Fineman, Mia. "The Image Is Familiar; the Pitch Isn't." 13 July 2008. The New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/design/13fine.html?scp=13&sq=art%20appropriation%20copyright&st=cse>.

What happens when advertisers appropriate artists' images? So often, we read of artists manipulating corporate giants' advertisements to make a statement about society's mass consumerism. Warhol or Koons may ring a bell. This article describes the opposite event. In February 2007, artist Christian Marclay was shocked to see his video installation used in an Apple iPhone commercial. Although perturbed at Apple for using his work, especially after he denied his permission a year earlier, he did want to appear hypocritical. After all, Marclay's works borrows images from Hollywood without copyright permission. Throughout the article, many other similar examples are cited like John Galliano copying William Klein photographs in ads and Vaseline copying Spencer Tunick's naked series in a 60-second spot.

This article describes the recent phenomenon of corporations capitalizing on high profile contemporary artists through advertising. A New York art lawyer describes these events as verging on obvious "rip-offs" without any sort of recognition. There is a fine line between inspiration and stealing. One must question if the corporations copy the thought or the execution. It seems that artists have realized appropriation can be a double edge sword for them. The Marclay event is significant in that it holds a mirror up to artists that utilize appropriation. It shows how when properly formulated a successful technique can be used both against and for contemporary artists. The article ends leaving us question is it really fair for the David to pick on Goliath? The courts would say yes.

There is also another underlying theme to the New York Times article. Much of the piece discusses how artists who turn down offers from big corporations are often dumbfounded when companies go ahead and use their images anyway. For obvious reasons, these artists rarely sue billion dollar companies. The take a way is that artists are pushed into a corner. Should they take the cash or sacrifice their integrity? There is another problem. Many fans think they have sold out to these companies, affecting their brand name. As a result, the author sees artists becoming more defensive and rigid in their tactics to control distribution.

One is left questioning the difference if the situation was reversed. For my research paper, I see a difference: one person is trying to make a thoughtful point the other is trying to sell some iPhones. But what happens as more and more companies are trying to do both?