"HOT WAX REMIX"

(Related to this post http://hedcuts.blogspot.com/2009/10/jose-maria-cano-is-con-artist-he-uses.html )

"HOT WAX REMIX"
Credit: commentator "Paul said"

I loved that line so much I copied it, converted it to all caps and made it onto a title!

But seriously...

I need to reiterate a few things which may answer majority of your questions:
I will not sue because I can not sue.

My 5 colleagues and I are staff illustrators at the Wall Street Journal. The hedcut drawings we produce are hand drawn, pen and ink, spot illustrations, using a meticulous and laborious technique closely resembling old fashioned engravings. We base our drawings on photographic reference material, to which the Journal purchases usage rights. The paper owns the license and the copyright to all of our illustrations. Any decisions on legal action in this particular case, are solely theirs to make. For any inquires about Journal's affairs, you need to contact the paper directly. I will not comment on that any further.

However, I do want to participate in this conversation and answer more of your questions, so please don't think I'm ignoring the comment section. ( I have to make a living, you know. Dot by dot). I am intrigued by so many of your points, I wish I could be able to pursue this matter legally, although unfortunately, all signs point to what would turn out to be an unsatisfactory outcome for me. Now we are suddenly reduced to having poetic arguments about the ethics and the integrity of artists, but valid points can surely be made in my favor.

In reference to the Warhol argument. He has defined his artistic interpretation that refutes the legal term "substantial similarity". It's also known that Warhol came to terms with several of parties in question over this issue.
I want to bring up the case of Rogers v. Koons which sets precedent of substantial similarity. The element of size and media used bears no weight in the argument of copyright infringement. Koons lost his argument that the sculpture was a parody of Roger's photograph and of no substantial similarity. This decision, ruled in 2005 would prove difficult for many of Lichtenstein's earliest works, providing the copyright would have been executed by the party in question.
The art of appropriation seems to have no bearing if the artist can prove substantial similarity.

I appreciate all your great comments and input.

And to answer "Hayden" who asks: "His technique is amazing .. (I wonder if you've actually seen one of the works in the flesh)"
Hayden, I'd love to see the Obama wax! I'm sure it's impressive, but I'm afraid I'd find myself looking at my own drawing. Just bigger.

UPDATE 3: http://hedcuts.blogspot.com/2009/10/from-boo-hoo-to-brouhaha.html

25 comments:

Dan Jaboor said...

If it makes you feel any better, gifts to the president are not his to keep. They get cataloged and stored and remain property of the government.

Noli said...

That's interesting, Dan J. What a collection that must be!

The villager: said...

Congratulations on blogs of note !

A Good Moroccan said...

Great illustrations.

carlhgarland said...

Interesting

domminic said...

Love the sketches
(especially that of president Obama)

Cheers from The Daily Blog

Drawn to Caricature said...

Fascinating debate! Just discovered you're blog. I'm with you on this one!

Phoenix said...

Hi Noli, I came here through the blog of note link. And well, discovered the appalling plagiarism (oh yes -- it is PLAGIARISM, and really shameful). You've said you cannot sue.. well, I agree with the points you made, but you wouldn't want to let that person go scott free.. can you not use media to highlight that plagiarism?

Gretchen said...

It's shocking how far this Jose guy has taken this and still continues to not credit the true artist here. I really hope you receive retribution on this, as he's so blatently plagiarized your work. I think the whitehouse should publicly thank the *true* artist here. Jose's piece would not exist had you not created the drawing in the first place!

Judit said...

Wow, nice Blog!
If you’re interested in mode and clothes, you should see my Blog.

Kisses!

Antonio Barbosa said...

Hey Noli!
Great illustrations, keep the good job.
AB

psephis said...

Amazing illustrations. Congratulations!

The Mad Clicker said...

If you define the rules for copyright and ownership of intellectual property as slavery then you would have a case. Because when you work hard and someone just takes your stuff and says it's theirs, that's what it reminds me of. But I guess if you work for these guys, you would have had to sign some agreement and some point. (Maybe , you said that in your post). It's unfair. If it's unfair, it is probably illegal. I know that there is some grounds you could sue on, but the trouble would be finding a lawyer who was smart enough or courageous enough to take your case to court.

Swala Nyeti. said...

Your blob has cool stuff especially the portrait about your president.(whose father is from my country).Am proud of his achievements.

Colleen said...

Just saw your blog through Blogs of Note and I'm sorry you had this plagiarism experience. It is so dissatisfying to see someone else take credit for your work. As a fellow blogger, I am often afraid that the words I put out here in cyberspace will be repeated to me someday, unquoted. You're talented. Keep doing what you're doing and trust that Karma will sort this all out.

http://collology.blogspot.com

What's In My Yard? said...

First I would like to say I think you arte very talanted. I have worked for computer consulting companies with similar issue as you have. Any sofware that I developed was their property not mine.

John Woo said...

thanks, nice idea, maybe i could help you somehow?

Crazy People I've Worked With said...

Great blog - congrats on your blog of note-ness!

CreveteL said...

I`m from Romanian , but your site is very nice

Nicole said...

You should find a photo of this Cano guy, make a stipple drawing of him with some sort of writing over it reading "PLAGIARIST," also added to the drawing using stippling.

Or something.

Miss Bliss said...

I haven't followed this issue right from the start, so forgive any repetition. Have you considered potential moral rights claims?

I don't know what the position is in your jurisdiction, but where I live copyright is a licensable form of IP that is separate from "moral rights". Moral rights include the right of attribution and the right of non-derogatory treatment (ie, someone can't use your work and bastardise it in some way that damages your reputation). These rights are PERSONAL and can only be violated with the author's/artist's consent regardless of whether the IP in your drawings is owned by your employer.

Might be worth thinking about.

Noli said...

Newest update here

PS. I don't expect any of you to read through hundreds of comments posted in my blog, but please, at least read what I say before you make your statements. Please! I have repeatedly said I draw from photos for which the Journal obtains the rights to. Cano is not basing his painting on my drawing, he's copying it dot by dot.

Noli said...

Miss Bliss, I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to your comment. I was just posting an update and a general reply to the trolls who think they discovered some kind of hypocrisy in what I'm doing.
What you said is very interesting and definitely something to think about! Thanks!

Prachi Jatin said...

Well, It's shocking how far this Jose guy has taken this and still continues to not credit the true artist here. I really hope you receive retribution on this, as he's so blatently plagiarized your work. I think the whitehouse should publicly thank the *true* artist here. Jose's piece would not exist had you not created the drawing in the first place!

Matt said...

As neither an artist nor a lawyer, I was unfamiliar with the Rogers v. Koons case. For anyone else wondering about it, I'll save you the trouble of looking up the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons