Art Copy-Cat? #artcontroversy #copycat #artworld #artnews #artreview
Matteo Fiorelli is an alumnus of the Accademia di Belle Arti di Firenze in Italy, where he earned his degree in Painting and Visual Arts. His vibrant, abstract works draw inspiration from the Renaissance and modern street art, merging classical techniques with urban influences. Matteo has exhibited his paintings in galleries throughout Italy and France.
The Pollock comparison would be fair if the pieces weren’t so niche. Paint on a canvas is a lot less out of the box than bullet holes in multiple panels of metal that form one piece. This will for sure be interesting to see unfold 🤔
first! <3 also, these are so similar! the original (and better) artist better win the case!
I hope I don’t get in a lawsuit for the bullet holes in my 55” television
As an artist, cmon man, he knew what he was doing n he knows he can get away with it
why do we care abt expensive bullet dented metal again?
Ok, so? There's no patent on metal with bullet holes (and even if there was, it would have to be extremely specific, down to the exact distance between holes, material used, panel and hole size etc.)
He got inspired, so what? It's not plagiarism. It's not illegal.
What? No one can sell shot metal now? Pfffff
I think that he copied the other guy like theyre the exact same thing
Definitely interesting points from both sides. However, in my opinion, the original artist Anthony James obviously made quite the “impression” on Maurizio Cattelan 🤔
Anyone can put bullets through metal and call it art. I’m sure they wont go around suing everyone for doing something so simple. Art is art.
Er they have a list of bulletpoint to discuss😂😂
itsagoodthingtherearecaptions
Yeah but bullet holes are so niche though. But if thats the case like the defense said, copyrights and such would be useless. Which would probably be great.
He’s in the right for suing, that’s extremely specific artwork and a total ripoff
It sucks as an artist when someone copies your work. Especially when they spend more money to make it just like yours and then charge more.
This post is interesting as are all the comments but to really discuss the matter legally, they would have to distinguish between the method of creation, the materials, the results. The original artist may be known for the style or method but that doesnt mean they have a copyright. Theres millions of resin or acrylic pour artists but just cause they use the same medijm doesnt mean they succeed in the same level. And even if two succeed in creating appealing works that sell for high dollar. You're not buying a service, you're buying a product that one person owns. You might argue intellectual property rights, but that has to be unique enough that it can't simply be common knowledge; this method is not complex.
Reminds me of the legal suit over the artist that printed other peoples instagram photos on to canvas and sold them in a big show for tens of thousands of dollars. Pictures had the original posters names and then the text they wrote with the post, a direct screenshot from IG. That person won their suit too cause the content was publicly avaliable, not copyrighted, and a unique product that he produced (ie canvas from screenshot).
I agree he might've ripped it or not. I disagree that he shouldn't be allowed to
I know a guy who’s been shooting stop signs for 20 years. He should sue both…
Man I had no idea it would be so easy to copy something as brilliant as shooting a hunk of metal.
The jury of peers is us; lawsuits are civil, not criminal and therefore do not have juries, only a judge. So, if it's for us, his peers in art, to decide? He's guilty, and gross for it. It's basically copyright infringement but using icky art-world loopholes. Money laundering AND plagiarism? Disgusting.
It doesn't matter. If your shtick is that you shoot bullets through a plate and that's enough for you to claim a copyright than you're a lame ass artist.
I wish i could sue people that copied my paintings years ago.