I'm proud to say that I've never heard of Susan Meiselas.
pall —– Original Message —– From: "liza sabater" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: joywar: the photo that started it all
> OH! > > So Pinter had it but Susan Meiselas is the actual copyright holder. I > wonder if Pinter paid for the right to have it on his web site. > > > On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 04:34 PM, t.whid wrote: > > > might need a log-in… > > > > http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/ > > CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total
so if anyone rats out harold pinter I'll just have to beat them up.
;)
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> I'm proud to say that I've never heard of Susan Meiselas. > > pall > —– Original Message —– > From: "liza sabater" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:20 PM > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: joywar: the photo that started it all > > > > OH! > > > > So Pinter had it but Susan Meiselas is the actual copyright holder. I > > wonder if Pinter paid for the right to have it on his web site. > > > > > > On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 04:34 PM, t.whid wrote: > > > > > might need a log-in… > > > > > > http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/ > > > CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total
hey again Tim, this is one of those cool moments when the artistic distinction between the artworks dovetails with the description attempted in the law–I noticed in my sessions with my lawyer that we were each building our discussions in tandem–mine, an attempt to clarify just what it is I do; his, an attempt to demonstrate that the work is "transformative" or substantially different from the photo, and therefore not an infringement. And the reasons you describe below are relevant to both of those discussions.
What's funny to me now is how irrelevant the Pepsi logo is to the original photo–he could be tossing a vinegar bottle, it would make no difference; whereas in the painting, it's pretty central. One could argue "transformative" on that basis alone I suppose–the entire meaning of the piece is different because of it.
cheers, J
twhid wrote:
> there is also no sun or environs in Joy's painting – making it much more symbolic. the photo is very specific. a very specific struggle at a very specific time in a very specific context. Joy's painting takes it out of the specific context and it becomes much more a portrait of violent, anti-corporate youth rebellion.
Comments
OH!
So Pinter had it but Susan Meiselas is the actual copyright holder. I
wonder if Pinter paid for the right to have it on his web site.
On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 04:34 PM, t.whid wrote:
> might need a log-in…
>
> http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/
> CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total
I'm proud to say that I've never heard of Susan Meiselas.
pall
—– Original Message —–
From: "liza sabater" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: joywar: the photo that started it all
> OH!
>
> So Pinter had it but Susan Meiselas is the actual copyright holder. I
> wonder if Pinter paid for the right to have it on his web site.
>
>
> On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 04:34 PM, t.whid wrote:
>
> > might need a log-in…
> >
> > http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/
> > CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total
so if anyone rats out harold pinter I'll just have to beat them up.
;)
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> I'm proud to say that I've never heard of Susan Meiselas.
>
> pall
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "liza sabater" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: joywar: the photo that started it all
>
>
> > OH!
> >
> > So Pinter had it but Susan Meiselas is the actual copyright holder. I
> > wonder if Pinter paid for the right to have it on his web site.
> >
> >
> > On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 04:34 PM, t.whid wrote:
> >
> > > might need a log-in…
> > >
> > > http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/
> > > CSearchZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=SearchThumb_SearchZoom&o=&Total
hey again Tim,
this is one of those cool moments when the artistic distinction between
the artworks dovetails with the description attempted in the
law–I noticed in my sessions with my lawyer that we were each building
our discussions in tandem–mine, an attempt to clarify just what it is
I do; his, an attempt to demonstrate that the work is "transformative" or
substantially different from the photo, and therefore not an infringement.
And the reasons you describe below are relevant to both of those discussions.
What's funny to me now is how irrelevant the Pepsi logo is to the original
photo–he could be tossing a vinegar bottle, it would make no difference;
whereas in the painting, it's pretty central. One could argue
"transformative" on that basis alone I suppose–the entire meaning of the
piece is different because of it.
cheers,
J
twhid wrote:
> there is also no sun or environs in Joy's painting – making it much
more symbolic. the photo is very specific. a very specific struggle at
a very specific time in a very specific context. Joy's painting takes
it out of the specific context and it becomes much more a portrait of
violent, anti-corporate youth rebellion.