Of course here the "standing on shoulders" metaphor breaks down unless we're
contortionists because I personally owe you a great deal Brian...
There's a continuum from influence to appropriation to remix to criticism -
it's called being a human being.
The defence of copyright *is* of course about money but at a deeper level than
each particular instance - it's about defending the notion of the isolated and
hence deserving genius whose work somehow springs fully formed out of the space
between his or her ears; about confirming the idea that, in the words of
Margaret Hilda Thatcher, "there's no such thing as society". It's not that the
judge failed to understand art - it's that she understood all too well existing
property relations, which she is tasked to defend, and the relations of
hierarchy and deference that are need to underpin them.
Whereas I think, in the most profound of senses, we're not alone...it's a
horrible bloody hierarchical mess out there but one can discern the outlines of
something better....
michael
--- On Sat, 4/2/11, brian gibson <baiow...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: brian gibson <baiow...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Cariou vs. Prince: THE COPYRIGHT BUNGLE
To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity"
<netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
Date: Saturday, April 2, 2011, 12:21 AM
> 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
i suppose i owe you and Doron royalties then, Michael ;)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Michael Szpakowski <szp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
-----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
