Perhaps there’s a better word to use than “copy,” since Zilda has infused them with his personal style. My point is that his wheatpastes are based on famous paintings.

Regardless of the semantics of language, his use of a copyright on each photograph is perfectly understandable and within his rights. A. Those paintings are (I believe) all in the public domain and certainly the first one at the very least is iconic enough that many people will recognize the reference immediately. B. The copyright is on the photographs, not the work itself. C. It’s an effective strategy to avoid people stealing his photos or posting them without crediting him as the artist. Personally, I usually release photos that I take under a more permissive license, but I can’t say that all people MUST do the same. That should be a satisfactory explanation for this work I think.

I could go into a more detailed argument about what makes an artwork transformative, fair use, the history of artists referencing other artists and specifically the history of street artists appropriating older work, but I don’t think that should be necessary here. Plus a lot of that will probably be included in an upcoming post about Mr. Brainwash’s lawsuit troubles.