ok, we get it Ellianna, you just “don’t give a rip”. Doesn’t that just about sum it all up with you?
Some of us do give a flip.

I don’t mind if AT&T is inspired by Christo, by why couldn’t they have chosen a different color than Christo’s signature shade of orange. It is a blatant copying, without bringing anything new to the idea that makes us give a flip.

AT&T’s campaign was not homage. They stole Christo himself. They made it look like he was under contract to them, and was on some level endorsing AT&T. That raises this to the level of a Lanham Act violation.

Every time the at&t commercial airs, I am angry that they are getting away with this obvious theft. How much was the estate paid for use of this idea by at&t? Probably nothing. Prove me wrong. I’d love to know an artist or two hasn’t been ripped off again. Switch to Sprint!

Chris, every time someone says in this thread “how many artists have been influenced by the masters”, or “how many movies are based on classics”… I am going to say again for the umpteenth time in this thread… What AT&T and the agency BBD&0 did here was not “inspired” or “influenced” by Christo. Come on! They copied them. They did the exact same thing. Just used different monuments and buildings. It might have been faked, but all that matters is the end result. And the end result looks EXACTLY like Christo would have done it. There is no mere inspiration. It is monkey see, monkey do!

And to all the people who say “get over it.” I say, YOU “get over” the fact that we don’t like this and merely want to express our collective disapproval on this forum….. Is that ok with you? huh? If not, then “get OVER it” and go someplace on the world wide web if you don’t like it. There are plenty of other forums for you. I am not upset by this rip off. Just disgusted. I have the right be be concerned and disgusted about this if I want to. Please don’t try to talk me out of it. I think I have reason.

Tehane, all I can say is that you are right that much of art is business. But art does not EQUAL business. Many artists don’t sell out at the right price. IF they do, I have no problem with that. I am a capitalist, too. But you and others on this forum really surprise me at how much you are willing to apologize for and make excuses for the excesses of Big Business. And at the same time, have no empathy for the small artist. Corporation have gotten to be so big and powerful. And there are so many of them screwing up. BP, Citibank, GM, Goldman Sachs, and so on. What AT&T has done, of course, pales in comparison. But I just don’t understand why some people on this thread are so into defending the Big, ALL Powerful Corporations, and not the small artist, even when it is obvious he is being steamrolled and mugged. Is it because the a Big Corporation butters your bread?

1st of all I am not upset. And it is not appropriate for you to assume that I am. I am disgusted. but not upset. You are reading my words with your intonations, not mine.

get over it? its a way of life? so is genocide, rape, corruption, extortion, larceny, and huge unstoppable oil spills. Should we just “get over” those too? They are part of life.

2ndly, what makes you think that Christo has never requested royalties for his work? where do you get that? Of course Christo is compensated for his work, especially the likeness of it.

Their main corporate color is blue. If they had used blue, that would have been better. Blue has been used by Christo, but that shade of orange that AT&T used is Christo’s signature color, right down to the shade.

Let me explain to you how art and advertising work. I could come to you and take your photo, without your permission, and I could put it in editorial magazines, and I could hang your photo in galleries and sell that photo of you for thousands of dollars, and art posters, and there is not one thing you could do about it. However, if I used one of those photos in a advertisement, you could sue the heck out of me. Warhol CAN use the Campbells soup cans. But not if it were to sell soup bowls or spoons. Only if it were to be sold as art. But AT&T is not supposed to be able to use other people’s imagery in selling their product. I would imagine that if Christo wants to spend his remaining few years on this planet fighting a huge corporation with lots of lawyers and very deep pockets, he would win. Maybe he doesn’t want to sacrifice that much of the remaining years of his life. A big corporation is a 2000 lb gorilla. They can get away with what they want. They can afford to.

Yes, it is ok for artists to copy other artists. YES! But you can’t use artists work without their permission, and you can’t even come too close when trying to copy their ideas. That is they way it is supposed to be anyway. That is how it is supposed to be in this country.

Do you see the difference???

Federal Courts have long held that the unauthorized use of a famous singer’s voice in a commercial constitutes a false endorsement and a violation of the singer’s right of publicity. Jackson Browne filed suit against John McCain alleging that McCain’s use of Browne’s song, “Running On Empty,” in a campaign ad violated the United States Lanham Act by suggesting that Browne was associated with or endorsed McCain’s campaign. Bruce Springsteen complained for the same reason when Ronald Reagan used his song “Born in the U.S.A.” during his re-election campaign in 1984, and Sam & Dave had the same problem with Bob Dole, who changed their song “Soul Man” to “Dole Man” during his 1996 presidential campaign. AT&T made it look like they have a sponsor-celebrity relationship with Christo, which amounts to a form of endorsement from Christo, or even his appreciation, blessing, permission, cooperation, concession, or agreement to no-action.

This idea of AT&T bringing awareness to the obscure is insulting. You might as well say that the BP oil spill has brought awareness to pelicans. Christo doesn’t need or want AT&T to raise awareness for him in the art community. That AT&T made it look like they had that kind of relationship is a violation of the Lanham Act.

Chris, above, who wrote on July 7, I hope that you are just joking, and being facetious. If you are, bravo! If you are not, well…. you can always Google Christo (and you can always look up the word facetious, while your at it! LOL)

@Chris Mann, there was an article back in 2008 I believe that stated that Cristo and Jeanne Claude had not received anything from documentaries and other items about their work.

So the spelling police come out…Noe yu Mr. Mann…I didn’t catch the error, my apologies.

To all. It’s a matter of perspective.

The point is that the technique is not the exclusive right of anyone, correct? No more than a painting style is. If there is a copywrite on the technique, then again, I stand 100% behind anyone taking action against the use of the technique or asking for compensation for it’s use.

While it may be in poor taste or bad form, unless COMPLETE actual reproductions of actual published works by the artist in question are used it would be hard to say items are copies. And as with the technique, if they are EXACT replicas, I would stand 100% behind any action taken. Yes, you sure as heck can tell who the influence was, but can you say they are EXACT copies?

And no, I don’t know how the artist feels. Neither do you. That is kind of the point. I haven’t seen a quote or comment from Cristo on this. Be upset, be mad, be happy, but ultimately it’s his feelings and thoughts that ultimately matter most, regardless. Correct?

BTW..the chris with the lower case “c” is not the same poster and Chris with an uppercase “C”.

Chris Mann, concept. Valid point. The concept of of the AT&T Commercial appears to be more active than passive. Christo’s appears to be more passive than active. The final result vs. the action. Again, that is just one perspective and everyone will see it differently.

On a different note. Anyone else notice that St. Louis is not really an accurate St. Louis skyline.

And for the person that put forth the whole U2 Scenario, I really don’t know how you can say for sure how a judge would rule.

Correct- not to be confused with Chris or Chris Mann.
All I mean to say is that like it or not, the general public is not familiar with the works of these artists. They are not Picasso, DaVinci, or Michaelangelo. Unfortunately art. Does not permeate our culture as it probably should. That is another discussion altogether. My point is that infringements like this will continue to take place because there is not enough of an outcry to change it. Remember, American society is reactive, not proactive. And if no one knows who Jean-Claude and Christo are, they will not react. They believe that AT+T created this idea for their commercial. And the disclaimer is the only thing to tip them off otherwise. I think it was by design that AT+T chose the likeness of these artists work because it was subtle and unknown and only a very small faction of internet bloggers would even notice. If they did mimicked the concepts of better known artist (in the publics eye) then they would be battling over IP and CW as we speak. If theyplayed their commercial to the music of Green Day but changed the lyrics, you can bet people would accuse them of stealing the music and Green Day would have their day in court. In the end nothing will change because the masses do not know JC + C and ultimately, do not care.

I immediately recognized that the AT&T commercial was DERIVED from Christo’s and what’s-her-name’s work. That said–all the militant-artsy-fartsy types getting their knickers in the proverbial knot here over this, need to take a collective deep breath or a valium or two.

I’m not an expert on Christo’s work, but–regarding the copyright issues…after reviewing the AT&T commercial, I didn’t see any “blatantly Christo” wrapped items (i.e. islands or New York City buildings).

I point this out, because (according to the results I’ve found after doing a quick-reference search on Christo’s work), Christo has NEVER wrapped Hoover Dam, the Gateway Arch, Las Vegas or the Hollywood Letters….

