I learned a lot from these two readings, but I love how they go hand in hand. They both share a common theme of the usage of previous works and if that is really counted as plagiarism or stealing of ideas when really it is just a source of inspiration to create. From this article specifically, there was apparently copyrighting of a photograph, however the new works was painted and in the original picture the man was holding a rifle, but in the painting that was changed to a cocktail on fire.
The artist saw the picture and decided to specifically focus on the man and emphasize the raw emotions he was portraying. He made this new creation that sparked so much creativity and creation from other artists like church ads because they noticed the man was wearing a crucifix, to being on shirts, billboards, etc. This new artist that was accused of using someones original works couldn’t do anything about the creativity this painting evoked from others. This is why I mentioned in my previous post that you can’t label or own creativity. Creativity stems from inspiration, and in this case I don’t believe it was plagiarism.
The author mentions that yes, the image may be the same but the idea that it evokes is different. Molotov man was used in so many different ads, in campaign speeches, talked about in classrooms, used on merchandise, etc., but stood for all different kinds of messages. This is why the power of creativity is so amazing, because you can literally draw inspiration from almost anywhere, put a unique personal touch on it, and create something new and amazing.