Artistic freedom? Bob Dylan is copying photographs

Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny

Apparently Bob Dylan has taken to painting lately. The only problem is, he's copying his works from photographs. Bob Dylan has been under the microscope for this kind of thing before, as lyrics in several of his songs are very similar to known works of poetry. His memoirs received criticism because several parts appeared to be adapted from other written works.

[the art gallery]...said the collection of paintings and other artwork would provide “a visual journal” of Mr. Dylan’s travels in Japan, China, Vietnam and Korea, with firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscape.
Click to expand...

Firsthand depictions? Apparently Mr. Dylan was so uninspired on his visits that he felt compelled to copy other artists and then pawn them off in this gallery as his own.

My opinion: Life can imitate art. Art can imitate life. But if art imitates art, it's plagiarism. What say you?
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
Since you asked...

I put Andy Warhol on the same bus with Pablo Picasso. Their art was created not for the sake of art itself, but with the intent of earning a living. Picasso's early work was just horrible, he was a hack. It wasn't until he pioneered the Cubism movement that people started to take note of his work and buying it. Picasso was creative, and an artist, but he was also kind of a sellout.

Andy Warhol was a pop culture artist whose work was a sign o' the times. Personally, I don't consider Warhol to be much of an artist. The Factory (Warhol's studio) was a haven for a number of 60's drug-enhanced artists...including Bob Dylan. It was also where Warhol created some of his film work, including the silent film Blow Job, where the camera focuses on a man's facial expressions while he receives oral sex from another man for half an hour. To me, that's not art.
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Let me see if I have this right. Bob Dylan paints pictures from other peoples photography, so he is plagiarizing the photographer.

Andy Warhol copies a copyrighted image, but HIS work is a sign of the times. Pablo Picasso just plain sucks, but this is NOT in reference

to the above mentioned movie (THANK GOD!).

I will agree with you about the artistic merits of Warhol's work, but it seems that you have some pretty flexible ideas about who and what constitutes

plagiarism.

BWTHDIK
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
Plagiarism is a touchy subject. Outright forgery and theft aside, it's difficult to determine what the original author's "thoughts, ideas, and expressions" were when he/she created something. What is truly original anyway? Don't we all imitate what we see and know? Don't we all learn by copying others and eventually branch out as we grow creatively?

I see your point. We don't lock up the high school art student who copies the Mona Lisa to enter the local art show. Andy Warhol receives accolades for copying a Campbell's soup can and doing funky colored prints of famous people...yet Bob Dylan is on the receiving end of my ire for copying photographs.

Where I draw the line is intent.

The high school art student does not try to pawn off his Mona Lisa as an original work. Andy Warhol's pop culture art was the personification of art imitating life. But Bob Dylan's gallery is doing something else. He is taking the experiences of others and calling them his own. He's robbing those photographers and the uniqueness of what THEY saw and captured.
 
S

Sambr

Senior Member
Anthony Hereld said:
Plagiarism is a touchy subject. Outright forgery and theft aside, it's difficult to determine what the original author's "thoughts, ideas, and expressions" were when he/she created something. What is truly original anyway? Don't we all imitate what we see and know? Don't we all learn by copying others and eventually branch out as we grow creatively?

I see your point. We don't lock up the high school art student who copies the Mona Lisa to enter the local art show. Andy Warhol receives accolades for copying a Campbell's soup can and doing funky colored prints of famous people...yet Bob Dylan is on the receiving end of my ire for copying photographs.

Where I draw the line is intent.


The high school art student does not try to pawn off his Mona Lisa as an original work. Andy Warhol's pop culture art was the personification of art imitating life. But Bob Dylan's gallery is doing something else. He is taking the experiences of others and calling them his own. He's robbing those photographers and the uniqueness of what THEY saw and captured.
Click to expand...


You can't have it both ways Anthony! Yes Any Warhol made a fortune from the "soup Can" and it wasn't his design or creation. So Bob Dylan can and will do the same. Let me tell you, if Dylan was to paint one of my images I would be impressed and guess what buddy.... my photos would suddenly go up in price if folks wanted to by them. Right now I am sell some prints for $465.00 at our local art gallery, how much do you think those would go up in price if Dylan had any interest in them?? I don't make a living doing photography - I do it as a hobby. I shoot landscape and wildlife, my best shots are matted & framed then displayed at various art shows & galleries. I donate 80% of my work for tax receipts to non profit organizations. Therefore I would love for Bob Dylan to copy my work :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
Everything you just stated is exactly why microstock and "free" photography has become the standard and not the exception.
 
S

Sambr

Senior Member
The prints I donate to non profit are sold I get a tax receipt they keep the money. So what is wrong with helping a cause such as the "Red Cross" Heart & Stroke foundation? Do you have an issue with that big guy?
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
Let me tell you if Dylan was to paint one of my image I would be impressed and guess what buddy my photos would suddenly go up in price if folks wanted to by them.
Click to expand...

