Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
As of Friday, the epic, two-year-long dispute between Trevor Brown and Crystal Castles over the band's unauthorized use of Brown's image of Madonna has quickly and decisively come to an end.
Brown announced on his blog that the band's new worldwide managers, James Sandom and Paul Everett of the London-based SuperVision Management Group, sent him a letter apologizing on behalf of the band, then quickly made him a new offer, and, when the terms were agreed upon—the band now has full rights to the image, Brown reproduction rights—promptly followed up with cash in hand within twenty-four hours.
In what Brown calls a "happy ending finally," he wrote that Crystal Castles have "at last...woken up to the fact this was their mess to clean up—it was pissing on their career more than mine—the negative press was never going to stop." He has a point: we've heard whispers that the band's extracurricular activities barred them from getting nominated for this year's Polaris Prize, and the fight certainly didn't help their reputation, especially after the news jumped from here to Pitchfork and beyond. The grudge on Brown's end is over, though: as he wrote, "Absolution can never be absolute of course—but I think Crystal Castles have paid the penalty for their indiscretions."
Brown told Torontoist that he's "just happy to plant a flag of victory on top of the huge mound of excreta left by the armchair analysts and ex-manager," those last words a parting shot at Mikey Apples, who Sandom confirmed has been moved by Crystal Castles out of management and "into a new role." (We emailed Apples last night for comment, but he has yet to reply.) As Sandom puts it, the resolution marks "a very calm conclusion to a situation that became unnecessarily inflamed in the past." Amazing what a change of management can accomplish. Now, about that other thing...
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm confused about why they get full rights.
And did Madonna have to give permission to Brown? If not, it's kinda ironic...
And so on to the chip-tune settlement.
I don't think you can 'plagiarize' a photo by drawing it, even if it is fairly accurately transcribed.
Then again, it probably just depends on how motivated and moneyed the original photo copyright holder is.
spacejack: it's kind of like the photos of graffiti last week.
Kind of, but not really. The above drawing is all the artist, whereas the photos were just arcdhival pictures of art.
Though Brown's image (more detail is in the top image here) uses Madonna's face, and is undoubtedly based on this iconic photo of her—sans black eye—as far as I know his piece is otherwise totally original and done by his hand. It's not like May Karp's copies of street art or Crystal Castles' copies of Brown's piece, where the only change that takes place to the original work is the medium it's displayed in (prints vs. street art, t-shirts/CD covers/posters vs. image in a book), and some cropping.
"...as far as I know his piece is otherwise totally original..."
Still a contradiction...he copied a photographer's image for his own art. Does he credit this photographer anywhere?
Some might consider it shady, or artistically lame, but I believe it's legal.
Then again, what do you think of rap music? (The oldschool kind, when they used to just grab James Brown samples without permission while he was in jail and couldn't do anything about it.)
It's very lame to get upset over someone stealing your art when you're stolen the image from someone else. Sure he did something to it first, but I knew right away when I saw it that it was from a photo I'd seen before. He couldn't have just reimagined her and drawn her from scratch?
I don't have an issue with it, or old school rap music, and I'm not saying it's not art, in and of itself...as long as the proper source/inspiration is credited and receives a percentage of any monetary compensation that should result.
Speaking of old-school sampling, the Amen Break is probably an even more significant theft than James Brown's "Funky Drummer." (That linked video may be 18-minutes long, but it's totally interesting.)
Thanks for that link Marc, really interesting look at the break beat and it's origins.
He didn't copy the photo though. Look up, that's not a photo, it's a drawing he did himself. All that line work is his own, and it wouldn't change a thing if he'd drawn it from a portrait sitting, a candid moment, or from a concert poster.
not trying to advocate plagiarism.. but contrary to Brown's statement "negative" press has been and still continuous to work in favor of crystal castles (isn't Alice just another punk girl in a pencil skirt ?)
"He didn't copy the photo though. Look up, that's not a photo, it's a drawing he did himself. All that line work is his own, and it wouldn't change a thing if he'd drawn it from a portrait sitting, a candid moment, or from a concert poster."
He did a drawing based on a photo...he did not create it out of his imagination, nor any original interpretation based on a face-to-face meeting with Madonna. Still feels different to me.
Was the original photo of Madonna with a blackeye? No. I think Brown changed the photo enough in his drawing to consider it his own.
Then I will make a portrait of the Mona Lisa with a mustache and call it my own too.
ummm did you like miss the last century of appropriation in art or something? Wait till you find out about this guy called Andy Warhol, i think he'll blow you mind.
http://www.artofeurope.com/duchamp/duc3.htm
If Warhol had cried about someone using his work without credit, I would still find it ironic and a bit of a stretch...though he didn't seem like the type to make a fuss as he worked with many uncredited collaborators, and appropriation of mass culture/products was what he was all about, so how could he really get upset... But he did face lawsuits from photographers whose work he used without permission, including the photog who took the photos used in "16 Jackies."
If there is a case where he did in fact get upset, please link me to it. I know his estate does protect his art quite fiercely now.
There are legal precedents regarding the issue of how a person's image is used:
http://www.therightscompany.com/TRC/infingement.html
It's all fine and dandy to say it's in the name of art but there are legalities to keep in mind. And really, I think it's just good manners to tip your hat to your inspirations.
Glad you got my Duchamp reference...for my next work of artistic genius, I will be clothing all the naked bodies in The Garden of Earthly Delights.
Heh, Jen, I kind of agree with you. Appropriating other art, recontextualization, etc were a big fads in past decades. As the newness and controversy about it fades, I'm doubtful they'll continue to have as much significance in future. I think a lot of people will see it pretty plainly for what it is a lot of the time - lazy art.
"Lazy art"...lol.
I followed the link to Trevor Brown's blog and he actually says "the black eyed madonna is now officially and legally theirs, to do with as they please - …at least until maddy herself files a lawsuit, ha ha!" The problem with appropriation art is that using a famous person's image could be misleading...in this case, someone might think Madonna has something to do with a Crystal Castles CD.
There's a back-and-forth here where the unauthorized use of Madonna's image by both parties is discussed:
http://www.pileup.com/babyart/blog/?p=100
"yes i don’t “own” madonna’s image but you have far less right to it"
The whole thing is enough to make your head spin!
I know I wouldn't want to get on Madonna's bad side, although I don't recall her having a problem with projects like Ciccone Youth (which had a photo of her on its cover).