more on molotov

thanks Ryan,

I beg to differ with this attorney; he sounds like the guy my
plaintiff might want to use. We are arguing that it is not expression;
they are arguing that it is. There is a lot of esoterica in copyright law
and a lot of emotion and attitude; if a lawyer is pro-permissions, they
are not going to go for the fine points.The law is not static, it's a
process, and these points are still being established. This Portland
lawyer seems to feel it's all pretty cut and dry and it's not. There a re
many points I can't go into at length here–it's just too much. But
anyway, thanks for asking around. I have great faith in the brilliance
and passion of my lawyer; that isn't to say that I want this case to go
to court (cf: your lawyer's response!).

best!
Joy



On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Ryan Griffis wrote:

> Hi Joy,
> i sent the info about your case to a very cool lawyer
> i know in Portland who has worked with Negativeland
> (and handled the Orlo-Earthlink case that was in
> Adbusters) to see what he had to say. He said he
> didn't see the original image, and that his response
> is based on just the written accounts. But anyway, i
> thought i'd forward it.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Hi, Ryan: thanks for sending me the link to the
> Rhizome site. It was
> a pretty interesting case and I think that Joy's
> attorney gave her some
> lousy advice.
>
> She admits that she used the original image as a
> source of
> "inspiration" for her work. Despite the change in
> medium, she has created a
> derivative work based on the original. Plain and
> simple, this IS a copyright
> infringement.
>
> There is no "thin" copyright at issue. Yes, the
> photographer does
> not own and control the "idea" of the subject matter,
> but they do own and
> control their EXPRESSION of those ideas. The photog
> has a very valid
> copyright in their original expression.
>
> Joy has not interpreted the original events and
> circumstances, she
> has stolen the protected expression of the original
> creator. Her very
> deliberate and willful use of the original was
> commercial and, therefore,
> despite her artistic intent, she would have a very
> lame defense were
> she to claim "fair use" of the original. In my
> opinion, she is getting
> off pretty easily and, in the future, she should not
> rely on her
> attorney's "expert" opinion.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>

also cf: "Her very
deliberate and willful use of the original was
commercial and, therefore, despite her artistic intent, she would have a
very lame defense were she to claim "fair use" of the original. In my"

other than the erroneous "deliberate and willful" there's the assumption
that the intent is basically to rip someone off in order to make money.
art = commercial. that's the case he would have to make in order to show
that it's not fair use. paintings = coffee mugs.

so are they? are paintings equivalent to coffeee mugs?

think about it. is the primary point of art commercial?–to make money?
was that the reason behind my producing the painting Molotov? and all my
other paintings? your lawyer is making a simplistic argument against fair
use, based on a number of assumptions. There is a way to discuss
appropriation and fair use – sampling as a viable art form. What he is
saying is that all sampling is derivative copyright infringement. Ask him
what he thinks of the Grey Album.

so then we're all a bunch of idiots? – (would anyone who actually wanted
to make money be an artist?)

the Permissions People get me all fired up.

best!
J

> established. This Portland
> lawyer seems to feel it's all pretty cut and dry and
> it's not.

yeah, i'm sure he's coming at this with his own MO.
maybe i should have cut the unnecessary dig at your
lawyer in my repost ;)
he is genuinely concerned with helping artists in
similar positions… i don't think he'd be a witness
for the 'otherside.' but maybe his view is more b/w
than it could be.
ryan

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

> so are they? are paintings equivalent to coffeee
> mugs?

i don't think so, tho thompson and craighead could
make the case that coffee mugs are art…
but for the legal system, art sold in galleries is a
commodity, no? we have to pay taxes on its sale, which
involves money. i agree with the ideological position
you're making, but we're on the side of unofficial
ideology at the moment. which is actually why i find
it really rad that the subject matter of the painting
in question is what it is!

> What he is
> saying is that all sampling is derivative copyright
> infringement. Ask him
> what he thinks of the Grey Album.

yeah, i should have asked about that. tho, again, i
don't think his problem was with your practice as an
artist, but with the defense strategy (my
interpretation). having talked with him about other
things in the past, and knowing that he helped
represent Negativeland, i don't think he's looking to
make copyright more restrictive, or deny sampling
activities for artists with his practice.

> so then we're all a bunch of idiots? – (would
> anyone who actually wanted
> to make money be an artist?)

Warhol interestingly…

> the Permissions People get me all fired up.

i hear ya ;)



\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

I'm being taught that it's a very case by case thing… the argument he
presented is exactly the argument of the plaintiff's attorney, my
non-willful intent notwithstanding (and without the bombast).



On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Ryan Griffis wrote:

>
> > established. This Portland
> > lawyer seems to feel it's all pretty cut and dry and
> > it's not.
>
> yeah, i'm sure he's coming at this with his own MO.
> maybe i should have cut the unnecessary dig at your
> lawyer in my repost ;)
> he is genuinely concerned with helping artists in
> similar positions… i don't think he'd be a witness
> for the 'otherside.' but maybe his view is more b/w
> than it could be.
> ryan
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
>

well, I think there are different sets of circumstances surrounding the
categories of pure commercial art, photojournalism, and fine art… even
in terms of the law.

One argues a case in light of all the crazy details, and both party's
intentions….

Warhol got lucky!
;)

also, it's dawning on me that lawyers basically all hate one another!


best,
Joy



On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Ryan Griffis wrote:

> > so are they? are paintings equivalent to coffeee
> > mugs?
>
> i don't think so, tho thompson and craighead could
> make the case that coffee mugs are art…
> but for the legal system, art sold in galleries is a
> commodity, no? we have to pay taxes on its sale, which
> involves money. i agree with the ideological position
> you're making, but we're on the side of unofficial
> ideology at the moment. which is actually why i find
> it really rad that the subject matter of the painting
> in question is what it is!
>
> > What he is
> > saying is that all sampling is derivative copyright
> > infringement. Ask him
> > what he thinks of the Grey Album.
>
> yeah, i should have asked about that. tho, again, i
> don't think his problem was with your practice as an
> artist, but with the defense strategy (my
> interpretation). having talked with him about other
> things in the past, and knowing that he helped
> represent Negativeland, i don't think he's looking to
> make copyright more restrictive, or deny sampling
> activities for artists with his practice.
>
> > so then we're all a bunch of idiots? – (would
> > anyone who actually wanted
> > to make money be an artist?)
>
> Warhol interestingly…
>
> > the Permissions People get me all fired up.
>
> i hear ya ;)
>
>
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
> +
> -> 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
>