Florian, Florian Cramer wrote:
> Kurt Schwitters was not sued for collaging the logo of German > Commerzbank into his "Merz" painting which in turn yielded his "Merz" > art. Neither did Andy Warhol receive injunctions for using Coca Cola's > and Campbell's trademarks. As long as these symbols remained inside the > art world, they did not raise corporate eyebrows. I thought a little bit about this and I think the only valid argument is: is it good art or not? The Schwitters and Warhol pieces are. Both had something different in mind, much more than copyright, something new, and they succeded artistically. Sampling is just another limit of copyright, like privat copies. The next summer hit with a certain Michael Jackson sample or whatever, is it good, is it really something new, like the house, that the thief of stones has built, something valuable, and should Michael Jackson get some money too? CC etc are just more burocracy for things, that are no problem at all for ordinary people, just what the industry needs, I dont care at all about it. The copyright of Schwitters and Warhol is something different. Tolle Sache, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2849462995031279648 Urheberrecht is prima, appropriation of reality, that should be artists first concern. H. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
