gmol  - 2013-03-02
We live in a crazy world where it doesn't make sense to celebrate and recognize that all art is derivative.
Parrish is amazing, and whoever made this commercial was obviously a fan of his. "Ecstasy" was painted in 1929...this commercial was made in 1986.
The landscapes, clothing and model in the illustration didn't spring into existence from nowhere. Are they entitled to any of the profits from Nestle?
|
gmol - 2013-03-02 And I don't really feel this is plagiarism. There is no real good way to attribute in a commercial, and it is clearly a homage. I don't think anyone was trying to hide the source of inspiration here.
|
TheOtherCapnS - 2013-03-02 I would guess that at best they were entitled to some of the fees paid to the ad agency that made the commercial.
|
Old_Zircon - 2013-03-02 CLARIFICATION: this commercial rules, the "plagiarism" tag is a joke.
|
Oscar Wildcat - 2013-03-02 I myself thought to pay homage to that great candy company by making a chocolate bar called Nestly. It didn't work out so well.
|
Binro the Heretic - 2013-03-02
Parrish earned a living doing illustrations for advertisements. So if you use his images to advertise your shit, yeah, you owe his estate money.
|
| Register or login To Post a Comment |
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
Facebook