Subscribe via Email

Now Reading

Technorati Profile

« the gift must always move... receiving, giving, receiving, giving... | Main | have you found a space, that empty space... »

Dec 16, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345159c669e200e54fb9a5d18834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference societal ideals around what constitutes ownership over art are changing:

Comments

Tara Hunt

Awesome post, Ev. As usual, you make really great arguments.

donna

The problem is using the legal system without handling things first (or even attempting to) in a friendly fashion. When people complain about my linking to or using something on my blog without proper attribution (which I always try to make, or at least attempt to) I will never link to or use or patronize them ever again.

It's not like I'm profiting from their work by putting it on my blog anyway.

If her photos were public on Flickr, she runs the risk of them being used, even if she posts copyright notices. Anyone who really admired that photo could have tracked her down, and perhaps gotten a print of it.

Now, it's very likely that even more people will avoid her work, and this move will cost her work.

Joel

Quoting from the referenced Wired article:

“Richter Scales member Matt Hempey said the group considered its "Here Comes Another Bubble" a parody video, and thought that as such it would be protected by fair-use provisions in copyright law.”

Appropriation of the picture was not fair use. Fair use stipulates a quantitative relationship to the object being used.

If I were to review a play, I'd be able to quote snippets from the play to illustrate my critique. If I were to review a motion picture I'd be able to encapsulate brief scenes from the picture pertinent to that review. But how can republication of a copyrighted picture be justified by “fair use”?

Incorporating the picture to be part of a larger work doesn't alter the extant fair use requirement with respect to the artifact in its original scope.

Further, cloaking the fair use argument in “parody” is also fallacious - the picture itself isn’t a parody of anything - but doing so does conveniently beg the aforementioned question.

Ole Ship

I Agree and understand "the relationships around that art make it all worthwhile", and relate it from a earlier the post "but first we need to tea, er, eat" -http://evelynrodriguez.typepad.com/crossroads_dispatches/2007/11/but-first-we-ne.html

Drawn to the tune and relationships that I've seen put into contexts on this site I took the liberty of an out-of-the-blue search for "Evelyn Rodriguez Christmas 2006", just for ideas I guess, anyway the pull was the first result and its description "in Innovators and ... a still from the film The Fountain (2006); The Fountain, by Kent Williams. ..."

An email I recieved recently inspired me to sign up for the newsletters to comment on the source page. The article title "Community is king, Content is dead", I would have to research for the source again, but it is really about relationships I belive , and the type of contexts is good here.

Evelyn Rodriguez

Tara, thanks.

Donna, here's Lane's own words here:
http://tinyurl.com/2y296p

Lane DID ask nicely behind the scenes. She happened to stumble upon the video - and she was not even mentioned for a photo that was licensed "All Rights Reserved". Richter Scales brought in lawyer (they initiated the lawyer thing) that said they didn't even need to give her credit and took what almost sounded like a brusque attitude with her. After all, it *is* her photo they are using. That's when she brought in a lawyer for advice. Too often artists cave in to what appear to be the "big boys" (i.e. lawyers would fall under this category) and give up.

She was in her rights to do with the work what she chose. She choose "All Rights Reserved" on Flickr. I already said if I ran the world there would be no copyrights, all would be Creative Commons by default. But I also honor the free will choices of others too.

Even Creative Commons stipulates you must give credit. That's simple common courtesy in my book to fellow artists.

The web is about linking. It's a network. It starts to lose that network and community effect when folks choose exclude by NOT linking to the quotes and photos and art that informed, influenced, and made their art possible.

Joel, I agree with you, though I'm not a copyright attorney. Even Fair Use would give the author credit, at minimum. If you read my post, I'm on Lane's side here. I would not have brought in lawyers - but that's me. But neither would I have caved in to Richter Scales blowing me off either.

Ole_Ship, Thanks, I think I'm following you. Are you a real person? Anyhow, I hardly write about Christmas - not my thing to make one day more special, sacrosanct, and sharing - that ought to be blessed everyday.

Evelyn Rodriguez

One of the most thorough blog posts about this: http://powazek.com/posts/836

However, I myself don't abide with ask permission first. For Flickr, I stay completely away from All Rights Reserved. Don't even see them - just search on "Creative Commons" only. On the Internet-at-large, real-time media like Twitter or blogging is too fast to wait for "permission." So even if it's copyrighted, I take it, but give proper credit with a hyperlink. Should the artist have issues with this - the hyperlink will alert the artist, whom may then contact me and ask me to remove it, and then I do.

It's worked so far. Only two professional artists in over 2-3 years has asked to remove their photo. And one reconsidered after our conversation. The second was offended by the spiritual content of the blog and wanted nothing to do with being affiliated with, so it was more that issue than copyright even.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28  
Blog powered by Typepad