On 01/04/11 21:43, brian gibson wrote: > 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?
It depends what you bring to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY If we are talking about selling a million records vs. drawing a chair in private then yes the economic and social effects are quantifiably different. But we cannot tell which will be the million selling records or the million-dollar artworks of the future ahead of time. > what would be the ideal situation /regarding the law/ for you, Rob? Ooh. Err. That transformative use and appropriation (but not passing off or forgery) be recognized as sufficient grounds for asserting Fair Use? This is partly because (if it applied in the UK...) this would expand the range of work I would choose to make, but mostly because some of my favourite artists tend to work in this way and I don't wish to see them have to abandon the way of working that I believe is culturally important. >> 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! The more I think about that, the more it resonates with me. :-) - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
