Join 3,417 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Art inspired by Stevie Nicks
December 16, 2002 11:04 AM   Subscribe

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.
posted by whatnot (20 comments total)

 
What the hell is wrong with you?
posted by Satapher at 11:22 AM on December 16, 2002


I'm not exactly sure why, but this scares me very, very much.
posted by dirt at 11:27 AM on December 16, 2002


Disturbing even.
posted by Satapher at 11:29 AM on December 16, 2002


Genius! I'm cranking up Tusk right now. God bless us every one.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:30 AM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by lychee at 11:43 AM on December 16, 2002


White Magic Woman. Feh.
posted by davidmsc at 11:47 AM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by kittyb at 11:57 AM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:04 PM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by orange swan at 12:12 PM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:18 PM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by ColdChef at 12:22 PM on December 16, 2002


"just like a deranged fan, drawing Stevie while she's chanting...."
posted by amberglow at 12:23 PM on December 16, 2002


Joanna draws Stevie's head in the night,
who will be her lover?
posted by whatnot at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by soyjoy at 1:14 PM on December 16, 2002


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".
posted by dhartung at 1:23 PM on December 16, 2002


The radio is playing "Edge of Seventeen."

In my head, I'm picturing a chipmunk in a paint shaker...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:33 PM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by vraxoin at 2:37 PM on December 16, 2002


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

I *heart* ColdChef.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:00 PM on December 16, 2002


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!
posted by anathema at 3:25 PM on December 16, 2002


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.
posted by readymade at 5:15 PM on December 16, 2002


« Older John Bonham lives!...  |  Self-fulfilling Prophecy? Enr... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments