Liza wrote on her blog: > Joy Garnett Riot show are oil paintings of images sampled from > newswires and other public news media. Now she is not only being sued > by the photojournalist whose picture was sample in Molotov but she is > being asked to never show and never sell the artwork. This is > obviously not a case of an artist protecting his speech rights but of > one artist using his copyrights as a way to censor another artist. A > sad case of Stockholm Syndrome if there ever was.
I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of the original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's trying to sell the painting.
I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's the Disney Syndrome.
+To crit Joy+
I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov page which I mirrored here:
If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at the very least release your work with a cc license which allows unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are illegal.
> I would like to add to Liza's thoughts. > > I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to > censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she > will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That > would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of the > original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's > trying to sell the painting.
Case in point: we neither share or overlap in the realms of critics, curators, venues and market. in a world where one must choose one's battles wisely, why is she even bothering?
> > I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the > Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject > would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he > knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with > her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's > become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have > been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's the > Disney Syndrome.
No doubt it's a pride thing. It seems that she believes that any quality/ power of my work is a simple duplication of the power of hers: in effect that I'm trying to pass off her artfulness as my own.
But here are a few points + questions I want to ask:
Regarding photographs that depict real events, does there exist an intrinsic meaning or incorruptible essence? Or is the photograph an amoral wild thing that can be co-opted to mean just about anything depending on spin, captions, context? It's got to be the latter, which I think we all, including the photographer suing me, would have to agree upon. That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use could be up for grabs. These folks have a mission, and since there is a moral stance involved, to their mind ANY decontextualizing / recontextualizing of their image, even in the name of art is as abominable as, say, Pepsi using her original image to sell soda.
However, what if I am using decontextualization/recontextualization as a tool in my work? What if I choose to critique the way photographs are passed as "evidence" in the mass media? or in photojournalistic books for that matter? What if I don't believe in the complete transparency of the medium, of the journalistic photograph? – no photograph is truly "neutral". And what if I believe that the use of different mediums radically changes the response in the viewer? What if I am using paint to critique the uses of photography?
For that alone she should hate me, but she shouldn't sue me, because it's my right to make work that critiques a social phenomenon – even if it's a longstanding socially protected institution like photojournalism.
Tim, as for your crit (below): It occurs to me that we musn't lose site of what copyright is really for: protecting the author from outright theft. If I had taken part or all of this woman's photograph and passed it off as my own, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement; if someone grabs a jpeg of one of my paintings and tries to pass it off as part of their own portfolio – for a grant application, say – they are guilty of copyright infringement. And I would probably not sue them, but I would take them to task. Having it there, under the image, is just a warning : don't dare steal this outright!
Otoh, I sure as hell don't want to prevent people grabbing my jpegs and shredding or making whatever they want out of them, so probably you are right, a CC license would be much more appropriate. So yeah, maybe I should go and change all that – it IS inconsistent. (But– do I have to go do that on all my pages right now? can it wait, I'm so tired! PLEEZE??)
;)
J
> +To crit Joy+ > > I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov > page which I mirrored here: > > http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/ > > If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at the > very least release your work with a cc license which allows > unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings > attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are > illegal. > > Seems a bit –let's say– inconsistent? > > take care, >
On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 10:36 AM, twhid wrote:
> Liza wrote on her blog: >> Joy Garnett Riot show are oil paintings of images sampled from >> newswires and other public news media. Now she is not only being sued >> by the photojournalist whose picture was sample in Molotov but she is >> being asked to never show and never sell the artwork. This is >> obviously not a case of an artist protecting his speech rights but of >> one artist using his copyrights as a way to censor another artist. A >> sad case of Stockholm Syndrome if there ever was. > > I would like to add to Liza's thoughts. > > I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to > censor Joy? There really is no reason.
Yes there is. For whatever reason the work is objectionable to her/him. Censorship is the work/activity of a censor. What is a censor? I culled this from our trusty Dictionary.com
On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over > the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use > could be up for grabs.
I just want to make a point that this is the reason MN got C&D'd by Mattel. It was so obvious that what he created was not a Barbie that a child could play with. But Mattel has sued people in 3 prominent lawsuits on the grounds that the images created with artworks corrupted and diluted the Barbie trademark and, thusly, hurt the company's property. Here's some links to the latest dismissed case:
We could talk to our heart's content about the multivocity of art, of difference and the Nietzschean critique of the thing-in-tself but that does not a legal argument make. Companies and individuals do not trade in goods anymore but in brands and for that matter, CR and TR holders with the money to sue will do so to protect their right to market the 'Myth of a Brand' as a commodity. An artist that want to mess around with a myth, big or small, has a responsibility not just to their work but to the possible legal and social implications of their work.
In the case of copyright and trademark interpretations, they go well beyond the scope of protecting an artist or the uniqueness of a product. As long as we are in an economy that all what it does is to trade interpretations, the one with the most money to sue will win. I mean, even in the case of the Naked Barbie, the guy came out losing because Mattel did have to reimburse him for his legal expenses. In '96 if we had decided to go to court it would have cost us anything between 20 and 50K –even if the lawyer had defrayed her fees. Now it's in the hundreds of thousands. In these cases you need to do gobs of research and that's where the money goes. There's no free lawsuit in this country.
These are realities artists have to keep in mind when dealing with sampling, remixing, etc. DJ Danger Mouse has to contend with that as well, for The Grey Album. Grey Tuesday was nice but the guy is going to need a legal defense fund to deal with EMI.
here's something I hadn't considered until now (duh): my shift in sourcing raw material from declassified government images to a broader variety of images found in the media. the government doesn't care if you use declassified stuff; but disney and pepsi and mattel do.
I consider this event/ordeal as a kind of short course in copyright principles and law. my lawyer's fees are tuition (ouch).
> There's no free lawsuit in this country.
said like a true veteran; I want that on a t-shirt (to wear with my pirate patch?)
J
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, liza sabater wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Joy Garnett wrote: > > > That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over > > the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use > > could be up for grabs. > > I just want to make a point that this is the reason MN got C&D'd by > Mattel. It was so obvious that what he created was not a Barbie that a > child could play with. But Mattel has sued people in 3 prominent > lawsuits on the grounds that the images created with artworks corrupted > and diluted the Barbie trademark and, thusly, hurt the company's > property. Here's some links to the latest dismissed case: > > http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg44605.html > http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?idx93&cid=1&cname=Media > > We could talk to our heart's content about the multivocity of art, of > difference and the Nietzschean critique of the thing-in-tself but that > does not a legal argument make. Companies and individuals do not trade > in goods anymore but in brands and for that matter, CR and TR holders > with the money to sue will do so to protect their right to market the > 'Myth of a Brand' as a commodity. An artist that want to mess around > with a myth, big or small, has a responsibility not just to their work > but to the possible legal and social implications of their work. > > In the case of copyright and trademark interpretations, they go well > beyond the scope of protecting an artist or the uniqueness of a > product. As long as we are in an economy that all what it does is to > trade interpretations, the one with the most money to sue will win. I > mean, even in the case of the Naked Barbie, the guy came out losing > because Mattel did have to reimburse him for his legal expenses. In '96 > if we had decided to go to court it would have cost us anything between > 20 and 50K –even if the lawyer had defrayed her fees. Now it's in the > hundreds of thousands. In these cases you need to do gobs of research > and that's where the money goes. There's no free lawsuit in this > country. > > These are realities artists have to keep in mind when dealing with > sampling, remixing, etc. DJ Danger Mouse has to contend with that as > well, for The Grey Album. Grey Tuesday was nice but the guy is going to > need a legal defense fund to deal with EMI. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1159201,00.html > > > l i z a > ========================= > www.culturekitchen.com > >
On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 01:17 PM, Joy Garnett wrote: > >> There's no free lawsuit in this country. > > said like a true veteran; I want that on a t-shirt (to wear with my > pirate > patch?)
Funny you mention that. Tonight is Yael's opening at Bitforms. It occured to me that for these events, I should come in with a t-shirt that just says BUY ART. In big, bold Arial Black, maybe Impact. Maybe next show.
We could just make a whole collection: > There's no free lawsuit in this country. > BUY ART > F***K Valenti
Comments
OMG Liza that is so funny and great, I am rolling here (!)
xox
j
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, liza sabater wrote:
> http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Liza wrote on her blog:
> Joy Garnett Riot show are oil paintings of images sampled from
> newswires and other public news media. Now she is not only being sued
> by the photojournalist whose picture was sample in Molotov but she is
> being asked to never show and never sell the artwork. This is
> obviously not a case of an artist protecting his speech rights but of
> one artist using his copyrights as a way to censor another artist. A
> sad case of Stockholm Syndrome if there ever was.
