friends,
the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it in a
folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a Magnum
photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book. The
joke is definitely on me.
To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with the
original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original context
was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff. But
apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down last
week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the gallery's
and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their rights.
Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I ask
for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They don't
want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to license
the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable and
rather decent.
However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird way. I
mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable entities.
It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this age
of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And although
the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
–are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in serious
danger.
I see an art lawyer later today.
all the best,
Joy
http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
I am a pirate ?!
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Dear Joy:
I guess you are a famous artist now. Congrats.
Sorry to hear about your inconvenience. It was good to hear that you are not
suffering any serious financial pains. Had just the painting been in the
exhibition nothing would have come of it.
The fact however that the painting in question was a one of a kind artwork
does throw some issues to your own defense. Did Warhol ever license any of
his images?
Great show and I look forward to seeing your next.
Cheers,
Lee
on 2/26/04 13:22, Joy Garnett at [email protected] wrote:
> friends,
>
> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
>
> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it in a
> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a Magnum
> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book. The
> joke is definitely on me.
>
> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with the
> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original context
> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff. But
> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
>
> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down last
> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the gallery's
> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their rights.
>
> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I ask
> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They don't
> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to license
> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable and
> rather decent.
>
> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird way. I
> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable entities.
> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this age
> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And although
> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in serious
> danger.
>
> I see an art lawyer later today.
>
> all the best,
> Joy
>
> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Hello Joy,
Congratulations on your recent press, I suppose this sort of thing would have a remote chance of happening without it. Oh yea, there is the journalist 'friend
Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the sound
of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse
—– Original Message —–
From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> friends,
>
> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
>
> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it in a
> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a Magnum
> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book. The
> joke is definitely on me.
>
> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with the
> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original context
> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff. But
> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
>
> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down last
> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the gallery's
> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their rights.
>
> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I ask
> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They don't
> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to license
> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable and
> rather decent.
>
> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird way. I
> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable entities.
> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this age
> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
although
> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in serious
> danger.
>
> I see an art lawyer later today.
>
> all the best,
> Joy
>
> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
>
>
> +
> -> 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
hey guys, thanks for the moral support. I just came back from the most
illuminating discussion with an art lawyer. all he does is art copyright
law, and he's a champion of fair use, very passionate, very much on the
side of artists and the 1st amendment, creative licence, sampling, etc. In
an hour and a half he had me giggling: apparently I'm not in violation.
Copyright law is more subtle and twisted than I imagined. This lawsuit is
KRAZY. The point now is to handle it as elegantly as possible.
There is something called "thin copyright" apparently: for example, when a
photojournalist snaps a photograph in the field, it is reportage. they may
have copyright over the image's technique, style and quality, but they
can't have copyright over the subjects and the event itself. Since my work
utilizes a small portion of the original image, decontextualizes it,
transforms it, and uses it to comment on both the generic type of event
(emotionally overextended men; Riots) and the openendedness of images in
media (warming to my theme) it doesn't count as a "derivative" work. So I
may be swashbuckling but apparently I'm no pirate. Will keep the list
apprised if it becomes interesting; looks like I'm about to enter the
legal fray. If and when it makes sense, I'll disclose names: the
plaintiff and the rat. WHy the hell not, right? Creeps!
And nicholas, feel free to screw around with my images. If you feel like
you may be stealing, (you'll only be liable once if I win this case!) give
me some scant credit line if only to assuage your guilt and stroke my
overwrought ego; if not, don't bother!
best,
Joy
funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
winners…
thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
stay tuned,
Joy
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the sound
> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
>
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>
> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > friends,
> >
> > the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> > infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> > served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> > encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> > painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >
> > the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> > war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> > taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> > such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> > anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it in a
> > folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a Magnum
> > photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book. The
> > joke is definitely on me.
> >
> > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with the
> > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original context
> > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff. But
> > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >
> > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down last
> > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the gallery's
> > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their rights.
> >
> > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I ask
> > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They don't
> > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to license
> > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable and
> > rather decent.
> >
> > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird way. I
> > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable entities.
> > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this age
> > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> although
> > the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in serious
> > danger.
> >
> > I see an art lawyer later today.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Joy
> >
> > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you can turn
around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from now on.
Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse
—– Original Message —–
From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> winners…
>
> thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
> have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
>
> stay tuned,
> Joy
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
> > Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
sound
> > of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> > wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> >
> > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> >
> > Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> > probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> > wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> >
> > Pall Thayer
> > artist/teacher
> > Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> > http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> > http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> > http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> >
> >
> > > friends,
> > >
> > > the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> > > infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> > > served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> > > encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> > > painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> > >
> > > the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> > > war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> > > taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> > > such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> > > anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
in a
> > > folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
Magnum
> > > photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
The
> > > joke is definitely on me.
> > >
> > > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
the
> > > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
context
> > > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
But
> > > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> > >
> > > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> > > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
last
> > > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
gallery's
> > > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > > terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
rights.
> > >
> > > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
ask
> > > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
don't
> > > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
license
> > > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
and
> > > rather decent.
> > >
> > > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
way. I
> > > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
entities.
> > > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
age
> > > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > although
> > > the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > > –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
til
> > > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > > the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
serious
> > > danger.
> > >
> > > I see an art lawyer later today.
> > >
> > > all the best,
> > > Joy
> > >
> > > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> > >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
> +
> -> 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
Y. This is totally f'd up. I hate people.
Drop some names Joy, drop some names ;-)
btw, once I was briefed by a lawyer concerning copyright (at my day
gig) and it was incredibly slippery and seemingly subjective sort of
thing. Figuring it out almost seems to be an art in itself.
Of course Lessig's lecture around CC is fascinating IMO. We in NYC were
lucky to have Eyebeam host a panel on which he spoke.
good luck Joy, don't give that bee-yatch no credit!
On Feb 27, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> question and have a conversation. it's called
> c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> winners…
>
> thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels
> to
> have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
>
> stay tuned,
> Joy
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
>> sound
>> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
>> they
>> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
>>
>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>>
>> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
>> he's
>> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all
>> you
>> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
>>
>>> friends,
>>>
>>> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for
>>> copyright
>>> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I
>>> was
>>> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
>>> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of
>>> my
>>> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
>>>
>>> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
>>> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
>>> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
>>> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
>>> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
>>> in a
>>> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
>>> Magnum
>>> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
>>> The
>>> joke is definitely on me.
>>>
>>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
>>> with the
>>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
>>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
>>> context
>>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
>>> stuff. But
>>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
>>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
>>>
>>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
>>> supposed
>>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
>>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
>>> last
>>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
>>> gallery's
>>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
>>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
>>> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
>>> rights.
>>>
>>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
>>> being
>>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
>>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that
>>> I ask
>>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
>>> don't
>>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
>>> license
>>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
>>> reasonable and
>>> rather decent.
>>>
>>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
>>> way. I
>>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
>>> entities.
>>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
>>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
>>> this age
>>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
>> although
>>> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry,
>>> etc.
>>> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
>>> til
>>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
>>> when
>>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
>>> infringement,
>>> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
>>> serious
>>> danger.
>>>
>>> I see an art lawyer later today.
>>>
>>> all the best,
>>> Joy
>>>
>>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
>
>
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
oh gawd tim – I am SO ready to cough up names – but I'm going to
excersize some restraint… at least for now. I have to wait and see how
they respond to my formal response, which I send out tomorrow. I'm taking
the high road; politeness is one of the best defences, not to mention
offences. we'll see what happens.
best,
joy
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, t.whid wrote:
> Y. This is totally f'd up. I hate people.
>
> Drop some names Joy, drop some names ;-)
>
> btw, once I was briefed by a lawyer concerning copyright (at my day
> gig) and it was incredibly slippery and seemingly subjective sort of
> thing. Figuring it out almost seems to be an art in itself.
>
> Of course Lessig's lecture around CC is fascinating IMO. We in NYC were
> lucky to have Eyebeam host a panel on which he spoke.
>
> good luck Joy, don't give that bee-yatch no credit!
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> > question and have a conversation. it's called
> > c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> > right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> > photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> > being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> > winners…
> >
> > thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels
> > to
> > have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >
> > stay tuned,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
> >> sound
> >> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
> >> they
> >> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> >>
> >> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> >>
> >> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
> >> he's
> >> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all
> >> you
> >> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> >>
> >>> friends,
> >>>
> >>> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for
> >>> copyright
> >>> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I
> >>> was
> >>> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> >>> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of
> >>> my
> >>> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >>>
> >>> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> >>> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> >>> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> >>> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> >>> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
> >>> in a
> >>> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
> >>> Magnum
> >>> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
> >>> The
> >>> joke is definitely on me.
> >>>
> >>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
> >>> with the
> >>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> >>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> >>> context
> >>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
> >>> stuff. But
> >>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> >>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >>>
> >>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
> >>> supposed
> >>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> >>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> >>> last
> >>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> >>> gallery's
> >>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> >>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> >>> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
> >>> rights.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
> >>> being
> >>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> >>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that
> >>> I ask
> >>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> >>> don't
> >>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> >>> license
> >>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
> >>> reasonable and
> >>> rather decent.
> >>>
> >>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> >>> way. I
> >>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> >>> entities.
> >>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> >>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
> >>> this age
> >>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> >> although
> >>> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry,
> >>> etc.
> >>> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> >>> til
> >>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
> >>> when
> >>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
> >>> infringement,
> >>> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
> >>> serious
> >>> danger.
> >>>
> >>> I see an art lawyer later today.
> >>>
> >>> all the best,
> >>> Joy
> >>>
> >>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
yay for pirate commies; maybe someone should set up an art law blog –
other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there and
I haven't seen it?
btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
"That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and this an
auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and rights,
this is a time to get heard successfully."
indeed!
best,
j
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
>
> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you can turn
> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
>
> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from now on.
> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> > question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> > right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> > photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> > being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> > winners…
> >
> > thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
> > have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >
> > stay tuned,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> > > Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
> sound
> > > of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> > > wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> > >
> > > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> > >
> > > Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> > > probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> > > wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> > >
> > > Pall Thayer
> > > artist/teacher
> > > Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> > > http://130.208.220.190/panse
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> > >
> > >
> > > > friends,
> > > >
> > > > the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> > > > infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> > > > served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> > > > encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> > > > painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> > > >
> > > > the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> > > > war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> > > > taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> > > > such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> > > > anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
> in a
> > > > folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
> Magnum
> > > > photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
> The
> > > > joke is definitely on me.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
> the
> > > > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > > > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> context
> > > > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
> But
> > > > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > > > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> > > >
> > > > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > > > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> > > > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> last
> > > > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> gallery's
> > > > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > > > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > > > terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
> rights.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > > > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > > > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
> ask
> > > > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> don't
> > > > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> license
> > > > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
> and
> > > > rather decent.
> > > >
> > > > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> way. I
> > > > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> entities.
> > > > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > > > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
> age
> > > > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > > although
> > > > the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > > > –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> til
> > > > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > > > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > > > the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
> serious
> > > > danger.
> > > >
> > > > I see an art lawyer later today.
> > > >
> > > > all the best,
> > > > Joy
> > > >
> > > > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> 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
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Ride this thing a little bit and it could be some good attention for
the both of you. Get you to the next level and re-ignite his career….
but now that you know the individual that shot the photo is an artist
as well, he deserves the credit for being the one with the balls to be
shooting photos in a riot situation. I don't know if you have tried it
before but when there is a lot going on …i.e. cops, scared kids,
black blockers and regulars. and your main concentration is on getting
the perfect photo (just like the one in your painting) its easy to get
caught up in the crossfire. I think you created a one of a kind artwork
based on his photograph. its all popart to me anyways. His photograph
is just a bit more real.
Keep doing what you are doing.
Cheers,
Lee
On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> yay for pirate commies; maybe someone should set up an art law blog –
> other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there
> and
> I haven't seen it?
>
> btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
>
> "That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and this
> an
> auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
> metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and rights,
> this is a time to get heard successfully."
>
> indeed!
>
> best,
> j
>
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
>>
>> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you
>> can turn
>> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
>>
>> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from now
>> on.
>> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
>>
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist/teacher
>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>>
>>
>>> funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
>>> question and have a conversation. it's called
>>> c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
>>> right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
>>> photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known
>>> for
>>> being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple
>>> of
>>> winners…
>>>
>>> thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it
>>> feels to
>>> have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
>>>
>>> stay tuned,
>>> Joy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from
>>>> the
>> sound
>>>> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
>>>> they
>>>> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
>>>>
>>>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>>>>
>>>> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
>>>> he's
>>>> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and
>>>> all you
>>>> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
>>>>
>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>> artist/teacher
>>>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>>>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>>>
>>>> —– Original Message —–
>>>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
>>>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> friends,
>>>>>
>>>>> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for
>>>>> copyright
>>>>> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I
>>>>> was
>>>>> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
>>>>> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part
>>>>> of my
>>>>> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
>>>>>
>>>>> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
>>>>> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
>>>>> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images
>>>>> and
>>>>> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on
>>>>> some
>>>>> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck
>>>>> it
>> in a
>>>>> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
>> Magnum
>>>>> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and
>>>>> book.
>> The
>>>>> joke is definitely on me.
>>>>>
>>>>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
>>>>> with
>> the
>>>>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
>>>>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
>> context
>>>>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
>>>>> stuff.
>> But
>>>>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
>>>>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
>>>>>
>>>>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
>>>>> supposed
>>>>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they
>>>>> stick
>>>>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came
>>>>> down
>> last
>>>>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
>> gallery's
>>>>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
>>>>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed
>>>>> in
>>>>> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
>> rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
>>>>> being
>>>>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
>>>>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and
>>>>> that I
>> ask
>>>>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
>> don't
>>>>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
>> license
>>>>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
>>>>> reasonable
>> and
>>>>> rather decent.
>>>>>
>>>>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
>> way. I
>>>>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
>> entities.
>>>>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing
>>>>> devices.
>>>>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
>>>>> this
>> age
>>>>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again.
>>>>> And
>>>> although
>>>>> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
>> til
>>>>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
>>>>> when
>>>>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
>>>>> infringement,
>>>>> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
>> serious
>>>>> danger.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see an art lawyer later today.
>>>>>
>>>>> all the best,
>>>>> Joy
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> -> 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
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
>
_________
Lee A Wells
mobile: 917 723 2524
studio: 718 349 7951
[email protected]
http://www.leewells.org
Mm, Lee, interesting:
actually this person–it's a woman btw–has nothing to gain by this.
She's already world-famous–fanTASTically, ridiculously famous in fact.
She gains everything by having this remain private. Actually, she really
made a mistake, since her claim is spurious and I'm not at all infringing
upon her copyright, as I have recently come to understand. It's all about
control; it's not about fairness or anything like that. And because I'm
going to stand my ground. It's so not worth her while no matter how it's
sliced.
The thing is, I never seek famous photographs to rip off or derive (that
would be an entirely different project) – I only want little-seen,
unknown, hopefully anonymous ones. And then I change them in different
degrees: ripping away their context; replacing their narrative with
mine, etc. The idea behind it doesn't originate with the found work.
In the case of this photo, I had found a detail of it, uncredited, pirated
on a website. Had I known it was a "seminal" work I wouldn't have gone
near it because it doesn't serve my concept.
what it really comes down to is this: photojournalists produce
reportage–they may fall closer to fine art photography than do commercial
photographers, but they are still recording events as opposed to
constructing them (the "construction" comes later, with publishing, re-
contextualizations, spin, etc.). Because they go out to war-torn regions
often risking life and limb to tell a story, they tend to feel they occupy
the moral high ground. But otoh they also–especially this woman–
must rely on the willingness of "the natives" to be photographed. Do these
people/subjects get anything from this? Hard to say. so, this person has
made a career from photographing poor people and dying and dead and
exploding people and basically indigent disenfranchized people in the
field. The reporter is supposed to be telling someone else's story–not
trying to own it.
anyway, I haven't stolen this person's thunder (this image was taken in
1978!). And I've decided to agree to an abridged credit line, out of
courtesy. But as Pall pointed out, she could have emailed me and asked for
it. Instead, she's committed an act of aggression against an unknown
artist who occupies an entirely different market and artworld, who happens
to be excersizing their first amendment rights.
The most interesting thing you say–the one that makes me smile a LOT and
would make any photojournalist cringe–is "its all popart to me anyways."
I love it!
best,
Joy
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Lee Wells wrote:
> Ride this thing a little bit and it could be some good attention for
> the both of you. Get you to the next level and re-ignite his career….
> but now that you know the individual that shot the photo is an artist
> as well, he deserves the credit for being the one with the balls to be
> shooting photos in a riot situation. I don't know if you have tried it
> before but when there is a lot going on …i.e. cops, scared kids,
> black blockers and regulars. and your main concentration is on getting
> the perfect photo (just like the one in your painting) its easy to get
> caught up in the crossfire. I think you created a one of a kind artwork
> based on his photograph. its all popart to me anyways. His photograph
> is just a bit more real.
>
> Keep doing what you are doing.
>
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
>
> On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > yay for pirate commies; maybe someone should set up an art law blog –
> > other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there
> > and
> > I haven't seen it?
> >
> > btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
> >
> > "That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and this
> > an
> > auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
> > metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and rights,
> > this is a time to get heard successfully."
> >
> > indeed!
> >
> > best,
> > j
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> >> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
> >>
> >> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you
> >> can turn
> >> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from now
> >> on.
> >> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
> >>
> >> Pall Thayer
> >> artist/teacher
> >> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> >> http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >>
> >>
> >> —– Original Message —–
> >> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> >> To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
> >> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> >>
> >>
> >>> funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> >>> question and have a conversation. it's called
> >>> c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> >>> right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> >>> photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known
> >>> for
> >>> being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple
> >>> of
> >>> winners…
> >>>
> >>> thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it
> >>> feels to
> >>> have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >>>
> >>> stay tuned,
> >>> Joy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from
> >>>> the
> >> sound
> >>>> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
> >>>> they
> >>>> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
> >>>> he's
> >>>> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and
> >>>> all you
> >>>> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> >>>>
> >>>> Pall Thayer
> >>>> artist/teacher
> >>>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> >>>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >>>>
> >>>> —– Original Message —–
> >>>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> >>>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> >>>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> friends,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for
> >>>>> copyright
> >>>>> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I
> >>>>> was
> >>>>> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> >>>>> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part
> >>>>> of my
> >>>>> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> >>>>> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> >>>>> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on
> >>>>> some
> >>>>> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck
> >>>>> it
> >> in a
> >>>>> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
> >> Magnum
> >>>>> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and
> >>>>> book.
> >> The
> >>>>> joke is definitely on me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
> >>>>> with
> >> the
> >>>>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> >>>>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> >> context
> >>>>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
> >>>>> stuff.
> >> But
> >>>>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> >>>>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
> >>>>> supposed
> >>>>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they
> >>>>> stick
> >>>>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came
> >>>>> down
> >> last
> >>>>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> >> gallery's
> >>>>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> >>>>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
> >> rights.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
> >>>>> being
> >>>>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> >>>>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and
> >>>>> that I
> >> ask
> >>>>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> >> don't
> >>>>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> >> license
> >>>>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
> >>>>> reasonable
> >> and
> >>>>> rather decent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> >> way. I
> >>>>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> >> entities.
> >>>>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing
> >>>>> devices.
> >>>>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
> >>>>> this
> >> age
> >>>>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again.
> >>>>> And
> >>>> although
> >>>>> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry,
> >>>>> etc.
> >>>>> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> >> til
> >>>>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
> >>>>> when
> >>>>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
> >>>>> infringement,
> >>>>> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
> >> serious
> >>>>> danger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see an art lawyer later today.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> all the best,
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> -> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> -> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
> _________
>
> Lee A Wells
> mobile: 917 723 2524
> studio: 718 349 7951
>
> [email protected]
> http://www.leewells.org
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Joy – Good luck with all this.
I saw your amazing painting show and am so surprised to learn that it
was somehow illegal for you to derive a work, loosely, from a
photograph. What about Richter's famous October 77 series? He doesn't
acknowledge the photographer who took the news photos of Gudrun Esslin
et al. Perhaps German law is different on this count. But what about
Richard Prince or Sherrie Levine? Anyway, just riffing because I am in
shock. Please keep me posted on what happens. – Rachel
On Feb 27, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> Mm, Lee, interesting:
>
> actually this person–it's a woman btw–has nothing to gain by this.
> She's already world-famous–fanTASTically, ridiculously famous in fact.
> She gains everything by having this remain private. Actually, she
> really
> made a mistake, since her claim is spurious and I'm not at all
> infringing
> upon her copyright, as I have recently come to understand. It's all
> about
> control; it's not about fairness or anything like that. And because I'm
> going to stand my ground. It's so not worth her while no matter how
> it's
> sliced.
>
> The thing is, I never seek famous photographs to rip off or derive
> (that
> would be an entirely different project) – I only want little-seen,
> unknown, hopefully anonymous ones. And then I change them in different
> degrees: ripping away their context; replacing their narrative with
> mine, etc. The idea behind it doesn't originate with the found work.
>
> In the case of this photo, I had found a detail of it, uncredited,
> pirated
> on a website. Had I known it was a "seminal" work I wouldn't have gone
> near it because it doesn't serve my concept.
>
> what it really comes down to is this: photojournalists produce
> reportage–they may fall closer to fine art photography than do
> commercial
> photographers, but they are still recording events as opposed to
> constructing them (the "construction" comes later, with publishing, re-
> contextualizations, spin, etc.). Because they go out to war-torn
> regions
> often risking life and limb to tell a story, they tend to feel they
> occupy
> the moral high ground. But otoh they also–especially this woman–
> must rely on the willingness of "the natives" to be photographed. Do
> these
> people/subjects get anything from this? Hard to say. so, this person
> has
> made a career from photographing poor people and dying and dead and
> exploding people and basically indigent disenfranchized people in the
> field. The reporter is supposed to be telling someone else's story–not
> trying to own it.
>
> anyway, I haven't stolen this person's thunder (this image was taken in
> 1978!). And I've decided to agree to an abridged credit line, out of
> courtesy. But as Pall pointed out, she could have emailed me and asked
> for
> it. Instead, she's committed an act of aggression against an unknown
> artist who occupies an entirely different market and artworld, who
> happens
> to be excersizing their first amendment rights.
>
> The most interesting thing you say–the one that makes me smile a LOT
> and
> would make any photojournalist cringe–is "its all popart to me
> anyways."
>
> I love it!
>
> best,
> Joy
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Lee Wells wrote:
>
>> Ride this thing a little bit and it could be some good attention for
>> the both of you. Get you to the next level and re-ignite his
>> career….
>> but now that you know the individual that shot the photo is an artist
>> as well, he deserves the credit for being the one with the balls to
>> be
>> shooting photos in a riot situation. I don't know if you have tried it
>> before but when there is a lot going on …i.e. cops, scared kids,
>> black blockers and regulars. and your main concentration is on getting
>> the perfect photo (just like the one in your painting) its easy to get
>> caught up in the crossfire. I think you created a one of a kind
>> artwork
>> based on his photograph. its all popart to me anyways. His photograph
>> is just a bit more real.
>>
>> Keep doing what you are doing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lee
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>>
>>> yay for pirate commies; maybe someone should set up an art law blog
>>> –
>>> other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there
>>> and
>>> I haven't seen it?
>>>
>>> btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
>>>
>>> "That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and
>>> this
>>> an
>>> auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
>>> metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and
>>> rights,
>>> this is a time to get heard successfully."
>>>
>>> indeed!
>>>
>>> best,
>>> j
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you
>>>> can turn
>>>> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from
>>>> now
>>>> on.
>>>> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
>>>>
>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>> artist/teacher
>>>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>>>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> —– Original Message —–
>>>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work
>>>>> in
>>>>> question and have a conversation. it's called
>>>>> c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
>>>>> right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
>>>>> photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known
>>>>> for
>>>>> being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a
>>>>> couple
>>>>> of
>>>>> winners…
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it
>>>>> feels to
>>>>> have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
>>>>>
>>>>> stay tuned,
>>>>> Joy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from
>>>>>> the
>>>> sound
>>>>>> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
>>>>>> he's
>>>>>> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and
>>>>>> all you
>>>>>> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>> artist/teacher
>>>>>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>>>>>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>>>>>
>>>>>> —– Original Message —–
>>>>>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
>>>>>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> friends,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for
>>>>>>> copyright
>>>>>>> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part
>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
>>>>>>> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
>>>>>>> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck
>>>>>>> it
>>>> in a
>>>>>>> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by
>>>>>>> a
>>>> Magnum
>>>>>>> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and
>>>>>>> book.
>>>> The
>>>>>>> joke is definitely on me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
>>>>>>> with
>>>> the
>>>>>>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its
>>>>>>> original
>>>> context
>>>>>>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>> But
>>>>>>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
>>>>>>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they
>>>>>>> stick
>>>>>>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came
>>>>>>> down
>>>> last
>>>>>>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
>>>> gallery's
>>>>>>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
>>>>>>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
>>>>>>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and
>>>>>>> that I
>>>> ask
>>>>>>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future.
>>>>>>> They
>>>> don't
>>>>>>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
>>>> license
>>>>>>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>> and
>>>>>>> rather decent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a
>>>>>>> weird
>>>> way. I
>>>>>>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
>>>> entities.
>>>>>>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing
>>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
>>>>>>> this
>>>> age
>>>>>>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>> although
>>>>>>> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to
>>>>>>> fight
>>>> til
>>>>>>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
>>>>>>> infringement,
>>>>>>> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
>>>> serious
>>>>>>> danger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see an art lawyer later today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all the best,
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> -> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> -> 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
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _________
>>
>> Lee A Wells
>> mobile: 917 723 2524
>> studio: 718 349 7951
>>
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.leewells.org
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
thanks so much rachel – actually, my shock has passed, and among the good
things to come out of this are the many supportive emails I've receiveed
with useful stories, legal advice, and fair use info; nice to feel
supported when you've been accused of stealing! also, now that
I've been forced to, I'm actually learning something about copyright
infringement. I feel so relieved that I am not in violation; I had just
assumed that I was, even though it was by accident. The lesson is never
assume anything!
as for prince and levine, they've been sued, probably often; raushenberg
was constantly in court. barbara kruger, hans haacke– they are probbaly
experts themselves on the ins and outs of this. warhol, acccording to my
lawyer, only really got sued once; he was operating in a different era
afterall.
the remarkable thing I learned during our consultation is how much suing
goes on in the realm of visual arts. The music industry has a higher
profile, but there seems to be just as much angry and passionate
litigation going on in the art world. He showed me some examples of what
does and doesn't constitute infringement – some of the cases even
involved aquaintances of mine! It's all so crazy really.
but the good news, according to this guy, is that since the debacle of
the Koons puppies, the courts have been ruling much closer to what we, the
fair use krewe, would want. he says there is cause for optimism among
artists.
whew! I'm going to go home and go to sleep now. what a long week!
best,
joy
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Rachel Greene wrote:
> Joy – Good luck with all this.
