huh. i didn't know it was legal, now. maybe it was all along. i dunno. but, it sure isn't a good defense in court. go ask negativeland.
also, if you notice - that is a drawing of uncle mick. not a photo. in fact, it's a rather well done portrait of our favorite peter pan. so, in a rather unimaginative way, the artist HAS "made it his own". he's just not a very IMAGINATIVE artist. we often call unimaginative art, "bad" art.
there is plenty of room here on good ol' gp for BAD artsists, ya know?
Yeah, if certain few had their way there'd be no such thing as fair use. "Fair use" IS a specific legal term though (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html), but just as the govt admits on that page "The distinction between 'fair use' and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined." But I refer to fair use here not as a matter of legal infringement but just as a matter of our own creative goals as poster artists are concerned. In this case I believe Joe has done nothing to advance the image or idea of Mick Jagger. He's slapped him on a poster without recontextualizing him in some way. Sorry, is "recontextualizing" is even a word? Screw it. All I'm saying is, make it yours.
be careful about that term "fair use". it's NOT a legal term. it's NOT legal doctrine. it's a concept that many many people would love to see made into the law. but, currently, it's an idealistic fancy that has no legal history to back it up. it's going to take many years of legal battles to establish it. and we (the folks who'd like to see it become law) don't have the deep pockets to fight the guys who would rather see it NOT be the law (aka - corporate interests.)
I kind of think you all are missing the point here. I think it's about the basic idea of fair use and the concept of using an existing image while ADVANCING that image. This poster doesn't advance this image of Jagger at all. It's just Jagger. A lizard body, a white trickle down his mouth, syringes shooting out of his eyes, anything that might have made a statement or a story or "advanced" the image of Mick beyond just a picture of him would be more appropriate, and maybe interesting. This poster does no kind of advancement and I think that's the problem.
Well, Art Chantry and Ron Liberti commented on my poster, so I'm happy. As for the rest of you, I guess this was more of a spur of the moment decision, and a stylistic one too. I think the typography maybe harkens back to the late 60's early 70's period of psychedelic screen printed posters, which doesn't necessarily relate to the music being advertised. But so what? Mick Jagger is a cultural icon. Therefore, it's almost like the whole Mao thing. Thanks for all the discussion though. Maybe you'll check out more of my work.... that's all I can ask.
I see, no worries.
The way i see it, is people should do what they want on the poster as long as it's not a complete rip. To each their own. This guy must have his own reasons for using that on this poster, but it's not up to the artist to explain his work if he doesn't feel it's necessary.
My 2 pence.
Y'know, my original question (and it WAS a question, not a slam) was simply: "Why did you do this?"
You're quite welcome to label me a shitty designer who can't print to save his life. BUT - I at least try to come up with ideas first and then execute them, not the other way around.
I guess "other people do it" or "it just looked cool" is an okay reason to put ink to paper. But compare this to ANYTHING by Munn - who displays such efficiency with ideas and execution - and it just seems random.
"wait a second.. so.. it's ok to demand an explanation from Paul Gardner for his Dan Deacon skullyfuck poster, but this guy's use of Mick now falls under artistic freedom? Do you flip a coin in the morning to decide which side of the fence your going to graze on?. "
I don't think you'll find where I demanded that Paul Gardner explain his Dan Deacon poster.
GIVE ME ARTISTIC FREEDOM OR GIVE ME METH~!!!!!!!!!!!
well, you see... if everybody adopts this new "artistic freedom" credo, then nobody will ever pick on me again for using old appropriated artwork. you see, i'm a sneaky bastard with manipulative agendas intact. what i REALLY want to accomplish with this bold new plan is world domination...
today gigposters, tomorrow the WORLD!!
artistic freedom NOW!!!
wait a second.. so.. it's ok to demand an explanation from Paul Gardner for his Dan Deacon skullyfuck poster, but this guy's use of Mick now falls under artistic freedom? Do you flip a coin in the morning to decide which side of the fence your going to graze on?.
I agree, yes, artistic freedom! hooray! But doing something that undermines the bands image or intent (i.e. joy division on an interpol poster) is egotistical. that was my point.
I guess i don't understand the why/why-not of using Mick. Like, why the designer thought "hey you know what graphic would go good here? mick jagger smiling." not that its a bad thing, just a mysterious choice.
artistic freedom is where it's at. i think anything at all should be allowed, no matter what anybody thinks.
this "artist" should have the right to use a photo of anybody they want. i fully support their position. and if they get sued, they will be martyrs to the cause.
i also demand the artistic right to take out anybody who uses my face without my permission.
the bottom line is anything is ok if you don't get caught. this is america. it's what made us great. we are a nation of hustlers and thieves. however, you also have to be willing to pay the piper when he comes calling. it's the only integrity you have.
under these terms, murder is ok. but if you get caught, then you have to pay. "extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice". the original conservative republican barry goldwater said that.
No, it always matters. I didn't mean to imply I would or anybody should do it. I was just making a smart ass remark about how much I think Interpol sucks. Mostly because they sound just like Joy Division. I guess it came across like I was endorsing the idea. Which I don't. Much like I don't think this makes sense. WTF does Mick Jagger have to do with anything going on here?
but isn't that what we all hate... the notion of designers projecting their own bias into the design.. all those shitty HOF posters that are designer-y and not appropriate fall into the dame category of non objectivity, douchebuggery..
it would make sense to put Joy Division on an interpol poster if you wanted to make an obvious designer critique, and make a poster that didn't suit the band, and be a condecending fuckface... then it makes sense
oddly, I sort of agree with rickg. I've never understood putting other iconic rock personalities on gig posters. nor do I get why there are 1000 variations on the Kiss make-up theme... I'd kind of like to know the rationale too...
other than, perhaps, the old "who fucking cares what's on it, it's just a poster for a small show" rationale
Why are you referencing music history on a music-related poster? What I mean is: If I put Joy Division on an Interpol poster, wouldn't that be just a LITTLE weird? Or even more accurately, what if I stuck a picture of Devo on an AFI poster? What would that mean? Don't get pissy - just explain your thinking!
Maybe it's: "If you like this, you'll LOVE Butterflies!" The implied relationship. Or maybe (maybe!) the designer is too young to know who that is and just thought a smiling guy on a poster is a good idea?