Commissioned original art, art may not be original. Help?
May 3, 2013 9:43 AM Subscribe
I work for a non-profit organization. We applied for, and received, a grant to commission original artwork for our building. We chose an artist who proposed a mural. The contract is signed with the agency that is providing the grant, and work is set to start on the building soon. Problem is? One of the members of the Board found a very similar mural online, painted by a different person. Help.
We commissioned a mural in a very specific artistic style. For the sake of argument, let's say in the style of this WPA mural. Instantly recognizable, but very suitable for our building and our non-profit's mission. The artist who won the commission did so by proposing a mural of, oh let's say a man standing in front of a local landmark, carrying a shovel. Great. We were thrilled. It's perfect.
Today, one of the Board members found a picture online that made my heart sink. It is of a man standing in front of a building that kind of looks like our landmark, carrying a shovel. He's standing in the same position and holding the shovel in exactly the same way. His hands are cocked just so, the way his jacket is waving in the wind is exactly the same.
There are differences: his clothes are a different style. He is a young man in our picture, and an old man in the one on the internet. Our mural has the local landmark in the background, the background of the one on the internet has some basic shapes that are very similar to our landmark. The style - the very specific artistic style - is so similar that it could have been done by students of the same teacher.
Some more info:
I don't know where the internet picture came from. I don't know if it is original to the era or if it is a modern interpretation.
It's not really a shovel that the person in our mural/our online doppelganger is holding; but it is a common-ish object that looks exactly the same in both. The way the object is being held by the hands, the tilt, the colors, the shading, everything.
The grant is being administered through a third party. The contract has either just been signed or it is about to be signed. Like, TOMORROW.
If we do not go with these artists, we forfeit the grant. The date for having a contract signed is May 31st, and we do not have the time to re-open the search. We did not even have a second- or third-place choice, we were so enamored with this one.
Question time:
I've contacted the members of the Board, but none of us are artists. I worry that we won't know what is "inspired by" and what is "ripped off".
What should we do?
Is it common for artists to be inspired by a historic work to the point that they're similar enough for an artistic dunce like me to see the similarities? There are more than a few WPA murals and murals in the style of the WPA of men with shovels. But this one is so dead on exact that it makes me wonder.
Can one break a contract over this? I know you haven't seen the contract, but would this sort of falsehood be grounds for dismissal?
I'd love to hear from people who work in the arts. I don't want an obvious ripoff on the wall. Time is running out, and I can't decide what to do. Help.
If you have specific questions or want to see pictures of the actual artwork (the proposed mural and the one online), please let me know at helpmemetafilter@gmail.com.
(Really, nobody's taken that name before now?)
We commissioned a mural in a very specific artistic style. For the sake of argument, let's say in the style of this WPA mural. Instantly recognizable, but very suitable for our building and our non-profit's mission. The artist who won the commission did so by proposing a mural of, oh let's say a man standing in front of a local landmark, carrying a shovel. Great. We were thrilled. It's perfect.
Today, one of the Board members found a picture online that made my heart sink. It is of a man standing in front of a building that kind of looks like our landmark, carrying a shovel. He's standing in the same position and holding the shovel in exactly the same way. His hands are cocked just so, the way his jacket is waving in the wind is exactly the same.
There are differences: his clothes are a different style. He is a young man in our picture, and an old man in the one on the internet. Our mural has the local landmark in the background, the background of the one on the internet has some basic shapes that are very similar to our landmark. The style - the very specific artistic style - is so similar that it could have been done by students of the same teacher.
Some more info:
I don't know where the internet picture came from. I don't know if it is original to the era or if it is a modern interpretation.
It's not really a shovel that the person in our mural/our online doppelganger is holding; but it is a common-ish object that looks exactly the same in both. The way the object is being held by the hands, the tilt, the colors, the shading, everything.
The grant is being administered through a third party. The contract has either just been signed or it is about to be signed. Like, TOMORROW.
If we do not go with these artists, we forfeit the grant. The date for having a contract signed is May 31st, and we do not have the time to re-open the search. We did not even have a second- or third-place choice, we were so enamored with this one.
Question time:
I've contacted the members of the Board, but none of us are artists. I worry that we won't know what is "inspired by" and what is "ripped off".
What should we do?
Is it common for artists to be inspired by a historic work to the point that they're similar enough for an artistic dunce like me to see the similarities? There are more than a few WPA murals and murals in the style of the WPA of men with shovels. But this one is so dead on exact that it makes me wonder.
Can one break a contract over this? I know you haven't seen the contract, but would this sort of falsehood be grounds for dismissal?
I'd love to hear from people who work in the arts. I don't want an obvious ripoff on the wall. Time is running out, and I can't decide what to do. Help.
If you have specific questions or want to see pictures of the actual artwork (the proposed mural and the one online), please let me know at helpmemetafilter@gmail.com.
(Really, nobody's taken that name before now?)
You say you don't know where the Internet picture came from. tineye.com will let you upload that image and search for where else on the Internet it appears.
I just found that Google recently implemented a similar feature: http://images.google.com/imghp?hl=en
posted by Sleeper at 10:01 AM on May 3, 2013 [4 favorites]
I just found that Google recently implemented a similar feature: http://images.google.com/imghp?hl=en
posted by Sleeper at 10:01 AM on May 3, 2013 [4 favorites]
Well, you might want to start by going to the artist and saying something like. "Joe Artist, here's a question for you. One of my board members found a very similar image online and asked if there is any connection. I told him I would check with you. What do you think?"