>
> I saw your amazing painting show and am so surprised to learn that it
> was somehow illegal for you to derive a work, loosely, from a
> photograph. What about Richter's famous October 77 series? He doesn't
> acknowledge the photographer who took the news photos of Gudrun Esslin
> et al. Perhaps German law is different on this count. But what about
> Richard Prince or Sherrie Levine? Anyway, just riffing because I am in
> shock. Please keep me posted on what happens. – Rachel
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > Mm, Lee, interesting:
> >
> > actually this person–it's a woman btw–has nothing to gain by this.
> > She's already world-famous–fanTASTically, ridiculously famous in fact.
> > She gains everything by having this remain private. Actually, she
> > really
> > made a mistake, since her claim is spurious and I'm not at all
> > infringing
> > upon her copyright, as I have recently come to understand. It's all
> > about
> > control; it's not about fairness or anything like that. And because I'm
> > going to stand my ground. It's so not worth her while no matter how
> > it's
> > sliced.
> >
> > The thing is, I never seek famous photographs to rip off or derive
> > (that
> > would be an entirely different project) – I only want little-seen,
> > unknown, hopefully anonymous ones. And then I change them in different
> > degrees: ripping away their context; replacing their narrative with
> > mine, etc. The idea behind it doesn't originate with the found work.
> >
> > In the case of this photo, I had found a detail of it, uncredited,
> > pirated
> > on a website. Had I known it was a "seminal" work I wouldn't have gone
> > near it because it doesn't serve my concept.
> >
> > what it really comes down to is this: photojournalists produce
> > reportage–they may fall closer to fine art photography than do
> > commercial
> > photographers, but they are still recording events as opposed to
> > constructing them (the "construction" comes later, with publishing, re-
> > contextualizations, spin, etc.). Because they go out to war-torn
> > regions
> > often risking life and limb to tell a story, they tend to feel they
> > occupy
> > the moral high ground. But otoh they also–especially this woman–
> > must rely on the willingness of "the natives" to be photographed. Do
> > these
> > people/subjects get anything from this? Hard to say. so, this person
> > has
> > made a career from photographing poor people and dying and dead and
> > exploding people and basically indigent disenfranchized people in the
> > field. The reporter is supposed to be telling someone else's story–not
> > trying to own it.
> >
> > anyway, I haven't stolen this person's thunder (this image was taken in
> > 1978!). And I've decided to agree to an abridged credit line, out of
> > courtesy. But as Pall pointed out, she could have emailed me and asked
> > for
> > it. Instead, she's committed an act of aggression against an unknown
> > artist who occupies an entirely different market and artworld, who
> > happens
> > to be excersizing their first amendment rights.
> >
> > The most interesting thing you say–the one that makes me smile a LOT
> > and
> > would make any photojournalist cringe–is "its all popart to me
> > anyways."
> >
> > I love it!
> >
> > best,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> >> Ride this thing a little bit and it could be some good attention for
> >> the both of you. Get you to the next level and re-ignite his
> >> career….
> >> but now that you know the individual that shot the photo is an artist
> >> as well, he deserves the credit for being the one with the balls to
> >> be
> >> shooting photos in a riot situation. I don't know if you have tried it
> >> before but when there is a lot going on …i.e. cops, scared kids,
> >> black blockers and regulars. and your main concentration is on getting
> >> the perfect photo (just like the one in your painting) its easy to get
> >> caught up in the crossfire. I think you created a one of a kind
> >> artwork
> >> based on his photograph. its all popart to me anyways. His photograph
> >> is just a bit more real.
> >>
> >> Keep doing what you are doing.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Lee
> >>
> >>
> >> On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> >>
> >>> yay for pirate commies; maybe someone should set up an art law blog
> >>> –
> >>> other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there
> >>> and
> >>> I haven't seen it?
> >>>
> >>> btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
> >>>
> >>> "That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and
> >>> this
> >>> an
> >>> auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
> >>> metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and
> >>> rights,
> >>> this is a time to get heard successfully."
> >>>
> >>> indeed!
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> j
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you
> >>>> can turn
> >>>> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from
> >>>> now
> >>>> on.
> >>>> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pall Thayer
> >>>> artist/teacher
> >>>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> >>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> >>>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> —– Original Message —–
> >>>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> >>>> To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
> >>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> question and have a conversation. it's called
> >>>>> c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> >>>>> right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> >>>>> photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a
> >>>>> couple
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> winners…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it
> >>>>> feels to
> >>>>> have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> stay tuned,
> >>>>> Joy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from
> >>>>>> the
> >>>> sound
> >>>>>> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
> >>>>>> he's
> >>>>>> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and
> >>>>>> all you
> >>>>>> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pall Thayer
> >>>>>> artist/teacher
> >>>>>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> >>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> >>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> >>>>>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> —– Original Message —–
> >>>>>> From: "Joy Garnett" <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> friends,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for
> >>>>>>> copyright
> >>>>>>> infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>> served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>> encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part
> >>>>>>> of my
> >>>>>>> painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> >>>>>>> war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> >>>>>>> taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>> anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>> in a
> >>>>>>> folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>> Magnum
> >>>>>>> photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and
> >>>>>>> book.
> >>>> The
> >>>>>>> joke is definitely on me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
> >>>>>>> with
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its
> >>>>>>> original
> >>>> context
> >>>>>>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
> >>>>>>> stuff.
> >>>> But
> >>>>>>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> >>>>>>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
> >>>>>>> supposed
> >>>>>>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they
> >>>>>>> stick
> >>>>>>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came
> >>>>>>> down
> >>>> last
> >>>>>>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> >>>> gallery's
> >>>>>>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> >>>>>>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
> >>>> rights.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
> >>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> >>>>>>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and
> >>>>>>> that I
> >>>> ask
> >>>>>>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future.
> >>>>>>> They
> >>>> don't
> >>>>>>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> >>>> license
> >>>>>>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
> >>>>>>> reasonable
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> rather decent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a
> >>>>>>> weird
> >>>> way. I
> >>>>>>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> >>>> entities.
> >>>>>>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing
> >>>>>>> devices.
> >>>>>>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>> age
> >>>>>>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again.
> >>>>>>> And
> >>>>>> although
> >>>>>>> the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry,
> >>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>> –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to
> >>>>>>> fight
> >>>> til
> >>>>>>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
> >>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
> >>>>>>> infringement,
> >>>>>>> the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
> >>>> serious
> >>>>>>> danger.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I see an art lawyer later today.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> all the best,
> >>>>>>> Joy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> -> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> -> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> -> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> -> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _________
> >>
> >> Lee A Wells
> >> mobile: 917 723 2524
> >> studio: 718 349 7951
> >>
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://www.leewells.org
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on the work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public realm (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal). Would it really be too difficult to ask first?
It's just a thought.
Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
clueless. you are clueless.
First, if you read her posts you would know that she found this
particular image on the web unattributed and already cropped. So yes,
it would have been much to difficult to ask first.
Second, she didn't take the image from an artist, she took it from a
journalist. But so what. Everything is open game IMO.
Third, your characterization of Joy basing her paintings on the work of
others.. Well, I don't know what what to make of that. Everybody bases
everything on the work of others. Whoever painted that first vase of
flowers is surely owed a lots of money.
And how is she being ungenerous? She's the one being sued after all.
I encourage Joy to disregard your little 'thought'. It's worthless.
have a nice day.
On Feb 28, 2004, at 9:40 PM, Niall Flaherty wrote:
> Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
> You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on
> the work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the
> public realm (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of
> the legal). Would it really be too difficult to ask first?
>
> It's just a thought.
> Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
thank you tim. that was very generous of you.
;)
j
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, twhid wrote:
> clueless. you are clueless.
>
> First, if you read her posts you would know that she found this
> particular image on the web unattributed and already cropped. So yes,
> it would have been much to difficult to ask first.
>
> Second, she didn't take the image from an artist, she took it from a
> journalist. But so what. Everything is open game IMO.
>
> Third, your characterization of Joy basing her paintings on the work of
> others.. Well, I don't know what what to make of that. Everybody bases
> everything on the work of others. Whoever painted that first vase of
> flowers is surely owed a lots of money.
>
> And how is she being ungenerous? She's the one being sued after all.
>
> I encourage Joy to disregard your little 'thought'. It's worthless.
>
> have a nice day.
>
> On Feb 28, 2004, at 9:40 PM, Niall Flaherty wrote:
>
> > Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
> > You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on
> > the work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the
> > public realm (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of
> > the legal). Would it really be too difficult to ask first?
> >
> > It's just a thought.
> > Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> –
> <t.whid>
> www.mteww.com
> </t.whid>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about are
things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone elses work
(in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and Nobles
publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in the
public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even have
to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and the
differences go beyond legal definitions.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse
—– Original Message —–
From: "Niall Flaherty" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
> Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
> You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on the
work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public realm
(though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal). Would it
really be too difficult to ask first?
>
> It's just a thought.
> Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> +
> -> 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
Art history (and general cultural history) are narratives of
appropriation. Without eavesdropping, gossip, war, stealing, invasion,
piracy, etc., there would be no cross-fertilization, no cultural
development or creative efflorescence as we know it (ok, a loose bad
re-cap of Manuel Delanda, 1000 Years of Nonlinear History").
the concept of "authorship" is relatively recent. the Golden Age of the
web (now over?) offered a utopian vision that strove to wipe out the
rickety concept of author as we knew it; instead, something more profound
is taking place: a struggle to understand and redefine these coexisting
yet conflicting principles of authorship, originality, and recombinant
creativity. It's really a very passionate time…
J
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about are
> things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone elses work
> (in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and Nobles
> publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in the
> public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even have
> to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and the
> differences go beyond legal definitions.
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges.
>
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Niall Flaherty" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
> > You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on the
> work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public realm
> (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal). Would it
> really be too difficult to ask first?
> >
> > It's just a thought.
> > Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> > +
> > -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Ok…..and now on to something completely different.
MAKE MORE ART, MAKE MORE LOVE
on 2/29/04 10:08, Joy Garnett at [email protected] wrote:
>
> Art history (and general cultural history) are narratives of
> appropriation. Without eavesdropping, gossip, war, stealing, invasion,
> piracy, etc., there would be no cross-fertilization, no cultural
> development or creative efflorescence as we know it (ok, a loose bad
> re-cap of Manuel Delanda, 1000 Years of Nonlinear History").
>
> the concept of "authorship" is relatively recent. the Golden Age of the
> web (now over?) offered a utopian vision that strove to wipe out the
> rickety concept of author as we knew it; instead, something more profound
> is taking place: a struggle to understand and redefine these coexisting
> yet conflicting principles of authorship, originality, and recombinant
> creativity. It's really a very passionate time…
>
> J
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about are
>> things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone elses work
>> (in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and Nobles
>> publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in the
>> public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even have
>> to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and the
>> differences go beyond legal definitions.
>>
>> You're comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>>
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist/teacher
>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Niall Flaherty" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>>
>>
>>> Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
>>> You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on the
>> work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public realm
>> (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal). Would it
>> really be too difficult to ask first?
>>>
>>> It's just a thought.
>>> Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Yes, and I would like to broaden the general description of making love
to sharing it, to evoking it, to being filled with a sense of largesse
and altruism and trying to act upon it.
If just gives me something to aim for.
I'll fall short sometimes, sometimes I'll go beyond. But it's a great
idea.
Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
355 Seyburn Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Lee Wells
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:55 AM
To: Joy Garnett; Pall Thayer
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
Ok…..and now on to something completely different.
MAKE MORE ART, MAKE MORE LOVE
on 2/29/04 10:08, Joy Garnett at [email protected] wrote:
>
> Art history (and general cultural history) are narratives of
> appropriation. Without eavesdropping, gossip, war, stealing, invasion,
> piracy, etc., there would be no cross-fertilization, no cultural
> development or creative efflorescence as we know it (ok, a loose bad
> re-cap of Manuel Delanda, 1000 Years of Nonlinear History").
>
> the concept of "authorship" is relatively recent. the Golden Age of
the
> web (now over?) offered a utopian vision that strove to wipe out the
> rickety concept of author as we knew it; instead, something more
profound
> is taking place: a struggle to understand and redefine these
coexisting
> yet conflicting principles of authorship, originality, and recombinant
> creativity. It's really a very passionate time…
>
> J
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about
are
>> things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone
elses work
>> (in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and
Nobles
>> publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in
the
>> public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even
have
>> to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and
the
>> differences go beyond legal definitions.
>>
>> You're comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>>
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist/teacher
>> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
>> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Niall Flaherty" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>>
>>
>>> Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
>>> You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings
on the
>> work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public
realm
>> (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal).
Would it
>> really be too difficult to ask first?
>>>
>>> It's just a thought.
>>> Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
+
-> 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
"free love" freeware? I always had you guys figured for a flowerchildren!
;)
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, patrick lichty wrote:
> Yes, and I would like to broaden the general description of making love
> to sharing it, to evoking it, to being filled with a sense of largesse
> and altruism and trying to act upon it.
>
> If just gives me something to aim for.
> I'll fall short sometimes, sometimes I'll go beyond. But it's a great
> idea.
>
> Patrick Lichty
> Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 355 Seyburn Dr.
> Baton Rouge, LA 70808
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Lee Wells
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:55 AM
> To: Joy Garnett; Pall Thayer
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>
> Ok…..and now on to something completely different.
> MAKE MORE ART, MAKE MORE LOVE
>
> on 2/29/04 10:08, Joy Garnett at [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > Art history (and general cultural history) are narratives of
> > appropriation. Without eavesdropping, gossip, war, stealing, invasion,
> > piracy, etc., there would be no cross-fertilization, no cultural
> > development or creative efflorescence as we know it (ok, a loose bad
> > re-cap of Manuel Delanda, 1000 Years of Nonlinear History").
> >
> > the concept of "authorship" is relatively recent. the Golden Age of
> the
> > web (now over?) offered a utopian vision that strove to wipe out the
> > rickety concept of author as we knew it; instead, something more
> profound
> > is taking place: a struggle to understand and redefine these
> coexisting
> > yet conflicting principles of authorship, originality, and recombinant
> > creativity. It's really a very passionate time…
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> >> This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about
> are
> >> things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone
> elses work
> >> (in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and
> Nobles
> >> publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in
> the
> >> public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even
> have
> >> to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and
> the
> >> differences go beyond legal definitions.
> >>
> >> You're comparing apples to oranges.
> >>
> >>
> >> Pall Thayer
> >> artist/teacher
> >> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> >> http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >>
> >>
> >> —– Original Message —–
> >> From: "Niall Flaherty" <[email protected]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
> >>
> >>
> >>> Yes, you are a pirate… but worse.
> >>> You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings
> on the
> >> work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public
> realm
> >> (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal).
> Would it
> >> really be too difficult to ask first?
> >>>
> >>> It's just a thought.
> >>> Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
> +
> -> 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
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
sampling is now an old idea. i've been watching the resulting legal squabbling since the sugar hill gang sampled chic's 'good times, rapped over it and 'created' the monster old skool hip-hop hit 'rappers delight'.
what's at play here?
one argument asserts that the 'original'insight/artefact provides the
essential stimulus. secondary comments are simply derivatives and owe
a debt, both conceptually and contextually to the 'originator' of the
state(s) of mind/emotions,etc., ellicited by the 'original' artefact.
another argument is that everything is up for grabs, to be 'recontextualized' as the 'sampler' sees fit.
so let's think about you & your work as it might be 'sampled' by someone other than yourself.
let's say this 'sampler' has a profound insight into the relationships between 9 paintings,(one of which being yours) 'created' by 9 different contemporary painters.
the 'sampler' visits each gallery exhibiting each painting and discreetly captures super high resolution digital images of each of the paintings.
the sampler then 'recreates' each of the paintings, stroke for stroke and arranges them into a massive, 18'x 24' 'mega painting'. this 'sampled' work catches the fancy of some very influential critics & collectors, is written about and becomes 'famous'. all the 'sampler' is doing is bringing to light the relationships between the paintings.
yet none of the painters are credited, because naming the painters isn't important to the 'sampler's' insight.
how do you, as one of the 'sampled' painters react to this?
let's take it to the next level and say the 'sampler' sells his 'mega painting' for a million bucks.
now how do you react to this?
it's a very sticky wicket, yes?
Not too long ago, IBM spent millions of dollars in lawsuits over what they believed were patent & intellectual property infringments on their original 'Personal Computer' concept. yet eventually, they couldn't defend their 'original creation' and had to give the vast majority of their monopoly away, even though they were the first to market with a viable product.
having used sampling in much of my work for over 20 years,i agree that
if a work is suficiently recontextualized, it's fair game.
i think much of it ultimately has to do with how valuable the 'sampler's' output becomes and if there's anyone involved who has the wherewithal to prosecute the perceived transgression.
in the end, we only have those rights which we can defend
so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to Davey Jones' locker ;-]
As in Niall's case, you're not talking about the same thing. You're talking
about sampling an entire painting as a painting. Yes, if one of those
paintings were mine, I would probably want credit (although I wouldn't say
anything if I didn't get it). The difference between your example and Joy's
case is that she's not using an entire image and she's reproducing a
photograph as a painting, adding some of her own elements along the way.
It's entirely different. Before you know it we'll have landscape architects
sueing painters for copying their landscapes.
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse
—– Original Message —–
From: "CK SHINE" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:39 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!
> sampling is now an old idea. i've been watching the resulting legal
squabbling since the sugar hill gang sampled chic's 'good times, rapped over
it and 'created' the monster old skool hip-hop hit 'rappers delight'.
>
> what's at play here?
> one argument asserts that the 'original'insight/artefact provides the
> essential stimulus. secondary comments are simply derivatives and owe
> a debt, both conceptually and contextually to the 'originator' of the
> state(s) of mind/emotions,etc., ellicited by the 'original' artefact.
>
> another argument is that everything is up for grabs, to be
'recontextualized' as the 'sampler' sees fit.
>
> so let's think about you & your work as it might be 'sampled' by someone
other than yourself.
>
> let's say this 'sampler' has a profound insight into the relationships
between 9 paintings,(one of which being yours) 'created' by 9 different
contemporary painters.
>
> the 'sampler' visits each gallery exhibiting each painting and discreetly
captures super high resolution digital images of each of the paintings.
