Michael Turner feature (The Observer)
David Buttery
on the website I'm afraid), there is a special pullout entitled
"Grand Prix 2000". On page 19 of that, there is a full page about
that fine motor racing artist Michael Turner, which makes interesting
reading. The piece is rather depressing, chronicling as it does the
increasing difficulties involved in being an F1 artist. I paraphrase
some of its points here:
Graham Hill asked Turner for first refusal on his work, as did Ken
Tyrrell and Bruce McLaren, but now things are very different.
Among the problems Turner has faced are:
When Nigel Mansell won his first Indycar race in 1993, Turner
advertised the prints of the painting he had worked for three days
on. He then received a call from his US distributor, who had been
contacted by a lawyer from Newman-Haas. The lawyer told him that
Mansell's helmet and the sponsors' logos were copyright. Turner wrote
a personal letter to Carl Haas, who, to his credit, allowed a clear
run for the prints to be sold.
When Turner was doing his 1997 Christmas cards, he was contacted by
Jacques Villeneuve's representatives. JV and his advisers are "fairly
precious" about the use of his image [quoted text The Observer's
words - something of an understatement if you ask me], and also put
forward the copyright argument. They suggested that the car and
driver be repainted to make them unrecognisable. It was only when
Turner pointed out that Williams were using his picture on their
official card that the lawyers backed down. However, Turner is now
reluctant to paint Villeneuve again.
A painting to celebrate Damon Hill's win in the Jordan at Spa '98
also brought forth the lawyers, this time agitating about the use of
Hill's eyes and helmet design. The lawyers offered to buy the work
and sell it themselves, but refused to allow Turner to take a signing
fee. This impasse was sorted out when it became clear that Jordan
were entirely happy (Benson & Hedges wanted a larger picture for
their boardroom), and Hill himself had been unaware of his lawyer's
activities.
As I said above, I find this profoundly depressing reading. Modern F1
has always had moneymen to the fore, but it now seems to me to be in
danger of slipping down the road travelled by heavyweight boxing -
and look how little credibility that has these days. What is motor
racing without genuine enbthusiasts like Turner? Merely a hollow
shell.
The last word I'll leave to Turner himself:
"It's all so very different now. The lawyers are destroying
inspiration."
--
David.
"Artists need not apply".
>From an FIA accreditation document application form.
David Beard
davidb...@ANTISPAM.x-stream.co.uk (David Buttery) writes:
>n the current (5th March 2000) edition of The Observer (UK only, not
>on the website I'm afraid), there is a special pullout entitled
>"Grand Prix 2000". On page 19 of that, there is a full page about
>that fine motor racing artist Michael Turner, which makes interesting
>reading. The piece is rather depressing, chronicling as it does the
>increasing difficulties involved in being an F1 artist. I paraphrase
>some of its points here:
I didn't see the Observer article, but at the weekend I was in a bookshop
pondering his book entitled something like "Drawing & Painting F1 cars". It was
completely sealed, so I couldn't have a nose. Can anyone recommend it?
______________________________DABgp______________________________
Reims Ruins http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4294771839
70s Motor Racing Album http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4294812809
Christine Johnston
> As I said above, I find this profoundly depressing reading. Modern F1
> has always had moneymen to the fore, but it now seems to me to be in
> danger of slipping down the road travelled by heavyweight boxing -
> and look how little credibility that has these days. What is motor
> racing without genuine enbthusiasts like Turner? Merely a hollow
> shell.
Yes, but, he isn't doing it for the enthusiasm of it, he's doing it to
make money. And that automatically brings him into all the delightful
little things associated with modern business.
If you wanted to paint pictures of F1 and your sole aim was to put them
on display in a gallery, I doubt you'd find the slightest hindrance.
But the moment you intend to run off 1,000 'exclusive' prints for sale
of each painting, then you shouldn't be surprised that the people you
painted might object.
David Buttery
Yes, but, he isn't doing it for the enthusiasm of it, he's doing it to
make money.