And see what he says. This may drive the direction you go with this.
posted by HuronBob at 10:09 AM on May 3, 2013 [7 favorites]
And see what he says. This may drive the direction you go with this.
posted by HuronBob at 10:09 AM on May 3, 2013 [7 favorites]
I worked with a muralist a few years ago who is amazing, but he tends to pull from existing images without ever obtaining permission... he still considers his art completely original.
While he could, technically, be sued for many of his works and be held liable, I quickly found it was on us to use due dilligence in gaining any permissions, and asking him for source material.
In other words, your instincts are probably right, but don't leave it to the artist to follow copyright law... his definition of original may be different than your own.
posted by Unsomnambulist at 10:23 AM on May 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
While he could, technically, be sued for many of his works and be held liable, I quickly found it was on us to use due dilligence in gaining any permissions, and asking him for source material.
In other words, your instincts are probably right, but don't leave it to the artist to follow copyright law... his definition of original may be different than your own.
posted by Unsomnambulist at 10:23 AM on May 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
Was it indeed a WPA mural that was copied? That may be in the public domain (or it may not). If it is indeed WPA, you could check with the GSA Regional Historic Preservation Office about its copyright status.
posted by Wordwoman at 10:29 AM on May 3, 2013
posted by Wordwoman at 10:29 AM on May 3, 2013
Having seen the inspiration work and the proposal, there is no doubt in my mind that the proposal is taken from the inspiration. It is not just in the WPA style; it is the particular comportment of the man and the way that he is holding the shovel. When I do a Google Images search on terms that would describe the proposed mural, the inspiration work comes up, and it is the only work that comes up that is very similar to the proposal.
The original is in the public domain, so it is not a copyright issue but a public perception issue. I would suggest asking the muralist to change the man's comportment and other too-similar details so that they do not so strongly resemble the original. It's not like the Hope poster where Shepard Fairey arguably needed to work from a photograph because his poster had to accurately and recognizably depict a real person. The subject of this work is an abstraction so there is no reason for the mural to crib from a previous work, IMO only.
posted by payoto at 10:51 AM on May 3, 2013 [1 favorite]
The original is in the public domain, so it is not a copyright issue but a public perception issue. I would suggest asking the muralist to change the man's comportment and other too-similar details so that they do not so strongly resemble the original. It's not like the Hope poster where Shepard Fairey arguably needed to work from a photograph because his poster had to accurately and recognizably depict a real person. The subject of this work is an abstraction so there is no reason for the mural to crib from a previous work, IMO only.
posted by payoto at 10:51 AM on May 3, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would suggest asking the muralist to change the man's comportment and other too-similar details so that they do not so strongly resemble the original.
I think this is your best bet. If you've hired a competent artist, this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:03 AM on May 3, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think this is your best bet. If you've hired a competent artist, this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:03 AM on May 3, 2013 [1 favorite]
The original is in the public domain
Then, OP, you do not have a legal issue or an ethical issue with your artist. What you have is an artistic issue with your artist, and the way you deal with this is to say "Hey, we love your proposal but now that our Board has seen the original Blah Blah mural, we need to make sure the one you render for us is a distinctive homage. Can we discuss changing the similar details?"
posted by DarlingBri at 12:48 PM on May 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
Then, OP, you do not have a legal issue or an ethical issue with your artist. What you have is an artistic issue with your artist, and the way you deal with this is to say "Hey, we love your proposal but now that our Board has seen the original Blah Blah mural, we need to make sure the one you render for us is a distinctive homage. Can we discuss changing the similar details?"
posted by DarlingBri at 12:48 PM on May 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
There is a long, long tradition within painting for paraphrase and copying as a point of departure. This is a wonderful example
If you want something that is figurative and in a style from 80 years ago, you are asking for it - it would be difficult for any painter to work as if this had never been done before. The good news is, if it is a mural, it will be original no matter what. The era in which it is made shows in every piece of art, good or bad, even when the painter is deliberately copying.
Paintings aren't products in the same sense as iPhones are, and copyrights shouldn't apply in the same way. (Though I realize some judges think they should).
posted by mumimor at 3:01 PM on May 3, 2013
If you want something that is figurative and in a style from 80 years ago, you are asking for it - it would be difficult for any painter to work as if this had never been done before. The good news is, if it is a mural, it will be original no matter what. The era in which it is made shows in every piece of art, good or bad, even when the painter is deliberately copying.
Paintings aren't products in the same sense as iPhones are, and copyrights shouldn't apply in the same way. (Though I realize some judges think they should).
posted by mumimor at 3:01 PM on May 3, 2013
If I commission an artist to paint a mural and they copy a public domain photograph, that's fine. If I commission an artist to paint an original mural and they copy a public domain photograph, that is a lot less fine. I would not trust an artist who was claiming to be producing an original work that was in reality a transformative work of public domain art, and I believe that the courts would be very clear about the distinction.
posted by Jairus at 5:24 PM on May 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Jairus at 5:24 PM on May 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
« Older Hiking in Westchester/Rockland County NY w/ stumpy... | Where to get tape of Nixon aides plotting murder? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Artists are inspired by a lot of things. There's no clear answer here regarding copyright if that's what you're concerned about, but I really do think this is perfectly fine and ethical. It sounds sufficiently transformative to me.
posted by inturnaround at 9:51 AM on May 3, 2013 [1 favorite]