>
> the sampler then 'recreates' each of the paintings, stroke for stroke and
arranges them into a massive, 18'x 24' 'mega painting'. this 'sampled' work
catches the fancy of some very influential critics & collectors, is written
about and becomes 'famous'. all the 'sampler' is doing is bringing to light
the relationships between the paintings.
>
> yet none of the painters are credited, because naming the painters isn't
important to the 'sampler's' insight.
>
> how do you, as one of the 'sampled' painters react to this?
>
> let's take it to the next level and say the 'sampler' sells his 'mega
painting' for a million bucks.
>
> now how do you react to this?
>
> it's a very sticky wicket, yes?
>
> Not too long ago, IBM spent millions of dollars in lawsuits over what they
believed were patent & intellectual property infringments on their original
'Personal Computer' concept. yet eventually, they couldn't defend their
'original creation' and had to give the vast majority of their monopoly
away, even though they were the first to market with a viable product.
>
> having used sampling in much of my work for over 20 years,i agree that
> if a work is suficiently recontextualized, it's fair game.
>
> i think much of it ultimately has to do with how valuable the 'sampler's'
output becomes and if there's anyone involved who has the wherewithal to
prosecute the perceived transgression.
>
> in the end, we only have those rights which we can defend
>
> so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
> you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending
their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to Davey
Jones' locker ;-]
>
>
> +
> -> 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
hi CK,
Thanks – that was a really entertaining email to read. I think we
probably (on this list) pretty much all agree that we'd like to see
sampling protected to some degree, by law.
> so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
> you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending
> their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to
> Davey Jones' locker ;-]
hee. Well, actually I don't think that's why I'm fortunate; I'm fortunate
because I found a lawyer who was able to see and make clear to me that I
have something to protect, and that the entity's "reasonableness" is a
veiled threat that I must respond to intelligently. In other words, if I
buckle just to make it all go away, it establishes a pretty awful
precedent for myself. My work process is entirely about sampling and
reprocessing extant images found out in "the field". So although my initial
reaction was to think, yeah, I guess she's being rather reasonable, my
understanding now is that I must protect what I do. I won't give her
control over whether I can show this work or reproduce it in the
future–that's what she really is after: that degree of control. So on
that score she can go jump in a lake. Bring it on sister. I don't
really want to credit her either, but I will as a gesture of good will;
it's a compromise on both sides that way. But I have the feeling I'm
dealing with a Big Ego…
Anyway, the letter's in the mail.
I think what's really at play here is this–and The Grey Album
provides such a perfect example: It seems important to preserve and
protect the right of artists to sample, recombine, "shred",
recontextualize, remix and transform the bits and pieces of our extant
material culture. Recombination: that really is how it's done, how art is
made, isn't it? and it's always been done that way…
Otoh it is clearly important to protect authors from outright theft. But
there is a difference between sampling something to make something "new",
and copying it outright and claiming authorship for fame and/or gain. Like
you said in your post.
We need to determine where the lines should be drawn so as not to a)
stifle creativity, and b) rip off authors or prevent them from making their
livlihood. Recombinant and transformative processes must be understood
and protected as legit; that is what is strong and magnificent in this
current weird culture of ours. We need to embrace that and stop fighting
it. Well, the Permissions People need to embrace that, just a little bit…
Anyway, I think I've already gone on too long about this stuff. More later
if anything develops.
best,
Joy
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, CK SHINE wrote:
> sampling is now an old idea. i've been watching the resulting legal squabbling since the sugar hill gang sampled chic's 'good times, rapped over it and 'created' the monster old skool hip-hop hit 'rappers delight'.
>
> what's at play here?
> one argument asserts that the 'original'insight/artefact provides the
> essential stimulus. secondary comments are simply derivatives and owe
> a debt, both conceptually and contextually to the 'originator' of the
> state(s) of mind/emotions,etc., ellicited by the 'original' artefact.
>
> another argument is that everything is up for grabs, to be 'recontextualized' as the 'sampler' sees fit.
>
> so let's think about you & your work as it might be 'sampled' by someone other than yourself.
>
> let's say this 'sampler' has a profound insight into the relationships between 9 paintings,(one of which being yours) 'created' by 9 different contemporary painters.
>
> the 'sampler' visits each gallery exhibiting each painting and discreetly captures super high resolution digital images of each of the paintings.
>
> the sampler then 'recreates' each of the paintings, stroke for stroke and arranges them into a massive, 18'x 24' 'mega painting'. this 'sampled' work catches the fancy of some very influential critics & collectors, is written about and becomes 'famous'. all the 'sampler' is doing is bringing to light the relationships between the paintings.
>
> yet none of the painters are credited, because naming the painters isn't important to the 'sampler's' insight.
>
> how do you, as one of the 'sampled' painters react to this?
>
> let's take it to the next level and say the 'sampler' sells his 'mega painting' for a million bucks.
>
> now how do you react to this?
>
> it's a very sticky wicket, yes?
>
> Not too long ago, IBM spent millions of dollars in lawsuits over what they believed were patent & intellectual property infringments on their original 'Personal Computer' concept. yet eventually, they couldn't defend their 'original creation' and had to give the vast majority of their monopoly away, even though they were the first to market with a viable product.
>
> having used sampling in much of my work for over 20 years,i agree that
> if a work is suficiently recontextualized, it's fair game.
>
> i think much of it ultimately has to do with how valuable the 'sampler's' output becomes and if there's anyone involved who has the wherewithal to prosecute the perceived transgression.
>
> in the end, we only have those rights which we can defend
>
> so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
> you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to Davey Jones' locker ;-]
>
>
Hey Joy,
Can we see the photograph in question?
Cheers,
Lee
On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 06:49 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:
> As in Niall's case, you're not talking about the same thing. You're
> talking
> about sampling an entire painting as a painting. Yes, if one of those
> paintings were mine, I would probably want credit (although I wouldn't
> say
> anything if I didn't get it). The difference between your example and
> Joy's
> case is that she's not using an entire image and she's reproducing a
> photograph as a painting, adding some of her own elements along the
> way.
> It's entirely different. Before you know it we'll have landscape
> architects
> sueing painters for copying their landscapes.
>
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "CK SHINE" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:39 AM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
>> sampling is now an old idea. i've been watching the resulting legal
> squabbling since the sugar hill gang sampled chic's 'good times,
> rapped over
> it and 'created' the monster old skool hip-hop hit 'rappers delight'.
>>
>> what's at play here?
>> one argument asserts that the 'original'insight/artefact provides the
>> essential stimulus. secondary comments are simply derivatives and owe
>> a debt, both conceptually and contextually to the 'originator' of the
>> state(s) of mind/emotions,etc., ellicited by the 'original' artefact.
>>
>> another argument is that everything is up for grabs, to be
> 'recontextualized' as the 'sampler' sees fit.
>>
>> so let's think about you & your work as it might be 'sampled' by
>> someone
> other than yourself.
>>
>> let's say this 'sampler' has a profound insight into the relationships
> between 9 paintings,(one of which being yours) 'created' by 9 different
> contemporary painters.
>>
>> the 'sampler' visits each gallery exhibiting each painting and
>> discreetly
> captures super high resolution digital images of each of the paintings.
>>
>> the sampler then 'recreates' each of the paintings, stroke for stroke
>> and
> arranges them into a massive, 18'x 24' 'mega painting'. this 'sampled'
> work
> catches the fancy of some very influential critics & collectors, is
> written
> about and becomes 'famous'. all the 'sampler' is doing is bringing to
> light
> the relationships between the paintings.
>>
>> yet none of the painters are credited, because naming the painters
>> isn't
> important to the 'sampler's' insight.
>>
>> how do you, as one of the 'sampled' painters react to this?
>>
>> let's take it to the next level and say the 'sampler' sells his 'mega
> painting' for a million bucks.
>>
>> now how do you react to this?
>>
>> it's a very sticky wicket, yes?
>>
>> Not too long ago, IBM spent millions of dollars in lawsuits over what
>> they
> believed were patent & intellectual property infringments on their
> original
> 'Personal Computer' concept. yet eventually, they couldn't defend their
> 'original creation' and had to give the vast majority of their monopoly
> away, even though they were the first to market with a viable product.
>>
>> having used sampling in much of my work for over 20 years,i agree that
>> if a work is suficiently recontextualized, it's fair game.
>>
>> i think much of it ultimately has to do with how valuable the
>> 'sampler's'
> output becomes and if there's anyone involved who has the wherewithal
> to
> prosecute the perceived transgression.
>>
>> in the end, we only have those rights which we can defend
>>
>> so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
>> you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending
> their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to
> Davey
> Jones' locker ;-]
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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
>
>
_________
Lee A Wells
mobile: 917 723 2524
studio: 718 349 7951
[email protected]
http://www.leewells.org
> Hey Joy,
> Can we see the photograph in question?
