➡️ Read the full article here: https://tinyurl.com/25u4f7zk Since the original photo was a forgery, it didn't fare well in the photography competition. In a photography competition, a real iPhone snap was dismissed because the judges believed it was created by artificial intelligence (AI). Suzi Dougherty snapped a stunning photo of her son with two stylish models at a Gucci exhibit. To show off her hard work, she entered it into a photo competition. Dougherty didn't give it much more attention until a friend showed her an Instagram post claiming that the contest organizers disqualified her photo because they believed it was created by artificial intelligence. Dougherty told The Guardian, "I wouldn't even know how to make an AI photo." For the time being, "I'm still trying to figure out how ChatGPT works." The Sydney, Australia shop Charing Cross picture hosted the competition. As the judges explain in their Instagram post explaining their decision to exclude Dougherty's photo, they were "first intrigued" but then "suspicion set in." To paraphrase Charing Cross Photo: "We want the pictures to come from your real life, not from cyberspace." There's no way to prove that the uploaded image was created by AI, but you can't discount the opinions of four experts, either. In an interview with The Guardian, Iain Anderson, owner of Charing Cross Photo, said that judges looked at the image data but still couldn't identify if the photo was created by AI or not. When this picture was shown, everyone was ecstatic. Finally, I said, "Hold on, it looks a little AI-ish." Then we had a group discussion where we concluded, "Well, we can't be sure it is or isn't, but since we're suspicious, we can't let it in," as Anderson puts it. "It allowed us to emphasize the importance of taking the photograph oneself and being immersed in the setting." Charing Cross Shot confirmed the authenticity of the shot yesterday on Instagram, stating that they had spoken with Dougherty. The film was praised for its "great play on what is real and what is not," they stated. Dougherty's entry was disqualified, so she did not take home the $333 award. However, according to Charing Cross Picture, Dougherty will not have to pay to participate in the upcoming photo competition. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLCAe5ownjg

➡️ Read the full article here: https://bit.ly/3HICcNq Yuga Labs claims in new court documents that it has not yet registered the Bored Ape photos for intellectual property rights. In a recent legal filing, Bored Ape Yacht Club owner Yuga Labs admitted that it does not hold "copyright registrations" for the popular NFT collection's 10,000 photos. For the ongoing dispute between Yuga and artist Ryder Ripps, who borrowed photographs from the BAYC collection for his own NFT collection dubbed RR/BAYC, the additional documents were submitted. The paper submitted by Yuga Labs' legal team reads, "Counts 2 and 3 ask the Court to say that Yuga Labs does not own the copyright to the Bored Ape photos." Copyright registration is not required for ownership but is required for legal action. Since Yuga Labs has no copyright registrations, there is no immediate risk of a copyright infringement lawsuit. In June of 2017, Yuga Labs filed a lawsuit against Ripps. False advertising, trademark infringement, and cybersquatting were among the charges leveled against him. Ripps has refuted the allegations, saying that he has always made it clear that the collection is meant to question the premise that huge PFP collections are protected by copyright and to call attention to his conviction that the BAYC NFTs are packed with alt-right and neo-Nazi emblems. Ripps and his legal team have also argued that RR/BAYC is an example of appropriation art because it allows for the free exchange of creative concepts. Legal experts, however, have pointed out that Yuga did not file a lawsuit against Ripps for allegedly ripping off his work. Possible explanations include Yuga not wanting Ripps to use a Fair Use/Freedom of Speech defense, or a lack of copyright registrations. Yuga Labs pioneered a new benefit during the NFT boom, and their success helped propel them to the forefront of the industry. They claimed that if you had an NFT, you also owned the rights to the image, therefore a BAYC NFT holder could utilize the Bored Ape likeness they owned on anything ranging from t-shirts to television series. Comedian Seth Green claimed in May 2022 that his Bored Ape had been taken in a cyberattack when he was in the middle of producing a TV show on it. I got that monkey in July 2021, and I've spent the last few months cultivating and marketing the IP to make it the star of this program," Green said to Gary Vaynerchuck during a session at Vee-Con. As the saying goes, "He's taken away days before he's due to go out into the world for the first time." The copyright benefit attracted not only legal publications but also popular culture and news periodicals. This was especially true after the theft of Green's Ape, which led many to question who exactly had the intellectual property rights to the Ape. However, Yuga Labs has asserted that its copyright over BAYC photos is substantial, even if the images are already protected by copyright registration. Copyright protection is automatic with BAYC NFTs and other cases where provenance is recorded, according to a representative from Yuga Labs, even if the company is not registered with the federal government for copyright. Yuga added that NFT owners' rights are clear as crystal. The rights to the artwork are owned by Yuga, however the firm has granted the IP license to the owners of the BAYC, CryptoPunks, and Meebits NFT collections. Though it may sound odd, Yuga told the court that it has not registered the photos for copyright protection. In response, Ripps filed a counterclaim arguing that it was crucial to his defense that the court rule that Yuga Labs did not own any copyrights. Finally, Yuga Labs filed a move to have the counterclaim dismissed. 'We brought a case for trademark infringement, not for copyright infringement, thus it is not right for the court to reach out and judge whether or not we have copyright rights,' Yuga argued to the court, according to Van Loon. To evade the court's ruling on whether or not massive collections of NFTs can be protected by copyright, Yuga appears to be avoiding the issue. When it comes to the law, it's murky whether or whether copyright protection extends to works created by a process, like BAYC and the other massive collections of profile photographs collected by NFT. As IP trial lawyer and Nixon Peabody partner Erica Van Loon explained, legal issues for Yuga could arise if a court rules that the corporation does not control the copyrights to BAYC photos. "If the terms of service indicated something or if copyright was mentioned when the NFTs were for sale, that might be a huge problem for Yuga Labs," Van Loon added. "Those who have purchased their NFTs may have legal recourse against them on grounds including false advertising and unfair competition." ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQLTFa_N5zY

➡️ Read the full article here: https://bit.ly/3JhiSrp Just how valuable may a replica be? We are accustomed to seeing replicas of the Mona Lisa sell for a high price at auction because it is the most well-known painting in the world. After an online Christie's auction in Paris sold a copy of Salvator Mundi for more than €1 million, it became clear that everything associated with Leonardo da Vinci was worth a fortune. That's quite neat, especially considering how "out of style" everyone keeps telling us this look is. The Parisian painting was documented as a fake because it was created nearly a century after the original. At the time, its value was estimated at between €10,000 and €15,000. An asking price of over €1 million suggests that the Old Master market is beginning to reflect the values of the contemporary market, where the concept is valued over the identity of the artist who created it. In 2017, Christie's fetched $450 million for the sale of the Salvator Mundi. It's established itself as a highly valuable brand. The image of Paris didn't look like much at first. Parts of the floor were now visible due to the collapsed drapery. Christ's face was overly painted, as if he had been made up for a community play. A higher resolution snap, however, revealed extensive overspray, most notably around the eyes. It's possible that the photograph was taken at the same time as the source material. Christ's blessing hand in this copy lacks the loosely draped sleeve seen in the original and nearly all other known copies. It more closely resembles the sleeve of a Leonardo drawing from the Royal Collection. I see a button on that sleeve. Another painting we can only see via its buttoned sleeve is the so-called Yarborough duplicate. At a meeting in Leipzig concerning the $450 million Salvator Mundi, Martin Clayton spoke about the Yarborough copy. As a result, more individuals read the copy. Because of the unusual sleeve, Clayton speculated that perhaps Leonardo had created an earlier, unreleased version. Christie's painting has been speculated by some to be the long-lost second prototype; if so, it would be the ultimate narrative twist in the art market, with one version selling for $450 million and the other being offered for just €10,000. But if we can determine its place in the Salvator Mundi assembly line, we may have on our hands a historically significant work of art. There are too many differences between this and the Yarborough picture for it to be a simple copy, such as the jewelry and hairstyles. The Paris painting, on the other hand, is more similar to the so-called Ganay copy, which has been hailed as "a high-quality reproduction" painted in Leonardo's workshop by several experts, including those at the Prado and the Louvre. In contrast, the picture of Paris does not come with a protective covering. However, I have a hard time believing that Leonardo's workshop produced the Ganay painting. A group of artists discovering Leonardo's cartoons and drawings after his death might have created it instead. A replica of Leonardo's Salvator Mundi was created using them. Because several sleeves were based on various illustrations or cartoons created at various times, not all copies were identical. It's possible that one of these pictures is of Paris. If that is the case, then the winning bid of €1 million was a safe bet. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Dl8hZKZhU

Read the full article here: https://bit.ly/3YX2Fg1 Jean Dubuffet's famous words are a great way to introduce the idea of Art brut, which is also known as Outsider art. In recent years, Art brut has become very popular at art events, fairs, and auctions, and it is now in important collections all over the world. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to put this kind of creative work into a category because it's often grouped with Naf art, folk art, or the work of self-taught artists, which is a bit of a simplification. Also, the modern world tends to put the above movement in a kind of "limbo" that includes all creative forms that aren't "mainstream." Even though this is a big mistake, it is true that outsider works tend to cross over into other genres because they have strange ideas that are meant to challenge the way people usually think about art. This cliche is true because Outsider art grew out of the study of the work of psychiatric patients, who were able to make very pure and simple forms that came from honest, instinctual, and unbiased intuition. But psychosis isn't what makes someone a member of the movement. If there is a psychosis, it must be combined with a self-taught training that can go against the standards and classifications of the art world. Also, the desire to create must be stronger than the desire to be seen and the desire to follow public taste or popular aesthetic trends. In fact, art brut artists must create by letting out their deepest feelings, without thinking that their work can be shared with other people and, as a result, become standard. Roger Cardinal, a British writer and art historian, came up with the term "Outsider Art" in 1972. It came to mean the same thing in English as the older French word "Art Brut." In fact, if we go back in time, the painter Jean Dubuffet came up with the term "Art brut" in 1945. His goal was to group together under one name all kinds of art made by self-taught people or people in psychiatric hospitals who were able to work without following traditional rules of beauty. In this context, it is clear that Art brut, a movement that tried to give a voice to a type of art that hadn't been heard of before, was also an ideological movement that wanted to get rid of all kinds of creative discrimination. In fact, before Art brut, art was always seen as something done by the educated and "sane" people who were able to follow the rules of beauty and form. With Art brut, art became much more open to everyone. Dubuffet was the first person to try to break down the foundations of traditional aesthetics. He said that art is an instinctive and primary need that is made by ordinary men who no longer have to be "superior" or geniuses. But how did Dubuffet get the idea to also give people who were mentally weak a voice? The work of two psychiatrists, Walter Morgenthaler and Hans Prinzhorn, had a big impact on the French artist. Morgenthaler and Prinzhorn were fascinated by the art their patients made, so they studied, collected, and wrote about it. When Dubuffet heard about these studies, he was completely captivated by them. In fact, he thought that the art of the mentally ill might be the purest form of art. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwlh4NGs6E