Comments

  1. Daryl says

    You have got be kidding me. I never would have drawn a parallel between the two. Slava can hardly claim to be the first person to take a photo of a person in a bag – I think there are a million mothers who have shot photos of their kids playing in bags that would have to disagree with his assertion.
    Having said that, I wouldn’t exactly call either image all that arresting or arousing.

  2. paul says

    ‘The now famous photo’…What a deluded idiot…First of all, the original image is lame; secondly you can only copyright words, and logos, not images. What if Gucci had demanded a check from Slava for using their merchandise in his artwork…he’d be singing a different tune wouldn’t he.

  3. rudy says

    Paul, You are incorrect. To be subject to copyright the expression of the idea must be unique or novel and “fixed,” that is not transient. Cf., The standard has never been and is most certainly not that of one individual’s perception of subjective “lameness”. Images (paintings, photographs, digital renderings, etc.) have consistently been subject to the protections afforded by the copyright statutes (and treaties) to the creator of the image. Moreover, the copyright laws have been modified to encompass protection for new images made possible by advances in technology. Indeed, one of the seminal cases in copyright law involved the advent of videotapes, i.e., whether non-creators could videotape images (albeit moving images) for personal use. The Court (Supremes) reiterated that images were to continue to be afforded copyright protection subject to the rights of users to personal non-commercial use. This decision was fully in keeping with precedent and has been extended to DVDs. N.b., Copyright protections have long been statutorily limited by various specified permissible uses, e.g., education, parody, criticism. Lastly, Gucci would have a cognizable claim for damages if someone misappropriated their logo for the same use, viz., to hallmark, inter alia, leathergoods. E.g., one is permitted to refer to merchandise as “The Cadillac of [ice cream]”; however, one is not permitted to build a car and sell it as a “Cadillac” unless it is an automobile produced or licensed by General Motors.

Leave A Reply