Patterico's Pontifications

9/5/2014

In The Name Of “Art”!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:27 am

[guest post by Dana]

In a stunning bit of hypocrisy, a Florida art gallery will debut a show called “No Delete”. The exhibit will include the leaked photos of Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence. The rationalization being offered is that the show will provide a platform to continue the debate on privacy rights in a digital age. Uh-huh.

The controversial pictures will be displayed unaltered on life-sized canvas prints as part of artist XVALA’s “Fear Google” campaign. The show features images from the past seven years of celebrities caught “in their most vulnerable and private moments, that were comprised by either hackers or the paparazzi,” according to the Cory Allen Contemporary Art gallery’s website.

Other images will include Britney Spears with a shaved head and hacked naked pictures of Scarlett Johansson.

And without an ounce of shame, viewers leering at the beautiful naked women will be righteously indignant while they huff and puff about the loss of privacy Americans now face.

–Dana

33 Responses to “In The Name Of “Art”!”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  2. The solution, of course, is to clone this “artist’s” exhibit and republish it vigorously without any credit to him. Totally steal his thunder. He can’t squawk about copyright violations since they’re not his original works.

    nk (dbc370)

  3. I’m not saying I’ll visit the republish site and I’m not saying I won’t. ;) Kate Upton. Hmm.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. Kate Upton has single … erm, handely … changed the power structure of the American League Central. Kansas City should build her a statue.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  5. handedly?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  6. Oh, if it’s in the name of “art”, by all means, let’s disregard people’s privacy.

    KPBrown (6872c9)

  7. What this story needs are some visuals.

    Not for prurient interests either. It seems like the picture of Jenifer Lawrence was taken in a sort of ambush. Like the photographer crept up on her unawares.
    That seems like it would be a crime of some sort.
    Like putting mirrors on one’s shoe.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  8. Notice that a big target of the pornorazzi (if that’s a word), the Olsen Twins, who singular or in plural represent the biggest of “gets” for the ambush photo, are going on 30. Still no nude photos, or even the inadvertent wardrobe malfunction, that I am aware of.

    Does this point to some special property of character on the part of Mary Kate and Ashley, or does it highlight a flaw on the part of Lawrence, Kate Upton, etal?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  9. papertiger,

    Skipping over your #8, I think you ask an interesting question re the Olsen twins. The Olsen twins have carried themselves in a understated way, not seeking the limelight, and no scandals. Upton, Lawrence, etc., made decisions in their private lives that came with a serious built-in risk factor and I don’t think it’s necessarily about character flaws, either. And there is the possibility that the Olsen twins photos just haven’t been hacked – yet.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  10. lemme go look for them, Dana… 8-)

    BTW, how do we contact you if we get a hot tip like that, or one like i just poasted on the Halbig case? do you get stuff sent to the “patterico tips” gmail addy?

    add AT drunkenbastards.org to my nick if you wish to reply privately.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  11. My cynicism tells me that the Olsen twins’ manager simply told the Olsen twins publicist he didn’t want any nude photos of them floating around. Yet.

    I’d like to know what thinking motivated Kate Middleton to walk out unto a helicopter pad in a summer dress without underwear. Or to go out in public without underwear. And I don’t think the paparazzi made her do it.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Hmmm. . .

    For all the lawyers here, if these really are “hacked” photos and the property properly belongs to the young ladies, can the gallery actually profit from displaying them (e.g., by charging an admission fee), or was this just a silly publicity stunt in order to get their name in the news?

    Canvas wall hangings are great but I hope they publish a commemorative book.

    JVW (638245)

  13. The photos’ copyright belongs to the photographer unless he 1) signed it over or 2) he put the pictures in the public domain. The gallery is very likely violating the copyright laws and whatever laws there are that protect a property interest in having a pretty face a/k/a right to publicity; and could get sued and even criminally prosecuted but court is tough to do.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. However, if the photos were selfies, then the copyright belongs to the actresses, yes? And without getting graphic, if that could be established, doesn’t that put the gallery owners/artist in an even tighter spot regarding defending themselves against copyright law violations?

