8/14/2023 0 Comments Staples high gloss photo supremeWhat is Luster? Sparkly?)Ĭost is a concern. Is it like matte? (Epson also has Luster. ![]() There is also Epson Premium photo paper in Semi-Gloss, but I don't know what it looks like. I have used HP Premium Plus Soft-Gloss in 8.5x11" sizes, but that finish isn't available in 13x19". The pictures will be framed behind glass, but I don't really trust the Staples paper to resist fading. ![]() ![]() Staples has no information on this, unlike Epson and HP which have apparently done testing on their papers. I tried some Staples Photo Supreme 13x19" Matte (the only paper of that size I can get locally), and they like it, but I'm not sure how well it will hold up to fading. The people who are getting the pictures like a matte finish. "But drawing a distinction between a 'commentary on consumerism' - which is how the majority describes his soup canvases - and a commentary on celebrity culture, i.e., the turning of people into consumption items, is slicing the baloney pretty thin.I'm looking for help or advice on a good 13x19" photo paper to print with my Epson Artisan 1430. "The majority claims not to be embarrassed by this embarrassing fact because the specific reference was to his Soup Cans, rather than his celebrity images," Kagan wrote. Oracle America, Inc., where the same group of justices referenced Warhol's artwork as protected by fair use, only to walk those arguments back in this latest ruling. Kagan also pointed to a 2021 ruling, Google LLC v. Quoting the 1965 film "The Sound of Music," Kagan wrote: "'Nothing comes from nothing,' the dissent observes, 'nothing ever could.' So somewhere in the copyright statute, there must be an 'escape valve' to create something good." "But the majority is trying too hard: Its manipulated picture in fact reveals the significance of the cropping and facial reorientation that went into Warhol's image." "The majority attempts to minimize the visual dissimilarities between Warhol's silkscreen and Goldsmith's photograph by rotating the former image and then superimposing it on the latter one," Kagan wrote. "In this case, however, Goldsmith's original photograph of Prince, and AWF's copying use of that photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature." "The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original," Sotomayor wrote in her opinion for the majority. The majority, in an opinion written by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, disagreed. Warhol Foundation lawyers, and the dissenting justices, Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts, argued the artist's interpretation of the photograph altered the original enough to be considered "fair use," and not subject to copyright claims. Warhol's print was later licensed to the media giant Condé Nast for $10,000 and was used on the cover of a magazine, and the print's commercial use was the basis of the copyright claim. ![]() The Court ruled 7-2 against the Andy Warhol Foundation in the high-profile case, determining that the iconic artist had infringed on Lynn Goldsmith's copyright of her portrait of Prince by creating an orange silk screen print of the photo. In her scathing dissent of the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling against artists in a copyright case featuring a Prince portrait by Andy Warhol, Justice Elena Kagan took aim at her colleagues, accusing them of hypocrisy and stifling creativity, all while quoting the beloved Julie Andrews film "The Sound of Music." Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |