Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Irish Artist Turns Google Maps Screen Grabs Into Pricey Art

Posted by samzenpus on from the eye-of-the-beholder dept.

jackandtoby writes "Rappers sample prior works to turn out new tunes. This artist snatches satellite imagery of environmentally savaged sites from Google Maps to create gorgeous imagery reminiscent of Persian carpets. From the article: 'Using centuries-old patterns from Persian rug makers, with a nod to Afghan weavers who use tapestry to record vivid pictorial histories, this artist uses digital photography to create fabric that plays with fact and fiction, surveillance and invisibility. Thomas Smith reproduces classic motifs with Photoshop, at a level of detail one can only really experience in person, or (aptly for his medium) through point-and-click enlargement on his website.'"

43 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Nice looking but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's like looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Nice looking but... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I bet some patent troll will find a way to patent digital kaleidoscopes. Just you watch. After all, Apple patented digital slide-locks that have been around in analogue form for centuries.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Nice looking but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Nice looking but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "It's like looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope."

      For practical purposes, it IS looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope.

      I wonder where this falls in the copyright infringement / fair use spectrum.

    4. Re:Nice looking but... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I wonder where this falls in the copyright infringement / fair use spectrum.

      It doesn't. The artist is not selling his work as maps, or as advertising, or as a way to synergize advertising and mapping. He's not giving directions.

      Collage artists have been around for over a century. Their work has been protected by courts on numerous occasions.

      And of course, Andy Warhol directly used trademarks and CocaCola or Campbell's is not entitled to license fees from the Warhol estate.

      I hope Google tries to crush this artist, just so we can hasten the public's perception that any corporation that big is a toxic influence on society and the economy and the culture.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Nice looking but... by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      I wonder where this falls in the copyright infringement / fair use spectrum.

      It doesn't. The artist is not selling his work as maps, or as advertising, or as a way to synergize advertising and mapping. He's not giving directions.

      It has to fall in-between one or the other... and I'd say it's probably on the fair-use side.

      I hope Google tries to crush this artist, just so we can hasten the public's perception that any corporation that big is a toxic influence on society and the economy and the culture.

      I don't think that will happen as they've been on the other end of the stick scolding companies for abusing the DMCA tools on YouTube. I think they realize how frivolous lawsuits not only taint profits, but public perception. And no, I'm not talking about patents, even though I disagree with software patents.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    6. Re:Nice looking but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't. The artist is not selling his work as maps, or as advertising, or as a way to synergize advertising and mapping. He's not giving directions."

      Yes, it does. The maps are copyrighted works belonging to Google. His work is provably derivative of those copyrighted works. And it is a trivial derivation... quite literally, just about anyone could do it. Maybe not as well, or as attractively... but maybe even more so.

      So the question is: is the derivation process enough to protect him from copyright infringement? Highly questionable.

      Trademarks are not copyrights. And Warhol's works are paintings. There are some rather huge differences there.

      Using your logic, you are saying I could take an Ansel Adams photograph, turn it upside down, and call it art of my own? Just asking.

    7. Re:Nice looking but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Collage artists have been around for over a century."

      See my point above. But to clarify that point a bit:

      I was not referring to whether the photographs that Google uses in its maps should be copyrighted. That is a completely separate issue. And it would be interesting to watch the proceedings if someone were to challenge that.

      But my earlier point was: *IF* we take it as a given that they are copyrighted, then does this work infringe? I think there are some great arguments that it does.

    8. Re:Nice looking but... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Using your logic, you are saying I could take an Ansel Adams photograph, turn it upside down, and call it art of my own?

      If he cut the Ansel Adams work into little pieces and used them to create a mosaic, absolutely yes.

      Remember Warhol?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Nice looking but... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That isn't what I asked. What this artist is doing is a lot closer to what I described than what you have described.

      Making a mosaic is arguably non-trivial. What this guy is doing is pretty trivial.

  2. Can't do that. by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a derivative work, and is not permitted under the google maps terms of service.
    You can do it with openstreetmap.

    1. Re:Can't do that. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      This is a derivative work, and is not permitted under the google maps terms of service.

      I was just thinking the same thing ... you can't take copyrighted images and turn them into 'art' unless the people who you got it from say OK.

      I can't see how taking these images from Google Maps could even come close to something he's allowed to do.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Can't do that. by dragon-file · · Score: 2

      Nah, google will let it slide. Then once he's made millions they will sue. No use suing a broke nobody right?

      --
      Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    3. Re:Can't do that. by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      OSM has satellite images?

    4. Re:Can't do that. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't think google will sue him. But if it was truly evil, it wouldn't just wait until this one artist was rich. It would wait for a whole genre of art to develop before suing whole industry.

    5. Re:Can't do that. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know you're trolling but...

      1) I use google maps all the time and never once have I agreed to a terms of service. I've never even seen any such terms, nor been asked to agree to them.

      Doesn't matter, it's copyrighted (not the subject of the photo, but the photograph of it - that's how nature photography is copyrighted). Google's terms of service grants you right beyond copyright law, if you don't accept them you don't have them - like the GPL.

      2) You can make whatever you want from copyrighted works, the law only concerns itself when you try to commercially re-distribute the work.

      Nope:

      the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
      (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
      (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
      (3) to distribute copies (...)

      And finally:

      3) A derivative work, especially one for aritsitic purposes, is expressedly permitted under copyright law. Even a derivative work for profit!

      Nothing is "expressedly permitted" as fair use, the factors will merely be taken into consideration and one is "the purpose and character of the use", where being transformative means it's more likely to be legal, merely derivative less. Also being for profit makes it less likely.

      That's three for three with total drivel, well done.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Can't do that. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Worse, it's not even artistic.

      Is this really how far the art world has fallen? He wasn't even able to BS any interesting explanation about the topic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Can't do that. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's still not very impressive.

      The unimpressiveness doesn't come from the method of creation, it comes from the dearth of creativity in the execution, and its execution. There is nothing there, it's all technique.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Can't do that. by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Shoot, you can't even use Google Street View images on a Wikipedia page (I've tried, images were pulled for copyright violations). The Google Maps Terms of Service is not a fun read, but in a nutshell, you cannot do anything other than view their images without some type of contract with them.

      The fact that he is selling this artwork - this is a huge lawsuit waiting to happen. This is not the same as a rapper sampling works, the images show that these modified images are the majority of his work. That is way different than sampling a couple of seconds to use in a song. This is blantant copyright violation, unless he has a license from Google.

    9. Re:Can't do that. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      No but you see; "Google has promised NOT TO SUE FIRST, and the artist lives in a country that respects creative works and doesn't blindly fall at the feet of big money and the ownership society."

      No, no. I've got to stop. I think I might pee myself if I make any more of these jokes.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  3. Slashdotted already? by Novogrudok · · Score: 1

    Error establishing a database connection

    1. Re:Slashdotted already? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Error establishing a database connection

      Slashdotted already. Must be a mom & pop ISP.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Derivation for remuneration by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    1. Copy
    2. Paste
    3. ...
    4. Prophet!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Derivation for remuneration by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      No need. The prophecies will be so vague that they could match anything. The only inaccuracies are in the people who obviously misinterpreted the prophecy.

    2. Re:Derivation for remuneration by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I thought it was:
      1. Prophet
      2. Get a bunch of followers.
      3. ????
      4. Profit!!!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Mirror by terbeaux · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I will get a DMCA take down for this PDF snapshot? http://db.tt/Y9GCT7N4

  6. I don't get the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He just mirrors a screenshot horizontally then vertically. It takes a minute to do. Why are people going "oooh!" over this?

    1. Re:I don't get the big deal by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      The same reason they ooh and ahh over a canvas painted white or a plain, unmodified urinal hanging in an art gallery: Some people are dumb enough to believe whatever bullshit the 'artist' comes up with and will delude themselves into thinking it's great art.

    2. Re:I don't get the big deal by CyberGrandad · · Score: 2

      Not quite. Taking one Google Maps screenshot on most monitors could get you an image on the order of 1000 pixels wide. Photographers generally print their works at 300 ppi. So a single screenshot mirrored around would get you something roughly 6 to 7 inches squared. The gallery photo shows a print at least 5 feet tall. So it would take multiple screenshots pasted together. Maybe not thousands ... but more than one.

    3. Re:I don't get the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess you didn't know that you can export views from Google Earth at resolutions native to the map images - you aren't forced to screenshot the application or the website.

  7. Release the dogs DMCA! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    DMCA! DMCA! Release the dogs DMCA!

  8. modern art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is really nothing special. He takes a city, flips it once or twice in photoshop and calls it art?

    I am always amazed when walking through art museums how artists of the past centuries created such amazing work - the detail, the grandeur. I especially enjoyed walking through Rome; Such marvelous sculptures chiseled with rudimentary tools. Then one happens upon the "modern artists" of today. They were too fucking lazy to take more than a few whacks and call it art. Same goes for the paintings - modern artists really know how to capture the laziness of the 21st century, this guy included.

    1. Re:modern art by anagama · · Score: 2

      Modern art is a conspiracy between artists and rich people to make poor people feel stupid.

      Kurt Vonnegut

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:modern art by SolitaryMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      You confuse the raw skill with an art.

      If you don't actually study art history, it is very unlikely you will understand what is so great about Mona Lisa and why it is considered a masterpiece, while many art works of the time, painted as skillfully are not.

      The art itself, first of all, is about conveying an *idea* and/or *emotion*. The medium and the implementation is always secondary. Some ideas are best expressed as sculptures, some as realistic paintings, some as buildings (cathedrals) and some as just a couple of brush strokes on a canvas. I've seen plenty of photo-realistic paintings, done with a great amount of skill, but which nevertheless were dull and boring as far as art is concerned. I've also seen a lot of cases where the painter should have written a short story, but instead he chose to create a painting, because this is where his/her skill lies (example of wrong medium).

      You don't have to feel stupid, but you do have to make some effort to actually understand some piece of art.

      In other words, skill is about the *artist*, while the art has to be about ... art itself. If you are looking at the painting and you think "hey, this guy is pretty good", it draws the focus from the *art* to the *artist*. It is just a show off. You you look at it and you think "this is really interesting (inspiring, pleasant -- whatever)", then this is a real art.

      I suggest you, when looking at the painting, think of it this way: if you had the raw skill to paint something like this, would you actually want to do it?

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    3. Re:modern art by Craefter · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but could you please get off your artsy high horse and just see art for what it really is? I would be more impressed if artists would promote the creation of new art to the common people instead of telling them that they need a university degree to understand the bullshit some artists make. I mean, if only a small group of people understand your art you have missed your point. Art should not be an elite thing, it should be something of the common people. To amuse, convey a story or to apreciate the skill of an artist. Modern artists are more like: Provoke, convey some etherial BS which can be read in the appropriate catalog, spit on skill and to earn money. They like to earn money because a 'real' artists don't have a proper job. (Else they can't concentrate fully on the BS they are producing).

      To come back to skill, if you listen to an unskilled guitarist just wacking away in random order on his guitar over a high gain amp, do you still appreciate he is trying to express emotion and is not focusing on skill? Buy a CD from him? I thought so.

    4. Re:modern art by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but could you please get off your artsy high horse and just see art for what it really is?

      Well, this is exactly what I'm saying -- look at the art and not at how hard it is to make it (skill) or who makes it (artist) or how (medium).

      I would be more impressed if artists would promote the creation of new art to the common people instead of telling them that they need a university degree to understand the bullshit some artists make. I mean, if only a small group of people understand your art you have missed your point. Art should not be an elite thing, it should be something of the common people.

      Dude, *modern* art is all about common people! University degree is required to understand the art of the Renaissance, when it *was* an elite thing. Look at this particular example (rugs from maps): the idea actually empowers *everybody* to go and make their own! You can do it! I can do it! It looks great! No university degree required! As a side effect, in the process you'll discover that it is not that easy to make a picture as visually appealing as the ones listed in the article -- go try it.

      To come back to skill, if you listen to an unskilled guitarist just wacking away in random order on his guitar over a high gain amp, do you still appreciate he is trying to express emotion and is not focusing on skill? Buy a CD from him? I thought so.

      I also don't buy CDs from many very skillful guitarists, because the music they play is total BS and fails to convey any emotion (other then, "look ma, I'm so cool"). Your point?

      Now, getting back to you complaining about how you need a "university" degree to appreciate art. Do you also complain that you have to learn to read in order to appreciate literature? Or that you have to learn foreign language in order to... you know... understand it? Does software engineer complains that it takes MS CS +10yrs of industrial experience to understand and appreciate the beauty of some software architecture?

      Anyway, there is zero chance that you'll understand what I'm talking about, unless you go and try to actually learn something about art. I know because I used to think the same as you.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    5. Re:modern art by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Who tried to tell you that?

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
  9. obligatory XKCD by jankoh · · Score: 1

    http://xkcd.com/1169/
    https://maps.google.com/?ll=73.103006,126.44577&spn=0.272619,1.385651&t=h&z=10

    1. Re:obligatory XKCD by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      lol! nice.

      Someone mod this man (or woman) up.

  10. Ugh by forrie · · Score: 1

    Looks like something the Borg Queen would have in her boudoir.

  11. Better that than... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Better that than a rotting shark in a glass box... :p

  12. Eye of the beholder by tech.kyle · · Score: 1

    Seems like a highly subjective article. Maybe I just work/play with Google Maps too much, but I don't see anything special here. The closest thing I can think of would be that it appears fairly high resolution, but that's nothing to write home (or Slashdot) about.

    --
    If we colonize Mars, it won't be the World Wide Web anymore. UWW?
  13. How underwhelming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry but it is.