My name is Sharyn Walker
I am a student of Fine Art
I am currently investigating, for my
major work, the concept of
"You are Mine"
I will try to explain, and nut out my
ideas as I go
It started when I was looking at "branding"
I work for a Government Department and I
was looking at the particular green and orange used
in the logo of my workplace
I then thought about a restaurant who dared to
"copy" the brand of a well known fast food outlet
(and lost?)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/15/1092508265567.html
The Restaurant is still located in the White Pages but
the number "rings out" and the free call number does not
connect.
I then looked to a "branded" product I use daily. I was
producing a digital work on "colour" so thought
I would reproduce
I am a student of Fine Art
I am currently investigating, for my
major work, the concept of
"You are Mine"
I will try to explain, and nut out my
ideas as I go
It started when I was looking at "branding"
I work for a Government Department and I
was looking at the particular green and orange used
in the logo of my workplace
I then thought about a restaurant who dared to
"copy" the brand of a well known fast food outlet
(and lost?)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/15/1092508265567.html
The Restaurant is still located in the White Pages but
the number "rings out" and the free call number does not
connect.
I then looked to a "branded" product I use daily. I was
producing a digital work on "colour" so thought
I would reproduce
but in colour only
"Whose Colour?" copyright Sharyn Walker
March 2008
March 2008
My idea was to "google" the colours
and then use the colours which
closely aligned with the Google logo
**
I am interested in the whole idea of ownership,
or copyright, of colours and images
(a week after I had presented my "Whose Colour?" image
Cadbury Chocolate failed in a lawsuit against Darrell Lea
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23522269-5005961,00.html )
and then use the colours which
closely aligned with the Google logo
**
I am interested in the whole idea of ownership,
or copyright, of colours and images
(a week after I had presented my "Whose Colour?" image
Cadbury Chocolate failed in a lawsuit against Darrell Lea
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23522269-5005961,00.html )
**
So really! Once an image is posted on
the internet - whose is it?
As far as I am concerned, unless it has a copyright
label - it is mine!
**
And then, if I google my own name
(as we all do)
why can't I use the other me as me?
**
This New Media Art Work attempts to
test the boundaries of Identity, Privacy, Authenticity,
Access, Exposure, Copyright
by setting up several MySpace pages
using names of me and some of
my family and friends but using the
photos of other people of the same name.
The pages themselves may be insipid
but I hope the debate the pages create
will, at least, feed my curiosity!
**
My name is Sharyn Walker
and every image is mine
So really! Once an image is posted on
the internet - whose is it?
As far as I am concerned, unless it has a copyright
label - it is mine!
**
And then, if I google my own name
(as we all do)
why can't I use the other me as me?
**
This New Media Art Work attempts to
test the boundaries of Identity, Privacy, Authenticity,
Access, Exposure, Copyright
by setting up several MySpace pages
using names of me and some of
my family and friends but using the
photos of other people of the same name.
The pages themselves may be insipid
but I hope the debate the pages create
will, at least, feed my curiosity!
**
My name is Sharyn Walker
and every image is mine
Will the real Sharyn Walker stand up?
6 comments:
Still to come...links to the MySpace pages....
Hey Sharyn
"Anishas" won their case against MacDonalds and were quite successful for a long while.. then they closed.. but nothing to do with MacD's
Hey Shaz, Liz here. Some very interesting ideas, I often wonder about names/branding also and how it can be used for manipulation etc. And really, who can 'own exclusively' colours, typesets and the alphabet? seriously . . .
Dear Sharyn, what a great concept, really love ur slant on this idea of branding and 'ownership' well done!
Anisha's did win their case against McDonald's. I have even run into another Anisha's in Toukley, they recently closed down...in fact they were only in operation for 4 months or so.
Though when it comes to 'exclusive ownership' over colours, typography etc., I understand the side that wishes to preserve their right to uniqueness of image.
Marketing of a product is one which is carefully considered, and may be laboured over for quite some time.
So I feel that if one were to be 'conceiving a business image', which dictated concentration of logo, colour, typography etc., I'm sure that 'ownership' over business image and how it's represented, would indeed be wanting preservation!!
The fact that both cases re colours and logo's were lost should answer part of your question re colours and who owns them.
The confusion of image and logo is what McDonalds and the Indian Chain both tried to take advantage of. The former with power via the court case. The latter in trying to create its own image in a very competitive market.
My point being, don't confuse both. The Logo is just a part of the Image you wish to portray. Whilst it is a key factor, your logo is not your image, and any attempts to "copy" a logo in any form or manner is by no means an all out attack on the image. Let the courts decide if it is a breach of copyright on the logo, but there is no copyright on ones image.
Anishas may well have attracted customers with its investment in a smart logo, but it has obviously failed in investing in other factors that will make it succeed -the investment in its image. You have to back your logo with good product, good service and competitive pricing which allows you to create the ability to attract repeat business.
Your logo and colours are one thing. But image is everything. How you create that image "is your own". Using respective colours and typesets and ideas, that have been realised for many a century, and the many techniques and mediums that are available to formulate you own ideas and your own creation, should not be questioned.
Every new idea comes from sifting through other ideas.
I have always said "Abstract Art is the bastardisation of Abstract Thinking................Abstract Thinking came first."
That, among many late night philosophies has derived from many learning mediums. It's mine. I created it almost twenty years ago. Is it possible that somewhere in the world, at some time in history, somebody has said a similar a thing? Absolutely. And could I be challenged - most likely.
But at the very least this blog has revealed this point for someone to ponder and use for a future creation of there own.
Hi Sharyn
There is a company in Tasmania named TARGET and they use the Bullseye logo just like Target here on the mainland.
I am not exactly sure of the following facts but I believe they have been in operation since before the WW2 or just after.
They are either a haberdashery or a general store or both.
Target here on the mainland took them to court to get them to stop using the Target name and the bullseye logo and lost. So the Target that we know here on the mainland do not operate in Tassie.
Y E A H !!!!!! a win for the little guys.
Post a Comment