    I imagine the actresses’ lawyers will be working overtime.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  15. I don’t think the gallery has a legal leg to stand on against a lawsuit from anybody. My daughter could sue it for infliction of severe emotional distress. She’s a Hunger Games fan.
    My blood runs cold
    My memory has just been soiled
    Katniss is a centerfold.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. I thought one person who was truly victimized by this kind of prurience was Justin Bieber when the Florida police made public semi-nude pictures they took of him in the lockup. That was wrong on every legal and ethical level in my opinion, and a crime against ordinary decency.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. @Dana (4dbf62) — 9/5/2014 @ 4:59 pm

    Did you order the beer, or the whisky? Because I’m confused.

    Moving back to #7, Katniss has her hands full putting on an undergarment. She didn’t take the picture. Some mysterious second party was involved, which doesn’t rule out author, publisher, thief, all in one package.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  18. OT but artsy fartsy sciency:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/r-new-map-shows-milky-way-lives-in-laniakea-galaxy-complex-2014-9

    The Great Attractor has been known for about a quarter century, and this most of what Cosmology has to show for that elapse.

    Here’s the remainder:

    http://www.space.com/24350-universe-inflation-gravity-waves-planck-mission.html

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  19. These chicks are worth a look, one can eat no fat t’other no lean.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  20. 20. Not worth, I mean.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  21. Tap the artist’s phone and put the results on YouTube.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  22. could get sued and even criminally prosecuted but court is tough to do.

    Were I one of these very rich young women, I’d call up two or three of my lawyers and tell them to sue for whatever they can think of, and include the building’s owners and anyone who attends (stand outside with a camera and a sign stating the intention to sue attendees).

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  23. (stand outside with a camera and a sign stating the intention to sue attendees).

    They do that. I defended the showing of a bootleg tape of a boxing championship. They did not sue the attendees, but they asked a $100.00 for each from the owner of the premises.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. Ed Snowden did it.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  25. Were I one of these very rich young women, I’d call up two or three of my lawyers and tell them to sue for whatever they can think of, and include the building’s owners and anyone who attends (stand outside with a camera and a sign stating the intention to sue attendees).

    Kevin M (b357ee)

    In this case, there would be a justice in that. This is an evil thing to do, and it’s one of many occasions where I’ve noticed that being a pervert and an a-hole seem to go hand in hand.

    Unfortunately, suing them is likely to greatly increase the media profile of the art gallery and those putting this exhibit together. It would also further expose the photos, not that this is really an issue at this point. I think to the art gallery, a lawsuit might play into their hands, and for what? For a low chance of a settlement or a lower one of judgment in a year, from judgment proof degenerates.

    What we really need is for the culture to change.

    Dustin (f293a7)

  26. @ papertiger,

    Did you order the beer, or the whisky? Because I’m confused.

    Um, neither, but perhaps I didn’t express my comment clearly. nk had mentioned that the photographer holds the copyright:

    The photos’ copyright belongs to the photographer unless he 1) signed it over or 2) he put the pictures in the public domain. The gallery is very likely violating the copyright laws and whatever laws there are that protect a property interest in having a pretty face a/k/a right to publicity; and could get sued and even criminally prosecuted but court is tough to do.

    As such, if it could be established that the photos were self-taken (I haven’t seen them, so I have no way of knowing whether they were, but know that selfies are trendy now), wouldn’t the actresses themselves own the copyright? And if so, wouldn’t that make prosecution of the gallery owner, “artist” using them for his show, etc. easier than if the copyright was owned by another photographer?

    Dana (4dbf62)

  27. Yeah. I hear what you are saying, but in light of nk’s Latin I’m wondering how damages could be calculated? Unless you are thinking of just levying a fine.
    This being a possible career enhancement, maybe the court should charge her.
    ON my jury appearance I’d be wearing a J. Giles Band t-shirt.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  28. 29. “J. Giles”

    Loved them a couple of times up close.

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  29. I spelt that wrong. It’s J. Geils Band.
    This one aughta do.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  30. It can be correct time for you to generate a very few strategies for the future which is time and energy to feel very special. We’ve read through this distribute and in case I might simply I want to help you very few appealing points or maybe tips. You may can create up coming posts regarding this post. I’m going to know more reasons the idea!

    machinima (58ca0b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1775 secs.