My image (at top), someone else’s art: The Mysterious Allure of Rural America, by Deborah Faye Lawrence.
Lately some of my photographs have been showing up in unlikely places on the internet, and in works by others. Life.com made a business decision to put the entire picture collection online and this has led to misuse and theft along with legitimate licensed uses of the photographs.
A case in point is a famous photograph that I took of the Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race in 1971 (see below). I shot the photograph from a helicopter at the start of this legendary race. It’s been appropriated by artist Deborah Faye Lawrence in her work titled, “The Mysterious Allure of Rural America,” 2008. My photograph is more than one-third of her work which she describes as “acrylic, collage, varnish on board.” She is working in the style of Richard Prince who famously appropriated the work of photographers who shot the Marlboro cigarette advertisements. Both Prince and Lawrence copied the works as their own, without attribution.
My photograph: Barstow to Vegas Motorcycle Race, 1971.
Lawrence’s appropriation of my work is a meaningless rip-off. It’s a naive juxtaposition between cliched images in her work, and what she wants the viewer to believe about rural life and it’s dark side. I don’t see a definitive statement, nor do I see where my photograph relates to any other image in her artwork except to enhance the bottom two-thirds of her work. Remove my photograph and the composition has no impact. The artist used my work to make her collaged work look better.
The Barstow to Vegas photograph was shot in 1971, in the Nevada desert, in the 20th century. I risked my life many times to make photographs — in this case I was standing on the skid outside a helicopter at 500 feet. Seeing my work stolen in this manner just flat-out offends me because the artist used something that she didn’t earn or create for her own benefit.
According to her website, Hayes is widely known as a collagist, and claims to be working in the same spirit and style as Romare Beardon and Max Ernst. She says, “I have been using found imagery and text in my artwork for a long time.” On close examination of both Beardon and Ernst’s works, they did not appropriate other works in this manner, and their work was far more original. And, in all likelihood, she ‘found’ my work on the internet.
[...] What does former LIFE photographer Bill Eppridge think of having one of his well-known pictures turn up in a fine art collage by Deborah Faye Lawrence? Not much. “I risked my life many times to make photographs — in this case I was standing on the skid outside a helicopter at 500 feet. Seeing my work stolen in this manner just flat-out offends me because the artist used something that…“ [...]
I sympathize, it’s a bummer the awesome photo you took got appropriated into such crappy work.
But I’d point out two things that matter, even if they don’t lessen your annoyance:
1) does LIFE own the copyright to “your” photo, or just a license of some kind?
2) you say the accessibility of the photos has led to “misuse and theft along with legitimate licensed uses of the photographs.” But there is another very important category of use you ignore: fair use.
The point of fair use is to protect uses that do not involve licensing–and the associated commerce, and the copyright holder’s consent or control–but that are nonetheless legitimate.
Greg,
Life owns the copyright of this photograph, and it would be their call if they want to pursue infringement. As for fair use, I do not think this artist’s appropriation qualifies under that category.
Cheerz,
Bill E
Really guy? Get over you claims at authorship as they are bullshit. Did you ask all of the people in the photo for their permission. Do you not realize that we live in a read-rewrite culture? Take it as a complement and remember you own nothing and we are all just borrowers of culture.
[...] recommend reading this succinct critique of appropriation by former Life photographer Bill Eppridge (via). I don’t see a definitive [...]
this is a fascinating debate… what interests me about it has less to do with the legal issues and more the intellectual ones. when is the taking of someone’s image an interesting act of artistic practice? and when is it just intellectually lazy? i tend to think of richard prince in the latter category. (ok, dude. we get it. so conceptual. you ripped off the marlboro man. next.) and when does the artists addition turn it into something totally new — kinda like Run DMC remixing Aerosmith (or as eppridge more astutely points out: Romare Beardon and others). in this case, it kinda seems as if faye took eppridge’s foto hook line and sinker…
as for whether the photographer owns the rights to his work i think is kind of irrelevant. if i was the marlboro photographer and saw prince’s retrospective at the Gugg, i woulda felt pretty used.
Wow, that Shane Wilson sure sounds like a tool. Everything is up for appropriation because it’s all on the internet? And then you’re supposed to feel complimented when people steals your art and calls it their own?
I disagree wholeheartedly – regardless of whether you risked your life to make your art or created it in your studio, it belongs to you. Perhaps, like in the case of music sampling, if Lawrence had utilized a small portion of your work and fully integrated it with other collage pieces instead of wholesale filling 1/3 of her piece with your image, well maybe that would count as a new piece of art. As it is, I think it’s just lazy.
[...] to be made. Now stand in line, go with the flow and do it in 140 Characters or less. I read on Bill Eppridge blog about one of his photos being “appropriated” into the work of another [...]
Of course, if this new work is as valueless as you say (and I’m choosing not to make a judgment here), then it will neither stand the test of time nor degrade the value of your original work. When Duchamp painted a mustache on La Joconde, it was [eventually] viewed as a legitimate expression by the artist, and also did not degrade the original painting. So, yeah, it’s probably a bit annoying to see your hard work appropriated, but I would counsel a more politic discussion of the issue rather than an emotion-driven rant.
Isaac B2,
I did not say the artist’s work was ‘valueless’ – those are your words. I said her “appropriation of my work is a meaningless rip-off,” and I stand by what I said.
If however, Marcel Duchamp had painted a mustache on any or all of the motorcyclists in my photograph I would have been honored as I was when I was asked to photograph Mr. Duchamp many years ago – he obliged me by appropriating his own painting, and descended a staircase for my lens.
Cheerz,
Bill Eppridge