<snip>
Well, of course he does it for his living. But it would be a rather strange
argument to say that only amateurs can be enthusiasts. I don't think anyone
would say that Eddie Jordan or Frank Williams were only in F1 for the cash.
I've had the privilege of meeting Turner, though only the once, and he is
certainly an enthusiast first and foremost. I don't doubt that he would be
painting racing cars even if there were no money in it at all.
>If you wanted to paint pictures of F1 and your sole aim was to put
>them on display in a gallery, I doubt you'd find the slightest
>hindrance.
I'm not at all sure that would apply where Jacques Villeneuve is concerned. I
don't think whether or not money changed hands would be an issue with him.
>But the moment you intend to run off 1,000 'exclusive'
>prints for sale of each painting, then you shouldn't be surprised
>that the people you painted might object.
I don't object to him agreeing to do something for his subject(s) in return. I
*do* object to him being stopped from doing the paintings at all. These aren't
private citizens, they're public figures, and I think the quid pro quo for
their fame (and, sometimes, riches) is an understanding that they're going to
be in the spotlight. I've never bought the argument that people should be able
to copyright their likeness in any case - logically extended, it would mean
that you would have to get permission before taking someone's photograph.
If I were a public figure to the extent that an F1 driver is, I would expect
plenty of pictures of me to be published, whether press photos or oil
paintings. I wouldn't like to see free rein given to scurrilous tabloid
exposés or libellous slurs, but I don't think I would be reasonable in blocking
any picture unless it were offensive or inaccurate.
I admit to a certain bias here - Turner's pictures were a major factor in
getting me interested in F1 to start with - but I still hold to my view: a
"sport" where only money talks is not worth the candle.
--
David.
"The lawyers are destroying inspiration."
(Michael Turner, motorsport artist)
Christine Johnston
> On Wed 08 Mar 2000 02:51:10p, Christine Johnston wrote:
>
> >If you wanted to paint pictures of F1 and your sole aim was to put them
> >on display in a gallery, I doubt you'd find the slightest hindrance.
>
> I'm not at all sure that would apply where Jacques Villeneuve is
> concerned. I don't think whether or not money changed hands would be an
> issue with him.
While JV is not my most fave driver on the grid, in his case it is most
definitely the management team.
> >But the moment you intend to run off 1,000 'exclusive' prints for sale of
> >each painting, then you shouldn't be surprised that the people you
> >painted might object.
>
> I don't object to him agreeing to do something for his subject(s) in
> return. I *do* object to him being stopped from doing the paintings at
> all. These aren't private citizens, they're public figures, and I think
> the quid pro quo for their fame (and, sometimes, riches) is an
> understanding that they're going to be in the spotlight.
Frankly, I don't understand why he doesn't ask permission *before* he
starts and save himself the hassle. But from what I gathered, it was
the licensing of said pictures for prints, mouse mats, coasters, et al
that was the sticking point, not the actual painting.
>I've never bought the argument that people should be able to copyright
>their likeness in any case - logically extended, it would mean that you
>would have to get permission before taking someone's photograph.
..... which brings us back to your friend JV....
> If I were a public figure to the extent that an F1 driver is, I would
> expect plenty of pictures of me to be published, whether press photos or
> oil paintings. I wouldn't like to see free rein given to scurrilous
> tabloid exposés or libellous slurs, but I don't think I would be
> reasonable in blocking any picture unless it were offensive or inaccurate.
If you were a public figure you would be more aware of the sheer scale
of fraud, forgery, Hong Kong knock offs and the genuine Rolecks business
and would be copyrighted up to the hilt. After all, that would mean I
could knock off a painting and run a few 1000 prints off it, and if you
saw my artistic ability that would truly be a crime.
> I admit to a certain bias here - Turner's pictures were a major factor in
> getting me interested in F1 to start with - but I still hold to my view: a
> "sport" where only money talks is not worth the candle.
F1 ceased to be a sport a long time ago. But I'm still intrigued as to
why you castigate F1 for being all about money on one hand, and on the
other defend someone's right to exploit F1 for money.