To me this is a sellout. He should like it enough to pay for a license. Besides, it's only your word that he used your photo and I doubt that it would cause the price of your work to go up (google "the scream")

I read that same article about Bob Dylan. To me it's outright copyright infringement and photographers are idiots for not taking action.
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
The prints I donate to non profit are sold I get a tax receipt they keep the money. So what is wrong with helping a cause such as the "Red Cross" Heart & Stroke foundation? Do you have an issue with that big guy?
Click to expand...

We all donate prints and time to causes. But we don't "give away" full rights to the photo. That's the difference. Giving someone a print is not the same as giving them the copyright. The microstock issue refers to copyright.
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
Let's just do a quick, informal survey here based on a hypothetical situation:

Suppose LIFE magazine saw one of your photos and told you they'd like to use it for the cover of one of their issues.
Would you
A. Tell them you're delighted and give approval. After all, your name will be on the photo and you'll receive national recognition. After all, this is LIFE magazine!
B. Ask them under which license agreement they would like to use the photo.
C. Tell them "yes" if they will send you 100 copies of the magazine.
 
Berkerk

Berkerk

Senior Member
Isn't the point here, as the article claims, that Dylan has passed his art off as first hand experience made during his travels, forming the idea that he originated the compositions and so excluding the photographers.
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
ohkphoto said:
Let's just do a quick, informal survey here based on a hypothetical situation:

Suppose LIFE magazine saw one of your photos and told you they'd like to use it for the cover of one of their issues.
Would you
A. Tell them you're delighted and give approval. After all, your name will be on the photo and you'll receive national recognition. After all, this is LIFE magazine!
B. Ask them under which license agreement they would like to use the photo.
C. Tell them "yes" if they will send you 100 copies of the magazine.
Click to expand...

I would choose "B". It may be "Life" Magazine, but its MY life. If you give your work away for the recognition, then thats all its worth.
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
ohkphoto said:
Let's just do a quick, informal survey here based on a hypothetical situation:

Suppose LIFE magazine saw one of your photos and told you they'd like to use it for the cover of one of their issues.
Would you
A. Tell them you're delighted and give approval. After all, your name will be on the photo and you'll receive national recognition. After all, this is LIFE magazine!
B. Ask them under which license agreement they would like to use the photo.
C. Tell them "yes" if they will send you 100 copies of the magazine.
Click to expand...

I pick B. I need the money more than the recognition! LOL :)
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Berkerk said:
Isn't the point here, as the article claims, that Dylan has passed his art off as first hand experience made during his travels, forming the idea that he originated the compositions and so excluding the photographers.
Click to expand...

I read the article, but I did not note a direct quote attributed to Dylan to the effect that his art was a direct first hand experience. THAT was inferred by the writer of this piece.

I am trying very hard to keep my personal feelings out of this. I dislike Bob Dylan's fame and fortune because of the crap music and self aggrandizement. I will give him this, though. He should be considered a human Konica-MInolta Crap-Hub.
 
A

AxeMan - Rick S.

Senior Member
Not only do I find it plagiarism, I also feel it a copyright violation. Read below and check out the link, an interesting read on copyrights what you can and can not do.
I think my #2 applies to Mr. Dylan's work and the examples in the link Anthony has given.

1. How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

2. How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.

<Source> U.S. Copyright Office - Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine? (FAQ)
 
Berkerk

Berkerk

Senior Member
Carolina Photo Guy said:
I read the article, but I did not note a direct quote attributed to Dylan to the effect that his art was a direct first hand experience. THAT was inferred by the writer of this piece.

I am trying very hard to keep my personal feelings out of this. I dislike Bob Dylan's fame and fortune because of the crap music and self aggrandizement. I will give him this, though. He should be considered a human Konica-MInolta Crap-Hub.
Click to expand...

The quote is clearly indicated in the article (and more so in the subsequent linked article), however, it was made in a press release by the gallery and not Bob Dylan himself (or the articles author).
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Senior Member
The gallery said in a news release that Mr. Dylan’s works would offer “firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscape” with evocative titles like “Mae Ling,” “Cockfight,” “The Bridge” and “Hunan Province.” The release added: “Conversely, there are more cryptic paintings often of personalities and situations, such as ‘Big Brother’ and ‘Opium,’ or ‘LeBelle Cascade,’ ...
Click to expand...

It should be noted that several of Dylan's titles listed above are actually copies of photographer's work. In addition, here are Dylan's own words, as linked to in the original article:

I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind the curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes to make it work.
Click to expand...

Apparently "whatever it takes to make it work" also includes theft. And finally:

Mr. Dylan did not comment on those similarities then, and a representative for him declined to comment on the Gagosian exhibition.
Click to expand...

"Then" meaning previous references to plagiarism in both his lyrics and memoirs. And now he's doing it again. Granted, the press release was probably written by Dylan's PR firm or the gallery. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on this. Not when there is a near 40-year history here of raised eyebrows about the originality of his creations.
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Anthony, I sense that you have a slight animosity towards Dylan. I think that perhaps your mild irritation might be misplaced.

Why not go after Gagosian? HE is the enabler in this instance since Dylans dishonest proclivities are well known in art circles.

Dylan would NOT have a showing without Gagosian. Just my humble opinion.

BWTHDIK
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top