> Cheers,
> Lee
hee. okay folks, here's my thinking on this: If I include the link to the
photo it means I have to disclose the name of the woman suing me; I want
to wait a bit before I do that. I don't want anything I say or do to
be misconstrued. This way our discussion remains fairly abstract. I mean,
she could very well go forward with an injunction when she sees i haven't
agreed to 100% of her terms. So I want to play it close to the chest for
now.
call me paranoid.
the good news is that at some point down the line when I know where I
stand I'm going to put up a web page–in the interests of public
disclosure and fair use advocacy–in which my image and the link to hers
(um, on the Magnum site), both sets of arguments, and whatever comments
and transcripts I can legally/ethically include…
In the meantime, I have tried like the devil to find the anarchist website
from which I grabbed the offending pirated detail, but I can't seem to
retrace my steps this time. Maybe it's not even there… and if you
google "molotov" "riot" "rioter" "revolutionary" etc., as I do all the
time when I feel like looking for images, this woman's photograph NEVER
comes up. Clearly Magnum keeps it's jpegs well under wraps.
But hey, that doesn't mean you guys can't try to find the original
yourselves. Actually, if you can't (and if none of the photo curators I
know could recognize the source from my painting) it sure makes her whole
case look silly. Go for it – anyone who finds it I'll buy you a drink.
Seriously, I will.
best,
Joy
Hi Joy,
It is an interesting coincidence that this thread was going on at the same
time my thread about meritocracy was going on. The reason why people are
concerned about credit and financial compensation is because they believe in
meritocracy.
Here is my analysis of your situation:
If your audience and your buyers are aware of the fact that the images you
used are appropriated, there is no deception in your process. From the
perspective of the market as the standard, as long as there is no deception
involved, the fact that someone wants to buy your work speaks for itself.
Say for instance, I copy one of MTAA's digital artworks from their server
and post it on my site as my work. I put a big disclaimer upfront stating
that the work was copied from MTAA and was re-branded as mine. And I also
explain why I think this is a legitimate artistic gesture. Suppose some
collector actually wants to buy it. Should I then give some money to MTAA?
If this were to actually happen, I would probably offer some money to MTAA
anyway, but theoretically speaking, I shouldn't have to, because the money
was paid for my artistic gesture of copying, not for the actual work.
But this becomes tricky if I provided no disclaimer or explanation. For the
buyer, it would then become similar to buying Enron stocks. As soon as the
secret is revealed, the market will adjust itself. My MTAA copy may then
have no value.
Since you do make it clear that your images are borrowed from news media,
there is no deception here. I happen to think that crediting the original
photographers would make your work even stronger.
But then, I also believe that there is something interesting about the idea
of deceiving the art market. The deception of the market itself could be an
artistic gesture too, but obviously your work is not about that.
Dyske
Spoken like a true Situationist.
I love it.
On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 09:54 AM, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
> Hi Joy,
>
> It is an interesting coincidence that this thread was going on at the
> same
> time my thread about meritocracy was going on. The reason why people
> are
> concerned about credit and financial compensation is because they
> believe in
> meritocracy.
>
> Here is my analysis of your situation:
>
> If your audience and your buyers are aware of the fact that the images
> you
> used are appropriated, there is no deception in your process. From the
> perspective of the market as the standard, as long as there is no
> deception
> involved, the fact that someone wants to buy your work speaks for
> itself.
>
> Say for instance, I copy one of MTAA's digital artworks from their
> server
> and post it on my site as my work. I put a big disclaimer upfront
> stating
> that the work was copied from MTAA and was re-branded as mine. And I
> also
> explain why I think this is a legitimate artistic gesture. Suppose some
> collector actually wants to buy it. Should I then give some money to
> MTAA?
> If this were to actually happen, I would probably offer some money to
> MTAA
> anyway, but theoretically speaking, I shouldn't have to, because the
> money
> was paid for my artistic gesture of copying, not for the actual work.
>
> But this becomes tricky if I provided no disclaimer or explanation.
> For the
> buyer, it would then become similar to buying Enron stocks. As soon as
> the
> secret is revealed, the market will adjust itself. My MTAA copy may
> then
> have no value.
>
> Since you do make it clear that your images are borrowed from news
> media,
> there is no deception here. I happen to think that crediting the
> original
> photographers would make your work even stronger.
>
> But then, I also believe that there is something interesting about the
> idea
> of deceiving the art market. The deception of the market itself could
> be an
> artistic gesture too, but obviously your work is not about that.
>
> Dyske
>
> +
> -> 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
>
>
_________
Lee A Wells
mobile: 917 723 2524
studio: 718 349 7951
[email protected]
http://www.leewells.org
Hi Pall,
The reason i created the image of the 'mega painting' was to make the argument as difficult as possible to resolve. perhaps you've heard of the famous lawsuit threatened by the 'mega band' U2 against the 'micro band' Negativeland over the latters titling their album "U2". even though the album cover was a photo of the notorious spy plane of cold war fame. the point is, when an individual or entity is riding high they will jealously, even vindictively protect their empire. even to the degree of squashing tertiary references to their 'brand name', in this case.
you may say that painting and photography are 'different' and i may say that film & video are 'different' but what's really at stake is the relative impact of the images/sequences and the reactions they evoke.
i am aware that video and film are different. entirely different post optical processes, one a chemical exposure, the other a radio signal,
one delivered through reflected light one delivered through direct light. (of course with current technological developments, the distinction is blurred by the arrival of HDTV, digital encoding and the deployment of liquid crystal or plasma displays, etc.)
but these are largely 'back end' concerns. most independent 'film makers' are actually 'video makers' but everyone accepts the terminology without much fuss.
they are so similar to the perceiver, that the medium becomes transparent. what is important are the intellectual and emotional responses the 'film' evokes.
similarly, painting and photography consist of different materials and processes yet the end result of both are still images which evoke certain intellectual and emotional responses. the respective mediums are secondary concerns.
(and i'm not trying to debase anyone's religion here)
obviously, someone recognized the 'essence' of the 'sampled' photo or
we wouldn't have any legal wrangling here. so this case is based on something much akin to the notion of 'intellectual property'.
in my example of the 'mega painting', i am pointing out the sampler's
interest in specific images s/he has chosen, not because they care about
bringing to light the individual 'still images'(or taking credit for the works of others) but to share her/his insight into the inter-relationships between the 9 paintings. if we are to accept an artist's 'intent' as 'valid', then can we not accept the fact that the individual images of which the 'mega painting' is comprised are in and of themselves of secondary importance in the recontextualizing? the recontextualizing being the sampler's primary concern?
Pall Thayer wrote:
> As in Niall's case, you're not talking about the same thing. You're
> talking
> about sampling an entire painting as a painting. Yes, if one of those
> paintings were mine, I would probably want credit (although I wouldn't
> say
> anything if I didn't get it). The difference between your example and
> Joy's
> case is that she's not using an entire image and she's reproducing a
> photograph as a painting, adding some of her own elements along the
> way.
> It's entirely different. Before you know it we'll have landscape
> architects
> sueing painters for copying their landscapes.
>
>
Hi Joy,
Depending on how long ago you surfed the anarchist site, and how long a period you have your browser's 'history' function set to retain, you may find the link there. (in netscape under 'go:history:(x) days ago'. in IE under 'go', click the day/date)
good luck!
Yo,
well, I just have to chime in on this thread now. don't i?
(let's make a rule that whenever talking about hypothetical situations
that deal with net art we have to use MTAA as the example artists. Does
everyone agree?)
more inline below:
On Mar 1, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
> Hi Joy,
>
> It is an interesting coincidence that this thread was going on at the
> same
> time my thread about meritocracy was going on. The reason why people
> are
> concerned about credit and financial compensation is because they
> believe in
> meritocracy.
I agree. It's an interesting coincidence with lots of strange tendrils
reaching out from one discussion to the next which I'm not going to
attempt to describe.
>
> Here is my analysis of your situation:
>
> If your audience and your buyers are aware of the fact that the images
> you
> used are appropriated, there is no deception in your process. From the
> perspective of the market as the standard, as long as there is no
> deception
> involved, the fact that someone wants to buy your work speaks for
> itself.
>
> Say for instance, I copy one of MTAA's digital artworks from their
> server
> and post it on my site as my work. I put a big disclaimer upfront
> stating
> that the work was copied from MTAA and was re-branded as mine. And I
> also
> explain why I think this is a legitimate artistic gesture. Suppose some
> collector actually wants to buy it. Should I then give some money to
> MTAA?
> If this were to actually happen, I would probably offer some money to
> MTAA
> anyway, but theoretically speaking,
(you should offer us money just for hypothesizing the scenario ;-)
> I shouldn't have to, because the money
> was paid for my artistic gesture of copying, not for the actual work.
This scenario has been successfully pulled-off by the 01etc collective
when they copied hell.com and put it on their own server and made it
free to access at the time that hell.com was member only. I'm not sure
if they received any financial reward from the action but they
certainly received critical reward and fame which probably lead to
financial reward down the line.
>
> But this becomes tricky if I provided no disclaimer or explanation.
> For the
> buyer, it would then become similar to buying Enron stocks. As soon as
> the
> secret is revealed, the market will adjust itself. My MTAA copy may
> then
> have no value.
let's face it. It had no value to begin with ;-)
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Make it and see what happens.
Only then will it have the impact that you are looking to achieve.
In theory you can do anything.
Creative energy has no boundaries.
