From Painting With A Twist's web site:
"Painting with a Twist is the largest employer of aspiring artists in the country. The company recognized early on that the talents and enthusiasm of the staff were key elements to the success of the product. In just five years, Painting with a Twist, along with our 207 franchise locations, has produced and owns the copyright to over 3,500 pieces of art. Each artwork was conceptualized and executed by the instructors with the idea of being an easy to follow piece of art for the inexperienced painter. The artwork ranges from landscapes, abstracts and cityscapes, to creative renderings of seafood, animals, iconic buildings and florals."
I guess if you are into painting by number, this place will appeal to you.
.JPG)
8 comments:
When I walked by I thought this was going to be a local business similar to the Painted Pot but for painting canvases. It seemed more child oriented. I don't know why but I feel kind of duped to learn this is a franchise. At least it isn't s bank or a manicure place. Let's hope it employs local artists.
Now I've heard of everything...Yesterday I heard on the news that a laundromat also applied for a license to sell liquor..WHY????
'Owns the copyright to over 3,500 pieces of art,' does not sound like fair practices on any level. Communal art belongs to everyone. Art teachers who design lessons need a share of the copyright if there is even a rational for making a copyright...
Welcome to the 'burbs!
This is absolutely the most rediculous Ponzi scheme I've ever heard of. I mean, they own the art? For what? And are there really that many bored brainless women in the neighborhood? I don't think so. This is the stupidest most lame idea especially in a neighborhood where there are actual artists and designers. Sorry. This. Is. Lame.
Anonymous 6:27, do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is? This isn't even remotely close to a Ponzi scheme.
This is simple copyright. Art is NOT free. You can't just do whatever you want with other people's work. This place paid for the rights to teach people how to copy other artists paintings and they're making money off of it. The original painters should be compensated, hence why they paid for the copyrights. Just like bands that play other people's songs have to pay for the rights to do that. You want to go out and make money off of other people's work, you have to compensate them.
This is no different than if this was a music studio that taught you have to play Stairway to Heaven and gave you a copy of your recording after. Led Zeppelin would have to be paid.
Can Smith St become any more banal? The answer is before you... And I thought-- hoped?-- we'd reached the nadir almost a decade ago with duelling sushi joints... or was it duelling Korean tea houses?
I do hope they offer kids and moms and others the chance to copy not only Rothko and Barnett Newman but also Hieronymous Bosch and Brueghel-- "The Triumph of Death" especially-- and Raymond Pettibon too.
Their copyright is meant to bully local independent art studios and smaller franchises. They are truly the Mcdonalds of the "Sip & Paint Industry" they send dozens each week to independent arts studios a stack of attorney paperwork. Claiming artwork is theirs, forcing studios to give up artwork.
Lastly how can you put a copyright on Van Gogh or a Monet artwork. These lawyers are robbing PWAT and local artists. So ridiculous.
Post a Comment