Julie Molina's "Dream in Color"
Every so often I see something that makes me doubt everything I thought I knew about copyright. Somerset Studio publishing this gorgeous piece in their Sep/Oct 2007 issue qualifies.
I love the artwork. It deserves the full page spread it received. The images blending into each other in the rainbow of colors are picked well and the total composition is endlessly fascinating. As Julie comments in her Q&A section, she even took special care at the border areas to use pictures that transitioned from one color to the next. It's amazing.
But it has a Batman symbol, TINKERBELL! (cue the run from the Disney lawyers music), Velma from Scooby Doo, a photograph of a woman clad in flowers that has to be modern and someone has to have copyrighted somewhere, and so forth and so one. I imagine all of these are magazine images of some sort.
And as long as it was hanging in her dining room, it didn't matter. But Somerset published it and reproduced it in many many copies. Did they get permissions? Do they have a different understanding of copyright law than I do? Are magazines different than prints? Do they feel its okay because no one element is necessary for the collage to be understood? There's so much that would go into an actual suit if one happened. Aaaargh.
I would love to use unaltered and recognizable magazine cut-outs in some of my work and I don't because I'm afraid. I'm afraid that I won't be one of those collage artists that somehow gets away with it. That my pants will be sued off me. I fully understand and respect the rights of the owners of those copyrights to do the suing. But when I see art like this posted on the web with comments about gallery representation, or published in a magazine, or some such, well, I just feel jealous. Because I would never dare to do that.
The best online source I know of for copyright information and collage is still Copyright for Collage Artists by Sarah Ovenall at http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/index.html . It doesn't look like she's updated it in some years, but I can't imagine the law has changed that much. Another extremely interesting resource is actually geared toward film students and presented in comic book form - http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/digital.php .
Anybody else know more about how this might be working?
After reading Eddie's comment I thought I'd check for more information. I found Julie's blog and website. She posted a picture of the piece and article, justifiably thrilled that she was published. It is here
http://julbie.blogspot.com/2007/08/brag-blog.html
I also emailed Julie and the editor of Somerset Studio asking the following... and referring them to what I've already written. I probably should have done this before blogging about my questions, but, well, I didn't think of it then.
"Could you please educate me a little? How is it that this gorgeous piece can be published without violating multiple copyrights? I just don't understand..."
Julie's Reply
I made this collage for myself and fully expected it not to be publishable or sellable. But I'm assuming Jenny Doh, the editor of Somerset, knows more about copyright laws than I do.
I have looked at the same information as you (online) and as far as I can tell it falls under the "fair use" terms of the law. The collage is not centered around one particular object but many in a way that does not defame the copyrighted material.
I wish I had more information for you but I do not. And I don't intend to use copyrighted material in future work, just to avoid the headache. But I have seen gallery showings with what is called "illegal" art in which many copyrighted images are used and even used in a disparaging manner including the Starbucks logo, Mickey Mouse and Barbie.
I don't think the law is clear at all on this. But I'll be sure and let you know if I get sued!
Feel free to print my reply on your blog.
Julie Molina


Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 09:46AM
Reader Comments (1)
and if there's recognizable images, how is that not violating copyright? I have many many greeting cards that I would love to use images from, or the whole image, but haven't because I thought that was a copyright violation.
so like you, I'm confused!
I also don't understand why you don't have dozens of comments-at least some with some insight into this-as this is rather a hot topic on the web. I'll try to put a link to this from the Weeks Ringle post (about not copying someone else's work) at WhipUp.