The “Fair Use” clause of the Copyright Law does allow “derivatives” of an artist’s work. Non of the CGI-covered locales in the AT&T commercial are direct-derivatives of Christo’s previous works. Yes–they’re done in the style of Christo, but none of them ARE Christo’s work.

All of you getting up-in-arms over AT&T’s commercial are missing several key points of AT&T’s purported “rip-off” of Christo’s work. First–Christo does not necessarilly own the idea of of “wrapping.covering on a large scale” (that is for the courts to decide, but first allow me to continue). Second–all the images are created using CGI–not real fabric. Lastly (and as I mentioned previously), none of the items covered in the commercial were structures/locales that Christo has used in any previous works.

And as far as that “trademark orange” that people are claiming is Christo’s… unless he has successfully filed a copyright or patent on that particular shade, he doesn’t own that either.

In the evil corporate empire world, nothing moves without clearance from either the accountants or–more importantly–the lawyers. I’m pretty sure the lawyers already have the chess pieces positioned, in case Christo or whats’-her-name’s estate comes a-knocking.

@Chris Mann

Your reply illustrates my point: “letting us get to you?” Methinks you flatter yourself o’ermuch. As a visual artist myself, I am not insensitive to copyright issues. However, I also know the realities of today’s world (i.e. the internet and the way the evil coporate empire world operates).

You see–the sad point of all these rants against evil AT&T (and yes, they are–as most corporate entities are–EVIL) “infringing” on the sacred pasture of Christo is that it doesn’t matter to AT&T, nor does it mater to the majority of Americans.

And has been stated previously–the majority of typical “ugly Americans” have no idea of Christo or Jeanne Claude are–nor do they care. The old addage of “immitation is the most sincere form of flattery” doesn’t seem to apply to militant artsy-farts types in some circles.

Ignore the fact that–thanks to the new disclaimer added to the tail-end of this controversial AT&T commercial, many ugly Americans now know who Christo and Jeanne Claude are, who were previously oblivious to them.

I haven’t seen any comment from Christo–the one who would have the most right to be up-in-arms over this purported infringement. I’m no big fan of AT&T–never have been, and never will be, but the rants and rails against them over this infringement is almost amusing–especially the ones who think Christo should sue.

If Christo does decide to sue AT&T the burden of proof will be challenging:

1) Christo have to show that AT&T directly infringed (copied) any his works–not the “idea/concept” of wrapping large objects. Again–none of the wrapped items in the AT&T commercial were direct copies of previous Christo works.
2) In addition to item #1, Christo will have to prove that the AT&T commercial caused serious and tangible damage to Christo and/or his collective works.

I’m no copyright/intellecutal property lawyer–but again, what Christo does (the idea of wrapping things) is not computer code or an exact sequence of words. That said, there are certain things/ideas you cannot own/copyright. Having had to understand the Copyright Law for a college paper on music sampling, I think AT&T is pretty much safe with their commercial.

I remember when the Estate of Gershwin “sold out” to United Airlines a few decades ago, letting UAL adopt “Rhapsody in Blue” for its corporate theme song. There weren’t any online comments boards back then, but people raised hell nevertheless. What became of that? That was 1976.

Yes, artsy-fartsy types have every right to raise hell and get their collective knickers in a knot over this. You also have right to tilt at windmills. The end result will be the same. Cheers!

@Chris R

Whoa–Chris! That cuts really deeply… ^_^

However, your reply to mine and the other Chris’s “brilliant bloviating” doesn’t affect the fact that I agree with your last post re: the AT&T commercial.

I loved the commercial and I still do. True I work almost non-stop and know little about art but when I saw the add I was mesmerized although I remembered it as a Verizon ‘vert not AT&T. When I first saw the add I had a vague recolllection of an artist who had done something ‘big-ish’ like this elsewhere in the world. I am glad to learn more of Christo and Jeanne Claude from these many postings. I do, however, agree with those who wrote before my writing that the surviving teammember or the estate should have been acknowledged and remunerated. No AT&T for me – perhaps the best revenge – if they’ll steal from the “well known” they will certainly treat me no differently.

Here is the same stuff but by JWT Ukraine)))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkXTJSowz58&feature=player_embedded