i agree with most all you say here. > Art must be free to refer to and represent the forms of wider society if it is to have the value that copyright is meant to protect.
art must be free. especially. but if you take a drum hook from clyde stubblefield<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/arts/music/clyde-stubblefield-a-drummer-aims-for-royalties.html>, add a gunshot sound effect/vocals and sell a million records.. is this not a little more direct (and consequential) than drawing a chair designed by Harry Bertoia? what would be the ideal situation /regarding the law/ for you, Rob? > The freedom to make art as long as nobody buys it is a hollow freedom. all freedom is hollow to some extent. it can make for great storage! brian On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > On 01/04/11 20:11, brian gibson wrote: > >> The"original" is a pastiche of documentary styles produced without > >> compensating its models. > > > > this is the nature of all! surely you understand the difference between > > inspiration and blatant theft? > > If you copy an image, the original is still there. It is not theft. But > if you seize and destroy a unique artwork, that's theft. Not just from > the artist, but from society. > > > the line may be blurry, but to pretend there is no line at all... > > Documentary photography is simple uncompensated "theft" of an image, and > yet in this case we are being asked to privilege that over the creation > of a unique original artwork. > > >>> to profit off the back of another artist is disgusting. > >>That means that schools, genres, and media are "disgusting". > > > > well... genres and media/are/ disgusting. > > :-) > > > but yes, students should be encouraged to experiment and take direction > > from/with materials provided/found in their studies. > > i view this repurposing of other's work as a way to practice, not as a > > way to make a living. > > But this applies to all non-abstract art. There are chairs, and people, > and locations in representational paintings that are covered by design, > personality or other rights. > > Art must be free to refer to and represent the forms of wider society if > it is to have the value that copyright is meant to protect. > > >> But this law can suppress anything you create if it fails an arbitrary > >> test of originality. > > > > perhaps suppress your ability to make money from said creation. > > It suppresses the ongoing existence of an original, physical artwork > that cannot be replaced by its reproduction. > > It destroys irreplaceable artworks. > > > i've made several videos and albums created entirely from sampled > material. > > haven't sold a lick. haven't heard from any lawyers or government. > > The freedom to make art as long as nobody buys it is a hollow freedom. I > certainly exercise it to my heart's content, but I've no desire to force > everyone else to join me. :-) > > > at this point it seems the creation is not what is illegal. > > it's what you do with that creation. > > But it is. You simply haven't attracted the attention of lawyers yet. If > what you do with it is to gain a mass audience, then you will. > > - Rob. > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- instantconductors.com glimpsecontrol.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
