I've been given a cease and desist from the New York Times regarding the use
of their images and homepage design and the use of their advertiser's images
in my Raoul Vaneigem Meets the Talking Spiderheads from Mars series.
I knew this would happen eventually, and don't see any real need to argue
with them as I didn't intend these detournements to be anything more than
graffiti on a wall, subject to the elements. I'm taking them down in 5
days – they requested they come down in 10 days, but I'm being a nice guy.
However, I'd like to give folks the chance to download the page for their
own private viewing (not to be put on their website). Your very own piece
of illegal net art! (No one will ever know you have it, shhh.)
The cease and desist letter states: "Most significantly, you have
substantially changed the lead article to include long and rambling made-up
quotes from British Prime Mininster Tony Blair regarding the need to act
against Iraq, under the byline of Raoul Vaneigem."
Of course, I didn't actually write any of the text that appears in these
pieces. Anything that was not part of the original NY Times article was
taken from the writings of Raoul Vaneigem, the French Situationist –
considered a great prose stylist – either from The Revolution of Everyday
Life or from Contributions to The Revolutionary Struggle, Intended To Be
Discussed, Corrected, And Principally, Put Into Practice Without Delay.
Both of these texts can be found at www.nothingness.org.
Here are the links to the three pages:
Blair Presents Dossier on Iraq's Biological Weapons
http://www.arras.net/blair_presents_dossier.htm
Daschle Denounces Bush Remarks on Iraq as Partisan
http://www.arras.net/daschle_denounces_bush.htm
Clinton Says He Backs Tough U.N. Resolution on Iraq Inspections
http://www.arras.net/clinton_backs_resolution.html
Get your kicks quick!
cheers
Brian
PS I wrote these lovely words to a friend this afternoon about the pages –
obviously I was on my soap box:
The point, as I see it, was to turn the mundane materials of the New York
Times into poetry by juxtaposing the page – ads, logos, links, etc. – with
revolutionary rantings by a type of person we probably won't see for some
time, i.e. Vaneigem.
If Vaneigem's writings are able to make this transformation – a Catholic
sensibility like his might even suggest something like transubstantiation,
which of course doesn't sound so radical when it's digital materials we are
talking about – then it opens up a window of possiblity for
social/aesthetic activity.
The logical next step would be to take a city, fill it with Situationist
graffiti, etc. etc. or with young Situationist recruits acting on Vaneigem's
precepts – not likely.
The target was not the New York Times – it's easy enough to make fun of a
newspaper – but to take the reality of the Times, all of its mundane
details, and somehow suggest that this reality is a form of social control
that can be evaded by simple but artful acts of detournement, tiny gestures
that don't even rely on wit, puns, knowledge etc., but are simple collages
that punch holes in the spectacle.
But added to that, throw a critique back at Vaneigem suggesting that
revolutionary rhetoric is always outpaced by the course of events,
especially when the course is determined by spineless world leaders with
their fingers on the red buttons.
____
A R R A S: new media poetry and poetics
http://www.arras.net
Hinka cumfae cashore canfeh, Ahl hityi oar hied 'caw taughtie!
"Do you think just because I come from Carronshore I cannot fight? I shall
hit you over the head with a cold potatoe."
Raoul Unplugged
-
Type: discussion
Comments
If they're telling you to cease and desist, you must be doing something right, Brian. I
certainly enjoyed them. Why don't you let them make you famous? Then Matt Mirapaul can write
about you, and you can do one on that article.
ja
> I've been given a cease and desist from the New York Times regarding the use
> of their images and homepage design and the use of their advertiser's images
> in my Raoul Vaneigem Meets the Talking Spiderheads from Mars series.
Yeah, be sure to print them out so you can fuckin give 'em away on the
street outside the NYT offices, should you so desire.
