Is he right or is he wrong to use the images from Partick Cariou to reproduce new artworks. Personally I say no. He didn't have anything relevant to say short of using parody or sattire to try and denegrate a race of people. Who is he to say that he could negatively show these people in this way for his own profit. It wasn't as if he was trying to show them in a good light, improve their plight by exposing them to a greater audience. I find his arrogance appauling even after he was requested to cease and dismiss. Good on the courts for continuing to persue him.
Parody and Satire are tools which can be creative and useful, in this instance they tended to lend themselves too much to commercial and personal gain. As with all things there is a fine line drawn in the sand and at times that line can easily shift or be blurred.
