George W. Bush Used Top Google Results for All Paintings; Who Will Sue for Copyright Infringement?

[kpete]

George W. Bush Used Top Google Results for All Paintings; Who Will Sue for Copyright Infringement?
Yes, that’s right. George W. Bush is an appropriation artist.


While many may have assumed that he used his experience in meeting with those world leaders in order to have an accurate representation of what they looked like, the truth is that he just pulled results from Google Image search result for each one. Literally. Some people have gone through and done Google Image searches on each of the subjects he painted, and discovered that the paintings were clearly all based on either the very first result, or very near the top search result.




Yes, that's right. George W. Bush is an appropriation artist.

Many of those images are from Wikipedia, where they're under Creative Commons licensing, but others are clearly covered by copyright. As Animal New York notes, the image of former French President Jacques Chirac comes from a photo of the cover of Chirac's book cover, where the copyright on the photo is actually held by the Associated Press.

http://animalnewyork.com/2014/george-w-bush-took-paintings-google-images/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/george_w_bush_used_top_google_results_for_paintings_copyright_20140410

[Berlum]

1. AWOL Bush is compleat Republican

He just cannot muster and Atom of honesty or integrity

[TwilightGardener]

2. Meh--let him have his painting. He's not a bad artist, really, and it keeps him

out of trouble.

[brush]

3. He's copying photographs . . .

a beginner stage of artistic development. He has a ways to go to reach a creativity break through to originality.

[kpete]

4. bush

will NEVER get there
.
period
.


peace brush,
kp

[Dawgs]

15. So? What's the story?

[brush]

31. Huh?

[Dawgs]

39. Pretty simple. Why should anyone care that Bush likes to paint?

It's really not that big a deal.

[brush]

40. I agree

It's just that I'm in the field and he's giving artists a bad name. So I have to let people know that his stuff is not good — just mediocre beginner copying. Certainly not worthy of a one-man show.

[Dawgs]

14. Exactly. I don't get why Dems are getting so excited about this.

[rhett o rick]

22. I think some are just put-off by the Corp-Media fawning over him. "Isnt he cute". nm

[TwilightGardener]

25. Maybe. The media is obviously trying to rehab the Bush name for Jebster, but

Junior's paintings aren't going to achieve that. So I'm inclined to be generous about it.

[Generic Other]

5. They are transformative

He has changed them from the originals by painting them. He didn't trace them (I don't think).

[edhopper]

12. The Chirac and Sirleaf

looked traced the Putin and Karsi don't.
I think he does a little of both.
Either way he is a mediocre beginner artist.
But I approve of him staying out of pol8itics and World affairs.

[Octafish]

6. No-Class Action Suit.

For a No-Account Guy.

[Ms. Toad]

7. It is amusing that the investigators couldn't find the right Karzai photo

so they grabbed another one, flipped it, and made up a story about why the image was flipped - when he hadn't flipped any of hte others. (The one above was flipped by the authors - follow the link to see the unflipped )version.

Actually, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai is flipped, probably by Bush using a basic technique of transferring photo to a canvas. Because human faces aren’t really symmetrical, he looks a little bit off.

Here's the one he more likely did copy (note the difference in how much neck is showing, the hat, the twinkle in the eyes, the line/scar on the chin (left in the picture), the more flared nostrils, the prominent soul patch).

[NV Whino]

8. Copying from a photograph is not a copyright violation.

Bush may be a cheat and a bad artist, but this is a non story.

[Xyzse]

9. Agreed.

Don't like him, but there are many other things to look at rather than this.

As others have mentioned, copying from photographs is what beginner artists do to learn.

Actually it is the golden age for nude art. Anything and everything you want to try to do, you can see a picture of in the internets.

[Supersedeas]

13. a cheat, a bad artist, and...

fill in the blank

[PoliticAverse]

26. Actually it can be as it is a 'derivative work'.

See: http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/11/does-derivative-work-violate-your.html

A famous case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

[NV Whino]

27. Then there's this

Infringement of Copyrighted Photographs
Under U.S. Copyright law, you violate the copyright owner's exclusive rights of copying and/or to create a derivative work by creating a work that is a copy of or "substantially similar" to another's. The courts determine whether the two works are substantially similar by comparing them and evaluating whether copyrightable elements have been used in the second work. A court is much more likely to find an infringement if the subject of the photo has been "set up" by the photographer and contains creative and original elements, compared to a photograph of subjects that already exist, such as in nature or a structure such as the Golden Gate Bridge.

I haven't seen all these paintings (nor do I want to), but I would guess some of the photographs fall under the "set up" category (formal portraits) and some do not (photo journalism or capturing a photo during an event).

But it is all moot, because it will never go to court.

[snooper2]

10. Somebody has WAAAAAAAAY too much time on their hands LOL

[mstinamotorcity2]

11. And Dubya had an

Original thought when??? This is not surprising from a man who gave nuclear technology to India for Mangoes!!!

[corkhead]

24. that's "nookular"

[mstinamotorcity2]

41. OOPS

My Bad!!

[UTUSN]

16. It would be a small, but savory, legal accountability nt/

[canoeist52]

17. Copying from a photograph or image without permission is legal - until you try to sell it.

Then it becomes copyright infringement.

[progressoid]

18. Fairey lost his court challenge with the AP over his "HOPE" poster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster


But I highly doubt they will go after Georgie.

[dilby]

20. Yeah but Fairey was selling his.

I doubt Bush is going to sell his paintings or if there is anyone who would even buy them.

[progressoid]

21. You never know. I bet there are poeple out there willing to buy that crap.

To further confuse copyright infringement law...Richard Prince won his case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/design/appeals-court-ruling-favors-richard-prince-in-copyright-case.html

[bobduca]

19. Painting a photograph, doesn't that fall under "Fair use" clause of copyright law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_as_a_defense

[corkhead]

23. why does it remind me of this?

[PeteSelman]

28. That's how George Zimmerman does his too.

And he's making bank on them. This isn't real artistry.

[grasswire]

29. zimmerman came to my mind, too

but George Bush killed wayyyyyy more than one man.

[backscatter712]

30. Dubya is as good a painter as he was a world leader... n/t

[brush]

32. Hah! Your post tops them all. Agreed! nt

[Gothmog]

34. Bush is both stupid and lazy

There was an art critic on the Chris Hayes show last night who really did not like Bush's works

[Sister to TxTowelie]

37. I wonder if that critic had heard about this copyright

enfringement? I watched the last few minutes of the show last night, but there were a lot of distractions in the house. I like the substitute host.

[Sister to TxTowelie]

35. He's incapable of original thought, original vision for his "art."

To me, this is now more of a "craft" that he's doing, not art. He might as well be painting clowns by number.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

36. Then let's hope he Googled Santorum

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum&defid=942955

[jmowreader]

38. This falls under the doctrine of "parodic fair use"

http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/what-are-derivative-works-under

They're also bad enough that no one would mistake them for the originals.

[JI7]

42. the paintings themselves are ok, but it's just like him and his lack of depth

that he would paint based on that instead of anything deeper . the dumbass was actually president so you would think there would be moments that would stand out or inspire him in his work.

but it's just a google search.