On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 10:47 AM, CK SHINE wrote:
> Hi Pall,
>
> The reason i created the image of the 'mega painting' was to make the
> argument as difficult as possible to resolve. perhaps you've heard of
> the famous lawsuit threatened by the 'mega band' U2 against the 'micro
> band' Negativeland over the latters titling their album "U2". even
> though the album cover was a photo of the notorious spy plane of cold
> war fame. the point is, when an individual or entity is riding high
> they will jealously, even vindictively protect their empire. even to
> the degree of squashing tertiary references to their 'brand name', in
> this case.
>
> you may say that painting and photography are 'different' and i may
> say that film & video are 'different' but what's really at stake is
> the relative impact of the images/sequences and the reactions they
> evoke.
>
> i am aware that video and film are different. entirely different post
> optical processes, one a chemical exposure, the other a radio signal,
> one delivered through reflected light one delivered through direct
> light. (of course with current technological developments, the
> distinction is blurred by the arrival of HDTV, digital encoding and
> the deployment of liquid crystal or plasma displays, etc.)
> but these are largely 'back end' concerns. most independent 'film
> makers' are actually 'video makers' but everyone accepts the
> terminology without much fuss.
>
> they are so similar to the perceiver, that the medium becomes
> transparent. what is important are the intellectual and emotional
> responses the 'film' evokes.
>
> similarly, painting and photography consist of different materials and
> processes yet the end result of both are still images which evoke
> certain intellectual and emotional responses. the respective mediums
> are secondary concerns.
>
> (and i'm not trying to debase anyone's religion here)
>
> obviously, someone recognized the 'essence' of the 'sampled' photo or
> we wouldn't have any legal wrangling here. so this case is based on
> something much akin to the notion of 'intellectual property'.
>
> in my example of the 'mega painting', i am pointing out the sampler's
> interest in specific images s/he has chosen, not because they care
> about
> bringing to light the individual 'still images'(or taking credit for
> the works of others) but to share her/his insight into the
> inter-relationships between the 9 paintings. if we are to accept an
> artist's 'intent' as 'valid', then can we not accept the fact that the
> individual images of which the 'mega painting' is comprised are in and
> of themselves of secondary importance in the recontextualizing? the
> recontextualizing being the sampler's primary concern?
>
>
>
>
>
> Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> As in Niall's case, you're not talking about the same thing. You're
>> talking
>> about sampling an entire painting as a painting. Yes, if one of those
>> paintings were mine, I would probably want credit (although I wouldn't
>> say
>> anything if I didn't get it). The difference between your example and
>> Joy's
>> case is that she's not using an entire image and she's reproducing a
>> photograph as a painting, adding some of her own elements along the
>> way.
>> It's entirely different. Before you know it we'll have landscape
>> architects
>> sueing painters for copying their landscapes.
>>
>>
> +
> -> 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
>
>
_________
Lee A Wells
mobile: 917 723 2524
studio: 718 349 7951
[email protected]
http://www.leewells.org
quick responses to both Dyske + CK below…
CK wrote:
> obviously, someone recognized the 'essence' of the 'sampled' photo or
> we wouldn't have any legal wrangling here. so this case is based on
> something much akin to the notion of 'intellectual property'.
Interesting thought: was it the "essence" they recognized or just an
identifying mark?
and Dyske wrote:
> Say for instance, I copy one of MTAA's digital artworks from their
> server and post it on my site as my work. I put a big disclaimer upfront
> stating that the work was copied from MTAA and was re-branded as mine.
> And I also explain why I think this is a legitimate artistic gesture.
once again, MTAA (regardless of what they may think), produce "art". I
don't know yet if their work will be subsumed into that monster force, the
unstoppable flood of ubiquitous mass media imagery [hyperbole intended]
and become my and everybody's raw material. ;)
> Since you do make it clear that your images are borrowed from news
> media, there is no deception here. I happen to think that crediting the
> original photographers would make your work even stronger.
It's not about there being deception – it's that the photojournalist
in this case thinks I'm using her image and hence her fame to gain. she
therefore wants to be able to keep my image out of circulation– off the
web and from ever being reproduced in print or exhibited. That's what is
behind the phrase "prior written permission". The credit line demand is
only a ruse–a foil for the second, real demand which is control.
Crediting the original photographers would run counter to the concept
here; my intention to take ubiquitous "anonymous" news imagery into a
medium traditionally associated with authorship. It would also prove an
impossible task. Of course, all these news photos are taken by someone;
more often than not they are uncredited (cf: "AP Wire" "Agence-France
Presse" etc.)
best,
Joy
believe me, I know – I've tried it all. It was quite a while ago…
besides, there's no telling what that site was or what the image was
called… but thanks!
J
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, CK SHINE wrote:
> Hi Joy,
>
> Depending on how long ago you surfed the anarchist site, and how long a period you have your browser's 'history' function set to retain, you may find the link there. (in netscape under 'go:history:(x) days ago'. in IE under 'go', click the day/date)
>
> good luck!
> +
> -> 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
>
I just wrote:
> Crediting the original photographers would run counter to the concept
I better qualify that: I'm not looking for photos made by "authors" if you
get my drift. Whew!
Joy-
I don't think Warhol is the best parallel…you
should look into Leon Golub's practice. He too collected
thousands of images from the news media and reworked them on
his canvases…playing with scale and surface. I remember seeing
a video about him working in his studio. He had file cabinents full of
images torn from the pages of magazines and newspapers that he would
create with.
best,
matthew
-> 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
>>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
matthew,
you're absolutely right – I was thinking of leon's work. well, I often
do, he's without a doubt a mentor and a great inspiration to me. he also
is my neighbor, and I asked him recently about this whole issue. he's
actually never been sued! he says he's thought about it for years, what
would he do if it ever happened, but he transforms his news images just
enough so they are unrecognizable. he also advised me that the image I
used is from a rather famous photograph by this woman, which is so
contrary to my agenda. so he's the 2nd person known to me that recognized
it. he suggested I offer the offended party a small painting.
best,
joy
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Matthew Mascotte wrote:
>
> Joy-
>
> I don't think Warhol is the best parallel…you
> should look into Leon Golub's practice. He too collected
> thousands of images from the news media and reworked them on
> his canvases…playing with scale and surface. I remember seeing
> a video about him working in his studio. He had file cabinents full of
> images torn from the pages of magazines and newspapers that he would
> create with.
>
>
> best,
>
> matthew
>
>
> -> 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
> >>
> >
> >+
> >-> 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
> >
> >
>
dear GH,
it's nice to hear from you. this case has brought up so much interesting
discussion lately, where ever I go – and I'm learning a thing or two
about copyright infringement. Interestingly, the case against me is not
strong at all, though that doesn't mean they can't harrass my ass (now
they want money AND control). Part of the strength of my case for sampling
and fair use resides in the fact that the image I accidently utilized
was not "art" per say, but photojournalistic ("transparent"):
the events and persons depicted were not staged (we hope) by the
photographer. So who do THEY belong to? Even if the presence of the
photographer incited the person to throw the Molotov with more visible
emotion (ie: the revolutionary was 'performing' in a sense), the
photographer is still engaged in reportage (ie: they are not doing what
Jeff Wall or a Greg Crewdson do; they are doing what reporters do for
newspapers: moral high ground or no, they are still a camera for hire).
The question invariably arises: who, if anyone, owns images that are
dispersed in the mass media, that become part of our collective
imagination and consciousness? are there distinctions between them?
do different degrees of collective ownership or non-ownership apply to
iconic images, say, (eg: do Americans own the image of the Statue of
Liberty, or does France?)
And (warming to my theme) does the medium in which the image is rendered
play a part in the viewer's response and hence the meaning or depth of
meaning of the image?
god, what would Andy think about that? (actually: what did he think about
McLuhan, if anything at all?)
best,
Joy
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
> gh replies:
>
> I'm pretty sure that Andy Warhol had similar trouble with Campbell's
> soup. Indeed it went a little deeper since he used their copyrighted
> color Campbell's Soup red. He also had to get a licensing agreement I
> believe. I read this someplace and I can't put my finger on where it
> was. Maybe one of Arthur Danto's drooling books on art beyond art or
> some such non-sense.
> gh
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:21 PM, joy garnett wrote:
>
> >
> > To view this entire thread, click here:
> > http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread168&text#419#23419
> >
> > + + +
> >
> > friends,
> >
> > the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> > infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> > served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> > encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> > painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >
> > the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> > war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> > taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> > such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> > anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
> > in a
> > folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
> > Magnum
> > photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
> > The
> > joke is definitely on me.
> >
> > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
> > the
> > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> > context
> > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
> > But
> > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >
> > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image–they stick
> > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> > last
> > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> > gallery's
> > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > terms of wanting to fight it–the plaintif is wholly within their
> > rights.
> >
> > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
> > ask
> > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> > don't
> > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> > license
> > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
> > and
> > rather decent.
> >
> > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> > way. I
> > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> > entities.
> > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
> > age
> > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > although
> > the permissions people–photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > –are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > the climate of creativity–not to mention general decency–is in
> > serious
> > danger.
> >
> > I see an art lawyer later today.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Joy
> >
> > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >
> >
> >
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> >
> > Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
> > the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
> >
> > Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation,
> > the
> > Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
> > the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
> >
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> >
> > Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
> > volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
> > please email [email protected].
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
> >
> > Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.
> >
> >
>