Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans

Re: Copyright laws

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
henry taylor (taylorh)
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:08:40 -0700

So Robert, do I have this right? As soon as the first Braque/Picasso
Cubist/Collage earned a review with photo or hit an auctionhouse catalogue
it was technically in violation of the copyright held by the publisher of
the material collaged.

Similarly, is it possible that Robert Indiana's "Love" and "The Demuth Five"
might possible violate the copyright of the typograpgic designer responsible
for the original typeface if he didn't design it himnself? I noticed
somewhere that some Architects have recently been assidiously defending
their copyrights against the infringements of insidious photographers.

The internet has really set the tone for the new concept of copyright.
Technically, publishers and authors should (or at least could if they
properly licensed their publications rather than sold them outright) get
their rightful and deserved percentage from every USED BOOK sale.

How about dye transfer process? Photograms? Frottage/Rubbings? These
techniques all rely on making a copy or multiple copies of the orignial
object which may be protected.

This precedent shatters the traditionally assumed rights of folk art and
craft and indigenous art and craft which apper to have concerned themselves
more closely with degree of variance from the original and degree of
potential head to head competition in the marketplace. Bill Gates is
spending a fortune in China (Asia in general) attempting to exterminate
traditional popular values relative to the notion which concern's copyright
and replace those values with acceptable western/internationalist commercial

Ostensibly the notion of copyright protects us all. In practical terms the
greatest benefit goes to whoever can afford to deploy lawyers to actively
defend a copyright.

In a global society such as we have, some notion of copyright is necessary
and valuable. The current iteration we are saddled with is, however, hugely
flawed and widely counter-productive and restricitve of development in all
areas. It begins to resemble Mediaval Guild Secrets practices. The only
viable course under the current model of copyright IS Paranoid
Schizophrenia. Once the camel's nose is in the tent everything really is at
risk. Real protection is afforded only those who can afford the legal costs.


>Since there was a long tradition in the use of collage as a visual arts
>media, logic would have it that the same materials would be fair game if
>they were scanned and used for bits and pieces of digital projects by my
>students........Yet this is not the case.
>After talking to lawyers on the net I discovered that the person purchasing
>the original magazine, or the person who owns the physical materials would
>have the right to use such materials in a physical collage, however, if any
>part of the same published object were scanned or photographed and the
>digital image was used in an art work and then printed or republished in
>form, be it on the web or exhibited as a printed digital image, the artist
>would be open to litigation from the original photographer, artist or
>publisher of the image.