In Reply to FRED and ANDO'S comments above...
Every time I see a "Getty Image" used and credited on line, it is a modern image still under copyright, with the photographer still living, or licensed by the photographer's heir(s) and their Estate. Getty (and other such photo services) do a good job of managing these images for the Artists in question.
If what Ando reports is true, and Getty holds the rights to "derivative works" of copyrighted works under their management, Dylan will have a legal case against him if he didn't go through the proper steps.
As already mentioned, in my own case, the raw images behind the Flickr posts he accessed and used are all out of copyright, and passed into the Public Domain. What I have done for Flickr is re-crop portions of the originals (a tell-tale, invisible "tag" that Dylan's paintings follow, as he maintains my crops, and in no case includes more of the image content than I provide to everyone on Flickr). Beyond that, I did extensive restoration and "clean up" for those like himself who want a fine photograph to Blog or interpret. However, unlike Dylan, most who do use the images from my posted archive send a courteous note, or give credit as a matter of civility (again, neither of which is legally required, but is always appreciated).
The deeper problem is one of deception. This quote from WALL STREET JOURNAL review of the exhibition says it all :
"......The Asia Series is being billed as a visual journal of Dylan’s travels in Japan, China, Vietnam and Korea and it
characterizes his on-the-scene depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscapes. The works can be
easily identified by title and specific details, including “Mae Ling,” “Cockfight,” “The Bridge” and “Hunan Province.”
Other creations — “Big Brother” and “Opium,” among them — have a greater cryptic quality......"http://i1.exhibit-e.com/gagosian/Friedm ... _19_11.pdf
The unabashed implication that this is a record of Dylan's OWN "visual journal", and displays his OWN "on-the-scene" depictions is as far from the truth as anyone can get, and gives him false credit for being photographer, artist, and the creative eye behind the nice compositions.
Yes, Dylan has a fine sense of what makes a worthy image, his painted interpretations are nice, and I appreciate the time and talent it took to transpose and "interpret" the works. But, as it stands now, as evidenced by what Dylan and the Gallery are implying to the mainstream media who are reviewing his exhibition, the deception of misplaced, hidden, and ignored credit for the REAL photographers (and public domain sources) behind his work is a smear on those who either, photograph, preserve, or provide these images.
As for me, I will accept Dylan's interpretation of my meager Flickr posts a back-handed complement of sorts, happy that he liked my own choices culled from my archive boxes of old slides and prints, and leaving me with the ability to tell my friends and neighbors (who could care less) that, "....Hey! Bob Dylan really liked my Flickr Pics!...Check out this Exhibition Catalog!...Cool !...Hey, I wonder if he want's to buy my originals !?....NO?...OK...well, maybe he can sign my catalog !....."
--- Okinawa Soba