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>David Buttery <davidb...@ANTISPAM.x-stream.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I've never bought the argument that people should be able to copyright
>>their likeness in any case - logically extended, it would mean that you
>>would have to get permission before taking someone's photograph.
>
>..... which brings us back to your friend JV....
>
Interestingly, he doesn't flinch at all when you point a camera at
him, nor his PR minder. This has always puzzled me. We've all heard
the "image is copyright", "can't even take a photo" stories, but I've
never actually seen it happen.
The only time I've known him refuse is when a journo wanted to take a
posed picture of him holding an issue of a magazine in which she'd
written an article about him (skiing). She wanted to print a photo of
him holding the mag in the mag (like they do in Autosport adverts all
the time). He refused that one on the grounds that it would look as
though he was endorsing the product, and the doesn't do *that* for
free, and it may have clashed with existing agreements. Seemed
reasonable to me, but she was hacked off.
Kimbo
--
Formula One Cartoon Archive
http://www.foca.co.uk
k...@foca.co.uk
David Buttery
I don't object to people making money out of F1. I don't object
(well, I do, but I realise it's a lost cause) to F1 being treated as
a business. I said 'a "sport" where *only* money talks is not worth
the candle.' That "only" is important.
I don't object to Turner having to get some form of official
accreditation from the FIA (though it shouldn't be too hard to get
for someone like him, and should only need one accreditation for
*all* of Formula One) if he wants to sell his paintings commercially.
I don't object to him paying some sort of royalty, like the BBC does
when it uses someone's music in a trailer, provided it's not absurdly
high.
I *do* object, very strongly, to a man like Turner, whom no-one would
claim is a conman, being entirely prevented from painting one of the
most interesting drivers on the grid, because of the preciousness of
his management team. That's where I draw the line.
Of course, forgeries should be clamped down on hard - if Turner was
selling his pictures as "official" when they weren't, or painting
Pedro Diniz and claiming it was Coulthard, the authorities would
(rightly) come down on him like a ton of bricks. As I said in my
earlier post: "I don't think I would be reasonable in blocking any
picture *unless it were offensive or inaccurate*." I think
"inaccurate" would cover pretending a work was official when it
wasn't, and I would find a blatant forgery offensive.
But as far as I know this has never been an issue with Turner - I've
never heard of him passing off his work as something it isn't.
To summarise:
You should have the right to paint or photograph any public
figure who is in a public place, and who could reasonably expect to be
on public display. An F1 driver at a GP certainly qualifies.
You should have the right to sell your work of said public figures,
provided you don't misrepresent its status, and provided you have
paid any applicable licence fee - which should not be astronomical.
You should have the right to advertise any work under the above
categories.
You should *not* have the right to misrepresent your work, to be
gratuitously offensive or to use it for illegal purposes (eg
blackmail).
I accept my views could be considered by some as hopelessly
romanticised and old-fashioned these days, but I don't intend to
change them. As I said before, look at how little credibility boxing
has now, primarily because of its obsession with money.
David Betts
> As I said before, look at how little credibility boxing
> has now, primarily because of its obsession with money.
(Not as off topic as it sounds ;-).) I don't think that boxing's
credibility has suffered directly as a result of the large sums of
money involved, but mainly because there is no strong, single world
governing body which control all aspects of the sport. As a result,
you have three or four 'champions' in every category and three or four
official challengers, so even when one person wins all the titles he
can't fight all the challengers within the required timescale and gets
stripped of some of the titles. Nobody knows who is best and nobody
knows who the real champions are.
This is exactly the situation which the European Commission wants to
try and foist on F1. We may all have our concerns about the way F1 is
run, but at least we know who the World Champion is. Look at the
situation which has arisen in the United States - where you have two
series claiming to be the premier US single seater championship. Real
enthusiasts know that one is valid and one isn't, but how many real
enthusiasts are there. The reality is that Joe Public goes off and
watches NASCAR while the single seater series have to pay the networks
for TV time.
--
David Betts (dav...@motorsport.org.uk)
"Returning to Goodwood is like going back to an old friend" - Sir
Stirling Moss
Photo albums:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=10440&Auth=false