I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to
censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she
will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That
would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of the
original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's
trying to sell the painting.
I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the
Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject
would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he
knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with
her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's
become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have
been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's the
Disney Syndrome.
+To crit Joy+
I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov
page which I mirrored here:
http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at the
very least release your work with a cc license which allows
unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings
attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are
illegal.
Seems a bit –let's say– inconsistent?
take care,
On Mar 5, 2004, at 12:53 AM, liza sabater wrote:
> http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
>
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, twhid wrote:
> I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
>
> I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to
> censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she
> will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That
> would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of the
> original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's
> trying to sell the painting.
Case in point: we neither share or overlap in the realms of critics,
curators, venues and market. in a world where one must choose one's
battles wisely, why is she even bothering?
>
> I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the
> Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject
> would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he
> knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with
> her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's
> become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have
> been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's the
> Disney Syndrome.
No doubt it's a pride thing. It seems that she believes that any quality/
power of my work is a simple duplication of the power of hers: in effect
that I'm trying to pass off her artfulness as my own.
But here are a few points + questions I want to ask:
Regarding photographs that depict real events, does there exist an
intrinsic meaning or incorruptible essence? Or is the photograph an
amoral wild thing that can be co-opted to mean just about anything
depending on spin, captions, context? It's got to be the latter, which I
think we all, including the photographer suing me, would have to agree
upon. That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over
the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use
could be up for grabs. These folks have a mission, and since there is a
moral stance involved, to their mind ANY decontextualizing /
recontextualizing of their image, even in the name of art is as
abominable as, say, Pepsi using her original image to sell soda.
However, what if I am using decontextualization/recontextualization as a
tool in my work? What if I choose to critique the way photographs are
passed as "evidence" in the mass media? or in photojournalistic books for
that matter? What if I don't believe in the complete transparency of the
medium, of the journalistic photograph? – no photograph is truly
"neutral". And what if I believe that the use of different mediums
radically changes the response in the viewer? What if I am using paint to
critique the uses of photography?
For that alone she should hate me, but she shouldn't sue me, because it's
my right to make work that critiques a social phenomenon – even if it's a
longstanding socially protected institution like photojournalism.
Tim, as for your crit (below): It occurs to me that we musn't lose site of
what copyright is really for: protecting the author from outright theft.
If I had taken part or all of this woman's photograph and passed it off
as my own, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement; if someone grabs a
jpeg of one of my paintings and tries to pass it off as part of their own
portfolio – for a grant application, say – they are guilty of copyright
infringement. And I would probably not sue them, but I would take them to
task. Having it there, under the image, is just a warning : don't dare
steal this outright!
Otoh, I sure as hell don't want to prevent people grabbing my jpegs and
shredding or making whatever they want out of them, so probably you are
right, a CC license would be much more appropriate. So yeah, maybe I
should go and change all that – it IS inconsistent. (But– do I have to
go do that on all my pages right now? can it wait, I'm so tired! PLEEZE??)
;)
J
> +To crit Joy+
>
> I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov
> page which I mirrored here:
>
> http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
>
> If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at the
> very least release your work with a cc license which allows
> unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings
> attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are
> illegal.
>
> Seems a bit –let's say– inconsistent?
>
> take care,
>
On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 10:36 AM, twhid wrote:
> Liza wrote on her blog:
>> Joy Garnett Riot show are oil paintings of images sampled from
>> newswires and other public news media. Now she is not only being sued
>> by the photojournalist whose picture was sample in Molotov but she is
>> being asked to never show and never sell the artwork. This is
>> obviously not a case of an artist protecting his speech rights but of
>> one artist using his copyrights as a way to censor another artist. A
>> sad case of Stockholm Syndrome if there ever was.
>
> I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
>
> I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to
> censor Joy? There really is no reason.
Yes there is. For whatever reason the work is objectionable to her/him.
Censorship is the work/activity of a censor. What is a censor? I culled
this from our trusty Dictionary.com
> cen
On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over
> the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use
> could be up for grabs.
