please reply

Hi David
Dont worry about copyright until you are famous. Make anything and
everything.
Have Fun. Dont let the law get in your way find the ways around / through
it.

If you are really worrying about it, find out what the law is and how far
you need to take an image before its yours. How many changes, medium,
colors, format, etc.

Good Luck
Cheers
Lee

on 9/15/02 12:06 AM, David Goldschmidt at [email protected] wrote:

there is not a single person on this list that would deny that the images of
film and television … is a language …. if Webster can create a
dictionary of words then there needs to be a dictionary of images (from
mickey mouse to the WTC) … and we should be able to use any image that
enters the public conscience to our own ends.

what do you see when you imagine the world? what are you not saying because
you are afraid of copyright infringement? what is not being said? what is
not being said effectively?

if this email doesn't make sense then i apologize. i'm a bit toasted and
very angry. i can't help but think that today's copyright laws are
unconstitutional … they restrict free speech/expression.

david goldschmidt

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> there is not a single person on this list that would deny that the images of film and television … is a language …

I would. Do we have to receive cheap statements like this,
and be requested to play along with schlock of the sort?

> what do you see when you imagine the world?

Is that supposed to be meaningful?

> if this email doesn't make sense then i apologize.

Yes, aplogy–an excuse for everything. Second only to 'humor'.

> i'm a bit toasted and very angry. i can't help but think that today's
> copyright laws are unconstitutional … they restrict free
> speech/expression.

Point me to 'free speech' to begin with.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: please reply
—–
Dont worry about copyright until you are famous. Make anything and everyt=
hing.
Have Fun. Dont let the law get in your way find the ways around / through=
it.

- Yes.


there is not a single person on this list that would deny that the images=
of film and television … is a language …. if Webster can create a dict=
ionary of words then there needs to be a dictionary of images (from mickey =
mouse to the WTC) … and we should be able to use any image that enters th=
e public conscience to our own ends.

what do you see when you imagine the world? what are you not saying beca=
use you are afraid of copyright infringement? what is not being said? wha=
t is not being said effectively?

- personally, I am not afraid of copyright infringement. My early video=
work was almost all appropriated imagery from commercial video sources. A=
Nd, if anyone is familiar with some of my other work, then my opinion regar=
ding copyright statutes will be self-evident.


if this email doesn't make sense then i apologize. i'm a bit toasted and=
very angry. i can't help but think that today's copyright laws are uncons=
titutional … they restrict free speech/expression.

- Fair use frees up a lot of that. Also, if you question it, challenge i=
t! If you ask a good question, then many will back you.

- Also I am sure that most on this list would be aware of the fact that c=
opyright law benefits publishers far more than the artist in most cases.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Patrick Lichty wrote:

> there is not a single person on this list that would deny

Absolutely not. We are all ONE PERSON.

> that the images of film and television … is a language ….

No, it isn't. There is a huge difference between image and language,
and only a thoroughly illiterate idiot, who doesn't even understand
image would make such a statement.

> if Webster can create a dictionary of words

The dictionary is a lexical reference book. It was not created
so eople can use words–as you attempt to distort it, in order to
justify your 'image' 'dictionary'.

> then there needs to be a dictionary of images (from mickey mouse to the
> WTC)

No there 'needs not'. Don't present your wishes as 'needs'.

> and we

We who, baby? Are you all pleople AGAIN?

> should be able to use any image that enters the public conscience
> to our own ends.

No, you shouldn't. Images created by somebody else are NOT yours
and the person's showing it in public doesn't make it yours.
This is a bit akin like, damnit, if this girl is in public
and naked, I should be allowed to fuck her, whether she wants
it or not.

Don't tell me–you don't 'respect' people until they come over
and clobber you over the head–but you're interested in art, the people,
freedom, love, and compassion. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn too,
you know.

> if this email doesn't make sense then i apologize.

Sorry–the third excuse after 'humor' and 'art' for idiotic behavior.
It surpasses even pseudo-religion.

> i'm a bit toasted and very angry. i can't help but think that today's
> copyright laws are unconstitutional

And the constitution is. I bet you're a real 'lover' of that
constitution too–or are you using 'it' to justify your
behavior and give it weight?

> they restrict free speech/expression.

Personally I think we should have 101% *free expression*.
Whether the person is worthy of it or not. Every monkey–a
dictator. Now.

> If you ask a good question, then many will back you.

Is that so? One is reminded of Buddha & Mara.
The value of things determined as per how many ppl
you can 'swing your way'.

As for free expression–the last thing 'needed'
is half-competent idiots who can't even 'get' Debussy's L'Apres-mudi
d'un faune passing it through any and all filters they could find and
'packaging it' as 'art'.

The 'problem' is not about the laws–but of ignorance.
As certainly there are appropriate uses of 're-telling'
artwork so that it works in contemporary contexts:
cf. bards, the 'silent imams' etc.

That doesn't mean that any moron can do whatever it pleases.

Me–king of castle–now!


`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42