Artist's mural used by Clean Energy foesby Amanda Witherell
Actually, this artist disagrees.
Once art is out in the public domain, it's fair game for all kinds of abuse, but we got the following message today from artist Chris Lux, who's perturbed that his mural served as a backdrop in a recent anti-Clean Energy Act advertisement.
Lux said:
"Recently a No on Prop H ad caught my eye.
"There is a shot of Richard Ventura, CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in Lilac Ally speaking out against Prop H. He is standing in front of a mural that I painted there with another artist, Leslie Kulesh, in what looks like an attempt to show how he is ethnic, or whatever.
"As a big supporter of Prop H, as well as many progressives in San Francisco, I am appalled that my work was used as a backdrop for this sleazy and expensive ad campaign. This is one of the most important propositions that has come to San Francisco in a long time.
"I recently did a mural for the John Avalos Campaign Headquarters in District 11. I feel it is really important for artists to give what little they have to help make changes here in SF. I would hate for someone to see the ad and then go to Johns Avalos' headquarters and see the same work and think there was any relation.
"As the text above reads, "SF Citizens Agree- No on Prop H" -- I just wanted to speak out and say that as the person who painted the mural you are using, as a San Francisco citizen, as an artist, and someone who was born and raised here, Vote YES on Prop H."
Here's the original video, parroting PG&E's tired old lies about Prop H.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
The mural is in a public place. If the artist doesn't want it filmed or photographed, they should paint over it.
Otherwise, cry all you want. Or don't post your art where anyone can see or take pictures of it.
Posted by wtf | October 25, 2008 12:22 PM
wtf doesn't seem to like it when an artist speaks out about the misuse and abuse of his art. That speaks volumes about wtf's respect for democracy and free speech.
Posted by fu | October 27, 2008 02:58 AM
"Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs."
The artist holds the copyright of his/her artwork as long as it is not sold, in which case, the title is transfered to the new owner. Like musicians who object to the use of their songs in political campaigns, visual artists should have that same right. In both cases the work is in the public sphere but is still the property of the artists and musicians and the ultimate use of that property is their decision.
Posted by ava | October 28, 2008 12:16 AM
it was the misrepresention of his artwork which is displayed in a public place but maybe should not be painted over. If this politician his comissioned him before why didn't he stand in front of the work the artist did for him and not in the public setting?
Posted by eleanor y | October 28, 2008 09:30 AM