Roy Lichtenstein's estate decides they don't own the rights to everything he ripped off, after all


14 Responses to “Roy Lichtenstein's estate decides they don't own the rights to everything he ripped off, after all”

  1. webmonkees says:

    Here’s a collection of Lichtenstein’s work depicted beside the original comic frames that were the inspiration. Or template. Art is art.

  2. Sekino says:

    Whoa, common sense actually prevailed for once?

    Gotta mark the calendar!

  3. redesigned says:

    WIN. Hurray for the Inter-tubes!

    Nice to see that BB could help bring enough attention to this to get them to change their position.

  4. Snig says:

    Maybe they should agree to include that requested liner note if all future reproductions of that Lichtenstein state “based on an homage to Elsinore’s cover art”.

  5. Hools Verne says:

    Too bad Frazetta had to die for Lichtenstein’s sins.:(

  6. loonquawl says:

    “We’re not quite sure what they would’ve notified her of[...]”

    - How about the phony copyright infringement that would bring an email from the estate, then an outcry from a 600.000 RSS-abonnements Blog (aka ‘publicity’)? How else did the Lichtenstein estate get to know a CD cover before it went to print?

  7. Church says:

    Wait, what? It’s a cheap out, so good for them, but it’s not a win. It wasn’t a copy of Lichtenstein, it was a copy of what he copied.

    I hope they actually put “The Litch. estate graciously let us copy the same thing that Roy copied, as long as we claimed it was an homage to the dead guy who pays their bills.”

    • Felton says:

      I was thinking something similar, that they should go ahead and put in the liner note, then under it tell the entire story, explaining that they agreed to put in the liner note in the spirit of peace, or some such.

      Anyway, glad the dobermans backed off.

  8. Anonymous says:

    This is great, thanks for following up.

    Has anyone considered whether Lichtenstein would have been able to produce his artwork in today’s copyright crazy climate? Would Warhol have been able to use the Campbell’s Soup logo? The entire Pop Art movement was appropriation and remix, so it’s kind of ironic that Lichtenstein’s estate would be so litigious.

    Can someone tell me if, like the patent system, copyright law was originally created to spur creativity. Because the primary purpose now seems to be increasing the riches of already wealthy heirs and corporations.

    • bersl2 says:

      The purpose of copyright was to protect publishers. In the case of Berne Convention-style copyright, the publisher in question was also the author, but I digress.

    • freshacconci says:

      You would have to google the details as I can’t recall it all right now, but the guy who designed the Brillo Box, who was a abstract expressionist painter in his spare time, stumbled across Warhol’s Brillo Boxes in the early 60s. Pissed off, he tried to sue or at least mulled it over. However the reality of the life of a commercial artist is that he didn’t own the design, Brillo did, and they were pretty happy with the free advertising.

  9. Pantograph says:

    Great. Now somebody clue in Shepard Fairy.

Leave a Reply