COMEDIES OF FAIR U$E: transcripts and commentary

Dear rhizomers, fair use advocates, joywar people et al.;

Here are some rough notes/transcripts of some of the sessions that took
place at the COMEDIES OF FAIR U$E conference at NYU/NYIH this past weekend.
The taped transcripts + notes come via IPTAblog, a law + creativity blog
edited by Andrew Raff, a "recent law school graduate and geek based in
Brooklyn, NY."; please note that these transcripts are as yet incomplete and
contain many errors. Eventually, NYIH will post MP3 files of the entire
conference, synced to Power Point slides, mash-ups, etc. on their site. The
current info is also up on NEWSgrist with links to images, bios, etc.:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2006/05/comedies_of_fai.html

cheers, and thanks again,
Joy
…
>begin<

Comedies of Fair Use (via IPTAblog)
April 28, 2006, by Andrew Raff
I'm here blogging live (on tape) from the Comedies of Fair Use at NYU.

These posts are written in real time and represent notes, more than polished
thoughts. But since there's no WiFi signal here, you're getting them on tape
delay.

Friday, April 28
Keynote address:
Lawrence Lessig on The Current State of Fair Use with responses by Allan
Adler and Hugh Hansen; Siva Vaidhyanathan (moderator)
Lawrence Lessig:
http://www.iptablog.org/2006/04/28/comedies_of_fair_use_lawrence_lessig.html
Vaidhyanathan, Adler and Hansen:
http://www.iptablog.org/2006/04/28/comedies_of_fair_use_vaidhyanathan_adler=
_and_hansen.html

Saturday April 29
Art
Joy Garnett, Susan Mieselas, Art Spiegelman, Lebbeus Woods, Carrie McLaren,
Joel Wachs; Lawrence Weschler (moderator)
http://www.iptablog.org/2006/05/01/comedies_of_fair_use_art.html

The Permissions Maze
Geoff Dyer, Susan Bielstein, Allan Adler; James Boyle (moderator)
http://www.iptablog.org/2006/05/01/comedies_of_fair_use_the_permissions_maz=
e.html

(above postings incomplete; hopefully to be completed…)

Also, here is a very lovely post by Laura Quilter about my and Susan
Meiselas's joint presentation on the Art panel:

comedies & tragedies of fair use
http://lquilter.net/blog/archives/2006/04/30/comedies-tragedies-of-fair-use
The Comedies of Fair Use meeting wrapped up a few hours ago. Among the best
presentations were the art panel Saturday morning, in which Joy Garnett and
Susan Meiselas each discussed their side of the incident that became known
as JoyWar. (There were other panelists in this session too; for instance,
Art Spiegelman, who was hilarious.)

"JoyWar" began when Joy Garnett appropriated a photograph she found on the
Internet, and repainted it. Shortly after exhibiting it, she got a
cease-and-desist letter from the photographer, Susan Meiselas. Joy's art
rapidly became a cause celebre among Internet artists and activists, who
reposted Joy's art and remixed it with many new works.

Susan and Joy had never met before the conference, but they both agreed to
come and tell their story in a joint session.

Joy explained that she sought images on the Internet of people exhibiting
strong emotions; she found the images, and then set them aside for a time,
specifically seeking to decontextualize the images so she could later focus
solely on their aesthetics. She then repainted the photo, and exhibited it
as part of an exhibition called "Riot". Mieselas' photograph was perfect: it
showed a young man about to throw a molotov cocktail, an expression of
intensity on his face.

Susan introduced herself by explaining that her goals as a photographer were
precisely the opposite of Joy's: That it was critical to her to
re-contextualize the photograph, to embed the image in the subject, the
historical and political moment in time. The photo, she explained, was of a
young man on July 16, 1979, the night that Somosa was finally driven out of
Nicaragua, and the Sandinistan revolution triumphed. The photograph of this
young man in fact became emblematic of the entire movement, of the
revolution itself, and was stenciled and appropriated by all kinds of
people. Susan felt a strong social contract with the subjects of her
photographs, and went back years later to contact them. This young man, it
turned out, was still deeply committed to the movement.

The striking thing was the obvious pain that both women felt at the
conflict. Though their artistic goals and methods clashed, bptj Susan and
Joy were thoughtful and sincere. Susan, for instance, really seemed to feel
that she was possibly "old-fashioned"; that she just didn't get the new
methods of appropriation. Joy, for her part, seemed to really appreciate
Susan's goals and interests; but stood firm on her own principles. It really
seemed in some respects a tragic conflict of interests, because, yes, Susan
had real interests at stake. You couldn't but respect Susan's interests and
the respect that she herself had for the subject of her work. I'm certain it
took tremendous courage for Joy and Susan to come together in a public
forum, after such a well-publicized conflict. And it's a testament in
particular to Susan's courage and honesty that she presented her beliefs and
reasons so articulately and passionately in the face of a potentially
hostile audience.

The problem is that the interests Susan was seeking to uphold, through the
tool of copyright, are not traditional copyright interests. Susan wasn't
particularly interested solely (or possibly at all) in trying to protect her
licensing revenue. She was interested, rather, in protecting her right to be
custodian of the image: an interest that really isn't even captured in moral
rights as defined in Europe.

At the end of the day, Hank Shocklee, of Public Enemy, gave a "times they
are a'changing" / "to the barricades, comrades" speech: He basically said
that the old models of control are dead. It was a great moment, and I hope
it's true. There's no question that we are paying too high a cost right now
from excessive control over information. We are losing works, we are losing
consumer rights, we are losing new forms of artistic expression.

But with every change, there are costs. Those who control information
sometimes do it for the right reason. The hypertrophic growth of copyright
law (as Jamie Boyle put it) has harmed the essential purpose of copyright
law, the encouragement of creativity. But that same hypertrophic, harmful
growth, nevertheless allowed Susan to pursue other interests not well
protected in any other way: privacy, dignity, trust, political context and
memory. I hope we find other ways