Bronwyn Holloway-Smith wrote: > Does exclusive possession not have direct ties with copyright though? If > there is no control over copies, then that opens the floodgates to > uncontrolled multiples, driving costs of artworks down due to their lack of > scarcity.
Yeah, but it doesn't. There are more Mona Lisa reproductions in the world than there are people. Copying increases the value of the original by publicising it. This shouldn't necessarily follow when it comes to digital art, but in practice it does because the art world has an interest in keeping it so. They/we just substitute "authorised" for "authentic". Relatedly, the big collecting institutions selectively and effectively extend their control over images well past copyright through the use of contracts. For example, you might not be allowed to see images of tupuna until you have agreed to conditions of use set by the descendants. > There is an interesting article on "Life After Copyright" here for any > copyright anarchists: > http://deanwesleysmith.com/index.php/2009/07/06/life-after-copyright/ Contracts could also avert most of his worries. I think the point of being a copyright anarchist (which I am not quite) is not to actually reach an end point but to engender disrespect for the institution until people start thinking seriously about alternatives. > Also, there are plenty of big earners who's work is still under copyright. > Warhol, Koons, and of course Hirst are still well in copyright (and the list > goes on). Hirst, particularly, has been hard-lined about claiming it, to a > frightening degree: > http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/hirst-demands-share-of-artists-16365-copies-1054424.html Hirst is just cunning though. By making a fuss he makes sure the image is on the news and not just on a few T shirts. Reproduction is what made art big. Douglas _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