I just want to make a point that this is the reason MN got C&D'd by
Mattel. It was so obvious that what he created was not a Barbie that a
child could play with. But Mattel has sued people in 3 prominent
lawsuits on the grounds that the images created with artworks corrupted
and diluted the Barbie trademark and, thusly, hurt the company's
property. Here's some links to the latest dismissed case:
http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg44605.html
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?idx93&cid=1&cname=Media
We could talk to our heart's content about the multivocity of art, of
difference and the Nietzschean critique of the thing-in-tself but that
does not a legal argument make. Companies and individuals do not trade
in goods anymore but in brands and for that matter, CR and TR holders
with the money to sue will do so to protect their right to market the
'Myth of a Brand' as a commodity. An artist that want to mess around
with a myth, big or small, has a responsibility not just to their work
but to the possible legal and social implications of their work.
In the case of copyright and trademark interpretations, they go well
beyond the scope of protecting an artist or the uniqueness of a
product. As long as we are in an economy that all what it does is to
trade interpretations, the one with the most money to sue will win. I
mean, even in the case of the Naked Barbie, the guy came out losing
because Mattel did have to reimburse him for his legal expenses. In '96
if we had decided to go to court it would have cost us anything between
20 and 50K –even if the lawyer had defrayed her fees. Now it's in the
hundreds of thousands. In these cases you need to do gobs of research
and that's where the money goes. There's no free lawsuit in this
country.
These are realities artists have to keep in mind when dealing with
sampling, remixing, etc. DJ Danger Mouse has to contend with that as
well, for The Grey Album. Grey Tuesday was nice but the guy is going to
need a legal defense fund to deal with EMI.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1159201,00.html
l i z a
=========================
www.culturekitchen.com
Well-put;
here's something I hadn't considered until now (duh): my shift in
sourcing raw material from declassified government images to a broader
variety of images found in the media. the government doesn't care if you
use declassified stuff; but disney and pepsi and mattel do.
I consider this event/ordeal as a kind of short course in copyright
principles and law. my lawyer's fees are tuition (ouch).
> There's no free lawsuit in this country.
said like a true veteran; I want that on a t-shirt (to wear with my pirate
patch?)
J
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, liza sabater wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over
> > the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use
> > could be up for grabs.
>
> I just want to make a point that this is the reason MN got C&D'd by
> Mattel. It was so obvious that what he created was not a Barbie that a
> child could play with. But Mattel has sued people in 3 prominent
> lawsuits on the grounds that the images created with artworks corrupted
> and diluted the Barbie trademark and, thusly, hurt the company's
> property. Here's some links to the latest dismissed case:
>
> http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg44605.html
> http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?idx93&cid=1&cname=Media
>
> We could talk to our heart's content about the multivocity of art, of
> difference and the Nietzschean critique of the thing-in-tself but that
> does not a legal argument make. Companies and individuals do not trade
> in goods anymore but in brands and for that matter, CR and TR holders
> with the money to sue will do so to protect their right to market the
> 'Myth of a Brand' as a commodity. An artist that want to mess around
> with a myth, big or small, has a responsibility not just to their work
> but to the possible legal and social implications of their work.
>
> In the case of copyright and trademark interpretations, they go well
> beyond the scope of protecting an artist or the uniqueness of a
> product. As long as we are in an economy that all what it does is to
> trade interpretations, the one with the most money to sue will win. I
> mean, even in the case of the Naked Barbie, the guy came out losing
> because Mattel did have to reimburse him for his legal expenses. In '96
> if we had decided to go to court it would have cost us anything between
> 20 and 50K –even if the lawyer had defrayed her fees. Now it's in the
> hundreds of thousands. In these cases you need to do gobs of research
> and that's where the money goes. There's no free lawsuit in this
> country.
>
> These are realities artists have to keep in mind when dealing with
> sampling, remixing, etc. DJ Danger Mouse has to contend with that as
> well, for The Grey Album. Grey Tuesday was nice but the guy is going to
> need a legal defense fund to deal with EMI.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1159201,00.html
>
>
> l i z a
> =========================
> www.culturekitchen.com
>
>
On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 01:17 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
>> There's no free lawsuit in this country.
>
> said like a true veteran; I want that on a t-shirt (to wear with my
> pirate
> patch?)
Funny you mention that. Tonight is Yael's opening at Bitforms. It
occured to me that for these events, I should come in with a t-shirt
that just says BUY ART. In big, bold Arial Black, maybe Impact. Maybe
next show.
We could just make a whole collection:
> There's no free lawsuit in this country.
> BUY ART
> F***K Valenti
etc, etc
l i z a
=========================
www.culturekitchen.com