Comments on: AT&T Plagiarizes Christo & Jeanne-Claude

By: vicki

vicki — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:43:49 +0000

I’m disappointed at all this. I LOVE this ad — visuals and music — and admire the artistry and imagination of blending the concepts of covering buildings and coverage of cell phone service. I also LOVE Christo’s and Jeanne-Claude’s work, have been a fan for many years. Of course the draped orange cloth reminded me of “The Gates” the first time I saw the ad, and the disclaimer at first seemed to confirm the connection. Too bad it’s all ruined for me now. If Christo sues AT&T, he should probably win, which would help support his next project. That may make it worthwhile…

By: c-dub

c-dub — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:59:20 +0000

@John Todd:

By that dubious logic, you could reduce any body of work to its constituent parts and claim that since those individual parts were preexisting, no one could claim rights to work created with them. Painters could retain the rights to their work only if they invented new colors, musicians new notes, authors new words. The argument is absurd.

By: Margo Magness

Margo Magness — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:11:21 +0000

If I have to hear that song one more time I will scream, can anyone understand the lyrics? I saw the disclaimer and no that isn”t enough, but patent law is way beyond
me—I just hate the dam song!

By: John Todd

John Todd — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:20:22 +0000

Draping as art has been around for millennia, and so has the color orange. They are not original to Christo and Jeanne-Claude. The duo were not the first to use it, and they will not be the last. You’re being too sensitive and haughty.

By: c-dub

c-dub — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:12:45 +0000

Excuse me, I meant to say Jeanne-Claude, not Jean Claude.

By: c-dub

c-dub — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:10:04 +0000

@Randy:

Where to start, where to start. You’re right, of course, that the context and story are completely different: Christo and Jean Claude weren’t trying to sell cellular service. And your contention that art is elevated when co-opted for commercial advertising – that art is only “useful” when serving corporate shareholders – is saddening. That fact that Christo’s work is both “odd and unnecessary” is exactly what makes it beautiful. And while I won’t disagree that many people tend to use corporations as convenient scapegoats, I can only wonder why you would ever maintain that they provide “a key service in all respects.” Have you picked up a newspaper in the past, I don’t know, ten years?

As an aside, it simply isn’t true that a derivative work need only be 10% different “from a patent or such things.” Patent law isn’t germane in this case; U.S. copyright law, however (which I believe applies automatically to anything Christo created in the U.S. after 1978) protects the original work from copies that are “substantially similar.” Percentages have nothing to do with it. (Do you think you could alter just 10% of a Stephen King novel and publish it as your own original work? Of course not.)

@M H Myers:

I believe the commercial was some combination of live footage and CG effects, but no, I don’t think they actually draped the buildings.

By: M H Myers

M H Myers — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:56:10 +0000

Sorry to be obtuse, but did ATT really drape these buildings, or was this some sort of computer graphics/Photoshop deal?

By: Vicki Meyer

Vicki Meyer — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 02:46:33 +0000

This is only one reason I would not use AT&T. Lawsuit should follow……disclaimer is not sufficient…..sue the idiots!!!!!

By: Tonky

Tonky — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:24:44 +0000

Randy,

If you had experienced “The Gates” you wouldn’t say that AT&T’s advertisement is more clever, nor would you claim it’s an HONOR for Christo to be ripped-off like that. “The Gates” brought our city together and got everyone talking about something other than crime or The Yankees. And it was a refreshing gentle spectacle to behold after 9/11. Some even consider it a rebirth.

It is certainly your right not to like Christo’s work, but to claim that a 30 second CGI TV spot is more appealing than one of the most massive public art installations of all time is just ignorant.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:01:22 +0000

I don’t see the resemblance, sure the color and material are the same but the context and story are completely different. To be different or altered from a patent or such things there only needs to be a 10% change. In fact the AT&T’s add is more clever and appealing then Christo’s work. Even if Christo’s work influenced AT&T add it is a great honor for Christo, his work is mainly odd and unnecessary and being introduced to a functional useful means is applaudable. Not an issue for people rebelling against AT&T. There are many people out there who hate on large companies, but in all respects they are providing a key service.