(no subject)
Sep. 27th, 2006 04:53 pmSo, the M&Ms folks have created a fabulous fun-filled online game, in which you trawl through a wacky old-style painting searching for visual clues to the titles of 50 Dark Movies. You can find it here: http://www1.mms.com/us/dark/ .
I am shocked and outraged to note that NOWHERE does the M&Ms Corp. see fit to credit the original artist whose style they have so scandalously plagiarized. Even worse, the Internet is now full of websites that refer to the work as "the M&Ms painting."
OK, so the artist lived in the 1500s and no copyright was infringed because his work is out of copyright. But that doesn't stop this from being a blatant horrible vile evil corrupt failure to cite. Where are the spiteful fandom wankers when you really need them? Why isn't anyone posting long, bloviating think-pieces on their blogs about the relative degrees of ethical violation this represents?
Maybe because, folks, even though whole figures from this artist's work were copied, it ain't plagiarism and there was no ethical violation?
Just a thought.
For 10 extra points, identify the artist.
I am shocked and outraged to note that NOWHERE does the M&Ms Corp. see fit to credit the original artist whose style they have so scandalously plagiarized. Even worse, the Internet is now full of websites that refer to the work as "the M&Ms painting."
OK, so the artist lived in the 1500s and no copyright was infringed because his work is out of copyright. But that doesn't stop this from being a blatant horrible vile evil corrupt failure to cite. Where are the spiteful fandom wankers when you really need them? Why isn't anyone posting long, bloviating think-pieces on their blogs about the relative degrees of ethical violation this represents?
Maybe because, folks, even though whole figures from this artist's work were copied, it ain't plagiarism and there was no ethical violation?
Just a thought.
For 10 extra points, identify the artist.