"I prefer not to go out like that"–Bartleby the Genius
>From: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>
>To: "List@Rhizome. Org" <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Raoul Unplugged
>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:57:49 -0800
>
>If they're telling you to cease and desist, you must be doing something
>right, Brian. I
>certainly enjoyed them. Why don't you let them make you famous? Then Matt
>Mirapaul can write
>about you, and you can do one on that article.
>
>ja
>
> > I've been given a cease and desist from the New York Times regarding the
>use
> > of their images and homepage design and the use of their advertiser's
>images
> > in my Raoul Vaneigem Meets the Talking Spiderheads from Mars series.
>
>
>+ new media rugby
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
_________________________________________________________________
Broadband?
[This is a response to some folks on another list who suggested that this work is a collage and hence protected by laws that made the parts of a collage public domain, which I had never heard about. Also, for collectors, the letter at the end here.]
Hi Lewis, Stephen, Tom, etc. – thanks for the comments.
Re: collage, I'm not familiar with the laws of collage, but it seems to me what I did with the Times is very different from collage. It's more like impersonating an officer – I lifted the entire "uniform" if you will, the recognizable skin of authority, and kind of paraded around in it without really explaining to anyone what I was doing. Collage as we know it is pretty obviously collage – there is glue involved, some sort of frame, a little tearing, etc. But my page, outside of the URL, was pretty much the entire Times page with the alteration of the quotes.
This also leaves me open to slander – or something like that – since it's been generally perceived that I "made up" quotes for Tony Blair, etc., even though I didn't "write" a single word of the article. Tom Daschle, for instance, even though I think his words are quite amazing in my version of the story, would probably not be too happy with them, even though they would make him the Jim Morrison of South Dakota – and from there, the presidency!
I'd be suprised to discover that the mere act of collage puts something in the public domain – does that mean that were I to add "found" pictures, or add sentences from Moby Dick, to a new Stephen King novel, then the King novel becomes part of the public domain? That would be remarkable and of course I'd prefer it that way, but I don't think the argument holds water.
The URL that Lewis forwarded re: the Getty argument is very interesting, but as you can see, unless one is going to devote a portion of one's life to building a case against a large corporation, what you get is a lot of e-mails flying back and forth, though I haven't yet heard again from the Times – I'm not even sure this person exists (it could just be Jeffrey Jullich). I have found other cease and desist letters by Nancy Richman online, though.
Here's Lewis's link again:
http://www.playdamage.org/getty/15.html
Re: Raoul being complicit with my actions – if any of you out there know Raoul Vaneigem's email address, please pass it on! I like Stephen's musings re: the cartoon animal in the chase scene, and proliferating detournements – it's funny that you read the theory of detournement coming back in everyone from Hakim Bey and the Critical Arts Ensemble (you can find out about them at the Autonomedia website), but it's not been picked up all that much by web artists, and certainly not by poets.
Here's the letter, by the way. I've deleted the phone number because I don't want anyone playing games here!
I am counsel to The New York Times Company, the owner of The New York Times on the Web at http://www.nytimes.com.
It has come to our attention that you have posted an altered version of the home page of the September 24, 2002 edition of nytimes.com at http://www/arras.net/blair_present-dossier.htm. While the page reproduces the nytimes.com template, including the day's advertisements, it replaces selected bylines and other features with content you have supplied. Most significantly, you have substantially changed the lead article to include long and rambling made-up quotes from British Prime Mininster Tony Blair regarding the need to act against Iraq, under the byline of Raoul Vaneigem.
The editors at the Times appreciate a good parody and would not take action against it. However, the subject matter of this particular page appears to be more serious in nature. Therefore, even though we are sure that your intent was non-malicious, we must inform you that your use of the Times's name, logos and home page design and layout constitutes trademark and copyright infringement.
While we respect your efforts to make a statement, we must ask that you do so in a manner that does not violate our proprietary rights, or the rights of our advertisers. Please remove the page from public display and confirm to us in writing within the next ten days that you will not use our home page in the future in this same way. If you would like to discuss this matter, please give me a call at 212- xxx xxxx. Thank you for your cooperation.