Comments on: Ryan McGinley Lawsuit

By: Kevin Charles

Kevin Charles — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:29:29 +0000

I think we’re dealing with very subjective terms and there will certainly be two different courts opinions: the law and the public. I don’t know the law so I can’t comment on the legality of the proceedings but as someone that’s worked in both academia and photography, referencing is important as every work of art is part of an endless continuum. Like you said Skye, how can we not be influenced by what we’ve seen?But there still remains a fine line between what we say is referencing and stealing.

When one looks at an original work, we might say the depth of its character or statement is diverse as it comes from a myriad of references blended together. If I were to write an academic research paper, one that isn’t a critique of another, and all I do is reference that one other paper, it wouldn’t be original, but it also wouldn’t be theft. My work would just be declared unoriginal and irrelevant to the discussion.

But we don’t have an appropriate way to reference other artists apart from our public acknowledgement of their influence apart from the image. And because there is that level of professional ambiguity, that leaves us with no choice but to settle a dispute in the courts, but only when money is involved as art is also more and more to be considered a commercial good in this age of marketing. Artists don’t belong to any professional organization with established conduct–and we never will.

Obviously there is no clear answer, but I see this entire situation unfolding as a consequence of our increasing reliance on our legal system to settle personal disputes and the notion that art is more of a commercial good than ever before.

By: lisa oropallo

lisa oropallo — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:35:00 +0000

From what I understand, judges look at the similarities of the images not the differences. While they share the same idea, the execution appears to be different, and an idea is not copyrightable. The executions are completely different. I can’t imagine that she would win this argument. I’d be interested to see how this all plays out… I can imagine this would send tremendous shock waves throughout advertising.

By: JD

JD — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:55:36 +0000

Something about the outstretched arms in both photos remind me of the iconic image of the naked girl in Vietnam napalm photo. Could Gordon be referencing that image with her mosh-pit photo? Should Christopher Wain be notified?

By: Jillian

Jillian — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:51:31 +0000

I would have to hear a bit more about her arguments and I would really like to see more comparisons. I do, however, have to agree that if you were to sit most of their work side-by-side I would not confuse them for the same photographer. The other thing I would like, is to know exactly how many other photographers have used similar poses or monochromatic colour schemes in their work, surly Miss Gordan is not the first nor the last (nor is Ryan McGinley).

It seems more like a calculated attempt for publicity and financial gain.

By: rubi

rubi — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:59:11 +0000

reminds me of the video series “everything is a remix”?

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

By: gregorylent

gregorylent — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:32:42 +0000

childish attention-seeking is my take on ms. gordon .. had never heard of her before the lawsuit story

and by the way, i shot subjects against an open sky decades ago, probably should consider a lawsuit against gordon

By: Gordon Clarke

Gordon Clarke — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:13:45 +0000

I have been following this debacle. These claims are completely without merit. These photos have no likeness at all! Ms. Gordon is putting a “Black Eye” on our industry and
I don’t appreciate her extraordinary effort to set all of
us back to the dark ages of art. We are trying to be respected and make a living in this field and she is attempting to make a joke out of our industry! I am pretty disgusted by her in every possible way! Thanks Janine for
nothing!

By: Chantel Tattoli

Chantel Tattoli — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:14:40 +0000

The ecstasy of influence: A plagiarism — By Jonathan Lethem for Harper’s.

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387

By: Kerry Pieri

Kerry Pieri — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:59:50 +0000

I would like to see more examples side by side, but by what’s here, this lawsuit seems fairly bogus and perhaps Jah Jah is just displeased with the success McGinley has enjoyed so young.

By: Nguan

Nguan — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:24:30 +0000

Seems utterly without merit. I wouldn’t look at any of the paired images and think they were by the same photographer. Most of the individual ideas that McGinley allegedly ripped off can be found in historical painting anyway, so for me Gordon would have to prove that McGinley stole a unique combination of ideas within a single photograph.