And in a reductio ad absurdum the argument could be applied to *any* kind of representation, by whatever means, of *anything* where someone feels they have some "intellectual property rights". Even when artists have not appropriated they have always stood on the shoulders of others, for techniques, for subject matter, for an appraoch to that subject matter, for materials, for everything. Human beings are irredeemably social in all they do and art is no exception. michael
--- On Fri, 4/1/11, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > From: Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Cariou vs. Prince: THE COPYRIGHT BUNGLE > To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org > Date: Friday, April 1, 2011, 11:27 PM > On 01/04/11 21:51, bob catchpole > wrote: > > > > Are you sure you know what you're talking about? > > Yes. > > "[...]early in the history of photography, there was a > series of > judicial decisions that could well have changed the course > of > photography substantially. Courts were asked whether the > photographer, > amateur or professional, required permission before he > could capture and > print whatever image he wanted. Their answer was no.[^31] > > The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound > surprisingly > familiar. The photographer was "taking" something from the > person or > building whose photograph he shot - pirating something of > value.[...]" > > http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig/plain.txt > > - Rob. > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
