I was reading the Summer 2010 issue of Somerset Studio Gallery and was just jaw-dropping stunned when I read the tip offered by author Shannon Sawyer. In reference to using another artist's work, "even from a nationwide magazine," she advises, "It is best to either manipulate their work until it is unrecognizable or at the very least be sure to give credit where credit is due. List their name as the artist for whatever it is you're including in your piece." She does not suggest you get the permission of the artist, just try to disguise it and pass it of as your own or make a note of the real artist's name somewhere.
Is she kidding? What was the editor thinking?!? So it's OK for me to take an image of Charlie Brown, give him a Hitler mustache, a pair of butterfly wings, a crown and draw some hair on him, submit it for publication, mention Charles Schultz name as the original artist and suggest this is appropriate? Maybe just hope that no one recognizes the Charlie Brown under the disguise? I bet Mr. Schultz's family would be just thrilled with that, eh? The author appears to justify using the work of another artist's (copyrighted) work to create ATC's and publish them because she's seen other people do the same thing. Wow. I've seen a lot of people run red lights...
Is it just me? Something seems terribly wrong with this advice. Boy, I'm really cranky about this today!
