Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cannondale

(96 posts)
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:11 AM Feb 2015

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (cannondale) on Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:03 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) cannondale Feb 2015 OP
search "ice cream cone in back pocket": marble falls Feb 2015 #1
So you see nothing wrong with... cannondale Feb 2015 #2
nope. mopinko Feb 2015 #3
Good News cannondale Feb 2015 #4

marble falls

(57,650 posts)
1. search "ice cream cone in back pocket":
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:29 AM
Feb 2015

Is against the law to have ice cream in your back pocket in a bunch of states. I'd be very surprised if she'd been the first to photograph such a thing. And none of her photos were being used.

The only one I see that gives me pause is this one:



And it could be argued that the second piece because its not a photo is an origional work of art.

cannondale

(96 posts)
2. So you see nothing wrong with...
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:06 AM
Feb 2015

A major magazine, who had published her work with a globe painted blue except for the US, creates a cover with a globe painted except for the US, and there's no foul play?

The image on the left is hers, and was properly credited in a NYT publication just a couple of years ago. The NYT is aware of her and her work. This isn't some random anomaly.

mopinko

(70,395 posts)
3. nope.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 12:26 PM
Feb 2015

you can riff all you want off another artist's work. as long as you change it substantially, you are not violating law.

cannondale

(96 posts)
4. Good News
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 01:05 PM
Feb 2015

Just spoke to the artists brother, and NYT art department called Olivia and apologized. They realized that their mistake in not crediting her or at least asking for her help in reshooting what was obviously inspired by her previous work for them.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Artists»This message was self-del...