development in this context!