[This post was revised and updated 26 July 2016]
This was followed up by two posts by Brian Sherwin:
- Let's Have an Ar(t)gument: You stole my idea! Lisa Congdon vs. Cody Foster & Company which reviews the legal arguments and the potential evidence. It seems there are lots of potential issues the claimant will need to address
- Lisa Congdon vs. Cody Foster: What about the photographers? At this point it became clear there was rather more to the story when it comes to alleged "copyright rip-off"! Again the images - of photographs compared to illustrations by Lisa Congdon - are very persuasive.
The latter has now generated 550 comments and is now one of the most extensive discussions I've seen on the Internet related to copyright infringement, the rights of photographers not tobe copied and the whole thorny topic of derivative works
For example - Comment 424
One set of comments related to an artwork by Mathilde Aubier which it appeared had been copied by Lisa Congdon. The allegations - and the artwork - have now disappeared from view but the record of what happened remains in the comments.
A court case about the appropriation of a photograph has also been quoted - the reference is Friedman v. Guetta – Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, and “Meaningless Art.” - and is very definitely worth a read if you are an artist who copies the photographs of other people.
However there have been further developments and one of them, from Thomas Allen (Thomas Allen Online) caused my jaw to drop..........
This is important and it's educational - particularly if you're not too hot on copyright!
For example - Comment 424
I think it's fair to say that many artists, maybe even the vast majority of artists, are dangerously unfamiliar with copyright law. They think such things as "It's on the internet, so I can use it."
Or "If I change it 10 percent (or 20 percent or 30 percent) then it's legal."
Or "I'm changing it from a photo to a painting. That makes it okay."
Or "My work is stylized (like Congdon's) and because I don't work realistically I can use photos without violating their copyright." (Try telling that to Shepard Fairey.)
Or "If I make a sculpture (or an ornament) from a photo, I'm changing it from 2D to 3D, so that's not a violation."
Or "I'm only using this photo in a larger work, so it's okay."
Or "I'm only using a portion of this photo, so that makes it okay."
Or "I'm just a small time artist." Or a hobbyist. Or my heart is pure. Or everyone does it. Or no one will notice.
NONE of these is a defense in a court of law if you rip off a copyrighted photo to make your artwork.
One set of comments related to an artwork by Mathilde Aubier which it appeared had been copied by Lisa Congdon. The allegations - and the artwork - have now disappeared from view but the record of what happened remains in the comments.
A court case about the appropriation of a photograph has also been quoted - the reference is Friedman v. Guetta – Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, and “Meaningless Art.” - and is very definitely worth a read if you are an artist who copies the photographs of other people.
However there have been further developments and one of them, from Thomas Allen (Thomas Allen Online) caused my jaw to drop..........
This is important and it's educational - particularly if you're not too hot on copyright!
Beware - this is a very long post with lots of links.
Go get that hot drink and find a comfy chair now!










