Comments on: Art inspired by Stevie Nicks

Art inspired by Stevie Nicks

whatnot — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:04:30 -0800

Stand back! Johanna can throw a little something together for the Stevie Nicks fan on your list. Ooh baby Ooh said Ooh. Don't forget to dress up your desktop on the way out. via the lovely and talented Davezilla.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:22:00 -0800

What the hell is wrong with you?

By: dirt

dirt — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:27:48 -0800

I'm not exactly sure why, but this scares me very, very much.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:29:59 -0800

Disturbing even.

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:30:32 -0800

Genius! I'm cranking up Tusk right now. God bless us every one.

By: lychee

lychee — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:43:30 -0800

Seriously, isn't using someone's likeness for profit without permission, illegal? I looked around a bit and couldn't find any legal disclaimers on the site. Also, I was first introduced to Stevie Nicks via SNL's skit, "Stevie Nicks' Fajita Roundup." I really haven't been able to hear any of her music without picturing Lucy Lawless shaking a tambourine and taking a big bite out of a taco.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:47:05 -0800

White Magic Woman. Feh.

By: kittyb

kittyb — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:57:04 -0800

Stand back indeed. How creepy on so many levels (one being copyright infringement, surely). Johanna doesn't quite manage to capture any sort of expression of interest or affection in Stevie; she's just sort of there with the fan, like a detached deity. Intimate, yet untouchable. Benevolent, yet ambivalant. All-knowing, yet not all-loving. I find myself frightened, yet unable to look away. Help.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:04:59 -0800

Scroll about 3/4 the way down the "portraits" page and you'll come to "Richard." The best compliment I can pay to Johanna as an artist is that she was kind enough to remove the psychosis clearly emanating from Richard's eyes when she drew his likeness. In the meantime, I think Stevie Nicks would be wise to get a restraining order.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:12:59 -0800

You know, I actually don't think this is copyright infringement. These seem to be original images. And Stevie can't copyright her appearance so that no one has the right to reproduce it. My main thought is anyone who would want such a thing for any other than kitsch value really ought to steer clear of pop culture for awhile.

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:18:20 -0800

Seriously, isn't using someone's likeness for profit without permission, illegal? Does that mean that guy that I paid $10 for a Polaroid of myself and a cardboard cut-out of Nancy Reagan wasn't on the up-and-up? That bastard lied to me. Seriously. This is really quite creepy. I bet Stevie is hiring extra security as we speak.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:22:50 -0800

Ahem... I will be delighted to draw you or your loved one with Stevie or with any other celebrity. I will also be pleased to depict other subjects such as relatives or pets (living or deceased), historical, spiritual or fantasy subjects. I would like Stevie and Jesus riding a Unicorn in Gettysburg over the body of my dead hamster, Boba Fett.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:23:06 -0800

"just like a deranged fan, drawing Stevie while she's chanting...."

By: whatnot

whatnot — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:32:41 -0800

Joanna draws Stevie's head in the night, who will be her lover?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:14:44 -0800

This is great. The best part is that even though it's art rather than photos, Stevie almost invariably looks bored and distracted to be sharing the frame with these, um, fans. On a lighter note, it's interesting to see that Eminem is a customer.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:23:49 -0800

This is not a copyright issue. Celebrity likeness protection is rooted in the legal concept of "privacy and publicity". Recent decisions have favored artists creating original works, even for sale, using celebrity likenesses. But state laws continue to be enacted protecting celebrities from having their images expropriated for commercial purposes, so this is not wholly uniform across the nation. There is also limited trademark protection available for celebrity images. The consensus point of view now seems to be: Art that uses a celebrity image is only protected if the image was "so transformed that it has become primarily the defendant's [the artist's] own expression rather than the celebrity's likeness".

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:33:30 -0800

The radio is playing "Edge of Seventeen." In my head, I'm picturing a chipmunk in a paint shaker...

By: vraxoin

vraxoin — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:37:28 -0800

Speaking as someone who once was an editor for a fantasy fiction website, and who received many, many unsolicited art submissions, I have to say that for a new age freak she's not so bad.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:00:17 -0800

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I *heart* ColdChef.

By: anathema

anathema — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:25:19 -0800

Dhartung is generally correct about this. State law varies widely on the right of publicity. The right to privacy is generally for the little guy, the right to be let alone. It is not an economic right. The right to publicity is specifically an economic right used by those who already exploit their name and likeness in a commercial setting. Here are some cases around the periphery: , Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc. and Comedy III Prods. v. Saderup and a case brought by Dustin Hoffman, which was dismissed. Judge Alex Kozinsky's dissents in White v. Samsung and Wendt are particularly good reading. In the 9th Circuit, under Comedy III, the use must be transformative. Although I would surely say the linked Stevie drawings are "transformative" in their own special way, a court would probably disagree. Courts are at odds regarding when and how to consider 1st Amend. defenses to a right of publicity cause of action. (see Cardtoons). Kozinsky generally believes that the ever expanding right of publicity (right of publicity for a race horse) dip way too far into 1st Amend. territory. Regardless. Great link whatnot. Completely-sick-laugh-riot!

By: readymade

readymade — Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:15:41 -0800

ouch. I can't imagine devoting any creative talent I had to one subject, but then maybe she's obsessive compulsive. That's a soothing thought.