Side by side. Tuymans’ painting and Van Giel’s Photo.
A Belgian court has recently found Luc Tuymans’ painting of a local politician to be in breach of a photographer’s copyright.
The photographer whose photo was copied, Katrijn Van Giel, sued the painter leading to his conviction of plagiarism.
Originally sued for $57,000, Tuyman’s could end up paying over half a million Dollars if caught again.
Ever since the early days of photography, photographers have found inspiration in the works of the great painters that preceded them.
In this case the tables have turned and it was the painter who was inspired by the photographer’s work. Too inspired, in fact, according to Antwerp civil court.
Rejecting Tuymans’ claim that his work is not subject to copyright law as it is a parody, the court considered the painting to be a reproduction of Van Giel’s photo. This decision lead to another ruling stating that Tuymans is to be fined $577,000 should he create additional reproductions of Van Giel’s photos. A similar fine will be imposed should the painter show the original painting, currently owned by Groupon co-founder Eric Lefkofsky.
The portrait of local politician Jean-Marie Dedecker, “A Belgian Politician”, was painted in 2011 – just one year after the original photo was taken by Van Giel.
While the painter admitted that he was inspired by the photo, his attorney stated that:
“Luc Tuymans wanted to create a strong image to deliver a critique of the move to the right wing in Belgian society. His work is therefore more than just a painted version of a photo. The format and color contrasts are different, so that no confusion could be possible.”
As mentioned, however, this line of defense did not convince the court.
Though a less common form of copyright infringement or copying, this is not the first time an “inspired” painting makes headlines.
A couple of memorable examples are Bob Dylan’s copied paintings as well as the paintings of former US President George W. Bush.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Source: NewsComAu
In Bush’s defense, a few of his paintings include obvious changes while others do not resemble the original photos at all.
How About Tuymans’ painting? Do you think it is plagiarism or a legitimate use by a contemporary artist?
If you haven’t already seen it, I recommend you watch this great lecture about photography and the copyright law.
[via Hyperallergic]
An artist local to me used one of my photos last year. He had his version for sale all over the internet. Not just the original but posters, shirts and all sorts of other merchandise. After a strongly worded letter he quickly took them all down :-)
I’m having trouble working out if that’s absurd or reasonable law suit
Well that’s a lousy photo.
Painting sucks too.
Perhaps he thought he was a great artist.
Luc Tuyman is guilty – Bob Dylan is not he did not paint over the photo and it is not a direct copy.
Different jurisdictions have developed distinct criteria regarding various creative realms, from plagiarism to parody to copyright and trademark infringement, etc. For me, if a layperson (non-artist judge or juror) can be directed to notice near-exact replication of features which would ordinarily change with the slightest rearrangement of lighting, head position, expression, hair combing, and so on, it becomes clear that the source was the one in question, and not a coincidence. This painter hung himself by tracing the exact reflection on the bridge of the nose, combed hair clumps, glare precisely located on the forehead, ear shadow, etc. Had he simply used a bit of creative license and say made the eyes look at the viewer, use anatomical knowledge to artificially shift the reflections, even just mechanically tilt the head forward a bit, all might have been good. The subjective defense offered is weak because the work itself is weak, and generates little of the claimed response desired by the painter. We can safely presume most contemporary cartoonist/satirists do not have the opportunity to take original photos to work from, yet they are skilled enough to produce finished work that is very unlikely to be confused with any one original photo source. Artists – don’t be lazy, don’t try to capitalize on another’s creative work.
I mean a lot of artists use photo references it’s good for practice and getting difficult poses right. However, if I’m going to publish my work I always send a message saying something like “I used your photo for reference in a painting of mine, are you okay if I publish it? If not it will just stay within my personal collection.” It feels a little absurd tbh but he definitely should have asked first.